NationStates Jolt Archive

I've seen a number of threads that state faith is equivilant to religion. Personally, I think this is abhorant; if anything, most religions TAKE AWAY faith.

Let me explain.

Faith has many, many definitions, but the one I'm going to concentrate here is this: belief in something that has not been proven. For example, take the soul; not a proven deal, yet many people believe in it. So, how does religion take away faith?

By taking away beliefs in OTHER things. Any religion that has a holy book strips away faith by forcing the believer to disregard things for no reason other then "God(s) say so." For example, take the much debated homosexuality. How many people of various religions speak out against it for the reason of it being "wrong?" In fact, how many NON-religious people speak out against it? Not many.

Many times faith is victimized because of blind faith. There's another name for this: Fanatacism. Blind faith is not faith at all-part of faith is doubt. An ESSENTIAL part. Without doubt, without the questioning, how can one's faith be strong? This is another mark against religious "faith."

Lastly, there is simply no such thing as bad faith. A person cannot have bad faith. It is impossible. What CAN happen is for good faith to be put in the wrong thing. And it happens all the time. No matter what the size of belief or faith involved, sooner or later something you think of as "true" will be proven wrong, even if it's something as simple as the Easter Bunny. That does not lessen your faith, it simple makes you adjust it to avoid it becoming fanatacism.

I have far too much faith to believe in any religion, and I'm sick of it's name being dragged through the mud.

My opinion has always been that religion and faith go hand-in-hand because religion requires a leap in faith for someone to believe in it. With all the evidence out there, it is hard for a person to believe in a god. Religious people take a chance and believe in something even if it is against reason.

I believe faith is going against the odds.

I've seen a number of threads that state faith is equivilant to religion. Personally, I think this is abhorant; if anything, most religions TAKE AWAY faith.

Let me explain.

Faith has many, many definitions, but the one I'm going to concentrate here is this: belief in something that has not been proven. For example, take the soul; not a proven deal, yet many people believe in it. So, how does religion take away faith?

By taking away beliefs in OTHER things. Any religion that has a holy book strips away faith by forcing the believer to disregard things for no reason other then "God(s) say so." For example, take the much debated homosexuality. How many people of various religions speak out against it for the reason of it being "wrong?" In fact, how many NON-religious people speak out against it? Not many.

Many times faith is victimized because of blind faith. There's another name for this: Fanatacism. Blind faith is not faith at all-part of faith is doubt. An ESSENTIAL part. Without doubt, without the questioning, how can one's faith be strong? This is another mark against religious "faith."

Lastly, there is simply no such thing as bad faith. A person cannot have bad faith. It is impossible. What CAN happen is for good faith to be put in the wrong thing. And it happens all the time. No matter what the size of belief or faith involved, sooner or later something you think of as "true" will be proven wrong, even if it's something as simple as the Easter Bunny. That does not lessen your faith, it simple makes you adjust it to avoid it becoming fanatacism.

I have far too much faith to believe in any religion, and I'm sick of it's name being dragged through the mud.

I believe the problem arises from the concept of the "Act of Faith" - whereby the 'religious' person decides that, despite the concrete evidences around them, they will accept the more ephemeral evidences of a given tradition.

The confused assumption then arises that, sicne an "Act of Faith" was required to accept the religion, continued observation must mean continued 'faith'.

I find it ironic that you are basically arguing Jesus' case here. Ignore all the personal stuff that certain of the contributors filled their pages with, and just read the Jesus material... what he thought, and what he did. You find a man who fought against the 'religious experts', the 'religious texts', the 'indoctrinations', etc. Jesus preached 'Faith', and a personal relationship with divinity, in the absence of corrupting influences, like 'scripture'.

I believe the problem arises from the concept of the "Act of Faith" - whereby the 'religious' person decides that, despite the concrete evidences around them, they will accept the more ephemeral evidences of a given tradition.

The confused assumption then arises that, sicne an "Act of Faith" was required to accept the religion, continued observation must mean continued 'faith'.

I find it ironic that you are basically arguing Jesus' case here. Ignore all the personal stuff that certain of the contributors filled their pages with, and just read the Jesus material... what he thought, and what he did. You find a man who fought against the 'religious experts', the 'religious texts', the 'indoctrinations', etc. Jesus preached 'Faith', and a personal relationship with divinity, in the absence of corrupting influences, like 'scripture'.

This is probably the smartest response I have read, in terms of religion, on this forum. Christians, in general, need to read what Jesus said about hypocrites as well.

This is probably the smartest response I have read, in terms of religion, on this forum. Christians, in general, need to read what Jesus said about hypocrites as well.

Thank you.

Especially since, as I reread it now, it appears my spelling went just a little 'optional' in there, somwhere.

:)