Wednesday, 15 June 2011
-
What is Faith?
1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability. (Can apply to general people.)2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact. (Can apply to science and rationalists.)3. belief in god or in the doctrines or teachings of religion: the firm faith of the Pilgrims. (Can apply to religious groups.)Origin:
1200–50; Middle English feith < Anglo-French fed, Old French feid, feit < Latin fidem, accusative of fidēs trust, akin to fīdere to trust[from Anglo-French feid , from Latin fidēs trust, confidence]My little rant on faith...Some people are just so arrogant in their little lives and think they are so much bigger then they really are. I'm not saying people are little insignificant beings... I'm saying people put to much time in knowing how intelligent they are, based on what they choose to believe. Then have the arrogance to assume they are, or who ever thinks just like them are, the only ones worthy to walk the face of the earth. Really?
I feel people are different, there are no set rules. In spite of what you think you know, we are only given/have so much to work with. Regardless how far we as people dig into the past... Every thing is based off of theory and the only way of really knowing is having been there, seeing, or experiencing it. Other wise your knowledge is based off of faith. Regardless how you word it, it's faith in some way, shape, or sort.
That's how I feel about life and the word faith.
In this post I'm not looking to knock a persons belief, I'm just stating how I see it.
How do you guys feel about the word faith and how it ties into your belief or path you chose in life?
Post a Comment
- Back to revelife's Revelife Site!
- Note: your comment will appear in revelife's local time zone: GMT -05:00 (Eastern Standard - US, Canada)



Recommend



Comments (7)
"...belief that is not based on proof..."
This does not apply to scientist or rationalist. Science does have proof and belief or faith is not necessary in the field of science.
Rather, this definition falls into the religious category. That even when there is proof or theories built by evidence, people will still believe in God or religion.
@Lyrical_L@xanga - Well how I personally see it is.
"Regardless how far we as people dig into the past... Every thing is
based off of theory and the only way of really knowing is having been
there, seeing, or experiencing it."
And even that isn't a complete certainty... Some one else said this to me...
" Even witnessing something first hand does
not make it true because your senses can be just as deceptive of what we
knows as fact."
~EBOV5_ZAIRE
I guess I just feel even with the smallest percentage of uncertainly in general it can't be stated as fact. With even the tiniest gap their is a small hope of faith put into it.
I understand in terms of Science it is considered Science fact but in full retrospect I see everything as theory. There is always a small chance that we as a group of people are all wrong.
Get what I mean?
This was just a post for conversation on the subject though not for me to tell others they are wrong or anything. I enjoy talking about Religious theory, lack off theory, Science theory, and life in general.
Senses can definitely be deceiving. This is why people believe in ghost, placebos, and experience selective thinking multiple times. Psychology has shown us this.
However, science finds true patterns and laws based on our senses through tests over and over again to be rid of any deceiving qualities. The proof is there. Otherwise we would then be debating on meaning behind "proof", "belief", and "theory".
The argument that science is just a "theory" has been overly used by religious folk. Saying that theories are just hypothetical guesses, but really, true scientific theories are universal laws that have been tested over and over again to make it a reliable law, such as the law of gravity or the law of physics. Laws that we cannot deny.
And if you really want to jump off the quote you just provided, then you are not debating the physical means of our universe but rather the philosophy or the existentialism where the word faith would still not relate to those of scientist or realist.
And I do enjoy the conversation. I do apologize if the post sounded offensive, but as you stated in your post, these are also my views.
"Otherwise we would then be debating on meaning behind "proof", "belief", and "theory". " I guess this is where I meant to be then... lol
No you didn't come off offensive.. I just like to make sure people know I'm not saying hey I'm right! lol
Hope all is well in Chicago (a great place to visit). There is faith, and there is faith in Christ. I have faith in many things. I have faith in the atoning work of Christ. The latter is the most important to have. Enjoy!
I look at faith more like the action verb of belief. I can believe in Jesus and even know that He is, but I show my faith by doing what He has asked and trying to become like Him. As I do that, He also give me the gift of greater faith.
I disagree slightly with the definition about "not based on proof." If I am paying attention, the Lord finds ways every day to show me that He is real, that He cares about me, and that He has a plan for me. I always thought that was what the scripture calls "the substance of things hoped for."
We have faith that most of our medicines will help us. We have faith that when we wake up the house will still be there. Usually. Some of us have religious faith, that helps us get through each day's hardships and decisions. Faith is something not seen, but something felt inwardly.