• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Superstition vs. Faith

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
You know, I was going to write a different thread, but the more I wrote, the more I noticed that I was conflating superstion and faith. What, exactly, is the difference though?

If I ask god to help me, how is that different than asking my house elf to help me? Does it matter if I think angels are watching over my loved ones vs. if my ancestors watch over them? If I cast out demons from a suspected witch, how is it different if I do it in the name of jesus than if I do it using folk magic?

If I were a Christian still, I would say that the main defining factor is that belief in the god of the bible would be an example of faith, while everything else that's a supernatural belief is based on things outside of that and is of the world, and therefore superstitious. Do you feel the same? Are other religions practicing faith or superstition? Is the main factor in the veneration of gods? If so, would the belief in gods be faith, while the belief in magic be superstitious? What if your religion allowed for the existance of magic? Even the bible talks of magic, so I don't know... The whole thing is very confusing for me.

They all seem to be rooted in the supernatural, so where is this split between the two, precisely? Can they, and do both faith and superstition coexist?

I know this topic has been done before in the past... but the answers are still vague. I feel like it's hard to have a conversation about things related to the topic if the topic isn't settled first. I guess I'm just looking for something more concrete and definite. Maybe we can all reach some kind of concensus, finally.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
seems to me that superstition is the actual belief where as faith is belief in the superstition.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Hmmm... Ok, that's good!

So then what's the difference between being superstitious and being faithful?
So far as I can tell, being superstitious is having faith in things your peer group (for lack of a better term) deems silly where as faith is believing things your peer group (again, for lack of a better term) takes seriously.
 
... Right or wrong, they are what I have.

Well, you mention right and wrong. where there is wisdom there are things you know and there are things you do not know. It is wrong for one to say they know a thing they do not actually know, as that is the end of learning in that matter.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
So far as I can tell, being superstitious is having faith in things your peer group (for lack of a better term) deems silly where as faith is believing things your peer group (again, for lack of a better term) takes seriously.

Yah... I would agree with that. The problem with that, though, is it still makes it difficult to really nail down all that is superstitious vs. all that is faithful. If I were to make a topic about, say, Faith vs. Evidence and listed some examples of how faith didn't work, I'd just get a bunch of replies about how "That's just superstition, not faith!" Everyone has their own idea of what superstition is vs. true faith...

It makes it hard to have a concise conversation if the subject of the topic wriggles around in one's hands like a slippery eel.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Well, you mention right and wrong. where there is wisdom there are things you know and there are things you do not know. It is wrong for one to say they know a thing they do not actually know, as that is the end of learning in that matter.

Learning comes from gaining information of what they didn't know, or in the correction of knowledge they had wrong, not from espousing what they think they know. There are a great many things I don't know. I'm ok with that, and am always willing to remedy that. Being wrong is part of that process, too, and I'm always willing to be corrected when that is shown to be true.

Where are you going with this? What's the point?
 
Learning comes from gaining information of what they didn't know, or in the correction of knowledge they had wrong, not from espousing what they think they know. There are a great many things I don't know. I'm ok with that, and am always willing to remedy that. Being wrong is part of that process, too, and I'm always willing to be corrected when that is shown to be true.

Where are you going with this? What's the point?

Learning comes from not saying you know things you do not actually know. That's rule number one. one shouldn't need to be correct, people should take the beam out of their own eye and not say they know things they do not actually know. Only one that is strict in properly separating things they know from things they do not actually know, is one that could ever come to know God. Not that they do know God, but they could be one that could come to know him.
 

Spirit of Light

Be who ever you want
You know, I was going to write a different thread, but the more I wrote, the more I noticed that I was conflating superstion and faith. What, exactly, is the difference though?

If I ask god to help me, how is that different than asking my house elf to help me? Does it matter if I think angels are watching over my loved ones vs. if my ancestors watch over them? If I cast out demons from a suspected witch, how is it different if I do it in the name of jesus than if I do it using folk magic?

If I were a Christian still, I would say that the main defining factor is that belief in the god of the bible would be an example of faith, while everything else that's a supernatural belief is based on things outside of that and is of the world, and therefore superstitious. Do you feel the same? Are other religions practicing faith or superstition? Is the main factor in the veneration of gods? If so, would the belief in gods be faith, while the belief in magic be superstitious? What if your religion allowed for the existance of magic? Even the bible talks of magic, so I don't know... The whole thing is very confusing for me.

They all seem to be rooted in the supernatural, so where is this split between the two, precisely? Can they, and do both faith and superstition coexist?

I know this topic has been done before in the past... but the answers are still vague. I feel like it's hard to have a conversation about things related to the topic if the topic isn't settled first. I guess I'm just looking for something more concrete and definite. Maybe we can all reach some kind of concensus, finally.
Maybe i misunderstand your OP:) but isn't faith in religious teaching the faith and belief in the unseen?
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
Yah... I would agree with that. The problem with that, though, is it still makes it difficult to really nail down all that is superstitious vs. all that is faithful. If I were to make a topic about, say, Faith vs. Evidence and listed some examples of how faith didn't work, I'd just get a bunch of replies about how "That's just superstition, not faith!" Everyone has their own idea of what superstition is vs. true faith...

It makes it hard to have a concise conversation if the subject of the topic wriggles around in one's hands like a slippery eel.
I am merely presenting my take on it.

One of the big problems with the words "superstition" and "faith" it that they mean vastly different things to everyone...
 
Maybe i misunderstand your OP:) but isn't faith in religious teaching the faith and belief in the unseen?

What is taught as faith isn't actually faith at all. believers have dictionary faith, not religilous faith.

Faith is a measure that comes by hearing. Faith is the measure of substance and evidence one has for the words of a story.

Those with much substance and evidence for their story are those with much faith.

Those with only a story are faithless.

Being that God has substance and evidence for his every word, being that he spoke his holy name which caused the big bang of which the harmonic is found in the cmbr, God is faithful.

Psa 62 11 kjv God hath spoken once, twice have i heard this, that power belongeth to God.
 

McBell

Resident Sourpuss
What is taught as faith isn't actually faith at all. believers have dictionary faith, not religilous faith.

Faith is a measure that comes by hearing. Faith is the measure of substance and evidence one has for the words of a story.

Those with much substance and evidence for their story are those with much faith.

Those with only a story are faithless.

Being that God has substance and evidence for his every word, being that he spoke his holy name which caused the big bang of which the harmonic is found in the cmbr, God is faithful.

Psa 62 11 kjv God hath spoken once, twice have i heard this, that power belongeth to God.
Faith is believing something your intellect normally rejects.
Otherwise, there is no need for faith.
 

SigurdReginson

Grēne Mann
Premium Member
Learning comes from not saying you know things you do not actually know. That's rule number one.

I would agree. Can you tell me where I did that?

one shouldn't need to be correct, people should take the beam out of their own eye and not say they know things they do not actually know.

So I assume you are referencing Luke 6:42. That verse is talking about criticizing people when you yourself have mistakes. First of all, I wasn't ciritizing anyone. I was describing my own beliefs at the time and my life experiences. I realize not all, or even most, christians shared my views back then. I was a fundamentalist/baptist, which is very uncommon when compared to christians all over the globe.

I have, and will gladly admit that I am wrong on many, many things. :D

Secondly, a "need to be correct" is not why I'm here. Where did you get that impression?

Only one that is strict in properly separating things they know from things they do not actually know, is one that could ever come to know God. Not that they do know God, but they could be one that could come to know him.

Ah.... And you have come to know god?
 
When the scriptures were written it is those with evidence for what they said are those that had faith. Today it's all backwards.

two lists. one list of things you know you label good. one list of things you simply do not know you label evil.

following from the dichotomy of good and evil above, for one to say they know a thing they do not actually know, is what it means to call evil good. Those that use different definitions of good and evil are those that do evil continually.
 
I would agree. Can you tell me where I did that?



So I assume you are referencing Luke 6:42. That verse is talking about criticizing people when you yourself have mistakes. First of all, I wasn't ciritizing anyone. I was describing my own beliefs at the time and my life experiences. I realize not all, or even most, christians shared my views back then. I was a fundamentalist/baptist, which is very uncommon when compared to christians all over the globe.

I have, and will gladly admit that I am wrong on many, many things. :D

Secondly, a "need to be correct" is not why I'm here. Where did you get that impression?



Ah.... And you have come to know god?

Don't take anything i've said personally. i never said you say you know things you don't actually know, i'm just pointing that out as a rule of wisdom. Also, why should you need to admit you're wrong on anything? Shouldn't you just say you don't know if you don't actually know?

And yes, in fact i do know God. God is a being of wisdom. God's thoughts are not my thoughts, but we do think alike.
 
Top