Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"

[Tonus]

Any opinions? I'm especially curious if Christians agree that "faith" means "confidence" and that "confidence" must have a cause - whether the cause is seeing Moses split the Red Sea or simply being indoctrinated as a child.

The Bible can be interpreted to imply that the term "faith" is used in the traditional sense of trust or confidence. In the OT god is an active person who constantly intervenes directly in the affairs of humanity in order to show that he is capable of exercising great power. So when he says that he will do something, those who had seen his power had faith that he would accomplish it and no one could stop him. In the NT Jesus is a bit more circumspect but still performs powerful acts and shows the ability to read thoughts and intent. So his promises would also seem more trustworthy.

He turns it all around by telling the doubting Thomas that 'blessed are those who do not see, yet believe.' But even that could imply that after having seen some of Jesus' miracles or hearing of them from people he trusted, he should have known that Jesus could rise from the dead and should have been willing to accept the word of his contemporaries.

But there is no way to extend that to the current day, since we don't really know who wrote the books of the Bible. And it's an underwhelming piece of work, not the sort of thing you'd expect from a magnificent intellect, but very similar to so many other ancient myths and legends. Faith in the Bible or the beings it references is not based on a reasonable trust or confidence, which is why that kind of faith is often referred to as blind faith. There is no basis on which to trust what it says, so it's effectively taken at face value. Which is why there have been --and still are-- so many different gods and religions throughout human history.