So, I've been thinking, these sins and virtues seem pretty good. As in, they seem like they strike a good balance between being interpretable and not being so interpretable that people can just decide that they mean anything (like you can with "good" and "evil"). I guess that's why they've kinda endured. I forget which thread it was where someone was saying about how the Bible was full of don'ts and not many do's. Seems like a good way to go.
So it all rests almost entirely on faith. No surprises there Ah, You should at least give a sceptical perspective another shot, I think you could find it more rewarding in the long run. Even on your own reckoning you will go to your God in the end. No hell fire ha.
FedUp has raised the issue of mental illness on a few occasions. He says he is not accusing people of anything, but never the less he clearly considers schizophrenics and other mentally ill people to be incapable of offering any kind of valid opinion on the subject of religion. I find that quite sad.
More specifically to the context, faith can be propped up by evidence. Beliefs are used by everyone to fill in the blanks. It's just a question of how big the blanks are as to whether we think their beliefs are ridiculous or sensible. The insistence of some on trying to turn every debate into an all or nothing battlefield could lead one to believe that it is impossible to make a decision based on a small amount of faith. Everyone relies on faith that, for example "the future will resemble the past, because past futures have resembled past pasts", but there's no objective way to say that this is true. It's kind of ironic that some of those who think they're on the side of science and reason are so loathe to cut anyone any slack or admit that they might be wrong purely because they have a shred of evidence to hang their faith on.
Beliefs are a bit more stronger than faiths, simply because belief is built on actual events, where faith is built on none at all. One has faith that something will occur, but a belief that it will based on past evidence. Both have the same probability for failure, and as such, both have the same probability for disappointment. If I were to quote the Bible correctly here, it states that "Faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." If I were to take this as an accurate intrepretation for Faith, then nothing here points to past experience or supporting evidence, but hoped for results. Where beliefs are based on past experience and expected results, even at the cost of those results not appearing as expected. Theres a vast difference between the person sitting in the grandstand watching a horse they never seen before running a race and hoping it will win then the one who knows the horse, knows it training, seen it race before and believes it will win because of their prior knowledge of the horse. The thing about belief is it can eventually turn into a truth if the results are the same and the actions to attain the results are the same, consistently. At which point it no longer is a belief, but a truth to the one experiencing it as being true. I can see where if the someone who experiences the belief as a truth relays this information to someone who has never heard it before, or experienced it in any way, as starting off as faith that what you are saying is true. I have a thought that for such a person it can only be faith depending on the credibility of the one relaying the information, then it could be considered bunk (if there really is a word). Unless the one hearing it has experienced the same results and knows what the other person is saying, it then is just a belief. Then again, if the one hearing it has realized it as a truth already then they can both acknowledge it as truth without the need for applied faith or belief. In any case faith is accepting something as being either true or false without any supporting evidence (things hoped for, evidence of things not seen), at least this is how the Bible explains faith to its practitioners. Where belief requires supporting evidence in order to be believed. IMO. HTML:
I guess. Belief certainly seems to be used by non-religious types more often than faith. I guess the difference is that faith ignores evidence to the contrary, whereas belief acknowledges it, even if it does not then accept it.
Now that I see a lot of ... That, I can acknowledge as a truth based on consistent personal experience. No faith or belief here ... HTML:
Point is, a belief is more falsifiable or verifiable than faith. Beliefs are more flexible, because they are built around existing evidence. If that evidence changes, or is added to, the believer decides whether the change has a substantial effect on their belief. To me, faith is the refusal to acknowledge that one's belief is anything other than an absolute representation of reality.
You might be interested to know that the lists the Bible gives are these things: The works of the flesh; Fornication Uncleanness Loose conduct Idolatry Practice of spiritism Enmities Strife Jealousy Fits of anger Contentions Divisions Sects Envies Drunken bouts Revelries, The fruitage of the spirit is; Love Joy Peace Long-suffering Kindness Goodness Faith Mildness Self-control
And since we’re in the Christian Forum, the Bible’s definition of Faith is: Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld. I don’t know where people came up with this idea of “blind faith” but it does not come from the Bible!
I believe "blind faith" is from the Tora. It is at least referenced, if not by name, in the story of Job.