You don't seem to have a lot of sympathy or respect for skepticism, from what I have seen.Why?
Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
You don't seem to have a lot of sympathy or respect for skepticism, from what I have seen.Why?
Some meanings of "faith" are part of human nature itself.It would appear that you object to the idea that faith plays a part in Buddhism.
Merriam Webster has a different definition of 'faith' specific to the context of religion - you have mistaken it for the non religious meaning.The term "faith" appears to be a good translation of the Sanskrit "sraddha".
Merriam-Webster defines "faith" as "strong belief or trust in someone or something."
Wikipedia defines "faith in Buddhism" (or sraddha) as "an initial acceptance of the Buddha's teaching prior to realising its truth for oneself. It is an important constituent element of all traditions of Buddhism, although the kind and nature of faith changes in the different schools. Other translations of saddhā/śraddhā include confidence and trust.[1] "
You don't seem to have a lot of sympathy or respect for skepticism, from what I have seen.
Well in that it is not faith as it is defined in the context of religion - belief without evidence.I believe in appropriate skepticism. But I fail to see what relevance this has to the OP of this thread and my claim that there's faith in Buddhism.
Some meanings of "faith" are part of human nature itself.
Others are drivel.
Merriam Webster has a different definition of 'faith' specific to the context of religion - you have mistaken it for the non religious meaning.
No, you missed the definition given for the religious context. You quoted Merriam Webster, the relevant definition is identified in 2.I gave the general definition which applies how faith is employed in all contexts.
It appears you don't know what you're talking about.It would appear that you object to the idea that faith plays a part in Buddhism.
It appears you don't know what you're talking about.
You just used a bad article on wikipedia and think you know something based on it is what I have a problem with. Buddhism I have little interest in.I documented my claim that faith plays a pivotal role in Buddhism (your personal objections not withstanding).
You just used a bad article on wikipedia and think you know something based on it is what I have a problem with. Buddhism I have little interest in.
Based on sources you find credible, we could be evenly matched.
It's a better approach that way Imo.
Faith is like having luggage that you use to carry around whatever you like with the hope the zipper is closed properly, so as nothing spills out.
.
If Buddhism employed faith for understanding, then I suppose it's another venue by which the matter of faith settles well with practice then blows away with the dust upon realization.
If faith remains undifferentiated by which Buddhism is practiced, at least later on as understanding deepens, it's likely you won't get trapped by those definitions when people tout faith as being the/a precursor for Buddhist practice.
.
No, fair person. The bottom line is instead that meanings matter and that stubborn opposition to secularism is foolish.The bottom line is that faith plays a pivotal role in traditional and historical Buddhism (contrary to objections of secular Buddhists).
Your meaning of "appropriate" is rather unproper.I believe in appropriate skepticism. But I fail to see what relevance this has to the OP of this thread and my claim that there's faith in Buddhism.
Thus ignoring the actual situation.I gave the general definition
which applies how faith is employed in all contexts.
You were so confident based on a bad article that I couldn't resist.why are you participating in this thread?