On faith

[Jan Ardena]

That's Hebrews 11:1 from the Christian Bible. Can you explain what it means?

Is the first clause literally saying that faith is a substance? (Or is 'substance' being used metaphorically?)

Is the second clause literally saying that faith is evidence, allowing people to know things not otherwise knowable? That suggests that faith should be imagined as what Indian philosophy would call a pramana, a way (such as perception or logical inference) of acquiring true knowledge.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pramana

I don't think that either interpretation (the metaphysical or the epistemological) works very well or makes much sense.

It probably makes most sense to interpret 'faith' psychologically, in the way that the Buddhists interpret 'sraddha'.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_in_Buddhism

I think that many Christians do interpret 'faith' as 'trust' or 'confidence', as descriptive of their attitude towards whatever they are faithful about. (But not as a way of knowing things they wouldn't otherwise know.) I'm not sure if The God or the author of Hebrews were using the word that way.

I see faith as an aspect of God. The verse says that faith is the substance of all things hoped for. That is to say that God is the underlying, fundamental reality of everything, and we exercise that faith when we sincerely hope for something. Hope is the evidence of faith, and faith is the evidence of an underlying, fundamental, reality, which is invisible to the eye.


Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

jan.

 

[DaveC426913]

You wish to draw this into an existence debate, and I'm not going there.

You have clearly established that it is an existence debate for you, with a plethora of comments such as this:

And you have come to believe that which two positions are true?
That there is both God and no-God?

Yes. Truth and illusion.

 

[Sarkus]

I'm not being dishonest Baldeee, and I am not being evasive. The answers I give are genuine responses.

Roflmfao!
That is one of the funniest responses I've yet seen you give. Seriously. Ow, it's starting to hurt! Oh, my! Genius! And said with a straight face!

Anyhoo. I suppose you think giving a deliberately vague or cryptic answer, and not then offering clarification, is the hallmark of honesty?

I'm asking him to accept that 'God IS' is my response, not that it is true. He must find that out for himself.

If you read his responses it is quite clear (or is to most) that he clearly accepts it as your answer... It's not likely to be anyone else's given that he was conversing with you. It is also quite clear in what manner he was using the term "accept". Yet you, with your "honest" hat on, call him desperate for choosing a definition that doesn't match the one that you want.
Yep, that's just about right from you.

There is no victory in this thread. It is about 'Faith'.

Then stop treating it like a war zone!

It is not about 'does God exist', or 'where is the evidence for Gods existence', under the guise of 'I want to know why you believe in God'.

You are second guessing his motives and doing no one any favours. He has clearly explained why he is asking and, to be fair to him, it seems quite a legitimate line of inquiry. But no, you simply do what Jan does best: evade.
If you have no intention of following him down his line of inquiry then simply don't respond to him when it is clear that is where he wants to go. Instead you draw a battle-line and wage what quickly becomes a war, you arguing why you don't want to follow and doing your utmost to derail his inquiry, he explaining why it is a valid inquiry.
Honest? Yeah, good one, Jan.

Yes English is my first language.
Why?

I've not come across people, other than non-native speakers, who are as incapable of you as discerning through context the intended meaning of words. If indeed your incapability is honest.

 

[Jan Ardena]

If you read his responses it is quite clear (or is to most) that he clearly accepts it as your answer... It's not likely to be anyone else's given that he was conversing with you. It is also quite clear in what manner he was using the term "accept". Yet you, with your "honest" hat on, call him desperate for choosing a definition that doesn't match the one that you want.
Yep, that's just about right from you.

Are you Baldeees little helper?

jan.

 

[Sarkus]

Sure, if it makes you feel better to think so.

 

[kx000]

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.

jan.

Such as the creation of the universe.