Page 24 of 24 FirstFirst ... 14222324
Results 231 to 233 of 233

Thread: Rationalizing faith.

  1. Top | #231
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    5,939
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    Before the first century AD there was no philosophical discussion about "faith" per se, such as we've had over the last 2000 years. So it's appropriate to consider how this word -- πιστις -- is used in the New Testament, to indicate what it means. Maybe its meaning has expanded since then. But the interest in this word began with those first-century writings.
    This is a very good point! We actually have many situations where Christianity caused a formerly loosely defined term to explode onto the philosophical stage later on. ουσια, προσοπον, and υποστασις. αρσενοκοιτες. It's worth noting that Jesus, almost certainly not a Greek speaker, probably didn't use this particular term himself. So it is possible that we are not even asking a question of authorial intent, but rather interpretive intent. It seems that even when Paul's letters were being written, this was the commonplace translation of an Aramaic term, possibly Haimanutha, as Paul seems to assume that this concept is already central to his listeners' perspectives on Christianity despite said Gospels not having been composed or translated yet.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  2. Top | #232
    Sapere aude Politesse's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    Chochenyo Territory, US
    Posts
    5,939
    Rep Power
    21
    Quote Originally Posted by Lumpenproletariat View Post
    But other examples of "faith" do not require that kind of trust, or risk of harm, so that the risk per se is not an essential part of what "faith" means.

    The most frequent example of πιστις in the New Testament is the case of one who approaches Jesus for healing, and who believes or has faith. There was no risk to them in hoping he could perform the healing. Rather, it was a belief they had in his power to heal, their hope, probably based on earlier reports they heard about him. And they did not risk anything by having this belief, or asking him to do the healing act.

    It isn't necessary to make this "faith" anything more complicated than that. It didn't have to be anything profound, or anything heroic on the part of the believer. It's rather philosophers and theologians since then who have magnified it into something complicated.
    This makes me think of a story Jesus once told about a woman who took her case before an unjust judge, who was not inclined to give her the time of day. But she kept coming back day after day, and eventually, he acceeded to her request and heard her case, not because he cared about her or had been persuaded by her argumentation, but simply because he was tired of seeing her cluttering up his court each day. What did she have faith in? Not an intellectual proposition, really, nor faith in the personality of the judge. It's more like her faith was rooted in an idealistic understanding of how things ought to be. The teacher concludes, "However, when the Son of Man comes, will he find faith on the earth?"

    A bit of a bitter conclusion, and hard to match up exactly to the story. But does it sound like he's asking whether a sufficient number of people will have accepted a set of philosophical arguments without evidence or not? The story definitely didn't have religious beliefs as its topic. It's all about actions, with the concept of justice only important as a motivator for those actions.
    "Banish me from Eden when you will, but first let me eat of the tree of knowledge."

  3. Top | #233
    Elder Contributor DBT's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    ɹǝpunuʍop puɐן
    Posts
    11,303
    Archived
    17,906
    Total Posts
    29,209
    Rep Power
    79
    The bible gives a fair definition of faith.

    "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

    You can't argue with that.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •