Chuck...are you a clergyman?

Hmmm, but how much of what we believe is by choice? I smell a Nature vs. Nurture debate.



For the most part, the canon was voted on and accepted in late 4th century. I think Athanasius was behind the list of books to be canonized. Also, I think Hebrews and Revelation wouldn't be universally accepted as 'divinely inspired' until centuries later. The King James Bible was an early 17th century English translation of a 16th century Greek text by Erasmus. I hope I remembered correctly.

Hope you're having a great new year, Abra!

Knowing that your faith is not misplaced negates the faith? Actually, there are adjectives that can go in front of faith that may clarify a little more, i.e. blind faith.

Faith is impossible for anyone who reasons...

Even the most staunch of religious people will give you a list of reasons why.

It is such a shame the two terms are used in the methods that they are today...

As soon as you question... you lose 'faith'...

Can you have reason without having question?

I agree with you. Can you name one thing you have ever had faith in that has not come THROUGH some previous experience in which your senses were involved?




I also agree with you, I think you missed the part where I explained WHY no one has ever been 'perceived' as having faith.

Because faith is not an active verb, in the sense your are using it. (is faith a gift?) the act of giving is a verb, the gift is not. And if the gift is not tangible, if it has no means by which it can be substantiated and subsequently communicated, than there is no need for such a word to exist.

That was why I explained the purpose of language.


So now, I'm confused, are you actually discussing 'faith' as a noun or a verb or an adjective - what?

Why do I need to reason, to 'label', that which sits well?

I am so lost...

Woo hoo... Di.... we really agree...

Just kidding dear...


I know... I fouled up in an earlier post... where I said someone had 'faith' in 'X'...

WRONG answer Michael....

Someone accepted 'X' by faith alone...

Lee...

You said:

" Why do I need to reason, to 'label', that which sits well?

I am so lost... "

>>>>>>> You do not need to label anything...

if words can describe it... well, you know the rest! <<<<<<<

Whew, brother, you sure test my 'faith' in my own ability!



So let me ask a question have we come to a determination that faith is not a gift? I think we have.

So if faith is not a gift and if faith in not inherent, then how do we 'learn' what to have faith in?

I believe 'faith' is indeed innate... by 'faith' alone we accept that which is taught prior to the age of reason...

In the truest of senses, by definition 'faith' is ignorance of conflicting information.


" Faith implies complete unquestioning acceptance even in the absence of proof and especially of something not supported by reason."


Oh wow... that one may get me burned at the stake, for sure... Where's my trident and marshmallows?

We do not 'learn' what to have faith in... We 'learn' that which is accepted by faith alone... we accept without question whatever is taught to us prior to the age of reason...

We accept these teachings by 'faith' alone...

After one begins to reason, using the beliefs and internalizations that are created as a result of what has been accepted by 'faith' alone, 'faith' no longer truly exists... reasons do...

In the truest sense of the word... it is an oxymoron, or at least a self-defeating concept.

TO Creative:

I think you're disregarding the fact that faith is also a willful disregard of evidence, and not just "ignorance of conflicting information."

Whiteboy...

You have displayed sound arguments every time I have read you...

I am actually using the term in it's truest of senses... which, although it is the number one definition in my dictionary, it is not the most commonly used interpretation... belief and faith are confused often...

A willful disregard requires reason... no matter if it is sound or not... it is still reason...

Faith ceases to exist when reason is born...

TO Creative

I enjoy your posts.

We might have to agree to disagree cuz I think faith and trust are what are being confused. Both concepts imply belief.

Keep up the interesting posts though.

Since the Bible says that faith is given to people, and they are given the amount of faith that they need to get through what they are going to experience, I would say that it is and that it comes in different amounts, and that it is not distributed equally. If you go by what the Bible says. Now if you go by what life is like, and take out christian religion, I think faith is something that we all have based on what has happened to us and our personal temperments. So people seem to always expect the best. Some people have the faith that most people are good. Some people are always waiting for the other shoe to land. I think to an extent, it is a universal concept. But it still isn't equally distributed.

Sorry about the typing. I'm fighting an obnoxious Siamese in order to type at the moment. This took way to long to type/

Creative,


I have to disagree - a baby feeing the first pangs of hunger, has no faith that it will be relieved, hense it cries. VERY quickly, that infant 'reasons'. If I cry, I will be comforted. YES, it now has FAITH, and as long as everytime it cries it is comforted, it will not loose that faith.

But that, creative in not innate, it was LEARNED.



This supports my responce. Faith, can only last until it has been proven to be false.

THAT brings up what 'cuz' wrote:



So what is it about 'faith' that makes it fragile enough to be broken by a single misdemeanor, yet strong enough to ignore the most rational of conflicting information?

If faith was indeed innate, would we all not succumb to ignorance, to maintain it?

Thanks whiteboy:

Actually faith does not necessarily require belief in the religious sense... it only requires acceptance without question... in any sense.

" Faith implies complete unquestioning acceptance even in the absence of proof and especially of something not supported by reason."

The above is word for word for my Websters collegiate, when comparing the differences of belief, faith, and trust. I posted a near complete verbatim earlier, perhaps you may have missed it...?

Di... we overlapped...

In your example, I would disagree that reason is being developed in a sense based on the instinctual need to feed as in an infant.

However, the question of when it does become conscious reason needs to be incorporated somehow... perhaps that should be distinguished huh?

I would not call that example 'faith' either... that would be trust.


EDIT:

Allow me to retract the reason disagreement above... I still must hold to the 'faith' and 'trust' issue though...

I will put your words into example here, creative. I was raised Catholic on my dad's side of the family and Baptist on my mom's. All my life god was a background figure. The days arrived when I questioned that which I was raised on. Oh the shock and dismay at my "loss of faith", "I just needed to return to the church and talk to god for my own saving". They wanted to know what could have happened for me to be so sacreligious. They were sure it was someone in my life leading me down the dark road. My answer to them was " I questioned the religious teachings and did not find the answers satisfying". Do you know they still do not understand. I should go to church anyway and because my soul is at risk claim the religion regardless to my true feelings and belief. Does that come close to your recent post? Taught acceptance equals faith, faith does not survive reason, close?

I am not speaking of 'faith' in the sense of having faith in something or someone... rather, the claim is that it is through 'faith' that one blindly accepts something taught as truth... without reason.

Di, are you going to make me make up my own word again?

I now need one to describe my concept of 'maturity' and 'faith'

" Like little children "... one who has 'faith' readily accepts whatever teaching they are exposed to, without question.


Brings a whole 'new' view on Jesus' words... if you ask me.


EDIT:

Di,
You asked:

" So what is it about 'faith' that makes it fragile enough to be broken by a single misdemeanor, yet strong enough to ignore the most rational of conflicting information?

If faith was indeed innate, would we all not succumb to ignorance, to maintain it? "

>>>>>>> The first notion above is talking of both faith and belief... faith is lost by doubt or question, no matter whether one's answers agree or not... faith is lost... 'strong enough' is more like stubborn belief... not 'faith'...

As far as the second part goes... it is impossible to maintain 'faith'... internalization(s) validate whatever was accepted by 'faith', while simultaneously dissolving it with belief and reason for belief...

I do not think the two can co-exist concerning the same notion. <<<<<<<