Faith = Allowing yourself to believe that there is a supernatural order to the world, and if you surrender yourself to this order, you will benefit from its teachings.

Religion = Takes the faith and organizes it into structured sermon, stories, and rules. Usually includes a hierarchy of teachers, priests, monks, and individuals holding a higher position then the followers.

Is it possible to have faith in way of living, but not let the complexity of religion interfere?

I always tell people, I believe in god, and that there are things in this world that couldn't be possible without a higher power, but I refuse to believe in religion.

My faith is not subject to a religion.

... there are things in this world that couldn't be possible without a higher power....

By all means, please name one thing in the world that is known (as fact) to exist, whose existance requires a higher power.

I think some of the confusion here lies in semantics. Take the word "supernatural." There is nothing "supernatural"-- that which exists in nature is, by definition, natural. This includes everything--birds, bees, gravity waves, quasars, discarnate entities, oracles, whatever.

And "higher power"? Higher than what? We all create our own reality, and are made in the image and likeness of God. What could be higher than that?

I think some of the confusion here lies in semantics.
Where do you see any confusion as to the the definition of 'supernatural' in this thread?


Take the word "supernatural." There is nothing "supernatural"-- that which exists in nature is, by definition, natural. This includes everything--birds, bees, gravity waves, quasars, discarnate entities, oracles, whatever.
Oh, I see, you'd like to create confusion regarding the definition of 'supernatural' and claim there's already been some.

The existence of a god that is so complex that he knows all, can do all, has always existed, and is not a product of nature but has himself created the natural laws, can be said to be 'supernatural' by every definition of the word I've ever seen.

And "higher power"? Higher than what? We all create our own reality, and are made in the image and likeness of God. What could be higher than that?
A god who can create actual physical things into existence, created all of us, etc., would be what most people that use the phrase consider a 'higher being'.

I am not trying to prove there are "supernatural" entities out there.

I am trying to provoke debate regarding the difference between believing something because you personally believe that having faith in will better your life, and your faith is your business and no one else's. And between needing a bureaucratic system to guide you and provide a road path to practicing your faith.

Kind of like the difference between a business owner and the employee.

The business owner created his system, and any action his business (faith) takes, if because of his decision

The employee is part of the same system, but relies on the owner and management to dictate what it should do. If the business (religion) changes the direction, then the employee is expected to follow through.


And again not trying to prove there are "supernatural" entities out there, but to me supernatural means beyond the laws of nature. The laws of nature says everything will come to an end, certain things are set and can't be changed... This entity, whatever it is, can supersede that and might be the creator of the laws themselves.

And I do not consider a god or supernatural entity to be solely the Judeo-Christian concept of an almighty.

The laws of nature says everything will come to an end, certain things are set and can't be changed
Cite?

Cite?

No I don't have a reference since this has not been proven, its solely my faith, and I won't make anyone believe it.
But what I described is generally accepted by many who share the same faith.

If I could cite it, I'd call it research in the name of science.

Faith = Allowing yourself to believe that there is a supernatural order to the world, and if you surrender yourself to this order, you will benefit from its teachings.

Religion = Takes the faith and organizes it into structured sermon, stories, and rules. Usually includes a hierarchy of teachers, priests, monks, and individuals holding a higher position then the followers.

Is it possible to have faith in way of living, but not let the complexity of religion interfere?

I always tell people, I believe in god, and that there are things in this world that couldn't be possible without a higher power, but I refuse to believe in religion.

My faith is not subject to a religion.


By your definitions, it seems you could equate it to:

x(faith) = a
z(religion) = x + b

Therefore, faith is not dependent upon religion, yet religion is dependent on faith. Ergo, it would be problematic, within your definitions, to speak of being religious without faith, yet there is no problem in having faith without religion.

No I don't have a reference since this has not been proven, its solely my faith, and I won't make anyone believe it.
I didn't ask you to cite anything proving your faith. I asked you for a cite that backs up what you said regarding the laws of nature. There are no laws that say "everything will come to an end, certain things are set and can't be changed".

I didn't ask you to cite anything proving your faith. I asked you for a cite that backs up what you said regarding the laws of nature. There are no laws that say "everything will come to an end, certain things are set and can't be changed".
Isn't there commonsense behind that? I was listening to a surmon last night and the Pastor had said there are only 2 infinite entities,
1) Belief in God (or something like that)
2) Having sex - reproduction etc

Nothing else outside of that can be infinite, and commonsense shouldn't always be necessarily backed up and cited. What do you believe?

Isn't there commonsense behind that? I was listening to a surmon last night and the Pastor had said there are only 2 infinite entities,

Common sense won't get you very far in science. Common sense tells me this Earth is still and isn't hurling through space at 67000 mph. Common sense tells me when a puddle dries up, the water disappears and rain water isn't recycled dirty puddle water. Common sense also tells me if I want to learn what we know about the laws of nature, Pastors aren't the best choice of who to get that information from.

Common sense won't get you very far in science.

big difference between faith and science.

some people's faith are stronger then the established science.

hence creationism vs evolution

big difference between faith and science.
We're talking about 'the laws of nature' here. What does that have to do with faith?

some people's faith are stronger then the established science.
What does that even mean?

hence creationism vs evolution
So, creationism is stronger than all of the facts we've gathered regarding evolution because it's based on faith, and you've declared that faith is stronger than science?

"Invisible Pink Unicorns are beings of great spiritual power. We know this because they are capable of being invisible and pink at the same time. Like all religions, the Faith of the Invisible Pink Unicorns is based upon both logic and faith. We have faith that they are pink; we logically know that they are invisible because we can't see them."

— Steve Eley

We're talking about 'the laws of nature' here. What does that have to do with faith?


What does that even mean?


So, creationism is stronger than all of the facts we've gathered regarding evolution because it's based on faith, and you've declared that faith is stronger than science?

I don't believe in creationism so I am not going to defend it. But I understand how an individual might place that theory, which is connected to their faith/religion, in higher regards then established science, such as evolution - which I believe in.

Examples of faith over science that some practice include:

prayer over medicine to cure diseases

something bad happens, some think god's pissed even if a solid explanation is given, ex: natural disasters

refusing blood transfusion to keep your pure faith

establishing an afterlife despite no scientific evidence

creationism vs evolution

existence of god despite no scientific evidence

you get the picture. science and faith/religion clash all the time, and it is nearly impossible to be a devoted, fully-fledged religious person and believe in all scientific arguments.

there are cases where the faith does overcome science to the individual. just because I believe in something I'm not gonna shove it down your throat.

and yes, I will personally believe in my faith if it conflicts with science. now I like science, and do study it, but should i have to decide, my faith wins. My faith is mine, I built it, I believe in it. Science is just mob rule, if everyone believes in it, its science until its disproved.

not to bash science, but its not full-proof. at one point science said the sun revolves around the earth. not cause they were dumb, but thats what science said.

Science:

1. A branch of knowledge or study dealing with a body of facts or truths systematically arranged and showing the operation of general laws: the mathematical sciences.

Faith:

1. confidence or trust in a person or thing: faith in another's ability.
2. belief that is not based on proof: He had faith that the hypothesis would be substantiated by fact.

Religion:

1. a set of beliefs concerning the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe, esp. when considered as the creation of a superhuman agency or agencies, usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

I don't believe in creationism so I am not going to defend it. But I understand how an individual might place that theory, which is connected to their faith/religion, in higher regards then established science, such as evolution - which I believe in.
Your arguments are all over the place. You stated that "The laws of nature says everything will come to an end, certain things are set and can't be changed".

I asked for a cite. You responded by writing some bullshit about about it being your faith, which didn't have anything to do with your claim about what the laws of nature say.

I then respond to someone else about a Pastor's nonsensical conclusions about what the only things that are eternal are, and you again respond with a bullshit response about the difference between faith and science, which has NOTHING to do with what I said.


there are cases where the faith does overcome science to the individual.
Is that even worth discussing? To some people what there invisible friend tells them about history is more reliable than what historians say. Who the fuck cares? That there are idiots that believe in creationism over evolution or healing through prayer rather than medicine means nothing to me.

and yes, I will personally believe in my faith if it conflicts with science.
Dumb,

now I like science

Science is just mob rule, if everyone believes in it, its science until its disproved.
You like science, yet you think it is just mob rule and beliefs that are had until someone disproves it? Why would you like it if that's what you think it is? You are sadly misinformed about science.

not to bash science, but its not full-proof. at one point science said the sun revolves around the earth. not cause they were dumb, but thats what science said.
No, it didn't. And bashing science seems to be exactly what you're trying to do. Science has gotten us light years ahead of where we'd be if we used faith rather than the scientific method.

I think that your relationship with God, Allah, or whoever you decide to believe as a higher power is exactly that, YOURS. It's between you and said higher power.

It's possible to have faith in a way of living, without the complexity of religion. I believe in God, but I don't go to church, because I don't really feel that I need to address just how much I believe in God in front of other believers. I don't need a priest, reverend, pastor, or anyone else to tell me anything that I can't read for myself.

The practicing of different religions reminds me of being in a gang. Everyone represents their set, but instead of gang signs, its crosses and other shit like that, and it's like one big family. As soon as someone disses your crew, all hell breaks loose...starts out with snarky-ass comments, then leads to physical violence, war, blah blah blah.

The employee is part of the same system, but relies on the owner and management to dictate what it should do. If the business (religion) changes the direction, then the employee is expected to follow through.


The only problem with your reference is that religion does not change its beliefs, that is why it is religion. Faith is what you put your faith in. People put their faith in god, people put their faith in science. Faith does not change depending on what you believe. What you have faith in may, but faith itself is always the same.

I think faith is completly irrelevent when comparing it to specifically to religion. Faith is really just trusting in what you believe, christains have faith that jesus died for their sins and accepting him into their lives seals their deal to heaven. People have faith in science when it says our planet revolves around our sun in the milky way galaxy. Faith doesn't necessarily have to be the belief in higher power or god.

Really it depends on if you see faith as a religious thing, or faith as in trusting what you think is true.

I'd say the difference here was not faith but humility.
Humility before nature is the 21st century's lost key to peace of mind.

"People put their faith in god, people put their faith in science."

Don't try to equalize the two, science actually produces desirable results. Nobody ever wished anything into existence.

Don't try to equalize the two, science actually produces desirable results. Nobody ever wished anything into existence.

Im not equalizing them at all, I'm just saying the extent of faith is the same.

^That's basically equalizing them, which would be incorrect.

^That's basically equalizing them, which would be incorrect.

How is that equalizing them?

How is that equalizing them?
How? look over what you wrote and I think it's pretty obvious. You said "the extent of faith is the same". Faith is not needed in science. I trust that Motrin will get rid of my headache because of the evidence medical science has for its effectiveness. Trust based on evidence is not faith. Science is all about belief based on evidence. The definition of 'faith' we use regarding religion has zero to do with beliefs based on evidence. By saying "People put their faith in god, people put their faith in science", you are indeed trying to equalize the two as both requiring the same sort of faith and this is simply not the case.

Your arguments are all over the place. You stated that "The laws of nature says everything will come to an end, certain things are set and can't be changed".

I asked for a cite. You responded by writing some bullshit about about it being your faith, which didn't have anything to do with your claim about what the laws of nature say.

I then respond to someone else about a Pastor's nonsensical conclusions about what the only things that are eternal are, and you again respond with a bullshit response about the difference between faith and science, which has NOTHING to do with what I said.



Is that even worth discussing? To some people what there invisible friend tells them about history is more reliable than what historians say. Who the fuck cares? That there are idiots that believe in creationism over evolution or healing through prayer rather than medicine means nothing to me.


Dumb,




You like science, yet you think it is just mob rule and beliefs that are had until someone disproves it? Why would you like it if that's what you think it is? You are sadly misinformed about science.


No, it didn't. And bashing science seems to be exactly what you're trying to do. Science has gotten us light years ahead of where we'd be if we used faith rather than the scientific method.

I love this guy. As far as I can tell, he thinks science is less reliable because commonly held beliefs are capable of changing, whereas religion is infallible and perfect because it doesn't change in the face of logic and reality.

How? look over what you wrote and I think it's pretty obvious. You said "the extent of faith is the same". Faith is not needed in science. I trust that Motrin will get rid of my headache because of the evidence medical science has for its effectiveness. Trust based on evidence is not faith. Science is all about belief based on evidence. The definition of 'faith' we use regarding religion has zero to do with beliefs based on evidence. By saying "People put their faith in god, people put their faith in science", you are indeed trying to equalize the two as both requiring the same sort of faith and this is simply not the case.

If your using the definition of faith as in "trusting something as truth without proof" than by all means you right. I'm not specifically attaching it to religion though, im saying faith as in "a feeling or belief that something is true or real." Both theists and atheists believe what they know to be true, because thats what they have faith in.

Science has evidence just as religion does, and you can either say their evidence is wrong or right, just like science.

It really comes down to how you want to use the word faith, but I'm no one to argue about how a word should be used or understood. Faith isnt "based" on anything, faith is what you believe. You can tie your faith religious, spiritually, scientifically, whatever. Motrin is proven to get rid of your headache, are you saying you don't have faith in motrin?

at one point science said the sun revolves around the earth. not cause they were dumb, but thats what science said.

No, faith said that. At one time they were the same thing (and to you, apparantly, they still are)

Also, that's a very cheap argument on your part that speaks volumes about the veracity of your claims. Comparing science of 400 years ago to contemporary modern science is like day and night.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method

If your using the definition of faith as in "trusting something as truth without proof" than by all means you right. I'm not specifically attaching it to religion though, im saying faith as in "a feeling or belief that something is true or real." Both theists and atheists believe what they know to be true, because thats what they have faith in.
You're using a definition of faith that's never used when it comes to the 'faith' that religion uses. When you ask a Christian, "Why do you think there's a god" and he answers "because I have faith", he's not just using your definition that "Faith is really just trusting in what you believe". A Christian is usually talking about a 'strong feeling in the heart' or something similar that is without evidence. This is NOT equal to beliefs based on evidence as is the case in science.

Science has evidence just as religion does, and you can either say their evidence is wrong or right, just like science.
That's a ridiculous statement. Religion does not have evidence that gods exist, Jesus was the son of god, etc. That someone can as easily say that science is wrong aseasily as he can that a religion is wrong, does not make scientific evidence less or as credible as so called 'religious evidence'.

It really comes down to how you want to use the word faith, but I'm no one to argue about how a word should be used or understood. Faith isnt "based" on anything, faith is what you believe.
Funny how you say you're not one to argue about how a word should be used and then you go on to define it. And again, you are defining it in a context it's just not used in when it comes to 'religious' faith.

You're using a definition of faith that's never used when it comes to the 'faith' that religion uses. When you ask a Christian, "Why do you think there's a god" and he answers "because I have faith", he's not just using your definition that "Faith is really just trusting in what you believe". A Christian is usually talking about a 'strong feeling in the heart' or something similar that is without evidence. This is NOT equal to beliefs based on evidence as is the case in science.

Thats exaclty what I was getting at though. A christain does not have faith and automatically they know theres a god. They believe that there is a god, and they have faith in that belief. Like I said in my last post, if you want to specifically define faith as something religious than your perfectly right...


That's a ridiculous statement. Religion does not have evidence that gods exist, Jesus was the son of god, etc.

Go ahead and tell a christain there is no evidence that god exists and jesus was not the son of god. Tell islamic people that there is no evidence for Allah...

Funny how you say you're not one to argue about how a word should be used and then you go on to define it. And again, you are defining it in a context it's just not used in when it comes to 'religious' faith.

Well im not, your the one who is saying that it has to be a faith wth a religious defintion...

A christain does not have faith and automatically they know theres a god. They believe that there is a god, and they have faith in that belief.
Read that back to yourself and see if you think that make any sense.



Go ahead and tell a christain there is no evidence that god exists and jesus was not the son of god.
I have. In my experience most Christians agree. They are willing to admit their beliefs are based on 'faith' and not evidence. Not too many Christian in my neck of the woods are of the type that believe there is evidence for a global flood, a 10,000 year old Earth, crying statues, etc.


Well im not, your the one who is saying that is has to be a faith wth a religious defintion...
You're the one who wrote that you're not going to argue over the definition of faith and then went on to give requirements to its definition. That's all I was pointing out.

Read that back to yourself and see if you think that make any sense.

Doesn't it make sense to you?



I have. In my experience most Christians agree. They are willing to admit their beliefs are based on 'faith' and not evidence. Not too many Christian in my neck of the woods are of the type that believe there is evidence for a global flood, a 10,000 year old Earth, crying statues, etc.

The bible is evidence, well for those who really believe that shit anyway lol (I know its not "really" evidence but thats about the only evidence they have.)


You're the one who wrote that you're not going to argue over the definition of faith and then went on to give requirements to its definition. That's all I was pointing out.

Maybe it seemed that way, I was really only pointing out the different ways faith can be understood though.

Perhaps I failed to make mtself clear. The point I was trying to make is simply that using the word "supernatural" tends to muddy the waters because, in the Highest Reality, there is no such thing. Whatever occurs in nature, is natural.

In my reality, devas and spirits of all manner are natural; God is natural. Psychic ability--which everyone has, to some degree--is natural.