What is that?
-
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!
Faith in God
- Thread starter SalixIncendium
- Start date
- Status
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
Yes you are making a false statemet. Furthermore? I'm the Emperor of Sandusky. Anyone can claim "expert credentials" on the Interwebs-- means exactly zip.
Show your work, or admit you are making wild claims that are simply dismissed without further ado.
That which is made without evidence, may be dismissed without evidence. Hitchen's Razor.
i don't care that you are the emperor of sandusky
which part of my statement do you have problems with?
the fact that everyone has belief?
or
the fact that god might be the idea of love?
or
religion is not necessary for a subjective belief, or experience?
Even if you could demonstrate that someone accurately predicted something that would happen in the future (which the linked article doesn't, it just gullibly cites the Gospels as true), that tells us zero information about how or why that prediction was accurate.
So no, still no (good) evidence for God.
I agree.
Yes, yes I do.
Why? No idea especially if we discount experiences. And I can't even say that experiences I've had are "miraculous" or maybe more than coincidence, or just dumb luck. I'm a largely cautiously optimistic person, so maybe my faith is that cautious optimism. Cautious because while I have faith or optimism, I don't expect the gods to come through for every speed bump in my life. But I trust them to do what is right and necessary for me, come what may.
leov
Well-Known Member
If we look for what those people meant Westbury need to dig out whAt their words described.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
Sorry, you're not convincing with that.
Spartan
Well-Known Member
That's nonsense.
? Is this relevant?
It's best when it's just a pure process of good behavior and the belief comes out of that good behavior.
leov
Well-Known Member
Lol, My phone thinks so, sorry , it has mind of its own. Westbury = we.
Bob the Unbeliever
Well-Known Member
This is a false statement. Belief -- the certain notion that <something> is accurate and true, but there is no evidence to support such a thing.
I do not do that.
Therefore? I have no belief.
If you are attempting to conflate that definition with other definitions? That is being disingenuous, and is a logical fallacy.
Quite the opposite - That's what caused you confusion in the first place. I will give you several reasons why that definition is wrong and why you are committing logical errors by trying to rely on it.
Logical errors and bad presumptions:
1. Believing that modern word definitions are accurate representations of the original Greek/Aramaic/Hebrew words that were used 2000 years ago.
2. Believing that the modern definition of the the word "faith" has always been what it currently is, never changing.
3. Believing that you (as a modern English speaker deciding what the modern definition of a word is) get to tell God what the definition of "faith" (Pisteuo in Greek) is, rather than His word in the Bible telling you what your definition of "faith" needs to be. Especially when your modern definition contradicts what the Bible says about what "faith" is.
1. It should not require further expounding, but should be self evident to anyone who has opened a Biblical lexicon, that the English words used to translate the Bible rarely reflect perfect translations of the original languages. The reason is because there don't exist in English words that act as perfect translations that carry all the same connotations and range of meanings as the original words. That is why any serious Bible study involves knowing the original languages or at the very least relying on Lexicons and concordances.
2. Eytmologically the english word "faith" originally use to have a meaning that is more in line with what the Bible says "faith" is. Our modern definition of faith has been distorted over several hundred years so that it no longer accurately reflects the Biblical concept of "faith".
The Etymology Of Belief. | Faith | Thou
faith | Origin and meaning of faith by Online Etymology Dictionary
3. I already gave you some direct examples from the Bible of why your modern definition of "faith" is inconsistent with what the Bible says faith is. Logically, if the Bible introduces a concept to us, then the Bible gets to define for us what that means by it's context and definitions. If you want to insist that your modern definition of faith is the correct one that must be adhered to then you must first logically establish why your definition of faith is consistent with what the Scripture says faith is. You must be able to explain why your definition is not already contradicted by what the Scripture says faith is. I've started off by giving you several examples that disprove your claim that your definition of faith is consistent with the Biblical definition. You don't address those contradictions by merely appealing to a modern dictionary as authoritative because you're actually guilty of using circular reasoning at that point - all you're doing is saying; "the modern definition of faith is the correct one because it's the modern definition of faith". You must first establish that the modern definition of faith is actually consistent with what the Bible says faith is before you can appeal to that modern definition as an authority. I already gave you some starting examples as to why it's not consistent with that the Bible says.
Last edited:
Those that choose to live for the world, will never find useful evidence.
The Bible tells one where and how to build a strong Faith;
Matthew 7:24-27 24“Everyone then who hears these words of mine and does them will be like a wise man who built his house on the rock. 25 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat on that house, but it did not fall, because it had been founded on the rock.26 And everyone who hears these words of mine and does not do them will be like a foolish man who built his house on the sand. 27 And the rain fell, and the floods came, and the winds blew and beat against that house, and it fell, and great was the fall of it.”
Faith based on evidence of the Messenger of God and given by the Messenger of God and then lived, is an unbreakable Faith.
Faith built as such is built on ones own investigation and reasoning and depends upon no one else. The whole world could arise against them, but one would still have Faith.
In fact, that is what every Messenger of God has faced, a world of skeptics, mostly all wanting to be rid of them. They stay true to the Word God has given them to deliver.
Regards Tony
Right so you are saying we all make up definitions that suit our sensibilities to avoid confusion. Thanks for that insight
Edit :
You should also note that we are in 21st century, not the bronze age
Last edited:
Here's where you swerved a little and fell into your own trap. I am agreeing with you that faith and belief as used by the different authors of the NT does not resemble this modern notion of mental assent into propositional truths. It's a far more "heart" matter than a "head" matter.
Modern Christians are very much in the "head" faith, mental belief sort of idea of what faith is, preaching the Bible and what "it says" to be believed in, exclusively, even against science. In fact, many absolutely refuse to trust their own hearts. I've known many who even cite scripture to say "don't believe your own heart", absolving themselves of questioning their beliefs, which they should if that is what they conclude from them!
Why I say you fell into that trap here is by then appealing to "trusting" and "following God" to mean believing mentally what you are interpreting from scripture. That's problematic, to say the least. What you "believe" scripture is saying, can more than easily be distorted by your programming from culture, the filters of your socio-economic realities, ethnic backgrounds, personal biases, and so forth.
I started a thread here some while back called "The Impossibility of Scriptural Authority", where I went into some of that. In short, at best, you end up with your filtered interpretation, not "What God says". "What God says" is really "What I see is true and believe it is". They are not the same thing.
What I see as consistent with "trusting and following God", in those sense of faith and belief, is not a head thing at all. It's not believing writings in texts written on paper for modern hermeneutics to tease apart to tell us the truths, as best it can see through its lenses. Rather, it is precisely about the heart, and the heart alone. Trust is a heart thing. Commitment and intention are heart things. The mind can be confused by many beliefs and ideas of what "God wants".
As the Apostle Paul wisely recognized, "Let each be convinced in his own mind", which context shows he was referring to be settled in your own hearts on what to believe. Read the entire chapter of Romans 14, where cleary he does not instruct Christians debate about the meanings of scripture.
He says your own conscious, your heart, leads you, and it is through that and that alone we are judged. Not by "what the Bible" supposedly says or not. That too is a very modern, and confused understanding of faith and belief.
ecco
Veteran Member
So, you were raised in a household that did not mention god except maybe around Christmas or Easter.
- Status