| 1 | Faith is a word meaning loyalty to a Concept or Object(s) based on promise or duty. |
| 2 | Faith is a solemn obligation to a promise, which is why the loss of faith is considered by many religions as a willful breach of trust and contract. |
| 3 | Faith is not the same meaning as Belief. Belief is a fictional term originally equivalent in meaning “trust” whereas Faith in its original fictional sense means “duty of fulfilling one’s trust”. |
| 4 | Belief is therefore trust that something is true, whereas Faith is an obligation to believe something is true. |
| 5 | Faith depends upon the prior existence of Belief. For if there is no trust, there can be no promise or duty to fulfilling such trust. |
| 6 | Yet Belief does not need the existence of Faith to exist first. |
| 7 | If Faith is equivalent to loyalty to fulfilling one’s obligations and Belief is equivalent to trust, why do these concepts get presented as if they are one and the same idea? |
| 8 | The answer rests in asking a second question being why is the underlying presumption of Faith being some form of contract, promise, pledge, or oath or vow to perform not mentioned as the fundamental meaning of Faith? |
| 9 | The answer to both questions rests with the power of the concept of Faith itself. |
| 10 | Faith is a promise or agreement to solemn obligation of contract on trust. |
| 11 | Not only is Faith considered by many organizations to be eternally binding, but strangely Faith creates an even stronger bond within the mind of one who makes it, than an agreement with full knowledge. |
| 12 | An agreement or oath or vow of promise with full knowledge and with clear mind and logic and common sense does not evoke nearly the emotional attachment to Faith. |
| 13 | If one is deceived or tricked by one who appears to provide full disclosure, then the pain is usually far less than an act of deception of Faith alone. |
| 14 | When one is bound in Faith, the mind treats the gap between trust and proof as its own obligation. |
| 15 | Thus in a strange perversion of mind, the reaction to any deception and trickery and falsity in Faith is to reinforce Belief not weaken it. |
| 16 | So when people who have been compelled to commit to elaborate and prolonged rituals of Faith are confronted with the evidence of the deception of those who tricked them, the usual reaction is to reject the evidence. |
| 17 | Despite such natural reactions, Faith itself is not a flawed act nor concept. Indeed, civilization could not function without it. |
| 18 | Just as all forms of relations, interactions, trade and activities of a community depend on a level of Belief, “Good Faith” is essential to any form of trade and fair exchange. |
| 19 | Yet it is also true that just as Belief can be manipulated by those who seek to trick us, Faith is a most terrible weapon in the hands of an impostor and trickster. |
| 20 | Through complex and repetitive rituals and indoctrination, institutions can compel us to profess such acts of Faith so deep that many have mistakenly believed they are condemned or even surrendered their soul. |
| 21 | It is why the more elaborate the rituals of an institution, the more insistent in repetition, to the exclusion of genuine knowledge, common sense or logic, the more likely such actions hide greater deception, trickery and falsity. |
| 22 | Any religion that places greater emphasis on Faith ahead of Knowledge is more likely to be an institution of certain deception, or trickery or falsity; and |
| 23 | Any religion that creates confusion between the words Faith and Belief is more likely to be an institution of certain deception, or trickery or falsity; and |
| 24 | Any religion that fails to acknowledge the implied obligation and duty associated with an act of Faith, demonstrates proof of deception and trickery. |
| 25 | In direct contrast, Summa Elementis Theologica requires no act of Faith or Belief. |
| 26 | Anyone who respects the request of reading Summa Elementis Theologica from the beginning to the end, in the order prescribed, does not need to make any act of Faith. |
| 27 | A mind that is clear and logical and reasonable is able to deduce the information presented within Summa Elementis Theologica without any need for Faith. |
| 28 | The key reasons and answers as discussed in earlier sections can all be answered without the need for Faith. |
| 29 | The presentation of scientific proof is able to be conducted without any need whatsoever for Faith. |
| 30 | So if one who reads Summa Elementis Theologica has Faith in others or other institutions, then that is entirely a matter of choice. |
| 31 | There is nothing intrinsically negative or wrong with Faith. Yet when an institution seeks to manipulate, to trick and control others through Faith, then this is an abomination. |
| 32 | Any agreement or promise made without full knowledge that the other party is acting in bad faith or deceptive or misleading conduct, automatically voids such agreements or promises. |
| 33 | Any law that contradicts such fact cannot be law. |
Search Texts
Download book as a pdf
1 Exordium - Beginning