Most Christians/Muslims say that having faith in their religion is necessary to enter heaven/avoid hell, but it just seems very suspicious to me. I mean I can understand why a human would require you to have faith in their supernatural claims if they can't back it up with evidence, but I don't know why an almighty God would require faith when he could easily provide evidence and eliminate all doubt. This is part of the reason why both Christianity and Islam seem so obviously fake to me.
Also, "faith" is not a good way to determine correct information. People have faith in the wrong things all the time, just look at the members of the heavens gate cult who had faith that they would physically ascend to heaven on a UFO, and if you think that cult members are too extreme/crazy just consider that if either Christianity or Islam is correct then over 2 billion people have faith in the wrong religion.
Not to mention, faith is a very unfair way to determine who gets saved and who doesn't. For example, a child born in Egypt has an over 90% chance of being a Muslim, a child born in Colombia has an over 90% chance of being a Christian, and a child born in Thailand has an over 90% chance of being a Buddhist. If Christianity is true, does it really make sense for God to send the Christian to heaven for "having faith" when he KNOWS that they would most likely NOT be Christian if they were born in a different place? And is it really fair for him to send the Muslim and Buddhist to hell for "lacking faith" when he KNOWS that they would have most likely been Christian if they were born in a different place?
Honestly the whole idea of faith seems very scammy to me. It seems more like something that a human con artist would demand in order to get you to trust them without thinking and not like what an omniscient, omnipotent God would demand. Could any Christians/Muslims explain to me why they think that faith is an reasonable way to determine who gets saved and who doesn't?
Board index ‹ Faith and Knowledge
12 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by Sea Biscuit » Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:21 pm
- Sea Biscuit
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by jimwalton » Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:23 pm
Faith, according to the Bible, can be defined in various ways:
In the Bible, faith is never a belief in something for which there is no proof. This is the definition unbelievers often use to ridicule believers, insisting that they, unlike religious people, trust only in that which is demonstrable. This is not the biblical definition of faith.
I use faith, as Hebrews 11.1 does, in the first sense: confidence based on evidence. Here's my explanation:
In the Bible, faith is evidentiary. I define Biblical faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable." In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.
Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith, because 10,000 times you've turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn't open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you walk forward in faith.
We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.
You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on. The whole Bible is God revealing himself to us all—and I mean actually, not through some exercise of faith.
My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead." The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.
- Faith is "complete trust or confidence in someone or something." This is the commonplace use of the word apart from any religious significance, such as when a person has faith in a chair to support his weight or has faith in his employee to do a job well.
- Faith is "belief in, trust in, and loyalty to God." This is an explicitly religious definition, in many ways similar to the theological definition of faith as involving knowledge, assent, and trust. Faith here is pictured as going beyond belief in certain facts to include commitment to and dependence on God.
- Faith is "a system of religious beliefs." This is what is meant when one speaks of "the Protestant faith" or "the Jewish faith." What is largely in view here is a set of doctrines. The Bible uses the word in this way in passages such as Jude 3.
In the Bible, faith is never a belief in something for which there is no proof. This is the definition unbelievers often use to ridicule believers, insisting that they, unlike religious people, trust only in that which is demonstrable. This is not the biblical definition of faith.
I use faith, as Hebrews 11.1 does, in the first sense: confidence based on evidence. Here's my explanation:
In the Bible, faith is evidentiary. I define Biblical faith as "making an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable." In my opinion, belief is always a choice, and is always based on evidence. When you sit down in a chair, you didn’t think twice about sitting down. You believe that the chair will hold you. Faith? Yes. You've sat in chairs hundreds of times, but you can't be absolutely sure it will hold you this time. Things do break on occasion. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you sit down. That's faith, and it was a conscious choice based on a reasonable body of evidence.
Almost all of life works this way because we can never know what lies ahead. Every time you turn a door knob you are expressing faith, because 10,000 times you've turned a door knob, and it opened the door. So you turn the knob and move forward. Does it always work that way? No. Sometimes you turn the knob and the door doesn't open. But you make an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for you to make that assumption, and you walk forward in faith.
We know chairs hold people. That's past experience and learning. We know turning door knobs open doors. We know that when we turn a key a car starts. But every time we turn a car key, we do it because we believe it will start. The evidence is compelling, and it was a conscious choice. We don't know for sure that the car will start, and unfortunately sometimes it doesn't. Then we use our knowledge to try to figure out what to do about it. We dial our phone (as an act of faith, assuming it will work and help us reach another person), and try to get help.
You'll notice in the Bible that evidence precedes faith. There is no "close your eyes and jump off a cliff" and good luck to ya! God appears to Moses in a burning bush before He expects him to believe. He gave signs to take back to Pharaoh and the Israelite people, so they could see the signs before they were expected to believe. So also through the whole OT. In the NT, Jesus started off with turning water into wine, healing some people, casting out demons, and then he taught them about faith. And they couldn't possibly understand the resurrection until there was some evidence to go on. The whole Bible is God revealing himself to us all—and I mean actually, not through some exercise of faith.
My faith in God is a conscious choice because I find the evidence compelling. It's an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make it reasonable for me to make that assumption. When you read the Bible, people came to Jesus to be healed because they had heard about other people who had been healed. They had seen other people whom Jesus had healed. People had heard him teach. Their faith was based on evidence. Jesus kept giving them new information, and they gained new knowledge from it. Based on that knowledge, they acted with more faith. People came to him to make requests. See how it works? My belief in God is based on my knowledge of the credibility of those writings, the logic of the teaching, and the historical evidence behind it all. The resurrection, for instance, has evidences that give it credibility that motivate me to believe in it. My faith in the resurrection is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence that makes it reasonable to hold that assumption. Jesus could have just ascended to heaven, the disciples figured out that he had prophesied it, and went around telling people He rose. But that's not what happened. He walked around and let them touch him, talk to him, eat with him, and THEN he said, "Believe that I have risen from the dead." The same is true for my belief in the existence of God, my belief that the Bible is God's word, and my understanding of how life works.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by Sea Biscuit » Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:26 pm
I understand what you're trying to say, but I still don't think that having confidence that your chair won't break is the same as having faith that Jesus rose from the dead. For instance, I have confidence that the chair I'm sitting on right now won't break because I've sat on it thousands of times before and it hasn't broken and also I'm a slim person and the chair is very heavy and strong so it would be incredible and out of the ordinary if the chair broke. On the other hand, Jesus rising from the dead is the opposite of this – it is incredible and out of the ordinary, I have never seen anyone get raised from the dead after three days and the gospels are not reliable sources of information (in my opinion). I think that most people would be Christian if Jesus' miracles and the resurrection had the same amount of evidence as the other things you mentioned.
- Sea Biscuit
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by jimwalton » Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:30 pm
> Jesus rising from the dead is the opposite of this
For the original disciples, it wasn't opposite at all. They got to see Him, touch Him, hear Him teach, and watch Him eat. How's that different from you (or them) sitting in a chair? The evidence was reliable, and that's all we need to confirm an assumption.
> I have never seen anyone get raised from the dead after three days
Neither have I, and neither did the disciples (before Jesus). They didn't preach Jesus's resurrection because it was common or expected, but instead because they had evidence of its truth.
> the gospels are not reliable sources of information (in my opinion).
Well, this is a different discussion, but you'd have to show where they have been proven to be unreliable to establish your point over just an unfounded opinion.
> I think that most people would be Christian if Jesus' miracles and the resurrection had the same amount of evidence ut has the other things you mentioned.
They certainly did for the eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, it's obviously a different situation. Do you know we have no contemporary writings of the life of Emperor Nero? None. Our evidence about Jesus is far stronger than our evidence about Nero, and yet I assume you believe Nero existed and did what is written about him close to a century later by three authors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Historiography). So why is that? Why is Nero so believable and Jesus so unbelievable to you when our support for Jesus is far stronger?
Maybe you'll say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but this simply isn't true. All we ever require is reliable evidence. As long as the evidence is reliable, the thing is proven.
For the original disciples, it wasn't opposite at all. They got to see Him, touch Him, hear Him teach, and watch Him eat. How's that different from you (or them) sitting in a chair? The evidence was reliable, and that's all we need to confirm an assumption.
> I have never seen anyone get raised from the dead after three days
Neither have I, and neither did the disciples (before Jesus). They didn't preach Jesus's resurrection because it was common or expected, but instead because they had evidence of its truth.
> the gospels are not reliable sources of information (in my opinion).
Well, this is a different discussion, but you'd have to show where they have been proven to be unreliable to establish your point over just an unfounded opinion.
> I think that most people would be Christian if Jesus' miracles and the resurrection had the same amount of evidence ut has the other things you mentioned.
They certainly did for the eyewitnesses. Two thousand years later, it's obviously a different situation. Do you know we have no contemporary writings of the life of Emperor Nero? None. Our evidence about Jesus is far stronger than our evidence about Nero, and yet I assume you believe Nero existed and did what is written about him close to a century later by three authors (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nero#Historiography). So why is that? Why is Nero so believable and Jesus so unbelievable to you when our support for Jesus is far stronger?
Maybe you'll say, "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence," but this simply isn't true. All we ever require is reliable evidence. As long as the evidence is reliable, the thing is proven.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by Sarriah » Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:33 pm
In the Bible faith is belief in what has no proof. Hebrews 11:1 literally says so
- Sarriah
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by jimwalton » Thu Jul 21, 2022 4:44 pm
Then you have truly misunderstood Heb. 11.1 and what it literally says. Let's talk about it.
Hebrews 11.1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There’s no absence of evidence here. The word for "being sure of" is ὑπόστασις (hupostasis). It is defined as "assurance; what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise); substantial nature; essence, actual being; reality (often in contrast to what merely seems to be); confidence; conviction; steadfastness; steadiness of mind." "The steadfastness of mind which holds one firm." The term is common in ancient business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. There's nothing wobbly or blind here. It's not just confidence or optimism, but a guarantee. It's a real knowledge.
If I decide to drive to the grocery store, I can't be absolutely sure it's there. But I have seen no explosions in the sky nor heard any. There hasn't been a news report about a building suddenly disappearing. So on the basis of evidence, I drive to the store in full hope and trust that it will be there, and of course, it is. I've been sure of what I hoped for. I drove there as an act of faith.
Then the verse talks about certainty: "certainty; proof" (elegxos). What is it about these terms that you think show the in the Bible faith in belief in what has no proof?
In In John 17.8 (also Jn. 14.11) we learn that faith is a judgment of certainty based on the evidence.
There is nothing true about the statement, "In the Bible faith is belief in what has no proof." Hebrews 11.1 literally says the opposite.
Hebrews 11.1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There’s no absence of evidence here. The word for "being sure of" is ὑπόστασις (hupostasis). It is defined as "assurance; what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise); substantial nature; essence, actual being; reality (often in contrast to what merely seems to be); confidence; conviction; steadfastness; steadiness of mind." "The steadfastness of mind which holds one firm." The term is common in ancient business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. There's nothing wobbly or blind here. It's not just confidence or optimism, but a guarantee. It's a real knowledge.
If I decide to drive to the grocery store, I can't be absolutely sure it's there. But I have seen no explosions in the sky nor heard any. There hasn't been a news report about a building suddenly disappearing. So on the basis of evidence, I drive to the store in full hope and trust that it will be there, and of course, it is. I've been sure of what I hoped for. I drove there as an act of faith.
Then the verse talks about certainty: "certainty; proof" (elegxos). What is it about these terms that you think show the in the Bible faith in belief in what has no proof?
In In John 17.8 (also Jn. 14.11) we learn that faith is a judgment of certainty based on the evidence.
There is nothing true about the statement, "In the Bible faith is belief in what has no proof." Hebrews 11.1 literally says the opposite.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by jimwalton » Sun Jul 24, 2022 8:56 am
> Heb. 11.1. ... I'm curious if you disagree with this definition.
I don't disagree with it at all, but I sense you think I'm saying something different. The verse speaks clearly of evidence on which faith is based. Let's look at it more closely with what I wrote to another person who brought up the same sort of objection.
Hebrews 11.1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There’s no absence of evidence here. The word for "being sure of" ("The substance") is ὑπόστασις (hupostasis). It is defined as "assurance; what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise); substantial nature; essence, actual being; reality (often in contrast to what merely seems to be); confidence; conviction; steadfastness; steadiness of mind." "The steadfastness of mind which holds one firm." The term is common in ancient business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. There's nothing wobbly or blind here. It's not just confidence or optimism, but a guarantee. It's a real knowledge.
Then the verse talks about certainty: "certainty; proof" (elegxos). What is it about these terms that you think show the in the Bible faith in belief in what has no proof?
In In John 17.8 (also Jn. 14.11) we learn that faith is a judgment of certainty based on the evidence.
What the verse says is that faith is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable. It's all about evidence and certainty. Let's talk about it.
> I also think it's erroneous to use "faith" interchangeably with "trust" in theological discussions.
Like "faith," "trust" has different usages in the Bible. To trust God is to rest in the reality that God is sovereign, we have confidence in His wisdom (and how He is at work in our lives), working out salvation history to His ends. It is a confidence in the person, wisdom, and work of God. I'm using trust, however, in the sense of confidence in the evidence, which is how I'm using faith. "Faith" in the Bible is not just in ideas or claims that are not demonstrable. I showed quite clear evidence of that. Faith in the Bible is always based on demonstrable evidence.
I don't disagree with it at all, but I sense you think I'm saying something different. The verse speaks clearly of evidence on which faith is based. Let's look at it more closely with what I wrote to another person who brought up the same sort of objection.
Hebrews 11.1: "Now faith is being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we do not see." There’s no absence of evidence here. The word for "being sure of" ("The substance") is ὑπόστασις (hupostasis). It is defined as "assurance; what stands under anything (a building, a contract, a promise); substantial nature; essence, actual being; reality (often in contrast to what merely seems to be); confidence; conviction; steadfastness; steadiness of mind." "The steadfastness of mind which holds one firm." The term is common in ancient business documents as the basis or guarantee of transactions. There's nothing wobbly or blind here. It's not just confidence or optimism, but a guarantee. It's a real knowledge.
Then the verse talks about certainty: "certainty; proof" (elegxos). What is it about these terms that you think show the in the Bible faith in belief in what has no proof?
In In John 17.8 (also Jn. 14.11) we learn that faith is a judgment of certainty based on the evidence.
What the verse says is that faith is an assumption of truth based on enough evidence to make that assumption reasonable. It's all about evidence and certainty. Let's talk about it.
> I also think it's erroneous to use "faith" interchangeably with "trust" in theological discussions.
Like "faith," "trust" has different usages in the Bible. To trust God is to rest in the reality that God is sovereign, we have confidence in His wisdom (and how He is at work in our lives), working out salvation history to His ends. It is a confidence in the person, wisdom, and work of God. I'm using trust, however, in the sense of confidence in the evidence, which is how I'm using faith. "Faith" in the Bible is not just in ideas or claims that are not demonstrable. I showed quite clear evidence of that. Faith in the Bible is always based on demonstrable evidence.
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by Sarriah » Sun Jul 24, 2022 9:03 am
Now faith is the assurance[a] of things hoped for, the conviction[b] of things not seen.(A)
Nsrv, most accurate translation. So anyway it’s clear it means evidence of things not seen. Faith is assurance of what you don’t see.
KJV: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The rest of the passage says by faith they understand how the world came to be so clearly faith is their evidence of how the world came to be. No misunderstanding on my part, we all know Hebrews 11:1 well and most of us read it the KJV way with the evidence word in there. Thank you
Now faith is the assurance[a] of things hoped for, the conviction[b] of things not seen. 2 Indeed, by faith[c] our ancestors received approval. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.[d]
Nsrv, most accurate translation. So anyway it’s clear it means evidence of things not seen. Faith is assurance of what you don’t see.
KJV: Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
The rest of the passage says by faith they understand how the world came to be so clearly faith is their evidence of how the world came to be. No misunderstanding on my part, we all know Hebrews 11:1 well and most of us read it the KJV way with the evidence word in there. Thank you
Now faith is the assurance[a] of things hoped for, the conviction[b] of things not seen. 2 Indeed, by faith[c] our ancestors received approval. 3 By faith we understand that the worlds were prepared by the word of God, so that what is seen was made from things that are not visible.[d]
- Sarriah
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by LaBron » Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:40 am
I'm curious about what other research you've done on the matter. I'm slowly collecting resources; here are two you might like:
Stef Schoonderwoerd 2017 Between truth, knowledge and belief: Πίστις in early Greek philosophy (https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/52295)
DeSilva 1999 Ashland Theological Journal Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament (https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ashland_theological_journal/31-1_032.pdf)
It seems to me that many conversations like this one presuppose radical empiricism, of the sort that neither Parmenides nor Heraclitus would have accepted. Rather, in the changing flux of sense-impressions, we have to suss out a deeper order, upon which we can rely. Here, I surmise that the Greeks and Jews deviate. The Greeks ultimately see matter as unreliable† and thus find their final repose in Form‡, whereas the Jews believe the "very good" of Gen 1:31 and are therefore willing to leave the land of Ur for something better. That is, something better than the Mesopotamian heart of civilization, a civilization so sure of itself that in all its clay tablets, they never compare & contrast their ways of doing things with other nations. (The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society, 38 https://archive.org/details/Oppen1975Intell/page/n1/mode/2up) Incidentally, I found this while reading the TDNT on various words in Hebrews 11:1: (https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/CategoryCenter.aspx?CategoryId=SE!TDOT)
Man should have regard, not to ἀπεόντα [what is absent], but to ἐπιχώρια [custom]; he should grasp what is παρὰ ποδός [at his feet]. (Pind. Pyth., 3, 20; 22; 60; 10, 63; Isthm., 8, 13.) (TDNT: ἐλπίς, ἐλπίζω, ἀπ-, προελπίζω)
That sounds like what a culture full of itself might say. Our way is best! Don't experiment! And in particular, don't hope. Hope is for losers. It will only ever disappoint you. Therefore, don't do it—don't think that society could change in any appreciable way. Things are what they are, your station is what it is, so accept it. Then things don't have to hurt so much.
† Claude Tresmontant argues something like this in his 1953 A Study of Hebrew Thought (building off of Bergson), even Aristotle. https://www.amazon.com/Study-Hebrew-Thought-Claude-Tresmontant/dp/B0007DL5V8
‡ Ok, maybe Epicurus just didn't care?
Stef Schoonderwoerd 2017 Between truth, knowledge and belief: Πίστις in early Greek philosophy (https://studenttheses.universiteitleiden.nl/handle/1887/52295)
DeSilva 1999 Ashland Theological Journal Patronage and Reciprocity: The Context of Grace in the New Testament (https://biblicalstudies.org.uk/pdf/ashland_theological_journal/31-1_032.pdf)
It seems to me that many conversations like this one presuppose radical empiricism, of the sort that neither Parmenides nor Heraclitus would have accepted. Rather, in the changing flux of sense-impressions, we have to suss out a deeper order, upon which we can rely. Here, I surmise that the Greeks and Jews deviate. The Greeks ultimately see matter as unreliable† and thus find their final repose in Form‡, whereas the Jews believe the "very good" of Gen 1:31 and are therefore willing to leave the land of Ur for something better. That is, something better than the Mesopotamian heart of civilization, a civilization so sure of itself that in all its clay tablets, they never compare & contrast their ways of doing things with other nations. (The Position of the Intellectual in Mesopotamian Society, 38 https://archive.org/details/Oppen1975Intell/page/n1/mode/2up) Incidentally, I found this while reading the TDNT on various words in Hebrews 11:1: (https://www.eerdmans.com/Products/CategoryCenter.aspx?CategoryId=SE!TDOT)
Man should have regard, not to ἀπεόντα [what is absent], but to ἐπιχώρια [custom]; he should grasp what is παρὰ ποδός [at his feet]. (Pind. Pyth., 3, 20; 22; 60; 10, 63; Isthm., 8, 13.) (TDNT: ἐλπίς, ἐλπίζω, ἀπ-, προελπίζω)
That sounds like what a culture full of itself might say. Our way is best! Don't experiment! And in particular, don't hope. Hope is for losers. It will only ever disappoint you. Therefore, don't do it—don't think that society could change in any appreciable way. Things are what they are, your station is what it is, so accept it. Then things don't have to hurt so much.
† Claude Tresmontant argues something like this in his 1953 A Study of Hebrew Thought (building off of Bergson), even Aristotle. https://www.amazon.com/Study-Hebrew-Thought-Claude-Tresmontant/dp/B0007DL5V8
‡ Ok, maybe Epicurus just didn't care?
- LaBron
Re: Faith is a very suspicious requirement for salvation
by jimwalton » Mon Jul 25, 2022 11:45 am
> Schoonderwoerd
It's just a link to his book, no real information about it. Thanks for the thought, anyway.
> DeSilva
EXCELLENT article!! I spent two days digesting it and taking notes. Simply superlative. Granted, it didn't say much about faith (our subject of conversation), but still a great article. Thoroughly enjoyed it and benefited from it.
First century Judaism was certainly not radically empiricist. They subscribed fully to the transcendent in juxtaposition with the imminent. The spiritual side of reality was just as real as that which could be seen and heard. They believed there was a reality that had no physical existence. F.F. Bruce writes, "Physical eyesight produces evidence of physical things; faith is the organ which enables people to see the invisible order."
It's just a link to his book, no real information about it. Thanks for the thought, anyway.
> DeSilva
EXCELLENT article!! I spent two days digesting it and taking notes. Simply superlative. Granted, it didn't say much about faith (our subject of conversation), but still a great article. Thoroughly enjoyed it and benefited from it.
First century Judaism was certainly not radically empiricist. They subscribed fully to the transcendent in juxtaposition with the imminent. The spiritual side of reality was just as real as that which could be seen and heard. They believed there was a reality that had no physical existence. F.F. Bruce writes, "Physical eyesight produces evidence of physical things; faith is the organ which enables people to see the invisible order."
- jimwalton
- Site Admin
- Posts: 9103
- Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2012 2:28 pm
12 posts
• Page 1 of 2 • 1, 2
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest