To believe against all odds, when there is no proof whatsoever, for you know what is within you is the only true thing. I think both Mother Teresa and Sister Mary Rose have transcended the visible(and somewhat praisable, if such word ever exist) aspect of faith. And as for Mother Teresa, I think the very fact that she was doubting God's presence/existence, and feeling He had abandoned her and yet, continued the amazing endeavour she had started is just a wonderful act of faith.
After all, aren't the scriptures of the three big religions full of examples of men and women doubting God's presence every now and then? And yet, something deep inside made them carry on. I don't think faith is somet...

To believe against all odds, when there is no proof whatsoever, for you know what is within you is the only true thing. I think both Mother Teresa and Sister Mary Rose have transcended the visible(and somewhat praisable, if such word ever exist) aspect of faith. And as for Mother Teresa, I think the very fact that she was doubting God's presence/existence, and feeling He had abandoned her and yet, continued the amazing endeavour she had started is just a wonderful act of faith.
After all, aren't the scriptures of the three big religions full of examples of men and women doubting God's presence every now and then? And yet, something deep inside made them carry on. I don't think faith is something you can come forward and claim and show people, I think it's the very innner fight you have against yourself when there is nobody to brag to, when you confront all that you are, the sum of your education, culture, social conventions and aspirations, all things very tangible, against your belief, which is more than ethereal, immaterial.***
Sorry for the grammatical stupidities or inaccuracies, if any. ^_^

I think the very fact that she was doubting God's presence/existence, and feeling He had abandoned her and yet, continued the amazing endeavour she had started is just a wonderful act of faith.

To say that (above) [and this is just my opinion] denies the sainthood she deserves. Rather, it was doing good in the "absence" of faith that is the good she did.

To keep saying she had faith when she didn't, is to rob the true meaning of her actions.

A person need not have faith in order to do good!

In fact, doing good "because of" one's faith, is merely an attempt to bribe a god into thinking you're a good person.

However, doing good "knowing no god exists" is the truly...

I think the very fact that she was doubting God's presence/existence, and feeling He had abandoned her and yet, continued the amazing endeavour she had started is just a wonderful act of faith.

To say that (above) [and this is just my opinion] denies the sainthood she deserves. Rather, it was doing good in the "absence" of faith that is the good she did.

To keep saying she had faith when she didn't, is to rob the true meaning of her actions.

A person need not have faith in order to do good!

In fact, doing good "because of" one's faith, is merely an attempt to bribe a god into thinking you're a good person.

However, doing good "knowing no god exists" is the truly good person. They are doing it for it's own sake, and not for the brownie points hoped for by the faithful fake.

There is a world of difference, and she was no fake.

To keep saying she had faith when she didn't, is to rob the true meaning of her actions.

If you've paid attention to what I wrote, I never said she needed to feel God's presence to do the things she did. Actually it's the very fact se kept doing it although doubting and/or not feeling that presence that I'm saluting.

In fact, doing good "because of" one's faith, is merely an attempt to bribe a god into thinking you're a good person.

Actually I wouldn't swear on that, coz as I said previously, or intended to say, true faith is not something you show off for people to see, it's (to me at least) more of a quiet private work within oneself. Indeed you don't ...

To keep saying she had faith when she didn't, is to rob the true meaning of her actions.

If you've paid attention to what I wrote, I never said she needed to feel God's presence to do the things she did. Actually it's the very fact se kept doing it although doubting and/or not feeling that presence that I'm saluting.

In fact, doing good "because of" one's faith, is merely an attempt to bribe a god into thinking you're a good person.

Actually I wouldn't swear on that, coz as I said previously, or intended to say, true faith is not something you show off for people to see, it's (to me at least) more of a quiet private work within oneself. Indeed you don't need to believe in any God or deity or whatever you call it to do good. But i'm inclined to also think that without the "concept" of a God, there could be no sanctity. One may do good, without waiting for those "brownie points" you speak of, but it seems to me that there can't be Sanctity but through God. On the other hand, Righteousness of speech and action and dedication to one's fellowmen do not require any divine implication.

@Lifestar

"I never said she needed to feel God's presence to do the things she did. Actually it's the very fact se kept doing it although doubting and/or not feeling that presence that I'm saluting."

If that's what you meant, then I apologize. But your original post continued that thought with...

"...is just a wonderful act of faith."
--

You also wrote:

"But i'm inclined to also think that without the "concept" of a God, there could be no sanctity."

Why not? What does one have to do with the other? And for that matter, why would it even be relevant? Neither righteousness nor sanctity implies a god.

Good works stand entirely on its own. How could there be a ...

@Lifestar

"I never said she needed to feel God's presence to do the things she did. Actually it's the very fact se kept doing it although doubting and/or not feeling that presence that I'm saluting."

If that's what you meant, then I apologize. But your original post continued that thought with...

"...is just a wonderful act of faith."
--

You also wrote:

"But i'm inclined to also think that without the "concept" of a God, there could be no sanctity."

Why not? What does one have to do with the other? And for that matter, why would it even be relevant? Neither righteousness nor sanctity implies a god.

Good works stand entirely on its own. How could there be a more worthy way of establishing the sainthood or goodness of a person?

Doubt can be a sign that consideration is necessary, or there is a contradiction that can't be fathomed. Very often it may be understood in retrospect, but the understanding must be an goal, not a gift, while. We are directed on a course that can lead to understanding. The value of faith in the truth cannot be overestimated. Proof denies faith. Faith is something we can strengthen like a muscle. It will not get stronger unless it is used, and stretched. There can be times it will seem to be absent, or even break. The value of faith is that due to our limited viewpoints,we can see very little. Faith is a necessary element in the construction of a viable reality. It is amazing to consider the...

Doubt can be a sign that consideration is necessary, or there is a contradiction that can't be fathomed. Very often it may be understood in retrospect, but the understanding must be an goal, not a gift, while. We are directed on a course that can lead to understanding. The value of faith in the truth cannot be overestimated. Proof denies faith. Faith is something we can strengthen like a muscle. It will not get stronger unless it is used, and stretched. There can be times it will seem to be absent, or even break. The value of faith is that due to our limited viewpoints,we can see very little. Faith is a necessary element in the construction of a viable reality. It is amazing to consider the number of things seen as truth, and fact, particularly in the 'real' world are articles of faith supported by inconspicuous assumptions. The instability of doubt is countered by the stability of vindication. Providing you are also prepared to admit when you are wrong, or simply don't know. (Sometimes as hard to see)

The value of faith in the truth cannot be overestimated.

Please forgive; I didn't understand that statement. If something is already known to be true, its knowledge is not an act of faith. Are you referring to probability? (e.g., I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.)

The faith we're talking about is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence.

"Faith is something we can strengthen like a muscle. It will not get stronger unless it is used, and stretched."

I would agree. But I'm not sure how this can be understood as a good thing. It's essentially saying, we can get good at believing things for wh...

The value of faith in the truth cannot be overestimated.

Please forgive; I didn't understand that statement. If something is already known to be true, its knowledge is not an act of faith. Are you referring to probability? (e.g., I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.)

The faith we're talking about is the belief in something for which there is no evidence, or belief in spite of the evidence.

"Faith is something we can strengthen like a muscle. It will not get stronger unless it is used, and stretched."

I would agree. But I'm not sure how this can be understood as a good thing. It's essentially saying, we can get good at believing things for which there is no evidence. Why would we want to practice credulity?

"The value of faith is that due to our limited viewpoints,we can see very little. Faith is a necessary element in the construction of a viable reality."

In what way would a belief in something that's wrong (i.e., the sun revolves around the earth) be a viable reality?

If the value of faith is in its ability to fool one's self, then I agree. It's certainly a viable way of doing so. But I can't see the advantage to doing it. It doesn't make a person smarter. It does the opposite.

"It is amazing to consider the number of things seen as truth, and fact, particularly in the 'real' world are articles of faith supported by inconspicuous assumptions."

All too true! Sometimes we think we have an understanding...and then find out it was wrong!

And what was it that showed us it was wrong...if not additional or better evidence? See? How did we find out it was wrong? The evidence!

Now imagine ignoring the evidence right from the start...on purpose! And then continuing to do so...on purpose.

In what way could that ever be a better system of learning, of knowing, of determining the truth?

"..I'm sure some people are happy to live without faith, but because they can see nothing, so they believe only in things with which they are directly aware, and have trouble justifying life..."

I didn't understand any of that. Each idea seems unconnected to the next. Someone without faith can see nothing? Only believe in what they are directly aware? Trouble justifying life? ...

I'm sorry, I couldn't follow.

Let's say that I'm a skeptic, and don't believe in things that don't seem right. But instead I ask for the evidence before making judgment. In what way does that mean I "can see nothing"?

If I simply believe without seeing the evidence, does that mean I can see?

[q...

"..I'm sure some people are happy to live without faith, but because they can see nothing, so they believe only in things with which they are directly aware, and have trouble justifying life..."

I didn't understand any of that. Each idea seems unconnected to the next. Someone without faith can see nothing? Only believe in what they are directly aware? Trouble justifying life? ...

I'm sorry, I couldn't follow.

Let's say that I'm a skeptic, and don't believe in things that don't seem right. But instead I ask for the evidence before making judgment. In what way does that mean I "can see nothing"?

If I simply believe without seeing the evidence, does that mean I can see?

"..I have no doubt that there is more than our narrow minds can imagine to the mechanics of life,.."

I totally agree!


But... In what way does that relate to "justifying life?"

BTW, I'm not saying that you're wrong. I just don't know what you're trying to communicate.

"..if people are determined to champion oblivion,.."

Again...right there...lost me. What are you talking about?

All I'm saying is that, examining the evidence is a better way of learning (discovering the truth) than not looking at the evidence. Do you truly disagree?