Are all the Prophets of Judachrislam essentially faithless?

[Fake Boris]

Aneeshm, I would advise you to read chapters 1 & 2 of the Theologico-Political Treatise. I'd be interested to hear what you think of Spinoza's definition of 'prophets' and 'prophecy'.

Gutenberg has the text available for free:

http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/989

Brief summary: a prophecy is only drawn from a sign, a vision. Thus, a prophet is someone with more imagination. Prophets are to be revered because of their piety, but not their visions. The only prophet whose message we should take directly is Jesus, because he's the only one of which the Scripture says that he had a direct connection to the 'Spirit of God'.

Spinoza does not directly address your questions, he 'liquidates' them.

[Fake Boris]

If it is random, isn't that just plain unfair (that some souls get a "Hotline to Heaven", whereas others have to be content with receiving orders from the guy with the phone)? Isn't it unfair to everyone else that they have to rely on faith, whereas the Prophets have (personal) proof?

You don't have to rely on faith (as in the expression of external signs of religiosity) to go to Heaven... This is the essence of Jesus' message, that God recognizes piety universally.
Besides, the concept of 'fairness' is a human creation anyway. The story of Job illustrates how God's justice is beyond ours.

[Jon Miller]

Originally posted by lord of the mark
http://www.amazon.com/Prophets-Abrah.../dp/0061315575

I purchased this.

JM

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Jon Miller


I purchased this.

JM

You mean just since I posted the link, or youd already purchased it?

[Jon Miller]

Since

JM

[lord of the mark]

wow, someone actually bought a book cause I suggested it.

Hope you enjoy it, I havent read it, ive read a number of snippets from Heschel though.

[Jon Miller]

I have been meaning to get a Jewish book for a while. That seemed like a good one.

JM

[Straybow]

There are different definitions of faith.

The operative definition in this case is a moral conviction of the truthfulness of God, or of a doctrine or practice.

This is where Jonah fell short. He didn't agree with God's intent to bring repentence and forgiveness to Ninevah.

[DaShi]

Originally posted by aneeshm
Actually, it's not a troll, it's a serious question. I deliberately chose a provocative title so that people would be more inclined to read through the rather long and involved argument which I presented.

Didn't work. Didn't read it.

[molly bloom]

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)

What a ludicrous set of statements.

Have you ever heard of St. Augustine, Thomas Aquinas or Boethius, to name but three ?

How about al Biruni, Ibn Sina and Ibn Rushd ?


'Intellectuals' all.

When there were Jewish kingdoms, 'Judaism' was quite capable of 'going looney'- Dhu Nuwas in southern Arabia, for instance.

Of course the difference is, I suppose, that with the exception of the Cochin Jews in southern India, there hasn't historically been a huge Jewish presence in the Indian sub-continent in the way there has been a Muslim one, and a Jewish empire didn't rule over the Hindus.

Not too difficult to see where you're coming from.

Here's someone you quoted before:

We can only say, folly is an illness for which there is no medicine, and the Hindus believe that there is no country but theirs, no nation like theirs, no kings like theirs, no religion like theirs, no science like theirs. They are haughty, foolishly vain, self-conceited, and stolid. They are by nature niggardly in communicating that which they know, and they take the greatest possible care to withhold it from men of another caste among their own people, still much more, of course, from any foreigner. According to their belief, there is no other country on earth but theirs, no other race of man but theirs, and no created beings besides them have any knowledge of science whatsoever. ...

If they traveled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not as narrow-minded as the present generation is. One of their scholars, Varahamihira, in a passage where he calls on the people to honor the Brahmins, says:

"The Greeks, though impure, must be honored, since they were trained in sciences and therein excelled others. What, then, are we to say of a Brahmin, if he combines with his purity the height of science?"

In former times, the Hindus used to acknowledge that the progress of science due to the Greeks is much more important than that which is due to themselves. But from this passage of Varahamihira alone you see what a self-lauding man he is, while he gives himself airs as doing justice to others....

al Biruni, 'A Description of India' , 1030 a.d.

Plus ça change, plus c’est la même chose.

[molly bloom]

Originally posted by aneeshm


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

Columbus was NOT a Spanish missionary.


There were indeed many Spaniards of the Catholic faith who tried to protect the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

If your 'reams of material' are anything like the rubbish you posted about the supposed numbers of Hindus killed by the Portuguese Inquisition, then we should be in for a real laughterfest.

[aneeshm]

Originally posted by molly bloom

Columbus was NOT a Spanish missionary.

I never said he was.

Originally posted by molly bloom

There were indeed many Spaniards of the Catholic faith who tried to protect the indigenous peoples of the Americas.

We all know how successful they were, don't we.

Originally posted by molly bloom

If your 'reams of material' are anything like the rubbish you posted about the supposed numbers of Hindus killed by the Portuguese Inquisition, then we should be in for a real laughterfest.

That was not in reference to the Columbus comment.

[Elok]

Well, this should be an entertaining brawl, but I'd like to add St. Gregory Palamas to Molly's list of Xian intellectuals, which is currently heavily skewed to the West. Just because the RCC killed the mystical tradition in their part of the world, that doesn't mean it never existed.

Oh, and my Orthodox Study Bible defines Faith as "belief and trust in Jesus Christ as one's savior." The trust bit is the important difference WRT your original post. If faith were just an opinion that a certain concept is factually true, what would the significance of it be? The prophets had faith insofar as they heard God and agreed to do His work, despite the considerable dangers and personal costs often involved.

[Barnabas]

Hesychiasm is a relatively new development in church history, not something the catholic church killed.
The whole, looking to a striahgt point, repeating something till you see a light reminds me of oriental religions sincerely.
Altough JPII said it was all ok and that catholics oculd do it too.

And the roman catholic church has a strong mystical tradition (st francis, therese of Avila, ignacio de loyola etc), but the orthodox tend to think their visions are demonic hallucinations.

------------------


To Aneeshm, native americans are alive and kicking

[Jon Miller]

That's hilarious... Are they Furries?

JM