From Conservapedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I notice the revert basicly leaves out the entry I made concerning Christ words about a Roman Pagan Centurion and his faith. Guess Christs own opinion on the matter is not good enough.

I completely disagree, Any religion requires faith. --TimSvendsen 15:46, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Good point tim, while most religions might not actually use the term faith, the concept is quite widespread.

--BenjaminS 15:57, 2 February 2007 (EST)

Tim and Ben, you don't support your claims with anything. "Faith" is unique to Christianity, and the term is not genuinely used by other religions.

That's moronic. Very simply defined, the English word "faith" means belief in the existence, truth, etc. of anything in the absence of definitive proof. For instance, I have faith that my family will come home tonight, because I think that they will. I do not have faith in gravity; I know from experience that it works, and I have some small understanding of the mechanism by which it does so (I don't however, know the cause, but then, no one does.) Faith is not uniquely Christian by virtue of the fact that other religions exist. If their followers lacked faith, those religions would be gone. Calling it something else, or even not referring it at all does not change it's nature; is sin a uniquely Christian concept?

The powerful Greek language was essential to express the concept of faith. Not even English can describe it well.

pivstiß is the Greek word for faith, and it takes Strong's version many words to explain it:[1]

  1.  conviction of the truth of anything, belief; in the NT of a conviction or belief respecting man's relationship to God and divine things, generally with the included idea of trust and holy fervour born of faith and joined with it
        1. relating to God
              1. the conviction that God exists and is the creator and ruler of all things, the provider and bestower of eternal salvation through Christ 
        2. relating to Christ
              1. a strong and welcome conviction or belief that Jesus is the Messiah, through whom we obtain eternal salvation in the kingdom of God 
        3. the religious beliefs of Christians
        4. belief with the predominate idea of trust (or confidence) whether in God or in Christ, springing from faith in the same 
  2. fidelity, faithfulness
        1. the character of one who can be relied on 

It is false to claim that faith is only a christian concept. Other religions may not call it faith, but they still have it. For example: a muslim suicide bomber is not going to bomb anything if he does not have faith that it will send him to heaven. --TimSvendsen 10:59, 4 February 2007 (EST)


American Heritage Dictionary


faith, noun: 1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing. 2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See synonyms at belief, trust. 3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters. 4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will. 5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith. 6. A set of principles or beliefs.[1]

In other words, according to one dictionary, anyway, the word has more than one meaning. It is not being misapplied in the phrase "the Muslim faith," it is simply a different meaning of the word. This article, presently, would seem to be about the fourth meaning. Dpbsmith 18:37, 3 February 2007 (EST)

Neurocat's posting was misleading in claiming that "The concept of faith exists in nearly all major religions. Faith is mentioned in the New Testament, the Old Testament, and the Koran. Faith is also a well established part of so-called "New Age" religions, such as Wicca."
Faith, historically, was uniquely Christian. The entry demonstrates that. Others may try to make faith synonymous with belief, but that is not its original meaning. Muslims "submit" to Allah rather than have faith in Allah. The very reason for an entry here is to be precise. Broader (and less precise) colloquial meanings can be found elsewhere.--Aschlafly 23:36, 20 February 2007 (EST)
How can they submit to Allah if they lack faith in his existence and intrinsic "better-ness?"
If the page is to describe Faith as a "historically uniquely Christian" term, there should be some evidence provided to that effect. Otherwise, the page is less accurate, not more precise. Since the American Heritage Dictionary does not say that definition #4 is more valid than any other, there is no reason to assert that the other definitions are less accurate.
Neurocat, please sign your comments with the signature icon (second from the right in the row of click-on boxes).
A dictionary merely reflects common usage and, increasingly, political correctness. An entry here called Merriam-Webster criticizes some entries in the dictionary. You are free to post anti-Christian views but only if you support them with references. If you think there is a Muslim "faith in Allah," then you need to support your view or else the page will be reverted. By the way, the Koran does not support your view. It calls for "submission to Allah." The term "faith" is not a synomym for belief or submission.--Aschlafly 23:55, 20 February 2007 (EST)
I take exception to the word "merely." It's hardly a trivial job. And one of the reasons I like to cite the American Heritage dictionary here is precisely because, while not politically conservative, it was created in opposition to what was seen as the overly-permissive and overly-descriptive Merriam-Webster. A dictionary is a good starting point. Any group of people that has a sort of private definition of a word that does not match what is generally understood, it is going to be counterproductive to use that definition in discourse with others outside the group.
AHD says that "faith" has five meanings. People who refer to "the Muslim faith" are not wrong, they are just using meaning number 5. The article needs to be clearer on this point. For example, it could open by saying "Christian faith is a unique concept that means trust or complete confidence in something unseen. Although the word "faith" can be used to refer to any body of beliefs, other religions do not have any concept equivalent to Christian faith."
To insist on "faith" has having only meaning number 4 would be like insisting that the British naval power during the Napoleonic era was equal to the number of foot-pounds per minute exerted by the force of the wind on the combined area of all its sails. Dpbsmith 13:34, 21 February 2007 (EST)
So Christian faith is unique to Christianity? That statement is so self-evident as to be utterly moronic. It's like saying Buddha is unique to Buddhism.
Can you then please post a reference that cites that the original usage of the word "faith" is Christian? If you are going to call the dictionary into question as a source, you cannot selectively choose which entries you believe and which you do not believe. If you wish to cite a specific dictionary entry as incorrect, you must support that with fact. Perhaps it would be better to clarify that, in your view, the "original" meaning of the word "faith" is Christian, but current modern usage is different. After all, you do intend this to be a factual, unbiased conservapedia, not a collection of unsubstantiated right-wing beliefs. True? --Neurocat 09:48, 21 February 2007 (EST)
I added a common dictionary definition of faith, with reference link, to clarify the issue for readers. Furthermore, the first line of the entry seems to be unclear - if the word Faith descends from a Latin word meaning "to trust", how can the original meaning be purely Christian? Certainly the Greeks and Romans used the term to describe something other than a Christian "faith". Should we remove it? --Neurocat 10:00, 21 February 2007 (EST)

Re: faith in other religions

I just edited the article and included a source on the concept of faith in Islam. A few short minutes of Googling turned up a scholarly article from the 1950s about the importance of faith to Islam. Also, does anybody know how many of the mentions of faith in the Old Testament are in the parts that make up the Torah? That would go a long way toward identifying the importance of faith in the Jewish religion.

Finally, I agree completely with those who are saying that the concept of faith is common to any theistic religion. Without any exceptions that I know of (correct me if I'm wrong), any religion that requires belief in a god requires faith, since there is no evidence for any of these gods and faith is belief in the unseen/unobservable. --Haveyouseenmypants 18:20, 21 February 2007 (EST)

  • Not a rhetorical question: how much similarity is there between the Muslim concept translated as "faith" and the Christian concept of "faith?" It seems to me that in the Arabian Nights the Caliph of Baghdad is referred to as "Defender of the Faithful," and certainly Moslems refer to non-Moslems as "Infidels" (i.e. "Unfaithful"), but I don't know that the concepts are necessarily the same. Dpbsmith 18:37, 21 February 2007 (EST)
            • Re: claim that "faith" is unique to Christianity and Bible, and word counts of "faith" in religious texts******

The author says above that “Jesus was unique in preaching the significance of faith exclusive to Christianity. No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief. Faith is mentioned 229 times in the Bible's New Testament.”

Above, where the author of the article is translating the Greek word “pivsti,” he attributes the definition to Strong’s. The definition he provides actually comes from the lexicon tool in a website called Strong’s definition for “pivsti” (a word that was translated into English to mean “faith” in several Protestant versions of the Bible) is as follows:

3982. peitho pi'-tho a primary verb; to convince (by argument, true or false); by analogy, to pacify or conciliate (by other fair means); reflexively or passively, to assent (to evidence or authority), to rely (by inward certainty):--agree, assure, believe, have confidence, be (wax) conflent, make friend, obey, persuade, trust, yield. (Note: 3982 is the Strong’s reference number to the word “pivsti” as well. See the author’s link to above.)

Other Greek words that were translated into “faith” according to Strong’s were:

4102. pistis pis'-tis from 3982; persuasion, i.e. credence; moral conviction (of religious truth, or the truthfulness of God or a religious teacher), especially reliance upon Christ for salvation; abstractly, constancy in such profession; by extension, the system of religious (Gospel) truth itself:--assurance, belief, believe, faith, fidelity.

4103. pistos pis-tos' from 3982; objectively, trustworthy; subjectively, trustful:--believe(-ing, -r), faithful(-ly), sure, true.

So there is no specific link between the Greek words that were translated to mean “faith” and the author’s statement that the word “faith” only applies to Christian belief.

The English word “faith” came into usage in approximately 1250 A.D. At the time, it was used to refer to a duty, or fulfilling one’s trust. It did not at that time have a meaning related to Christian faith.

In fact, the word “faith” was used to refer to all religious faiths starting in approximately 1300 A.D. The Bible was first translated into English from the Latin Vulgate in 1380, and the word “faith” came to be used to refer to the Christian faith at that time.

The etymology of the word and Strong’s definitions are quite well documented and I’ve provided links here.

The author is mistaken in the etymology of the word because, as I have shown, the word “faith” was used with other meanings before it had the meaning the author is using (as that specifically of Christian faith), including its meaning as “faith in any religious belief.” In addition, while the use of the word “faith” as meaning Christian faith may have been coined, so to speak, at the time of the earliest English translations of the Bible, the original Greek words did not mean the same thing as the current translations. The original Greek (which is the language in which the Scriptures were given to us) does not have a word that has the same definition as the word “faith” given in this entry (see Strong's). And where the author said that “No other religion is based on faith as distinguished from mere belief,” he is clearly wrong because according to Strong’s, the Greek words used in the original Scriptures actually have a meaning closer to the word “belief” than they do to the word “faith.”

ASCHLAFLY's Unsupported Assumptions

ASCHLAFLY, can you give any references, AT ALL, for your recent edits to the Faith entry? You keep falling back on the "Faith is Christian" concept and keep removing all the well-documented entries that demonstrate otherwise. Once and for all, do you have any evidence to back this up, or is this "Conservapedia" just a "Schlaflyapedia" documenting your opinions rather than facts? --Neurocat 13:41, 24 February 2007 (EST)

Unlocking Faith

I think it is time we unlocked this entry. It has so many unsupported assumptions on it as to be largely worthless. It is in desperate need of editing. --Neurocat 10:54, 26 February 2007 (EST)

Faith is NOT unique

To say that the concept of "faith" is unique to Christianity is absurd, and the height of vanity. To begin with, the editors critique previous commentators who argue the non-uniqueness of Christian "Faith" by stating that they offer "no proof" that faith is NOT a uniquely Christian concept. However, the author of the article on faith (locked, Draconian fashion), states no support for the idea that "faith" IS unique to Christianity. A word count is the only proof, compared with a word count of one other holy book. That is hardly proof. Further, the originator of such an absurd idea that faith is unique to Christianity must surely have the burden of proof. In the absence of proof, discourse with any non-Christian will suffice to prove the ridiculousness of that statement.

However, proof can be clearly offered. To begin with, the author of the locked "article" on Faith suggests that "submission" to Allah is pre-eminent in Islam, displacing faith. However, faith in Allah is a necessary predicate to submission - otherwise, the submission would be worthless, if it is directed to no-one.

Further, the Roman state religion placed great import on the concept of "pietas," or "piety," which the Romans understood to include faith in the gods' good will, and the importance to daily life of satisfying the gods. A note of the importance of "pietas" in Roman life would be its prominent placement on the Clipeus Virtutis, a shield awarded to Augustus Caesar upon the First Constitutional Settlement, which noted Augustus' many virtues. Among them, "pietas" was prominently figured. (See A second touchstone for faith in the Roman religion would be Horace's Odes ( The third book of Odes makes several mentions of "faithless foes" - suggesting that lack of faith is associated with evil, and faith therefore with the good and pious. Further, an important theme of Horace's 3d Book of Odes is the need of Rome to satisfy the Gods, demonstrating a strong faith in the relevance & role of the Gods in daily life.

I insist not only that the article on be "faith" unlocked, but that all bias be purged from this encyclopedia. You claim to to ignore any bias whatsoever, and pay heed only to the facts. However, since often the facts include a "bias" against ridiculous opinions such as this, you end up purging the facts. Please, be reasonable, for the good of the country.

  • Right something trustworthy CANNOT be biased and saying that faith is unique only to christianity is one of the most biased statements I have ever heard. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Cal05000 (talk)
I disagree that trustworthy and biased are mutually exclusive. However, I agree that faith is not a uniquely Christian concept. Philip J. Rayment 04:23, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

(reset)The Epistle to the Hebrews is generally considered to contain the greatest chapter regarding "faith" in the New Testament. It points the early church, the fledgling Christians, towards the men and women of the Old Testament - Jews - and holds them up as true examples of real faith: after all, they didn't have any of the later "proofs" that Jesus demonstrated, they didn't have the "pouring out of the Holy Spirit", they never saw any "substance" of what they believed in and held dear to. The writer of the epistle singles out:

All of these demonstrated their faith by their works. All of these were still faithful at their deaths even though they died without ever receiving proof of their faith.

Incidentally, the word "faith" is mentioned more than twice in the OT. In fact, there are at least three different Hebrew words used to convey faith: אמנה אמוּנה אמוּנה - which would seem to be contradictory if it only gets two mentions! The Old Testament is the foundation of faith upon which the New Testament stands - if there is no "faith" within the OT, then there can be none reflected in the NT, or what there is, is meaningless and superficial. 10px Fox (talk|contribs) 05:26, 18 March 2008 (EDT)

Why would jews or muslims follow the numerous laws of their religion if they didn't have faith in God? Claiming that faith is uniquely christian is false.

You seem to be using "faith" as a synonym for "belief". They are different concepts.--Andy Schlafly 07:28, 1 July 2009 (EDT)


Also, saying that Christian faith is a uniquely Christian concept is a tautology. You can't reject other people's arguments that other religions define "faith," by saying, "well, not in the same way Christianity does," and concluding "therefore faith is unique to Christianity."

FAITH is not unique to Christianity.

CHRISTIAN FAITH is obviously, by definition, unique to Christianity, but again, this is mere tautology. 1 = 1. Congratulations.

Main Page

Note that the following is still on Conservapedia's main page, forming part of the casual visitor's initial impression: "Did you know that faith is a uniquely Christian concept? Add to the explanation of what it means, and how it does not exist on other religions." Moioci 05:09, 1 March 2007 (EST)

Romans 10:17:
Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word of Christ. ChristianFaith 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Bad, bad, bad

This article isn't just bad. It's brilliantly bad. Outstandingly bad. It is a paradigmatic example of bad. If this is the kind of writing that this project is going to promote, then the project should be shelved.

Alternate version

Faith (from Greek-pistis and Latin-fides) refers to confidence, trust, and hope in a God, person, community, tradition, or another locus of inspiration. The object of faith varies among people, but the common denominator is a level of conviction and an inner attitude towards a greater power or force in the universe. Etymologically, the word 'faith' is closely linked to the concept of "fidelity," which emphasizes commitment to something or someone. Thus, faith is often understood to mean 'loyalty' to a particular view of divinity, and allegiance to a particular religious community and it's cognate doctrines. Yet, faith can also be envisioned more broadly as a trust in providence, and has been used as a synonym for religion, such as in the Buddhist faith or the Christian faith.

Faith is an important aspect of the world religions, and a common theme of human religiosity. According to Christian tradition, faith is one of the gifts of the Holy Spirit that provides impetus for humanity to move forward, and is said to be especially important when one encounters obstacles in life. For many people, faith or the lack thereof, is an important part of their overall identities.

(Lack of?) Faith in Science

I have argued this point many times among non-believers, but most religious people will maintain that science requires a larger leap of faith than religion. Do you think this debate merits inclusion/referral in this article? --Deuteronomy 11:12, 16 May 2007 (EDT)

I would agree that things like evolution and the Big Bang require a greater "leap of faith", but not science. Philip J. Rayment 11:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to seperate these two concepts from that definition? However I agree, the theoretical nature of both "evolution" and the Big Bang do require the greatest leap of faith. Continuing in this vein however, how do we know that many other aspects of scientific study are not also contrived fallacies? Man once believed the Earth was flat because of thousands of years of precedent. What shall we deam "science" in another thousand years in contrast to acts of God? These concepts are worthy of inclusion in the article. --Deuteronomy 11:26, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Given the strictest definition of science, is it possible to call evolution and the Big Bang science? Both are attempts to explain what happened in the past, and we cannot observe the past, cannot run tests on the past, and cannot reproduce those events. And those are the sorts of things required for science.
But as you will see from the natural science article, differences between things that are "operational science" and others that are "origins science" mean that you cannot extend that question to many other areas of science, such as medicine, chemistry, physics, etc.
The idea that man once believed that the Earth was flat is itself largely an urban myth. Sure, there were some people that thought that, but we know that the ancient Greeks knew the Earth to be round, and that almost everybody else since thought that also (and perhaps everyone before for all we know). The idea that the flat Earth belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists.
Given those points, I think that you musings about science in the future are largely without foundation.
Philip J. Rayment 22:15, 16 May 2007 (EDT)
Where has it been shown that the idea that the flat Earth belief was widespread has been shown to be an evolutionist invention to discredit creationists? --Vincentvincent 07:26, 14 April 2008 (EDT)
See Flat Earth. Philip J. Rayment 08:42, 14 April 2008 (EDT)

There is only one area of science in which "faith" is required. That the universe and everything in it follow a set of naturalistic laws which can be predicted and understood, though there are some we are still working on. However, this "faith" is backed up by the fact that the universe has always, so far as we currently know, followed a set of laws. If you have no faith in this premise then a 5 minute old universe in which all our memories have been fabricated by god becomes a possibility and science goes out the window. A 5 minute old universe, by the way, is logically just as likely as one less than 15 billion years old.

To reject the theory of evolution requires more faith than to accept it because of all the evidence for the theory which must also be rejected. Face it, based on genetics, it is statistically impossible for us to not share a common ancestor with all other mammals... Unless you think the earth is 5 minutes old and everything is a trick by god... now that requires a lot of faith... but no more than is required to believe in a 6000 year old earth or a virgin birth.

Faith in Literature

I agree with Phillip that this section is suspect. Taking the real life information and incorporating it into the article is one thing, but noting ways faith has been viewed in literary works seems to be out of place. Learn together 14:03, 11 July 2007 (EDT)

Biblical Examples

I felt that an Old Testament example would be in order. I would like to include some pictures as it would look better than this "dry" page that we have here.

ChristianFaith 15:44, 20 July 2007 (EDT)

Multiple definitions of faith

All: Not sure who's watching this page, but I want to make sure I touch base with folks before I dive in. I'd like to introduce multiple uses of the word "faith" to the article. Specifically:

  • Faith as loyalty (Faithful to a spouse, or to God)
  • Faith as trust (I have faith that you will do what you say, or that God will)
  • Faith as a trust in the fundamental good (as the article now articulates)
  • Faith as hanging on to your reason when emotion seeks to overwhelm it (per C.S. Lewis).

I'd also like to introduce and analyze the typical nontheist definition of faith -- "Believing without evidence," and to show that this concept of faith is absent from the Bible -- i.e. nobody in the Bible believed without evidence -- they all had overwhelming evidence for belief (as do Christians today) -- so faith must mean something else.

Any objections? Ungtss 15:03, 4 September 2007 (EDT)

I have always seen that faith means that one KNOWS not beliefs something is true without any proof. It does not matter if one is saying that I know that Christ died for my sins, or that I know there is one God but Allah and Muhammad is his profit, or that I know that Zeus may send lighting bolt down on me, or that I know that there is no God or gods. Pibu 23:58, 10 November 2007 (EST)

"Faith is a uniquely Christian concept"

So faith isn't a concept in any other religion? ...could somebody please just clear this up? Feebasfactor 11:20, 7 October 2007 (EDT)


I think a good source to use would be the works of Kierkegaard. His "leap to faith" discourses are wonderful and are a great supplement to faith/existentialism. Probus1

Faith as loyalty based on past performance

Ed left an unsigned comment awhile back that describes an alternative view of faith, that is in fact described in the external link to JP Holding's site at the bottom of the page. This theologically argues that faith in the biblical sense is to be described as loyalty based on past performance. Perhaps this should be mentioned somewhere in the article. DanH 18:42, 24 December 2007 (EST)


That Christianity is the only religion with the concept of faith in it is one of the most arrogant claims I have ever heard. We can start by discussing the opening statement.

"Faith is a uniquely Christian concept referring to a confidence or trust in a greater good as provided by the Lord."

First, this statement claims that faith in anything is a Christian concept that was invented by the Christians. It claims that no other religion or philosophy has or have ever had any sort of faith in a greater good.

This implies that my own great personal faith in humanity as a whole is non-existant. I have no faith in humanity's capability of rational thinking, nor any faith in realizing my own and others potential to do good. Beliefs that are not rooted in any religious faith but instead by observation of humanity's history and characters that have done both terrible and wonderful things.

My own and others faith that are outside the Christian belief system are simply to be discarded as something that is irrellevant.

(as a side note please pardon any spelling mistakes, I'm Norwegian and thus realize that coming to this English speaking site might seem a bit odd, but it seems that you might need some foreign opinions on this site from time to time) Posted by: toby

Rename the article

This article seems to about Christian faith, so it should be moved there. It is not really an article about religious faith in general. Moreover, an article on faith which includes the ideas of Ungtss above would be good. --Ed Poor Talk 15:48, 23 April 2008 (EDT)

Seconding this motion. 15:41, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Faith is a Christian concept, and "Christian faith" is a silly redundancy. It would be like saying "Christian Easter."--Aschlafly 15:43, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
It's not a uniquely Christian concept, though. People can have faith in something without being religious, or they can have faith in non-Christian religions. Wandering 15:46, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Even if we were to change the name (which I do not prefer), there is a problem with that name. "Christian faith" can be used to refer to Christianity as a religious system, when this article is mostly about Faith in Christianity (what it means to have a practical trust in God, and specifically Christ). --Ymmotrojam 15:56, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Lack of the Lord in entry

Faith is a concept introduced by Jesus, yet there is no reference to Him or His teachings on it in the entire first page. There are references to the Greek (which Jesus may not have used); there is reference to faith in support by chair (an example unlike ones used by Jesus); and there is a lack of emphasis on how faith is a uniquely Christian concept. For those reasons, I respectfully think this [2] is better. (Also, I think the phrase "about God" in the first sentence must be an unintentional error.)--Aschlafly 22:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)

Well, that faith did not start with Jesus' earthly ministry, it is the same kind of faith presented in the Old Testament. It is more defined in the New, but it's not a new concept. Obviously we need to include more, but I don't think how it is right now is worse.
About the "about God," what do you find wrong with it? --Ymmotrojam 22:03, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
There are virtually no references to faith in the Old Testament, but hundreds in the New. Added to that is the fact the Old Testament is much longer than the New, and the straightforward conclusion is that faith is a new concept introduced by Christianity.
I don't understand the "about God" reference. How does faith in, say, Peter's ability to walk on water or in the healing of the Roman soldier's servant knowledge "about God"?--Aschlafly 22:20, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Wait, so - at no point did the Jews have faith in God? Wandering 22:22, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
To your objection: There are virtually no references to faith in the Old Testament. I went to BibleGateway and found the word faith, faithful, or faithless a total of 96 times. It is simply incorrect to say that the OT does not make a big deal about faith. Sure, it's not as much as the NT, but I already explained that. Also, remember the word "believe" is connected directly in the Greek to the word "faith." They are synonymous. "Then he [Abraham] believed in the LORD; and He reckoned it to him as righteousness." (Genesis 15:6)
For your question: I don't understand the "about God" reference. I would recommend that you listen to this lecture by Dr. Dallas Willard, entitled How People Perish for Lack of Knowledge. Other than that, are you talking about us (in modern day) reading those accounts and receiving knowledge of God? Or are you talking about Peter stepping out on the water and faith and having knowledge of God?
I'll take the Peter one... Say you are Peter, and you are in the boat. What impulse do you think would compel you to get out of that boat, when there is a fierce storm going on? I mean Peter has got to be used to this type of weather by now, so if he is having trouble, why would he have any desire to put himself in danger? But Peter knows something. (1) He has seen what Christ can do, (2) Christ is Himself outside the boat and calling him (and by the way, Jesus is not sinking, so it can't be too bad). Those two bits of knowledge on the part of Peter are able to help him overcome the uncertainty of the wind and the waves. But then when Peter takes his eyes off of Jesus (stops trusting in Him), he starts sinking. Peter then starts trusting in himself. Peter starts focusing on the uncertainties of whether he could really make it or not, rater than the certainty that there was standing on the water with him (Jesus).
Don't know if that made sense, but maybe :-) --Ymmotrojam 22:39, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I checked your Gateway link: the term "faith" appears only 4 times in the lengthy Old Testament, and 237 times in the brief New Testament. The Old Testament references have a different meaning from the New Testament meaning. The references to "faithful" and "faithless" have different meanings.
I don't see how the faith by the soldier that his servant will be healed is knowledge "about God." The example of the chair seems, by the way, far removed from the New Testament examples.--Aschlafly 23:00, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
You are correct about the number on BibleGateway. I should have been looking closer at the meanings. However, I still maintain the Old Testament has a very clear conception of what faith is, and it does not change in the New. For example, in Exodus 4:8, God is sending Moses to Egypt, and God says this interesting statement: "If they will not believe you or heed the witness of the first sign, they may believe the witness of the last sign." Notice that God is providing a "sign" for them to believe. And if they don't trust the first "sign," then they might trust the last one. In terms of what I am talking about, that "sign" is knowledge about God. It is something that God is doing to show humanity who He is.
Faith of the soldier. The Centurion would have at least heard of Jesus, since Capernaum was Jesus' hometown (or at least homebase) I think. And this soldier may have even seen Jesus perform miracles before on other people. That is sufficient knowledge of what Christ (God) could do. I mean this Centurion definitely recognizes Jesus' divine authority (imho) as he calls Jesus "Lord", and says statements like, "I am not worthy for You to come under my roof," and "just say the word, and my servant will be healed." Not things you say about someone you barely know or have barely heard of... The point is that this centurion did indeed have a knowledge of Christ which caused faith in his heart.
The chair example being far removed from scripture. That chair example is simply a popular way to conceptualize what saving faith is. If I just stood next to a chair and acknowledged that the chair could indeed support me, but I never sat down in the chair... is that really true faith in the chair? No. It's not faith until you not only acknowledge that the chair can hold you up, but you sit down in it. --Ymmotrojam 23:21, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
I need to take a break now from this discussion, but so that you're not left waiting for a response, I observe that the nature of the examples of faith in the New Testament all have substantial significance relating to life or death, and none of them are trivialities like the chair example that seem to demean the significance.--Aschlafly 23:38, 14 June 2008 (EDT)
Ok, and don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed at all to using biblical examples :-). So if that's what you want to stick to, that's fine by me. And I was planning on putting more in, but I always thought for me personally that the chair analogy was somewhat helpful. --Ymmotrojam 23:51, 14 June 2008 (EDT)


"Some other religions have concepts that liberals pretend are similar to Christian "faith", but examining these claims invariably shows that no other religion has the same concept. "

That's clearly wrong. Judaism at the very least has a very similar meaning of Faith. Islam does too as far as I recall. Daphnea 17:37, 26 June 2008 (EDT)


I was wondering if the line on Abraham in the "Biblical examples" section might give credence to those that think the other Abrahamic religions (namely Judaism and Islam) have the gift of Faith, rather than just belief.--TruthOfChrist 11:36, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

mundane or secular faith

What I mean here is a belief that certain things will happen without being in a position to explain them in detail. example: I have enough faith in my ability to build a shed for my gardening tools. example: I have faith the sun will rise tomorrow.
This may be using faith as a firmly held belief, without it being faith in a deity. Markr 15:48, 16 October 2008 (EDT)

Reversion explained

We don't allow dilution or placement bias here. Keep the good stuff first.--Aschlafly 16:36, 8 December 2008 (EST)

"Faith" has always been a Christian concept. We're not going to allow revisionism here.--Aschlafly 16:47, 8 December 2008 (EST)

OK - I've just put back the two new sections I wrote, on faith's place among the three theological virtues, and on its uniqueness to Christianity as explained in Galatians. Hope that's all right.--CPalmer 16:52, 8 December 2008 (EST)
OK, thanks. Looks good, except this comment by your edit is certainly a highly provocative one: "In this regard, Islam has much more in common with Judaism than Christianity: the word 'Islam' itself means 'submission to God'."--Aschlafly 16:55, 8 December 2008 (EST)
It's not intended to be provocative, or to say that Islam has much in common with Judaism overall. Just that from a point of view of faith versus law, Christianity is based on faith, whereas both Islam and Judaism are based on submitting to a code of law.
Obviously, remove or change it if you don't agree.--CPalmer 16:59, 8 December 2008 (EST)

Uniquely Christian

I'm not sure I would agree that faith is uniquely Christian, but even if that's true you may want to invest in a thesaurus. It looks kind of silly to use the same phrase that many times in an article.--JohnD 13:58, 5 January 2009 (EST)

a case of selection bias perhaps?

I can see it has already been discussed, but nothing has yet been done about it. Regular Conservapedia contributors have pointed this out, so it's not just liberal rants I'm talking about. I will quote Mr. Schlafly (from this talk page): "You seem to be using "faith" as a synonym for "belief". They are different concepts."; this seems very reasonable to me, I doubt anyone would argue with that. However, there seems to be a major problem, which is that the article is a redirect from the word "belief", effectively treating the words as synonyms. Could someone address this? Even those who are addressed in this very article as "non-believers" (I guess this possibly refers to non-Christians) most certainly have a belief system, let it be astrology, communism or new-age nonsense spirituality. I have not yet contributed much, as I'm afraid anything will get me permabanned (again), so I will discuss in talk pages before editing, if that makes sense. --Relative 13:47, 15 June 2010 (EDT) P.S. I'm not at all concerned about the fact that the article describes Christian Faith, as one would surely expect of an American conservative encyclopaedia, but maybe there should be some sort of "disclaimer" that states it clearly at the top --Relative 13:53, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

Do you ever descend from your Olympus, Relative, and actually edit? Or are your contributions strictly about talk, talk, talk? You could have just as easily posted the changes you would like to make rather than take not so subtle swipes at your prior blocking. If not you, who? If not now, when? --ṬK/Admin/Talk 13:55, 15 June 2010 (EDT)

Faith as a virtue

I read somewhere in the Bible that God was pleased with virtuous followers. I think it's fair to say that Abraham showed an exemplary faith and that God conveyed his pleasure towards it as a virtue.

Hundreds of years later Numa Pompilius became king of Rome (715-673 BC) about the same time as the reign of the king of Judah, Hezekiah. Numa was architect of the ceremonial life of that newly-formed nation (as well as a reformer of the Roman calendar, the one that is used to this day by us) and is described by the historian Plutarch (1st century AD) in this way: "He was also the first, they say, to build temples to Faith and Terminus; and he taught the Romans their most solemn oath by Faith, which they still continue to use."[1]

It seems here that the Romans were more explicit in pursuing faith as a virtue than what the Old Testament shows, wearing their faiths on their sleeves as it were. This may explain why Jesus showed more pleasure at the faiths of the Roman centurion and the Samaritan woman than members of his own worship community. He and the gospel writers may have wanted to humble their own community who may have lost their emphasis on this virtue. And by his parables about faith, He tried to remove obstacles to their receiving this virtue from God. But Jesus did more than that; through His expressions and His Passion He elevated the virtue faith to a requirement for salvation. VargasMilan (talk) 00:13, 30 January 2017 (EDT)

Thanks for that. Stuff like this is fascinating. I would postulate that, what made Abraham's case rather unique was faith in an unseen God, whereas Pompilius is talking more about upholding oaths beteen men. RobSMake Exxon Great Again`
Thank you for that important clarification of the meanings of "faith" that raises further important questions. I would just like to add here to my remarks that Jesus may also have been impressed by the accomplishments of faith in nations like Rome or in Egypt where He grew up which nonetheless didn't even have the Law.
  1. Perrin, Bernadotte (1914). "Numa Pompilius". The Parallel Lives, vol. 1 (Cambridge MA and London: Harvard University Press), vol. L046 of Loeb Classical Library, pp. 307-383).

Is the opposite of faith worry? It likely is not.

There is no authoritative source that indicates that worry is the opposite of faith. It is just opinion. For example, doubt could easily be called the opposite of faith (If you were to ask 100 people, a majority would probably say doubt is the opposite of faith).

Of course, doubt is underlying condition of worry because doubters are more likely to have fear/worry. Doubt can cause a turning away of one's entire faith and cause apostasy. Doubt can also cause people not to pray or cause them to have ineffectual prayer. In short, BJibbs did a helpful edit as his first edit by asking for a citation. I decided to remove the sentence indicating that worry is the opposite of faith. Conservative (talk) 01:04, 24 December 2018 (EST)

We understand the difference between "believe God" and "believing in God", the first refers to trust or faith, the second deals with accepting the existence of God (and yes, it can be ambiguous in English, cause "believing in God" can also mean trusting God).
While many believe in the existence of God, many also doubt God is willing or capable of doing the things he promises. In that sense, doubt or worry can be a lack of faith. RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:30, 8 November 2019 (EST)


This article, at least the Intro to the article, is over-intellectualized. Christians are required to "have the faith of child." Faith is merely trust, trust in God. This article present it as a work of the flesh that must somehow be striven for or achieved before one has access to salvation.

IMO, the Intro needs to be trimmed down and simplified. The pious intellectual moralizing can be put elsewhere. Our primary readership is children. We should encourage trust in God, not turn it into an intellectual exercise (which granted, many children as well as adults, will never understand). RobSDe Plorabus Unum 18:22, 8 November 2019 (EST)

Faith and confidence

I like the way this article begins by saying that faith goes beyond belief. This is a big improvement over the work of Richard Dawkins, who writes faith off as "belief without evidence", but does not point out that true faith means more than that, as Paul Tillich notes in "The New Being". I wonder whether this article should include reference to the meaning of the word "confidence". Confidence means "with faith", coming from the Latin words "con" (with) and "fideo" (faith). Carltonio (talk) 11:56, 20 June 2020 (EDT)

Thank you for your terrific suggestion! Please edit the entry as you think best.--Andy Schlafly (talk) 12:54, 20 June 2020 (EDT)


"Deep cultural madness" ("DCM") is a condition of mind that is created by long-term immersion in thought patterns consisting of rational arguments based on non-empirical conceptions of reality to construct a change-resistant political and social ideology, often fundamentally dystopian in nature. The strength of DCM is its ability to join partially or entirely untrue characterizations of reality with an individual's predisposition toward fear, anger and helplessness, which induces an emotionally-based conviction of truth in the absence of factual integrity. Because DCM is rationalistic rather than empirical, it tends to repulse new information, and therefore is not self-correcting. The dystopian character of most DCM is expressed in an aggressive, intolerant and amoral political ideology. Because it is protected by an interlocking system of self-proving rationalizations, exposure to opposing viewpoints tends to increase, rather than reduce, DCM.

The most extreme example of widespread DCM in recent times was Germany during the 1930's. Rationalizations based on a false cultural narrative, the maligning of ethnic minorities, promotion of gender stereotyping, distortion of economic and political data, and an intensive propaganda campaign convinced enough Germans to tolerate the rise of Nazism that the party was able to seize power and enforce one of the most violent and destructive political regimes in world history. This period ended with the Second World War and more than 50 million military and civilian dead. DCM has been a growing problem in the United States, arising as it has in response to the success of the Civil Rights movement and the sexual revolutions of the past 70 years, and fueled by a cultural backlash against new laws and cultural expectations that seek to advance racial and gender equality. Although not quite comparable to the cultural shaming that led to Nazism in Germany, the causes of the so-called "conservative" backlash have some similarities with the German experience, insofar as the impetus today seems to be a kind of resentment at being thought of as "deplorable" for one's cultural attitudes, just as Germans resented being blamed for causing the First World War. The difference, of course, is that it was not really true that Germany caused the First World War, whereas the racism and sexism that "conservatives" may feel righteously entitled to express and defend in the United States today are, in fact, shameful.

Socialism is based on a world view of oppressor and oppressed. This was the fuel of Nazism. Some may call it Social Darwinism, but socialism teaches humans are by nature divided into oppressor and oppressed groups, and it's better to be in the oppressor class than the oppressed class. That's why socialist eliminate democracy, cause they know as the oppressor class the people will take vengeance if given a chance.
The Nazis combined economic class and racial or ethnic identity as the oppressed class; emerging from World War I, the defeated Germans viewed themselves as an oppressed class based on racial, ethnic, cultural and linguistic identity. They also considered this shouldn't be a normal thing, and nature demands they assume the role of oppressor class. This is real Marxism. There is no equality in socialism, just oppressor and the oppressed. RobSFree Kyle! 00:55, 5 September 2020 (EDT)