Do you see any benefits to religious faith?

[Neo-Scholastic]

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Sounds (I dare not say looks) like blind faith is what they were going for to me.

Maybe. I take it to mean more something more like the notion that some people require signs and wonders before they will accept the divinity of Christ. I would say that the believers to whom Jesus referred were those who already believed in God as revealed by the Torah and Prophetic Scriptures and who subsequently affirmed that He was the Messiah based His origin, instruction, and the testimony of those who knew Him. Romans 10:17 seems to support this interpretation.

However, Hebrews 10:1 would seem to support your interpretation.

[bennyboy]

Oh does it? Was the NT originally written in Latin? Nope. Faith comes from pistis.


http://welldesignedfaith.net/tag/basics/

Hebrews 11:1 is the most famous definition of faith in the Bible: “Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.” Here, and in most other places translated as “faith”, the Greek word used is πίστις (pistis) or one of its related forms. This word can be translated as faith, belief, trust, confidence, or proof. Looking at secular Greek sources, Herodotus used it to refer to a pledge or military oath[1].  

Other secular authors such as Aeschylus, Democritus, and Appian used the word to denote evidence from the senses or from eyewitness testimony, or proof of intent deduced from observed actions [2].  The Alexandrian Jewish philosopher Philo used the term pistis in his writings 156 times with the sense of evidence in over 50% of those instances [3]. Aristotle used the term to describe various “proofs” for convincing someone of your case through reason and logic [4]. This word for faith sounds like it was often used by secular sources as a justified belief based on observation, logical or philosophical reasoning, or testimony and solemn oaths. But we can dig a little deeper yet. The word pistis is derived from the Greek word πείθω (peitho), meaning “to persuade”.

Are you persuaded blindly by any assertion you hear, or by evidence, by sound reasoning,and by common sense? It makes sense then that Aristotle would use pistis to describe the proofs of the art of rhetoric (persuasion).  It seems that Biblical faith is anything but blind. Rather, it is “God’s divine persuasion” [5]. It is also interesting that the word translated in Hebrew 11:1 as “conviction” in the NASB translation is ἔλεγχος (elegchos) which means proof, and is derived from ἐλέγχω (elegcho), a verb meaning “to convince with solid, compelling evidence; to expose, refute or prove wrong.” [6] Faith could be said to be God’s divine persuasion of the reality of the supernatural things we can’t observe with our natural senses.

First, let me give you kudos on one of your best posts on these forums. I've developed a dislike for you, but mainly because you injected your new-age woo into a science thread. However, this post was bang-on, and you've gone convincingly to the point-- except for choosing a suspect source, in which I have little "faith."

The link between Greek and latin is strong, for obvious reasons.  Strangely, after telling me my "kung fu is not strong," you gave the same definition that I did.  And then you went on to bold out the least compelling, and most full of shit, interpretation of that meaning as provided by 'welldesignedfaith.com.'

Let me ask you, when the Biblical Jesus talked about faith like a mustard seed, do you think he was talking about the process of gathering "solid, compelling evidence?"  Why, then, did he scold those who demanded miracles, saying "Do not put your lord God to the test"?  Sounds kind of like the opposite of what you're talking about, bud. It sounds like a very explicit instruction to accept WITHOUT evidence. . . which is how we view the use of the word today.

Okay, let me say something WITH you, because I also did a little deeper research into the word's use: I think a lot of X-tians, and especially Catholic, doctrine is in accord with what you are saying. I believe, in fact, you could probably find much better proof that "faith" means someone is "convinced," but you'll also find that it requires an act of participation-- someone makes a conscious choice to accept the "evidence," and fall in accordance to the will of God, etc. So in a world that is FULL of evidence against the God idea, and very little for it, how should we in the 21st century view faith? In the context of a forum whose members are not theists, what should we look at when we ask if there's a benefit to faith?

Saying, "Faith is the Truth of God, implanted into a willing soul," yadda yadda isn't going to get us very far here. Saying that it represents a suspension of disbelief-- a rational disbelief caused by the overwhelming evidence AGAINST the God idea-- and then looking at whether this suspension of disbelief has benefits, is the right way to go about it.

[bennyboy]

--edit--
I've changed some of the content of my previous post. Not sure if Jörmungandr and Jesster will want to keep their kudos until a re-read. Just giving you a chance to make sure you still agree with me. . .

[Arkilogue]

Jesus saith unto him, Thomas, because thou hast seen me, thou hast believed: blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed.

Sounds (I dare not say looks) like blind faith is what they were going for to me.

Would Jesus always be around to preform works? No.

Did Jesus ask for people to just take him at his word? No.


John 10:38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

[Arkilogue]

First, let me give you kudos on one of your best posts on these forums.  I've developed a dislike for you, but mainly because you injected your new-age woo into a science thread.  However, this post was bang-on, and you've gone convincingly to the point-- except for choosing a suspect source, in which I have little "faith."

Well....thanks. And thnk for making me look deeper into this, found something salient, posted at the end.

Let me ask you, when the Biblical Jesus talked about faith like a mustard seed, do you think he was talking about the process of gathering "solid, compelling evidence?"  Why, then, did he scold those who demanded miracles, saying "Do not put your lord God to the test"?  Sounds kind of like the opposite of what you're talking about, bud.  It sounds like a very explicit instruction to accept WITHOUT evidence. . . which is how we view the use of the word today.

Do you know what shape a mustard seed is? Here's the entire passage: (Aramaic) Mathew 17:19 Then the disciples came to Yeshua himself alone and they said to him, "Why were we not able to heal him?" 20Yeshua* said to them, "Because of your unbelief, for amen, I say to you, that if you had faith like a grain of mustard seed, you may say to this mountain, 'Move from here', and it will move, and nothing will be difficult for you". 21"But this kind does not go out except by fasting and by prayer."

KJV: 20And Jesus said unto them, Because of your unbelief: for verily I say unto you, If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed,

And here is where translations start giving additional/superfluous/non
sequitur/misdirecting information: "Size" is not in the original Greek

New American Standard Bible: And He said to them, "Because of the littleness of your faith; for truly I say to you, if you have faith the size of a mustard seed, you will say to this mountain, 'Move from here to there,' and it will move; and nothing will be impossible to you.

Now it sounds like Jesus is either stupid or an asshole. "Oh your faith is too small? If it was only just as big as the smallest thing around, you might get somewhere in life." :rolleye:

The mountain is doubt. The giant inertial collection of unbelief and even erroneous belief. It only takes faith like a single spherical grain of mustard to move the entire thing.

Okay, let me say something WITH you, because I also did a little deeper research into the word's use: I think a lot of X-tians, and especially Catholic, doctrine is in accord with what you are saying.  I believe, in fact, you could probably find much better proof that "faith" means someone is "convinced," but you'll also find that it requires an act of participation-- someone makes a conscious choice to accept the "evidence," and fall in accordance to the will of God, etc.  So in a world that is FULL of evidence against the God idea, and very little for it, how should we in the 21st century view faith?  In the context of a forum whose members are not theists, what should we look at when we ask if there's a benefit to faith?

Saying, "Faith is the Truth of God, implanted into a willing soul," yadda yadda isn't going to get us very far here.  Saying that it represents a suspension of disbelief-- a rational disbelief caused by the overwhelming evidence AGAINST the God idea-- and then looking at whether this suspension of disbelief has benefits, is the right way to go about it.

And here is what I found digging deeper into faith and "conviction" part of it.

http://biblehub.com/lexicon/hebrews/11-1.htm
or, the conviction ἔλεγχος elenchos 1650 a proof, test from elegchó

Elegchos in Plato’s Works: http://www.lectio-divina.org/index.cfm?f...ture_id=16

The Greek noun elegchos may be defined as follows: refutation, argument of disproof, refutation; it
derives from the verb elegcho: to refute, cross-examine, question, put to shame.

My faith authoring experience was not my NDE. It was the experience of being absolutely transparent to an omnipresent mind which allowed me to look at myself clearly through it's many eyes. Think of your house and night, you have a nice view, windows look clear. But then the sun comes up and strikes the windows at a certain angle highlighting every single smudge and mare on the glass. So much so that your attention is immediately on all those imperfections that used to be "invisible" now are messing up your nice view.

The experience was absolutely not butterfly breaths and rainbow farts. It was my Magic Mirror gate from The Never Ending story where kind men find out they are cruel, brave men find out they are really coward. When confronted with their true selves...most run away screaming. I thought I was a relatively good, reliable person, I found out I was petty and a flake and I wouldn't have chosen to even be my own friend. I was ashamed of myself and my mind recoiled but there was no where to go and I became afraid...so the presence left me.

I was during me NDE that I fully accepted/embraced myself with all my collected errors and returned to my body volitionally.

My my faith authoring experience was ego shattering. Conviction by my own judgment given the shared conscious power to observe myself in truth. It was a gift of Reality.

I've never been so terrified and grateful for anything else in my life. My mountain crumbed to the ground in a global earthquake.

[Mudhammam]

Sounds (I dare not say looks) like blind faith is what they were going for to me.

Would Jesus always be around to preform works? No.

Did Jesus ask for people to just take him at his word? No.


John 10:38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Right, works such as talking to the glorified bodies of Moses and Elijah on a mountain, teleporting through closed doors, and ascending all the way into the clouds! all of which were to be believed on the basis of apostolic tradition. I can hardly perceive the difference between such divine persuasion when weighed against the "pistis" which I am obliged to consider in the demonstrations of Aristotle.

[Arkilogue]

Would Jesus always be around to preform works? No.

Did Jesus ask for people to just take him at his word? No.


John 10:38 But if I do them, even though you do not believe me, believe the works, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father."

Right, works such as talking to the glorified bodies of Moses and Elijah on a mountain, teleporting through closed doors, and ascending all the way into the clouds! all of which were to be believed on the basis of apostolic tradition.  I can hardly perceive the difference between such divine persuasion when weighed against the "pistis" which I am obliged to consider in the demonstrations of Aristotle.

You're barking up the wrong tree.

Jesus allegedly preformed many miracles/healings witnessed by many at the time, several times. A crowd of 5000 according the the loaves and fishes story.

It was a demonstration of power to the people who needed it.

[Silver]

Allegedly.

[Silver]

Religious faith is mere delusion. In the end, people need to learn to discard the delusion. They need to learn that it is healthier to understand and accept the harsh truth rather than to become victims to the comfortable lie.

[Arkilogue]

Allegedly.

Yes. And self consistent in the story with faith based on evidential demonstration. "...believe on the works that I do."

He didn't say "take me at my word" and then go on to demonstrate nothing.

What is faith without works?

Jame 2:14 What doth it profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him? 15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food, 16And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be ye warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what doth it profit? 17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works. 19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble. 20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

26For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.