Faith Defined

[(Q)]

It appears many don't understand that there are two definitions of faith:

1) A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

2) Complete confidence in a person or plan.

Note that the first definition is faith in the supernatural so it is NOT based on evidence or observation. The second definition however IS based on evidence and observation.

Carry on.

Q

 

[mis-t-highs]

yes agreed:

1 = belief (canon, church, communion, confession, connection, conviction, credo, creed, cult, denomination, doctrine, dogma, doxy, gospel, orthodoxy, persuasion, piety, piousness, principle, profession, religion, revelation, sect, teaching, tenet, theism, theology, worship) for the delusional, blind faith.

2 = trust ( acceptance, allegiance, assent, assurance, belief, certainty, certitude, confidence, constancy, conviction, credence, credit, credulity, dependence, faithfulness, fealty, fidelity, hope, loyalty, reliance, stock, store, sureness, surety, troth, truth, truthfulness) this is the one true faith( double entente),humanity.

 

[fadeaway humper]

That, and the fact that persons and plans tend to actually exist.

 

[Cris]

Be nice if this was sticky thread since the issue comes up frequently.

 

[Jenyar]

No, the separation of the two terms is artificial. We do have some information about God, but it doesn't include visual confirmation. Therefore we have faith that He exists based on other evidence.

Similarly, when we trust someone, it is based on what we know up to a certain point. Most children are able to trust their parents based on a few years of experience, even though they have no clue what their parents did for the decades before that. Do they remain agnostic until their parents can prove conclusively that they are trustworthy? They trust based on faith.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

It appears many don't understand that there are two definitions of faith:

1) A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

2) Complete confidence in a person or plan.

Note that the first definition is faith in the supernatural so it is NOT based on evidence or observation. The second definition however IS based on evidence and observation.

Carry on.

Q

I am going to assert another definition of faith that religious folk (especially
christians) use:

Faith - Unconditinal trust that an expectation will be met by 'God'.

The expectation can be very reasonable or it can be improbable or even
impossible.

Example: I have faith that God will cure my cancer.
Translation: I unconditionally trust God to cure my cancer.
Example: I have faith that I can walk on water.
Translation: I unconditionally trust God will allow me to walk on water.

 

[Cris]

Jenyar,

No, the separation of the two terms is artificial.

I understand you must take that position because to admit otherwise would be to admit your own position is untenable. But your argument here fails miserably.

We do have some information about God, but it doesn't include visual confirmation.

No you do not. You have absolutely nothing that indicates a god exists. Can you quote anything that does not have a more credible explanation as human imagination?

Therefore we have faith that He exists based on other evidence.

And here is the crux – you claim other evidence but cannot produce any – your argument fails. This is BLIND FAITH – the first definition that (Q) defined.

Similarly, when we trust someone, it is based on what we know up to a certain point.

Yes that was the point – that knowledge is called evidence – the trust is not blind faith.

Most children are able to trust their parents based on a few years of experience, even though they have no clue what their parents did for the decades before that.

And that experience is not blind is it – that is their evidence that their parents can be trusted.

Do they remain agnostic until their parents can prove conclusively that they are trustworthy?

As I said in the other thread on faith – this activity is natural inductive reasoning – one doesn’t need absolute proof but some historical or statistical evidence that good past conduct might well be preserved in future events. This is not blind faith.

They trust based on faith.

Indeed and that was the second definition defined by (Q) – it is not blind but based on some evidence.

So despite your opening false assertion we can see the very clear distinction between the two definitions.

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Jenyar has a habit of dancing around the issues with the intention of twisting them so that they appear to confirm Christianity perpetuates the truth. In his great defense of Christianity, Jenyar's apologetics point fingers right back where they come from -- Christianity. If Jenyar had something novel to say about Christianity, I would defend his right to say it, but that's not the case. Jenyar is always in defense mode, and it's quite obvious that he struggles as he dances around the issues to prove anything positive about Christianity. If he wants to help the cause of Christianity, he should quietly dance off the stage and let Christianity fend for itself. I rest my case.

 

[Blandnuts]

So what kind of faith do we have in money?

 

[robtex]

Q good stuff. Part one might be better associated with the def for theism. I like part 2 simple and to the point.

 

[Crunchy Cat]

So what kind of faith do we have in money?

I suppose some people have an unconditinal trust that an expectation will be
met by having / spending money.

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

It appears many don't understand that there are two definitions of faith:

1) A strong belief in a supernatural power or powers that control human destiny.

2) Complete confidence in a person or plan.

How do you know that these definitions are correct?
What do you mean by strong belief?
If someone has "complete confidence in a person, where does faith come in?

Note that the first definition is faith in the supernatural so it is NOT based on evidence or observation. The second definition however IS based on evidence and observation.

Those are seriously inept definitions which have nothing to do with the real meaning of faith. We can believe we will win the lottery, or we can have confidence that our cell phone will get nicked if left displayed on the dashboard of our car, but it doesn't mean we have faith in anything.
What is wrong with; Heb 11:1 - Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen, as a definition of 'faith'?

Jan Ardena.

 

[fahrenheit 451]

jan that is very simular to what it says in the part 1, and part 2 is what has happened to the word since your biblical times.
most dictionarys I've read, have two distinct meanings, for faith.

 

[water]

If he wants to help the cause of Christianity, he should quietly dance off the stage and let Christianity fend for itself. I rest my case.

So you feel like you can tell other people what they ought to do?
Because you know what Christianity is and how it is supposed to be defended, and how not?


***

You have absolutely nothing that indicates a god exists. Can you quote anything that does not have a more credible explanation as human imagination?

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

Do you have anything but human imagination to explain that there is no God?

 

[(Q)]

How do you know that these definitions are correct?

Both of us have faith, yet neither one of us will accept the others definition as their brand of faith, therefore two definitions are required.

What do you mean by strong belief?

A belief that is unshakeable in light of contradicting evidence.

If someone has "complete confidence in a person, where does faith come in?

Confidence is in the knowledge gained from observation while faith is the motive for an action taken based on that confidence.

 

[Neildo]

You should add in another explination towards faith when it comes to understanding our past. Any past event in which a person hasn't fully experienced for themselves requires faith. Even with tons of evidence, it still requires faith because that evidence doesn't give a true step-by-step order of the events. We can only make general theories as to what happened but we'll still be left with huge gaps of the everything that happened before the final outcome of the event. The outcome is really the only thing we'll know, not the specifics before then. And when there is evidence of what has happened before the final event, people in charge of "figuring it all out" gets to pick and choose which evidence is true or not to fit into their theory rather than working their theory towards the evidence that is found.

This is one of the things that bugs me about ancient history -- the picking and choosing. There will be written and other such evidence, and people will pick and choose that evidence to fit their own theory and just dismiss the rest as myth. Take ancient Sumeria for example. People are mystified as to where Sumerians came from before they inhabited Mesopotamia even though there are tablets that flat out tell them where they came from. Everyone sure puts trust in them and uses most all the other tablets they find but because their origins tell of more ancient people before them and the like, it is dismissed as mythological and well, that's complete bull***t. They sure have faith in the past historians about most of what is read yet all of a sudden they decide not to use what is written about their origins because oh my god, it goes against modern theories, sounds too mythical, and there is no current backing proof other than the tablets themselves despite the fact that duh, good luck finding that proof when 99% of the worlds oceans, seas, and underearth remains archaelogically unexplored. The evidence is right there yet they dismiss it.

The reason why I bring that up is because the same applies to the Bible in that there is written proof yet people ignore it because it sounds so mythical. People have no problem accepting other old documents but because something sounds mythical, it's ignored with a heated passion. Mention myths and some people will get up in arms, lol.

And yes, I know that the Bible is a compliation of various stories, history, and the like from past religions and civilizations so that's another reason why people don't like -- aside from the main reason of it sounding so mythical -- as it makes it seem fraudulent, but the problem I have is even when one traces back most of the things that were borrowed in the Bible to the past religions and civilizations, those fraudulent-haters still won't believe it because it'll be dismissed as myth. Why even trust any ancient writings at all if one is going to pick and choose what they find to fit with their theories? Don't even bother giving us unimportant details of the past if one is going to discredit the most important of all the writings of the past. I could care less if an ancient civilizaiton fought with spears, did this or that, ate this or that, was a farming community, etc and anything else they find out from writings or other things found if they're going to ignore the holy grail of history which is the origins of ourselves.

Just because one may be afraid to accept some unconventional evidence about our past that they find, don't just toss it aside just because they're a chickenshit and it doesn't fit their original theory, go ahead and include that in their theory because they're going to be no more right or wrong than the next person about our origins. At least there's is a little more legit having the most original of all the shared world-wide stories. That's more believable than some of the other things we hear about today. Especially when we'll never know the past due to not having seen it ourselves, we need all the explinations we can get from the people of the past. We have faith in the past writings we find, but why not all? Faith is useless if it's not absolute. Picking and choosing just leads to a tangled web of explination towards our past and no wonder why people don't even bother anymore. That's what deceptive picker and choosers do to us. Myths exist because there is a hint of truth to them (only a hint as the myth grows older but more truer the closer we hear of its origins).

- N

 

[Jan Ardena]

(Q),

Both of us have faith, yet neither one of us will accept the others definition as their brand of faith, therefore two definitions are required.

What do you mean by "brand of faith?"
As far as i can understand, faith is something that we have to have, where we are faced with a decision to make without ever knowing for sure whether we are right or wrong. Otherwise there is no need for faith.
Me not accepting what you have faith in is no different than me not accepting who you love. It would have nothing to do with your faith, and everything to do with your character, belief system or lack thereof. You, I, or anyone else cannot demonstrate your faith at will, it can only become manifest at a time when it is needed.

What do you mean by strong belief?

A belief that is unshakeable in light of contradicting evidence.

Why only in "light of contradicting evidence?"

If someone has "complete confidence in a person, where does faith come in?

Confidence is in the knowledge gained from observation while faith is the motive for an action taken based on that confidence.

Then the second definition in your opener, is not a definition of faith, it is only a reason why one would act. Why do you think no.2 describes "faith"?

Jan Ardena.

 

[(Q)]

What do you mean by "brand of faith?"

As in the above definitions. 1 4 u & me 4 2.

As far as i can understand, faith is something that we have to have, where we are faced with a decision to make without ever knowing for sure whether we are right or wrong. Otherwise there is no need for faith.

I'm faced with having to make right or wrong decisions every day. From experience I have faith that most of my decisions will be right, but know some will be wrong.

You on the other hand cannot possibly make a wrong decision, whether it leads to buying a winning lottery ticket to getting hit by a bus. Its all part of gods plan, and you couldn't possibly be unhappy or disagree with gods plans, right?

Me not accepting what you have faith in is no different than me not accepting who you love. It would have nothing to do with your faith, and everything to do with your character, belief system or lack thereof.

It's not a matter of you accepting in what I have faith, it is a matter of not accepting my definition of faith. You can't possibly have the same brand of faith as me because your life is dictated by your gods plan. For you, the only faith is in your god knowing that he will guide you, irregardless of that bus you didn't see coming.

You, I, or anyone else cannot demonstrate your faith at will, it can only become manifest at a time when it is needed.

My faith is manifest during all my waking hours. I never cease to have faith.

Why only in "light of contradicting evidence?"

I can't claim to say in light of no evidence, only contradicting evidence. That would be a logical fallacy.

Then the second definition in your opener, is not a definition of faith, it is only a reason why one would act. Why do you think no.2 describes "faith"?

Is not your faith the reason you act?

 

[Medicine*Woman]

RosaMagika: So you feel like you can tell other people what they ought to do? Because you know what Christianity is and how it is supposed to be defended, and how not?
*************
M*W: Rosa, you obviously didn't understand my point. Jenyar has a bad habit of overkill in the defense of Christianity. Like Shakespeare said, "s/he doth protest too much." If he wants to defend his precious Christianity, as I'm sure he does, then he needs to quit dancing around the issues as he brings confusion and doubt to his position and to Christianity. You seem to think I was telling him what to do when I was simply giving him advice on my perception of his lengthy and forced apologetics.

BTW, I thought you were leaving the Religion forum. Good Bye!

 

[water]

Rosa, you obviously didn't understand my point. Jenyar has a bad habit of overkill in the defense of Christianity. Like Shakespeare said, "s/he doth protest too much." If he wants to defend his precious Christianity, as I'm sure he does, then he needs to quit dancing around the issues as he brings confusion and doubt to his position and to Christianity. You seem to think I was telling him what to do when I was simply giving him advice on my perception of his lengthy and forced apologetics.

No. What you are pushing is, "MedicineWoman is right, and everybody else who doesn't think the way she does is wrong."

BTW, I thought you were leaving the Religion forum. Good Bye!

Are you saying that you want me out of here?