Are all the Prophets of Judachrislam essentially faithless?

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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.

I could find reams of material to contradict that, but let's not go there, let's stick to the topic at hand.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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

They could do that perfectly well under Maratha rule, too, so I don't really understand what's the point of what you're saying.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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.

I'm at a loss for words. Where in the world did you get this ridiculous idea?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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.

They're a majority in the North-East, and they still follow the old-school, persecute-the-infidel type of Christianity which destroyed the native religions of Europe and America. But as I said, let's not go there.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

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.

Not miracles. All the Prophets had some or the other sensory experience which convinced them beyond all doubt about the existence of their God. If that is the case, then they have no need of faith in God - they know God exists, they have no need to believe without proof, because they are the proof. Thus, they are "faithless" by the modern definition of faith.

[CrONoS]

@to the thread
We should not discuss the violent past of Christianity in this thread, if you want, we should create another thread to discuss this issue; otherwise the discussion will go to another subject and we will lost our times on infertile debates...


@Aneeshm
Prophets can lose their faith sometimes. We remember Jesus Christ when he was on the cross, and he cried(in Matthew); "Father, Why did you abandoned me?" (grossly translated from French)

As soon, as the prophets stop seeing God, they need to have faith. It's a lot like love; as soon you don't see your beloved one, doubt can arise...

@Everybody:
Is there any prophets who have seen God?

I was under the impression, that God can't be seen, otherwise the person would be consumed.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Not miracles. All the Prophets had some or the other sensory experience which convinced them beyond all doubt about the existence of their God. If that is the case, then they have no need of faith in God - they know God exists, they have no need to believe without proof, because they are the proof. Thus, they are "faithless" by the modern definition of faith.

You don't understand what Christians mean when they talk about faith.

JM

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by cronos_qc
@Aneeshm
Prophets can lose their faith sometimes. We remember Jesus Christ when he was on the cross, and he cried(in Matthew); "Father, Why did you abandoned me?" (grossly translated from French)

As soon, as the prophets stop seeing God, they need to have faith. It's a lot like love; as soon you don't see your beloved one, doubt can arise...

Exactly, even He was cut off from God.

JM

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


You don't understand what Christians mean when they talk about faith.

JM

If that is the case, then could you please explain it? I thought it meant "belief without positive proof".

[Jon Miller]

As I said..

Beleif in God... not Beleif in the existence of God.

JM

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by Jon Miller
As I said..

Beleif in God... not Beleif in the existence of God.

JM

That's a very vague reply. Could you elaborate a bit? What does "belief in God" entail? Belief in his power? Belief in what, exactly?

[aneeshm]

The nature of Christian belief is so tied up into atheism-theism arguments today that you will pardon me for falling into an error regarding the nature of belief that is expected of Christians, if I have so fallen into such an error.

[aneeshm]

I'll restate my question in a nutshell:

Given the modern definition of faith as "belief in the absence of positive proof" (it is a given that no proof to negate the object of belief exists), were the Judachrislamic Prophets faithless, because they had proof?

[OzzyKP]

Originally posted by aneeshm


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).

It isn't quite that simple.

The line between taking something on faith and having undeniable proof isn't as clear as you suggest. Though I'd be interested in hear what your ideas of what represents undeniable proof.

Lets say God speaks directly to someone. So you're walking around and you start hearing voices. Now, is that God or are you just crazy? The person with faith would say God and be a prophet. The person without faith would go on medication and have himself committed. So faith is most certainly still necessary for that prophet. And as the Bible shows, even prophets and holy men do have doubt at times.

Likewise there are many people today who aren't considered prophets, but have seen enough evidence of God's presence in this world that if you asked them, they'd tell you they have undeniable proof that God exists. God didn't descend bodily from the heavens to shake their hand and have a conversation, but whatever they have seen or heard or experienced was enough.

[Jon Miller]

I don't think that there is any easy 1 sentence reply. I would recommend reading some, like that passage I linked to (Romans 4).

From Wiki: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith
Sometimes, faith means a belief in a relationship with a deity. In this case, "faith" is used in the sense of "fidelity."

Faith is further defined at Hebrews 11:1 which states "Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities,though not beheld."

But I don't think Wiki includes everything that is meant by Faith.

JM

[Kuciwalker]

Originally posted by aneeshm
I'll restate my question in a nutshell:

Given the modern definition of faith as "belief in the absence of positive proof" (it is a given that no proof to negate the object of belief exists), were the Judachrislamic Prophets faithless, because they had proof?

No, because they aren't emphasizing faith in the existance of God! Duh.

[Jon Miller]

Basically in the Christian way, beleif refers to the relationship, not just the existence of God.

The reason why it is so existence oriented with atheists is because in the west many communities are Christian (ish), so that set's where the discussion is.

In reality, notatheist != Christian... It is just that the atheists are trying to convert, as are the Christians. And most of the west are atheist or Christian.

Jon Miller

[Starchild]

Originally posted by aneeshm


That's a very vague reply. Could you elaborate a bit? What does "belief in God" entail? Belief in his power? Belief in what, exactly?

The belief in the nature and being of God. You may have proof that God exists but when your life has fallen to pieces or you're nailed to a cross, it still takes faith to believe that He hasn't forgotten you and abandoned you.

The Prophets may have proof of God's existence but they still need faith in His love and justice because such things are even harder to have proof for at times.

[Barnabas]

0,1/10