Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
In the New Testament, in the Book of Hebrews, the author set out his thoughts on Faith:
Now faith is the assurance of things hope for,
the conviction of things not seen.
Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval.
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.
(Hebrews 11:1-3, NRSV)
In this rejection of Torah and the practice of the laws contained therein, the author gives us a wonderful definition for Faith. It consists of "conviction" and "assurance" in "things not seen".
What are everyone's thoughts on the matter? Is Faith ever appropriate? If so - when? Is Faith just a blind refusal to accept facts - you know, "seen things"? Are there better definitions of the word "Faith"? Did the Dinosaurs have faith that they would go to Dinosaur Heaven when they went extinct?
Please - back up any statements you make,Moderator cut: edit and I have faith that the majority of mature, responsible posters will be able to do this.
Last edited by Miss Blue; 06-08-2012 at 04:24 PM..
Reason: off topic and unnecesdsary as we have TOS that work pretty well on City Data..
In the New Testament, in the Book of Hebrews, the author set out his thoughts on Faith:
Now faith is the assurance of things hope for,
the conviction of things not seen.
>snip<
I have faith that the majority of mature, responsible posters will be able to do this.
The above quote from Hebrews contains two interesting words that define "faith" in the Judeo-Christian manner. Assurance and conviction. It is not a blind faith that runs contrary to what some call facts.
The question is raised; where does the assurance and/or conviction come from? My answer is God.
**********
As to your "faith that the majority of mature, responsible posters will be able to do this", that comes from experience and observation. Your experience gives you assurance and your observation gives you conviction.
Blind faith is based on nothing, but opinion and wishful thinking.
See God is the Most High Royal Lord Jesus Christ of the Heaven and the earth...... So when the King of life spoke a promise , then we are called to believe and proclaim the same promise with our confidence in the Lord by our love and our hope , and if we qualify to receive, His Holy Spirit will judge our faith and expectation to receive from the King of life , and then we will receive or not........ Or we could sit with the spirit of antichrist and hold to our logic of this world and deny the Word of the God and Holy Spirit will not hear our prayer of unbelief and Jesus will not even hear it ..... So the world will believe the King of Life and receive, or not believe , and not recieve....
Let me take this in a kind of odd direction for this forum, by ignoring the religious application of the term "faith" at least for the present.
If we look at the definition in Hebrews, it talks about the "assurance of things hoped for...". A secular application of this is what my scoutmaster told us, "Plan well, work hard, have faith, and it will happen." Although he was a Christian, in context he was asking us to believe in our own vision, our own effort. Objectively I can look at this and say that it is not true. There are a great many people who have been passionate about an endeavor, firmly believed it would work, and failed miserably. On the other hand, no one wins big with a sure bet. I think in this context faith is not only appropriate, but necessary.
There are some caveats, however.
First, faith must be based on something solid. In the case of a business startup, maybe the product, or the marketing strategy, or even the fact that Bob the salesguy could sell sand to the Saudis. When there is a failure often it comes from people overvaluing the basis of their confidence.
The second caveat is that this form of faith is not about affecting the external world. This form of belief does not break natural laws, it does not modify other people, it changes the person holding it. It gives you confidence in yourself, in your ideas, in your abilities. Others may see this and change their behaviors or attitudes accordingly, but the faith only changes the holder.
There is a fine line between tenaciously pursuing a dream in face of impossible odds (and hopefully coming out a winner) and being delusional. I think part of it a post-hoc distinction. Steve Jobs was a visionary because Apple flourished. If it had not then he would have been a failed CEO with delusions of granduer. The other part of this that evaluation of outcomes is important. The guy who at 40 lives in his mom's basement because any day his Iron Maiden cover band is gonna break is considered to be on the delusional side, because he cannot evaluate his past results and change his behavior in any meaningful way. He has absolute faith that he is the next Bruce Dickinson, and no one can tell him otherwise. Meanwhile the guy next door may have been able to take his faith in his own abilities and a realistic assessment of his results to shape a more positive course for his life.
So I think faith can be appropriate when grounded in something real, and when tempered with honest observations of reality. My personal opinion is most forms of religious faith miss the mark in at least one of those two areas, but I cannot dismiss faith entirely. Phrased the way it is in Hebrews, even simple optimism is a form of faith, and while I consider myself a realist (My wife says I am a pessimist.), we could all use some optimism now and then.
In the New Testament, in the Book of Hebrews, the author set out his thoughts on Faith:
Now faith is the assurance of things hope for,
the conviction of things not seen.
Indeed, by faith our ancestors received approval.
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.
(Hebrews 11:1-3, NRSV)
In this rejection of Torah and the practice of the laws contained therein, the author gives us a wonderful definition for Faith. It consists of "conviction" and "assurance" in "things not seen".
What are everyone's thoughts on the matter? Is Faith ever appropriate? If so - when? Is Faith just a blind refusal to accept facts - you know, "seen things"? Are there better definitions of the word "Faith"? Did the Dinosaurs have faith that they would go to Dinosaur Heaven when they went extinct?
Please - back up any statements you make,Moderator cut: edit and I have faith that the majority of mature, responsible posters will be able to do this.
Nice. Ah, the elusive faith. I've been pondering faith the last couple days, why I once had it and now I don't. I still cannot pinpoint that defining moment. I know I didn't just wake up one day without it so when, how, why did it happen? Ok, I can answer the "why", but not the other. As you grow older, the days, months, years....they just all melt together. I always thought that would bother me, but it really doesn't. My memory has never been great and I tried journaling but I ended up putting waaaay too much personal stuff on paper and I shredded everything. Mmm that reminds me....there's a letter on my Word that I need to delete.
Geez moving along, no matter how much you want it back, it ain't coming. It's gone, finished. My advice to those who still have faith is to hold onto it and never question it. If you want to remain faithful then you gotta put on those blinders, no outside noise or doubt.....seriously. Stay ignorant, listen to your Pastor and by all means, don't read the Bible! Ok, sorry....the only time you should put faith in something is when your child or grandchild is up to bat and you just know they're going to hit that ball.....wait a minute....maybe that's just hope?
There's a difference, I just know it. Maybe that's a topic for another thread? I really don't even know how to answer your OP so I've just been rambling. Either you've got it or you don't. And I have no clue how to hold onto it after you start questioning and doubting and learning the truth about, as Asheville Native puts it, the "buy-bull". So, I'm learning a new definition of "faith", rather than meaning belief in things unseen it's belief in tangible things, things I can touch and interact with that make me feel alive. Instead, I'll have faith in what people say or do until they prove me wrong, I'll have faith that my cable won't mess up anymore, and I'll have faith that I'll wake up in the morning to another day.
Keep it simple and real, people. That's all we have is our reality.
Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.
It is odd that xians voice this as some proud mantra when in fact the phrase is the dumbest in the whole bible.
What is a substance of things hoped for?
How can there be evidence for something unseen?
It is a word salad if there ever was one.
It actually epitomises the very thing we say is blind faith. It really is no more than an archaic definition for cognitive dissonance.
Substances are real, evidence relates to tangible things. All we get as proof of god or whatever from theists is anecdotal stories of goosebump type experiences and these are shown scientifically to be self induced (read up on the god helmet)
We are often offered NDEs and OOBEs as "proof" and these again are mere clutching at straws. Yet when we read the OT we see (probably BS) accounts of this god directly interacting with people on many occasions.
Now one has to enter the realm of altered consciousness to make a connection.
Citing another ex christian, she said "we hung up the telephone as there was not even a dial tone."
The above quote from Hebrews contains two interesting words that define "faith" in the Judeo-Christian manner. Assurance and conviction. It is not a blind faith that runs contrary to what some call facts.
The question is raised; where does the assurance and/or conviction come from? My answer is God.
**********
As to your "faith that the majority of mature, responsible posters will be able to do this", that comes from experience and observation. Your experience gives you assurance and your observation gives you conviction.
Blind faith is based on nothing, but opinion and wishful thinking.
Nice post. You pick up the point about equivocation. There is the kind of faith that is based on knowledge and experience and the kind that is not.
It gets a bit complicated, because mystical visions can be called experience and speculations are all part of creating scientific hypotheses.
It really comes down to understanding just how much solid evidential support there is for a particular belief and also how strongly the belief is held. Dark matter, abiogenesis and the onsite theory of Hebrew origins is not proven but they are theories with some evidential support and it isn't necessary for me to regard them as proven fact.
In the same way, the NDE/OOB's, inexplicable healings, UFO abductions and the mystical experience are all real, but what causes them and what they mean is still very much open to discussion.
That leads to faith of the religious and cultist kind, where not only is the validity of the evidence hotly contested, but it is not enough that Gods, UFOs and Alien scientists who helped us build the pyramids are intriguing theories, but that those who espouse them see it as important that they be believed as fact, and world-view (if not Life) - changing fact, too.
While 'Faith' is so often supposed to be 'believe or not', that is absolutely NOT what it should be, but should be based on the aspect that the 'Faith' approach regularly ignores or discounts - the strength of the evidence.
There is of course the appended 'How do we know what we know' question where the whole validity of scientific knowledge and data is questioned. But only - as we rationalists often point out - only where it conflicts with some precious belief which science does not seem to support.
It is, frankly, hypocritical for those who trot out scientific fact - and sometimes rather irrelevant facts such as 'history proves that Pilate, Herod, Caiaphas existed' or doubtful facts such as 'Lunar recession, Entropy, information cannot be added proves that the earth cannot be old, evolution is impossible' - as support for their beliefs but dismiss it as invalid, false, an orthodoxy conspiracy, faked or of little value when it doesn't help their case.
This is simply the cultish misuse of scientific - sounding jargon used to try to bamboozle the self and others and it is understandable that we post the headslap icon and say 'You clearly do not understand..'
Where does this leave us with 150's "where does the assurance and/or conviction come from? My answer is God."
The obvious response to that is 'Which god?' I remember one poster posted 'don't try that 'which god' stuff on me - it is only one God' with the idea that all worshippers worship the same god but in different ways.
Which of course pushes the question a bit further along - which is the right way? In other words, yes, Jews, Muslims, Christians, Mormons and arguably even Hindus and Sikhs worship the same god -but in different ways and it is is seen to be vitally important to one's post death well -being that one has worshipped God in the right way.
That being so, Mr 150, does it matter how one worships or not? If it does, is the idea something like " where does the assurance and/or conviction (that YOUR religious worship method is the right one) come from? My answer is God."
This obviously shows up the problem with that statement. All the other WRONG assurances and convictions also apparently come from God, but they can't all be right. Thus divine assurance is unreliable, unsure and invalid as a basis for faith.
What then do we use to determine the Right religious method? Bible quotes? The factuality of Bible history? We are talking about evidence again and, if we are going to do that, it has to be done right.
To just dress up bible- talk and OT history in the jargon of Higher Criticism but only to make special pleading look convincing is back to the misuse of science to bamboozle. This is hypocritical argument yet again.
If we sideline all this and just say that one believes on personal conviction that one's own particular religious approach to God is the correct one on invalid or inadequate evidence or reason, then this is not what Mr 150 calls "Assurance and conviction. It is not a blind faith that runs contrary to what some call facts."
Assurance and conviction that runs contrary to what some call facts is just what it is and thus it is also what some call: "blind faith".
Last edited by TRANSPONDER; 06-09-2012 at 03:41 AM..
I agree very much with Arequipa's observation that it is difficult to justify one's faith by referring the justification to God - it seems to be a case of pushing the case back one level. Let's be honest - belief in God requires faith. As far as I know, nobody has yet succeeded in proving the existence of God (or gods) - let alone one's particular god, which they honor with a capital "G" in contradistinction to everyone else's gods with a small "g". So when we talk about God, we are engaging in a discussion of faith again. A simplification might be "I have faith in A because of my faith in B".
When I call that "pushing the case back one level", a better way of saying it might be to call it exchanging a mystery for a mystery. The perfect example of this can be found in both Theology and Science and relate to Cause and Effect and the beginnings of everything. Theology sometimes posits the existence of a God because of cause and effect: everything needs a cause (A), and we suggest God as the cause (B). But if one has already stated that they are operating under the law of Cause and Effect, then one can just as well ask "what caused God?" A>B>? We have exchanged a mystery for a mystery. (The typical answer is that the initial Cause - the "Mover" - must be an Un-Moved Mover, an Un-Caused Cause; but this then destroys the original rational - Cause and Effect - which was used to posit the existence of God) Science, on the other hand, suffers from the same problem, in my honest opinion - they have come up with a theory of the Big Bang (or whatever they are calling it now) that suggests that the Cause of the Universe was when certain "stuff" (I know, it's more technical than that - but that's not my department") that somehow existed prior to our current Universe all got together to form the newest musical thing, the Big Band (yuk yuk), but somehow it resulted in the Big Bang instead. And here we are. But just as in Theology, we arrive at the same exchange of a mystery for another mystery. The Universe (A) needs a Cause, the Big Bang (B) is the Cause, but where did the elements of the Big Bang come from? A>B>?
This has always struck me - this exchanging of one mystery for another in the service of Cause and Effect - as the main shared problem between Theology and Religion. Of course, one might state that at our current knowledge we just can't answer the problem but we WILL someday, but we have no assurance of that. As far as I'm concerned, because of this whole Cause/Effect thing - we shouldn't even be here!
But I digress...on something that has plagued my mind for years. The point was to try and get a little more information on how faith in A can be justified by faith in B.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Ah, the elusive faith. I've been pondering faith the last couple days, why I once had it and now I don't. I still cannot pinpoint that defining moment. I know I didn't just wake up one day without it so when, how, why did it happen? Ok, I can answer the "why", but not the other. As you grow older, the days, months, years....they just all melt together. I always thought that would bother me, but it really doesn't. My memory has never been great and I tried journaling but I ended up putting waaaay too much personal stuff on paper and I shredded everything. Mmm that reminds me....there's a letter on my Word that I need to delete.
no matter how much you want it back, it ain't coming. It's gone, finished. My advice to those who still have faith is to hold onto it and never question it. If you want to remain faithful then you gotta put on those blinders, no outside noise or doubt.....seriously. Stay ignorant, listen to your Pastor and by all means, don't read the Bible!
Ok, sorry....the only time you should put faith in something is when your child or grandchild is up to bat and you just know they're going to hit that ball.....wait a minute....maybe that's just hope? 
Maybe that's a topic for another thread? I really don't even know how to answer your OP so I've just been rambling.
Either you've got it or you don't. And I have no clue how to hold onto it after you start questioning and doubting and learning the truth about, as Asheville Native puts it, the "buy-bull". So, I'm learning a new definition of "faith", rather than meaning belief in things unseen it's belief in tangible things, things I can touch and interact with that make me feel alive. Instead, I'll have faith in what people say or do until they prove me wrong, I'll have faith that my cable won't mess up anymore, and I'll have faith that I'll wake up in the morning to another day.
Faith is an oxymoron...
