daid..how about..dueality of faiths

or different faiths..
[infinite faiths..really]

even faithlessness,,to a degree
depends on faith..in the facts underpinning the fact

where would utter..complete faith..
in the loss of faith lead?

i..looked up hypata
but to..quote the story..takes too much space
[as..too many people have..poisoned the well]..it seems christian radicals..did really bad things

and no doubt paid in full..[redeemed in the after life]
yes i know..for you..no..after..in which case..as jesus said..let the dead bury the dead..[let sleeping gods lie]

thoughts on faith

When we see..someone..in pain, ]
our conscience..tells us..to help them...
having the firm faith,..that,..helping them..wont hurt us..and just might save us

the underlying faith..is..That is..the "good"..in us
that seeks,,to do good..for other

from #God..and..9/11
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2562/god_and_911.aspx

<<..What does this..have to do with..the anniversary of "9/11".. Quite a bit.,,Actually,..nearly everything...And I am quite/certain that Pope Benedict XVI,..in giving his address..at Regensberg on September..12,2006,..was trying to get us to see..fundamental connections..between how we understand God..and how we understand our place in this world—

in other words,..the relationship..between faith..and reason,..
an essential theme..of his pontificate.

Benedict stated:

Violence..is incompatible..with the nature of God
and the nature..of the soul.

"God",..he says,.."is not pleased by blood
-and not acting reasonably..*is contrary to God's nature.

Faith..is born of the soul,..not the body.
Whoever..would lead someone..to faith needs..the ability
to speak well..and to reason properly,..without violence and threats...

To convince..a reasonable soul,
one does not need..a strong arm,..or weapons of any kind,
or any other means..of threatening a person..with death...".[4]

The decisive statement..in this argument..against violent conversion is this:..not to act in accordance with reason..is contrary to God's nature

And,..as we know,
these remarks were soon followed
by threats..and acts of violence..by those who were angerd
that they..had been unfairly..deemed prone to..threats and acts of violence.

But Benedict,in many ways,
was simply elucidating a point..made by his predecessor,.

If we feel nothing
and do nothing for them,..that is the "evil" in us.

Ergo,.the Pope is entirely right
to advise..atheists to follow their conscience,..
because that is..the path to enlightenment...

[call it a kind of..blind faith?]
there are..so many divergent..faiths/trusts..just here at the forum

i can understand the preachy thing..though
they may feel..if only i..had got 'saved'..earlier
plusd it feels good tojudge someone else as NEEDING saving

you gotta appriciate..the pope..for
not judging..or trying to..convert the athiest dude

What if someone's conscience
tells them that God doesn't exist
and that..the Pope is a silly man..in white peddling antiquated nonsense?

by faith,..we would say..that a truly..tested conscience..
will always conclude..that the Church offers..salvation.

But if an individual..continues to assert.the opposite..then they are best advised..to be honest about their feelings...

The phrase.."the mercy of God..
has no limits"..is important.

In the same way...that Catholics have faith..
that the Almighty..will forgive them..of their sins,..so we have faith..that he will do..the same for others we love..so we don't try to second guess him.

Believing that the Church..offers the keys..to the kingdom of Heaven,
IF..we do our best to be good..means truly honestly..loving the DOING..of good works

sure..We often fail...
but if we will it..passionatly..it just happens..
just by..actually helping other..some have faith in this

Is all of the above..really so hard to grasp?

Eugenio Scalfari,..an agnostic..and the paper's founder,..in which he was asked..whether.."the Christian God..forgives those..who do not believe..and do not seek faith".

Mr Scalfari said..he had not expected..the South American
pope to respond "so extensively..and so affectionately,..with such fraternal spirit"

pope said..that the "mercy..of God..has no limits"..[]faith]..
and encompassed..even non-believers,[faith] but..his remarks failed to impress..the Italian Union..of Atheists and Agnostics.

"Why should..a non-believer seek..
legitimisation..from the Pope?"..the association asked.

It dismissed..what it called the pontiff's.."nice words"
and said.."What interests ,,non-believers..is certainly not 'forgiveness'..from an entity..whose existence..*we do not trust."..>>..

please/note

athiest..=..we do not trust../..why seek legitimisation
pope..=..mercy../..faith../..no limit

..<<...The Pope's reaching out..to atheists..
echoes a homily..he delivered in May,..
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2553/pope_francis_vigil_for_peace_homily_full_text.aspx

yet its not full text..at all
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2293/full_text_pope_francis_corpus_christi_homily.aspx

when he said.that..even good atheists
would be welcomed..into heaven..taken on faith.

# The Parable of the Perfect Father
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2569/the_parable_of_the_perfect_father.aspx
# The Holy Cross is an invitation to faith, to life, to love
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2568/the_holy_cross_is_an_invitation_to_faith_to_life_to_love.aspx
# Pope Francis: “There is no such thing as innocent gossip”
http://www.catholicworldreport.com/Blog/2566/pope_francis_there_is_no_such_thing_as_innocent_gossip.aspx

.

Dear David,

.

“I think faith in itself is not worth a pail of warm spit. I think faith in itself is far more bad than good. Doubt and questioning seem greatly superior. To me faith is a vice.”

.

Faith derives from the Latin fidès trust, confidence. Doubt derives from the Latin dubitàre to waver, hesitate, be uncertain.

The antonym of faith is mistrust and that of doubt is certainty.

Faith and mistrust are two sides of the same coin. Doubt and certainty are two sides of another coin.

Faith is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both). Blind faith is belief where there is no material evidence, no circumstantial evidence and no credible eye witness.

Blind faith is a wild gamble. It is unreasonable, imprudent, exposes to insecurity and can be dangerous.

Excessive doubt is of a similar vein to blind faith, known by psychologists as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD).

People with OCD have excessive doubts, worries, or superstitions. While all people experience these problems occasionally, OCD patients’ worries can control their lives. They may cope with common problems by indulging in compulsions that are excessive or do not make logical sense.

Medical researchers have shown that OCD is a brain disorder that is caused by incorrect information processing. People with OCD say their brains become stuck on a certain urge or thought. In the past, OCD was considered untreatable. However, advances in therapy and medication have greatly increased the chance that someone with OCD can be successfully treated.

Reasonable faith and reasonable doubt are healthy. Blind faith and excessive doubt are not.

It's a question of pathology, in my opinion, not of morality.

.

Dear Banjo,

Etymology tells us the source of a word. It does not tell its meaning. Meaning is determined by usage. The meaning of the word faith is generally belief without evidence to support that belief. That is the nature of religious belief. There is no evidence for the existence of a God or Gods, the virgin birth, god as a real estate dealer assigning territory, etc. Where there is evidence or reason to support a belief then it is no longer faith. Doubt of evolution is unreasonable since there is compelling evidence for evolution. Of course one may doubt the evidence. However, doubt of a belief is reasonable since there is no evidence.

What we doubt and what we accept depends on our level of knowledge. My level of knowledge tells me that evolution is a fact. My level of knowledge tells me that the big-bang theory probably is a fact since those who have the knowledge to evaluate the evidence generally accept it, but I have not examined and evaluated the evidence.

You wrote: "Faith is belief where there is no material evidence, only circumstantial evidence or a credible eye witness (or both)."

I would not call that faith. Of course if you want to make that definition then we are no longer discussing the faith I was talking about. Faith is absolute in the definition I was using.

Doubt has degrees. Where there is circumstantial or eye witness evidence for a happening we cannot be sure something happened, but we have reason to think it happened. The law makes this distinction in requesting a conviction if the evidence shows the accused is guilty 'beyond a reasonable doubt.'

However, we cannot have a useful discussion if we use different definitions for the same word.

Dear david f,

I agree with your assessment of the two examples as well as of Obama’s quandary. However, I think we have different understandings of faith (which are again both probably different from what is described by Banjo as “blind” or “unblind” faiths respectively). Anyhow, we already had this discussion about possible definitions of faith (as opposed to mere religious belief) in http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=15077#260669 and the sequel.

For instance, I do not understand what “following the demands of faith”. I only understand “following the demands” of a religious leader/authority, guru, scripture, one’s conscience. These are all somehow related to the state of believing in a God who is beyond natural science’s reach. However, believing IN such God is on one hand more than just believing in His mere existence, but on the other hand also less than fanatically following what I think are His commands to be followed under all circumstances, in all situations, irrespective of what the source of this thinking of mine is: some “spiritual adviser”, zealous preacher, some text or my own inclination for zealotry, religious, national/ethnic, political. Not all religious people are fanatical, the same as for patriots and politicians.

As one can misread Genesis as a scientific text, so can one misread moral norms of conduct as “demands of faith”, whether by uncritically reading the Bible or by rigidly following e.g. “go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them”. Both have been happening throughout history - and have to be understood in their historical context. Unfortunately, both are still happening, even though now one should know better.

Correction:
On second thoughts, instead of writing “more than just believing in His mere existence” I should have written “more than just believing that He exists” to make clear the difference between “believing in” (an idea, a person, etc) and “believing that” (a statement is true). This distinction exists also in other European languages, e. g. Slavic or German (and in Latin), unlike the distinction between faith and religious belief, or proof and evidence.

For instance, Benedict XVI's writings show that his thinking was in German where one word (Glauge) describes both faith and belief. Banjo would know whethern the French have this distinction.