Paradoxical relationship between belief and faith.

[Whateverist]

It seems you have a different understanding of Faith than what God expects or provides for. God tells us: Faith is what makes real the things we hope for. It is proof of what we cannot see. God was pleased with the people who lived a long time ago because they had faith like this.

For God and his followers 'faith' is an extention evidence based belief. Hokem writters that cater to those who wish to try and phiosophically seperate themselves from God, have changed the meaning of the word faith to mean: an intense baseless hope. Which is not what God offers, nor is the faith God offers limited to the reading of the bible. God offers exactly what an indivisual needs to sustain biblically based faith, and if one is faithful to what he has been given. He will be given more. If not what he has been given will be taken from him and given to someone else.

Lets see what the origins of "faith" are according to wikipedia.

Etymology

The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Middle English feith, via Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit from Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs (trust), akin to fīdere (to trust).

So "biblically based faith" is essentially "trust in the bible". That is why I say you have faith in the book primarily and God secondarily. When you see video of people in churches with their hands out and upturned, swaying with their eyes closed, they are basically imagining that God is there, as the bible says He is.

Now you may wonder why I stress this primary trust in the book. As an agnostic, I give you theists a lot of slack. I don't know anything about gods but who am I to say you don't, right? But when I realize that it is a book that completely underpins your belief, I feel a lot less charitable. A book is a document. If you build your entire case on it, fine, examine it as evidence. But again, I don't care what the bible says. All that matters is authenticating the document. There is no imaginable evidence that could establish a convincing link between the bible and any gods. The writing could be from the right area and right time without providing the slightest guarantee that even one word is inspired by the divine.

Looks like I have to start giving you Christian guys much less credit. If all you have is the bible and the self hypnosis you employ based on its evidence, then you truly have no more knowledge of God than I do .. and I have none.

[Drich]

It seems you have a different understanding of Faith than what God expects or provides for. God tells us: Faith is what makes real the things we hope for. It is proof of what we cannot see. God was pleased with the people who lived a long time ago because they had faith like this.

For God and his followers 'faith' is an extention evidence based belief. Hokem writters that cater to those who wish to try and phiosophically seperate themselves from God, have changed the meaning of the word faith to mean: an intense baseless hope. Which is not what God offers, nor is the faith God offers limited to the reading of the bible. God offers exactly what an indivisual needs to sustain biblically based faith, and if one is faithful to what he has been given. He will be given more. If not what he has been given will be taken from him and given to someone else.

Lets see what the origins of "faith" are according to wikipedia.

Etymology

The English word is thought to date from 1200–50, from the Middle English feith, via Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit from Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs (trust), akin to fīdere (to trust).

So "biblically based faith" is essentially "trust in the bible". That is why I say you have faith in the book primarily and God secondarily. When you see video of people in churches with their hands out and upturned, swaying with their eyes closed, they are basically imagining that God is there, as the bible says He is.

Now you may wonder why I stress this primary trust in the book. As an agnostic, I give you theists a lot of slack. I don't know anything about gods but who am I to say you don't, right? But when I realize that it is a book that completely underpins your belief, I feel a lot less charitable. A book is a document. If you build your entire case on it, fine, examine it as evidence. But again, I don't care what the bible says. All that matters is authenticating the document. There is no imaginable evidence that could establish a convincing link between the bible and any gods. The writing could be from the right area and right time without providing the slightest guarantee that even one word is inspired by the divine.

Looks like I have to start giving you Christian guys much less credit. If all you have is the bible and the self hypnosis you employ based on its evidence, then you truly have no more knowledge of God than I do .. and I have none.

Again you are only furthering my point by appealing to wiki. You have to redefine faith apart from the faith found in Heb 11, in order to make your arguement work. for why would anyone assemble a 'faith' outside of the faith God calls for in His bible? (the only book that defines God). Regaurdless of the english word we use to describe what Hebrews 11 outlines (the whole chapter) it is what is found in Hebrews 11 God is expecting from us. Not what you or wikipedia or anyone elses decides to lable 'faith.'

So depite what you understand faith to be, God says the faith He requires is indeed based in solid evidence. Evidence He provides when one asks, seeks, and knocks as He perscribes.

[Whateverist]

Again you are only furthering my point by appealing to wiki. You have to redefine faith apart from the faith found in Heb 11, in order to make your arguement work. for why would anyone assemble a 'faith' outside of the faith God calls for in His bible? (the only book that defines God). Regaurdless of the english word we use to describe what Hebrews 11 outlines (the whole chapter) it is what is found in Hebrews 11 God is expecting from us. Not what you or wikipedia or anyone elses decides to lable 'faith.'

So depite what you understand faith to be, God says the faith He requires is indeed based in solid evidence. Evidence He provides when one asks, seeks, and knocks as He perscribes.

So you concede my points?

1) Christians have no faith in God in the broader sense of the word. They put all their faith in what the bible directs them to believe.

2) There is no justification for thinking the origins of the bible divine. But the bible itself will tell you what is or is not divine so just assume it anyway.

[Drich]

So you concede my points?
Christians have no faith in God in the broader sense of the word.

what is the 'broader sense of the word?

They put all their faith in what the bible directs them to believe.

No. The bible is not the sole source for Christian belief.

2) There is no justification for thinking the origins of the bible divine.

For whom? and why would the 'orgins' need to be devine in your best estimation?

But the bible itself will tell you what is or is not divine so just assume it anyway.

do you have an example?


Now, do you conceed mine?
1) Christians are not subject to the modern interpertation of the word Faith, and that Christian Faith is predicated on evidence provided by God?

[FallentoReason]

Faith is based on evidence and without it is nothing. That's why it would be unacceptable for Christians to see that Paul preached about a spiritual being, because they want the Bible to point to a larger-than-life story for which there is no evidence of.

Apparently faith does hinge on observations.. which then means it's not faith.

[Drich]

Faith is based on evidence and without it is nothing. That's why it would be unacceptable for Christians to see that Paul preached about a spiritual being, because they want the Bible to point to a larger-than-life story for which there is no evidence of.

Apparently faith does hinge on observations.. which then means it's not faith.

I left a verse, you should have research it (and the rest of the chapter) before you misrepersented it and the bible with your personal take on it.

[Whateverist]

So you concede my points?
1) Christians have no faith in God in the broader sense of the word.

what is the 'broader sense of the word?

The broader sense of faith would be "trust", trust in God as you find Him rather than trust in God as limited by the bible. If you really had faith in God, you would open yourself to Him as he sees fit to reveal himself to you. Instead, you look to see only the God that has been promised in the bible. Why? Because you put your primary faith in a book not in any god.

You claim to commune with God or, some of you, to talk with Jesus. But if you really believed in a god that wanted a personal relationship with you, why shouldn't you trust him to reach out to you with or without any advance help from the bible? Hence my point.

The bible is not the sole source for Christian belief.

Actually it is. Whatever you think your communing with Jesus is about, you create that character in your psyche as directed by the bible. All you are communing with is the biblical character of Christ enlivened by your own imagination. You do this using the same facility that a good novelist uses to bring a character to life in a book.

2) There is no justification for thinking the origins of the bible divine.

For whom? and why would the 'orgins' need to be devine in your best estimation?

For anyone who thinks documents intended as evidence require authentication. Of course, for those who are determined to become indoctrinated in the faith of their parents, no justification is required.

But the bible itself will tell you what is or is not divine so just assume it anyway.

do you have an example?

It isn't clear from your question that you understand what I'm saying. I'm saying you rely entirely on the bible to tell you about the divine. Anything which you may experience which doesn't check with biblical expectations are dismissed as irrelevant or the work of the devil. Do you really deny that your concept of the divine is not wholly derived from the bible? (I half expect you to agree proudly.)

Now, do you conceed mine?
1) Christians are not subject to the modern interpertation of the word Faith, and that Christian Faith is predicated on evidence provided by God?

If by that you agree with me that Christian faith isn't what the rest of us mean by faith, then yes, I agree with you. You are not subect to the modern interpretation (which predates Christian use of the word). You are free when you say you have faith in God to go right on meaning you have a rigidly held conviction that the nature of God is precisely as is shown in the bible. Your trust is in the book, a book for which you require no authentication.

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

I found an even simpler definition of 'faith' in The Concise Oxford Dictionary:

Faith: belief based on authority rather than proof.

Of course,'faith' is also a synonym for 'superstition'. A perception constantly reinforced by reading some of the more idiotic posts of some of the more severely disturbed apologists here. (EG Undeceived, Drich, Catfish,GC)

OK, I can no longer read Drich or Catfish,as I have them both on ignore, but can still read the frustrated responses of others.

[catfish]

I found an even simpler definition of 'faith' in The Concise Oxford Dictionary:

Faith: belief based on authority rather than proof.

Of course,'faith' is also a synonym for 'superstition'. A perception constantly reinforced by reading some of the more idiotic posts of some of the more severely disturbed apologists here. (EG Undeceived, Drich, Catfish,GC)

OK, I can no longer read Drich or Catfish,as I have them both on ignore, but can still read the frustrated responses of others.

LOL!

It would seem that someone now has an obsession with me. I wonder how many more posts from him will mention my name...

woohoo! I'm famous!

[Oldandeasilyconfused]

Faith is based on evidence

Actually,it is not. Faith is belief based on authority,and is the antithesis of evidence-based belief.