Faith does not consist in believing in the existence of he who religious traditions call « God »… we don’t need faith for that, metaphysics suffices to climb up to what Aristotle, for example, calls the “immobile motor”. It is a fact that metaphysics, which is a touch of intelligence beyond the physical world, appeared much earlier than the Jewish revelation. Faith does not consist in believing in the existence of a first being, but in believing in what it reveals to one or the other of what the immobile motor is about.

It follows that the “religious” dimension of man (in the sense of “what unites”) is not grounded in any revelation whatsoever but inheres to human nature, since pagan intelligence can climb up to what antique pagan metaphysics names the first being.

Needless to say that one must understand what metaphysics is, and this has not exactly been a fashionable subject matter over the past few centuries. In fact, it is hardly taught anywhere anymore, although it once ruled and that logic, politics, rhetoric, etc. where all at its service…

In short, to think that faith is to believe in God constitutes a twofold error, what’s more logical since we assimilate faith and metaphysics, and just as common amongst believers than agnostics, for this consists in erring on the subject of faith and on the capacities of natural and pagan human reason. At the same time we began to think that the soul is a religious concept, which it isn’t in the least since pagans had discovered it, and in a very accurate manner, as the principle of philosophy of life, a real principle, which resists to death in the case of the human soul. We can for that matter if not prove at least see a sign that faith does not consist in revealing what metaphysics enables on its own to attain, for in neither of the three monotheist revelations is metaphysics taught, which induces that man does not need a dogma in this matter. Christ, for example, if he presents himself mostly under a metaphysical light (“I am he who is” or “Before Abraham was I am”, etc) does not give any lectures in metaphysics. Moreover, in Buddhism, if a compendium of metaphysical reflections exists, Buddha nonetheless decrees to his disciples more or less the following: « about metaphysics, forget it, you are too stupid ».

That said, in many philosophical traditions of the world and sundry wisdoms, the seven known human dimensions are as follows: the vegetative dimension, the animal dimension, the spiritual dimension (intelligence and willpower), work, love/friendship, politics and the religious dimension – that is to say the pagan discovery that man is created.

Historically, it is the believers who are the guiltiest of insolence with metaphysics, which is understandable since they have had a revelation, and are thus dispensed of being intelligent, and it continues on today… The reaction did not come too long in waiting, and one must remark that atheism and the contemporary ideologies appeared in the realm of Judaeo-Christianity. They could only come to being there, at the height of a scholastic decadence imbued with itself. In the contemporary period, Hegel is the one who lays the bed of atheist ideologies. And yet Hegel is not an atheist! Even so he is at the origin of the most mortal wound inflicted upon metaphysics. But that’s another story.

Hi Harvey

I’ve often read fath only defined as IN something It is viewed often at best as similar to something that is common now which is this idea of creating your own reality. One can imagine anything they want and who can argue. If one wishes to believe in foolish imagination, no logic can stand up against it. Because faith is a concept difficult to understand and being associated with Christianity, it is no wonder, as it becomes diluted and incorporated into modern thought, that it gets ridiculed as it does on places both IRL and in the cyberworld. However, is real faith as naive as it appears to some? Does it contain deeper meanings not often considered? I believe so. My own readings on it, and I admit from several obscure sources, have lead me to have a great respect for faith as I’ve grown to understand it. To begin with, there seems to be a discrepancy between the NIV and KJV

First the NIV

Now the KJV

The NIV implies an attitude while the KJV implies definition (form).

So in terms of a Hershey bar yet to come, the NIV would define faith as the feeling of assurance that you will receive it while in the KJV, faith would vivify the substance of chocolate. Still something doesn’t seem quite right. Back to this shortly in a different context…

Are faith and belief the same? Not from what I have read. It seems to me that belief is the initial step towards faith

Matthew 17 The Healing of a Boy With a Demon.

Now this occurs right after the Transfiguration at the beginning of Matthew 17. The disciples obviously BELIEVED in Jesus. They gave up everything to follow him. They witnessed the transfiguration. They couldn’t drive out the demon though because as Christ said: “Because you have so little faith”. I’ve also read that in some of the ancient translation Christ said it was because they had NO faith. Belief seems more conditioned or sense based so in very limited in its spiritual value. Nicodemus believed becuse of miracles yet Christ told him that “Except a man be born anew, he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

Faith is described as a mustard seed. This to me means it has the capacity to grow and change form like a seed becomes a mustard tree. Faith appears to imply direction. Christ in the above passage says: “O unbelieving and perverse generation” What does this have to do with faith. From what I’ve read, the Greek meaning of the word translated as “perverse” means “turning in many directions”. So having no faith means to keep turning in many directions. What does it mean then to keep direction and who could do it?

So what is so special about the faith of the centurion? From what I’ve read, this is a very deep passage and one of its meanings concerns the knowledge of different levels of existence. The centurion is an important man. He has many under his command. Even though powerful on his level, he realizes that he is helpless in the face of higher reality. The centurion then sees the relationship between what is below him and what is above him. His faith is not a manifestation of fear. It is instead a manifestation of a kind of conscious awareness of both his limitations and possibilities. It begins to have definition: substance. He sees the different levels in relation to his true possibilities. His FAITH is now a kind of direct knowing of the value Christ brings. This inner knowing is far beyond surface belief. The value of faith then for me is the growth from the seed of this inner knowing of the relationship between what is above and below. This allows one to acquire direction, the courage to proceed, and not just turn in circles from opposition to oneself. This knowing is not related to the five senses. Because its value is for the higher spiritual aspect, rebirth, it requires perception beyond the senses to higher reality that by definition is not imaginary.

So it seems to me that there is a difference between faith IN something (assurance) and faith as a state of being (substance). The centurians faith was substantial because it had substance, inner definition. It was more than an atitude. It was an aspect of presence.

So maybe to be without faith means to be without inner substance or definition that can survive the pulls of external life. Faith, if present, can allow one to remain “alive” in the spiritual sense, and not lose oneself to the pulls of external pressures.

Consider this idea in the context of the following passage:

As I understand it, the lillies have a bodily organization that matches their function, their purpose in the context of organic life. For the purpose of man in the spiritual sense which is the movement towards rebirth however, we lack this inner organization, this form, this substance of definition that could allow us to retain inner stability necessary for “May the outward and inward man be at one.” SOCRATES". Solomon, not having the internal substantial organization in accordance with his spiritual possibilities wasn’t “complete”, at one, as was the lily.