What context and good reasons do you have?

(May 5, 2025 at 12:42 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: "This is because faith isn't blind belief, it is trust. And trust requires a context where you have good reasons to trust, but not enough to achieve certainty. "

Now, anyone who reads this ought to see nothing more than a general definition for faith. There is nothing stating I believe or don't believe in God, there is nothing stating what I do or don't have faith in, and there certainly isn't any claims that I have or don't have many good reasons for God's existence.

The words simply do not say what they are accused of saying. It is delusional to read so much into so little, and chase me around for 20 pages for not engaging. It's very odd behavior.

I think we were told to leave your vapid, pointless, and mendacious denials alone? 

I mean not just because your definition contradicts the dictionary definition of religious faith, as religious faith is defined as a belief, and because you have failed to offer any reasons you claimed to have, good or otherwise for your blind faith, or because you are now laughably pretending your faith isn't in a deity, or because you're lying your pants on fire about what was claimed, and no quote matching that claim, but to get back on track, to address the thread title, and ask why you believe in unevidenced archaic superstition?

Well. not just you obviously, my bad. 

Why do Christians believe in Jesus? Because of people's unlimited capacity to rationalize their social commitments.

(May 5, 2025 at 1:01 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: What context and good reasons do you have?

(May 5, 2025 at 3:02 pm)Sheldon Wrote:

(May 5, 2025 at 1:01 pm)Nay_Sayer Wrote: What context and good reasons do you have?

I was also hoping for an answer to that one.

Boru

(May 2, 2025 at 2:19 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I mean, you're personifying the fig tree story to push it to absurdity. The story isn’t about trees trusting God—it’s about people bearing fruit when they appear outwardly religious. I don't see why that should be a contentious lesson. If anything it shows it's not enough the believe in Christianity, faith actually has to do something productive.

Did it actually happen or was it just a parable? If it actually happened, was it just to illustrate the point? Because it kind of undermines the point, IMHO, to curse the fig tree for not bearing fruit when it wasn't supposed to.

(May 2, 2025 at 5:23 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 5:11 pm)The Grand Nudger Wrote: Gods don't have to exist for a person to have faith in them, that's ridiculous, and you don't believe it for a second.

Sure, and I suppose people could also jump out of planes trusting a nonexistent parachute. But clearly, their trust won't help much with the landing.

Neither will trusting in Thor or Vishnu or God to save them. All are puported to have the power to help with that landing, but are pretty reliable about not doing so.

(May 2, 2025 at 6:57 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 6:26 pm)Angrboda Wrote: We have trust in things that, after being granted an initial largesse, reward us by fulfilling our expectations.  That's not how religious faith works.  God doesn't come down and find your car keys for you.  You believe that your expectations have been fulfilled based upon a feeling.  But that feeling isn't necessarily caused by God.  So you believe your trust has been fulfilled because you want to believe that your trust has been fulfilled.  That's not at all trust in.  That's essentially circular reasoning resting on your initial largesse of blind faith.   That's similar to a stalker believing that their idol secretly loves them, that their idol has shown that they love them, even if it's not evident to anyone but the stalker.

I disagree, but perhaps not in a direct way. I can agree that trust has some kind of substance or result, maybe even a measurable outcome, from which we can look back and conclude if the trust was well-grounded. And Christian faith, broadly speaking, is concerned with specific outcomes such as salvation, forgiveness, eternal life, and the like. And so, when a Christian lives by faith, they're saying they trust God with their salvation essentially. These are more or less verifiable expectations: You'll either be saved or you won't be, you'll have eternal life, or you won't. So, I don't agree that the result of faith is a feeling, I think there is a substantive verifiable outcome.

And of course, whether you believe them or not, all the biblical stories of faith show this. Like Noah trusting God and building the ark when no rain had yet fallen. The story concludes with the flood, where we learn his faith was indeed well placed.

Not sure I agree 'finding out when you're dead' constitutes a 'verifiable outcome'.

(May 5, 2025 at 4:01 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

(May 2, 2025 at 6:57 pm)John 6IX Breezy Wrote: I disagree, but perhaps not in a direct way. I can agree that trust has some kind of substance or result, maybe even a measurable outcome, from which we can look back and conclude if the trust was well-grounded. And Christian faith, broadly speaking, is concerned with specific outcomes such as salvation, forgiveness, eternal life, and the like. And so, when a Christian lives by faith, they're saying they trust God with their salvation essentially. These are more or less verifiable expectations: You'll either be saved or you won't be, you'll have eternal life, or you won't. So, I don't agree that the result of faith is a feeling, I think there is a substantive verifiable outcome.

And of course, whether you believe them or not, all the biblical stories of faith show this. Like Noah trusting God and building the ark when no rain had yet fallen. The story concludes with the flood, where we learn his faith was indeed well placed.

Not sure I agree 'finding out when you're dead' constitutes a 'verifiable outcome'.

Oddly enough I pointed this out as well, when he made the claim, but he rolled past it without comment, quelle surprise...

(May 3, 2025 at 11:04 am)John 6IX Breezy Wrote:

(May 3, 2025 at 3:39 am)Sheldon Wrote: It's not clear why John has ignored these two different definitions, or why his arguments use the word trust, that is only found in the primary definition, and doesn't acknowledge the second religious definition of the word at all?

Because definitions are not prescriptive. And it is improper usage of a dictionary to shop around the different senses and give them all equal merit. You are supposed to go and look at the context in which a word is used and be able to infer its meaning. And even if you still care about proper definitions, you need to pull out a Greek concordance and dictionary and research its original usage and meaning, not pull out your merriam-webster.

It isn't shopping around. The word has two different senses. Can you not just state which sense you are talking about? Using them interchangeably is confusing. I recommend the second sense when you're referring to faith in spiritual things and just say 'believe' or 'trust' when you mean the first sense.