The Nature of faith

[Bunyip]

Yes but we can base faith on evidence. Like when a jury says guilty based on evidence and their faith they are correct.

We trust friends initially as faith probably when they were labeled an aquaintence. Repeated trustworthiness still requires faith.

There are levels of faith needed proportional the level of ignorance.

Juries? The religious meaning of faith would see a jury rejected for bias. I am referring to the biblical definition of faith, not any other usage

 

[idav]

Juries? The religious meaning of faith would see a jury rejected for bias. I am referring to the biblical definition of faith, not any other usage

Its the same, it applies. It boils down to not seeing something as evidence. Some people prefer certain holy text as evidence. People tend to believe in what works.

 

[Bunyip]

Its the same, it applies. It boils down to not seeing something as evidence. Some people prefer certain holy text as evidence. People tend to believe in what works.

They are just different definitions. I am just reacting to the definition in Hebrews 11.

 

[idav]

They are just different definitions. I am just reacting to the definition in Hebrews 11.

Yes i know. I found a verse that used evidence instead of assurance. However the defintion still covers all types of faith i think. Things hoped for any time there is room to doubt.

 

[Bunyip]

Yes i know. I found a verse that used evidence instead of assurance. However the defintion still covers all types of faith i think. Things hoped for any time there is room to doubt.

There is always room for doubt.

 

[idav]

There is always room for doubt.

Yup until we know.everything.

 

[ether-ore]

Of course it was an omission - you left out the most appropriate definition for this context, the biblical definition. LOL. 'Preconceived notion which favors my worldview' - meaning, the biblical definition. But apparently it is out of line to consult the bible, huh?

That is just plain silly. Of course I'm consulting the Bible, but it is the Bible that is being questioned. That same Paul who wrote Hebrews 11:1 also wrote Timothy 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." What do you suppose Paul meant by "rightly dividing" through study? When one studies, in order to rightly divide (or to come to a correct understanding) he gets out all references that are germane to the issue. This would include those items of information (the dictionary) which clarify a language which has been translated from a different but original text.

 

[Bunyip]

That is just plain silly. Of course I'm consulting the Bible, but it is the Bible that is being questioned. That same Paul who wrote Hebrews 11:1 also wrote Timothy 2:15: "Study to shew thyself approved unto God, a workman that needeth not to be ashamed, rightly dividing the word of truth." What do you suppose Paul meant by "rightly dividing" through study? When one studies, in order to rightly divide (or to come to a correct understanding) he gets out all references that are germane to the issue. This would include those items of information (the dictionary) which clarify a language which has been translated from a different but original text.

What is the issue? Paul is not defining 'faith' in Timothy 2:15, he is speaking of study.
I'm not suggesting that faith is unreasonable, or misplaced. I'm not doubting that many believers place great importance on theological study to inform theIr faith, nor am I suggesting that faith can not be informed by study.

No offence, but I think you are mistaking what I have said for what others may have said to you.

 

[ether-ore]

What is the issue? Paul is not defining 'faith' in Timothy 2:15, he is speaking of study.
I'm not suggesting that faith is unreasonable, or misplaced. I'm not doubting that many believers place great importance on theological study to inform theIr faith, nor am I suggesting that faith can not be informed by study.

No offence, but I think you are mistaking what I have said for what others may have said to you.

What others have said to me is not at issue here. The subject is faith and I have not varied from it.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot maintain that faith is blind while at the same time claiming not to suggest that faith is unreasonable, or more importantly. (and especially) that study doesn't inform thier faith. This is what I have been saying. If as you say, people reason upon the things that they study (i.e. the testimonies of the prophets and apostles) then that is the basis for... the evidence for their faith. Faith, by your own admission here... is not blind.

 

[ether-ore]

Hebrews 11:1. Its a basic definition of faith. There is no definition which 'nature' it has. It belongs to the person who has a certain faith.

Does one uses his reason to prevent a selfish hope? What or who gave him the evidence he relies on?

Please consider what you just said. A thing's nature is what defines it. For any concept a person possesses, it is the nature of the concept (it's idea) that he possesses.

 

[Bunyip]

What others have said to me is not at issue here.

Yes it is - you keep addressing claims others you do not identify have made, and pretend that I said them. Stop it please.

The subject is faith and I have not varied from it.

You cannot have it both ways. You cannot maintain that faith is blind while at the same time claiming not to suggest that faith is unreasonable, or more importantly. (and especially) that study doesn't inform thier faith.

Wow! How spectacularly dishonest of you! I never claimed that study can't inform their faith - I told you that already. Why the lies?

This is what I have been saying. If as you say, people reason upon the things that they study (i.e. the testimonies of the prophets and apostles) then that is the basis for... the evidence for their faith. Faith, by your own admission here... is not blind

What's going on mate? Are you some kind of con-artist? You are arguing against claims I have not made, yet again.
Bearing false witness is sinful is it not?

I did not define faith as blind, and never said faith could not be informed by study - why are you pretending that I did? Please stop being so deceptive.

 

[ether-ore]

Yes it is - you keep addressing claims others you do not identify have made, and pretend that I said them. Stop it please. Wow! How spectacularly dishonest of you! I never claimed that study can't inform their faith - I told you that already. Why the lies? What's going on mate? Are you some kind of con-artist? You are arguing against claims I have not made, yet again.
Bearing false witness is sinful is it not?

I did not define faith as blind, and never said faith could not be informed by study - why are you pretending that I did? Please stop being so deceptive.

In post #26, in response to idav who said: "I don't see that verse to mean faith is blind", (referring to Hebrews 11:!), your response was, and I quote "I do".
So who's being disingenuous now?

During the course of this discussion, I have shifted back and forth between talking about atheists generally in order to illustrate a point and you specifically to refute what you have said, but in both cases, I have stayed on topic. The topic is regarding the nature of faith and that is all I care about.

In post #2 you say: "Faith is the alternative to drawing your beliefs from reason, not the result of the application of reason. The point of faith as the bible describes it, is that it is belief in what we can not see, can not know."

In making this statement, you (no one else) are saying that reason (the result of study) is an alternative to faith. When any two things are considered alternatives to one another, that means that they are mutually exclusive... in that, you choose one or the other. THAT is the claim that you are making and in making it, you are indeed saying that faith cannot be informed by study because reason is dependent on study.

In post #10 you say: "Well according to the bible it is blind, but you can sure disagree with scripture.

I could go on, but my point in making these citations is that when you defend a position, you are making it your own. Certainly you would not defend a position you didn't believe to be true.

With regards to post #10, I attempted to make this point with you once before... that is... it is an absurdity for a non-believer to tell a believer what scripture means. And you (no one else) is attempting to tell me what a correct interpretation of scripture is. If you really did understand scripture, you would still be a believer. That you 'used' to be Catholic is irrelevant. I can only guess at why you stopped being a believer and became an atheists, but whatever the reason, it really disqualifies you from telling a believer what their faith means to them.

 

[Bunyip]

In post #26, in response to idav who said: "I don't see that verse to mean faith is blind", (referring to Hebrews 11:!), your response was, and I quote "I do".
So who's being disingenuous now?

How is it disengenuous just to disagree with Idav? Are these nasty accusations all you have?

During the course of this discussion, I have shifted back and forth between talking about atheists generally in order to illustrate a point and you specifically to refute what you have said, but in both cases, I have stayed on topic. The topic is regarding the nature of faith and that is all I care about.

How can you refute what I have said by talking about what others have said as if I said it?

In post #2 you say: "Faith is the alternative to drawing your beliefs from reason, not the result of the application of reason. The point of faith as the bible describes it, is that it is belief in what we can not see, can not know."

In making this statement, you (no one else) are saying that reason (the result of study) is an alternative to faith.

.

When any two things are considered alternatives to one another, that means that they are mutually exclusive.

No it does not. I could choose between chicken or ham for lunch, but you can still combine chicken and ham.

in that, you choose one or the other. THAT is the claim that you are making and in making it, you are indeed saying that faith cannot be informed by study because reason is dependent on study.

Why lie? I said no such thing.

In post #10 you say: "Well according to the bible it is blind, but you can sure disagree with scripture.

I could go on, but my point in making these citations is that when you defend a position, you are making it your own. Certainly you would not defend a position you didn't believe to be true.

I just referred to scripture, I did not either defend or attack the interpretation in question.

With regards to post #10, I attempted to make this point with you once before... that is... it is an absurdity for a non-believer to tell a believer what scripture means.

Why is that? What a silly thing to say.

And you (no one else) is attempting to tell me what a correct interpretation of scripture is. If you really did understand scripture, you would still be a believer. That you 'used' to be Catholic is irrelevant. I can only guess at why you stopped being a believer and became an atheists, but whatever the reason, it really disqualifies you from telling a believer what their faith means to them.

Another lie - I did no such thing.
You know perfectly well that I did not at any point tell you what your faith , means to you. Why are you making up these dishonest accusations? You also know that I only made reference to a very common Christian translation of Hebrews 11, and did not at any point in it it was the only or correct interpretation - so again, why invent these deceptions?

Frankly trying to have honest discussions about faith with people who acted like you are doing is what played the greatest part in my losing faith.

 

[ether-ore]

There is much to be said concerning the nature of faith. But I think it important to establish how one comes to have faith in the first place before proceeding.

Paul says in Hebrews 11:1: "1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."
Paul also says in Romans 10:17: "So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

The suggestion has been asserted that faith is blind because it is believed by some that Hebrews says that it is. I disagree that that is what Paul meant. In support of my position I refer to that same Paul speaking in Romans which says that faith is the result of hearing the word of God. (now we can hear the word of God, but we can also read it) The point is that hearing or reading the word of God; which are the testimonies of God's authorized servants, is the evidence on which faith comes, or on which it is based. A person does not exercise faith in something without first having some idea concerning what that something is.

In the Book of Mormon, the Book of Alma 32:26,27: it says: "Now, as I said concerning faith—that it was not a perfect knowledge—even so it is with my words. Ye cannot know of their surety at first, unto perfection, any more than faith is a perfect knowledge." --- "But behold, if ye will awake and arouse your faculties, even to an experiment upon my words, and exercise a particle of faith, yea, even if ye can no more than desire to believe, let this desire work in you, even until ye believe in a manner that ye can give place for a portion of my words."

Alma describes the process of obtaining faith: One experiments on the message (the evidence) by arousing one's faculties (reason)... Testing the words of God's authorized messengers through reason to determine whether they are true. Which, if that conclusion is reached (by the power of the Holy Ghost; because it is the Holy Ghost which validates the truthfulness of all things), then one will begin to have faith. So as Paul says in Romans, faith comes by hearing the word of God and testing the verbal or written evidence through reason as Alma says, and then seeking confirmation from the Holy Ghost through sincere prayer.