Are all the Prophets of Judachrislam essentially faithless?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by aneeshm


I know that Judaism is the most "intellectual" of these three religions (it's also the only one I can trust not to go "looney" on me every few hundred years, as the other two have done so throughout history), so I'm sure there must be some "solution" to this problem, I just wanted to know what it was.

It is also possible that all three religions have separate answers to this question, and I genuinely don't know the answer, so I'm asking.

But as you said, I won't take the statements of Christians of Muslims as speaking for Judaism.

1. I wouldnt say J is 'more intellectual' certainly Aquinas and Ibn Rashid were no slouches. Its just different, is all.

2. Im not sure there is a "solution" but definitely some wrestling with the issues that would be worth exploring, unfortunately I really dont know it well enough to rattle it off.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by aneeshm


The destruction of the peoples of the Americas by the Spanish, fuelled by religious zeal?

Though Christianity has pretty much reformed itself after the Enlightenment, thank God. But the most recent examples I can think of is the behaviour of Christian missionaries in India, which to some extent continues today.

But that is deviating from the topic (though I pretty much invited that, so I can't really complain).

The question you have not answered is: do you agree that the Prophets had no need for faith, because to them, empirical proof of God and his plan and everything else was sensorily available, and that thus, by the modern definition, they were faithless (that is, they did not need to believe without faith).

Umm, do you know the stories of the prophets?

They still made mistakes. As an obvious failing, look at Jonah.

JM

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by lord of the mark

1. I wouldnt say J is 'more intellectual' certainly Aquinas and Ibn Rashid were no slouches. Its just different, is all.

Jews are, IIRC, the only ones who encouraged scholarship, even if it led you down uncomfortable roads. Scholarship was an absolute good (with certain obvious exceptions). The only other group(s) to do this was the Hindu priesthood (and it's still an absolute virtue, among most), the Buddhist monastic order, the Chinese bureaucracy (IIRC - I'm not sure about this), and the Greek intellectual elite.

During Christianity's history before the Enlightenment, that sort of thing was not welcome (to grossly understate it).

That sort of intellectual intimidation ("Don't go down a road which may lead to you questioning your faith") is still dominant in Islam today. In CFC's "Ask a Muslim" thread, I asked whether it was permissible for common Muslims (non-theologians) to study philosophy which may lead to them questioning their faith. He said that it was not, and that only Muslims with the necessary intellectual tools to "refute" anything which went against the faith. Now what's the point of such study - you know the conclusions in advance, you're only trying to justify them.

Originally posted by lord of the mark

2. Im not sure there is a "solution" but definitely some wrestling with the issues that would be worth exploring, unfortunately I really dont know it well enough to rattle it off.

Neither am I sure that a solution exists - I'm just throwing out the question, hoping somebody can answer it.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


Umm, do you know the stories of the prophets?

They still made mistakes. As an obvious failing, look at Jonah.

JM

I'm not saying they don't make mistakes, I'm saying that they have available to them, through their senses (or some God-given "Sixth Sense") the proof or experience of the existence of God, thus negating the need for faith. Basically, even if they err, they know that there is a Being up there, so it'll be all right in the end, no matter what.

[Jon Miller]

Err, as I said, look at Jonah. He doubted God. Moses tried to tell God he couldn't do it.

It was a different time... As I said, it wasn't reasonble to be an atheist. People beleived in magicians.

On to Christ.

Christ was God, but was disconnected from God due to sin, so didn't feel the surety of God's presense at all times.

I actually suspect, that if an Angel appeared to people here. That many would still not follow God. Sure, they might stop being atheists, but that is different than following God.

Jon Miller

[Jon Miller]

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...=Romans%204%20;&version=31;

JM

[Sandman]

Ramtha approves of this thread.

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Err, as I said, look at Jonah. He doubted God.

Jonah doubted G-d? How so? Jonah was straight on about G-d. He knew G-d would forgive the penitent, but he didnt want to be involved in that. What he needed to learn was that penitence (tshuva) and forgiveness was good.

Thats why we read Jonah every Yom Kippur.

[Jon Miller]

Not doubted in the existence of God. Doubted in the power of God.

Otherwise he wouldn't have run.

Maybe others would be a better example (like Abraham).

JM

[Elok]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Another question: if we are made in the image of God, is out consciousness also made in God's image? Because that is the essence of his power, and if our consciousness is also the same as his, then we also have the power to create souls.

...didn't your parents ever tell you about this? Well, looks like it's up to me now. Y'see, Aneeshm, when a man and a woman love each other very much...

On a more serious note, the "problem" you introduce is only a problem if you assume salvation based on faith alone. Simply being certain of God's existence means nothing; Adam and Eve obviously knew He existed, and so does Satan. It's a matter of being in accord with God's will, not just accepting that there's somebody out there. Prophets face trials and hardships of their own. It'd be easy to deny your calling in the face of mockery or threats, for instance.

[Jon Miller]

As I said existence isn't the issue.

JM

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Not doubted in the existence of God. Doubted in the power of God.

Otherwise he wouldn't have run.

Maybe others would be a better example (like Abraham).

JM

My argument is based on the fact that God reveals himself to his Prophets, thus providing them undeniable proof of his own existence, thus negating the need for faith - that the only people who truly know God are faithless (the same way that a mathematician has no "faith" in higher-level mathematical ideas).

[Jon Miller]

Once more, beleif in existence isn't the issue.

JM

[Ben Kenobi]

The destruction of the peoples of the Americas by the Spanish, fuelled by religious zeal?

Columbus was a Spanish Missionary? There were many missionaries who were in the New World who tried to protect the native peoples from being preyed upon by there compatriots. The colonisation of the New World had much more to do with the secular authority then with the church.

Though Christianity has pretty much reformed itself after the Enlightenment, thank God. But the most recent examples I can think of is the behaviour of Christian missionaries in India, specially in the period of British rule, which, to some extent, continues today.

I suppose this is why under British occupation Muslims and Hindus could live in the same state without killing each other.

I'm sorry, I don't buy the horrible tales of the occupation, when most people in India were much better off under the British. As for the influence of Christianity today, it is very much a marginal religion in India. I can't see how they could possibly persecute Hindus when they number less then 5 percent.

The question you have not answered is: do you agree that the Prophets had no need for faith, because to them, empirical proof of God and his plan and everything else was sensorily available, and that thus, by the modern definition, they were faithless (that is, they did not need to believe without faith).

Yes they needed faith. Look at Elijah. Even though God was there to him and spoke to him, he felt he was the only one left of God's followers, until God told him he had preserved a remnant of priests to follow him. If miracles were all that were needed to preserve faith then why does God say, ask not for a sign? Even those who have seen signs fell away, look at the Israelites in the desert.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
Once more, beleif in existence isn't the issue.

JM

It's the issue I raised. I'd really welcome an answer as to that.