"faith-based" sucks as a term and we need to purge it from the mainstream
this isn't the problem, I think. It's claiming that these things are not based on truth, but on belief, which has never been the classical Christian claim. It's not because we believe, but because it is true - we believe it because it is true.
-
-
That the object of out faith is the One True God is the classical Christian claim, not that we know him other than by his self-revelation in history, and in the Church, which we know by faith. There are other false gods which are the objects of false faiths.
-
it's the truth Nathan! If isn't true, then our faith is useless - which is what "faith based" is all about. Fuzzy aspirations towards feelings. It matters not whether our grasp of the facts (what has happened) relies on faith - this is not what is at hand!
-
? I just said it was true.. "the one true God." We agree, Christianity is true. Was that ever a point of contention?
-
what I mean is that retreating into "well everything is held by faith" isn't really hitting the point. Then we're basically saying "well sort of nothing is really true" - there are obviously different senses of "faith" being used and this is actually making the ambiguity greater.
-
No, exactly the opposite. It exposes a) that faith and truth are not actually opposed and b) the hubris of those who claim to operate by some faithless mode of knowing. The humanists have a faith; so do the materialists etc. They are false faiths, though.
-
you're missing the distinction here between fact and truth, these are not the same thing. Fact (that which has happened) cannot be the object of faith in the same way something that is unseen or yet to happen is. Faith is being contrasted to *fact* - or "reality". (idem)
-
Something that has happened is always an object of faith. There is no unmediated, direct access to 'facts'--even immediate sense perception doesnt deliver facts apart from a faith that your senses map onto an objective exterior reality (something unprovable).
-
You are erecting a standard of proof never possible, and this is arguing in bad faith! the trust in senses and accounts with regards to facts is different in kind than that regarding revealed truths. In fact, revelations are often given in a "factual" form - concrete visions.
- 8 more replies
New conversation -
-
-
thus faith-based is used to implicitly or explicitly contrast against 'facts' or 'reality', as if religion has nothing to do with truth, but with what we want to believe about the world. This is incorrect and we should reject this. Even 20th century Orthodox make this error.
-
Yes, that is how faith-based is used. I was saying it shouldn't be used because faith is ubiquitous for humans, but another good reason is that it denigrates traditional religious faith as opposed to truth. These are not mutually exclusive objections to the phrase.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.
