Faith is being sure...

[jimb]

I just discovered that faith is really nothing to brag about and Christianity itself has notbing to offer because it is not unique or special in any way that would distinguish it from anything else out there, so I decided to shed the rose colored fantasy and put my boots back on the ground after exhausting any possible reason why I should continue with the religion.

It was easy to leave after that.

You shouldn't "continue with religion". You should be in Christ and live by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

 

[Twilight Hue]

You shouldn't "continue with religion". You should be in Christ and live by the guidance of the Holy Spirit.

No. Been down that road.

I don't need to embellish or fabricate the natural world here beyond what it actually brings to the table.

What I practice now can even be barely called a religion. In fact, I doubt it is one actually aside from the philosophical gleenings I entertain.

All in all , it's been a wonderful, at times a terrifying thing to allow the natural world call the shots on its own terms as I stay silent and observe and listen without my input getting in the way of the actual picture.

Can't ask for a better 'cathedral' or 'priest' than the natural universe itself on its own terms and its something I can actually see and experience without the need to pretend or fabricate past any of it.

 

[Ignatius A]

No. Been down that road.

I don't need to embellish or fabricate the natural world here beyond what it actually brings to the table.

What I practice now can even be barely called a religion. In fact, I doubt it is one actually aside from the philosophical gleenings I entertain.

All in all , it's been a wonderful, at times a terrifying thing to allow the natural world call the shots on its own terms as I stay silent and observe and listen without my input getting in the way of the actual picture.

Can't ask for a better 'cathedral' or 'priest' than the natural universe itself on its own terms and its something I can actually see and experience without the need to pretend or fabricate past any of it.

Lol

 

[2ndpillar]

There are many discussions on this forum asking that Christian doctrines be proven (according to what one understands 'proof' to mean).

By 'proof', the person usually means "The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions". This reasoning is erroneously employed to show the validity of one's stated position of faith. However, this entirely misses the point...

Here is what the Bible clearly defines as faith: Hebrews 4:11 (NRSVue) shows the fundamental error of this approach: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

In other words, it is folly to apply the conventional standard of proof to one's religious convictions. Since it is both assurance and conviction, the conventional standard of proof clearly does not apply.

Isn't it about time that some people stopped challenging a person's faith by applying the principle of "proof"?

Now according to your "faith", who wrote Hebrews, the text you just quoted? And who actually wrote it? A better example of "faith" is with respect to James 2:20.

James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

In the real world that I live in (as opposed to the online world) I don't know a single person who is as rude as many of the people who post on this forum.

I doubt you're as rude to people in real life as you have been on this forum so far.

I expect that people will be civil and have a discussion that focuses on the topic, but I find that instead, quie a few people communicate in a manner that I find totally unacceptable. So, why should I continbue to indulge them?

Your tone is being reflected back at you. You're complaining about receiving what you're putting out.

 

[Ignatius A]

Now according to your "faith", who wrote Hebrews, the text you just quoted? And who actually wrote it? A better example of "faith" is with respect to James 2:20.

James 2:20 Do you want to be shown, you foolish person, that faith apart from works is useless? 21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works when he offered up his son Isaac on the altar? 22 You see that faith was active along with his works, and faith was completed by his works;

Im not sure how much more clear scripture needs to be. What words would people need to see in order to recognize sola fide is not scriptural.

 

[Twilight Hue]

Lol

I see. You are one of those types.

Have a good day.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm not aware of a definition of "faith" in the Bible.

Are you talking about the passage in the OP... the one that Christians often pull out of context and portray as a definition? Because if you are, it would be useful to read the rest of Hebrews 11 that follows it: the author makes it clear through examples that when he's talking about "faith" (or rather, the word that's usually translated to "faith" in English), he's mostly talking about trust that God will keep his promises. A few examples touch on loyalty to God even without an explicit promise.

Sorry, I don't see anything there which helps your argument beyond you swapping between these terms which is not particularly useful.

Paul's "things unseen" are unseen because they're in the future and haven't happened yet, not because they exist now but are somehow undetectable.
*shrug* I'm not going to be the one to argue that Christian theology is well-founded.
... which, according to Paul, is about trust and loyalty. Read the whole chapter, not the out-of-context snippet.

Better yet, read the dictionary definition for faith.

Faith-: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Definition of FAITH

This is meaning that I am using whether you agree with it or not.

 

[Ignatius A]

I see. You are one of those types.
Fled
Have a good day.d

Lol what type? The type that doesn't sit in stunned awe and amazement at the "transformational journey" you had from stifled believer to free spirit. Right. Guilty as charged. Bye

 

[Twilight Hue]

Lol what type? The type that doesn't sit in stunned awe and amazement at the "transformational journey" you had from stifled believer to free spirit. Right. Guilty as charged. Bye

I see you also are the type that projects your own thoughts on people thinking that is the case.

Have a nice one.

 

[Nakosis]

Personally, I prefer the Remedy translation.
At least for this particular verse...

Hebrews 11:1

(Remedy)​

Now, trust comes from our understanding with God, because he has demonstrated that he is trustworthy to fulfill what he has promised. And by trusting in him—the one who made the promises—we are confident of what we hope for, and are sure of what we do not yet see.​

​

(Murdock)​

Now faith is the persuasion of the things that are in hope, as if they were in act; and it is the manifestness of the things not seen.​

​

(TS2009)​

And belief is the substance of what is expected, the proof of what is not seen.​

​

(TPT)​

Now faith brings our hopes into reality and becomes the foundation needed to acquire the things we long for. It is all the evidence required to prove what is still unseen.​

​

​

Spoiler

(BBE)​

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the sign that the things not seen are true.​

​

(Bishops)​

Fayth is the grounde of thynges hoped for, the euidence of thynges not seene.​

​

(BSB)​

Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.​

​

(Cepher)​

NOW faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.​

​

(CEV)​

Faith makes us sure of what we hope for and gives us proof of what we cannot see.​

​

(Darby)​

Now faith is the substantiating of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.​

​

(DRB)​

Now, faith is the substance of things to be hoped for, the evidence of things that appear not.​

​

(ERV)​

Faith is what makes real the things we hope for. It is proof of what we cannot see.​

​

(Geneva)​

Nowe faith is the ground of things, which are hoped for, and the euidence of things which are not seene.​

​

(GNB)​

To have faith is to be sure of the things we hope for, to be certain of the things we cannot see.​

​

(GW)​

Faith assures us of things we expect and convinces us of the existence of things we cannot see.​

​

(KJV)​

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.​

​

(LEB)​

Now faith is the realization of what is hoped for, the proof of things not seen.​

​

(NET)​

Now faith is being sure of what we hope for, being convinced of what we do not see.​

​

(WEB)​

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.​

​

(WEBA)​

Now faith is assurance of things hoped for, proof of things not seen.​

​

(Webster)​

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.​

​

(Weymouth)​

Now faith is a well-grounded assurance of that for which we hope, and a conviction of the reality of things which we do not see.​

​

(Williams)​

Now faith is the assurance of the things we hope for, the proof of the reality of the things we cannot see.​

​

(YLT)​

And faith is of things hoped for a confidence, of matters not seen a conviction,​

​

​

I agree that trust comes at some point but it starts with a leap of faith.
It is useful imo to differentiate these phases in a relationship.

Of course no one has to but I think one misses a useful understanding by conflating these terms.

 

[Spice]

Basically, I agree with you about being on the potter's wheel. However, there are quite a few people on this forum who attack me and others for our faith (as opposed to discussing the issue). To me, that is from Satan, so they are spiritually dead.

My belief is that even Satan is not spiritually dead. He's fulfilling his appointment for God's purpose.
Namaste

 

[Ignatius A]

I see you also are the type that projects your own thoughts on people thinking that is the case.

Have a nice one.

I must be right

 

[Twilight Hue]

I must be right

Sure. If you want think that.

Enjoy it.

 

[Ignatius A]

Sure. If you want think that.

Enjoy it.

It has nothing to do with what I think, its your reaction

 

[Ignatius A]

This is my sentiment as well.

It was very liberating for me, too.

What were you "liberated" from?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Better yet, read the dictionary definition for faith.

Faith-: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
Definition of FAITH

This is meaning that I am using whether you agree with it or not.

Heh... I love how you had to skip over three definitions that support what I'm saying before you got to that one.

1
a
: allegiance to duty or a person : LOYALTY
lost faith in the company's president

b(1)
: fidelity to one's promises
(2)
: sincerity of intentions
acted in good faith


2
a(1)
: belief and trust in and loyalty to God
(2)
: belief in the traditional doctrines of a religion
b(1)
: firm belief in something for which there is no proof
clinging to the faith that her missing son would one day return

(2)
: complete trust

3
: something that is believed especially with strong conviction
especially : a system of religious beliefs
the Protestant faith

 

[Clizby Wampuscat]

There are many discussions on this forum asking that Christian doctrines be proven (according to what one understands 'proof' to mean).

By 'proof', the person usually means "The validation of a proposition by application of specified rules, as of induction or deduction, to assumptions, axioms, and sequentially derived conclusions". This reasoning is erroneously employed to show the validity of one's stated position of faith. However, this entirely misses the point...

Here is what the Bible clearly defines as faith: Hebrews 4:11 (NRSVue) shows the fundamental error of this approach: "Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen."

In other words, it is folly to apply the conventional standard of proof to one's religious convictions. Since it is both assurance and conviction, the conventional standard of proof clearly does not apply.

Isn't it about time that some people stopped challenging a person's faith by applying the principle of "proof"?

I never questions one's faith I question their reasoning for belief. If someone does not want a conversation about their faith I respect that. But believing things to be true by faith is unreliable not noble.

 

[Twilight Hue]

It has nothing to do with what I think, its your reaction

I'm offering a response to the query.

I think you reacted rather erroneously over it.

 

[Ignatius A]

I never questions one's faith I question their reasoning for belief. If someone does not want a conversation about their faith I respect that. But believing things to be true by faith is unreliable not noble.

Do you drive an automobile?