As the definition states there is no proof of the belief, only blind adherence, hence the subject of this thread; Reason or logic does not have to be explained or expected.
You can't just declare it to be true and then invent some way of accounting for the natural man's inability to understand it! But that is precisely what Paul did.
While it might not always be that obvious or apparent or easy to identify, all logic and reason starts with and builds on a premise that is simply accepted and presumed to be true, regardless of whether it is properly identified, or how common and universally accepted that premise is (or isn't.)
I don't think this is missing from Paul's writings... but, perhaps it is not all that obvious. I think parts of it show up in places like Romans 3:23. Unless or until someone relates to that, there probably isn't going to be much sense in (or need for) a personal savior, much less any change in the already common and universally accepted basis for reality in their heart.
Where or how does any change start? Well, regardless of whatever words are spoken, even by the apostle Paul himself, it appears they are only attended to when the Lord opens someone's heart. see Acts 16:14.
Where or how does any change start? Well, regardless of whatever words are spoken, even by the apostle Paul himself, it appears they are only attended to when the Lord opens someone's heart.
Presumption is the only kind of reasoning which supplies new ideas, the only kind which is, in this sense, synthetic. Induction is justified as a method which must in the long run lead up to the truth, and that, by gradual modification of the actual conclusion. There is no such warrant for presumption. The hypothesis which it problematically concludes is frequently utterly wrong itself, and even the method need not ever lead to the truth; for it may be that the features of the phenomena which it aims to explain have no rational explanation at all. Its only justification is that its method is the only way in which there can be any hope of attaining a rational explanation.
Would you provide a more fitting or personally agreeable definition?
I realize the theological definition is more complicated than Brittanica’s. And it depends on which theologian or charlatan you ask. Victor wierwille certainly endeavored his own creative, ever-changing definitions.
In the context of spiritual matters, I usually define FAITH as a letting go, a complete openness, a complete trust, which is the opposite of white-knuckled, clenching, clinging BELIEF.
I believe what has been proven to me, also. Until, of course, a new, stronger, more convincing proof is presented.
But this is not the question.
You said the Britannica definition of faith is laughably wrong. I knocked, asked and sought your insight. If you can’’t or won’t answer the question, fine.
I believe what has been proven to me, also. Until, of course, a new, stronger, more convincing proof is presented.
But this is not the question.
You said the Britannica definition of faith is laughably wrong. I knocked, asked and sought your insight. If you can’’t or won’t answer the question, fine.
I don't know if I like it or not because I don't know how you define faith, or, at best, I'm unsure how you define it. You said: Faith is believing what is proven. Is that correct?
If not, could you phrase it another way? If I got it right, fine. I accept your definition, and I neither like it nor dislike it.
STL provided a definition from Britannica and I provided my own very simple definition. I even contrasted faith with belief. Your definition makes three. Great!
Victor said faith is what you have and belief is what you do. This may tie in with the Pistis Christou debate -- objective or subjective genitive? (Gal 2:16, Gal 3:22, Rom 3:22...)
I imagine others posters might define faith differently, still.
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
This is one reference of the word faith in the bible and clearly states that whatever is hoped for is not in existence at the present time. Whoever wants something to happen knows it is not now happening.
Is Jesus Christ coming back sometime in the future? There is no “evidence” or “proof” that it will happen, only the word of some writers in the bible.
One has to line up, roll up their sleeve, and be vaccinated, to believe Jesus is coming back (did he really ascend into heaven in the first place.)
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
19
12
19
13
Popular Days
Nov 30
17
Mar 18
12
Mar 17
10
Mar 12
7
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 19 posts
Rocky 12 posts
cman 19 posts
chockfull 13 posts
Popular Days
Nov 30 2023
17 posts
Mar 18 2023
12 posts
Mar 17 2023
10 posts
Mar 12 2023
7 posts
Popular Posts
Stayed Too Long
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen. This is one reference of the word faith in the bible and clearly states that whatever is hoped for is n
Raf
I absolutely agree. Back to the original analogy, a vaccine is injected into the healthy body. It is not sprayed in areas where the infecting virus might be. I can think of another "vaccine" tha
TLC
While it might not always be that obvious or apparent or easy to identify, all logic and reason starts with and builds on a premise that is simply accepted and presumed to be true, regardless of wheth
Posted Images
Stayed Too Long
The floor is yours. Please instruct me how to understand.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
faith is probably the biggest thing needed, and let your faith reveal itself to you and not some preconceived definition of it
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
https://www.britannica.com › dictionary › faith
As the definition states there is no proof of the belief, only blind adherence, hence the subject of this thread; Reason or logic does not have to be explained or expected.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
that dictionary is wrong. lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
TLC
While it might not always be that obvious or apparent or easy to identify, all logic and reason starts with and builds on a premise that is simply accepted and presumed to be true, regardless of whether it is properly identified, or how common and universally accepted that premise is (or isn't.)
I don't think this is missing from Paul's writings... but, perhaps it is not all that obvious. I think parts of it show up in places like Romans 3:23. Unless or until someone relates to that, there probably isn't going to be much sense in (or need for) a personal savior, much less any change in the already common and universally accepted basis for reality in their heart.
Where or how does any change start? Well, regardless of whatever words are spoken, even by the apostle Paul himself, it appears they are only attended to when the Lord opens someone's heart. see Acts 16:14.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
i agree
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Presumption is the only kind of reasoning which supplies new ideas, the only kind which is, in this sense, synthetic. Induction is justified as a method which must in the long run lead up to the truth, and that, by gradual modification of the actual conclusion. There is no such warrant for presumption. The hypothesis which it problematically concludes is frequently utterly wrong itself, and even the method need not ever lead to the truth; for it may be that the features of the phenomena which it aims to explain have no rational explanation at all. Its only justification is that its method is the only way in which there can be any hope of attaining a rational explanation.
— Charles S. Peirce
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Would you provide a more fitting or personally agreeable definition?
I realize the theological definition is more complicated than Brittanica’s. And it depends on which theologian or charlatan you ask. Victor wierwille certainly endeavored his own creative, ever-changing definitions.
In the context of spiritual matters, I usually define FAITH as a letting go, a complete openness, a complete trust, which is the opposite of white-knuckled, clenching, clinging BELIEF.
What definition works for you, cman?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
Either Paul's writtings are a great lie or he's talking about something you know nothing about
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
Are those the only options?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
No, I don't think so. You know when only 2 options are presented then there is always more
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
You said that dictionary is laughably wrong. What would be a satisfactorily correct definition of faith?
Claims have been asserted. Assumptions have been made about people's understanding. I am asking to advance understanding and discussion.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I have claimed nothing and assumed nothing. Or show me what the f you are talking about.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
If you want to advance your understanding then listen
Or do as Jesus instructed ask seek knock.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I'm asking for and seeking your definition of faith. I'm listening.
Edited by Nathan_JrLink to comment
Share on other sites
cman
I believe what has been proven to me. If you want my definition then there it is.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That doesn't seem to define what most people would call faith.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I believe what has been proven to me, also. Until, of course, a new, stronger, more convincing proof is presented.
But this is not the question.
You said the Britannica definition of faith is laughably wrong. I knocked, asked and sought your insight. If you can’’t or won’t answer the question, fine.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
lol...
yeah waysider.....and that's the way it is
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
you just don't like the answer
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
Another assumption.
I don't know if I like it or not because I don't know how you define faith, or, at best, I'm unsure how you define it. You said: Faith is believing what is proven. Is that correct?
If not, could you phrase it another way? If I got it right, fine. I accept your definition, and I neither like it nor dislike it.
STL provided a definition from Britannica and I provided my own very simple definition. I even contrasted faith with belief. Your definition makes three. Great!
Victor said faith is what you have and belief is what you do. This may tie in with the Pistis Christou debate -- objective or subjective genitive? (Gal 2:16, Gal 3:22, Rom 3:22...)
I imagine others posters might define faith differently, still.
Edited by Nathan_JrGloves
Link to comment
Share on other sites
cman
if you want a different answer ask someone else lol
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Nathan_Jr
I don’t want a different answer from you. I got your answer - faith is believing what has been proven.
Got it.
Edited by Nathan_JrLike a duck, it just sits there.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Stayed Too Long
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.
This is one reference of the word faith in the bible and clearly states that whatever is hoped for is not in existence at the present time. Whoever wants something to happen knows it is not now happening.
Is Jesus Christ coming back sometime in the future? There is no “evidence” or “proof” that it will happen, only the word of some writers in the bible.
One has to line up, roll up their sleeve, and be vaccinated, to believe Jesus is coming back (did he really ascend into heaven in the first place.)
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.