I am new to this whole forum thing but I am puzzled as to why faith has become a dirty word.
Why is it that “to have faith in God” has become dirty? I “know God” has become the new thing!
Once upon a time people had confidence in their faith and now it is a shameful concept.
In the Christian teachings, I come back time and time again to the following… John 20 (NIV)
What is there to be achieved in claiming not to “have faith” but rather to “know”?
Are you ashamed of your faith or is it that you secretly doubt and need to prove and justify?
When a person claims to “know” then what is it you claim? DO you claim to “not be ignorant”. In the Christian faith the only “non ignorant one” is the Son of God. When you claim to know do you claim that you understand the entire scriptures on a very deep level… equal to or greater than Christ.
I have met many people who “do understand” the scriptures on very deep levels and yet they do not “claim to know”… they are humbled and shameful of their ignorance.
They feel humility before Christ and wish for their faith to be stronger. With this wish their faith actually becomes stronger and their ignorance dispelled. These people radiate love and compassion… not “knowledge”.
Pride is the major blocker to knowledge.
What is there to be achieved in saying “I do not believe… I know”… and what is it that you Know?
It’s a skepticism thing. Modern convention says that to be skeptical is to be clever, and to believe is to be naive. You can probably feel the influence on your thoughts if you just take a moment to say the two words out loud and let your mind wander. Of course, it’s baloney, but there you go.
Faith has become a negative because as it is used by the church now has become identical with blind faith. It is more than a bridge between knowledge and belief, it has become a substitute for knowledge. As we gain more knowledge, (blind) faith is necessary to override that knowledge in order to maintain belief–which is usually a desired belief based usually on family and societal indoctrination.
But true faith, which is founded on knowledge and on extending that knowledge into beliefs based on likelihoods and strong evidence, is the emotional fortitude to stick by those facts and evidence in spite of the carrot and sticks of social acceptance and fear.
I have reasonable faith that there is a God, but I maintain an agnostic attitude whether there is a divine universal spirit, and pursue Truth as my God knowing that will lead to whatever is there. I have faith and firmly believe, based on the facts and evidence, that if there is such a God, He is following a prime directive not to interfere in this natural universe in order to maintain our free will.
Well said. Faith, in the sense in which most people think of it, is a “leap”, and therefore a cause of alienation from the world at hand, as well as one’s own being. Faith in a Buddhist context is never that I’m aware of talked about in those kinds of schismatic terms. In some ways it simply means the ability to live in a groundless world. We have to live, we have to act, even though we might not be able to establish a firm basis for that living. We need to act morally, even though we can’t establish absolute morality. We need to value subjective experience, even if people would reduce that experience to materialistic determinism - itself a divorce of ourselves from ourselves - a leap of faith.
It might be helpful to contrast “faith” with its opposite, extreme skeptical doubt (as opposed to healthy doubt, or questioning):
Faith in banks, credit card companies and mortgage brokers.
Faith in politicians who can be bought.
Faith in ministers who preach social divisions.
Going back to Paul’s definition of faith as evidence of things unseen–that is little comfort in a world in which people have become raw materials for other people’s greed. Things unseen amount to small print on contracts, political double talk and religious isolationisms. No god intervenes on behalf of those who suffer from natural catastophes of from unnatural? human avarice. In this situation faith is often seen as the gullibilty of those who believe someone or something other than oneself can set things right. Faith succumbed to a lack of compassion.
I think this is suggesting blind faith…
Obviously, if the “faith is true” then the works will effortlessly manifest themselves.
True Faith vs Blind Faith (let the battle begin)
I think most people have blind faith and shout to the world “I HAVE TRUE FAITH”.
These people are prepared to do “anything” to defend their faith, albeit blind.
In my life I think I have met three people with True Faith (or approximately True Faith) and herein lies the truth (I think).
We are human and flawed by our very nature and True Faith is thus untouchable… we can only approach it.
True Faith is an asymptote
The problem with saying “faith” is the same problem as saying “God”. Just what do you mean when you say that word? What all does the concept encompass? Whether a word is positive, neutral, or negative is the result of clear concise definition. Words such as faith are bandied about as if everyone understands exactly what it means. The larger problem is that words like this defy specificity because they are more a feeling, an emotion, than they are a description. Metaphors are tricky little devils…
Faith (to me) describes a willingness to accept possibilities. It is an open and receptive mind, but does not necessarily accept anything or everything. It is similar to the faith a student has in their teacher. The student learns through practical experience but still questions the teacher when doubt arises. The student cannot comprehend what is being said by simply listening or reading, the student must practice what has been taught. Faith is a mind that asks “Why and How?” and it is not a mind that blindly rejects or accepts. If Faith were as simple as saying “you just need to believe”, then any religious scriptures could be summarized in a few words… “There is a God”. The fact that religious teachings (oral or written) are so complex supports the mind of enquiry rather than the extreme view of acceptance or rejection. Extreme views result in fundamentalism and fundamentalism produces all sorts of nasty things.
Faith is a balanced and centred view and not an extreme one. In this sense many agnostics have more faith than those who claim to have faith.
Look around you and try to find someone who has true faith… you will see that they adhere to this model and not to one of acceptance or rejection.
When you find them you will see that they radiate love and compassion.
One might even say that those who have faith never use the word, or even act out “faith” in a conscious way. They simply have it.
But it does get a bit confusing when the act of love and compassion is admonishing the lack of love and compassion. But I do agree that genuine faith is recognizable, even though we might not call it by that name. There is simply a quiet assuredness, almost an aura about those of faith.
It is much as the Daoist observation that those who know (Dao) don’t speak of it, and those who do speak don’t know.
Why would or should that be the case? If you know Truth, should you not speak of it? This is an admonition to never communicate unless you’re an idiot.
But I do agree that genuine faith is recognizable, even though we might not call it by that name. There is simply a quiet assuredness, almost an aura about those of faith.
