What is Faith?

[YoursTrue]

I will be looking at the account, but I was also thinking that things really got fractured when people started speaking tongues and they couldn't understand what the others were saying, also it really all started with Adam and Eve. I'll go into it later.

The account about Moses is very interesting and educational. Do you remember how he gained his way into Pharaoh's family?

 

[Aupmanyav]

In the meantime, I had no idea how many cult sects of religions are living and working amongst us here in the US. There is a show on Hulu about these cults. Check out "The 12 Tribes" if you want to see some crazy. The bad part is, these people have figured out how to operate and through yuppie Delis in college towns.

Spare me. I will do something better.

 

[blü 2]

No, you do it with a limited effect for the concept of real.

Ah, you mean a clear definition of the real? Yes, you're not the only one to find that inconvenient.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Other religions have already established that God does show himself and interact with his creation.
Why not go a step further and say the whole religion was a man-made idea?

Yeah, Hinduism said there are Gods and Goddesses. I searched and found none. Hinduism said it is OK not to have a God/Goddess, but one should do one's duty (dharma). That suited me, no necessity of Gods
Sure, religions are man-made. Some even by crooks or by psychologically disturbed.

 

[blü 2]

How could we first show that an entity that resided in another dimension far beyond our reach had objective existence?
Do you understand the problem? The GPS tracker does not extend that far.

No, I have not read that but it sounds interesting. I don't think it is a myth. I am certain that other dimensions beyond this dimension exist.
Of course, I could never prove that but it is not based on proof.

An interesting book that talks about the spiritual world and the many spheres of existence is called The Afterlife Revealed.
This is not a Baha'i book, but it is congruent with what little has been revealed about the afterlife in the Baha'i Writings.

"At the very foundation of religious faith and hope is a belief that consciousness will survive death and that we will live on in another dimension of reality. But that foundation easily crumbles when scientific minds are unable to wrap their brains around an afterlife, when they are unable to visualize a non-material world. As the foundation gives way, the philosophy of materialism takes hold and gives rise to moral decadence, egocentricity, hypocrisy, hatred, disorder, flux, strife, chaos, and fear. Such seems to be the state of the world today. There is so much to be found outside the highly guarded boundaries of mainstream science and orthodox religion for those willing to open their minds to it, for those willing to recognize that the dissemination of Truth did not stop with the good books of organized religion and cannot always be found in the laboratory.

Beginning in 1848, a number of sensitive people began developing as mediums, bringing forth communications from the spirit world. One of the skeptics investigating the "popular madness" was Professor Robert Hare of the University of Pennsylvania. Intending to debunk it all, Hare would, after extensive research, become a believer. When he asked an apparently advanced spirit what it was all about, he was told that it was "a deliberate effort, on the part of the inhabitants of the higher spheres, to break through the partition which has interfered with the attainment, by mortals, of a correct idea of their destiny after death." Unfortunately, both orthodox religion and mainstream science, acting out of ego and fear, have rebuked the efforts of those inhabitants of the higher spheres to enlighten us, thus permitting the foundations of both faith and hope to further crumble.

In The Afterlife Revealed, Michael Tymn sets forth some of the most credible messages from the spirits relative to the nature of their world. Instead of a heaven-hell dichotomy, we are told that there are many levels, or as Jesus is quoted, "many mansions," and that we cross over to the "other side" based on what might be called a "moral specific gravity." We discover a Divine plan - one of attainment and attunement, of gradual spiritual growth, of evolution of spirit through progressively higher planes. We see how we are really souls occupying bodies rather than bodies housing souls and how our souls are progressing in finding their way back to Oneness with the Creator through the challenges, the adversities, the trials and tribulations offered us in a particular lifetime."

Amazon.com

But mediums, quite apart from their well-earned reputation for fakery, produce no examinable evidence, no satisfactory demonstration, no repeatable experiment. One day (to my immense surprise) they may, but meanwhile, they hain't.

So I suspect that I might become interested in the books you mention after they do that, but until then, I suspect not.

How many of them have expertise in the theorems of n-space maths, btw?

 

[Trailblazer]

But mediums, quite apart from their well-earned reputation for fakery, produce no examinable evidence, no satisfactory demonstration, no repeatable experiment. One day (to my immense surprise) they may, but meanwhile, they hain't.

I am sure there are a lot of fraudulent mediums but I think there are some legitimate ones too.
No, there is no examinable evidence, no satisfactory demonstration, no repeatable experiment. It is not repeatable becaue every communication is different. There is evidentiary support, which means that a legitimate medium can contact a spirit and get information they had no way of knowing because the person to hired them to communicate to their family member told them nothing about that family member they were contacting.

 

[CG Didymus]

Yeah, Hinduism said there are Gods and Goddesses. I searched and found none. Hinduism said it is OK not to have a God/Goddess, but one should do one's duty (dharma). That suited me, no necessity of Gods
Sure, religions are man-made. Some even by crooks ore by psychologically disturbed.

How easy is it for someone to claim to be a prophet of some God? And say, "Listen to what I say, because God is going to cause a great turmoil and only those that truly believe and follow the precepts he gave me will survive." And there's always some that are going to believe.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Very easy. Just be bold enough to make the claim, no evidence necessary.
Every other street in an Indian city is likely to have a prophet. That makes Hindus doubly cautious. We don't go by faith, we go by evidence.
See how a so-called Hindu God-man who is wanted for rape in India fooled UN and 30 US cities.

Nithyananda's Kailasa: UN to ignore remarks of fugitive India guru's fictional country

People claiming to represent the United States of Kailasa had participated in two UN committee meetings.

www.bbc.com

How self-proclaimed godman Nithyananda's 'fake country' Kailasa conned 30 US cities

The report said that the sister-city agreement between Newark and the “United States of Kailasa” was inked on January 12 and the signing ceremony took place at the City Hall in Newark.

www.businesstoday.in

Nithyananda's 'fake country' Kailasa cons 30 US cities with 'sister-city' scam: Report - Times of India

Rest of World News: Self-proclaimed godman and fugitive Nithyananda's "United States of Kailasa" has signed a "cultural partnership" with over 30 American cities, a media

timesofindia.indiatimes.com

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I am sure there are a lot of fraudulent mediums but I think there are some legitimate ones too.

No, there is no examinable evidence, no satisfactory demonstration, no repeatable experiment. It os not repeatable because every communication is different. There is evidentiary support, which means that a legitimate medium can contact a spirit and get information they had no way of knowing because the person to hired them to communicate to their family member told them nothing about that family member they were contacting.

Unfortunately, it is true that there are some fraudulent mediums whose deception has harmed the reputation of the mediums who are genuine. As I advised in another thread, you need to be cautious when reading anything psychic-related on the internet and don't believe everything you read. Not everything you read online about psychic healing, mediumship, or anything else psychic is true. Many false psychic ability claims are made online by people who have no more psychic ability than a pile of rocks, and they harm the reputation and public perception of genuine psychic mediums such as myself (as well as genuine psychics). I've spent over a year on this forum sharing my stories and demonstrating that what I say about my mediumship is true in my own threads and many others. I've been open about my mediumship and have shared specifics about my experiences as a medium in many of my paranormal-related posts. As I've previously stated, the reason I post on RF is to share my experiences and educate others about the paranormal. Also, I've noticed that most people who deride psychic mediums have never actually spoken to one in person. And those who have spoken with someone who claimed to be a psychic medium either met someone who was not genuine or were so cynical that they didn't believe what the medium told them.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Ah, you mean a clear definition of the real? Yes, you're not the only one to find that inconvenient.

The problem is that a definition of X is Y don't necessarily make X is Y a fact. If that was the case, the definition of God, as God is the creator of the universe would make that a fact. But that is not unique to the word "God". It applies to all definitions and has to be checked. Including your definition of real.

I will be honest. You don't get when you do that as doing philosophy. And it has nothing to do with real as such. It applies to a lot of words like evidence, truth, proof, rational, and so on.

 

[RestlessSoul]

You're giving life advice to strangers who you presume are all anguished and clingy? Thanks, but I've got a worldview that I has served me well.

Life is but a dream, huh? When you realize that we can actually have knowledge and make good decisions resulting in desired outcomes because of it, when you understand that people can live meaningful lives better without a groundless worldview that depicts themselves as plankton floating merrily, merrily, merrily, merrily gently down the stream, then you'll have something.

This is an open forum, and you do not control how it unfolds.

It looks like you've changed your tune already. Of course, you probably want to be the one who decides what constitutes a contribution.

Yeah, you did: "We know the attributes of God by what the messengers reveal in scripture." That's a belief, a claim, an implied argument, and a fallacious one at that.

And there it is again, the claim you claim you didn't claim. Here you are using scripture as evidence and believing its claims, which you have called justified by that evidence. Sorry, but you commit logical error after logical error (fallacy).

You wanted fallacies pointed out to you. That was another. Your conclusion is a non sequitur.

Nobody has called themselves superior. They are more skilled thinkers. If you judge your worth by that, then I suppose you might feel inferior.

You've told me that you hate it.

If you can't obtain supporting evidence for your belief, you probably shouldn't believe it. You see this inaccessibility as justification for belief in the nonexistent, but it's how critical thinkers decide that the opposite is the preferred course. It's how they avoid all kinds of false beliefs about imagined entities lacking empirical support. But for you, it's a reason to believe. So why stop with gods? What else is out there in other dimensions generating no evidence? Whatever you wish if you have no empirical criteria for belief. Is Lex Luthor there? Let's just say yes, he is. Why not? You're not expecting evidence from another dimension, so you have all the same evidence you have for your god belief - bupkis.

Our lives are but passing clouds, my friend. No matter how tight your grip on what you conceive reality to be, in the end it all slips through your hands.

 

[PearlSeeker]

But you're just restating the error. Faith is not the expectation of a result. If we expect a given result, then we don't need have faith. Because we have that expectation. Expectation is an expression of surety. Surety does not need faith. Faith and surety are mutually exclusive of each other. It's only when we have doubt, because we don't have surety, that we need to engage in faithfulness.

When religions preach "belief" they are preaching surety. They are preaching the expectation that their version of truth is THE truth. That there is no reason or place for doubt. And that is a position that does not require our engaging in faithfulness. Why would we need faith when we have surety? When we have the undoubted expectation that our presumed truth is THE truth? And that we already know the results?

This is how religions fail us when they preach belief instead of faith. When they deny doubt and embrace the pretense of, and expectation of knowing what God is, what God wants, and what will come to pass as a result. They encourage delusion, and hubris. And that's very often what results.

Do You know the song Hallelujah by Cohen? From lyrics: "Your faith was strong but you needed proof." Looks like people understand the word faith in different ways. I thought faith is surety without proof.

Yes, some religions are dogmatic.

 

[PearlSeeker]

@PureX

"Faith believes in God and rejects everything that is opposed to it, such as, deliberate doubt, unbelief, heresy, apostasy, and schism." (Catholic Compendium)

 

[PureX]

No, we do not possess the capacity to logically know 'God.' Nobody knows God with logic since God can never be proven with logic.

You are saying that if a believer does not have doubts that believer is deluding him or herself.
That is as much as saying everyone should have doubts, or else they are deluding themselves.

Yes, that is what I am saying. To reject our doubt is to reject our humanity. To reject logic is to reject a mechanism that helps to keep us honest and humble. And for what? So we can pretend we are omniscient? Like we're some sort of gods, ourselves? Or so we don't have to rely on faith and the discomfort of not knowing our own fate?

Gandhi once wrote that "lying is the mother of all violence". And he was right. As all of mankind's inhumanity begins with our telling ourselves that we have the right to presume that we are as the gods, ourselves; allowed to lord ourselves over others, and over the whole world. As in the story of Eden; it was mankind's original sin. The sin that underpins all others. The sin of presuming ourselves to be the equal of the gods; of possessing the knowledge of good and evil that we can then use to condemn and punish and "correct" any and all that do not serve our false and inflated idea of our own divinity.

Even in my own life I have experienced the insanity of rejecting logic and reason in favor of some fantasy that I had gained magical access and insight into the truth of things. When it was nothing more than self-delusion and fear and ego running amok.

If we don't have doubts we don't ave doubts. Should we say we have doubts when we have no doubts? That would be dishonest.

If we don't have doubts when being doubtful and skeptical is both healthy and reasonable, then we should seek help. Because we are losing touch with reality in favor of something that is acting like a drug in us.

Why isn't it logical, according to the definition of logical I posted above?
'Logical' rejection of others? Why is their rejection logical?
Atheists 'believe' that their rejection of scriptures is logical but I disagree. I believe their rejection of all scriptures is illogical.

To a heroin addict it is logical to forfeit reality for the sublime euphoria created in him by the drug. Life: not so good. Being high: amazingly good. It's an easy choice to make. It's "logical". And the euphoria feels real. It is, real.

But it's also unnatural. And it's dishonest. Because the euphoria is chemically induced. It's an illusion. And when the effect it creates wears off, the illusion vanishes. Because it was not the truth of his existence.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Do You know the song Hallelujah by Cohen? From lyrics: "Your faith was strong but you needed proof." Looks like people understand the word faith in different ways. I thought faith is surety without proof.

Yes, some religions are dogmatic.

Except ye see signs and wonders, ye will not believe

John 4:48

 

[PureX]

Do You know the song Hallelujah by Cohen? From lyrics: "Your faith was strong but you needed proof." Looks like people understand the word faith in different ways. I thought faith is surety without proof.

Yes, some religions are dogmatic.

People misunderstand faith in different ways. That does not justify their misunderstanding. Nor excuse it. Religions become dogmatic because they seek "belief" instead of faith. They reject the reasonable presence of doubt because they want total control over people's minds and actions. Which is why it's so important to understand the difference between faith and belief. And why allowing ourselves and each other to doubt, matters.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Simply trust:
Do not the petals flutter down
Just as they should?
- Issa

That’s faith, right there

 

[PureX]

Simply trust:
Do not the petals flutter down
Just as they should?
- Issa

That’s faith, right there

Actually, that's just poetry.

 

[PureX]

@PureX

"Faith believes in God and rejects everything that is opposed to it, such as, deliberate doubt, unbelief, heresy, apostasy, and schism." (Catholic Compendium)

That's not faith. That's willful ignorance supporting unmitigated bias.

 

[RestlessSoul]

Actually, that's just poetry.

Just?