"Faith without work is dead..."

Creative, my answer to your question is as follows.

Faith and belief are synonyms and completely interchangeable (today).

Words are 'descriptions' wholly and totally created for the purpose of communicating ideas verbally. The difference in the two words are doubtless only in their linquistic roots. There was a time when the word 'Faith' was all but confined to vocabulary regarding the religious or religions.

The word belief was much more flexible, as in
"I do believe you are correct." It allowed for one to change their mind. Faith, on the other hand, was somthing one was 'endowed' with. "I have faith your are correct." Consider these two sentences in light of this explanation:

"I do believe your are correct"

This is a person betting on the odds based on 'analysis' of knowns, through their personal experiences.

"I have faith you are correct."

Is a someone, holding the esteem of the other person's experiences above their own. This person giving their faith has no personal KNOWLEDGE sufficient enough from which to make an analysis.

The difference between these two words, became obscured as the greater populations of the world became more openly Christian. How did this happen? Mainstreaming vocabulary. Because Christianity does not depend on 'faith' but rather on the teaching of a 'belief' structure or framework. Once a person has a 'known' (having been taught) for analysis they 'believe' they are correct. Hence faith is now derived from belief and the two have become synonomous.

But more than this, at the same time that Christians were interchanging the words (for the purpose of recruiting), humanity as a whole was gaining new perspective, through the expereiences of explorers, and science.


It is known that pre-modern man had the 'idea' that celestial bodies had power over them. The cave drawings, grave sites and hand made icons prove one thing. It is only through the senses that one can have experiences that can add to the 'knowns' that substantiate beliefs. Therefore the 'idea' that faith and belief are seperate can no longer be substantiated, as we have never been able to document a single instance of (devinely inspired faith). And the reason we can not single out a source is because such an attribute could not be considered an 'idea' attained through the senses, thus, it is outside the realm of normal expereince and that can be NO KNOWLEDGE taught or gained through verbal exchange to substantiate a devinely planted 'feeling'.

This is why, mainstreaming the two words as being synonomous has taken place.

The fact is, for the purposes of communication, there can be no "faith" when there is no 'known' from which to structure analysis.

All we end up with, are people who 'believe' they have 'faith' because somewhere, at sometime, those people 'expereinced' someone elses 'ideas'.

Ah yes I understand what you are saying and why Di.

What shall one call the unquestionable acceptance of what one is taught as a young child.

Is that acceptance not truly based on 'faith' only?

Michael..... faith......Trust your Knowing.

Trusting my knowing, is where and what I call faith....it is earth wisdom, it is instinctual wisdom, it is something that comes through me, not from me... I find it hard to explain..

And have found just accepting that, for what it is, is having faith.

I have no idea if I make sense to another, but it works for me.

Creative:


This is not faith, for someone had to tell the child a creator existed.

Kids who hear the words of adults, are 'experiencing' through their physical senses. If a child were deaf and blind and there was absolutely no words in a symbolic communication tool (vocabulary)descriptive of God or gods and goddesses, would that person develop a 'faith'.

The real question is; could that person 'describe' a devine inspirational 'faith' without ever having had any sensual interaction with another in regards to a belief system?

Would that person 'worship' something? What?

I think faith is a choice. You choose to believe or not believe something.

Creative,

I was baptised as a baby because that was the norm at that
time. My parents did not attend church, my Dad was usually
working. My mother did not read anything from the bible to me
because she did not own one at that time. She does not
recollect anyone in the family talking about God, that I may
have heard.

I went to school away from home when I was between 6-7 years
old. I happened to be reading a children's book when I began
to wonder what God was like. Did that mean I believed there
was such a thing? I can remember thinking also, who would I
ask, how could I find out.

It took years of searching and deciding for myself what I
believe today. I do not follow a religion, simply
a 'believer'.

I’ve been thinking about this all day. And this is true. And the ultimate truth is that we choose to have faith by choosing what we belief.

I’ve been thinking this specifically with respect to Christianity, if for no other reason that this is the most popular religion within the culture I live. But what does it me to have faith with respect to a religion such as Christianity????

Does it mean that I need to believe that Jesus was the incarnation of the God of Abraham?

Does it mean that I need to accept the collection of stories that were put together in a cannon by King James and labeled as the Holy Bible?

Does it mean that I need to accept anyone’s literal interpretation of these stories or that I need to accept anything verbatim?

Here’s what I can have faith in,….

I can have faith that Jesus was an enlightened man, possibly even with divine insight, but not necessarily the incarnation of the God of Abraham? Or possibly to put that another way, I have no faith at all, that the Old Testament is a very accurate description of God. On the contrary I am a firm believer that it was a gross misrepresentation of God.

Can I believe in the words of Jesus, that all men do not need a spiritual physician, and denounce the book of Romans that says that all men are sinners and have fallen short of the glory of God? Can I believe that King James got it wrong and didn’t choose the correct collection of stories? Can I believe that only the immediate gospels of Jesus are worthy of sifting through for a glimmer of what the man named Jesus had to say, but even those gospels are contaminated with exaggeration and false rumors?

Well, of course, I can. I can believe anything I want, just like anyone else can. But would it mean anything to anyone else for me to say that although I don’t believe that Jesus was the God of Abraham, and although I don’t believe most of the books of the Bible, and although I don’t believe that Jesus died for anyone’s sins,… I still have faith that what he taught was true.

I think most people would laugh and just say,… well, how would you know what he taught if you don’t believe the stories verbatim.

My answer to them would be,… because I have faith that my intuitive understanding of what he was, and what he was trying to say is more correct.

In a very real sense, this is what faith means to me.

Hiya Lee...

Di,

I am talking about 'X' being accepted by 'faith' alone...

An unquestioning and absolute acceptance of whatever is taught...

I do not claim that 'faith' is taught...

'X' is not 'faith'... it is accepted by 'faith'






In response to your question...


Actually Di.... big surprise here...

In the truest of senses, I think the notion of 'developing a faith' is impossible... an oxymoron or fallacy, whichever one chooses to use. Developing a belief or a belief system. The moment that what is accepted by faith alone is questioned by reason, it must be answered. Whatever that answer is, it is then empirical evidence, or 'proof' to that person. The minute 'proof' is established the teaching which has been accepted by faith then becomes a belief...




Lack of evidence is not proof of existence, either way.

So, just because someone may or may not be able to communicate a divine inspiration does not invalidate it's possibility, however remote one believes it may be.



EDIT:

I know, I know... Only this time I am the one trying to use the truest definition...

Abra, I'm not sure this is what Creative is questioning.

Actually what you have described is exactly how people do believe. That happens to be, that they have 'analysed' all the 'knowns' gained through their experiences and have faith in the 'power' that they have created from that analysis.

In other words, all anyone has faith in, is their own ability to anwswer their OWN questions, based on their OWN experiences.

This is not having faith in a supreme creator, it is having faith in your own conclusions of your own analysis, based on your own perceptions/experiences.

If that is a GIFT, it is certainly meant for the ego, wouldn't you say?

I absolutely agree. That's all anyone can have faith in.

To say that they have "faith in God" is actually a misnomer.

What they really have faith in is their own choice in religion.

If they Believe in the Bible they have faith in the authors who wrote it.

They have faith that King James chose the right stories to include in it. (personally I think he included stories that contradict each other, and the teachings of Jesus).

Actually an atheist has more faith in God than any "believer".

An atheist just believes that whatever is, is. And that’s that.

How much more faith could a person possibly give to God than that????

Damn it Abra...

You told my 'punchline'...


Actually an atheist has more faith in God than any "believer".

An atheist just believes that whatever is, is. And that’s that.

How much more faith could a person possibly give to God than that????

I think it is a talent.

Some people are musical, artistic, articulate, athletic, some scientific, some logical, some spatial...some mathematical.

That is commonly called a 'gift'.

I think it is a talent to have faith in something not concrete..

RichardDavid said:


I think he means to say that it is through the works of a person that faith is shown to exist.

RD - if we were never told this, if we had never experienced any words that told us how God 'expected' us to act - how would anyone recognize faith, but God?

Could it be that 'faith' is not meant to be common knowledge, but only a bond that exists between the faithful and their God?

What purpose would there be in doing works that 'demonstrated' your faith? Is it a 'teaching tool'? Is it for God alone? What works, and why?

The minute 'knowing' comes in... faith is out and belief is in.

Why?

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



One is taught 'X'

One believes 'X' is true without 'proof'(faith)

Then one conforms their understanding(s) relating to 'X' around 'X'

In essence dispelling 'faith' and taking on 'belief'...

Ok..........

Why can I not have faith, and trust my knowing, even when neither of them are based in concrete evidence, or 'proof'?

Why can I not have faith in human goodness, even when it is evidentially opposing?

Is that then hope, rather than faith?

The moment one questions the what is accepted by 'faith', a reasoning process develops... no matter how sound... it is a reason...

Faith is acceptance without reason...

An oxymoron... the term itself, just like the term 'God' should be forever abolished from the collective use of language...

THAT would be the beginning of a peaceful world...

The only thing that I believe is truly accepted by faith alone is that which a child is taught at the age before reason...

After that everyone has their own reasons...