Archaeopteryx
Wanderer
More accurately, they are released from having to critically think about and potentially reconsider their theological commitments. All they have to do is play the faith card.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
More accurately, they are released from having to critically think about and potentially reconsider their theological commitments. All they have to do is play the faith card.My friend.......as far as I can tell.....in the 21st century west, faith is NOT considered a virtue. It is the "sign of stupidity and gullibility" to the world that you speak of. Fortunately, there are two other benefits of the faith, that the faith are graced with. 1. The faithful are released, by grace from skepticism and cynicism regarding faith,
You seem to be saying that one needs to be perfectly omniscient in order to NOT have faith. Why would that be the case? When the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports a particular belief, we have good reason to accept it as true, even if its truth cannot be guaranteed with absolute certainty.You do have faith in those things - which you erroneously call "certainty" - because even though you cannot be surethose things wont happen, you believe they will not. Ask the people who got swallowed into sinkholes how many of them were sure that would never happen. As your own boss, you still believe your dollar (or pound, or even your commodities you exchange in business) will be worth something tomorrow. That is based on faith in market trends - it has worked so far. And, you are erroneously equating that with knowledge.
You don't seem to understand the difference. You equate your own measure of certainty with knowledge, when in fact it is an illusion of knowledge. It isn't semantics; as I said intellectuals often have the hardest time understanding faith, and understanding separating what they think faith is from what it really is.
You do have faith in those things - which you erroneously call "certainty" - because even though you cannot be surethose things wont happen, you believe they will not. Ask the people who got swallowed into sinkholes how many of them were sure that would never happen. As your own boss, you still believe your dollar (or pound, or even your commodities you exchange in business) will be worth something tomorrow. That is based on faith in market trends - it has worked so far. And, you are erroneously equating that with knowledge.
You don't seem to understand the difference. You equate your own measure of certainty with knowledge, when in fact it is an illusion of knowledge. It isn't semantics; as I said intellectuals often have the hardest time understanding faith, and understanding separating what they think faith is from what it really is.
Faith is not about foolishness. You are talking about folly here. Again, it is hard for the intellectual mind to understand faith as separate from an ignorant, foolish thing.
When experience is lacking, there is a lack of exerience. Just because you lack experience doesn't mean you are ignorant or gullible. And, certainly if you lack experience but have faith that does not make you ignorant and gullible. Again, you keep equating faith with ignorance and gullibility. This is your thesis; the basis of every argument against faith you make ends with some form of faith being ignorance and gullibility.
I said that I likely wouldn't be able to make a good case on faith to the intellectual - indeed it is almost impossible. Logic, reason and experience is all they understand; they cannot operate outside of a concrete apparatus with which to measure things. It is actually a handicap that is extolled in this culture as something to be desired.
We have to teach them to stay away from strangers because people are evil - intelligent people, gullible people, and ignorant people alike. Just because you do not see virtue in something does not mean it is not virtuous. It just doesnt. And, you are still intimating that faith = ignorance + gullibility. Your very basis is doggedly incorrect concerning faith, which is why you arent convinced now and likely will never be convinced, or persuaded.
Now, you are assuming faith means stupidity - even the stupidity a child can understand. Common experience is not common to everyone, by the way. That is why there are different cultures.
You didn't say that explicitly before. You were focused on the paradigm of faith becoming, or existing as ignorance and gullibility. We haven't even begun to couple faith and experience to the life of a believer. That kind of testimony, in my opinion, you are nowhere near ready to hear, accept or even entertain. Faith, as it were, still confounds your mind into compartmentalized options limited by you, and determined by you. You need to get out of yourself; if you remember I said faith is about something beyond yourself. You are still focusing on the self - as evident with the intellectual struggle you have between faith and everything else you hold mentally dead.
I don’t really know what you are truly trying to accomplish, but I think I will end here. I don’t want to be trolled, or lead into an endless back and forth about minutia without an understanding of the substance.
Actually all of those are very valid reasons. His kingdom was also in heaven and he went there to be a king over it. Keep in mind while its been 2000 years for us, that's really not more than two days for God so even if He returns in a thousand years it still was a short time to an immortal.
No, I'm saying Jesus is with his people, always guiding them because he's eternally alive. Not in a material sense but a spiritual sense that has physical affects in the material world.
It is similar to the effect that we experience when someone says something that's completely true, it kind of sticks with you. Even years into the future, you may be reminded of what they said because the truth of it is timeless. In this sense, Jesus has said the greatest truths of anyone ever and those who listen to him will know God.
What do you mean by that? How does that work in our reality? So, give me a practical example of how Jesus guided you in making a decision?
Ok, we can say that about any person who said anything true that sticks with us. Does it mean that all of these people are here with us guiding us spiritually?
It's hard to pin down, sometimes I'm reminded of scripture that reminds me to not worry about things or not get angry or let thoughts drive me into a negative state of being.
You seem to be saying that one needs to be perfectly omniscient in order to NOT have faith. Why would that be the case? When the overwhelming preponderance of evidence supports a particular belief, we have good reason to accept it as true, even if its truth cannot be guaranteed with absolute certainty.
Because if you know everything, you don't have to trust in anything else beyond your own knowledge. Get it?
If you don't know everything, then some measure of your combined intellectual movement is based on faith. Faith and knowledge are two sides of the same coin.
So, from what it seems like to me, it's not much different than your subconscious mind doing the work. When you say "I'm reminded", you seem to be assuming that Jesus is reminding you, or "Holy Spirit".
How do you know that you are not merely reminding yourself of the things that you've read or heard?
Again, in context of what I've asked... is this all that Jesus presence and guidance boils down to?
I don't think that was the intent of his question. You seemed to imply that we need to have faith that computer doesn't implode. His question was in regards to that assertion. You seemed to imply that either we need to know with a 100% certainty, otherwise it's all faith.
He and I merely point out that it's not the case. Again, you seem to fudge the semantics to level the playing field which isn't leveled. There's a vast difference between trusting that LCD will not explode and believing in a story that someone resurrected and is coming back on a white horse to do the same to everyone who believes.
The key word is some. Sure, some measure does, but again... it's like saying to a bodybuilder... you still have 7% fat, therefore you are fat. Do you understand the point?
Do you understand that if you don't have omniscience, you don't know everything - and therefore you have put trust (read: faith) in something beyond your own self (trends, statistics, rarity, etc.) to substantiate the likelihood, and therefore confidence in an event happening?
You can dress it up however you want to: it is faith.
Do you need faith to understand that 2 + 2 = 4?
Do you need faith to predict the answer of 2 + 2 + 2 = ?
Do you need faith to understand that 2 + 2 = 4?
Do you need faith to predict the answer of 2 + 2 + 2 = ?
Before I knew the answers to these equations, I did need faith in the person who was teaching me the right answers.
But wait, we are assuming 2 is something, right? Are we going with the axiom that 2 is a concrete, well-rounded integer (is it an integer?) Are we going to assume that the number "4" is also well-rounded? Is 4 unique?
For math, axioms, postulates and consequential corollaries are used to clean up the mess of uncertainties and things we assume to be true. Usually, you need the right dimension, field, ring, space, and a slew of acceptable axioms and postulates to back you up. 2+2 is not as easy as you may think it is, but because it is mostly assumed to be in a certain space, with certain properties we assume that its addition yields a certain image - in this case it is 4. So, yes you need faith in your establish coordinate system, field, ring, and numbers in order to say 2+2=4. Go to Vega, and see if that is the same.
In other words, you have faith in the mathematics you have learned - that has worked for you so far (trends) - to the point where you trust that 2+2=4. So you can extrapolate your faith in that system to say that 2+2+2 = 6, for example. On earth, at least.
Before I knew the answers to these equations, I did need faith in the person who was teaching me the right answers.
Sure... before you did.
You are trying too hard.
It's not easy because you are trying to project it on reality, where such projection is unwarranted. I was merely pointing out that conceptual equations that exist purely on basis of axiomatic conceptual relationships don't need to be supported by anything external.
It's as simple as holding up four fingers and counting these one by one. Again, you are trying way too hard.
Once you can validate something you no longer need faith. That's why we have science as methodology. You are attempting to poison the well and say "hey everything is the same", but it's not.
I've already explained to you. An apple that has 0.1 % poison isn't the same as one that has 80%. You are attempting to say that these are the same because there's some poison in both.
So until you know all the answers to life, you'd need to have faith in the one who does know all the answers to life.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?