Thread: Is there any meaning in the Bible verse "faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen" makes any sense?

"faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen"-Hebrews 11: 1

Does this verse make any sense?
On the first glance, i thought this was gibberish. If you ask me now, i will still think it is.
What's your view on this?
How can faith BE evidence?
If there's an official definition of 'evidence', does the idea of 'faith' go anywhere close, or contain any similar attributes of 'evidence'?

Or is Hebrews 11:1 just starting to make people think "mhmm... I DO NOT understand what this verse it talking about, it must mean that its written by an intellectually advanced divine being, as it is beyond the understanding with human intellect. It MUST be proof that God exists.", and therefore, they start using this verse as 'brain food' to convert non-christians to christians?

Whats the proper definition of 'evidence'?
Whats your opinion on this verse sense/nonsense?
1) Or does this verse mean something else when the use the word 'evidence'? (if it does, why make such a confusion?)
2) Does the writers of this verse don't know what they are trying to talk about when they written it down?

It feels like there should be a comma somewhere in that sentence.

I think the main part of it is "the evidence of things not seen" and seems to be implying that an absence of evidence shouldn't deter faith or hope.

Basically: it's guff.
"Faith actually IS the evidence" is how that sentence is interpreted.


And, just to give you some idea of the *cough* rationality behind that claim the linked site also says this "In fact, the whole message of Romans 1 is that there is really no such thing as an atheist. They all know that God exists, but suppress this truth in unrighteousness."
Riiight...

It's true. We all suppress the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

The claim strikes me, especially in the format given in my previous post, as supremely arrogant.
Effectively it's saying "If it's not true how come I believe it?".
I.e. a claim of personal infallibility...

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

They all know that God exists, but suppress this truth in unrighteousness.

YES THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MY CHURCH PEOPLE TELL ME DURING 1 on 1 conversations.

i am a intellectual being and i find this offensive

why do they tell us what we do, or do not believe in? shouldn't be the other way around, we be telling them what we believe or do not??

Whats the proper definition of 'evidence'?
Whats your opinion on this verse sense/nonsense?
1) Or does this verse mean something else when the use the word 'evidence'? (if it does, why make such a confusion?)
2) Does the writers of this verse don't know what they are trying to talk about when they written it down?

It's just a semi-poetic way of getting around the central point that faith is complete and entire in itself.

If it was about evidence, it wouldn't be faith, it would be facts or data or something else not-faith.

(And the other thing to bear in mind constantly when trying to interpret biblical verses is that

1) they're translations from another language

2) the writing of the time was often much more poetic and ambiguous than we're accustomed to ...

which means ...

3) you're really hard-pressed to be sure you're right no matter how hard you work at it.)

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

YES THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MY CHURCH PEOPLE TELL ME DURING 1 on 1 conversations.
i am a intellectual being and i find this offensive
why do they tell us what we do, or do not believe in? shouldn't be the other way around, we be telling them what we believe or do not??

It's a blind spot they have: they simply cannot understand how someone can not believe.

Hoping god is real because I have no evidence to back up my claim....that's my take. So even back when some scribe penned that verse, a lack of any evidence was the only thing that truly existed for believers, as it remains today.

Originally Posted by adelady

It's just a semi-poetic way of getting around the central point that faith is complete and entire in itself.

This is what I get from it. It seems to suggest that if you have faith, the faith is the evidence of God's existence.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

YES THIS IS EXACTLY WHAT MY CHURCH PEOPLE TELL ME DURING 1 on 1 conversations.
i am a intellectual being and i find this offensive
why do they tell us what we do, or do not believe in? shouldn't be the other way around, we be telling them what we believe or do not??

It's a blind spot they have: they simply cannot understand how someone can not believe.

I doubt it was initially a blind spot. Seems like more of a catch-all for why people don't believe their particular malarkey, especially back when the book was initially written. "If people say they don't believe; it's because they actually believe, and just refuse to admit it." That seems like a good selling point for bull crap when there's no ability to do research or even read for the majority of the preached to population.

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

"faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen"-Hebrews 11: 1

Does this verse make any sense?
On the first glance, i thought this was gibberish. If you ask me now, i will still think it is.
What's your view on this?
How can faith BE evidence?
If there's an official definition of 'evidence', does the idea of 'faith' go anywhere close, or contain any similar attributes of 'evidence'?

Or is Hebrews 11:1 just starting to make people think "mhmm... I DO NOT understand what this verse it talking about, it must mean that its written by an intellectually advanced divine being, as it is beyond the understanding with human intellect. It MUST be proof that God exists.", and therefore, they start using this verse as 'brain food' to convert non-christians to christians?

Whats the proper definition of 'evidence'?
Whats your opinion on this verse sense/nonsense?
1) Or does this verse mean something else when the use the word 'evidence'? (if it does, why make such a confusion?)
2) Does the writers of this verse don't know what they are trying to talk about when they written it down?

The science of this verse is consitency, faith has always worked for those that have faith in the past, and so using faith in the present to go from te action of prayer or an action that always gets a result (usually..the desired one) is logical and rational. It is a tried and tested principle that has always worked in he past, and therefore it is evidence of past experiments that a missionary or anyone can use, using the principle of FAITH in a PRICIPLE.
It worked in the past, and should work in the present. Why because Christian Faith is the knowledge of the invisable a scientific reality, of things not seen (The visable EMF is only 1/70th of the whole field), and brings about an action in the invisable or VISABLE. Its tried and proven...then read further in the CHAPTER after having done the preliminary experiemnts and proving FAITH's reliability

Originally Posted by Davidjayjordan

The science of this verse is consitency, faith has always worked for those that have faith in the past, and so using faith in the present to go from te action of prayer or an action that always gets a result (usually..the desired one) is logical and rational. It is a tried and tested principle that has always worked in he past, and therefore it is evidence of past experiments that a missionary or anyone can use, using the principle of FAITH in a PRICIPLE.
It worked in the past, and should work in the present. Why because Christian Faith is the knowledge of the invisable a scientific reality, of things not seen

What nonsense.

(The visable EMF is only 1/70th of the whole field)

Your numbers are off.

and brings about an action in the invisable or VISABLE. Its tried and proven...then read further in the CHAPTER after having done the preliminary experiemnts and proving FAITH's reliability

Drivel again.

Yes, your response contains, nonsense and drivel.

Mine will be proven and assumes some degree of professionalism and honesty from those readers.

Please no more drivel and non-sense. Thanks

David. In more than a dozen post you haven't thus far shown that you have any understanding of logic or formal reasoning. That or you are trolling. You haven't even addressed the OP, but instead just put together a jumbled repeat of incoherent rhetoric largely repeated in the other active thread. Either participate in some meaningful way or don't post at all. This is an official warning.

Originally Posted by Lynx_Fox

David. In more than a dozen post you haven't thus far shown that you have any understanding of logic or formal reasoning. That or you are trolling. You haven't even addressed the OP, but instead just put together a jumbled repeat of incoherent rhetoric largely repeated in the other active thread. Either participate in some meaningful way or don't post at all. This is an official warning.

I wont post HERE, anymore. As I did address the OP statement exactly, and gave an answer that was tried and proven. Why because I have had personal experience from 'living by faith.

I thought the drivel response was off topic and improper.

But whatever, I hate religious types and their semantics and violence, so shall shift to another board.

Thanks for the welcome

Dear david, your whole post is filled with vocab errors, i've corrected them here to be easier to read.

Originally Posted by Davidjayjordan

The science of this verse is consistency, faith has always worked for those that have faith in the past, and so using faith in the present to go from the action of prayer or an action that always gets a result (usually..the desired one) is logical and rational. It is a tried and tested principle that has always worked in he past, and therefore it is evidence of past experiments that a missionary or anyone can use, using the principle of FAITH in a PRINCIPLE. It worked in the past, and should work in the present.

I don't understand what you are saying, what i think you are trying to say is: "Christians who imagine that those things that happen to them after asking god for it in their prayer is evidence that god exists".

Well, if this is what you are saying, why is the link between 'things asked for', and 'things that happen' evidence?

Are you sure that imagination can actually be treated as a form of data?, or even as a form of statistical analysis?
How sure are you that it is not neuroscience, the naive psychological misunderstanding of coincidence?

Originally Posted by Davidjayjordan

Why because Christian Faith is the knowledge of the invisible a scientific reality, of things not seen (The visible EMF is only 1/70th of the whole field), and brings about an action in the invisible or VISIBLE. Its tried and proven...then read further in the CHAPTER after having done the preliminary experiments and proving FAITH's reliability

This second part is basically easier to understand what you are saying.
Firstly, 'INVISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE' is NOT the same as 'UNDETECTABLE'.

I think that if you are a person of faith, then faith is logical to you. If you are not a person of faith, the verse and thus faith itself, will have no logical meaning.
I was once a Christian, and that verse seemed perfectly logical to me, at that time. Logic isn't subjective, but it is harder to reason someone out of his/her faith, than it is to lead them to it, in the first place.

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

Dear david, your whole post is filled with vocab errors, i've corrected them here to be easier to read.

Originally Posted by Davidjayjordan

The science of this verse is consistency, faith has always worked for those that have faith in the past, and so using faith in the present to go from the action of prayer or an action that always gets a result (usually..the desired one) is logical and rational. It is a tried and tested principle that has always worked in he past, and therefore it is evidence of past experiments that a missionary or anyone can use, using the principle of FAITH in a PRINCIPLE. It worked in the past, and should work in the present.

I don't understand what you are saying, what i think you are trying to say is: "Christians who imagine that those things that happen to them after asking god for it in their prayer is evidence that god exists".

Well, if this is what you are saying, why is the link between 'things asked for', and 'things that happen' evidence?

Are you sure that imagination can actually be treated as a form of data?, or even as a form of statistical analysis?
How sure are you that it is not neuroscience, the naive psychological misunderstanding of coincidence?

Originally Posted by Davidjayjordan

Why because Christian Faith is the knowledge of the invisible a scientific reality, of things not seen (The visible EMF is only 1/70th of the whole field), and brings about an action in the invisible or VISIBLE. Its tried and proven...then read further in the CHAPTER after having done the preliminary experiments and proving FAITH's reliability

This second part is basically easier to understand what you are saying.
Firstly, 'INVISIBLE TO THE HUMAN EYE' is NOT the same as 'UNDETECTABLE'.

Exactly right, but scientists HERE are absolutely petrified by anyone suggesting design and mathematics and therefore ban such discussions. Shameful science, true science is not afraid and whimpy and gutless

Originally Posted by wegs

I think that if you are a person of faith, then faith is logical to you. If you are not a person of faith, the verse and thus faith itself, will have no logical meaning.
I was once a Christian, and that verse seemed perfectly logical to me, at that time. Logic isn't subjective, but it is harder to reason someone out of his/her faith, than it is to lead them to it, in the first place.

As mentioned, those with faith, know from personal expeience that faith works, those who are blind and weak and fiberless and run discussion baords promoting blindness, because they are afraid of their flocks venturing into the invisable unseen world are truly hopeless and worse than the con artists called religionists

Originally Posted by Davidjayjordan

Originally Posted by wegs

I think that if you are a person of faith, then faith is logical to you. If you are not a person of faith, the verse and thus faith itself, will have no logical meaning.
I was once a Christian, and that verse seemed perfectly logical to me, at that time. Logic isn't subjective, but it is harder to reason someone out of his/her faith, than it is to lead them to it, in the first place.

As mentioned, those with faith, know from personal expeience that faith works, those who are blind and weak and fiberless and run discussion baords promoting blindness, because they are afraid of their flocks venturing into the invisable unseen world are truly hopeless and worse than the con artists called religionists

ha, hmmm...well, then. Do tell us what you really are thinking, David. So, you are a 'believer?' May I ask, how can you be so sure that 'faith works?' Not looking to spar w/you, rather I'm merely curious.

I remember someone saying "Rational arguments won't work on religious people."

I think faith is blind because there is no reasonable basis to believe, you just do. Usually results from years of brainwashing.

If faith have no reasonable basis to believe, is there any reason why the bible says its evidence?

I have read post #3 The Evidence of Things Not Seen | Creation Today and the website doesn't seem to make any sense, for example,

In fact, the whole message of Romans 1 is that there is really no such thing as an atheist. They all know that God exists, but suppress this truth in unrighteousness.

Or maybe when creationtoday.org was talking about evidence, isn't really the evidence we're talking about?

It is a little hard to understand, but this is what it means:

Faith is something you want. If you want God, then God is faith.

And faith is also evidence for what you don't see. This means that something you don't see, has evidence for its existence. That evidence is faith.

And just for fun look at all the different ways that phrase is expressed:

"Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."
"Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen"
"Faith is the reality of what we hope for, the proof of what we don’t see."
"Now faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not."
"Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see."
"Faith assures us of things we expect and convinces us of the existence of things we cannot see"

(See Hebrews 11:1 KJ21 - Now faith is the substance of things - Bible Gateway)

Obviously God's hand guided all these and many more---a rather shaky hand (lol)(or non-existent one)

"faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen"-Hebrews 11: 1

This is a theological question. I think it means that when you hope for something, then faith will produce the substance of what you hope for.

When the substance is produced, then that is evidence for God acting on the believer's faith.

This passage seems to be consistent with other passages in the Bible that discuss faith as being more than just a belief system, but a means to effect change in a person's environment e.g.. move mountains etc.

Originally Posted by dedo

This passage seems to be consistent with other passages in the Bible that discuss faith as being more than just a belief system, but a means to effect change in a person's environment e.g.. move mountains etc.

And that is exactly where it fails.

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by dedo

This passage seems to be consistent with other passages in the Bible that discuss faith as being more than just a belief system, but a means to effect change in a person's environment e.g.. move mountains etc.

And that is exactly where it fails.

Actually, that is not correct.

Even in the secular world, having a positive belief that you will succeed is associated with success. The self help literature that discusses this is vast. The movie "Lego" in theaters now is based on this concept.

However, theologically spiritual Faith does require you to spend time with God.

That is the difference between simple "success" through perseverance, and the substance produced from faith.

Originally Posted by dedo

Originally Posted by pavlos

Originally Posted by dedo

This passage seems to be consistent with other passages in the Bible that discuss faith as being more than just a belief system, but a means to effect change in a person's environment e.g.. move mountains etc.

And that is exactly where it fails.

Actually, that is not correct.

Ah but it is.

Originally Posted by dedo

Even in the secular world, having a positive belief that you will succeed is associated with success. The self help literature that discusses this is vast. The movie "Lego" in theaters now is based on this concept.

However having a belief you will succeed does not do anything, other than maybe give you a spur in the right direction. You can have all the belief you want but without the actually physical actions you need to succeed, you will get no where.

Originally Posted by dedo

However, theologically spiritual Faith does require you to spend time with God.

Alone in your own imagination. Ok! Worth while, why?

Originally Posted by dedo

That is the difference between simple "success" through perseverance, and the substance produced from faith.

What substance! You don't mean your imagination do you?

When I was in secondary school I was a member of the Scripture Union, an organisation that promoted Bible study among young people. I recall at one of our weekly meetings I was to present a talk on the crucifixion. The crux of my talk (pun intnended) was that while it might seem disappointing that there was no solid evidence for the resurrection, this was because God was testing our fatih and this test was appropriate, for without faith we could not approach and be one with God.

That was fifty years ago and it made perfect sense at the time. I still have no difficulty adjusting my mind set to where it could make perfect sense today. I choose not to, but do as a consequence of that experience have some understanding of what goes on in the minds of believers.

Originally Posted by adelady

Whats the proper definition of 'evidence'?
Whats your opinion on this verse sense/nonsense?
1) Or does this verse mean something else when the use the word 'evidence'? (if it does, why make such a confusion?)
2) Does the writers of this verse don't know what they are trying to talk about when they written it down?

It's just a semi-poetic way of getting around the central point that faith is complete and entire in itself.

If it was about evidence, it wouldn't be faith, it would be facts or data or something else not-faith.

(And the other thing to bear in mind constantly when trying to interpret biblical verses is that

1) they're translations from another language

2) the writing of the time was often much more poetic and ambiguous than we're accustomed to ...

which means ...

3) you're really hard-pressed to be sure you're right no matter how hard you work at it.)

I agree with you, it depends where, and how one understands what is been projected. reading these verses and understanding what is meant is strictly subjective. There is no one way to understand what is meant, and therefore a comma would not change anything to make the reader not interpret it their own way.

Originally Posted by dedo

"faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen"-Hebrews 11: 1

This is a theological question. I think it means that when you hope for something, then faith will produce the substance of what you hope for.

When the substance is produced, then that is evidence for God acting on the believer's faith.

This passage seems to be consistent with other passages in the Bible that discuss faith as being more than just a belief system, but a means to effect change in a person's environment e.g.. move mountains etc.

Can you please explain what substance means in this sense? If faith produces a substance and it is analogous with matter that gives us something to touch, how can it produce things hoped for?

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by dedo

"faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen"-Hebrews 11: 1

This is a theological question. I think it means that when you hope for something, then faith will produce the substance of what you hope for.

When the substance is produced, then that is evidence for God acting on the believer's faith.

This passage seems to be consistent with other passages in the Bible that discuss faith as being more than just a belief system, but a means to effect change in a person's environment e.g.. move mountains etc.

Can you please explain what substance means in this sense? If faith produces a substance and it is analogous with matter that gives us something to touch, how can it produce things hoped for?

Faith produces things hoped for (substance), because God acts on the believer's behalf.

What is produced by faith is not necessarily something that is material.

For example, in the case of St. Joan of Arc, a peasant girl has some visions, and acts on the visions with a high level of faith.

She accomplishes some amazing feats.

Most believers do not have visions.

Rather, they are moved by their conscience.

The believer's faith can effect the outcome of the believer's efforts.

At least that is how I think it works, since I don't have any formal coursework in theology.

Originally Posted by dedo

Faith produces things hoped for (substance), because God acts on the believer's behalf.

Perhaps you didn't actually read the quote.
I'll post it here: faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
Not "faith produces..." or even "faith leads to..." but "faith IS...".
Therefore your interpretation would appear to be a purely personal one.

Originally Posted by dedo

Faith produces things hoped for (substance), because God acts on the believer's behalf.

Citation needed.

Originally Posted by dedo

What is produced by faith is not necessarily something that is material.

Placebo effect. Agreed.

Originally Posted by dedo

For example, in the case of St. Joan of Arc, a peasant girl has some visions, and acts on the visions with a high level of faith.

She accomplishes some amazing feats.

And is subsequently burned alive despite acting upon God's behalf. Sounds like a lousy boss...

Originally Posted by dedo

Most believers do not have visions.

Rather, they are moved by their conscience.

The believer's faith can effect the outcome of the believer's efforts..

Regardless of our faith, we are ALL driven to action by our conscience. What reason is there to attribute that to a God?

Originally Posted by dedo

Originally Posted by Stargate

Originally Posted by dedo

"faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen"-Hebrews 11: 1

This is a theological question. I think it means that when you hope for something, then faith will produce the substance of what you hope for.

When the substance is produced, then that is evidence for God acting on the believer's faith.

This passage seems to be consistent with other passages in the Bible that discuss faith as being more than just a belief system, but a means to effect change in a person's environment e.g.. move mountains etc.

Can you please explain what substance means in this sense? If faith produces a substance and it is analogous with matter that gives us something to touch, how can it produce things hoped for?

Faith produces things hoped for (substance), because God acts on the believer's behalf.

What is produced by faith is not necessarily something that is material.

For example, in the case of St. Joan of Arc, a peasant girl has some visions, and acts on the visions with a high level of faith.

She accomplishes some amazing feats.

Most believers do not have visions.

Rather, they are moved by their conscience.

The believer's faith can effect the outcome of the believer's efforts.

At least that is how I think it works, since I don't have any formal coursework in theology.

Joan of Arc got burned at the stake. Point taken.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by dedo

Faith produces things hoped for (substance), because God acts on the believer's behalf.

Perhaps you didn't actually read the quote.
I'll post it here: faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
Not "faith produces..." or even "faith leads to..." but "faith IS...".
Therefore your interpretation would appear to be a purely personal one.

You may be right in that my interpretation is too narrow.

I think this site explains it better:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

In the other translations, the word "assurance" or "confidence" is substituted for "substance".

Then faith becomes a state of "confidence".

My personal theory is that this confidence is directly related to time spent with God, and acting on your beliefs / direction over time.

However, I think that this thread is a reminder for me to learn more about this subject.

For example, the last time I took time to listen to some CD's on faith, shortly thereafter we were placed in some circumstances where we had an opportunity to test what we learned, and the results were amazing. My recollection is that twice in the same winter while traveling it appeared as if we would be stranded away from home due to bad weather. Whole screens of flights were being cancelled. Within minutes of making a faith affirmation we were re-routed, and on a plane. It was surreal. Experiences like that occurring right after taking time to learn something about faith, tend to make you believe in what you learned.

It is only natural to attribute a positive outcome to God when a believer takes a specific action after receiving a religious instruction and a unpleasant situation reverses itself in a matter of minutes.

Anyway, I need to review this material again so I get it right.

Originally Posted by dedo

I think this site explains it better:
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
In the other translations, the word "assurance" or "confidence" is substituted for "substance".
Then faith becomes a state of "confidence".

If you'd read post #3 and the link given there...
The "assurance/ confidence" seems to be a watered down version. Perhaps written with the fact in mind that faith ISN'T substance OR evidence.

My personal theory is that this confidence is directly related to time spent with God, and acting on your beliefs / direction over time.

You mean "time spent thinking you're with god".

For example, the last time I took time to listen to some CD's on faith, shortly thereafter we were placed in some circumstances where we had an opportunity to test what we learned, and the results were amazing.

Yeah. Can you say "confirmation bias"?

Having faith in something does not make it real. I have faith in life existing on other planets, doesn't mean it's true.

I am in awe at how many of the most intelligent creature that ever lived cannot tell the difference between what is real and what isn't, that includes the imagination and reality. The fact that what is 100% assured in life can actually be something imagined is totally mind-boggling to me and is an affront to my senses.

One of the most difficult things to do in life is to make sense of nonsense, yet people of faith seem capable. Does this mean they are intellectually superior to those of us who can't? Many times I have pondered this. Why can't I accept what many of my fellow man think is real? Perhaps I should ask them. I really would like someone of faith to explain it. When or how does the imagined become real?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Having faith in something does not make it real. I have faith in life existing on other planets, doesn't mean it's true.

I am in awe at how many of the most intelligent creature that ever lived cannot tell the difference between what is real and what isn't, that includes the imagination and reality. The fact that what is 100% assured in life can actually be something imagined is totally mind-boggling to me and is an affront to my senses.

One of the most difficult things to do in life is to make sense of nonsense, yet people of faith seem capable. Does this mean they are intellectually superior to those of us who can't? Many times I have pondered this. Why can't I accept what many of my fellow man think is real? Perhaps I should ask them. I really would like someone of faith to explain it. When or how does the imagined become real?

Could you have negated your own faith? If you say you "have faith in life existing on other planets", you can't follow that up by saying it "doesn't mean it's true". That just tells me you didn't have the faith in the first place. So try again, think of an example you really have faith in.
"When or how does the imagined become real?" The only way I could understand faith was as if the imagination was like the author of the cosmic performance. How else could it be explained?
Faith: "Move those mountains and throw them into the sea".
Reality: Millions of years later erosion and tectonic movements make them end up being thrown into the sea.

Originally Posted by Daecon

It's true. We all suppress the truth of the Flying Spaghetti Monster...

Hush or you don't get any!! SPAGHETTI!! that is!!

I also have faith that I won't suck in the golf scramble tomorrow.

God really has nothing to do with it.

KJV extended BS Mark 11:23 "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." 23.1" But thou shalt have to wait millions of years for erosion and time to take it's course, and verily thout faith shalt be proven true."

Originally Posted by pavlos

KJV extended BS Mark 11:23 "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." 23.1" But thou shalt have to wait millions of years for erosion and time to take it's course, and verily thout faith shalt be proven true."

And VERILY I SAY TO YOU!

I WILL NOT SUCK IN GOLF AND LET MY TEAM DOWN TOMORROW.....

Babe
Chapter one
Verse to be determined

Originally Posted by dedo

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by dedo

Faith produces things hoped for (substance), because God acts on the believer's behalf.

Perhaps you didn't actually read the quote.
I'll post it here: faith is the substance of things hoped for and the evidence of things not seen.
Not "faith produces..." or even "faith leads to..." but "faith IS...".
Therefore your interpretation would appear to be a purely personal one.

You may be right in that my interpretation is too narrow.

I think this site explains it better:

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.

In the other translations, the word "assurance" or "confidence" is substituted for "substance".

Then faith becomes a state of "confidence".

My personal theory is that this confidence is directly related to time spent with God, and acting on your beliefs / direction over time.

However, I think that this thread is a reminder for me to learn more about this subject.

For example, the last time I took time to listen to some CD's on faith, shortly thereafter we were placed in some circumstances where we had an opportunity to test what we learned, and the results were amazing. My recollection is that twice in the same winter while traveling it appeared as if we would be stranded away from home due to bad weather. Whole screens of flights were being cancelled. Within minutes of making a faith affirmation we were re-routed, and on a plane. It was surreal. Experiences like that occurring right after taking time to learn something about faith, tend to make you believe in what you learned.

It is only natural to attribute a positive outcome to God when a believer takes a specific action after receiving a religious instruction and a unpleasant situation reverses itself in a matter of minutes.

Anyway, I need to review this material again so I get it right.

Why could you not attribute your power of thought to what happened instead of God?

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by pavlos

KJV extended BS Mark 11:23 "For verily I say unto you, That whosoever shall say unto this mountain, Be thou removed, and be thou cast into the sea; and shall not doubt in his heart, but shall believe that those things which he saith shall come to pass; he shall have whatsoever he saith." 23.1" But thou shalt have to wait millions of years for erosion and time to take it's course, and verily thout faith shalt be proven true."

And VERILY I SAY TO YOU!

I WILL NOT SUCK IN GOLF AND LET MY TEAM DOWN TOMORROW.....

Babe
Chapter one
Verse to be determined

That is faith the size of a golf ball. Go babe.

Could you have negated your own faith? If you say you "have faith in life existing on other planets", you can't follow that up by saying it "doesn't mean it's true". That just tells me you didn't have the faith in the first place.

Huh? No offence but aren't we finding out that.....

One of the most difficult things to do in life is to make sense of nonsense, yet people of faith seem capable.

I can't go there Robbitty. I cannot make sense of what you're saying. How did you become convinced? I simply think that life exists on other planets, I really hope like hell that life exists elsewhere in the universe. So why do I say I can't know whereas the faithful theist, for instance, is sure a god exists?

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Could you have negated your own faith? If you say you "have faith in life existing on other planets", you can't follow that up by saying it "doesn't mean it's true". That just tells me you didn't have the faith in the first place.

Huh? No offence but aren't we finding out that.....

One of the most difficult things to do in life is to make sense of nonsense, yet people of faith seem capable.

I can't go there Robbitty. I cannot make sense of what you're saying. How did you become convinced? I simply think that life exists on other planets, I really hope like hell that life exists elsewhere in the universe. So why do I say I can't know whereas the faithful theist, for instance, is sure a god exists?

You could say "I have a feeling there is life existing on other planets" and leave faith right out of it. To me faith would work like this:
You would first of all need to feel like you know the power of faith, and then say "let there be life on other planets" and so whether or not there is currently life on another planet you are by faith making sure life appears on another planet. So at some stage it might be possible to show you that life existed on another planet. Now the time taken to get to another planet means you might not get to see it yourself. Physically it is hard to know whether life exists on another planet.

What I found is that it seems ridiculous, so you definitely want to tryout something easier than tackling life on another planet as your first venture into faith.
How did I become convinced? Good question, but it is a bit like riding a bike, you have just have to give it a go.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You would first of all need to feel like you know the power of faith, and then say "let there be life on other planets" and so whether or not there is currently life on another planet you are by faith making sure life appears on another planet.

Please provide one single example of where faith - qua faith - has actually produced a result of this sort.
Please provide a mechanism whereby this could happen.
You are, as usual, spouting utter nonsense.

How did I become convinced?

I await the answer.

Good question, but it is a bit like riding a bike, you have just have to give it a go.

Oh, you haven't actually got one.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Could you have negated your own faith? If you say you "have faith in life existing on other planets", you can't follow that up by saying it "doesn't mean it's true". That just tells me you didn't have the faith in the first place.

Huh? No offence but aren't we finding out that.....

One of the most difficult things to do in life is to make sense of nonsense, yet people of faith seem capable.

I can't go there Robbitty. I cannot make sense of what you're saying. How did you become convinced? I simply think that life exists on other planets, I really hope like hell that life exists elsewhere in the universe. So why do I say I can't know whereas the faithful theist, for instance, is sure a god exists?

You could say "I have a feeling there is life existing on other planets" and leave faith right out of it. To me faith would work like this:
You would first of all need to feel like you know the power of faith, and then say "let there be life on other planets" and so whether or not there is currently life on another planet you are by faith making sure life appears on another planet. So at some stage it might be possible to show you that life existed on another planet. Now the time taken to get to another planet means you might not get to see it yourself. Physically it is hard to know whether life exists on another planet.

What I found is that it seems ridiculous, so you definitely want to tryout something easier than tackling life on another planet as your first venture into faith.
How did I become convinced? Good question, but it is a bit like riding a bike, you have just have to give it a go.

As you explained you could say faith is a part of knowing, if you have faith you are actually hoping something you want will happen. Faith cannot create, believe cannot create, self can create, therefore my creativity is greater than faith or belief. You could ask your self why do you have faith, to some degree you would have to admit you think you do not have the power to create, so you rely on a force you do not know, or cannot totally rely on.

Originally Posted by Stargate

As you explained you could say faith is a part of knowing

No, faith is believing something is true - regardless of evidence.
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Having faith in something does not make it real. I have faith in life existing on other planets, doesn't mean it's true.

I am in awe at how many of the most intelligent creature that ever lived cannot tell the difference between what is real and what isn't, that includes the imagination and reality. The fact that what is 100% assured in life can actually be something imagined is totally mind-boggling to me and is an affront to my senses.

One of the most difficult things to do in life is to make sense of nonsense, yet people of faith seem capable. Does this mean they are intellectually superior to those of us who can't? Many times I have pondered this. Why can't I accept what many of my fellow man think is real? Perhaps I should ask them. I really would like someone of faith to explain it. When or how does the imagined become real?

Since I am not a theologian, I can only speak from what I have experienced and observed.

I don't think that faith is related to intelligence or even to some kind of merit.

Rather, it seems to result from efforts of a believer to seek God. At least that is my experience. Also, humility, or trying to seek God on God's terms, to the best of my understanding, seemed to make a big difference.

I have heard reports of other people attaining faith from the efforts / prayers of another. This usually involves a family member (spouse, parent, etc..)

In the Bible, some people received faith for God's purpose. St. Paul would be a prime example.

Although this forum is biased towards people who have lost faith, religious forums have plenty of stories of former atheists who recaptured faith.

For me it was part inner need, and part intense curiosity.

Originally Posted by dedo

Also, humility, or trying to seek God on God's terms, to the best of my understanding, seemed to make a big difference.

I'd suggest the word "gullibility" is more apt than "humility".

I have heard reports of other people attaining faith from the efforts / prayers of another. This usually involves a family member (spouse, parent, etc..)

I'd also suggest (strongly) that on such occasions it was achieved by the efforts and NOT the prayer: i.e. a constant and unending assault resulting in "brainwashing".

In the Bible, some people received faith for God's purpose. St. Paul would be a prime example.

Anecdotal.
Can you show that faith is actually "recieved" and not "[self]-imposed"?

Although this forum is biased towards people who have lost faith, religious forums have plenty of stories of former atheists who recaptured faith.

Flawed assumption.
What about those who never had faith?
Are you claiming that ALL former atheists were also, at one time, believers before becoming atheists?

For me it was part inner need, and part intense curiosity.

Yup.
Personal need... 'nuff said.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

As you explained you could say faith is a part of knowing

No, faith is believing something is true - regardless of evidence.
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge.

Is it " believing something is true" or is it " believing something will happen"? For it may not have happened yet, so it isn't true at the time. That is why I likened it to writing a play, the author writes the lines and the producer and the team of actors deliver the scene. So when thinking about it a playwright has a sort of "faith", for they can "see" the scene even before it is a reality. Faith is more than imagination, for I could imagine many things without ever having an expectancy of them to come to pass. I used the word "expectancy" rather than "expecting". It is a bit like the feeling "you know someone is going to visit but you are not sure when"; an expectancy. Rather than "you know someone is going to visit and you are sure it will be soon"; that is something you are expecting.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Stargate

As you explained you could say faith is a part of knowing

No, faith is believing something is true - regardless of evidence.
It's got nothing whatsoever to do with knowledge.

Is it " believing something is true" or is it " believing something will happen"? For it may not have happened yet, so it isn't true at the time. That is why I likened it to writing a play, the author writes the lines and the producer and the team of actors deliver the scene. So when thinking about it a playwright has a sort of "faith", for they can "see" the scene even before it is a reality. Faith is more than imagination, for I could imagine many things without ever having an expectancy of them to come to pass. I used the word "expectancy" rather than "expecting". It is a bit like the feeling "you know someone is going to visit but you are not sure when"; an expectancy. Rather than "you know someone is going to visit and you are sure it will be soon"; that is something you are expecting.

I do not think faith does not exist, obviously it does for some people. The point I am making is that faith is created by you, and used by you. The question is why did you create it. Maybe we should focus on the why. Is it better than your own intuition?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Is it " believing something is true" or is it " believing something will happen"?

Whut?
People have faith that god exists.
People have faith "his promises" are valid.
People have faith that what they believe "will happen" will actually happen.

So when thinking about it a playwright has a sort of "faith", for they can "see" the scene even before it is a reality. Faith is more than imagination

Except that a playwright uses imagination, not "faith".

for I could imagine many things without ever having an expectancy of them to come to pass. I used the word "expectancy" rather than "expecting". It is a bit like the feeling "you know someone is going to visit but you are not sure when"; an expectancy. Rather than "you know someone is going to visit and you are sure it will be soon"; that is something you are expecting.

I.e. not faith, therefore not part of this topic.

Originally Posted by Stargate

Is it better than your own intuition?

Is there much of a difference?
1. knowledge or belief obtained neither by reason nor by perception

2. instinctive knowledge or belief

3. a hunch or unjustified belief

4. (Philosophy) philosophy immediate knowledge of a proposition or object such as Kant's account of our knowledge of sensible objects

5. the supposed faculty or process by which we obtain any of these

Note that, in the majority of cases the word "belief" occurs.
Faith, then, appears to be a conviction "based on" intuition - and usually rationalised afterwards.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You would first of all need to feel like you know the power of faith, and then say "let there be life on other planets" and so whether or not there is currently life on another planet you are by faith making sure life appears on another planet.

Please provide one single example of where faith - qua faith - has actually produced a result of this sort.
Please provide a mechanism whereby this could happen.
You are, as usual, spouting utter nonsense.

How did I become convinced?

I await the answer.

Good question, but it is a bit like riding a bike, you have just have to give it a go.

Oh, you haven't actually got one.

As I said it seems like nonsense or "ridiculous", but it isn't nonsense to the person it happens. You don't seem to be able to prove it, for you can't be sure it wouldn't have happened in any case.
The mechanism is Faith. (Which maybe as bizarre as the Universe or this part of the Multiverse itself, and our feelings of consciousness. If you don't believe in consciousness, how could you understand faith? For I'd say it is part of consciousness.) It felt like a brain exercise to me.
I have had examples of faith happen to myself so I believe I know what it feels like but I can't prove it. So I question it just like you do.

All my bikes have been wrecked, and I haven't been on one for ages, but I think I could still ride a bike.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

The mechanism is Faith.

No.
Faith may be the motivator, but it is most certainly NOT the mechanism.

(Which maybe as bizarre as the Universe or this part of the Multiverse itself, and our feelings of consciousness. If you don't believe in consciousness, how could you understand faith? For I'd say it is part of consciousness.)

Why the non-sequitur waffle?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Is it " believing something is true" or is it " believing something will happen"?

Whut?
People have faith that god exists.
People have faith "his promises" are valid.
People have faith that what they believe "will happen" will actually happen.

So when thinking about it a playwright has a sort of "faith", for they can "see" the scene even before it is a reality. Faith is more than imagination

Except that a playwright uses imagination, not "faith".

for I could imagine many things without ever having an expectancy of them to come to pass. I used the word "expectancy" rather than "expecting". It is a bit like the feeling "you know someone is going to visit but you are not sure when"; an expectancy. Rather than "you know someone is going to visit and you are sure it will be soon"; that is something you are expecting.

I.e. not faith, therefore not part of this topic.

So I think what you call faith and what I call faith can NOT be the same. I don't think of it as if I have "faith that God exists". If it was, could I ever say "Let God exist"?

Well that was defining what having faith felt like to me. " It is a bit like the feeling "you know someone is going to visit but you are not sure when"; an expectancy. Rather than "you know someone is going to visit and you are sure it will be soon"; that is something you are expecting."

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So I think what you call faith and what I call faith can NOT be the same.

Apparently.
But you have a chance to catch up.

I don't think of it as if I have "faith that God exists". If it was, could I ever say "Let God exist"?

Whut?
You're STILL confused.
You have, (since you're a believer), faith that god does exist.

Well that was defining what having faith felt like to me. " It is a bit like the feeling "you know someone is going to visit but you are not sure when"; an expectancy. Rather than "you know someone is going to visit and you are sure it will be soon"; that is something you are expecting."

And again with the irrelevancies.
Knowledge is NOT involved in, and does NOT result from, faith (and, equally and most importantly, faith does not constitute knowledge).
Thus knowing that someone is going to visit is not faith.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

The mechanism is Faith.

No.
Faith may be the motivator, but it is most certainly NOT the mechanism.

(Which maybe as bizarre as the Universe or this part of the Multiverse itself, and our feelings of consciousness. If you don't believe in consciousness, how could you understand faith? For I'd say it is part of consciousness.)

Why the non-sequitur waffle?

Well how could you know about faith without being conscious of it? You seem to say what faith is etc but then deny its reality. Why I brought up the Multiverse etc was that my understanding was that the Multiverse Theory allowed for every possible eventuality, so faith seemed to be the mechanism that meant the expectant event happens in this universe, the one we are conscious of, and not in the other ones, none of which we seem to be conscious of.

@ Dywyddyr - How did you work this out?

Faith may be the motivator, but it is most certainly NOT the mechanism.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

So I think what you call faith and what I call faith can NOT be the same.

Apparently.
But you have a chance to catch up.

I don't think of it as if I have "faith that God exists". If it was, could I ever say "Let God exist"?

Whut?
You're STILL confused.
You have, (since you're a believer), faith that god does exist.

Well that was defining what having faith felt like to me. " It is a bit like the feeling "you know someone is going to visit but you are not sure when"; an expectancy. Rather than "you know someone is going to visit and you are sure it will be soon"; that is something you are expecting."

And again with the irrelevancies.
Knowledge is NOT involved in, and does NOT result from, faith (and, equally and most importantly, faith does not constitute knowledge).
Thus knowing that someone is going to visit is not faith.

I know in the Bible there are verses that go "by faith .... such and such did this or that" but does it ever say "By faith such and such believed that God exists"?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Well how could you know about faith without being conscious of it?

Being "conscious" OF faith does not imply that faith is part of consciousness.

You seem to say what faith is etc but then deny its reality.

That's something I haven't done.

Why I brought up the Multiverse etc was that my understanding was that the Multiverse Theory allowed for every possible eventuality, so faith seemed to be the mechanism that meant the expectant event happens in this universe, the one we are conscious of, and not in the other ones, none of which we seem to be conscious of.

Word salad.

@ Dywyddyr - How did you work this out?

Faith may be the motivator, but it is most certainly NOT the mechanism.

It's quite simple.
Faith - on its own - does nothing whatsoever.
It may, however, be what motivates you to get off your arse and work toward a goal.
Faith is NOT a mechanism, unless we loosen the definition so much that wishful thinking also becomes a "mechanism".
Given faith (or even wishful thinking) something must be DONE - i.e. effort/ time/ money put into it - in order for there to be an actual result.
Faith without some sort of mechanism (work for example) achieves absolutely f*cking zero.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I know in the Bible there are verses that go "by faith .... such and such did this or that" but does it ever say "By faith such and such believed that God exists"?

What?
Faith IS the belief.
Faith is the utter conviction in/ of something.
Regardless of evidence.

When it says that "By faith .... such and such did this or that" do you not see that the RESULT could have been achieved with any sort of motivation?
The existence of the faith ALONE does not do anything.
People do things ON faith, or BECAUSE of faith: but they still have to DO SOMETHING about it to get a result.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

I know in the Bible there are verses that go "by faith .... such and such did this or that" but does it ever say "By faith such and such believed that God exists"?

What?
Faith IS the belief.
Faith is the utter conviction in/ of something.
Regardless of evidence.

When it says that "By faith .... such and such did this or that" do you not see that the RESULT could have been achieved with any sort of motivation?
The existence of the faith ALONE does not do anything.
People do things ON faith, or BECAUSE of faith: but they still have to DO SOMETHING about it to get a result.

That is what you say faith is, yet to me it is something different. Look at Hebrews 11:16 for a moment:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

That was the verse in the middle of the examples of faith. Does that tie in with your understanding of faith? To me belief is prior to faith.

The same verse could have said:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must firstly believe that he exists and secondly that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

The second bit is "faith".

Or to you is it both bits?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

That is what you say faith is

Because I'm using the accepted definition.
You have yet to provide a definition.

yet to me it is something different. Look at Hebrews 11:16 for a moment:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

That was the verse in the middle of the examples of faith. Does that tie in with your understanding of faith? To me belief is prior to faith.

How do you work out that "belief is prior to faith"?
How about I reword that quote: And without belief it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must have faith that he exists.

How is the meaning altered?

And I note that you failed, utterly, to address my multiple comments about faith on its own not producing a damn' thing.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

To me faith would work like this:
You would first of all need to feel like you know the power of faith

What you're saying is that faith is just a stronger belief or stronger than belief. Belief is the imaginative part but faith has the power to create a reality for it. Truly this is something I have never pondered. If people think this way then I can see how science's role is diminished for the faithful, for merely discovering how the universe functions pales in comparison to a super-sized belief in a firmly held conviction.

What I don't understand is how this has come about? Something is at work here. There has to be an explanation as to why the human race subjects itself to this type of thinking. It seems science cannot combat the overwhelming sentiment, it can only try to find out why it's there.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

That is what you say faith is

Because I'm using the accepted definition.
You have yet to provide a definition.

yet to me it is something different. Look at Hebrews 11:16 for a moment:

And without faith it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

That was the verse in the middle of the examples of faith. Does that tie in with your understanding of faith? To me belief is prior to faith.

How do you work out that "belief is prior to faith"?
How about I reword that quote: And without belief it is impossible to please God, because anyone who comes to him must have faith that he exists.

How is the meaning altered?

And I note that you failed, utterly, to address my multiple comments about faith on its own not producing a damn' thing.

That was a surprise for my use of the word faith doesn't seem to be covered by the dictionary definition. If we insert your definition into the text of Luke 17:6 does it work?

He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

So in the above quote insert your definition.
He replied, "If you have [complete trust or confidence in someone or something] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

He replied, "If you have [strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

Neither definition gives a very meaningful variation to that well known sentence. How I use the word is different than the usual.

And I note that you failed, utterly, to address my multiple comments about faith on its own not producing a damn' thing.

If you read above and see that the smallest amount of faith results in the tree being uprooted, how can you say it doesn't produce a damn' thing?

I'm not an expert. But this next version seems to express my definition the best. So is faith "the belief God rewards those who earnestly seek him"?

He replied, "If you have [belief God rewards those who earnestly seek God] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

Originally Posted by zinjanthropos

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

To me faith would work like this:
You would first of all need to feel like you know the power of faith

What you're saying is that faith is just a stronger belief or stronger than belief. Belief is the imaginative part but faith has the power to create a reality for it. Truly this is something I have never pondered. If people think this way then I can see how science's role is diminished for the faithful, for merely discovering how the universe functions pales in comparison to a super-sized belief in a firmly held conviction.

What I don't understand is how this has come about? Something is at work here. There has to be an explanation as to why the human race subjects itself to this type of thinking. It seems science cannot combat the overwhelming sentiment, it can only try to find out why it's there.

I like that bit "faith has the power to create a reality for it", cause that is sort of what it feels like, yet you still can't prove the connection, but it feels like that to the person.

Like in the extreme if I did say to a tree "be uprooted and planted in the sea" and the next week a storm came and washed it out to sea. I would be totally amazed but everyone else would just put it down to a chance meteorological event.

For in reality trees are being washed into the sea from time to time.
But you would be left wondering had you not said anything would the tree still be standing!

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

That was a surprise for my use of the word faith doesn't seem to be covered by the dictionary definition.

In other words you've spent your entire life so far misusing a word.

If we insert your definition into the text of Luke 17:6 does it work?

He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

So in the above quote insert your definition.
He replied, "If you have [complete trust or confidence in someone or something] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.
He replied, "If you have [strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.
Neither definition gives a very meaningful variation to that well known sentence.

Yes: wrong.
He replied, "If you have [complete trust or confidence in someone or something - that "someone or something" being god] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

How I use the word is different than the usual.

And you STILL haven't defined it.

If you read above and see that the smallest amount of faith results in the tree being uprooted, how can you say it doesn't produce a damn' thing?

Um, because there is no evidence, WHATSOEVER, that one can uproot a tree by using faith.

I'm not an expert. But this next version seems to express my definition the best.

You haven't given a f*cking definition.

He replied, "If you have [belief God rewards those who earnestly seek God] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

As previously pointed out this claim is bollocks.
(And doesn't differ in any significant manner from the accepted definition of faith: I.e. "If you have [a belief in God] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

That was a surprise for my use of the word faith doesn't seem to be covered by the dictionary definition.

In other words you've spent your entire life so far misusing a word.

If we insert your definition into the text of Luke 17:6 does it work?

He replied, "If you have faith as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

So in the above quote insert your definition.
He replied, "If you have [complete trust or confidence in someone or something] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.
He replied, "If you have [strong belief in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual conviction rather than proof] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.
Neither definition gives a very meaningful variation to that well known sentence.

Yes: wrong.
He replied, "If you have [complete trust or confidence in someone or something - that "someone or something" being god] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

How I use the word is different than the usual.

And you STILL haven't defined it.

If you read above and see that the smallest amount of faith results in the tree being uprooted, how can you say it doesn't produce a damn' thing?

Um, because there is no evidence, WHATSOEVER, that one can uproot a tree by using faith.

I'm not an expert. But this next version seems to express my definition the best.

You haven't given a f*cking definition.

He replied, "If you have [belief God rewards those who earnestly seek God] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you.

As previously pointed out this claim is bollocks.
(And doesn't differ in any significant manner from the accepted definition of faith: I.e. "If you have [a belief in God] as small as a mustard seed, you can say to this mulberry tree, 'Be uprooted and planted in the sea,' and it will obey you

Maybe definition 1 is OK then. [complete trust or confidence in someone or something - that "someone or something" being god]. I'll run with that definition for the meantime.
In the scripture Jesus curses a fig tree and the next time the disciples pass the tree it had withered. OK you might not accept that as proof but there goes an example.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

In the scripture Jesus curses a fig tree and the next time the disciples pass the tree it had withered. OK you might not accept that as proof but there goes an example.

Not even close.
Jesus, in the Bible, had powers of his own (although possibly/ supposedly emanating from god) and was the son of god (i.e. divine/ semi divine in his own right).
Ergo cursing a fig tree isn't "evidence" that his faith had anything to do with it.
And, if you're planning on providing "examples" you'd best steer well clear of anecdote. (Which is essentially what the Bible - and all religious texts - is).

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

In the scripture Jesus curses a fig tree and the next time the disciples pass the tree it had withered. OK you might not accept that as proof but there goes an example.

Not even close.
Jesus, in the Bible, had powers of his own (although possibly/ supposedly emanating from god) and was the son of god (i.e. divine/ semi divine in his own right).
Ergo cursing a fig tree isn't "evidence" that his faith had anything to do with it.
And, if you're planning on providing "examples" you'd best steer well clear of anecdote. (Which is essentially what the Bible - and all religious texts - is).

What do you want then, to see it done on YouTube? Well I didn't know that you had such a high esteem for Jesus. But he himself thought his followers would have been capable of doing the same. So has anyone else tried it without using a herbicide as well?
My example with the tree above the weather contributes, so what would be the contributory part in a withering tree?
Even in the case with Jesus there may have been a pathogen involved. Who knows?

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What do you want then, to see it done on YouTube?

You've been on this forum long enough to know that YouTube isn't evidence of anything.

Well I didn't know that you had such a high esteem for Jesus.

What makes you think that?

But he himself thought his followers would have been capable of doing the same.

So, basically, you're saying that some guy (who may not have existed) thought that his followers might be able to what he did, but A) didn't know and B) didn't have any evidence that this was so.
I'm convinced.

So has anyone else tried it without using a herbicide as well?

Why would anyone try? There's no evidence to make it worth while as an experiment.

My example with the tree above the weather contributes, so what would be the contributory part in a withering tree?

Tree above the weather?
And what do you mean by "contributory part"?
That's like asking for what "contributed" to Gollum's death.
I.e. an unverified report of an unverified event.
What "contributes" to (as far as we know) non-factual occurrences?

Even in the case with Jesus there may have been a pathogen involved. Who knows?

Whut?

You tell of some fig tree/Jesus story and you believe it?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

What do you want then, to see it done on YouTube?

You've been on this forum long enough to know that YouTube isn't evidence of anything.

Well I didn't know that you had such a high esteem for Jesus.

What makes you think that?

But he himself thought his followers would have been capable of doing the same.

So, basically, you're saying that some guy (who may not have existed) thought that his followers might be able to what he did, but A) didn't know and B) didn't have any evidence that this was so.
I'm convinced.

So has anyone else tried it without using a herbicide as well?

Why would anyone try? There's no evidence to make it worth while as an experiment.

My example with the tree above the weather contributes, so what would be the contributory part in a withering tree?

Tree above the weather?
And what do you mean by "contributory part"?
That's like asking for what "contributed" to Gollum's death.
I.e. an unverified report of an unverified event.
What "contributes" to (as far as we know) non-factual occurrences?

Even in the case with Jesus there may have been a pathogen involved. Who knows?

Whut?

You haven't followed my posts at all have you? From your answers above that is clear to me. Look if I cursed a fig tree in the morning and someone came behind me and sprayed it with Round-up maybe in a day or two it would be withering.
If I came back then and saw it withered I'd die of fright, but unknown to me was the contributory part played by the herbicide spray.

Are there swarms of locusts that could strip a tree bare in Jesus' day? Were there other tree pathogens that caused sudden death? I'm not a tree expert.
But it is the timing that gets everyone spooked.

Why do people take the Bible so literally?
(Don't answer that, it is a rhetorical question.)

The Bible has different books in it and they were written at different times and for different purposes.
The only part of the Bible that was meant to be literal were the sections that make up their legal code and the constitution of their government.
Even the parts thought to be history in the Bible were not really factual records but more like propaganda for the state.

When you talk about the cursing of the fig tree it is a case in point.
If you knew anything about fig trees you would recognize that the account makes no literal sense and carries no meaning. It doesn't even fit well into the narrative.
However as a metaphor about the new religion they were making and the rejection of it by the orthodox jews it makes good sense and has meaning.
It is very closely related to the Parable of the Barren Fig Tree in Luke 13:6–9.

What is the mental problem that makes it impossible for people to understand metaphors or figurative speech and take everything literally instead?
(OK, that is a real question)

I don't mean the question to sound loaded. People with brain injuries sometimes lose their ability to understand anything except in a strictly literal way. It might be a brain problem can cause the biblical literalism as well as conditioning does.

If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Okay, let's accept that this is, in fact true.

We can therefore conclude that, since even a small amount of faith can "move mountains" and that "nothing is impossible" to those with faith, and that (just to pick a couple of examples), Christianity isn't the sole religion in the world, atheists don't believe and that poverty, hunger and "needless" deaths occur either
A) those people who claim they have faith are lying (or deluded) shits who don't actually have faith, or
B) Christians aren't bothered (at all!) about their religion being regarded as "one among many", that others can claim (with equal "validity") that there are other gods and that they don't give a shit (despite the hand-wringing and [crocodile?] tears) about the problems in the world, or
C) the claim is bullshit.

Pick one.
I know which I'd go for...

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You haven't followed my posts at all have you?

You mean that you can't answer my questions and now you're trying to deflect.

From your answers above that is clear to me.

In which case you're even dumber than I'd supposed.

Look if I cursed a fig tree in the morning and someone came behind me and sprayed it with Round-up maybe in a day or two it would be withering.
If I came back then and saw it withered I'd die of fright, but unknown to me was the contributory part played by the herbicide spray.

What does that have to do with the story in the Bible?
1) The Bible story is UNVERIFIED
2) Did they have herbicides in those days (IF the story does turn out to be true)
3) WTF does that have to do with FAITH?

Are there swarms of locusts that could strip a tree bare in Jesus' day? Were there other tree pathogens that caused sudden death? I'm not a tree expert.
But it is the timing that gets everyone spooked.

The timing of an unverified story?
I find it highly suspicious that Gollum turned up just as Frodo decided not to throw the ring away.

And, one more time: what did you mean about "Tree above the weather?"

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed, ye shall say unto this mountain, Remove hence to yonder place; and it shall remove; and nothing shall be impossible unto you.

Okay, let's accept that this is, in fact true.

We can therefore conclude that, since even a small amount of faith can "move mountains" and that "nothing is impossible" to those with faith, and that (just to pick a couple of examples), Christianity isn't the sole religion in the world, atheists don't believe and that poverty, hunger and "needless" deaths occur either
A) those people who claim they have faith are lying or deluded shits who don't actually have faith, or
B) Christians aren't bothered (at all!) about their religion being regarded as "one among many", that others can claim (with equal "validity") that there are other gods and that they don't give a shit (despite the hand-wringing and [crocodile?] tears) about the problems in the world, or
C) the claim is bullshit.

Pick one.
I know which I'd go for...

Well it can't be C for you start off saying we must "accept that this is, in fact true".

So that just leaves A or B. I think B sounds the most correct.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Well it can't be C for you start off saying we must "accept that this is, in fact true".
So that just leaves A or B. I think B sounds the most correct.

So then, either the claim is bullshit or ALL Christians are hypocrites.
NOW which one do you choose?

Maybe I should have put C not as an option, but an alternative to it being true: "This shows that the claim is utterly and irrevocably false"

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

....
And, one more time: what did you mean about "Tree above the weather?"

You have taken part of a sentence in which I missed the coma,
I was talking about the "tree above", "the weather" played a part .... in washing it to the sea.
From post Is there any meaning in the Bible verse "faith is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things not seen" makes any sense?

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Well it can't be C for you start off saying we must "accept that this is, in fact true".
So that just leaves A or B. I think B sounds the most correct.

So then, either the claim is bullshit or ALL Christians are hypocrites.
NOW which one do you choose?

Maybe I should have put C not as an option, but an alternative to it being true: "This shows that the claim is utterly and irrevocably false"

"Christians" and "All Christians" are not the same set.

You chose whatever one you want, I'm going home!

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

You have taken part of a sentence in which I missed the coma,
I was talking about the "tree above", "the weather" played a part .... in washing it to the sea.

In which case it would be the weather that uprooted the tree, and NOT "faith".

But you would be left wondering had you not said anything would the tree still be standing!

Only if I were utterly divorced from reality.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

"Christians" and "All Christians" are not the same set.

Really?
"Some Christians" and "All Christians" aren't, but "Christians" and "All Christians" would be.
Regardless: since (IF faith can do the impossible) then it shows that ALL Christians don't actually care about the suffering in the world, since it would take ONLY ONE to care and achieve the impossible. I.e. allowing suffering to continue when they could fix it is not very Christian.

You chose whatever one you want, I'm going home!

I.e. you can't reply to my question without agreeing that the quote is bollocks. Something you're not prepared to do since it would make you start to question your faith.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

"Christians" and "All Christians" are not the same set.

Really?
"Some Christians" and "All Christians" aren't, but "Christians" and "All Christians" would be.
Regardless: since (IF faith can do the impossible) then it shows that ALL Christians don't actually care about the suffering in the world, since it would take ONLY ONE to care and achieve the impossible. I.e. allowing suffering to continue when they could fix it is not very Christian.

You chose whatever one you want, I'm going home!

I.e. you can't reply to my question without agreeing that the quote is bollocks. Something you're not prepared to do since it would make you start to question your faith.

Christians to me would be more like the majority of Christians rather than all.

Faith is always tested - true, but we'll see what happens. Good night mate.

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Christians to me would be more like the majority of Christians rather than all.

And, as I've shown, it applies to ALL.
Not one single Christian is actually Christian if the quote is true.

Faith is always tested

So what?

Is it, or is it not logical for people to assume that more undiscovered creatures exist deep in the ocean, although no one has detected/seen it yet? (via any possible way, like sonar, etc.)

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

Is it, or is it not logical for people to assume that more undiscovered creatures exist deep in the ocean, although no one has detected/seen it yet? (via any possible way, like sonar, etc.)

I would say it is not logical to assume such a thing, but it is logical to remain open to the possibility, i.e. it would be equally illogical to exclude it.

Sometimes people seem unduly obsessed with trying to make certain of things. My experience of life is that very little is certain, but does that does not stop us functioning. There appears to be an element of imprecision and fuzziness to the whole of existence…….says the sometime quantum chemist…….

I would ASSUME there are probably several"creatures" we have not discovered...and I think that is very exciting!

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

Is it, or is it not logical for people to assume that more undiscovered creatures exist deep in the ocean, although no one has detected/seen it yet? (via any possible way, like sonar, etc.)

I dunno.
Do they have faith?

I know topics tend to drift, but I can't, for the life of me, see how we got onto possible deep sea creatures while discussing the meaning of a particular Bible quote.

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

Is it, or is it not logical for people to assume that more undiscovered creatures exist deep in the ocean, although no one has detected/seen it yet? (via any possible way, like sonar, etc.)

I dunno.
Do they faith?

I know topics tend to drift, but I can't, for the life of me, see how we got onto possible deep sea creatures while discussing the meaning of a particular Bible quote.

SHEESH!

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS!!

THEY are in the deep dead sea...

get grip ducky!

Originally Posted by Daecon

It feels like there should be a comma somewhere in that sentence.

I think the main part of it is "the evidence of things not seen" and seems to be implying that an absence of evidence shouldn't deter faith or hope.

That is how I would interpret it. A simpler version of this I've read is "Faith is hope in things unseen," and hope is different from belief or certainty. If I plant a garden in the spring, I know that it is possible and perhaps even likely that an early frost may kill my young sprouts, they may be attacked by bugs or raccoons or crows or wilted by drought. Never the less, I have zero chance of finding tomatoes in my garden in August if I don't even plant them. The choice to act or not act is not entirely based on the certainty of success.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

Is it, or is it not logical for people to assume that more undiscovered creatures exist deep in the ocean, although no one has detected/seen it yet? (via any possible way, like sonar, etc.)

I dunno.
Do they faith?

I know topics tend to drift, but I can't, for the life of me, see how we got onto possible deep sea creatures while discussing the meaning of a particular Bible quote.

SHEESH!

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS!!

THEY are in the deep dead sea...

get grip ducky!

I like your sense of humour. Where were the Dead Sea Scrolls found again? *L*

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

Is it, or is it not logical for people to assume that more undiscovered creatures exist deep in the ocean, although no one has detected/seen it yet? (via any possible way, like sonar, etc.)

I dunno.
Do they faith?

I know topics tend to drift, but I can't, for the life of me, see how we got onto possible deep sea creatures while discussing the meaning of a particular Bible quote.

SHEESH!

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS!!

THEY are in the deep dead sea...

get grip ducky!

I like your sense of humour. Where were the Dead Sea Scrolls found again? *L*

Well, sir, about a mile from the Dead Sea....they never got to float.

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Robittybob1

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by Dywyddyr

Originally Posted by RamenNoodles

Is it, or is it not logical for people to assume that more undiscovered creatures exist deep in the ocean, although no one has detected/seen it yet? (via any possible way, like sonar, etc.)

I dunno.
Do they faith?

I know topics tend to drift, but I can't, for the life of me, see how we got onto possible deep sea creatures while discussing the meaning of a particular Bible quote.

SHEESH!

THE DEAD SEA SCROLLS!!

THEY are in the deep dead sea...

get grip ducky!

I like your sense of humour. Where were the Dead Sea Scrolls found again? *L*

Well, sir, about a mile from the Dead Sea....they never got to float.

And high up on the cliffs inside caves .... for a moment i thought you thought they were plucked from the sea. *L*

I would agree with the OP statement.

The problem lies in identifying the "substance", but in reality we can readily see the evidence of our common demons in the madness of killing each other in wars. What is this mental demon that demands violence as a way of life.
I believe that at a psychological level this is how Tulpas are born.

Tulpa (Tibetan: སྤྲུལ་པ, Wylie: sprul-pa; Sanskrit: निर्मित nirmita[1] and निर्माण nirmāṇa;[2] Japanese: タルパ tarupa;[3] "to build" or "to construct") also translated as "magical emanation",[4] "conjured thing" [5] and "phantom" [6] is a concept in mysticism of a being or object which is created through sheer spiritual or mental discipline alone. It is defined in Indian Buddhist texts as any unreal, illusory or mind created apparition. According to Alexandra David-Néel, tulpas are "magic formations generated by a powerful concentration of thought." It is a materialized thought that has taken physical form and is usually regarded as synonymous to a thoughtform.

Tulpa - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

and

The word Tulpa is from the Tibetan language and refers to any entity that attains reality solely by the act of imagination. This entity can be seen by not only the creator, but by other people as well.

Tulpa: A Creature Made By Thought - Dimensional Bliss

Let me illustrate; when I looked at political rallies and observed the expressions of the extreme opposition, I started to make a mental picture of this composite creature expressed in the individual faces and it reminded me of the (dream) creature caught in the electric shield in the movie Forbidden Planet. When I look at mobs, I see Tulpas (Images ofa symbolic message to a commonly shared or "hive mind").

If only I were a painter, but I am sure it has to do with our mirror neural network which allows a group to form a composite being which "takes on a life of it's own"

Originally Posted by robittybob1

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by robittybob1

Originally Posted by babe

Originally Posted by dywyddyr

Originally Posted by ramennoodles

is it, or is it not logical for people to assume that more undiscovered creatures exist deep in the ocean, although no one has detected/seen it yet? (via any possible way, like sonar, etc.)

i dunno.
Do they faith?

I know topics tend to drift, but i can't, for the life of me, see how we got onto possible deep sea creatures while discussing the meaning of a particular bible quote.

sheesh!

The dead sea scrolls!!

They are in the deep dead sea...

Get grip ducky!

i like your sense of humour. Where were the dead sea scrolls found again? *l*

well, sir, about a mile from the dead sea....they never got to float.

and high up on the cliffs inside caves .... For a moment i thought you thought they were plucked from the sea. *l*

whack!!!!!

The Tulpa's first victim?