Faith

[Bullypulpit]

<center><h1><font color=blue>Faith</font></h1></center>

<blockquote><b>Faith></b>; <i>noun</i>: (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (2) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof </blockquote>

The key word in this definition is "<i>belief</i>". Belief is a box that can trap us. It leads us to think we know all we need to know and need explore or question no further. It can lead us to a seemingly inescapable intellectual and epistemological dead-end.

In the ancient Pali texts, wherein the earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha are preserved, "<i>faith</i>" is mentioned frequently. But it is a verb and not...a noun. This frees us from the trap of belief. Faith becomes a dynamic and ongoing process...a path to be traveled, not a box to be trapped within. It becomes a living thing rather than an ossified edifice.

<blockquote>Belief grips you...Faith frees you. - Roshi Phillip Kapleau</blockquote>

 

[Shattered]

Did you have a good Christmas, Bully? You seem a little sour... :teeth:

 

[Said1]

The key word in this definition is "<i>belief</i>". Belief is a box that can trap us. It leads us to think we know all we need to know and need explore or question no further. It can lead us to a seemingly inescapable intellectual and epistemological dead-end.

Some "beliefs" don't leave a lot of room for epistemic exploration, and some are too "self-centered", without requiring much "faith". I guess it depends on the type of person you are.

 

[Huckleburry]

Great post. So you can have faith without belief?

 

[Said1]

Great post. So you can have faith without belief?

Are you addressing Bully?

 

[rtwngAvngr]

<center><h1><font color=blue>Faith</font></h1></center>

<blockquote><b>Faith></b>; <i>noun</i>: (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (2) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof </blockquote>

The key word in this definition is "<i>belief</i>". Belief is a box that can trap us. It leads us to think we know all we need to know and need explore or question no further. It can lead us to a seemingly inescapable intellectual and epistemological dead-end.

Hey bully. That sounds like you.

In the ancient Pali texts, wherein the earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha are preserved, "<i>faith</i>" is mentioned frequently. But it is a verb and not...a noun. This frees us from the trap of belief. Faith becomes a dynamic and ongoing process...a path to be traveled, not a box to be trapped within. It becomes a living thing rather than an ossified edifice.

<blockquote>Belief grips you...Faith frees you. - Roshi Phillip Kapleau</blockquote>

Damn, your mind is a noxious goo.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Did you have a good Christmas, Bully? You seem a little sour... :teeth:

I had a wonderful Christmas. And you?

 

[Bullypulpit]

Great post. So you can have faith without belief?

One can have faith AND belief so long as one is aware of, and understands, the limitations of each.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Damn, your mind is a noxious goo.

You fail to grasp the meaning so you resort to insults. Tch...Tch...Tch.

 

[rtwngAvngr]

You fail to grasp the meaning so you resort to insults. Tch...Tch...Tch.

You mean to grasp the failure, so you insult resorts.

 

[Bullypulpit]

You mean to grasp the failure, so you insult resorts.

You been drinkin' th' bong water again...Haven't ya?

 

[no1tovote4]

Faith as a noun is used in Buddhism as well.

Buddha spoke of faith in people. Without faith there is no trust and without that trust you cannot be taught. If you do not trust your teacher you cannot actually hold yourself to believing in what he has taught. You may gain this kind of faith by attempting what was taught and finding it correct, or you may disdain the teaching of that person altogether.

As an example:
Some have no faith in the school system, they teach their children at home. Some do they send their children to the public schools without qualm, others build their faith through what they see after testing the theories and the product put forward, but all of it is faith in one way or another.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Faith as a noun is used in Buddhism as well.

Buddha spoke of faith in people. Without faith there is no trust and without that trust you cannot be taught. If you do not trust your teacher you cannot actually hold yourself to believing in what he has taught. You may gain this kind of faith by attempting what was taught and finding it correct, or you may disdain the teaching of that person altogether.

As an example:
Some have no faith in the school system, they teach their children at home. Some do they send their children to the public schools without qualm, others build their faith through what they see after testing the theories and the product put forward, but all of it is faith in one way or another.

Indeed. But he also said, <blockquote>...If I know something on the basis of best faith, that may be empty, hollow and confused, while what I don not know on the best faith may be factual, true and not otherwise. It is not proper for for an intelligent being, safeguarding the truth, to come categorically to the conclusion in this matter that such alone is true and whatever else is false...</blockquote>

In other words, faith (<i>and the beliefs it is rooted in</i>) must not be blind.

 

[no1tovote4]

Indeed. But he also said, <blockquote>...If I know something on the basis of best faith, that may be empty, hollow and confused, while what I don not know on the best faith may be factual, true and not otherwise. It is not proper for for an intelligent being, safeguarding the truth, to come categorically to the conclusion in this matter that such alone is true and whatever else is false...</blockquote>

In other words, faith (<i>and the beliefs it is rooted in</i>) must not be blind.

But even in this particular quote he also spoke of the fact that those who follow a different path are not necessarily wrong.

To truly respect another religion you must allow them to actually believe regardless of the dogmatic nature of the religion. Remember that Buddha spoke of the fact that you are not necessarily right, or you may not necessarily have the only right way.

To be a Christian there are necessary beliefs that are black and white and since Buddha teaches a deep respect of their path and he also teaches not to attempt to convert them it is necessary to understand that aspect of their religion and not attempt to lead them onto a path of your own understanding or what you are attempting to thrust upon them as the only truth.

Therefore the Buddha taught that a good Buddhist would not try to convert somebody that is on a path already but will respect their religion and their beliefs allowing them their own path.

A good Buddhist quote that I say often is:

"Just because somebody is on a different path does not necessarily mean they are lost."

 

[dilloduck]

Indeed. But he also said, <blockquote>...If I know something on the basis of best faith, that may be empty, hollow and confused, while what I don not know on the best faith may be factual, true and not otherwise. It is not proper for for an intelligent being, safeguarding the truth, to come categorically to the conclusion in this matter that such alone is true and whatever else is false...</blockquote>

In other words, faith (<i>and the beliefs it is rooted in</i>) must not be blind.

It's good to hear you are open to those who are PRACTICING their faith--not finished perfecting it ( aparently THOSE are the ones who just PISS YOU OFF)

 

[Bullypulpit]

It's good to hear you are open to those who are PRACTICING their faith--not finished perfecting it ( aparently THOSE are the ones who just PISS YOU OFF)

They walk it like they talk it, I got nooooo problem.

 

[Bonnie]

<center><h1><font color=blue>Faith</font></h1></center>

<blockquote><b>Faith></b>; <i>noun</i>: (1) : belief and trust in and loyalty to God (2) : belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion (2) : firm belief in something for which there is no proof </blockquote>

The key word in this definition is "<i>belief</i>". Belief is a box that can trap us. It leads us to think we know all we need to know and need explore or question no further. It can lead us to a seemingly inescapable intellectual and epistemological dead-end.

In the ancient Pali texts, wherein the earliest recorded teachings of the Buddha are preserved, "<i>faith</i>" is mentioned frequently. But it is a verb and not...a noun. This frees us from the trap of belief. Faith becomes a dynamic and ongoing process...a path to be traveled, not a box to be trapped within. It becomes a living thing rather than an ossified edifice.

<blockquote>Belief grips you...Faith frees you. - Roshi Phillip Kapleau</blockquote>

My goodness..You really have a problem with absolutes. It's so much easier to define wrong on a day to day, moment by moment basis based on whatever mood you happen to be in, this gives that constant out from ever having to make real judgements as to what is right and what is wrong.

 

[Bullypulpit]

My goodness..You really have a problem with absolutes. It's so much easier to define wrong on a day to day, moment by moment basis based on whatever mood you happen to be in, this gives that constant out from ever having to make real judgements as to what is right and what is wrong.

In this, dear lady, you are quite and completely mistaken. I do not define right and wrong on a "...day to day, moment by moment basis...". Rather, I define right and wrong in terms of the consequences of our actions to the lives of those around us...in this world...in this life. If the consequences are beneficial to any and all individuals involved, then the out come is good, it is right. If, on the other hand, the consequences of our cations lead to the harm of any and all individuals involved, then the outcome is bad, it is wrong. Nothing capricious or vaguely resembling any sort of moral relativism about it.

 

[dilloduck]

In this, dear lady, you are quite and completely mistaken. I do not define right and wrong on a "...day to day, moment by moment basis...". Rather, I define right and wrong in terms of the consequences of our actions to the lives of those around us...in this world...in this life. If the consequences are beneficial to any and all individuals involved, then the out come is good, it is right. If, on the other hand, the consequences of our cations lead to the harm of any and all individuals involved, then the outcome is bad, it is wrong. Nothing capricious or vaguely resembling any sort of moral relativism about it.

dang---so If I do something that helps some and hurts others???---I'm so confused1!!

 

[Bullypulpit]

dang---so If I do something that helps some and hurts others???---I'm so confused1!!

Nothing to be confused about. How much clearer can it be? <blockquote>"...That action I mught desire to perform is an action that might lead to the harm of others and might lead to the harm of both, this action is unskilled, its yield is anguish." - an action like this, Rahula, is certainly not to be performed by you...</blockquote>

In short if what you do leads to the harm of yourself, others or both, it is not to be done. Where's the confusion?