This is so ridiculously ignorant that it is head-spinning to consider the utter mental incapability of the writer . If anything, "hope" is the cause of our problems. You are an inactive participant in hope. Hope is outside of yourself, a wish or a dream. Hope is for lotteries. Faith is a life-force. You cannot move without faith, whether you admit it or not.

This concept has caused immeasurable harm to the world - it is what
made Stalin so sure that his five-year plans weren’t starving Russia,
it is what made Hitler think that the Jews were the root of all the
world’s problems. It is a feature of a lot of crime in South Africa.

Actually, this would be materialistic "hope" and...

This is so ridiculously ignorant that it is head-spinning to consider the utter mental incapability of the writer . If anything, "hope" is the cause of our problems. You are an inactive participant in hope. Hope is outside of yourself, a wish or a dream. Hope is for lotteries. Faith is a life-force. You cannot move without faith, whether you admit it or not.

This concept has caused immeasurable harm to the world - it is what
made Stalin so sure that his five-year plans weren’t starving Russia,
it is what made Hitler think that the Jews were the root of all the
world’s problems. It is a feature of a lot of crime in South Africa.

Actually, this would be materialistic "hope" and "change" that caused these evils.

Jeez dude, grow up. This article is about as intellectually pathetic as it gets.

I haven't read the original article, but I think I would agree with the authors root argument. Early in the clip the author separates the concept of faith he's describing from faith in religion. Obviously faith in God has done immeasurable good in the world. Faith in the afterlife is certainly not without reason.

Hope describes a state of wanting whereas faith describes a state of believing. I think the root of the argument the author is making is that misplaced faith can be a very dangerous thing.

I believe the election of Obama, the belief in much of what the media tells us, and socialism itself are all fine examples of misplaced faith. Why should anyone have faith in Obama, much of ...

I haven't read the original article, but I think I would agree with the authors root argument. Early in the clip the author separates the concept of faith he's describing from faith in religion. Obviously faith in God has done immeasurable good in the world. Faith in the afterlife is certainly not without reason.

Hope describes a state of wanting whereas faith describes a state of believing. I think the root of the argument the author is making is that misplaced faith can be a very dangerous thing.

I believe the election of Obama, the belief in much of what the media tells us, and socialism itself are all fine examples of misplaced faith. Why should anyone have faith in Obama, much of the media, or socialism when their history emphatically shows us that we shouldn't. Yet many people do have faith in them and therein lies the danger.

Faith without reason often leads to disaster.

I haven't read the original article, but I think I would agree with the
authors root argument. Early in the clip the author separates the
concept of faith he's describing from faith in religion.

It makes no difference how he separates... whatever. The fact is that hope is childish fantasy and faith is an exercise of love, action, learning, helping, relationship to others, growing, and achieving. Hope requires nothing of you. Faith requires every ounce of altruism one can muster.

The goal of the idiot leftists is to take self determination out of your hands, give up the tenants and requirements of what faith entails and place all of your selfish and materialistic hopes and...

I haven't read the original article, but I think I would agree with the
authors root argument. Early in the clip the author separates the
concept of faith he's describing from faith in religion.

It makes no difference how he separates... whatever. The fact is that hope is childish fantasy and faith is an exercise of love, action, learning, helping, relationship to others, growing, and achieving. Hope requires nothing of you. Faith requires every ounce of altruism one can muster.

The goal of the idiot leftists is to take self determination out of your hands, give up the tenants and requirements of what faith entails and place all of your selfish and materialistic hopes and desires in the power of some arbitrary power - government.

We have to continually deal with the hopeless intellectual acuity of those like the writer of this article because there are enough idiots that cannot understand basic logic and love and choose only to cast out something they hate and proffer some idiotic drivel.

From the article:

"Faith is not simply a religious concept - it is a concept of knowing, of being absolutely sure of your ideas, your leaders, your concept of right and wrong, to the point where any evidence to the contrary just annoys you, it doesn’t have the power to convince you."

This, being true, Faith has no correction mechanism. This is why a Muslim faith is wrong compared to a Christian faith and back again. (They can't both be right but they can both be wrong.)

Faith is simply a WANT for something to be true. And since faith has no way of determining if something is in fact true (or false) it is ill equipped as a tool for decision making.

It is inherently dumb (stupid) to use fa...

From the article:

"Faith is not simply a religious concept - it is a concept of knowing, of being absolutely sure of your ideas, your leaders, your concept of right and wrong, to the point where any evidence to the contrary just annoys you, it doesn’t have the power to convince you."

This, being true, Faith has no correction mechanism. This is why a Muslim faith is wrong compared to a Christian faith and back again. (They can't both be right but they can both be wrong.)

Faith is simply a WANT for something to be true. And since faith has no way of determining if something is in fact true (or false) it is ill equipped as a tool for decision making.

It is inherently dumb (stupid) to use faith as a decision making device since it CANNOT determine a true from a false proposition.

PS: Religious faith is the opposite of doubt. To say that faith "includes" doubt is to admit that one's faith is diminished by the extent of the doubt. To suggest otherwise is to contradict Jesus.

Boniface is correct, as supported by the words of Jesus. So I guess, according to Willhelm, Jesus misunderstands his own words and is ignorant.

You mean standing for the truth of hope and faith?

but really, they ARE the best argument against people like you,

Considering the fact that actual facts, truth, and logic do not work for people "like you", then I guess you may be right. What it takes for you to keep yourself ignorant I guess. Knock yourself out with that.

Again, you cannot defend the article so you attack a commenter. I may voice my opinion on a commenter given their ad nauseum display of ignorance but at least I have the courtesy of providing a point of view and substantive argument, which you have yet to. You only, for a third time in one thread mind you, attack a commenter without providing a defense for ...

You mean standing for the truth of hope and faith?

but really, they ARE the best argument against people like you,

Considering the fact that actual facts, truth, and logic do not work for people "like you", then I guess you may be right. What it takes for you to keep yourself ignorant I guess. Knock yourself out with that.

Again, you cannot defend the article so you attack a commenter. I may voice my opinion on a commenter given their ad nauseum display of ignorance but at least I have the courtesy of providing a point of view and substantive argument, which you have yet to. You only, for a third time in one thread mind you, attack a commenter without providing a defense for the article.

So, your right, I guess. You need to base you opinion, or disagreement, on a fallacy (best argument against people like me) because you cannot actually make one of your own.

According to:

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY

Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is
being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we
do not see"(Heb. 11:1, NIV).
--

So "faith" is being SURE of what we HOPE for, in the absence of evidence.

Just what the author said.

Now, what I said:

"This, being true, Faith has no correction mechanism."

"And since faith has no way of determining if something is in fact true
(or false) it is ill equipped as a tool for decision making."

This makes faith STUPID as means of decision making.

---
@willhelm

There are many things my...

According to:

CHRISTIAN APOLOGETICS & RESEARCH MINISTRY

Hebrews 11:1

"Now faith is
being sure of what we hope for and certain of what we
do not see"(Heb. 11:1, NIV).
--

So "faith" is being SURE of what we HOPE for, in the absence of evidence.

Just what the author said.

Now, what I said:

"This, being true, Faith has no correction mechanism."

"And since faith has no way of determining if something is in fact true
(or false) it is ill equipped as a tool for decision making."

This makes faith STUPID as means of decision making.

---
@willhelm

There are many things my faith requires of me that I do not necessarily "want" to be true.

Then according to the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry, it's not FAITH, because faith is something that you HOPE for!

So, now that you've told Jesus he doesn't understand his own words and is ignorant, you are also telling the CARM that their theology and philosophy is like debating a 2nd grader.

So here's a theological question for YOU. What's behind that big red ball on your nose? Because that's all people see whenever you open your mouth. Sounds like it too! Haven't you heard yourself talk?

Would any of you think that if i told you a pig could fly, and all you had to do is have faith and when you die the pig will fly you to the stars.
Honestly our scientists keep discovering things they thought worked in a certain way but later finding they were wrong, and this is just they past 100+ years.
How accurate do you think our less intelligent minds 2000+ YEARS AGO, tell us about a greater being and all these miricals with lets say noah and his ark (WTF), moses and the plagues. And people think this is true. Come on this human race needs to evolve past this stage and move on to better things. I would class faith as an emotion or something that a child would hold on to (like having f...

Would any of you think that if i told you a pig could fly, and all you had to do is have faith and when you die the pig will fly you to the stars.
Honestly our scientists keep discovering things they thought worked in a certain way but later finding they were wrong, and this is just they past 100+ years.
How accurate do you think our less intelligent minds 2000+ YEARS AGO, tell us about a greater being and all these miricals with lets say noah and his ark (WTF), moses and the plagues. And people think this is true. Come on this human race needs to evolve past this stage and move on to better things. I would class faith as an emotion or something that a child would hold on to (like having faith in that their toys come to life at night) it is riduculas. Faith has and will continue to tear this planet apart with wars and violence as a reprocussion of people having Blind FAITH and not beliving that thier faith is correct even with evidence stacked against it.

@Willhelm

Jebus H. Grist! It's "love" that blind, not "hope." I suppose you would think all the following people are "ignorant" as well?

A strong mind always hopes, and has always cause to hope. - Polybius

To hope means to be ready at every moment for that which is not yet born... - Erich Fromm

The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for. - Joseph Addison

Never talk defeat. Use words like hope, belief, faith, victory. - Norman Vincent Peale

If you don't go far enough back in memory or far enough ahead in hope, your future will be impoverished. - Art Linkletter

A leader is a dealer in hope. - Napoleon Bonaparte

Hop...

@Willhelm

Jebus H. Grist! It's "love" that blind, not "hope." I suppose you would think all the following people are "ignorant" as well?

A strong mind always hopes, and has always cause to hope. - Polybius

To hope means to be ready at every moment for that which is not yet born... - Erich Fromm

The grand essentials to happiness in this life are something to do, something to love, and something to hope for. - Joseph Addison

Never talk defeat. Use words like hope, belief, faith, victory. - Norman Vincent Peale

If you don't go far enough back in memory or far enough ahead in hope, your future will be impoverished. - Art Linkletter

A leader is a dealer in hope. - Napoleon Bonaparte

Hope is a good thing - maybe the best thing, and no good thing ever dies. - Stephen King

Hope is definitely not the same thing as optimism. It is not the conviction that something will turn out well, but the certainty that something makes sense, regardless of how it turns out. - Vaclav Havel

Hope, like the gleaming taper's light,
Adorns and cheers our way;
And still, as darker grows the night,
Emits a lighter ray. - Oliver Goldsmith

Hope is a strange invention
A Patent of the Heart
In unremitting action
Yet never wearing out. - Emily Dickinson

We must accept finite disappointment, but we must never lose infinite hope. - Martin Luther King, Jr.

Such is hope, heaven's own gift to struggling mortals, pervading, like some subtle essence from the skies, all things both good and bad. - Charles Dickens

Faith includes hope. Charity (caritas, love) includes faith. Without Love, both faith and hope are meaningless in the Christian context. Hope becomes a dead thing somewhat caught by Philip Larkin's poem:

Always too eager for the future, we
Pick up bad habits of expectancy.
Something is always approaching; every day
Till then we say,

Watching from a bluff the tiny, clear
Sparkling armada of promises draw near.
How slow they are! And how much time they waste,
Refusing to make haste!

Yet still they leave us holding wretched stalks
Of disappointment, for, though nothing balks
Each big approach, leaning with brasswork prinked,
Each rope distinct,

Flagged, and the figurehead wit golden tits
Ar...

Faith includes hope. Charity (caritas, love) includes faith. Without Love, both faith and hope are meaningless in the Christian context. Hope becomes a dead thing somewhat caught by Philip Larkin's poem:

Always too eager for the future, we
Pick up bad habits of expectancy.
Something is always approaching; every day
Till then we say,

Watching from a bluff the tiny, clear
Sparkling armada of promises draw near.
How slow they are! And how much time they waste,
Refusing to make haste!

Yet still they leave us holding wretched stalks
Of disappointment, for, though nothing balks
Each big approach, leaning with brasswork prinked,
Each rope distinct,

Flagged, and the figurehead wit golden tits
Arching our way, it never anchors; it's
No sooner present than it turns to past.
Right to the last

We think each one will heave to and unload
All good into our lives, all we are owed
For waiting so devoutly and so long.
But we are wrong:

Only one ship is seeking us, a black-
Sailed unfamiliar, towing at her back
A huge and birdless silence. In her wake
No waters breed or break.

@ willhelm
Did you have faith that santa was real when you were younger, or the tooth fairy.
Children will believe what their peers tell them.
Why do you think this is. A child's mind is weak and it gets stronger as they grow or should do.
Then when there older they reliese that these things are not real but were said to keep things in order, make them behave.
This is no different from any religion or faith, these too were designed in they same way, to keep the masses under control.
Ancient Egypt (cant spell lol) was doing the same thing as every other ancient civilisation. Claiming there is somthing more (like gods or themselves being gods) and all you have to do is follow.
Faith, r...

@ willhelm
Did you have faith that santa was real when you were younger, or the tooth fairy.
Children will believe what their peers tell them.
Why do you think this is. A child's mind is weak and it gets stronger as they grow or should do.
Then when there older they reliese that these things are not real but were said to keep things in order, make them behave.
This is no different from any religion or faith, these too were designed in they same way, to keep the masses under control.
Ancient Egypt (cant spell lol) was doing the same thing as every other ancient civilisation. Claiming there is somthing more (like gods or themselves being gods) and all you have to do is follow.
Faith, religion etc.. has long destoyed more lives than it has helped. I say people need to grow and get a grip on reailty, becuase thats where you are now.

Yea hope is wanting somthing to happen but also knowing it may not.

Faith is believing somthing will happen, and even if it wont happen you still think it will.

How can you say Faith is not blind.

Mike law, Faith is not blind because it requires assent. Hope requires no assent.

Your analogy about Santa Clause is a good example. Children do have faith in Santa Clause. However, as they grow older and more wise, the process of faith weakens through the APPLICATION and INVOLVED processes of knowledge, assent, and action. As I mentioned above, faith is not a static point of view. It requires challenge and honest question. Even in Christianity we are guided to "test (question) everything and hold to that which is good."

A child's mind is weak and it gets stronger as they grow or should do.

Again, absolutely true and as a former leftist and agnostic myself i can certainly at...

Mike law, Faith is not blind because it requires assent. Hope requires no assent.

Your analogy about Santa Clause is a good example. Children do have faith in Santa Clause. However, as they grow older and more wise, the process of faith weakens through the APPLICATION and INVOLVED processes of knowledge, assent, and action. As I mentioned above, faith is not a static point of view. It requires challenge and honest question. Even in Christianity we are guided to "test (question) everything and hold to that which is good."

A child's mind is weak and it gets stronger as they grow or should do.

Again, absolutely true and as a former leftist and agnostic myself i can certainly attest to PROCESS and INVOLVEMENT faith REQUIRES.

How can you say Faith is not blind.

I not only said faith _is not_ blind, I also said hope _is_ blind.
Hope is a subset of faith. We can only hope for something if we have faith in certain things. For example we can only hope to win the lottery if we have faith that there will be a winner and that the process will be carried out fairly. Hope without faith is an empty practice. Hope requires nothing from you. Hope without faith makes you a victim.

So from the standpoint that this article is written, hope is the problem.

Faith, religion etc.. has long destoyed more lives than it has helped.
I say people need to grow and get a grip on reailty, becuase thats
where you are now.

What is your support for this? And you ask me to get a grip on reality?
Materialism, during the past 600 years throughout Russia, China Europe, Southeast Asia is responsible for the destruction of hundreds of millions of lives. The materialist faith continues today and this comment of yours is pure lunacy from someone with apparently little to think about, given that thought is a daily practice of yours.

Hope does not include anything. It is passive. You seem to not be able to understand anything I've commented. Do you know what assent means? Have you read my comments? Do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about or do you just want to be argumentative?

Now change the word "hope" into "faith" and your will see how stupid faith is.

Faith and hope are not interchangeable words. It just goes to show that you aren't very clear on the point and that is why ignorance is easily manipulated by ignorance such as the above article. You and no one else has made the slightest distinction in hope and faith. The reason you haven't is because your argument cannot be made by ...

Hope does not include anything. It is passive. You seem to not be able to understand anything I've commented. Do you know what assent means? Have you read my comments? Do you have the slightest clue what you are talking about or do you just want to be argumentative?

Now change the word "hope" into "faith" and your will see how stupid faith is.

Faith and hope are not interchangeable words. It just goes to show that you aren't very clear on the point and that is why ignorance is easily manipulated by ignorance such as the above article. You and no one else has made the slightest distinction in hope and faith. The reason you haven't is because your argument cannot be made by use of the facts. You have to make "faith" mean the same thing as "hope". Anyway, you clearly cannot think in terms of anything except your ignorant, closed-minded, and preconceived notions. That is how ignorance is perpetuated.

Faith is not blind because it requires assent. Hope requires no assent.

Let's take a hypothetical case.
Joe is planning on taking a walk through a dangerous part of town at night. He hopes that he will make it safely and return home unharmed. Joe does not know for sure what will happen to him, but there is no doubt that he hopes to return unharmed. One of the reasons Joe does not know what will happen is that Joe does not have faith in his fellow man to act in a peaceful manner in his regard.
Joe has some fear that he may be assaulted. Joe decides to take his walk despite his lack of faith in his fellow man's intentions. He does this because he hopes that he will be safe.
I...

Faith is not blind because it requires assent. Hope requires no assent.

Let's take a hypothetical case.
Joe is planning on taking a walk through a dangerous part of town at night. He hopes that he will make it safely and return home unharmed. Joe does not know for sure what will happen to him, but there is no doubt that he hopes to return unharmed. One of the reasons Joe does not know what will happen is that Joe does not have faith in his fellow man to act in a peaceful manner in his regard.
Joe has some fear that he may be assaulted. Joe decides to take his walk despite his lack of faith in his fellow man's intentions. He does this because he hopes that he will be safe.
If Joe had faith he'd have little or no doubt that he will get home safely. By only having hope he has a lot more doubt.
In both cases he is assenting to have hope or faith. By assenting to either he is able to take the walk.

How about someone who doesn't know if there is a God?
Despite having no faith, they still hope there is a loving God who will reward them in the afterlife for living a godly life on earth.
How is that not involving their assent in their hope?

Well, they are not interchangeable. So, to suggest substitution is an invalid suggestion in the first place.
You CAN hope the ocean will turn to pink lemonade, but you CANNOT have faith that it will. That is the whole difference in faith and hope. Boniface suggests I substitute A for B, when they cannot be substituted. One cannot have faith that the ocean will turn to pink lemonade unless there is a reasonable assurance, a logical paradigm, or progressive assent that leads one to believe that it is possible. Therefore, It is impossible to have faith that the ocean will turn to pink lemonade. Faith requires assent built upon reason and knowledge. Hope does not. Hope is a passive position, a ...

Well, they are not interchangeable. So, to suggest substitution is an invalid suggestion in the first place.
You CAN hope the ocean will turn to pink lemonade, but you CANNOT have faith that it will. That is the whole difference in faith and hope. Boniface suggests I substitute A for B, when they cannot be substituted. One cannot have faith that the ocean will turn to pink lemonade unless there is a reasonable assurance, a logical paradigm, or progressive assent that leads one to believe that it is possible. Therefore, It is impossible to have faith that the ocean will turn to pink lemonade. Faith requires assent built upon reason and knowledge. Hope does not. Hope is a passive position, a wish or a want. Faith is a cyclical practice of knowledge, assent, and practice. Faith has nothing to do with wishing, wanting, or hoping necessarily.

However, like Ive said a million times in this forum. I seek not agreement, only clarity.

Clearly, the prevailing point of the materialists is that faith means WANTING something to be true based on NO reasoning. OK, How is that different from hope. By the materialist's own definition of faith (which is not accurate) they base this position on absolutely no evidence and no understanding. There is clear need that they seem to have to want to define faith as something other than it is. Why is that?

Here is boniface's substitution:

"You can have faith the ocean will turn to pink lemonade if you want it to." To have faith in this, is ridiculous.

It is impossible to have faith that the ocean will turn to pink lemonade, which is evidence that boniface has absolutely no clue what he/she is talking about, no clue what I commented about, and no clue of a valid perception faith. And that doesn't even get into the whole noun/verb, passive/active assertions, religious/nonreligious misapplications placed along this entire thread.

If ye have faith (and all that entails, which is a far reaching thing and involves much more than believing and hoping), then I think the possibilities exist within the framework of nature for any prayers to be answered. Also, it is not my claim that faith adhere to anything. Faith is the result of assent, knowledge, practice as a continual practice as a fact, not because of anything I assert.

The real issue here, as you and others make abundantly clear, is that you have no interest in responding to the facts, only to your own preconceived notions.

You still did not answer my question. the continual practice has been to equate faith as solely a religious exercise, then attack the religio...

If ye have faith (and all that entails, which is a far reaching thing and involves much more than believing and hoping), then I think the possibilities exist within the framework of nature for any prayers to be answered. Also, it is not my claim that faith adhere to anything. Faith is the result of assent, knowledge, practice as a continual practice as a fact, not because of anything I assert.

The real issue here, as you and others make abundantly clear, is that you have no interest in responding to the facts, only to your own preconceived notions.

You still did not answer my question. the continual practice has been to equate faith as solely a religious exercise, then attack the religion, or parade bible verses as if one has understanding of them. Not one time has anyone defended the premise of the article. All I have done is point out the that the writer is a simple-minded bigot that does not yet have the intellect to quite understand the idiocy of his premise. I would not expect many at clipmarks to be even his equal quite frankly.

original clip said:

Faith is not simply a religious concept - it is a concept of knowing,
of being absolutely sure of your ideas, your leaders, your concept of
right and wrong, to the point where any evidence to the contrary just
annoys you, it doesn’t have the power to convince you.
This concept has caused immeasurable harm to the world - it is what
made Stalin so sure that his five-year plans weren’t starving Russia,
it is what made Hitler think that the Jews were the root of all the
world’s problems.

willhelm said:

Actually, this would be materialistic "hope" and "change" that caused these evils.

So you believe that there were no true believers in Nazism or Communism? No...

original clip said:

Faith is not simply a religious concept - it is a concept of knowing,
of being absolutely sure of your ideas, your leaders, your concept of
right and wrong, to the point where any evidence to the contrary just
annoys you, it doesn’t have the power to convince you.
This concept has caused immeasurable harm to the world - it is what
made Stalin so sure that his five-year plans weren’t starving Russia,
it is what made Hitler think that the Jews were the root of all the
world’s problems.

willhelm said:

Actually, this would be materialistic "hope" and "change" that caused these evils.

So you believe that there were no true believers in Nazism or Communism? No one at all actually had any faith in them? And the worst, dogmatic,zealous adherents are just "hopers?" You said yourself-

It matters not what one places their faith in.

I think some people had faith in Hitler and Stalin and Lenin and Pol Pot as well as many other leaders.
I think some people have faith in belief systems like Nazism,Communism,Liberalism,Conservatism,Socialism,
Each of these belief systems have believers (who have faith) and "hopers" who do not have faith but wish for the same perceived results.
It's the faith that causes the problems not the hope.

Of course there were and are true believers in the systems and ideologies you mentioned. Materialism is as large a faith as Christianity, partly because some Christians adhere to materialist concepts, which is a quite confused position. And, yes, they share a faith in what they believe. However, the faith must hold to assent and the cycles of knowledge, assent, and action. In my opinion it is an empty faith because the evidence provides the facts that human nature thus far cannot sustain itself in these systems, but it is a faith nonetheless. As a former semi-socialist leftist, the exercise of my faith in socialism did not hold. However, it is not the faith in these systems that is the prob...

Of course there were and are true believers in the systems and ideologies you mentioned. Materialism is as large a faith as Christianity, partly because some Christians adhere to materialist concepts, which is a quite confused position. And, yes, they share a faith in what they believe. However, the faith must hold to assent and the cycles of knowledge, assent, and action. In my opinion it is an empty faith because the evidence provides the facts that human nature thus far cannot sustain itself in these systems, but it is a faith nonetheless. As a former semi-socialist leftist, the exercise of my faith in socialism did not hold. However, it is not the faith in these systems that is the problem, in fact the faith in these systems is admirable. it is the hope of achieving the utopia these systems sell that is the problem. Fascism is not necessarily evil, communism is not necessarily evil, socialism is not necessarily evil. Libertarianism is not necessarily evil.

Tell me what is wrong with fascism, which I despise. Can you tell me?

It's the faith that causes the problems not the hope.

Actually, it is the faith that solves the problems. Faith in people standing together on the side of right. Faith in what is right. Faith that others will bargain in good faith. Faith that all is well. Faith that one can overcome. MLK had faith. He may have expressed hope but it was because he had faith. He did not act because he had hope. He acted because he had faith.

BTW, I appreciate you good faith dialogue. Your question was a good one and is directed at the points.

right and wrong, to the point where any evidence to the contrary just annoys you, it doesn’t have the power to convince you.

If one is annoyed by evidence to the contrary, then they are living in faithless hope. This is just another example of how the writer of this article is a simple-minded bigot. This is where the doubt, as discussed earlier comes in. Test everything and ho

It appears that we both agree that blind faith (or faith not tempered by doubts or questions) is more dangerous than either "tempered" faith or hope. It is that kind of faith that leads (at times) to extremes like religious slaughters, ethnic cleansing,the holocaust under the Nazis,Stalin's collectivization and purges,as well as Jonestown,Heaven's Gate etc.

Actually, it is the faith that solves the problems. Faith in people
standing together on the side of right. Faith in what is right. Faith
that others will bargain in good faith. Faith that all is well. Faith
that one can overcome.

While well put I must disagree. It again comes down to the difference between faith and hope....

It appears that we both agree that blind faith (or faith not tempered by doubts or questions) is more dangerous than either "tempered" faith or hope. It is that kind of faith that leads (at times) to extremes like religious slaughters, ethnic cleansing,the holocaust under the Nazis,Stalin's collectivization and purges,as well as Jonestown,Heaven's Gate etc.

Actually, it is the faith that solves the problems. Faith in people
standing together on the side of right. Faith in what is right. Faith
that others will bargain in good faith. Faith that all is well. Faith
that one can overcome.

While well put I must disagree. It again comes down to the difference between faith and hope. I don't have what I consider faith in any of those things. But I have the hope that they are true and I want to believe in them. But I don't need faith to act.My hope is enough.

As a former semi-socialist leftist, the exercise of my faith in socialism did not hold.

As a former Christian, the same applies to my faith in Christianity. As a former semi-socialist leftist I came to a similar
conclusion regarding socialism.
But if you put the two of them through the questioning,searching and doubting tests it's a lot easier to make a rational defense for socialism as a belief system then to try to present Christianity (or any religion) as a valid rational system.

Tell me what is wrong with fascism, which I despise. Can you tell me?

To me there are two main problems with fascism.
First- The disproportionate nature of power in favor of the state over the individual
The very nature of fascism. The all powerful and all important state as opposed to the completely expendable individual.
Second- The lack of any protection of the individual from state persecution or exploitation.

It appears that we both agree that blind faith (or faith not tempered
by doubts or questions) is more dangerous than either "tempered" faith
or hope.

Did I use the word tempered? I tend to be specific with my words and I don't think I used that word. True faith is calm, faith is not tempered by doubts. I think we are on the road to clarity though.

Also, though you seem to be beginning to understand my point on the distinctions of hope and faith, you revert to making claims by mis-defining faith.

My question about your accusation of faith is this, Was Stalin acting in accordance with faith in collectivization / materialism or was he acting outside of a faith in materialis...

It appears that we both agree that blind faith (or faith not tempered
by doubts or questions) is more dangerous than either "tempered" faith
or hope.

Did I use the word tempered? I tend to be specific with my words and I don't think I used that word. True faith is calm, faith is not tempered by doubts. I think we are on the road to clarity though.

Also, though you seem to be beginning to understand my point on the distinctions of hope and faith, you revert to making claims by mis-defining faith.

My question about your accusation of faith is this, Was Stalin acting in accordance with faith in collectivization / materialism or was he acting outside of a faith in materialism / collectivization and exercising power, greed, and egocentric authority? Your view seems to imply there is something evil about collectivization. I'm a libertarian and I do not even believe Communism or Fascism is evil. It is the people that are evil. It is true this abuse happens in Christianity too, though it grossly exaggerated the extent to which it occurs.
Communism and Fascism both centralize authority. The idea of the philosopher king as the most perfect form of government agrees with communism and fascism to a certain extent.

As a former Christian, the same applies to my faith in Christianity. As a former semi-socialist leftist I came to a similar
conclusion regarding socialism.

Then, you correctly assert that you have faith in these ideas. And this is important because it points to the fact that you do not hope god does not exist, you have a faith based on assent that God does not exist. This is why I say faith in anything is a good thing to a large extent. The exercises we are engaged in are positive acts. The act of hope is empty unless there is an underlying faith that something is plausible.

willhelm said:

you do not hope god does not exist, you have a faith based on assent that God does not exist

I don't consider it a faith. If you replace the word faith with the word belief I would agree.
To me there is a distinction. Based on assent I do not believe there is a God. But I don't know. That's why I don't call it faith.

You may feel certain there is a God. Someone else may be certain there is not. I take the position that each person has a right to decide but no man really knows for sure. I have just enough doubts that there could be some sort of "higher power" or "natural force" to claim to have faith that there is no God.

Let me use this to example to describe how ...

willhelm said:

you do not hope god does not exist, you have a faith based on assent that God does not exist

I don't consider it a faith. If you replace the word faith with the word belief I would agree.
To me there is a distinction. Based on assent I do not believe there is a God. But I don't know. That's why I don't call it faith.

You may feel certain there is a God. Someone else may be certain there is not. I take the position that each person has a right to decide but no man really knows for sure. I have just enough doubts that there could be some sort of "higher power" or "natural force" to claim to have faith that there is no God.

Let me use this to example to describe how hope,faith and belief differ(at least to me.)
I am not athletic and have never skied. If I went to a ski slope tomorrow (but was not going to ski) I would hope to get there and back okay and unhurt. I would believe I would get there and back okay and unhurt.
I would not have faith in getting there okay and back (call me skeptical.)
If I was going to ski I would be hoping not to be hurt. I would believe I'd be hurt. But I would not have faith in getting hurt.

My question about your accusation of faith is this, Was Stalin acting
in accordance with faith in collectivization / materialism or was he
acting outside of a faith in materialism / collectivization and
exercising power, greed, and egocentric authority? Your view seems to
imply there is something evil about collectivization.

I don't want to get into a detailed diversion about collectivization.
But when people are forcibly collectivized I think there some evil inherent in the force involved. And certainly the world's largest collectivization project under Stalin was a terrible evil.

Stalin was exercising power,greed and egocentric authority and in that sense outside of fait...

My question about your accusation of faith is this, Was Stalin acting
in accordance with faith in collectivization / materialism or was he
acting outside of a faith in materialism / collectivization and
exercising power, greed, and egocentric authority? Your view seems to
imply there is something evil about collectivization.

I don't want to get into a detailed diversion about collectivization.
But when people are forcibly collectivized I think there some evil inherent in the force involved. And certainly the world's largest collectivization project under Stalin was a terrible evil.

Stalin was exercising power,greed and egocentric authority and in that sense outside of faith in collectivism. I believe that he also maintained some faith in collectivism itself as an end as opposed to a means for exerting his own power.

But it was those with the "true" faith in communism (or Lenin or Stalin or the Soviet Union etc.) that Stalin manipulated in order to achieve his goals.Without those true believers who accepted the system he could not have survived.
Many people believed Stalin was wrong. Many hoped Stalin knew what he was doing.Too many had faith that Stalin knew what he was doing. That kind of faith is the cause of a lot of problems.

I don't consider it a faith. If you replace the word faith with the word belief I would agree.... Based on assent I do not believe there is a
God. But I don't know. That's why I don't call it faith.

That is agnosticism. I agree with you agnosticism is not a faith. Atheism _is_ a faith.

You may feel certain there is a God. Someone else may be certain there
is not. I take the position that each person has a right to decide but
no man really knows for sure.

I agree with this 100%. Absolute proof cannot be provided for God's existence and absolute proof cannot be provided that God does not exist. However, we should agree that the the definition of God would inclu...

I don't consider it a faith. If you replace the word faith with the word belief I would agree.... Based on assent I do not believe there is a
God. But I don't know. That's why I don't call it faith.

That is agnosticism. I agree with you agnosticism is not a faith. Atheism _is_ a faith.

You may feel certain there is a God. Someone else may be certain there
is not. I take the position that each person has a right to decide but
no man really knows for sure.

I agree with this 100%. Absolute proof cannot be provided for God's existence and absolute proof cannot be provided that God does not exist. However, we should agree that the the definition of God would include that which is infinite, non-contingent, and eternal. If you assent to the idea of the impossibility infinite regression, which suggests we could never arrive at the present moment without a specific beginning because temporal infinity could never be traversed, then you have to agree with a primary cause or, at least a specific beginning, without cause.

I don't want to get into a detailed diversion about collectivization.
But
when people are forcibly collectivized I think there some evil inherent
in the force involved.

Of course this is true, but it is not because collectivization is evil. It is because humanity is incapable of not abusing power (greed, authority, selfish self interest, etc.).

That kind of faith is the cause of a lot of problems.

Materialism is the faith. Communism is the action. Assent is possible through the knowledge we gain from our experience with these philosophies. Then, faith in materialism increases or decreases for the individual.

Aceslucky said:

No sh_t, Sherlock.
Did you just have an epiphany?

No. Any person with the slightest hint of intellectual honesty and thinking ability would understand that one cannot excerpt a specific sentence from the Novel, Gone with the Wind, and expect to be believed tha

However, we should agree that the the definition of God would include that which is infinite, non-contingent, and eternal.

Hogwash!

From an old conversation regarding your fake definition of god that includes the caveat "non-contingent"..


---
You claim life can't exist without a creator (I.D.) while simultaneously holding that your god does. You try to skirt this obvious flaw in reasoning by labeling it "non contingent".

But never do you see that if "non contingent" is possible, then there's no need for a creator, for the simple reason (yours) that existence can also be non contingent; just like you claim your god ...

However, we should agree that the the definition of God would include that which is infinite, non-contingent, and eternal.

Hogwash!

From an old conversation regarding your fake definition of god that includes the caveat "non-contingent"..


---
You claim life can't exist without a creator (I.D.) while simultaneously holding that your god does. You try to skirt this obvious flaw in reasoning by labeling it "non contingent".

But never do you see that if "non contingent" is possible, then there's no need for a creator, for the simple reason (yours) that existence can also be non contingent; just like you claim your god is!
---

Point being, god is NOT non-contingent. You use it to cover an obvious flaw in your reasoning.

Ah yes, ... Your reasoning... FAIL.

no man really knows for sure.

I agree with this 100%. Absolute proof cannot be provided for God's
existence and absolute proof cannot be provided that God does not exist.

If you agree that no man really knows for sure whether or not God exists that fits perfectly into the definition of an agnostic.

An agnostic believes that the absolute knowledge of existence or non-existence of God is beyond the understanding of an individual to comprehend.

Materialism is the faith. Communism is the action. Assent is possible
through the knowledge we gain from our experience with these
philosophies. Then, faith in materialism increases or decreases for the
individual.[...

read more»

no man really knows for sure.

I agree with this 100%. Absolute proof cannot be provided for God's
existence and absolute proof cannot be provided that God does not exist.

If you agree that no man really knows for sure whether or not God exists that fits perfectly into the definition of an agnostic.

An agnostic believes that the absolute knowledge of existence or non-existence of God is beyond the understanding of an individual to comprehend.

Materialism is the faith. Communism is the action. Assent is possible
through the knowledge we gain from our experience with these
philosophies. Then, faith in materialism increases or decreases for the
individual.

I see it as just the opposite. Communism is the faith. Materialism is the action.
Referring here to the Soviet Union, despite the communist party's expressed belief in materialistic approaches in reality they used profoundly spiritual methods to prod the public. While ridiculing and debasing religious beliefs they in reality attempted to have the communist party become the basis of a new "man-based" religion.
Being materialistic is a rejection of all things spiritual. Despite Soviet communism claims regarding materialism they used
very non-materialistic tactics to achieve their goals.
All that talk of heroic sacrifice, the glorious party,the vanguard of the workers,heroes of labor,the great and flawless wisdom of Comrades Lenin and Stalin had a highly spiritual nature to it.
Replace the words "Stalin" and" Communist Party of the USSR" with God and it sounds like other religious dogma.
Materialism was one of many tools (action) used by the Communists to instill faith in the Communist Party. Indoctrination from birth to grave with propaganda about the glories of Stalin was another tool.

As for assent, many people assented to believe in Stalinism. Many still do. For those born into it the knowledge of it would change over time, and their faith decrease and increase at diffe

If you agree that no man really knows for sure whether or not God exists that fits perfectly into the definition of an agnostic.

I did not say one could not be reasonably certain. I guess I missed the intent of your statement. However, I was clear in my comment that it is proof I was referring to.

I see it as just the opposite. Communism is the faith. Materialism is the action.

I'm sorry that just does not make any sense at all to me. Communism is action based on the assent of a materialistic world view.

My point is those who had faith in the communist party and Stalin in particular were the major cause of the problems inflicted on the people...

read more»

If you agree that no man really knows for sure whether or not God exists that fits perfectly into the definition of an agnostic.

I did not say one could not be reasonably certain. I guess I missed the intent of your statement. However, I was clear in my comment that it is proof I was referring to.

I see it as just the opposite. Communism is the faith. Materialism is the action.

I'm sorry that just does not make any sense at all to me. Communism is action based on the assent of a materialistic world view.

My point is those who had faith in the communist party and Stalin in particular were the major cause of the problems inflicted on the people of the USSR.

People did not have "faith" in the Communist party necessarily. They had hope that the communist party would impart a successful materialist world view.

My point is those who had faith in the communist party and Stalin in particular were the major cause of the problems inflicted on the people of the USSR.

And my point is that the proper practice of faith in materialism, through knowledge, assent, and action would decrease or increase their faith in materialism and recognize that their hope in Stalin/communism as a capable ( because I believe humans are incapable) arbiter of materialism was misplaced.

People did not have "faith" in the Communist party necessarily. They
had hope that the communist party would impart a successful materialist
world view.

I think you are completely wrong on this point. But let me assume you are correct.

my point is that the proper practice of faith in materialism, through
knowledge, assent, and action would decrease or increase their faith in
materialism and recognize that their hope in Stalin/communism as a
capable ( because I believe humans are incapable) arbiter of
materialism was misplaced.

Let's assume you are correct here and people did not have faith in the communist party or Stalin but instead held the "hope" that Stal...

People did not have "faith" in the Communist party necessarily. They
had hope that the communist party would impart a successful materialist
world view.

I think you are completely wrong on this point. But let me assume you are correct.

my point is that the proper practice of faith in materialism, through
knowledge, assent, and action would decrease or increase their faith in
materialism and recognize that their hope in Stalin/communism as a
capable ( because I believe humans are incapable) arbiter of
materialism was misplaced.

Let's assume you are correct here and people did not have faith in the communist party or Stalin but instead held the "hope" that Stalin/communism would be a capable arbiter of materialism.

If that is true how do you then explain the many Stalin admirers that exist in Russia today? According to you they did not have faith in Stalin, they only hoped he was a good leader for their materialistic hopes. All these admirers for a man you claim people had no faith in?
They continue to admire Stalin despite all the evidence to the contrary because they continue in their faith that Stalin was a great and glorious leader not in their hope that Stalin was a great leader. The book on Stalin has closed. Are you seriously proposing that those who lived under Stalin, survived and proclaim they still feel Stalin was a great leader don't display faith in Stalin or Stalinism?
It doesn't take a deep trip into Soviet oppression to find cases of strong loyal faithful communists who died under torturing while proclaiming their loyalty to communism, the communist party and Stalin. I don't think too many died were voicing their loyalty to their faith in materialism.

If that is true how do you then explain the many Stalin admirers that
exist in Russia today? According to you they did not have faith in
Stalin, they only hoped he was a good leader for their materialistic
hopes. All these admirers for a man you claim people had no faith in?

I would explain it the same as I would regarding those who still admire Ronald Reagan and share the nostalgic hope of someone like him restoring an idealistic constitutional world-view based in the concept of inalienable rights, which is the result of a philosophical world view different from a materialistic world view in which some had hope in Stalin and Communism to impart to the world.

Or, I would...

If that is true how do you then explain the many Stalin admirers that
exist in Russia today? According to you they did not have faith in
Stalin, they only hoped he was a good leader for their materialistic
hopes. All these admirers for a man you claim people had no faith in?

I would explain it the same as I would regarding those who still admire Ronald Reagan and share the nostalgic hope of someone like him restoring an idealistic constitutional world-view based in the concept of inalienable rights, which is the result of a philosophical world view different from a materialistic world view in which some had hope in Stalin and Communism to impart to the world.

Or, I would explain it the same way as one who has hope in Jesus Christ, the man and messiah, being the salvation of the world and personal source of redemption and restoration. Our faith is in God and our hope is in two things: 1. irresistible grace through Christ and 2. perseverance through though the holy spirit.

You have to notice the context of the entire passage. The passage (23) ....before this faith came.... ( the faith being referred to is the faith of Christ, which came). It refers to the time following the coming of faith. ( See Galatians 3:25-29 for context: ( the time prior to the coming of faith)

(26) You are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

We are justified by faith alone. John 3:16. For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not parish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world that He might be condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Anyone who believes in Hi...

You have to notice the context of the entire passage. The passage (23) ....before this faith came.... ( the faith being referred to is the faith of Christ, which came). It refers to the time following the coming of faith. ( See Galatians 3:25-29 for context: ( the time prior to the coming of faith)

(26) You are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

We are justified by faith alone. John 3:16. For God loved the world in this way: He gave his One and Only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not parish but have eternal life. For God did not send His Son into the world that He might be condemn the world, but that the world might be saved through Him. Anyone who believes in Him is not condemned, because he has not believed in the One and ONly Son of God.

Romans 3:21-22 By now the righteousness of God without the law is manifested, being witnessed by the law and the prophets: Even the righteousness of God which is by faith OF Jesus Christ unto all and upon all them that believe: for there is no difference.

Ephesians 3: 11-12 According to the eternal purpose which he purposed in Christ Jesus our Lord: In whom we have boldness and access with confidence by faith of him.

Philippians 3:9 " And be found in him, not having mine own righteousness, which is of the law ( Mosaic), but that which is the faith OF Christ, the righteousness which is OF God BY faith.

Romans 10:17 "so then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God. ( context for this verse is illuminated by John 1:1-5)

Romas 15:13 Now the God OF hope fill you with all joy and peace in believing, that ye may abound in hope, through the power of the Holy Ghost.

1 Timothy 1:1 Paul, an apostle of Jesus Christ by the commandment of God our Saviour, and Lord Jesus Christ, which is our hope.

You have to notice the context of the entire passage. The passage (23)
....before this faith came.... ( the faith being referred to is the
faith of Christ, which came). It refers to the time following the
coming of faith. ( See Galatians 3:25-29 for context: ( the time prior
to the coming of faith)

(26) You are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

So what is your point? Verse 25 is referring to "after the faith has come." The very next verse is 26.
My interpretation is this verse clearly requires faith in Christ.
Is my interpretation more valid than yours? No. Nor is your interpretation more valid then mine.
The fact that the Bible is so ambiguously wri...

You have to notice the context of the entire passage. The passage (23)
....before this faith came.... ( the faith being referred to is the
faith of Christ, which came). It refers to the time following the
coming of faith. ( See Galatians 3:25-29 for context: ( the time prior
to the coming of faith)

(26) You are sons of God through faith in Christ Jesus.

So what is your point? Verse 25 is referring to "after the faith has come." The very next verse is 26.
My interpretation is this verse clearly requires faith in Christ.
Is my interpretation more valid than yours? No. Nor is your interpretation more valid then mine.
The fact that the Bible is so ambiguously written that it can be used to defend or attack almost any point.
For example-
Same chapter verse 28-

There is neither Jew nor Greek, there is neither bond nor free, there
is neither male nor female: for ye are all one in Christ Jesus.

This could be interpreted that that God is okay with slavery, transsexualism as well as homosexuality.

At any rate, you asked for a reference to faith in Christ being required in the Bible. I gave you one and you rejected it.

At any rate, you asked for a reference to faith in Christ being required in the Bible. I gave you one and you rejected it.

I did not reject it. I rejected it as an example for that which you are trying to prove.

Understandable. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation of the
relationship of the trinity that answers all the questions the concept
creates.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The only reasons I made that statement is because (1) the road we are on could easily lead us there because some of the verses we are discussing are better illuminated by an understanding of the trinity but I think it would cause more confusion rather than clarity to...

At any rate, you asked for a reference to faith in Christ being required in the Bible. I gave you one and you rejected it.

I did not reject it. I rejected it as an example for that which you are trying to prove.

Understandable. I have yet to find a satisfactory explanation of the
relationship of the trinity that answers all the questions the concept
creates.

Actually, the exact opposite is true. The only reasons I made that statement is because (1) the road we are on could easily lead us there because some of the verses we are discussing are better illuminated by an understanding of the trinity but I think it would cause more confusion rather than clarity to the topic we are engaged in discussing, being the distinction of hope and faith, (2) the proper attention to that subject would not further our discussion here and (3) It is not necessary for this discussion.
I would be more than happy to discuss under a more appropriate clip.

I think the more important point in the latest line of discussion is that you choose to reject my explanation of your verse, all the evidence to the contrary that I provide, and continue to maintain the verse implies what you think it implies.

Is my interpretation more valid than yours? No. Nor is your interpretation more valid then mine.

Proper interpretation requires an understanding of the whole as much as the part. You are not interpreting.

Willhelm,
I'm starting to feel like I'm trapped in the Monty Python skit, "The Argument Clinic"

you disregard all the theological substance regarding the point and
insist that you believe this one verse should be "interpreted" the way
you think it should

If as you claim I am insisting the verse should be interpreted the way I think than why did I say this?

Is my interpretation more valid than yours? No.

Seems to me I'm not the one insisting the verse be interpreted one particular way.

Let me ask you, though. What is faith?

Are you serious? You want to start over? I have found many of the explanations of faith presented to yo...

Willhelm,
I'm starting to feel like I'm trapped in the Monty Python skit, "The Argument Clinic"

you disregard all the theological substance regarding the point and
insist that you believe this one verse should be "interpreted" the way
you think it should

If as you claim I am insisting the verse should be interpreted the way I think than why did I say this?

Is my interpretation more valid than yours? No.

Seems to me I'm not the one insisting the verse be interpreted one particular way.

Let me ask you, though. What is faith?

Are you serious? You want to start over? I have found many of the explanations of faith presented to you earlier to be accurate.
You rejected everyone. Why bother to start that again?

The fact that you claim people who lived through Stalin and still admire him do not have faith in Stalin or Stalinism as well as the fact that you do not believe one is required to have faith in Christ in order to be Christian tells me our definitions will not agree.

My entire argument is based entirely on reason, not hope. You actually used the correct definition of faith to describe what you call faith in Stalin, which is absurd, considering the faith was Marxist Materialism. It is like saying faith was placed in Washington or Jefferson as opposed to the hope in these men to protect and defend the values of Liberty. It seems to me you are backtracking, re-organizing, and becoming, well, a fulfillment of this excerpt..

it is a concept of knowing, of being absolutely sure of your ideas,your leaders, your concept of right and wrong, to the point where anyevidence to the contrary just annoys you, it doesn’t have the power to convince you.

...

My entire argument is based entirely on reason, not hope. You actually used the correct definition of faith to describe what you call faith in Stalin, which is absurd, considering the faith was Marxist Materialism. It is like saying faith was placed in Washington or Jefferson as opposed to the hope in these men to protect and defend the values of Liberty. It seems to me you are backtracking, re-organizing, and becoming, well, a fulfillment of this excerpt..

it is a concept of knowing, of being absolutely sure of your ideas,your leaders, your concept of right and wrong, to the point where anyevidence to the contrary just annoys you, it doesn’t have the power to convince you.

I had hoped you would maintain the path of clarity. It seems, however, that you are content ignoring my comments and holding to yours, despite much evidence, logic, and consistent appeal to the contrary.

It does not bother me in the least that you disagree. The only thing that bothers me is the bigoted refusal to come to a point of clarity, where you can at least offer a rational explanation in support for the article instead of cynicism.

I could be wrong about everything I've said, but just because I could be wrong does not mean it is reasonable to assume that I am. Especially , when I am beginning to detect a sense of an intention not to argue in good faith.

However, I did find your thinking fair for the most part. I look forward to more exchanges if you are willing. Peace.