What Faith Is

I don't understand why Christians use this argument. Do you know how many people from various religions have died for their faith? Do you know how many people have felt fulfilled by their religion, have considered their religion to be a complete explanation of the human experience?

Sometimes I think Christianity is such a cultural titan in the West that Christians have a real problem placing their religion in a broader context, in understanding that other faiths can be just as powerful, fulfilling, and moving to their adherents.

The argument was not - people are willing to die for Christianity so this means it’s true.

That was an explanation of Christians’ behavior showing that they really cared.

If Christianity is such a big movement, maybe people should look into it to see if it’s true. It’s a big deal and a concept that has impacted the entire world for a very long time.

Would you tell me why you disbelieve Christianity or would you like me to tell you why I believe in it?

I have faith the Burger is delicious

I think people see faith all wrong. People think of faith as trust in something outside us. Faith is a trust and belief in ourselves. I have faith on my experiences. Not in others.

What are some crucial experiences you’ve had that dictate your faith? By faith, I mean your faith concerning God

The simple and undeniable fact is the Theistic conclusion in not logically coercive, the human experience of reality is theistically ambiguous, which is to say that the human experience can be interpreted religiously or naturalistically with equal rational justification.

What do you mean “theistically ambiguous”?

"...which is to say that the human experience can be interpreted religiously or naturalistically with equal rational justification."

Theistically ambiguous

 refers to something that is open to multiple interpretations regarding the existence or nature of a god, or where the evidence for or against a god's existence is unclear and inconclusive. 

This term is commonly used in philosophical and theological discussions, particularly concerning arguments about the "divine hiddenness" of a personal God. 

Bestselling “New Atheist” author Richard Dawkins famously asked: does religion turn people stupid, or do stupid people become religious? His formula—equating religious belief with stupidity—has become the default position in Western culture. Educated people don’t need religion. Religion is a crutch for those who aren’t smart enough to understand modern science. Science offers the best, most rational, most reasonable approach to all questions, so we “have no need of that hypothesis,” as French mathematician Pierre-Simon Laplace reportedly said in response to Napoleon asking him about the place of God in celestial mechanics.

Yes, the Bible portrays Jesus as having faith in God the Father, demonstrating a complete trust in God's will and promises, even in the face of suffering and death. This faith was a core part of his earthly life, exemplified by his prayer in Gethsemane, his consistent obedience to the Father, and the expectation of his own resurrection. While some theological perspectives differentiate between Jesus' divine nature and his human experience, the scriptures consistently show his human side as a model of complete faith, obedience, and hope in God, as described in sources like Crossway and the Watchtower ONLINE LIBRARY. 

AI generated but thanks

For your theistically ambiguous definition

You can have rational justification for both, I will agree. But one excludes God, if I understand correctly, and I think that side is wrong because in all possible scenarios there is no logical explanation for God not existing.

maybe we’re getting into semantics with you saying rational justification and me saying logical explanation, so I’ll say there’s no correct explanation for God not existing

All people have a religion—I will argue that profusely. I don’t agree with the people that believe science is this all-encompassing study, practice, knowledge pool. It’s not all encompassing, and people know it because they also use non-science concepts like math and history and a moral system. Math is a non-science. I’m not making up that term. You don’t use the scientific method to prove math because it’s already objective. You accept it as it is even though it’s not scientific.

What I’m wondering is: what’s so illogical about the idea of religion and what’s so supreme about the supposition that “science is the answer to everything”? Science isn’t the answer to everything—that’s unrealistic—and I just showed how, so I don’t get it

You can have rational justification for both, I will agree.

That's why I said neither position is logically coercive, one can rationalize either position logically.

But one excludes God, if I understand correctly, and I think that side is wrong because in all possible scenarios there is no logical explanation for God not existing.

We are talking about a transcendent reality, which is to say, it transcends logical analysis.

maybe we’re getting into semantics with you saying rational justification and me saying logical explanation, so I’ll say there’s no correct explanation for God not existing

Because "You can have rational justification for both", it is presented to us as a choice, and a matter of faith.

But one excludes God, if I understand correctly, and I think that side is wrong because in all possible scenarios there is no logical explanation for God not existing.

We are talking about a transcendent reality, which is to say, it transcends logical analysis.

Some aspects of God can't be logically understood, though He's revealed Himself sufficiently in the Bible. I am fine with not knowing every answer about God. It is natural to not fully understand one's Father, but the people that disagree and say that they can completely know God by declaring Him fake are the same people that don't even do everything they tell themselves to do, so why would they think their mind is superior to God's? A perfect mind would know better than an imperfect mind. Makes no sense practically that a sinful person would think they know better than an inerrant being (aside from the fact that they make mistakes about things)

Sorry if you got tagged twice. I was editing the post

By personal experience, I mean, things that have happened during meditations, prayer, shamanic ritual. And that's true for any being i've encountered, whether it's a deity or angels or other spirits.

The only normal encounter in your personal encounter must be your therapist.

This is how ai summarized your intial post:

"Claiming Christianity is "based on faith" shows a shallow view.Big "F" Faith: This is the shared, unified beliefs held by Christians as a community. It's key for group behavior and practice, but not the core foundation. What "based on" means: If it refers to origins or evidence, Christianity has more than just faith. Evidence for Christianity:Faith itself proves it exists as a real, influential concept—seen in its global societal impact over millennia. Other supports: Scientific observations of the universe, the Bible, historical records, and philosophical ideas like morality, order, and love that point to God and the Bible's credibility. The real debate: Are these evidences reliable and interpreted correctly to back Christianity? "

Assuming its correct, it sounds like you are saying faith isnt alone. Non sola fide. I agree with this. We have truth, love, the word of God, the riches of God through his glory.

If we have obeyed God by faith and done the works of faith that save us (acts 2:38) we also have power and ability and sonship through the Holy Spirit

The key Bible verse is 

James 2:17, which states, "In the same way, faith by itself, if it does not result in action, is dead". This is supported by the verses that follow (James 2:14-26), which argue that a person is shown to be right with God by what they do, not by faith alone. Other verses, such as Matthew 7:21 ("Not everyone who says to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven"), also emphasize that actions are necessary, not just belief. 

I am glad to see a Lutheran rip that Protestantism nonsense to pieces.

Sola fide can meet the bidet.

The Catholic Church awaits you.

By personal experience, I mean, things that have happened during meditations, prayer, shamanic ritual. And that's true for any being i've encountered, whether it's a deity or angels or other spirits.

Why do you trust in your personal experiences the most?

Assuming its correct, it sounds like you are saying faith isnt alone. Non sola fide. I agree with this. We have truth, love, the word of God, the riches of God through his glory. 

If we have obeyed God by faith and done the works of faith that save us (acts 2:38) we also have power and ability and sonship through the Holy Spirit

I still do believe in sola fide. The basis of Christianity is the truth of the Bible demonstrated by its content, the natural world, history, morality, and study of existential concepts. This does not exclude sola fide. Sola fide speaks to the state-of-being that Christians are in when they are saved. We are saved by the blood of Jesus that washes over us and makes us holy thus making us eligible to enter heaven. The blood of Jesus is a gift, and there are no works we do that save us.

What do you think Jesus died on the cross for? He took on total sin and paid the price for us so that we can have salvation through Him, not extra works that we do.

But one excludes God, if I understand correctly, and I think that side is wrong because in all possible scenarios there is no logical explanation for God not existing.

We are talking about a transcendent reality, which is to say, it transcends logical analysis.

Some aspects of God can't be logically understood, though He's revealed Himself sufficiently in the Bible.

You believe the Bible reveals God, which is fine, but I know the Bible very well, and what I know isn’t in it, are any “proofs of” or “arguments for”, the existence of God.

The basis of biblical faith is not inferential reason. It is personal encounter. Rather than make an argument for the existence of God, the Bible describes the encounter with a personal, moral, liberating, and transcendent power and presence.

You have chosen to believe that the Bible reveals God, and others don’t choose to believe that, but either way, it is not a logical conclusion, it is a choice we are free to make, and it is a matter of faith. 

I am fine with not knowing every answer about God. It is natural to not fully understand one's Father, but the people that disagree and say that they can completely know God by declaring Him fake are the same people that don't even do everything they tell themselves to do, so why would they think their mind is superior to God's? A perfect mind would know better than an imperfect mind. Makes no sense practically that a sinful person would think they know better than an inerrant being (aside from the fact that they make mistakes about things)

I is my contention that, if a person’s Theism is logically arrived at rather than discerned, if it a matter of detached rational analysis rather than participation in a transcendent experiential reality, then I think they are doing it wrong. A religious belief that is some sort of logical inference instead of immediately known, is not authentically religious.

Remember the Albert Einstein said, ‘The word God is for me nothing but the expression and product of human weaknesses, the Bible a collection of venerable but still rather primitive legends. No interpretation, no matter how subtle, can (for me) change anything about this.’

1 peter 3:21 baptism doeth now save us.

1 thessalonians 1:3

Works of faith.

I am glad to see a Lutheran rip that Protestantism nonsense to pieces.

Sola fide can meet the bidet.

The Catholic Church awaits you.

Why do you think you can do enough to enter heaven on your own merits?

Faith is the practice of acceptance without proof, similarly belief.

In terms of truth, both are somewhat futile...Which isn't to say, that a guess could not prove to be accurate.

Though beardy men basing a creation and existence hypothesis on a beardy man, was a lacklustre guess...But inevitable I suppose.

Nonetheless, in terms of an Earth related hypothesis, a Universal Super-Seeder is a reasonable suggestion.

Though depending upon the Super-Seeder's evolutionary heritage, it may well not be humanesque or bearded.

Might be reptilian or plant like or bacterial or other.

Of course, one cannot ignore the base origins of a Super-Seeder.

And the beginning is where all rational thought breaks down, and some beardy men et al, will always faithfully resort to beardy man.

Faith = trust as synonyms.

We have faith/trust, that, the oncoming car on other side of the center line of highway, will not cross over at last minute and hit us,tho of course, we know that sometimes it occurs. Drunks, falling asleep { read some years back that is main cause of teenage accidents in USA? }.

Three primary aspects of the Term God:

...> God as the eternally existent, Meta-space mind/intellect/concepts, ex concepts of God, Universe, Time, Sleep, Toyotas etc

...> eternally existent, macro-infinite, truly non-occupied space that, embraces the following,

..> eternally{?} existent, finite, dynamic, occupied space Universe @

These three aka my Cosmic Trinary Outline/Set/Table of Contents i.e. primary set of what exists.

Cause I know the context in which it happened. I know i'm not lying about details. This is why I don't use any sort of substances when engaged in spiritual practices. There have also been situations where things have happened or where beings have appeared and I have no idea who they are. I actually have to research to figure it out.

TRUE FAITH is the GUARANTEE of things desired, and the CONVINCING PROOF of things not seen. TRUE FAITH ENABLES THE BELIEVER TO TRUST THE FUTURE AS BEING THE PRESENT, AND THE INVISIBLE AS BEING SEEN. FOR INSTANCE: 1) We believe that God will supply all of our needs and accept that as fact.

We believe that God will supply all of our needs and accept that as fact.

Well, except my 7 year old cousin that died from leukemia. His church had a special service for him before he died.

Why do you think we haven't seen God talking from a burning bush on X?