Faith is.....

Originally posted by Suzianne
Do you reject knowledge often?

Originally posted by FMF
I dispute your suggestion that "faith" creates "knowledge" by which I mean the only objective "knowledge" that "faith" can create is knowledge of what the beliefs of the faithful are.

Originally posted by Suzianne
So when you lost your faith, you also rejected the knowledge you had gained, yes?

This is why I ask, do you reject knowledge often? Or only when it suits you?

Originally posted by Suzianne
Faith is in addition to the material world. It is a 'second tier' of knowledge. Rather then a lacking of knowledge, as you assume it to be, it is an additional knowledge of things beyond our senses. Those of faith do not reject knowledge of the material world, rather, the faithless reject knowledge of the immaterial world. Faith is not a 'rejection' of anything.

Originally posted by divegeester
Our internal sense of right and wrong is called a conscience, not faith.

I'm guessing you are not going to answer my pertinent question, which was how any of the definitions in your opening posts describe how your personal faith is outwardly expressed?

Originally posted by divegeester
I still don't see what corruption, sexual abuse or other vices have to do with your definitions, or indeed the biblical definition, of faith.

Originally posted by whodey
Take gay sex, for example.

In the US, the gay population is only about 5%, but they account for about 60% of AIDS cases and other STD's in the US every year.

Those that choose to see this see that this lifestyle is self destructive.

Sexual abuse in the Catholic church destroys lives. Corruption destroys lives. Having faith in God you have agreed ...[text shortened]... t taking life and living your life accordingly, which means calling out those that destroy life.

Originally posted by Ghost of a Duke
Can you provide a link to validate the figures you have stated.

Thanks

Here's something I heard the other day which really appeals to me:

Faith is not trying to believe something that is difficult or impossible to believe, but knowing that something is true.

Richard Rohr, I think said this.

Originally posted by CalJust
Here's something I heard the other day which really appeals to me:

Faith is not trying to believe something that is difficult or impossible to believe, but knowing that something is true.

Richard Rohr, I think said this.

I think it is an error to turn faith into any kind of epistemic category—and I don’t think that’s what Paul, (as for the example quoted byJS357) had in mind. One has faith—confidence/trust—in the face of uncertainty. This is particularly emphasized in the Young's Literal Translation he listed:


“And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction.”

{This is not so difference from a similar use in sports psychology, in which confidence/faith/”belief” is counseled—not as a rational conclusion based on the evidence, but as an instrumental attitude that will enhance the likelihood of success in the face of uncertain conditions. Philosophically, faith can be seen as an existential attitude of hope and confidence in the face of existential uncertainty—and I think that theological usage—e.g. in St. Paul—can best be seen as an extension of this usage.}

Let’s take logic for example: one does not need to have faith that ~(A & ~A), or [If p then q; p; therefore q]. The opposite of these is not falsity, but absurdity. Similarly, one can prove that the set of all integers is infinite, and one need not then have faith.

Knowledge is standardly defined epistemologically as “justified, true belief”—that is a belief (opinion/conclusion) that one can justify rationally or empirically, and turns out to be true. Thus, there is also a kind of ex post facto element to empirical knowledge. If it turns out to no be true after all, that does not mean that the underlying belief (opinion/conclusion) was not justified at the time—it just means that it wasn’t really knowledge.*

{All that is why I think the word “believe”, in modern conventional or epistemic usages, is no longer a good translation (or is, at best, confusing) of the Greek pisteo—at least not in a New Testament context. }

A soteriology based on fear (by which I mean “fright” or terror or anxiety, which is not the Proverbial “fear of God” ) may well push people beyond faith into desperate (and even idolatrous) demands for certainty. I am not attributing that to anyone here (I certainly cannot), but just making a general observation. And, according to Paul, it is not faith that casts out fear by giving certain knowledge—it is love that casts out fear, as we forget ourselves and act for the beloved.

____________________________________________________

* Note, however, that knowledge in the NT does not principally refer to epistemia or oidos, but gnosis, especially, I think, in Paul. Gnosis especially refers to direct apprehension or recognition or intimate familiarity—for example, I see my wife across the room. I know that it is her without any further investigation. This is the kind of knowing, I think that Wittgenstein (in his On Certainty) argued makes the grammatical addition of “I know”—as in “I know that is my wife”—both redundant and somehow confusing; it is sufficient to say, “That’s my wife over there.” [Barring some weird fantasy/science fiction scenarios—none of which would make me actually investigate who belongs to that lovely face that I recognize as my wife’s.]

Gnosis can also refer to esoteric or mystical knowledge—but need not. It is also used to refer to sexual intercourse.

The following statement by Paul seems almost to be like a Zen koan, intended to elicit at least some uneasiness about knowledge claims (and I think that the generalization reaches beyond the immediate context):

NRS 1 Corinthians 8:1 Now concerning food sacrificed to idols: we know that "all of us possess knowledge." Knowledge puffs up, but love builds up.
2 [/i]Anyone who claims to know something does not yet have the necessary knowledge[/i];
3 but anyone who loves God is known by him.

Originally posted by FMF
You do not seem to understand what I am saying. As a Christian I had gained some knowledge of Christian theology, beliefs and history. I haven't lost or rejected this knowledge, although I might be rusty on the details now all these years later. My faith in Jesus merely created personal "knowledge" of what my own beliefs and superstitions were at that time. Know ...[text shortened]... istian. This does not mean they have "rejected" their knowledge about what my beliefs once were.

Originally posted by whodey
http://www.cdc.gov/hiv/statistics/basics/ataglance.html

Gay, bisexual, and other men who have sex with men (MSM) of all races and ethnicities remain the population most profoundly affected by HIV.

In 2010, the estimated number of new HIV infections among MSM was 29,800, a significant 12% increase from the 26,700 new infections among MSM in 2008.

Alth ...[text shortened]... % of all people living with HIV infection in 2011, the most recent year these data are available

Originally posted by Suzianne
No, on the contrary, it is you who is not understanding what I am saying, as what you are saying has *nothing* to do with what I am saying. Not unusual, just inconvenient vis a vis trying to have an actual conversation. I'm also not going to let you run me over in your rush to showcase your own incongruent, and coincidentally not interesting or true, statements.

Originally posted by whodey
Faith is usually associated with something that is hard to embrace, whether it be something hard to believe or makes it difficult in some other way. In effect, faith feels like putting yourself at risk in some form or fashion.