Faith - Why Is It Considered A "good" Thing To Have?

[Abiyoyo]

How do you know that's what Jesus really meant?

I assume.

Were you there to know what he really meant when he said that verse?

No. Where you around during the Big Bang, or when we started 'forming' into things?

So, let me get this straight? You think it's impossible for God to use his miracles to magically give humans the power to move mountains, but you think it's possible for a mustard seed which is not sentient in anyway can have faith?

Yes.

Tell me, when was the last time you saw seeds have faith? Is there a seed heaven now or something?

A seed grows into a plant. A seed is watered by the earth, and is cultivated by the earth, and grows. Right? Did the seed have faith these things would happen?

No. So I said my faith is less than this. I guess if Christ says a mustard seed is the level of faith someone must have to move a mountain and I can't move a mountain; then my faith in that aspect of God is none, or less than none. Right? Do you think there is only one faith, or more than one type?

 

And I thought you said you couldn't know the will of God yet now you claim you do know? But even though you just bashed our opinion for being wrong, you then turn around and say this is just your opinion and not actual proof that's what Jesus really meant. If this is just your opinion, why can't we have an opinion that Jesus was delusional and thought humans could move mountains, if you admit this is just your opinion and you don't really know?

You can and last I saw, you do have that opinion.

And again, if God is all-knowing, why didn't he use his magical powers to make the verses clearer for us to understand what he said, so nobody would be confused? Doesn't the bible say that God is not the author of confusion?

 

Paul said we shouldn't be confused, not God. God's powers aren't magical, if they were then He'd be another God created by man and not the true God as I believe He is.

[DarthOkkata]

Sigh.

 

Why would we care what Paul and some even older guy thought of god? Why would we care about their opinions? Did you read the bible? They were horribly barbaric people. What would they know about God anyway? What makes them more important than any other Middle Eastern person of the day? Why are their opinions more valid? How exactly does their word override the miriad of other sources we've got from that particular period of history? Who, by the way, seem to be reacting to the appearance of Christianity as they would any other cult of the time. Nothing in any of these writings that I've heard of mentions anything that supports any biblical account other than some of the characters were real people, and the settings existed.

 

You could say the same thing about 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'.

 

Why would I care about their opinion about anything? They were terrible people. What do I care how much faith they had, or what they said about it?

 

Especially considering that the story that showed up was about two hundred years too late and in the wrong language to be anything close to a first hand account. It's a legend, an Arabic fairytale. It belongs on the shelf with Alladin, not Non fiction.

 

On the other hand. Why can't ghost fall within the realm of Science exactly? Or for that matter God? Who are you to say we've not figured out how to detect such things yet, so it can't be done? I doubt myself it will ever happen, but for different reasons I suppose. Still, it's nowhere near outside the realm of possibility, and when you do find god, we'll start discussing what he wants, if anything, from me.

 

Why would he care about me? Why would he love me? Survival of the fittest is hardly a loving comforting environment. It seems as though he created us to vent his frustrations on if the bible has anything to say about it. "My day sucks, and it's your fault, die pathetic weaklings!'

 

I believe in evolutionary science, but also expect further revision. It's kind of hard to talk your way around that one, with our knowledge of Geology, biology, and paleontology crushing the rather weak arguments against it. At the very least, the earth is much, much older than 6,000 years.

 

No young earth means no Adam and Eve. No Adam means no 'original sin', no flood, no mystic line of David, or Moses [Who has a slew of history contradictions of his own], and no reason at all for Jesus to 'die for our sins'.

 

Is being made from dirt really better than being the result of a puddle of slime? I think finding something alive would be easier to do in a puddle of goo. Simple life tends to thrive better in fluid environments.

 

There are a lot of really stupid things involved with faith. Religion is sneaky in that it preaches love, while silently building up prejudice that most christians don't realize they have. Even when confronted with it, many ignore the fact that they're giving that pair of dudes holding hands behind them far too much of their attention, fretting about how horrible it is, and pretending like they're just not going to say anything and walk away. Then shuffle off to pray for them, further cementing the unreasonable idea that they're doing something wrong. It's not the good things people don't notice.

 

Faith is a way to keep you from looking under the hood and kicking the tires. It's a diversion to keep you from seeing the man behind the curtain. It's a way to keep people from asking questions that subvert the church. Something easily accused, but not easily proven or disproved. The prefect tool for control.

 

From my perspective, you -are- delusional.

 

Enjoy your faith if you must, but I don't want to get any on me. It eats brains and makes zombies! O_o

[Legion]

We take a huge number of things "on faith" or with an implicit trust or we couldn't function.

I agree completely Deva. I suspect that very few of us take skepticism to its most extreme. I do know a guy however who is extremely skeptical. And he goes so far as to doubt the existence of a world external to himself. Whereas I have faith that there is a world “out thereâ€, he doubts it. I suppose that I could ask him what he thinks I am the next time I talk with him. Maybe he believes that my voice is but one part of his self speaking to another part of his self. I don’t know.

 

Much has been said about faith. And I doubt that I could give an authoritative treatment here. But suffice to say, I know that I have faith. Indeed it may be that I am unaware of the extent of my faith.

[DarthOkkata]

We take a huge number of things "on faith" or with an implicit trust or we couldn't function.

I agree completely Deva. I suspect that very few of us take skepticism to its most extreme. I do know a guy however who is extremely skeptical. And he goes so far as to doubt the existence of a world external to himself. Whereas I have faith that there is a world “out thereâ€, he doubts it. I suppose that I could ask him what he thinks I am the next time I talk with him. Maybe he believes that my voice is but one part of his self speaking to another part of his self. I don’t know.

 

Much has been said about faith. And I doubt that I could give an authoritative treatment here. But suffice to say, I know that I have faith. Indeed it may be that I am unaware of the extent of my faith.

 

 

I personally think it's a case of people confusing 'belief' with 'faith'. Two similar words that don't mean exactly the same thing. I have beliefs myself, but nothing I'd call 'faith'. I think that the definition of 'faith' has been so perverted and distorted that it's difficult to trust.

[Legion]

I personally think it's a case of people confusing 'belief' with 'faith'. Two similar words that don't mean exactly the same thing. I have beliefs myself, but nothing I'd call 'faith'. I think that the definition of 'faith' has been so perverted and distorted that it's difficult to trust.

How much difference is there between "eh" and "oh"? I suppose this was bound to come down to a semantic argument over the word "faith".

 

Trust, belief, faith, I suspect I have them all.

[DarthOkkata]

I personally think it's a case of people confusing 'belief' with 'faith'. Two similar words that don't mean exactly the same thing. I have beliefs myself, but nothing I'd call 'faith'. I think that the definition of 'faith' has been so perverted and distorted that it's difficult to trust.

How much difference is there between "eh" and "oh"? I suppose this was bound to come down to a semantic argument over the word "faith".

 

Trust, belief, faith, I suspect I have them all.

 

True enough. It does seem inevitable that everyone defines the word in a different way. Who's to say that even two of the most fervent of Christian Moral Nazi's Zombie Hunger Force would define it the exact same way?

 

I equate it to 'shut up and stop asking questions' because that's how I've heard it used the most. It's just, supposedly, more polite and, also supposedly, not an admission of ignorance. I've not really seen any positive effect I can equate to 'faith'.

 

Not to say I've not heard it used by people doing positive things, but it didn't seem to have much to do with what they were doing at all to be honest.

 

I don't think charity requires faith to support it. Empathy is not exclusive to the faithful.

 

It's another word with no real definitive meaning, kind of like 'sin'. Immoral and wrong I can get behind, but sin not so much.

 

It's born of the same mindset as telling someone they've got no morals because morals come from god, therefore the ones they think they have must be broken.

 

I can't recall where it was used as anything but a rally cry, or an excuse to turn conversation elsewhere, or a way to tell someone wait and maybe it will fall into your lap if you look up and ask for it a lot.

 

Faith is a word I try to avoid using when I can. It just implies too much for my taste.

[Legion]

I think I understand what you mean Darth. There are also words I no longer use because they conjure up too much garbage. And if "faith" is one of those words for you then I understand.

[Evolution_beyond]

What should it have meant? Has anyone ever been claimed to move a mountain? If not, then should 'all' the teachings of Christianity be disregarded as rhetoric? If we could move mountains, wouldn't that be a little strange. Wouldn't 'we believers' have superman abilities? I don't think my statement is that out of line. I think it confuses you to why I would not believe 'faith' could move mountains, yet believe faith could be real for other things.

 

You seem to be appealing to some kind of 'what it is reasonable to believe about our world' way of deciding what is metaphorical and what is literal in the Bible.

 

So is the resurrection of Christ also metaphorical?

[Evolution_beyond]

I look at the context of the tale. 'As small as a mustard seed'. I assume that a tiny mustard seed has more faith than me. I can't move mountains last I checked.

 

[Evolution_beyond]

Sigh.

 

Why would we care what Paul and some even older guy thought of god? Why would we care about their opinions? Did you read the bible? They were horribly barbaric people. What would they know about God anyway? What makes them more important than any other Middle Eastern person of the day? Why are their opinions more valid? How exactly does their word override the miriad of other sources we've got from that particular period of history? Who, by the way, seem to be reacting to the appearance of Christianity as they would any other cult of the time. Nothing in any of these writings that I've heard of mentions anything that supports any biblical account other than some of the characters were real people, and the settings existed.

 

You could say the same thing about 'Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade'.

 

Why would I care about their opinion about anything? They were terrible people. What do I care how much faith they had, or what they said about it?

 

I applaud you

[ShackledNoMore]

On the discussion last night in this thread on moving mountains being metaphorical:

 

The problem is, of course that the xian god doesn't even metaphorically move mountains. That's why millions of people have allegedly had one leg lengthened (imperceptibly), but nobody, EVER, has had an arm grow back. If this doesn't tell you something, it should. The parents recently in the news whose kid died of a readily medical problem certainly had faith greater than a mustard seed, they bet their kid's life on their faith. The OP was right on target: blind faith without basis can be a disastrous thing.

[Vigile]

I personally think it's a case of people confusing 'belief' with 'faith'. Two similar words that don't mean exactly the same thing. I have beliefs myself, but nothing I'd call 'faith'. I think that the definition of 'faith' has been so perverted and distorted that it's difficult to trust.

How much difference is there between "eh" and "oh"? I suppose this was bound to come down to a semantic argument over the word "faith".

 

Trust, belief, faith, I suspect I have them all.

 

It's not just semantics. When xians refer to the word faith they are talking about something entirely different than what you are discussing here. As I said, it's an important distinction. Avoiding this distinction is the same mistake xians make when they refer to ToE as "just a theory."

 

Just because the English language is sometimes weak doesn't mean that we need to give even a hint of credit to the stupidity of some apologists.

 

Unless you believe in something as weird and unfounded as a virgin birth just because someone told you so, then your belief that your existance constitutes reality isn't anywhere in the same ballpark.

[Deva]

We take a huge number of things "on faith" or with an implicit trust or we couldn't function.

I agree completely Deva. I suspect that very few of us take skepticism to its most extreme. I do know a guy however who is extremely skeptical. And he goes so far as to doubt the existence of a world external to himself. Whereas I have faith that there is a world “out there”, he doubts it. I suppose that I could ask him what he thinks I am the next time I talk with him. Maybe he believes that my voice is but one part of his self speaking to another part of his self. I don’t know.

 

Much has been said about faith. And I doubt that I could give an authoritative treatment here. But suffice to say, I know that I have faith. Indeed it may be that I am unaware of the extent of my faith.

 

I think you bring up an interesting point - skepticism as to whether the world "out there" is even real is probably a factor in my using that word "faith" because I am quite skeptical. I don't think it is a bad word, but I can understand how people could see it in a negative way. If they prefer to use the word "trust," I have no objection. I still think that we have an implicit faith or trust (based on sensory experience) that tomorrow the world will look pretty much the same as today, but life is uncertain.

[Mike D]

Wouldn't that pass 'faith'; and go into testing God.

Why is it that when a Christian has faith that god will cure their kid of terminal cancer it's not testing god, but if a Christian has faith that god will regrow the legs of a kid who lost both of them in a car accident, it is testing god. Obviously it is, or god hates kids with no legs (and most kids with terminal cancer), because he ever comes though.

 

'Don't test god' is just an excuse for people to not expect god to do anything. Which he doesn't anyway, because he doesn't exist!

[florduh]

Wouldn't that pass 'faith'; and go into testing God.

Why is it that when a Christian has faith that god will cure their kid of terminal cancer it's not testing god, but if a Christian has faith that god will regrow the legs of a kid who lost both of them in a car accident, it is testing god. Obviously it is, or god hates kids with no legs (and most kids with terminal cancer), because he ever comes though.

 

'Don't test god' is just an excuse for people to not expect god to do anything. Which he doesn't anyway, because he doesn't exist!

 

 

Absolutely dead nuts right! Thank you.

[Neon Genesis]

None of the above. If He is what you claimed, and the character you present Him as should be, then there wouldn't have been Jesus at all, He would be walking around with people, talking, speaking, visible, good would rein, bad would not exist, fall of man wouldn't have ever been thought of, physical desires of any kind would be removed or never been created, why would we eat, digest, or discrete bodily fluids. We wouldn't be, because we are finite and fail. Why would this God create something to fail? Right? So that point is moot. I explained in another post what I thought of it. I sounds hard to digest, but God either has a character by the Bibles writings or the God of Israel is misrepresented by the authors; making the Bible a book of later hope of more than we see in Christ and a cultural story from the Hebrews.

So, are you saying that God is not perfect then because it was impossible for God to create a perfect world? If God is not all-loving, all-knowing, all-powerful, then God is not perfect, and God is just as imperfect and immoral as humans are. Why should I worship a God who is not any more moral or perfect than humans are? How is worshiping God any different than worshiping Adolf Hitler? Or are you saying heaven is an impossibility since you're implying it was impossible for God to create a perfect world? The rest of your post is utter nonsense and I can't understand a word of it, so I'm not going to bother making sense of it until you make sense.

[Neon Genesis]

I assume.

Then, why can't I assume that your interpretation of the scripture is incorrect? Why is your assumption of how to interpret it more correct than mine? Is it because yours makes Jesus look good and mine doesn't and you can't handle that?

 

No. Where you around during the Big Bang, or when we started 'forming' into things?

What the fuck does the big bang theory have to do with interpreting scripture? But to answer your question, there's a big difference between scientists forming a hypothesis about the Big Bang theory and your faith in God. That difference is that unlike you scientists are not married to their opinions and are more than welcome to revising their hypothesis if evidence that is contrary to the current theory presents itself. So far there is no evidence to the contrary and the theory works just fine without God, so there is no reason to revise the theory until evidence to the contrary presents itself. So, if you think the Big Bang theory is incorrect in some way, where's your evidence to the contrary? Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. You're making an extraordinary claim that invisible sky daddies exists who created the universe and grant wishes when it feels like it and insisting that we must believe in him, so where's your extraordinary evidence to back this up with? Do you go around telling your friends that breaking a mirror will bring you seven years of bad luck and telling them not to break mirrors but don't provide any evidence to back your claims up with when you do? Why not if you don't? How is this superstition different from the superstitious belief that God is real?

 

Yes.

Since you've just admitted that you think it's impossible for God to move mountains, why should I worship God if mountains are more powerful than him? Shouldn't we be worshiping mountains then? Why should I worship God if he can't do everything when the bible claims God is perfect?

 

 

A seed grows into a plant. A seed is watered by the earth, and is cultivated by the earth, and grows. Right? Did the seed have faith these things would happen?

No. So I said my faith is less than this. I guess if Christ says a mustard seed is the level of faith someone must have to move a mountain and I can't move a mountain; then my faith in that aspect of God is none, or less than none. Right? Do you think there is only one faith, or more than one type?

This makes no sense and I'm not going to respond to this until you make sense. Are you saying that if we have more faith, then we can move mountains? But you just said that moving mountains was impossible for God. Again, you're making no sense.

 

Paul said we shouldn't be confused, not God.

Then, why did God make the bible confusing if we're not supposed to be confused? Isn't it still God's fault that we're confused?

 

God's powers aren't magical, if they were then He'd be another God created by man and not the true God as I believe He is.

How do you know miracles and magic are different? Do you have proof that spells and prayers are two different things? Aren't they essentially the same concept when you get down to it?

[Legion]

Just because the English language is sometimes weak doesn't mean that we need to give even a hint of credit to the stupidity of some apologists.

Well you didn't use the word "should" Vigile, and I'm impressed. I suppose "need" is close alternative though.

 

I understand your point. And I rarely use the word "faith" anyway. But in those few places where it seems appropriate I reserve the right to use it. I am not going to allow them to usurp the language.

[Vigile]

Well you didn't use the word "should" Vigile, and I'm impressed. I suppose "need" is close alternative though.

 

I'm still not really sure what your point is on this issue. Are you arguing that one should not use the word should? This is a board of people's opinions, is it not?

 

There is no need to worry about anyone usurping language here. The problem here is the weakness of the English language in certain areas. Faith as we are using it here has two completely different meanings.

[Legion]

I'm still not really sure what your point is on this issue. Are you arguing that one should not use the word should? This is a board of people's opinions, is it not?

I am less concerned with how things should be than I am with how things are Vigile. And in my opinion those who over use the word "should" have a certain set of personal problems. Of course it would be ridiculous and hypocritical of me to say, "you should not say should." I use it myself, but I try to keep it to a bare minimum.

[Vigile]

So in your estimation I overuse the word should and thus have a certain set of personal problems; about sum things up?

 

I am less concerned with how things should be than I am with how things are

 

This seems like a rather meaningless statement to me, especially in the context of this and perhaps other discussions where you have raised the issue.

[Legion]

So in your estimation I overuse the word should and thus have a certain set of personal problems; about sum things up?

Ah Vigile, I don't want there to be any bad blood between us man. I like you.

 

I only hope that you will come to see that there are alternatives to the use of the word should. And you are not the only one. I may try to put together a post that treats this subject. And we can duke it out.

[chefranden]

Why basically did Christ say, don't worry about what you eat, drink, when its very well covered in the Ot. Its almost like the OT was represented wrong somewhere; and Christ was suppose to fix it.

 

But he didn't fix it right? Or perhaps since Jesus didn't write or his writings were destroyed, the fix didn't get passed down. Either way it seems a useless exercise to pursue "the fix". You might just as well write your own fix. Maybe that is what you are doing and by attaching it to Jesus you lend it some authority in other venues. Jesus doesn't give it any authority here though.

 

If you are only writing of what is going on in your head we can't really relate unless you are trying to make claims that your musing explain what is real. You are too soft and mushy about what you believe, so arguing with you is kind of like fighting with jello on a hot day. This is why people get frustrated with you -- especially people that are ex-fundies and don't have any experience with la-la land Christianity.

 

Are you a reader of John Shelby Spong or Matthew Fox?

[SWIM]

Yeah. Your right. God's just 'buybull' because we can't say to the mountains move here and there.

 

Well, is it in the book or not? Is it true or bull (I can use the confused look too). And it's never "just" anything, the bible is one giant collection of bullshit about a non-existent god.

 

I love that billboard

 

You would, dipshit, I don't doubt that a bit.

 

Sometimes I agree that what some people call faith is misconstrued, as I think everyone has been through at some point; but to say it has had more of a negative impact on this world than a positive I believe is a far fetched claim. Whether it is actually faith or not, if its claimed to be 'faith' directed than it accredits its conclusion accordingly.

 

Nothing FAR FETCHED about it at all bub. I suppose snake handlers, poison drinkers, people on crusades, people burning other people alive, were not "faith based". Try pulling your head out of the sand an take a look around. Faith, blind religious faith, is a harmful thing, proven harmful over and over again by history itself.

Wouldn't that pass 'faith'; and go into testing God.

 

You cannot "test" an imaginary god. Sorry...

 

Keep the faith

 

No, you go ahead, I'm all stocked up on crazy at the moment, no room for more...

[SWIM]

then should 'all' the teachings of Christianity be disregarded as rhetoric? If we could move mountains, wouldn't that be a little strange. Wouldn't 'we believers' have superman abilities? I don't think my statement is that out of line. I think it confuses you to why I would not believe 'faith' could move mountains, yet believe faith could be real for other things.

 

 

Yes, it should ALL be totally disgarded. There are far too many "magical" things in the buybull for it to even be remotely close to true. If the book is riddled with garbage, well, it must be a dump then.

 

You can't do squat it says you can in the bible, "true" xtian or not. So what do you cling to? A religion based on a book, you yourself all but admitted you don't believe in? Why? Because "everybody" else in your world does it? Lucky for you then, that you aren't in a drug culture...

 

You only "believe" faith could be real for "other things" as long as it does NOT put your delusion to the test.