Is Faith Moral?

[Husker_x]

The rules by which you want to have this conversation preclude any other outcome. Since I don't agree with your definition of faith, there's not much room for discussion, is there?

I don't understand how you can consider faith in your wife who you interact with on a daily basis and could at any time simply ask if she's being faithful the same thing as having faith in a celestial entity who you've never seen, never spoken with, or had any demonstrable interaction with at all. If you have a better word to describe the difference I'm describing than faith, or an adjective that would help the separate them, I suppose I could handle it. But I don't accept that we're talking about the same experience in both cases.

That seems to me like quite a bit of work to argue semantics.

Maybe it is, and maybe it doesn't matter to Christians who supposedly place their earthly and eternal concerns on a word like faith. But I think words matter, and I think we're talking about two distinct things. Trust (evidence-based trust) in a person close to you, and Faith (devoid of evidence) in a being who may or may not exist. According to Christians, having faith in this being is a moral action, in fact the only one that can apparently save you from an eternity of torture. But maybe it's not worth the work, huh?

 

[knapplc]

According to Christians, having faith in this being is a moral action, in fact the only one that can apparently save you from an eternity of torture. But maybe it's not worth the work, huh?

This is the straw man in the conversation, which precludes any other outcome.

 

[dubsker]

The rules by which you want to have this conversation preclude any other outcome. Since I don't agree with your definition of faith, there's not much room for discussion, is there?

I don't understand how you can consider faith in your wife who you interact with on a daily basis and could at any time simply ask if she's being faithful the same thing as having faith in a celestial entity who you've never seen, never spoken with, or had any demonstrable interaction with at all. If you have a better word to describe the difference I'm describing than faith, or an adjective that would help the separate them, I suppose I could handle it. But I don't accept that we're talking about the same experience in both cases.

That seems to me like quite a bit of work to argue semantics.

Maybe it is, and maybe it doesn't matter to Christians who supposedly place their earthly and eternal concerns on a word like faith. But I think words matter, and I think we're talking about two distinct things. Trust (evidence-based trust) in a person close to you, and Faith (devoid of evidence) in a being who may or may not exist. According to Christians, having faith in this being is a moral action, in fact the only one that can apparently save you from an eternity of torture. But maybe it's not worth the work, huh?

Flowery language often makes things more complex than they actually are. In what context you want to use the word, "faith," is about as relevant as debating the difference between, "over there," and "there are." Context is everything and the key to language. Just because a word is spelled the same and used differently in different contexts doesn't mean it's worth having a debate where the meaning of the word in one context is applied to another.

 

[Husker_x]

According to Christians, having faith in this being is a moral action, in fact the only one that can apparently save you from an eternity of torture. But maybe it's not worth the work, huh?

This is the straw man in the conversation, which precludes any other outcome.

Explain. The most basic tenant of the Christian religion is faith in a God you've never seen. You actually have to 'confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead' in order to achieve salvation. Or am I missing something?

 

[Husker_x]

The rules by which you want to have this conversation preclude any other outcome. Since I don't agree with your definition of faith, there's not much room for discussion, is there?

I don't understand how you can consider faith in your wife who you interact with on a daily basis and could at any time simply ask if she's being faithful the same thing as having faith in a celestial entity who you've never seen, never spoken with, or had any demonstrable interaction with at all. If you have a better word to describe the difference I'm describing than faith, or an adjective that would help the separate them, I suppose I could handle it. But I don't accept that we're talking about the same experience in both cases.

That seems to me like quite a bit of work to argue semantics.

Maybe it is, and maybe it doesn't matter to Christians who supposedly place their earthly and eternal concerns on a word like faith. But I think words matter, and I think we're talking about two distinct things. Trust (evidence-based trust) in a person close to you, and Faith (devoid of evidence) in a being who may or may not exist. According to Christians, having faith in this being is a moral action, in fact the only one that can apparently save you from an eternity of torture. But maybe it's not worth the work, huh?

Flowery language often makes things more complex than they actually are. In what context you want to use the word, "faith," is about as relevant as debating the difference between, "over there," and "there are." Context is everything and the key to language. Just because a word is spelled the same and used differently in different contexts doesn't mean it's worth having a debate where the meaning of the word in one context is applied to another.

So you would agree that faith when defined as 'belief without evidence' is actually immoral. Except that's not what you have. You have evidence-based trust, so you don't really need this brand of faith. Correct so far?

 

[dubsker]

Look, I have faith that Bo Pelini is going to do great things for our program. I have faith that my God has done and will do what He says He will. I have faith that it's making a mountain out of a molehill to try and debate the difference between the two. Any rational person knows that while the word is the same, it's obviously used in a different context with differing levels of severity.

 

[muzicman0]

I don't understand how you can consider faith in your wife who you interact with on a daily basis and could at any time simply ask if she's being faithful the same thing as having faith in a celestial entity who you've never seen, never spoken with, or had any demonstrable interaction with at all. If you have a better word to describe the difference I'm describing than faith, or an adjective that would help the separate them, I suppose I could handle it. But I don't accept that we're talking about the same experience in both cases.

What you are refering to (IMHO) is blind faith. But I would argue that:

...the same thing as having faith in a celestial entity who you've never seen, never spoken with, or had any demonstrable interaction with at all...

does not describe my relationship with the God of Abraham (I am trying to be specific, so you know which God I am referring to). I speak with God. I interact with God. I see the hand of God in my daily life. I don't have blind faith. But I do have faith that my God will provide all my needs. Why? Lots of reasons, but for this conversation, we'll just say that it is because I have seen it many times before.

mm0

 

[knapplc]

What I often find comical is the amount of time atheists spend discussion religion. I don't macrame, and I have never once discussed macrame with anyone, let alone start conversation after conversation about it. But I find atheists who think it's awfully fun to point their fingers at theists and "debate" what is a matter of faith. But it's not a debate - it's a thinly veiled attempt to ridicule. That's the sad thing about where we are today - we've progressed to a point where atheists are no longer persecuted by the church, but instead of finding that happy medium where we live and let live, the pendulum has swung to the other side to where atheists now persecute theists, all in the name of "having a conversation."

 

[knapplc]

According to Christians, having faith in this being is a moral action, in fact the only one that can apparently save you from an eternity of torture. But maybe it's not worth the work, huh?

This is the straw man in the conversation, which precludes any other outcome.

Explain. The most basic tenant of the Christian religion is faith in a God you've never seen. You actually have to 'confess with your lips that Jesus is Lord and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead' in order to achieve salvation. Or am I missing something?

I missed the part of your quote that said it was moral.

 

[knapplc]

I liken these threads to debating the morality of homosexuality with homosexuals. I'd never start a thread and expect a gay person to have to defend their life like that.

That's just me, though.

 

[Husker_x]

What I often find comical is the amount of time atheists spend discussion religion. I don't macrame, and I have never once discussed macrame with anyone, let alone start conversation after conversation about it. But I find atheists who think it's awfully fun to point their fingers at theists and "debate" what is a matter of faith. But it's not a debate - it's a thinly veiled attempt to ridicule. That's the sad thing about where we are today - we've progressed to a point where atheists are no longer persecuted by the church, but instead of finding that happy medium where we live and let live, the pendulum has swung to the other side to where atheists now persecute theists, all in the name of "having a conversation."

Knap, I respect you and your right to have an opinion on any issue, but frankly I'm disappointed in this response. For one thing it isn't like religion sits by the side of the road and hands out flowers in the world. It can do real damage, so the discussion is worth having with anyone dubbing themselves religious. Nowhere did I insult or even attempt to ridicule you, but I am interested in understanding how you approach your religion and why you believe the things you do. Since faith is your foundational block, it's as good a place as any to start, and even better if we can define what the word actually means to you.

But to call that persecution. The gaul a Christian in this country would have to have to even speak the word as it applies to them is embarrassing.

 

[Husker_x]

I don't understand how you can consider faith in your wife who you interact with on a daily basis and could at any time simply ask if she's being faithful the same thing as having faith in a celestial entity who you've never seen, never spoken with, or had any demonstrable interaction with at all. If you have a better word to describe the difference I'm describing than faith, or an adjective that would help the separate them, I suppose I could handle it. But I don't accept that we're talking about the same experience in both cases.

What you are refering to (IMHO) is blind faith. But I would argue that:

...the same thing as having faith in a celestial entity who you've never seen, never spoken with, or had any demonstrable interaction with at all...

does not describe my relationship with the God of Abraham (I am trying to be specific, so you know which God I am referring to). I speak with God. I interact with God. I see the hand of God in my daily life. I don't have blind faith. But I do have faith that my God will provide all my needs. Why? Lots of reasons, but for this conversation, we'll just say that it is because I have seen it many times before.

mm0

When you say you speak to God, do you mean that literally like the Pentecostals do? Does he actually say anything, I mean?

 

[knapplc]

What I often find comical is the amount of time atheists spend discussion religion. I don't macrame, and I have never once discussed macrame with anyone, let alone start conversation after conversation about it. But I find atheists who think it's awfully fun to point their fingers at theists and "debate" what is a matter of faith. But it's not a debate - it's a thinly veiled attempt to ridicule. That's the sad thing about where we are today - we've progressed to a point where atheists are no longer persecuted by the church, but instead of finding that happy medium where we live and let live, the pendulum has swung to the other side to where atheists now persecute theists, all in the name of "having a conversation."

Knap, I respect you and your right to have an opinion on any issue, but frankly I'm disappointed in this response. For one thing it isn't like religion sits by the side of the road and hands out flowers in the world. It can do real damage, so the discussion is worth having with anyone dubbing themselves religious. Nowhere did I insult or even attempt to ridicule you, but I am interested in understanding how you approach your religion and why you believe the things you do. Since faith is your foundational block, it's as good a place as any to start, and even better if we can define what the word actually means to you.

But to call that persecution. The gaul a Christian in this country would have to have to even speak the word as it applies to them is embarrassing.

People do real damage. Sometimes they do it in the name of religion. Sometimes they do it in the name of America. Sometimes they do it in the name of Manchester United. In each case, it isn't the establishment that is to blame, it's the individual doing the action that's to blame. Yes, in some cases the institution harbors those who do damage, but then the axe you should grind is with that institution, not an individual American, or a theist or a citizen of America.

And no, it's not "gaul" to call that persecution. Persecution is persecution, period. I've seen where these threads go. The browbeating that comes from them is not a "conversation." Let's not cry innocence. This ain't my first rodeo.

 

[knapplc]

What's the goal of this thread? Are we defining faith? Defining morals? Defending our faith? What are supposed to do here?

 

[muzicman0]

When you say you speak to God, do you mean that literally like the Pentecostals do? Does he actually say anything, I mean?

Do you mean do I hear an audible voice? no. Do you mean does He communicate? Yes.