I suppose I can’t stop defending myself. So I will just be selective.
Not leap of faith, leap to faith. Kierkegaard explains a leap as a direct change from one quality to another, a person never posses both qualities at the same time. Take Adam, he made a leap into sin, from the state of not possessing sin to the state of possessing sin. It is the same with faith, a person moves from the state of not having faith to the state of having it. Thus the leap to faith.

Since we cannot matter of fact verify that God exists, we are required to have faith that he exists (and that he is the way he is for that matter). There has to be a point where a person says: “In spite of the paradoxes, in spite of the fact that I cannot logical or empirical prove that God exists, I have faith that he does,” this is when the leap occurs. (P.S. I did not steal this from Wikipedia)

You asked me what “some understanding” was, then used the term yourself later in the same paragraph. Some knowledge to me is not understanding. When I talk of Jesus, I see understanding Jesus as understanding that He was born of the Virgin Mary, is fully divine, and died on the Cross to save mankind from their eternal damnation, rose again after 3 days, and ascended into Heaven to come again and finish His work. One cannot understand this until they have faith that what is outlined in the Bible is true, one cannot have faith that what is outlined in the Bible is true unless they have some knowledge of what the Bible is explaining. It goes like this: One explores what’s in the Bible, they gain some knowledge, see it for what it is, make change from not believing to believing (the leap), then understand God.

Perhaps I was wrong to say that when the leap occurs, one ‘begins’ to understand God, Understanding comes with faith, faith and understanding are packaged together. Why? Because in order to Understand the Jesus I speak of (The common conceptions of the Christian Jesus Christ) A person must have faith that his acts and purpose are what the Bible explains they are, there is no way to explain these acts and his purpose otherwise.

Quote:

I wish you would explain why this is so, instead of just say that it is.

I thought I did explain myself. The process goes as so: I seek something to make me happy. I find Buddhism. I learn about Buddhism - a little, not everything. I have faith that Buddhism can make me happy. Because I have faith, I begin to live and understand why and how Buddhism makes me happy. This living, and then finally understanding makes me happy.
[/quote]

Quote:

d.s. - Seriously, no faith required in these theories? There is no possible way to test that these theories are true, only speculation based on empirical data.

I did not only say empirical data. Empirical data is only one portion of the equation, speculation is the other. It is the speculation that drives the need for faith.
I don’t think you agreed that Jesus is God in the sense that I conceive him. (I think our posts highlight the different conceptions of Jesus that we have, and thus the different conceptions of God)
This is why I would like to understand (J) what you think God is.

__________________
de omnibus dubitandum est

I'm the same way; I have an odd compulsion to reply to objections regardless of circumstance.

Ah, I see.

Here, I think, is where we might encounter significant disagreement. I think I can, as a matter of fact, verify the existence of God. I cannot prove his existence to you or anyone else, but I can prove this to myself. This evidence is empirical - it's experience of God.

I do not mean understanding "I believe X" it's understanding "this is why I believe X" and hopefully the explaination is coherent; the more coherent, the more understanding. This is often difficult for people - it suggests their faith is lacking. It suggests all of our faith is lacking, mine, yours, ect. But shouldn't we expect this?

I do not see how this solves the problem of arbitrary belief. That initial knowledge is marvelous! Should be treasured, and constantly reevaluated. But that initial understanding is not the whole understanding of God. Our faith progresses as our understanding progresses. A little knowledge leads to a little understanding, progress, but not the Kingdom of God.

But we might disagree over what the Bible says. Should I arbitrarily accept one notion of the Bible's message? Simply because others say it's the only way? I dont think so.

Hopefully, if you have a teacher, he would correct you.

One portion of what equation? Scientific theories are not taken on faith, wasn't that the point here?

God is god. 'Seek and you shall find', something like that, right?

Interesting. Did John Nash empirically prove to himself that aliens existed, even though it is a matter of fact that they didn’t? Are all abohritions empirical proof that something exists? Just because we think we experience something, is that proof of its existence?

Quote:

I do not mean understanding "I believe X" it's understanding "this is why I believe X" and hopefully the explanation is coherent; the more coherent, the more understanding. This is often difficult for people - it suggests their faith is lacking. It suggests all of our faith is lacking, mine, yours, ect. But shouldn't we expect this?

I see understanding something and understanding why I believe something as being different. Understanding why one believes that Jesus is who the Bible says he is has nothing to do with who he actually is. It is impossible to coherently understand something that is illogical, this is why faith is needed. It is impossible to understand how Jesus did the things he did in the Bible without having faith that he did those things. There is no coherent explanation of God coming to Earth, dying to save man’s sins, rising again, then ascending into Heaven.

I find it extremely important for a person to know why they believe what they believe, but I don’t think that is more important than what they believe. Especially when it comes to something that they cannot logically prove or understand why they believe it. I don’t see how someone’s faith can be lacking because they don’t understand why they have faith in something, because the whole reason they have faith in that something is because they don’t understand it. If a person fully understands something, there is no need for faith.

Quote:

But that initial understanding is not the whole understanding of God.

It depends on what you consider the whole understanding of God. Because to me, I don’t think ANY temporal being can ‘wholly’ understand an eternal God, our temporality negates the possibility to understand the eternal.

Quote:

I do not see how this solves the problem of arbitrary belief

How is what I described arbitrary. For something to be arbitrary it has to not be influenced by anything. In what I described, my faith is influenced by my knowledge.

Quote:

but not the Kingdom of God.

I think Jesus says: “Believe in me and you shall have everlasting life”. Faith in Jesus Christ is how you inherit the Kingdom of God. With faith comes the Kingdom. Yes, it is not a whole understanding, but it is enough to inherit the Kingdom.

Quote:

Should I arbitrarily accept one notion of the Bible's message? Simply because others say it's the only way? I dont think so.

You keep using the word ‘arbitrary’, when in fact nothing I described is arbitrary. No, you should not arbitrarily accept anything. Did I say anything of the sorts?

Quote:

Hopefully, if you have a teacher, he would correct you.

Perhaps you would be so kind to point out my mistake to me. You are in the best position to educate me.

I think know why you said that I was just explaining myself, but I thought everything I have written thus far can be used as a defense for what I wrote about Buddhism. You tell me to explain what I say instead of just saying it, but that is what you do throughout most of our posts.

Quote:

One portion of what equation? Scientific theories are not taken on faith, wasn't that the point here?

Theories have to be taken on faith, they are theories. The Big Bang does is not an explanation of the beginning of the Universe, it is a possible explanation of the Universe. In composing the Big Bang, we use the empirical data we collect about the Universe today and deduce that there must have been a beginning. However, there is no mathematics, no laws of physics, and frankly nothing that we know of science that can explain the Big Bang.

__________________
de omnibus dubitandum est

That's the thing, though, I do not expect my verification of God to be sufficient for anyone else, in fact I argue that such verification should not be sufficient for anyone else. God is not off limits, but only you can know for yourself.

And this highlights our differences in reading the tetxs - you take the texts literally, I take them as literature. Then again, I also look to texts outside of the Bible, and have some criticisms of texts that were included in the Bible.

I would like to clarify something: I dont think lacking in faith is necessarily a bad thing, I think we all, in some way, lack in faith. We both agree, it seems, that Jesus taught us so that we could build our faith.
Again, our old problem remains - faith without understanding seems arbitrary. It's not that without full understanding, there should be no faith, only that our faith should be to the same extent as our understanding. I would also like to say that, despite our discourse on the subject, I dont think you have to be able to coherently explain what you understand in order to understand.

Our temporality prevents us from being eternal, and from knowing everything of the eternal, but this does not mean we cannot understand the eternal. But this aside, perhaps "whole" was too strong, my point is, initial understanding is limited to just that, more can be understood. We should seek to understand.

The problem is that you say "It is impossible to coherently understand something that is illogical, this is why faith is needed." that faith is a subsitute for understanding. If faith is a substitute for understanding, that faith is arbitrary as anything else would be an equally justified belief.

"Believe in me" but what does this mean? Isn't this the question we are asking here?
As for faith and the Kingdom of God, I would agree, with the exception of our disagreements regarding faith.

Sure it is! You say yourself "It is impossible to coherently understand something that is illogical, this is why faith is needed". It's arbitrary because it's illogical.

I wish I was a better teacher, then.

As for this particular issue, the Buddha taught that we should believe nothing until we know for ourselves. Faith without understanding is dangerous.

I'm sorry. Whenever I am too brief on something, let me know.

Right, but no one suggests the Big Bang is the only way - it only seems to be the best explaination we have at the moment. Our "faith" in the Big Bang is limited by our understanding of it. At least it should be.

Here is the metaphysical interpretation of Jesus.

Jesus represents humanity and 'The Christ' represents the indwelling spirit of God. This dichomony is overlook, mostly, by mainstream Christianity which makes no clear distinction between contents (the spirit) and container (the human form).

The life of Christ represents the evolutionary process (one of them, anyway) and teachings supporting the process of restoring our 'original condition' (as free non-physical spirits) which existed before we became terminally infatuated with physicality, ego, base passions, cravings, ambition and biological imperatives.

The 'crucifixion' is a metaphor of spirit being 'impaled' upon matter in the 'underworld of physicality' that is ruled by death.
The 5 wounds of the Christ represent the 5 senses and the Crown of Thorns represents the mind-set that created the conundrum that Christianity assists in reversing. The cross is an ancient symbol of 'matter'. The 'cross' is the physical body.
The 5 senses are and/or can be sublime, howsoever, the 5 senses are incapable of ever coming close to the utter enduring bliss of union with the ineffable.

Jesus represents "EveryMan" .... every human being ..... except that Jesus exercised his true potential by denying the fleshy passions and, as a result, resurrected (brought back to life) the relatively 'dead' Christ (spirit of God) that is at is at the core of every human being.

As Christ increased, Jesus decreased.

This is the only truly rational explanation of the seeming paradox of the crucified Son of God.

.

Didymos, I regret that I have not been able to respond to your last post. I have two capstone classes this semester, and they are really taxing on me. I have really enjoyed our conversation. It has given me a lot to think about, and I always welcome thought provoking dialouges. If even a little, you have helped me deepen my faith by forcing me to question it and it's foundations.

I just wanted to say thank you. Hopefully I will be able to reignite our conversation in the future. (I haven't stopped thinking about it, and came up with a few good ideas while listening to a podcast on Hume today!)

Enjoy

__________________
de omnibus dubitandum est

And I similarly appreciate our dialogue - this is what it's all about. We can either sit in a room by ourselves with our faith, or we can discuss our faith with others. If we can have such a discussion (as we have) in which both sides are respected while criticized, the various faiths being considered will all benefit from the dicourse. We will have a tough time loving one another if we cannot even discuss our faith - both the similarities and differences.

I hope your classes are going well. They seem to be provoking thought; I am always pleased to hear this. As always, whenever you get the time, I am glad to discuss religion, or any other topic with you.