Christianity QA » Christian Faith » The Theory of Faith Itself
Question:
Since Sol Invictus was not invented until 274AD, you can see immediately that the chap who told you this was telling a lie.
The Romans celebrated the solstice and the sun long before that. The pagan god Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th. Mithras was born of a ROCK!
Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th, was placed in a rock (cave) when he died, rose again after three days from the rock. All inconvenient, anyhow. Better just believe what the TV tells us, eh? All the best, Roger Pearse
What does the TV tell us? Gary Eickmeier
Response:
Since Sol Invictus was not invented until 274AD, you can see immediately that the chap who told you this was telling a lie. The Romans celebrated the solstice and the sun long before that.
Well… did they? Do you know this, or do you just suppose it? Which ancient texts say so? As for ‘celebrating the sun’, what ancient texts tell us about the cult of the Sun and the Moon in republican times? The pagan god Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th. Mithras was born of a ROCK! Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th, was placed in a rock (cave) when he died, rose again after three days from the rock.
This is untrue, as I have already mentioned. Why not look it up someone serious? Manfred Clauss’ book on ‘The Roman cult of Mithras’ is up to date, scholarly and comprehensive. All inconvenient, anyhow. Better just believe what the TV tells us, eh? What does the TV tell us?
Pardon? All the best, Roger Pearse
Response:
<snip Here’s a thought. Consider how much in a given day you take on "faith"; meaning, how much you trust to be factual, when the only evidence you have for it is that someone told it to you (which is, in most cases, the same way religious doctrines are continued). Seems to me we are pretty much in agreement. If I just add the term "religious" to what I am talking about.
If you add "religious" to your terminology, you change the tenor. I was mostly trying to get you to be more specific. Religious faith is unreasonable and pointless.
Not all the time, it isn’t. The thing is, I think you’re arguing specifically against inerrancy. You won’t hear a quarrel with me about that. I think the Bible is useful and beautiful and reveals a great number of truths — but they’re not usually of the hard fact kind. The problem always comes — always — when mythos is interpreted as logos. Mythos has much to teach us. Myth isn’t simply fiction, but something deeper and more profound. But it doesn’t work as science, and wasn’t really ever intended to. Fundamentalism, at least in Christian circles, didn’t emerge until about the turn of the century. And I have a sense that fundamentalism does more to harm the religion than any external force ever could. Prior to the dogmatic insistence that the Bible is the divinely inspired, inerrant, literal, unquestionable word of God, science and religion co-existed quite nicely. How could they not? They address completely different questions. But science can’t answer Who are we? Why are we here? What is our purpose? How can we be good, moral people? See? <snip YES! So "faith" is a non starter. Religious faith, not faith in the next sunrise. The language is limited, so we differentiate between religious faith, which is what I am talking about, and general faith in believable things. To summarize my proposition: The theory that religious faith is a virtue, or something we should all strive for, makes no sense. Seems like a simple point at first, but I was taught that I should believe even if I didn’t witness any of it firsthand, even if it seems fantastic, because God told us it is so. Hard to argue against that.
Well, sure, especially if you’re told that by people you love and trust, and who love you and want what’s best for you. But most people I know who believe different things than I do, believe them because they’re part and parcel of a whole worldview which helps them, and makes sense to them. Gary, people believe what they believe because that’s what makes sense to them at that point in time. It’s that easy. See? You agree with me! You should NOT have faith that I am right. QED.
LOL! Garbage 
It’s Usenet, Argument Central. The entire purpose of this venue is *not* taking something on faith, but asking for supporting evidence. Sunny
Response:
The only exploiting going on at Christmas time is the early Christians exploiting the pagan festivals that occurred at or near the solstice and the new year. It was Roman custom to decorate trees with lights, exchange gifts, and have grand banquets for the feast of Sol
Invictus. Since Sol Invictus was not invented until 274AD, you can see immediately that the chap who told you this was telling a lie. The pagan god Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th.
Mithras was born of a ROCK! The Christians couldn’t beat ‘em, so they joined them. That’s about all there is to it. The virgin birth, the wise men, the birth in Bethlehem in a cave – all bunk.
All inconvenient, anyhow. Better just believe what the TV tells us, eh? All the best, Roger Pearse
Response:
"True" Christianity rapidly disappeared shortly after it appeared and was replaced with religion as we see in what is called "Christianity" today. Customs, beliefs, and traditions indeed entered into many religions as they were taken from many social orders. The ceremonies and rituals of the RCC were taken from Judaism. Judaism was created to be a religion by religionists, as were all religions. The mind of mankind has great power of imagination, by which, religions, rituals, ceremonies and customs were created. Apart and separate from all of this, is God. Religion is merely a replacement for God, created to be such by mankind because mankind could not find God nor know God. So they created a cheap substitute called "religion." With religion came all of the false teachings concerning God. God cannot be known by the physical senses. To be carnally minded is to think the matters of God pertain to the physical as the religions teach. God is manifest to mankind in and by Spirit which is the substance inspired in the mind. In and by this way, God reveals who and what God is. Only by this revealing is any person able to "know" God. By experiencing the reality of God. Jesus of Nazareth did not start or create a religion. Quite the opposite. He condemned religionists and their religion and taught the way to "know" God. Every word he spoke concerning God referred to the reality of God, not superstition or "old wives tales." DW Suiter Son of God
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – No. Actually "Christmas" is a time of celebration of the coming of Christ, not the birth of the man known as Jesus of Nazareth. People long ago celebrated because a new way was provided to mankind so they could escape from religion and know the reality of God. Christmas also is a time of revival of this "Spirit" which equates with love and good will. It began with God who provided this way for mankind to enter into, a way of being taught by God which results in a "Christ" coming to be by the work of God as the Teacher. "Christ" merely means anointed or taught one of God. "Son of God" merely means "creation" of God in mind and spirit. That’s all there is to it. Very simple. All the rest of the hoopla is a creation of religionists. Leading into the commercialization of this event. Same old story, exploitation for and by the love of money. I couldn’t figure out what you were answering until I scrolled down to the bottom of your post. Please consider editing the previous post, then responding at the bottom of it so we know where you’re coming from. Top posting is quick for you, rude to your readers. The only exploiting going on at Christmas time is the early Christians exploiting the pagan festivals that occurred at or near the solstice and the new year. It was Roman custom to decorate trees with lights, exchange gifts, and have grand banquets for the feast of Sol Invictus. The pagan god Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th. The Christians couldn’t beat ‘em, so they joined them. That’s about all there is to it. The virgin birth, the wise men, the birth in Bethlehem in a cave – all bunk. Gary Eickmeier
Response:
No. Actually "Christmas" is a time of celebration of the coming of Christ, not the birth of the man known as Jesus of Nazareth. People long ago celebrated because a new way was provided to mankind so they could escape from religion and know the reality of God. Christmas also is a time of revival of this "Spirit" which equates with love and good will. It began with God who provided this way for mankind to enter into, a way of being taught by God which results in a "Christ" coming to be by the work of God as the Teacher. "Christ" merely means anointed or taught one of God. "Son of God" merely means "creation" of God in mind and spirit. That’s all there is to it. Very simple. All the rest of the hoopla is a creation of religionists. Leading into the commercialization of this event. Same old story, exploitation for and by the love of money.
I couldn’t figure out what you were answering until I scrolled down to the bottom of your post. Please consider editing the previous post, then responding at the bottom of it so we know where you’re coming from. Top posting is quick for you, rude to your readers. The only exploiting going on at Christmas time is the early Christians exploiting the pagan festivals that occurred at or near the solstice and the new year. It was Roman custom to decorate trees with lights, exchange gifts, and have grand banquets for the feast of Sol Invictus. The pagan god Mithra was born of a virgin on December 25th. The Christians couldn’t beat ‘em, so they joined them. That’s about all there is to it. The virgin birth, the wise men, the birth in Bethlehem in a cave – all bunk. Gary Eickmeier
Response:
No. Actually "Christmas" is a time of celebration of the coming of Christ, not the birth of the man known as Jesus of Nazareth. People long ago celebrated because a new way was provided to mankind so they could escape from religion and know the reality of God. Christmas also is a time of revival of this "Spirit" which equates with love and good will. It began with God who provided this way for mankind to enter into, a way of being taught by God which results in a "Christ" coming to be by the work of God as the Teacher. "Christ" merely means anointed or taught one of God. "Son of God" merely means "creation" of God in mind and spirit. That’s all there is to it. Very simple. All the rest of the hoopla is a creation of religionists. Leading into the commercialization of this event. Same old story, exploitation for and by the love of money. DW Suiter Son of God
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – And to you Sunny, a very Merry Christmas and wishes for the best New Year, to you and yours. DW Suiter Son of God Hey, Son – is this your birthday as well? Gary Eickmeier
Response:
But science can’t answer Who are we? Why are we here? What is our purpose? How can we be good, moral people? See?
Neither can religion… Thanks for a great discussion. I think I answered my own question when I remarked that faith in ordinary things was reasonable because it is based on a period of observation. So we are told that the religious people are basing their beliefs on a long period of observation as well – the bible – but the whole thing is a collection of fables, stories, and fairy tales that can’t be accepted as reliable. Nor have the people saying they have observed the truth of the bible for a long time period a leg to stand on. Pure bullshitters. Gary Eickmeier
Response:
But science can’t answer Who are we? Why are we here? What is our purpose? How can we be good, moral people? See? Neither can religion…
Not for you, perhaps. But I don’t think you could honestly posit that it doesn’t address those very questions for a great number of people. Thanks for a great discussion.
It was at least non-acrimonious, which is a nice change of pace on Usent. I think I answered my own question when I remarked that faith in ordinary things was reasonable because it is based on a period of observation. So we are told that the religious people are basing their beliefs on a long period of observation as well – the bible – but the whole thing is a collection of fables, stories, and fairy tales that can’t be accepted as reliable. Nor have the people saying they have observed the truth of the bible for a long time period a leg to stand on. Pure bullshitters.
If you like 
Sunny
Response:
And to you Sunny, a very Merry Christmas and wishes for the best New Year, to you and yours. DW Suiter Son of God
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – <snip Merry Christmas, DW, and the best of wishes for you and yours. Sunny
Response:
And to you Sunny, a very Merry Christmas and wishes for the best New Year, to you and yours. DW Suiter Son of God
Hey, Son – is this your birthday as well? Gary Eickmeier
Response:
<snip Merry Christmas, DW, and the best of wishes for you and yours. Sunny
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – I could be wrong – or perhaps we should differentiate religious faith from, say, faith in your spouse or faith that this message will make its way through the ether and be posted in the newsgroup. In the latter examples, such faith is based on a long period of observation, and is not unreasonable. But an awful lot of research should be undertaken before some of the doctrines of religion even approach reasonableness. So if someone says you’ve just got to believe, you’ve just got to have faith, then I say that is not a valid concept. Here’s a thought. Consider how much in a given day you take on "faith"; meaning, how much you trust to be factual, when the only evidence you have for it is that someone told it to you (which is, in most cases, the same way religious doctrines are continued).
Seems to me we are pretty much in agreement. If I just add the term "religious" to what I am talking about. Religious faith is unreasonable and pointless. If you, at a party, met a man who said his name was Bob Smith, and during conversation he revealed that he was married and had two kids, and had just moved to the area, and dabbled in real estate, and loved the smell of roast beef, you would leave that conversation believing all those things — without proof. Why? Because most of the time, people tell the truth; and beyond that, even if what they say is not truth, *they* believe it. That’s how humans operate. It’s normal and reasonable. You’d never get anywhere if you had to verify every single thing you ever heard before you acted on it.
But if Bob told me his wife was visited by an angel, who impregnated her with the son of God, who was going to save us from Adam’s sin, then I might not accept what he said on faith. And no reasonable person or persons can tell me that it is a virtue to take those things on "faith." And since humans operate that way, when a trusted, beloved minister or parent tells you things about God, you tend to believe them, too — or take it on faith.
And there lies the problem. From childhood, we are told all of these fantastic tales, that they are supernatural events, and that many, if not most, adults believe that they are true. The believers are praised as "people of faith." And then, sometimes, whether it’s about Bob Smith, actually an escaped unmarried vegetarian convict, or Adam and Eve the literal man and woman, later things told you/read contradict that which you previously held to be true. So you have to sort them out, and see which one makes more sense.
YES! So "faith" is a non starter. Religious faith, not faith in the next sunrise. The language is limited, so we differentiate between religious faith, which is what I am talking about, and general faith in believable things. To summarize my proposition: The theory that religious faith is a virtue, or something we should all strive for, makes no sense. Seems like a simple point at first, but I was taught that I should believe even if I didn’t witness any of it firsthand, even if it seems fantastic, because God told us it is so. Hard to argue against that. That’s about the best I can do for now, and if that doesn’t explain it, I’ll stop trying. Or, you could just have faith that I am right. No way, Jose.
See? You agree with me! You should NOT have faith that I am right. QED. Gary Eickmeier
Response:
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well stated Sunny. Paul, as presented by scrupture, stated faith is a little more. The substance of things "hoped for" but not yet received. Indicating not only strong belief the giver would give but the rceiver would receive. Addressing a promise rather than an existance. You guys may be talking more about "hope" than faith. What I am talking about is faith in statements such as "I lost my faith." I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that you are asked to buy most of the tenets without proof, or you may go to hell. What I am saying is that if you have doubts, then the bubble of faith, if you had it before, is bursted and there is nothing you can do about it. My best friend wrote to me and remarked, you are my best pal, even if you are leaning to atheist. I wrote back and jokingly remarked that I might be an agnostic – I haven’t got enough faith to be an atheist. The obvious joke is that an agnostic has lost his "faith," but isn’t sure enough of himself to be a full-blown atheist. So – to try one last time – if I am operating in a region in which I am reading everything I can to see just what is known and what is bullpucky, if I can sort of see merit to "intelligent design" or the "uncaused cause" of the very existence of the universe, but I also believe in evolution and science and common sense; in short, if I am trying to form a concept of reality and existence, then I am no longer operating in a region of "faith," and such a concept is, in fact, meaningless. So if you are still a child and have unquestioning faith in everything you have been taught about religion, would that have any more merit than my current position? Is "faith" a good thing, or even a valid concept? I think Stillsunny nailed it with his description of: "Faith as a concept is a descriptor of a sort of strongly held belief, lacking evidence." I am proposing that there is nothing good about that, and therefore it should be rejected as a goal of good people. I could be wrong – or perhaps we should differentiate religious faith from, say, faith in your spouse or faith that this message will make its way through the ether and be posted in the newsgroup. In the latter examples, such faith is based on a long period of observation, and is not unreasonable. But an awful lot of research should be undertaken before some of the doctrines of religion even approach reasonableness. So if someone says you’ve just got to believe, you’ve just got to have faith, then I say that is not a valid concept. That’s about the best I can do for now, and if that doesn’t explain it, I’ll stop trying. Or, you could just have faith that I am right. Gary Eickmeier
I believe you are confusing "faith" with "belief." Faith is more of an expectation than belief in a word given by a person. Faith is the expectation a word will come true, especially a word of promise. Belief is merely accepting a presented word to be true. Although very similar, these two have their differences. Faith is placed more in what has been stated "shall come to be." It is hard to have faith in what certain persons say, such as attorneys, preachers, and politicians. Simply because what they have said "shall be" does not come to be even when people "believed" what they said. Most children place faith in what their parents say until they learn parents use "little white lies." Believing what a person says is different than having faith that what they say will come to be. Placing faith in religious teachings is foolish considering the many different religions that teach different "truths" concerning one matter. Religion is a very dangerous matter. Religions have each and all formulated their teachings and doctrines on what they have been taught, which originated with the founder of the religion. Sometimes it is easy, sometimes it is difficult to prove the truth of a matter. Without a way to prove the truth of a matter, a person is left to choose to believe or not believe. If they believe, then they may place their faith in the person giving a word and faith in the word its self. Most people have faith in their selves concerning many matters and this equates to self confidence. And, many people place their faith in other people and what other people say. Faith is a bit more than mere belief. It includes expectation. DW Suiter Son of God
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Well stated Sunny. Paul, as presented by scrupture, stated faith is a little more. The substance of things "hoped for" but not yet received. Indicating not only strong belief the giver would give but the rceiver would receive. Addressing a promise rather than an existance. You guys may be talking more about "hope" than faith. What I am talking about is faith in statements such as "I lost my faith." I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that you are asked to buy most of the tenets without proof, or you may go to hell.
Okay. You’re wrong What I am trying diligently to point out is that you are arguing against a very specific belief or set of beliefs, but have conflated them with more general "faith". If you want to argue about the concept of faith, specifically, it needs to be clearly delineated from the *specific* faith beliefs you dispute. I haven’t decided yet if it’s a fallacy of composition or hasty generalization. http://www.infidels.org/news/atheism/logic.html So — some few churches, and an apparently large number of Usenet posters, may well think that if you don’t believe in a 6,000 year creation (for instance), you’re going to hell — but I very much doubt that most Christians, even those who actually believe in a 6,000 year creation, would say that your challenge to that claim meant you were hellbound. They might think you were wrong, but that one tenet wouldn’t qualify as necessary or sufficient to doom you. What I am saying is that if you have doubts, then the bubble of faith, if you had it before, is bursted and there is nothing you can do about it.
In that, you are correct, and it’s probably why so much religious discussion is angry. When people get threatened, they respond badly. So – to try one last time – if I am operating in a region in which I am reading everything I can to see just what is known and what is bullpucky, if I can sort of see merit to "intelligent design" or the "uncaused cause" of the very existence of the universe, but I also believe in evolution and science and common sense; in short, if I am trying to form a concept of reality and existence, then I am no longer operating in a region of "faith," and such a concept is, in fact, meaningless.
No, it really isn’t. The *specific* beliefs you’re talking about cannot coexist with rigorous scientific scrutiny, but faith itself isn’t meaningless at all. <snip I could be wrong – or perhaps we should differentiate religious faith from, say, faith in your spouse or faith that this message will make its way through the ether and be posted in the newsgroup. In the latter examples, such faith is based on a long period of observation, and is not unreasonable. But an awful lot of research should be undertaken before some of the doctrines of religion even approach reasonableness. So if someone says you’ve just got to believe, you’ve just got to have faith, then I say that is not a valid concept.
Here’s a thought. Consider how much in a given day you take on "faith"; meaning, how much you trust to be factual, when the only evidence you have for it is that someone told it to you (which is, in most cases, the same way religious doctrines are continued). If you, at a party, met a man who said his name was Bob Smith, and during conversation he revealed that he was married and had two kids, and had just moved to the area, and dabbled in real estate, and loved the smell of roast beef, you would leave that conversation believing all those things — without proof. Why? Because most of the time, people tell the truth; and beyond that, even if what they say is not truth, *they* believe it. That’s how humans operate. It’s normal and reasonable. You’d never get anywhere if you had to verify every single thing you ever heard before you acted on it. And since humans operate that way, when a trusted, beloved minister or parent tells you things about God, you tend to believe them, too — or take it on faith. And then, sometimes, whether it’s about Bob Smith, actually an escaped unmarried vegetarian convict, or Adam and Eve the literal man and woman, later things told you/read contradict that which you previously held to be true. So you have to sort them out, and see which one makes more sense. That’s about the best I can do for now, and if that doesn’t explain it, I’ll stop trying. Or, you could just have faith that I am right.
No way, Jose. Sunny
Response:
Well stated Sunny. Paul, as presented by scrupture, stated faith is a little more. The substance of things "hoped for" but not yet received. Indicating not only strong belief the giver would give but the rceiver would receive. Addressing a promise rather than an existance.
You guys may be talking more about "hope" than faith. What I am talking about is faith in statements such as "I lost my faith." I am under the impression, correct me if I am wrong, that you are asked to buy most of the tenets without proof, or you may go to hell. What I am saying is that if you have doubts, then the bubble of faith, if you had it before, is bursted and there is nothing you can do about it. My best friend wrote to me and remarked, you are my best pal, even if you are leaning to atheist. I wrote back and jokingly remarked that I might be an agnostic – I haven’t got enough faith to be an atheist. The obvious joke is that an agnostic has lost his "faith," but isn’t sure enough of himself to be a full-blown atheist. So – to try one last time – if I am operating in a region in which I am reading everything I can to see just what is known and what is bullpucky, if I can sort of see merit to "intelligent design" or the "uncaused cause" of the very existence of the universe, but I also believe in evolution and science and common sense; in short, if I am trying to form a concept of reality and existence, then I am no longer operating in a region of "faith," and such a concept is, in fact, meaningless. So if you are still a child and have unquestioning faith in everything you have been taught about religion, would that have any more merit than my current position? Is "faith" a good thing, or even a valid concept? I think Stillsunny nailed it with his description of: "Faith as a concept is a descriptor of a sort of strongly held belief, lacking evidence." I am proposing that there is nothing good about that, and therefore it should be rejected as a goal of good people. I could be wrong – or perhaps we should differentiate religious faith from, say, faith in your spouse or faith that this message will make its way through the ether and be posted in the newsgroup. In the latter examples, such faith is based on a long period of observation, and is not unreasonable. But an awful lot of research should be undertaken before some of the doctrines of religion even approach reasonableness. So if someone says you’ve just got to believe, you’ve just got to have faith, then I say that is not a valid concept. That’s about the best I can do for now, and if that doesn’t explain it, I’ll stop trying. Or, you could just have faith that I am right. Gary Eickmeier
Response:
Sometimes you have to believe you’re loved, all evidence to the contrary, to begin to act like a lovingperson. (etc, etc) Thanks, but I don’t think you’re getting my point. I’m talking about belief in the literacy of the bible, belief in all of the points in the Apostles’ Creed, faith that all of the mythology of religion is true, and you must believe it is true, or else. If you have a problem with the virgin birth, or the divinity of Jesus, or the resurrection – then you do not go along with the whole story, and faith no longer applies, or even exists. You are now in the area of reason and evidence, and there is no turning back.
I am getting your point, actually. I suspect you’re interested in provoking a vigorous discussion with someone who equates the simple term "faith" with a belief in the literal, objective truth of the Bible stories. Yet you’re equivocating the two — "faith", even Christian faith, doesn’t necessarily equal dogmatic belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible. As I pointed out, even *in* the Bible, the term is used to indicate either faith in the goodwill and power of God, or (in Paul) as faith in Jesus to create a sort of bridge between humans and God. It isn’t until later that the notion that faith must include belief in every aspect of historically informed Christian doctrine and word for word inerrancy of the Bible became popular. Conclusion: faith is a pointless concept.
Faith as a concept is a descriptor of a sort of strongly held belief, lacking evidence. Faith itself is a real aspect of the human animal, not a concept at all *in* those humans. Further, as I already stated, actually having faith can provide the confidence and optimism to actually effect the positive changes envisioned *by* the faith. Thus, not pointless, irrespective of the objective provability of the thing believed, and even if you’re measuring by objective standards. Sunny
Response:
Well stated Sunny. Paul, as presented by scrupture, stated faith is a little more. The substance of things "hoped for" but not yet received. Indicating not only strong belief the giver would give but the rceiver would receive. Addressing a promise rather than an existance. Agreeing with the word, "God is faithful and true" and shall fulfill this promise without doubt. Faith no longer exists when the promise is fulfilled. It is replaced with the substance that was once hoped for and becomes sure knowledge, a possession. No different than a person having faith in their selves, that they may accomplish a task. When they have completed the task, they no longer have mere faith, but sure knowledge they are able to accomplish the task. What was hoped for has come to be. Stay warm, DW Suiter Son of God
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Sometimes you have to believe you’re loved, all evidence to the contrary, to begin to act like a lovingperson. (etc, etc) Thanks, but I don’t think you’re getting my point. I’m talking about belief in the literacy of the bible, belief in all of the points in the Apostles’ Creed, faith that all of the mythology of religion is true, and you must believe it is true, or else. If you have a problem with the virgin birth, or the divinity of Jesus, or the resurrection – then you do not go along with the whole story, and faith no longer applies, or even exists. You are now in the area of reason and evidence, and there is no turning back. I am getting your point, actually. I suspect you’re interested in provoking a vigorous discussion with someone who equates the simple term "faith" with a belief in the literal, objective truth of the Bible stories. Yet you’re equivocating the two — "faith", even Christian faith, doesn’t necessarily equal dogmatic belief in the literal inerrancy of the Bible. As I pointed out, even *in* the Bible, the term is used to indicate either faith in the goodwill and power of God, or (in Paul) as faith in Jesus to create a sort of bridge between humans and God. It isn’t until later that the notion that faith must include belief in every aspect of historically informed Christian doctrine and word for word inerrancy of the Bible became popular. Conclusion: faith is a pointless concept. Faith as a concept is a descriptor of a sort of strongly held belief, lacking evidence. Faith itself is a real aspect of the human animal, not a concept at all *in* those humans. Further, as I already stated, actually having faith can provide the confidence and optimism to actually effect the positive changes envisioned *by* the faith. Thus, not pointless, irrespective of the objective provability of the thing believed, and even if you’re measuring by objective standards. Sunny
Response:
- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – As to the faith that good can come, I’d submit that sometimes it’s the unreasoning, unreasonable belief that it *will* which actually inspires an individual or group to work to effect good change. As to the Pauline directives, I have the sense that most humans have some subconscious awareness of their own imperfections; some subterranean, and suppressed, belief that they are, at bottom, not very good people, and probably don’t deserve much. And if belief in Jesus as a mystical atonement for those things they know they fall short in actually leads them to begin to be the people they feel like they want to be, then more power to them. Sometimes you have to believe you’re loved, all evidence to the contrary, to begin to act lik ealovingperson.Sometimesyouhavetobelieve you’re strong, a lifetime of evidence to the contrary, to find that strength. And sometimes you have to believe that you can be good, despite your own history, to actually overcome the historic pattern of bad behavior. Sunny
Thanks, but I don’t think you’re getting my point. I’m talking about belief in the literacy of the bible, belief in all of the points in the Apostles’ Creed, faith that all of the mythology of religion is true, and you must believe it is true, or else. If you have a problem with the virgin birth, or the divinity of Jesus, or the resurrection – then you do not go along with the whole story, and faith no longer applies, or even exists. You are now in the area of reason and evidence, and there is no turning back. Conclusion: faith is a pointless concept. Gary Eickmeier
Response:
The only reason religious faith even exists is that people think that, even if we can’t prove all of the tenets of a given religion, or even the existence of God, we should believe anyway, because that proves our "faithfulness." No, the guru tells you, I can’t prove it – you just have to accept it on faith alone. That is what will save you. Blessed is he who believes without seeing, etc etc. My problem with this faith theory is what happens when doubt creeps in. Maybe you have been reading too much, maybe someone influenced you, or perhaps just the realization that Jesus was not born on December 25th – whatever the cause, you begin to doubt the truthfulness of parts of the story, and then, if those parts are bunk, is it possible the whole religion is built on a house of cards? Pure bumpkus? Now you’ve got a problem, because the bubble of faith has been broken. You can’t just pretend to go on believing, because even if you tell others that you are still a good Christian or whatever, you can’t lie to God (or to yourself, obviously)! Once you learn that there is no Santa Claus, there is nothing you can do about believing in him again. In this eventuality, there is no longer a valid concept of "faith." Your beliefs in the world around you are constructed on a lifetime of learning and reasoning, and an unreasonable belief just has no place in any construct of reality. So what do you "faithy" guys think about this whole dilemma? Gary Eickmeier
Response:
The only reason religious faith even exists is that people think that, even if we can’t prove all of the tenets of a given religion, or even the existence of God, we should believe anyway, because that proves our "faithfulness." No, the guru tells you, I can’t prove it – you just have to accept it on faith alone. That is what will save you. Blessed is he who believes without seeing, etc etc.
I think faith exists because humans are themselves hopeful, and even unreasonably optimistic in the face of adverse circumstances. "Faith" is basically hope with conviction. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -My problem with this faith theory is what happens when doubt creeps in. Maybe you have been reading too much, maybe someone influenced you, or perhaps just the realization that Jesus was not born on December 25th – whatever the cause, you begin to doubt the truthfulness of parts of the story, and then, if those parts are bunk, is it possible the whole religion is built on a house of cards? Pure bumpkus? Now you’ve got a problem, because the bubble of faith has been broken. You can’t just pretend to go on believing, because even if you tell others that you are still a good Christian or whatever, you can’t lie to God (or to yourself, obviously)! Once you learn that there is no Santa Claus, there is nothing you can do about believing in him again.
True, that. Yet — in the brief scan I made, I can’t find "faith" used even in the Bible to mean "strong belief in the literal nature of Adam and Eve" or "dogmatic insistence that water can turn to wine." I have the sense that, for most people, on some level they may not even identify, the "faith" has a whole lot to do with some things they instinctively *sense* about themselves. I don’t know how to do this and make it short, but my converted to fundamentalist father in law loves to intone "If you believe it, *then* you can see it." And honestly, I think he’s right — except that there’s a lot of stuff that’s gotten attached to the whole religion. In this eventuality, there is no longer a valid concept of "faith." Your beliefs in the world around you are constructed on a lifetime of learning and reasoning, and an unreasonable belief just has no place in any construct of reality. So what do you "faithy" guys think about this whole dilemma?
A scan of the gospels indicates Jesus used the word "faith" often to indicate a strong belief that God was good, and God could and would effect miraculous changes in the lives of those who believed enough to ask. The Pauline epistles focus more on faith in Jesus himself — that through Jesus, all could be saved (presumably from death, since that’s what Paul indicates is the right penalty for being human). As to the faith that good can come, I’d submit that sometimes it’s the unreasoning, unreasonable belief that it *will* which actually inspires an individual or group to work to effect good change. As to the Pauline directives, I have the sense that most humans have some subconscious awareness of their own imperfections; some subterranean, and suppressed, belief that they are, at bottom, not very good people, and probably don’t deserve much. And if belief in Jesus as a mystical atonement for those things they know they fall short in actually leads them to begin to be the people they feel like they want to be, then more power to them. Sometimes you have to believe you’re loved, all evidence to the contrary, to begin to act like a loving person. Sometimes you have to believe you’re strong, a lifetime of evidence to the contrary, to find that strength. And sometimes you have to believe that you can be good, despite your own history, to actually overcome the historic pattern of bad behavior. Sunny
no comment untill now