Frank Apisa wrote:caprice wrote:
Ah but Frank, by your definition you are diminishing the meanings of those words.
I don't think so. Not at all. But we can certainly discuss that.
Why don't you think your definition diminishes the meaning of those words? Would you not agree that, generally speaking (and not counting all the hucksters and others who "use" religion), the words "faith" and "belief" when used in a religious context have the most sincerest of meanings? That to define them as you have is, in a sense, minimizing the power of those words to those individuals who use them to describe their religion?
Frank Apisa wrote:caprice wrote:For me faith is, in part, about trust and about the heart.
Yes, I understand that.
But I am trying to show you that you may be rationalizing. -- trying to put the very best face on a truly petty function.
Let's see if I can explain my reasoning: A person can say "There definitely is a GOD -- and the Bible describes that GOD."
That is a belief. It is, by any reasonable standard of measure, a guess about the unknown.
You describe faith as a petty function? What is it about faith that you believe is petty?
By "any" reasonable standard of measure? I beg to differ here. I think that in matters such as these (faith and religion), a standard of measure can be a very subjective thing. Now if you mean by a strictly logical, scientific standard of measure, then I can agree there is no tangible, concrete proof that can stand up to the rigours of today's scientific criteria. But does that mean that sort of measure is the only one? Even science reinvents its definitions. What was true yesterday is no longer true today in many scientific matters. (I can site an example if you like.
Frank Apisa wrote:(Now if you are going to assert a private revelation -- we will have to make a long, arduous departure to first investigate this "revelation". I hope that is not the case, because every previous ":private revelation" I've ever encountered has easily been seen to be blather. So I am going to assume you are simply accepting the Bible for whatever you accept it to be; and that you are simply accepting the notion that there is a God.)
Just to answer your question, no I have never had a revelation. At least not a revelation in the sense I understand revelations to be. Perhaps an epiphany *grins* but not a revelation. On a personal level, what I might describe as my beliefs are things I know to be true for me. They are the answers to just a very few of the questions I have had. Can I prove some of what I believe? In a scientific sense, no. But as I've said, these are things that ring true for me. I feel I am only at the cusp of my "spiritual journey". In so many ways it is just the beginning, even though I have been seeking answers for many years now. But as I'd posted before (perhaps not in this particular thread, I just don't recall) I know I will likely never find answers to all the questions I have and I am okay with that.
Frank Apisa wrote:So...
...the person has this guess (which he/she calls a belief) that there exists an entity GOD -- and has a further guess (also called a belief) that the ancient Hebrews were in touch with this GOD -- and they accurately described what the GOD is like -- and what pleases and offends the GOD.
Then the person talks about "faith."
By "faith" they inist that their guesses about the exitence of a GOD -- and knowledge about that GOD -- ARE TRUTH.
So..."beliefs" are guesses about the unknown -- and "faith" is the insistance that the guesses are something more than guesses.
You make it all sound so simplistic. In a certain way faith is simple, but not entirely. From what I have seen, faith is beyond just insisting something. You mentioned, by way of example, the idea that "ancient Hebrews were in touch with this GOD -- and they accurately described what the GOD is like -- and what pleases and offends the GOD." Your further comments imply that you have doubts about the veracity of this idea. How do you know if this did or did not occur? Neither of us were there at the time. And the Bible
was written at that time. The only point of dispute is its interpretation and translations over the ages. So, can the faith of the existence of God be due, in part, to what is interpretted from the Bible as being true? Is it too far fetched to consider the writings to be true? That no matter what the interpretation, the Bible gives us examples of God's existence?
Frank Apisa wrote:I see faith as a crutch for people who are terrified of the unknown.
It is all a matter of perspective.
I agree with you on that last statement, and to a certain extent with the first one. Perhaps for some the belief in God and heaven is what they would use because they do fear the unknown. But it isn't that way for everyone. To me, the idea we end in dust and nothing else is such a depressing thought. And I know there are others who don't fear the "unknown". How do you explain near death experiences? How do you explain those who have been clinically dead on the operating table and are able to describe what was happening as seen from above? Are these not POSSIBLE examples of something created out of a higher level of understanding than we as human beings possess?
Frank Apisa wrote:caprice wrote: It is difficult to articulate.
I suspect that is because your unconscious sees the rationalizations for what they are. (Not being a wise-ass here -- and not being intentionally unkind -- just giving my opinion!)
I would see it more as an all around difficulty for me to articulate my thoughts in a manner I feel is fully expressive of my non-verbal thoughts.
Frank Apisa wrote:No, I do not agree that faith is any more than bull-headedness -- no matter than those of you who want your guesses about reality to be accepted as truth -- insist that it is.
To me, bull-headedness has a negative connotation. For true faith, I cannot see anything negative associated with it -- even if there are points of it I may not agree with. Now I am not speaking of the type of faith that one might see in those who use "faith" as an excuse to exhibit negative behaviours. (Terrorists, suicide bombers and the IRA come to mind.) Within my definition of the word faith, it is listening to ones "inner voice" if you will. It isn't simply a matter of being told something is so because someone's interpretation of religious writings says so, but to reconcile it with what you know inside is right and true.
The one thing I think you and I can agree upon Frank is that we see this whole situation from different perspectives, as you had already stated, n'est-ce pas?
