Faith - it's not just a religious term

[nebula]

That is because you are confused between trust and faith. Trust is an expectation re-enforced by previous actions, and faith is an expectation that is re-enforced by nothing at all. Trust is expecting that a doctor will heal your broken bone, and faith is responding eagerly to the fellow who says you have inherited kingship of Nigeria, and they need your bank details to transfer your money to the royal account.

I am not impressed by the mocking attitude you have shown in the responses you have given the others. I hope you realize that the only one you are truly mocking is yourself.

I have no confusion whatsoever between trust and faith. And just because human governments abuse faith does not give you an excuse to hate God.

As for trusting doctors . . . I can give you plenty of stories where doctors have been found to be untrustworthy. My toe was broken, and the doctor just told me to wrap it with the surrounding toes and it would heal. I was later to find out that the bone needed to have been reset; now my toe is a bit misshapen.

Your example is flawed. Your logic is flawed.

Now, if you want to argue "faith in God" verses other kinds of faith (your faith in a doctor to heal a broken bone properly), we can discuss the meaning of faith as a word.

But if you want to argue God-hatred via creating your own definition of faith, we have nothing to discuss.

[Grungekid]

My point is, when non-religious people say they have faith in something,

Odd . . . my experience in these discussions is that non-religious people belief "faith" is something only religioius people have (thus the reason I started this thread).

We Christians will explain how the atheists and agnostics we are discussing things with have faith in science, or faith in human reason, and the reply will always be (and I mean it truly has always been) something to the effect of, "No, we don't have faith. 'Faith' is a religioius term."

Absolutely. Every website I saw when I first started looking into the debate had a huge 'rebuttal' article on scientists and their non-existent faith.

[Grungekid]

My point is, when non-religious people say they have faith in something,

Odd . . . my experience in these discussions is that non-religious people belief "faith" is something only religioius people have (thus the reason I started this thread).

We Christians will explain how the atheists and agnostics we are discussing things with have faith in science, or faith in human reason, and the reply will always be (and I mean it truly has always been) something to the effect of, "No, we don't have faith. 'Faith' is a religioius term."

That is because you are confused between trust and faith. Trust is an expectation re-enforced by previous actions, and faith is an expectation that is re-enforced by nothing at all. Trust is expecting that a doctor will heal your broken bone, and faith is responding eagerly to the fellow who says you have inherited kingship of Nigeria, and they need your bank details to transfer your money to the royal account.

Then you won't deny that you do not believe the Christian 'faith' is different from the word in its other contexts.

[nebula]

But let me go back to my original example:

Imagine yourself back in the late 1800's/ perhaps early 1900's wandering the barren lands of the Southwest. It's been almost two days since you last had a drink of water. Fortunately, you come upon a deserted homestead with an actual water pump! When you get to the pump, you see a glass full of water with a note: "This water is for priming the pump."

(For those of you who are not familiar with this, in order for a pump to work, you have to fill the pipe with water in order for the pump to suck up the water in the well or reservoir. This is called "priming the pump.")

The only problem is that you do not know if the well/reservoir is dry or not.

So you must decide:

1) Drink the lone glass of water which you see and know is there.

or

2) Pour the water into the pipe in faith that an abudance of water which you cannot see will be available to you.

[OneLight]

But let me go back to my original example:

Imagine yourself back in the late 1800's/ perhaps early 1900's wandering the barren lands of the Southwest. It's been almost two days since you last had a drink of water. Fortunately, you come upon a deserted homestead with an actual water pump! When you get to the pump, you see a glass full of water with a note: "This water is for priming the pump."

(For those of you who are not familiar with this, in order for a pump to work, you have to fill the pipe with water in order for the pump to suck up the water in the well or reservoir. This is called "priming the pump.")

The only problem is that you do not know if the well/reservoir is dry or not.

So you must decide:

1) Drink the lone glass of water which you see and know is there.

or

2) Pour the water into the pipe in faith that an abudance of water which you cannot see will be available to you.

If this is in fact a true picture, then I would know that the water would of had to of been pumped recently, otherwise, it would of evaporated in the cup, so I would prime the pump.

I understand what you are trying to ask, but I would rather put my faith in God then in myself, even thought the above reply does not show this.

[nebula]

If this is in fact a true picture, then I would know that the water would of had to of been pumped recently,

You hope.

But maybe I should have said a bottle of water (with a closed lid)?

[nebula]

Then my answer above would stand. In a case like the one you provided, you just have to play the odds. Faith has nothing to do with the assessment that Action A has a X% chance of survival while action B gives me a X+20% chance of survival.

If there is no risk involved, then it isn't faith.

[nebula]

Then my answer above would stand. In a case like the one you provided, you just have to play the odds. Faith has nothing to do with the assessment that Action A has a X% chance of survival while action B gives me a X+20% chance of survival.

If there is no risk involved, then it isn't faith.

Erm... in your little hypothetical, there was a risk involved.

Yes, I know. Why did you think I said otherwise?

However, I wouldn't trust God to make the decision for me: I would use my own judgment on which option carried the lowest risk and take that option.

I never said anything about trusting God to make my decision.

That doesn't mean I'm taking no risk: if I prime the pump then not only is the well dry, but I've also used up all of the available water, and I die of thirst. However if I drink the water, I'm fine for the moment, but I have no way of replenishing my supplies of water, and risk dying of thirst if I can't find another water supply within a day or so.

Let me phrase it this way:

Do you have more faith that there is water in the pump or more faith that you can find another water supply in time?

You say it is nothing more than weighing options and taking risks.

What I am saying is that this is what faith is and how it operates.

Yes, faith in God is believing that He is and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

But faith is not limited to "belief in God." Faith is an action that we all engage in - actions that have nothing to do with God nor spirituality.

For instance, in making your decision and weighing options, whatever it is you rely on to make your decision is what you are putting your faith in. If you rely on the percentages, then your faith is in the percentages.

[Grungekid]

Then my answer above would stand. In a case like the one you provided, you just have to play the odds. Faith has nothing to do with the assessment that Action A has a X% chance of survival while action B gives me a X+20% chance of survival.

If there is no risk involved, then it isn't faith.

Erm... in your little hypothetical, there was a risk involved.

Yes, I know. Why did you think I said otherwise?

You said if there is no risk involved, then it isn't faith. I have no idea why you would say that unless you assume that my

Yes, faith in God is believing that He is and that He rewards those who earnestly seek Him.

But faith is not limited to "belief in God." Faith is an action that we all engage in - actions that have nothing to do with God nor spirituality.

For instance, in making your decision and weighing options, whatever it is you rely on to make your decision is what you are putting your faith in. If you rely on the percentages, then your faith is in the percentages.

That kind of faith can't be equated to faith in god, though. My assessment of the percentages will be weighed by certain facts that I know: such as the distance I have travelled without seeing a homestead (this will influence my judgment of how likely I am to run into another homestead), my knowledge of the water table, my assessment of the state of the pump and so on. Now, I could be wrong, but my decision could easily change if other facts came to light that changed my assessment. If, for example, there was a map which showed that there was a town only a couple of miles away, then that would change my assessment significantly and the percentages that I would come up with would be different. So essentially, I'm putting my faith in known facts, and if you're going to use "faith" to describe "a trust in things that are there", then it's a pretty meaningless term.

On the other hand, your faith in god basically amounts to "the bible said so". But if archeologists fail to come up with any signs that (for example) there was ever a mass migration of a million people travelling from Egypt to Israel (if this happened, there should be quite strong evidence that it occured), your faith in god will be unchanged. If you pray and continually discover that your prayers go unasnwered, then like Job, your faith in god will still be unchanged. Perhaps even if Zeus came down from Mount Olympus and started begetting children upon the women of the world once again, you would still have the same unchanged faith in god. I wonder exactly what could make you change your assessment of god. I have already stated that the percentages that I come up with are subservient to the facts, but how about god?

Uh, there could have been a movement in the ancient world. An article on it you might like is here

edited for an embarassing mistake

[Matthitjah]

Uh, there could have been a movement in the ancient world. An article on it you might like is here

edited for an embarassing mistake

If a million people were wandering around the middle east for 40 years, you'd expect the entire region to have been stripped bare of everything in a very quick timeframe. I believe there is some evidence of a migration at about the supposed time of the exodus, but it's of a far smaller nature than the bible indicates (it was probably just Moses and a couple hundred of his mates getting kicked out for the whole baby-killing thing).

Grace to you,

Lusankya,

Please explain this comment;

(it was probably just Moses and a couple hundred of his mates getting kicked out for the whole baby-killing thing).

Peace,

Dave