What is Faith?

[Magic Man]

"I discovered later, and I'm still discovering right up to this moment, that is it only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. By this-worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world. That, I think, is faith."
— Dietrich Bonhoeffer

And I nominate this as today's deepity of the day.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

"I discovered later, and I'm still discovering right up to this moment, that is it only by living completely in this world that one learns to have faith. By this-worldliness I mean living unreservedly in life's duties, problems, successes and failures. In so doing we throw ourselves completely into the arms of God, taking seriously, not our own sufferings, but those of God in the world. That, I think, is faith."
— Dietrich Bonhoeffer

I think that redefines faith to the point that the word loses all meaning.

It almost seems like he's decided that faith is synonymous with virtue, and has listed off what he considers to be virtuous. IMO, what he describes has nothing to do with any reasonable definition of the word "faith".

I think my biggest problem with this is that I don't think "living unreservedly..." implies "throwing ourselves completely into the arms of God". Maybe that's how he views things himself, but IMO, "faith" is the lens through which he views his actions and that allows him to come to this conclusion, not his actions themselves.

There's no inherent faith in "living unreservedly". Any faith that's in it has been put there by the person doing the living.

 

[Willamena]

I think that redefines faith to the point that the word loses all meaning.

It almost seems like he's decided that faith is synonymous with virtue, and has listed off what he considers to be virtuous. IMO, what he describes has nothing to do with any reasonable definition of the word "faith".

The quote doesn't directly define "faith," rather what he means by "faith" is to be drawn from the examples. If you get "virtuous" out of it, then so be it.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The quote doesn't directly define "faith," rather what he means by "faith" is to be drawn from the examples. If you get "virtuous" out of it, then so be it.

If that's what he means, then I think he's incorrect.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

 

[Willamena]

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

Even assuming interpretation is capable of being "incorrect," four, five, or three is just as good an interpretation as one.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

It's a riddle (apparently attributed to Abraham Lincoln, at least according to BrainyQuote):

How many legs does a dog have if you call the tail a leg? Four. Calling a tail a leg doesn't make it a leg.

 

[Willamena]

It's a riddle (apparently attributed to Abraham Lincoln, at least according to BrainyQuote):

The Riddler is rolling over in his grave.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The Riddler is rolling over in his grave.

You just say that because you got it wrong.

 

[Meow Mix]

Ah, reminds me of what's his face that said we can call points, lines and rays chairs, mugs and table legs

 

[lunamoth]

I think that redefines faith to the point that the word loses all meaning.

It almost seems like he's decided that faith is synonymous with virtue, and has listed off what he considers to be virtuous. IMO, what he describes has nothing to do with any reasonable definition of the word "faith".

I think my biggest problem with this is that I don't think "living unreservedly..." implies "throwing ourselves completely into the arms of God". Maybe that's how he views things himself, but IMO, "faith" is the lens through which he views his actions and that allows him to come to this conclusion, not his actions themselves.

There's no inherent faith in "living unreservedly". Any faith that's in it has been put there by the person doing the living.

It seems reasonable to allow people their own descriptions of faith. This was faith for Bonhoeffer. I offered it for reflection, and because his statement resonates with my own view of faith.

So, I disagree with what you wrote above. Faith is, for me, among other things, living unreservedly. Why is it difficult to understand that the experience of faith, for many, is a rich and nuanced phenomenon?

 

[waitasec]

what is faith?

doesn't matter does it cause my faith is the real one
:sarcastic

 

[lunamoth]

what is faith?

doesn't matter does it cause my faith is the real one
:sarcastic

Well, the OP question is about which aspect of faith 'you' (the responder) identifies with. As far as I can tell, only the atheists here have said that their idea of faith is the 'real' one.

 

[waitasec]

Well, the OP question is about which aspect of faith 'you' (the responder) identifies with. As far as I can tell, only the atheists here have said that their idea of faith is the real one.

tell that to the protestants and catholics in ireland....
you do realize there is sectarian strife within the muslim world...

the evidence of what faith does leads some to see it as a divider of people not a unifier. because ultimately "my faith is the one true faith"



i was responding to the title...

 

[lunamoth]

tell that to the protestants and catholics in ireland....
you do realize there is sectarian strife within the muslim world...

the evidence of what faith does leads some to see it as a divider of people not a unifier. because ultimately "my faith is the one true faith"

I think you are referring to specific religious beliefs. That's not what this thread is about.

i was responding to the title...

OK. : hamster :

 

[Magic Man]

It seems reasonable to allow people their own descriptions of faith.

Sure, but then it's also OK to let them know that their descriptions of faith don't line up with actual definitions of faith, or that their descriptions of it are completely different from standard definitions. I mean, if someone tries to use "shoe" to mean "zebra", would you say something or just let them use it incorrectly?

This was faith for Bonhoeffer. I offered it for reflection, and because his statement resonates with my own view of faith.

So, I disagree with what you wrote above. Faith is, for me, among other things, living unreservedly. Why is it difficult to understand that the experience of faith, for many, is a rich and nuanced phenomenon?

That's great and all, but all you're doing is throwing extra definitions out there. Yes, faith has several different definitions. When talking about God, though, the accurate definition is "belief without evidence".

 

[Magic Man]

Well, the OP question is about which aspect of faith 'you' (the responder) identifies with. As far as I can tell, only the atheists here have said that their idea of faith is the 'real' one.

That's because religious people love to equivocate and use all good definitions of faith as if they're the same thing. Atheists understand that there are different definitions of the word to be used in separate situations, and they have nothing to do with each other. We realize that if you're going to talk about trust or confidence, that you should use those words to avoid confusion. And if you're going to use fancy poetic phrases, they should actually mean something accurate.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

"God is" isn't illogical. Its truthfulness is also debateable. Care to try again?

Why do you say that it is logical?

All right: I'll bite. In your view, what are the prerequisites for knowledge?

I try not to set those limits, but being like everyone else, I have to so...
Knowledge, as I explained to Meow Mix earlier, is better defined as knowledge of self, rather than the physical world in which we live. It can be used that way, but it doesn't get you very far.

When you set knowledge like that, you are the parameter for knowledge. How would you define yourself?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

That doesn't remotely answer my question, and I've already addressed this. The other way to get to truth is to take wild stabs in the dark hoping you come up with the right answer (remember the dart analogy). It's possible to just pick something and believe it on faith and have it be the truth, but it's not nearly as likely as if you use reason to decide. Now would you mind actually answering the question this was supposed to be in response to? If your ideas aren't complex, why can't you express them simply?

Yes it does. Your (actually Meow Mix's) random reason theory is not what I'm talking about. We are not talking about the probability that something is true, or whether it is really 'true' or not. You're putting the cart before the horse, living in the past and the future, trying to eat the cake before it's baked or other such idioms.

What? That's what it means. "There is no spoon" means "there is no spoon". Now, would you mind explaining your reason for this question?

'There is no spoon' means a lot more than 'there is no spoon'. Yes, we know there is no spoon. But because there is no spoon, what does that mean?

I ask these questions because this is an aspect of what faith teaches you.

The only things I've said you're wrong on are the uses of certain words like faith and God. Your uses of them are different from their actual definitions. Your uses of them were wrong because they're not correct given the definitions in use by English speakers, and because your uses of them only make things immensely more complicated than they need to be. The confusion you cause can be cleared up by simply using different words. When you mean faith as in "trust, confidence", then use trust or confidence. When you want to talk about a relationship with God, then use a different word than "God", like "gomp".

If I used a different word, I'd just be making up a meaning. I didn't just make this up, as many of you think I did.

Faith is trust or confidence. Faith is also belief without evidence. Both definitions are true, both are valid, and both can be used whenever you like. Because you don't think faith in god is the same thing as trust in god doesn't mean I don't. Your opinion doesn't change the fact that its true.

 

[strikeviperMKII]

If that's what he means, then I think he's incorrect.

How many legs does a dog have if you call its tail a leg?

Depends. Did you rename 'leg' into something different?

 

[strikeviperMKII]

Sure, but then it's also OK to let them know that their descriptions of faith don't line up with actual definitions of faith, or that their descriptions of it are completely different from standard definitions. I mean, if someone tries to use "shoe" to mean "zebra", would you say something or just let them use it incorrectly?

I'll never get over the arrogance of that question.

That's great and all, but all you're doing is throwing extra definitions out there. Yes, faith has several different definitions. When talking about God, though, the accurate definition is "belief without evidence".

You have not allowed the definitions to be equivalent when talking about God. Why?