Why Is Faith A Virtue?

[Guest end3]

Faith......That the thing greater that we are predestined within has the same outcome as the lesser thing we can tenuously control.

 

Sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to say. It looks like you just threw a bunch of big words together to me. Hopefully someone else understands it though...

 

Just trying to say CD, that we have faith in our outcome being things within a greater thing....humans within the universe. I would think to some extent that we are predestined to whatever outcome the universe will have. But you take the things "smaller" than ourselves that we can manipulate......we "know" with greater certainty what their outcome will be because they are predestined by us and our decisions.

 

I would think faith is a mental attempt to "control" the destination or outcome greater than us.

[Vigile]

This stuff makes no sense to me AM. It appears to me as if someone is just making up definitions that don't fit the common usage of the English language, which in the end causes a confusion between what most mainstream religious people are doing and what the more esoteric crowd that you seem to fit in are trying to say.

 

I believe I have a pretty good grasp of the meaning of xian faith and what it comprises having spent more than 20 years involved with it and actually paying close attention to its teachings. I don't know what the heck your quote in #18 is trying to say about it. I think it would be more useful for communication purposes if you or those in your camp would adopt different terms because I think you are talking about a completely different subject than the OP.

[Noggy]

Because Jesus said it was.

 

Otherwise, it isn't. Its called dogmatism and it's a vice.

[Antlerman]

This stuff makes no sense to me AM. It appears to me as if someone is just making up definitions that don't fit the common usage of the English language, which in the end causes a confusion between what most mainstream religious people are doing and what the more esoteric crowd that you seem to fit in are trying to say.

 

I believe I have a pretty good grasp of the meaning of xian faith and what it comprises having spent more than 20 years involved with it and actually paying close attention to its teachings. I don't know what the heck your quote in #18 is trying to say about it. I think it would be more useful for communication purposes if you or those in your camp would adopt different terms because I think you are talking about a completely different subject than the OP.

I think the use of those terms is in fact appropriate. Your experience in religion is not reflective of ALL experience in religion (even if it is reflective of a lot of your mainstream believers). The use of faith as something beyond mere belief is an appropriate word in the experience of it beyond mere belief. It is not a belief in what is seen, objects, but a hope and pull towards what is not dependent on a cognitive apprehension. What on earth else would you call that? It is 'believing' that what it does not yet fully apprehend is in fact there to yet attain.

 

My point is that to recognize the different levels of belief and faith has entirely different depths (or lack of depth) of meaning. To narrowly call rigid adherence to dogma an act of 'faith' is not appropriate in my opinion, and to equate 'faith' operating at the level I'm referring with that which is characterized as inflexible adherence to beliefs, is completely inappropriate. It does not explain behavioral differences. You cannot account for those who are willing to abandon errant beliefs, and yet continue to 'believe' there is something there they can't quite explain at that point. How does that "faith" compare with the "faith" that is unwilling to consider anything that challenges those beliefs. Is it a 'cognitive dissonance'? No, it is not at conflict with a set of beliefs.

 

What was not included in the quote I gave is that that kind of 'faith' that is not married to belief is what is responsible for someone moving beyond that faith into actual direct experience. So I think the point of dropping the word 'faith' to the 'true believer' class is appropriate, and helpful to understand what exactly it is in someone that compels them towards actual, genuine realization beyond 'beliefs' and beyond 'faith', on the path of real transformation. Calling faith 'wishful' thinking may sound great and all, but then whatever that form of 'wishful thinking' is it leads to actual gain and actual change.

 

Hence why I said and say, that faith is beyond mere belief. The 'true believer' has beliefs, and the fact they can't roll with challenges to those beliefs betrays a lack of faith. It operates differently, and those who hold it behave entirely different. In other words there is a marked difference, demonstrated through resulting behaviors.

[Vigile]

I think the use of those terms is in fact appropriate. Your experience in religion is not reflective of ALL experience in religion

 

Poll this site. 99% will side with me here on my religious experience.

 

Forgive me AM, but I honestly don't know what you are talking about here. It's the language you use, the concepts I can't empathize with or the direction you are going, I don't know, but none of it gels with me. I don't think any of it reflects the past experience of the 99% on this site I referred to above, which we rejected when we deconverted.

 

I would again, argue, however, that you are using the word faith well outside the context of the way the OP was referring to, which is also the way virtually every xian in the US and probably the western english speaking world refer to it.

[Antlerman]

I think the use of those terms is in fact appropriate. Your experience in religion is not reflective of ALL experience in religion

 

Poll this site. 99% will side with me here on my religious experience.

I think 99% is a little on the high side. But regardless of that, it is my belief that most religions begin as an esoteric response and a set of symbols and language are created to describe that esoteric experience. As religions, or rather movements, become a religion it moves from esoteric to exoteric. The same words are used, but the meanings are to say the least superficial shells, and get bandied about as 'spiritual words' that become part of the edifice of that hollow structure. This is where the 'true believer' claims these words as icons of his identification with the group, "Keep the faith", and whatnot.

 

But again, I come back to this, there are those who the word has a different meaning, and different role, and a different function. Cause and effect. The behaviors are different. Are you saying all people in all religions approach it and respond to it in the identical fashion? If it is a number of 1% that experience it at a higher level, in an esoteric vertical direction, versus a horizontal exoteric direction, then it is that same 1% and rarer, that 0.01%, that are the ones who have actual experience that goes beyond mere belief in an exoteric way that those words have a real, deeper, and more meaningful expression. Just because a word becomes a 'buzz word' in the masses does not mean it is meaningless in a context beyond populous drivel.

 

So why look at the word in a rarer form? Because it is a valid word and it's real meat is gutted out by the 'true believers'. It is a valid word, and a valid experience that in fact does speak to a reality in many people. It is reclaiming the word from being little more than political drivel. It is a word that speaks to actual human experience, that functions outside and beyond belief systems themselves. When the OP blanket statement swipes all faith as thus and so, that is in fact buying into the true believer misuse of the word devoid of real meaning, and completely eliminating any recognition of it as an entirely valid human experience that has valid and positive results. You're right, a different word should be used, but it is a word for the true believers, and that word isn't faith - it's belief.

 

Forgive me AM, but I honestly don't know what you are talking about here.

Hopefully I'm exposing you to a different way of understanding these things than what the machine pumps out in its exoteric religion, surfaces, not depth and dimension. These words do have real meaning that isn't 'woo-woo'.

 

It's the language you use, the concepts I can't empathize with or the direction you are going,

I'm already there.

 

I don't know, but none of it gels with me.

I'm raising the bar in understanding this stuff, reclaiming it from the 'true believers'. If you don't relate to it personally that's perfectly fine. But at least rationally this in fact is very coherent and in fact addresses what is observed behaviorally much better than the sort of conflation of terms we see happen all the time. It is true the words are interchangeable in common speech, but again, CONTEXT. In the context I am talking about Faith is very different than faith in the true believer camps.

 

I don't think any of it reflects the past experience of the 99% on this site I referred to above, which we rejected when we deconverted.

Personally, I think that figure is probably closer to maybe 85%, or less. But I'm sure that that 15% can understand the difference in reading about this as they personally relate to those differences. It's those that 'have that leaning' as you've put it. You don't as you say, and so it's not an experience where seeing this explained will resonate with you. It sure does for me, and in light of this context it makes a whole lot more sense and accurately reflects what is both experienced and observed. It's not neat, clean and easy, but then these are in fact complex issues. It's the same thing with the use of the word religion. I have a whole thread on that showing the different contexts and meaning of the word religion. It's the same thing with saying God. God to me is a valid term, even though "99% of people" may understand it to mean some old man in the sky. It is therefore invalid to say "God is a delusion" when my views are not addressed. It is therefore invalid to say faith is invalid, when everyone's experiences are not recognized.

 

I would again, argue, however, that you are using the word faith well outside the context of the way the OP was referring to, which is also the way virtually every xian in the US and probably the western english speaking world refer to it.

What better way to raise the bar and reclaim the word for humanity.

[mymistake]

It seems to me that different people are using the same word to mean different things. One is talking about a type of faith that is not found in Christianity. Others are talking about the Christian faith. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. Just saying that language gets confusing due to a lack of words in this area.

[Antlerman]

It seems to me that different people are using the same word to mean different things. One it talking about a type of faith that is not found in Christianity. Others are talking about the Christian faith. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. Just saying that language gets confusing due to a lack of words in this area.

But that is found in the Christian religion too.

[mymistake]

It seems to me that different people are using the same word to mean different things. One it talking about a type of faith that is not found in Christianity. Others are talking about the Christian faith. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. Just saying that language gets confusing due to a lack of words in this area.

But that is found in the Christian religion too.

 

In that case I have no idea what is going on. Perhaps since my experience is limited to the fundamentalism that is popular in the U.S. you are talking about something outside that limited scope? I don't know.

[Vigile]

Hopefully I'm exposing you to a different way of understanding these things than what the machine pumps out in its exoteric religion, surfaces, not depth and dimension. These words do have real meaning that isn't 'woo-woo'.

 

I can appreciate the fact that you are taking a much deeper approach to beliefs and how they might be viewed and experienced. Nevertheless, when you argue that concepts such as christian faith, something that had a very specific meaning to myself and most here, don't really mean what we thought they meant and don't really fit the experiences we experienced, I feel defensive and feel like my experiences and feelings are being discounted and explained away.

 

Whatever you are trying to explain here in relation to faith is not anything like my personal experience with it. What I experienced with it was harmful and leaves me with ill feelings even 20 years after the fact. I'll put it this way. You can talk about the bouquet the experience on the pallet of a single malt, which is a high approach to the subject of alcohol, but if you tell a group recovering alcoholics this is actually a broader part of their own experience it's probably going to leave them feeling put off by it. It certainly has nothing to do with their own past experience.

[Antlerman]

It seems to me that different people are using the same word to mean different things. One it talking about a type of faith that is not found in Christianity. Others are talking about the Christian faith. I'm not saying anything is right or wrong. Just saying that language gets confusing due to a lack of words in this area.

But that is found in the Christian religion too.

 

In that case I have no idea what is going on. Perhaps since my experience is limited to the fundamentalism that is popular in the U.S. you are talking about something outside that limited scope? I don't know.

Lot's of people. I would say that fundamentalism you will not see very much of that in there, and if you do, they will likely find their way out of it. Again, doubt is the handmaid of faith. If you see those that shout, "I KNOW I'm right. This is God's word, it's the Truth!!", that ain't it.

 

Frankly, I'd say my atheism itself was an act of faith. I broke from what put binders on what I intuitively knew was yet to be found. I had to find it, regardless of breaking with my religion and relations. I would call atheism a greater act of faith in this context. It is a brave act that is compelled by something inside us. It's not about belief, it's about an intuition. Faith can find many beliefs on its way toward actual realization.

[Ouroboros]

The word "faith" to me means "trust." Having faith in something or someone, is to have trust in that something or someone.

 

But it's also a belief. To have faith is to believe that whatever you trust can be trusted.

 

In other words, having faith in Jesus/God/Bible is to having a belief that one can trust those things to come through and be true.

 

But it can also be used when it comes to science. Having faith in science is to have trust in the scientific process to reveal the truths about our reality.

 

Unfortunately, even the people you trust and depend upon can sometimes fail you, and science can too. So even if you trust science, it can sometimes go down the wrong path.

 

Then what about Jesus and the Bible?

 

I haven't been able to find Jesus come through one single time in my whole life, whereas science has. Science has been a big part of saving my son's life, but I haven't seen Jesus do one thing.

 

Hence, I have faith in science, but not blind faith since I know it can be wrong.

 

That's just my 5ç

[Antlerman]

Hopefully I'm exposing you to a different way of understanding these things than what the machine pumps out in its exoteric religion, surfaces, not depth and dimension. These words do have real meaning that isn't 'woo-woo'.

 

I can appreciate the fact that you are taking a much deeper approach to beliefs and how they might be viewed and experienced. Nevertheless, when you argue that concepts such as christian faith, something that had a very specific meaning to myself and most here, don't really mean what we thought they meant and don't really fit the experiences we experienced, I feel defensive and feel like my experiences and feelings are being discounted and explained away.

I'm not discounting your experiences. I too saw firsthand what its about. It's why I left. I'm more than sympathetic, I'm in full agreement, but it was a lesser understanding. As I just said, in fundamentalism you don't see the sort of thing I'm talking about very much. You do however see it in others, the more liberal 'believers', such as your Bishop Spong's. Paul Tillich comes to mind as well. Kirkegaard, etc. I may not follow what they say, but I recognize something radically different in them from the experience of my church. Why do you think I left? It hindered my growth.

 

Whatever you are trying to explain here in relation to faith is not anything like my personal experience with it. What I experienced with it was harmful and leaves me with ill feelings even 20 years after the fact.

I guess to me understanding the difference allows me to look at them for where they are at and move beyond simply rejecting them. It allows me to heal what is valid within myself and not allow them to ruin for me or everyone else who is alive on this planet something which has value. I refuse to give them that power. Taking opposite positions is not healing. Understanding and seeing them as they are for who they are and what they need to function, allows me to reclaim what was stolen, rather what I let them steal from me. Simply saying "it's all crap!" is only partly true. The part you held dear and true was not, even if your understanding was framed using a 'lesser language'.

 

I'll put it this way. You can talk about the bouquet the experience on the pallet of a single malt, which is a high approach to the subject of alcohol, but if you tell a group recovering alcoholics this is actually a broader part of their own experience it's probably going to leave them feeling put off by it. It certainly has nothing to do with their own past experience.

But what if what you're saying is simply exposing your own experience that the pleasure of enjoy a refreshing beverage doesn't have to be poison, it doesn't contain what makes you ill? What if you're not talking about booze at all? What if you're talking about water?

[Rev R]

Faith is a virtue when it is not blind and tempered with sense.

[florduh]

Faith is being convinced you can pick up a turd by the clean end.

[Antlerman]

Faith is a virtue when it is not blind and tempered with sense.

I was thinking of something like this earlier this morning. Good sense is like the rope on the sail of faith that harnesses the wind. It takes both to direct the boat toward that farther shore.

[Rev R]

and apparently poison is the cure for poison

[Antlerman]

and apparently poison is the cure for poison

Clarify?

[Rev R]

Musing after Floriduh's comment about turds.

 

One thing I have noticed over the years is the level that Christianity poisons people. It runs so deep that when people free themselves from it, sometimes they aren't truly free from it. The term "faith" is mentioned and the shields are up and the venom is spat. The hostility toward the term is attempting to cure poison with poison.

 

So to is your mention of faith from a broader perspective. Vigile compared it to speaking of the aesthetics of single malt to alcoholics. I'd say it would more akin to using penicillin on someone with an allergy. I'd pretty much agree with your thoughts, but they are not the medicine needed for the illness. But like I said, it's just me musing on the matter.

[Noggy]

2 Types of Faith

 

1) GOD SAYS IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE I KNOW I AM RIGHT

 

2) I have faith that when I take this step in front on me, I'm not going to sink in the ground. I have reason to believe this, but I haven't tested it. Things happen. This dirt in front of my could be quicksand, but I have faith it is not, and I take the step and many more, so that I may walk to class.

 

Everything you do that isn't 100% deliberately decided is an act of faith.

 

Derp.

[Positivist]

I have faith that when I take this step in front on me, I'm not going to sink in the ground. I have reason to believe this, but I haven't tested it.

I don't think you need faith for that. That's evidence. You have evidence based on solid observation that 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time your step will be met with terra firma. If you were walking through an area replete with sinkholes and quicksand (Gilligan's Island comes to mind ) and you had a guide leading you through a dangerous area, you would have faith in your guide, but evidence (amassed observations) that he doesn't trick you into walking into a sinkhole.

[Noggy]

I have faith that when I take this step in front on me, I'm not going to sink in the ground. I have reason to believe this, but I haven't tested it.

I don't think you need faith for that. That's evidence. You have evidence based on solid observation that 99.9999999999999999999999999999% of the time your step will be met with terra firma. If you were walking through an area replete with sinkholes and quicksand (Gilligan's Island comes to mind ) and you had a guide leading you through a dangerous area, you would have faith in your guide, but evidence (amassed observations) that he doesn't trick you into walking into a sinkhole.

 

Both require faith. Just different amounts. Faith is a natural part of life.

[oddbird1963]

I think "faith" is a virtue when it is a trust in guiding principles about the nature of people or what it takes to obtain the good life. Faith is about a positive outlook that propels one forward toward a life that is good, fulfilling and healthy.

 

Sometimes we hear about having faith in people. Or giving people credit. That is an expression of faith as a virtue. If you have faith in people, you believe that , generally, they seek to do the right and ethical thing.

 

I think that faith has to be informed and fueled by knowledge and evidence, but at some point faith has to develop to a degree where it sustains you through times where knowledge is not yet sufficient and evidence is lacking.

 

When does faith stop being a virtue? Faith is no longer a virtue when it fights against knowledge and evidence and refuses to change. Rather, when the body of knowledge and evidence that fueled one's faith in the past becomes the goal of faith . That's what I see as wrong in American evangelical fundamentalism and biblical literalism.

 

Ok. i'm going to stop now. I'm rambling. It's getting late and I'm tired. Maybe I'm on to something. Or maybe I'm off base. I've got faith in my fellow ex-c's to set me straight.

[Vigile]

2 Types of Faith

 

1) GOD SAYS IT SO IT MUST BE TRUE I KNOW I AM RIGHT

 

2) I have faith that when I take this step in front on me, I'm not going to sink in the ground. I have reason to believe this, but I haven't tested it. Things happen. This dirt in front of my could be quicksand, but I have faith it is not, and I take the step and many more, so that I may walk to class.

 

Everything you do that isn't 100% deliberately decided is an act of faith.

 

Derp.

 

At this point you are only exposing a weakness in the English language. They are two completely different animals. You take the step because your eyes send signals to your brain recognizing patterns. If you see a sidewalk in front of you, your brain assesses the probabilities and knows instantly based on past experience it is a hard surface and therefore can support your weight. If you have a surface in front of you your brain does not recognize, you hesitate.

 

One of your faiths demands proof, the other does not, which means you are discussing two very distinctly different qualities.

[Kathlene]

This is what I don't understand. Christians say the Bible is truth, its God's word, etc...have faith. Well how do we determine if anything is true in life? We look at the evidence and declare it is true based on those answers. So this is what I don't understand. We are being asked to accept something by faith as true, not based on evidence at all except the bible is true ( so says the christians).

When I make my decisions in life I base it on evidence, not by faith now. Will I be able to pay my bills? Yes, by working hard and getting a job. It doesn't take faith to make those decisions. Will I believe weather man? well yes, if it is based on scientific data, I assume he/she is right. Do I have a soul and will go to hell if I don't repent? How do I know that, where is the evidence?

 

whats that faith verse that everyone spouts out from the Bible? Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see!! Hebrews 11:1

So its a random game of stab in the dark, of what you will or wont travel through in life. Someone said it here before. If circumstances are good, God is blessing you, if they aren't you are being tested. Who decides that?