Wordsmith.org: the magic of words

Wordsmith Talk

About Us | What's New | Search | Site Map | Contact Us  

Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11
#30772 - 06/11/01 12:44 PM Re: "Anchorite" demonstrative quote  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
Bryan Hayward Offline
journeyman
Bryan Hayward  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
IL
I find it amazing that such statements "trouble" someone. If one looks at the history of Christianity, most of what makes a Christian a Christian lies in articles of faith (cf Nicene, Apostle's, and Anathasian Creeds) and those are supposed to be held, no matter what logic, evidence, or argument is used. Essentially, to argue that your "faith" is modified by evidence is to destroy the meaning of faith, to water it down to nothing. Jesus refused because faith is not meant to be tested (that is what you do with evidence). You have faith, you don't test it to see if it works. You hold it in the face of all opposition. Paul's evidence was that of his own enlightenment, the personal revelation/vision made to him. That is the basis of his faith. The type of faith required by Christianity (and most other religions) has indeed been differentiated by priests and theologians. Followers using that same paradigm would look like fools in the practical world. Likewise, these same theologians do not want the tools of skepticism used by followers on the tenets of their religion. The semantic difference between "blind" faith and "healthy" faith is that "blind" faith applies to anything anyone says, whereas "healthy" faith applies only to what legitimate ecclesiastical authorities say. These same authorities will tell you that you've made the right decision if your faith and the evidence you have point you in the direction of belief and obedience. They will tell you that you need more faith if your evidence leads you to a different conclusion. In this case, they are not talking about faith modified by evidence (confidence) but faith in spite of evidence (belief without evidence).

My entire point still stands. To use the term "faith" when you really mean "confidence" waters down faith to nothing. If you have faith, you believe, and that settles it. If you have confidence, then your belief is variable with the quality, quantity, and type of evidence you constantly receive.

Cheers,
Bryan



Cheers,
Bryan

You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
#30773 - 06/11/01 08:26 PM  
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Max Quordlepleen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Max Quordlepleen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409


#30774 - 06/11/01 10:02 PM Then why?  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
Bryan Hayward Offline
journeyman
Bryan Hayward  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
IL
Why use the word "faith" at all? Why not use "belief" or "religion"? Why this emphasis on the word "faith" when you don't mean it? There has to be a reason why the word "faith" is so important to you in a religious context, when you obviously are using it in the non-religious sense.

I suppose I should give up on this - language doesn't necessarily make sense. Yet I can't escape the feeling it is more important than just another minor linguistic anomaly. It is a word with very strong connotations. It is an important word. Yet it seems people try to dilute it. I just don't understand why.

Bryan



Cheers,
Bryan

You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
#30775 - 06/11/01 10:25 PM  
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
Max Quordlepleen Offline
Carpal Tunnel
Max Quordlepleen  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409

#30776 - 06/12/01 09:39 AM Re: Then why?  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
maverick Offline
Carpal Tunnel
maverick  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Ever the gracious faith-saver, Max


#30777 - 06/12/01 11:57 AM Indeed.  
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
Bryan Hayward Offline
journeyman
Bryan Hayward  Offline
journeyman

Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
IL
I can take a hint. I guess this is why it is impolite to talk religion and politics - terms are too slippery. Didn't mean to make waves - I am new, so I didn't know that such topics were politely ignored. Indeed, we can agree to disagree - a civilized thing to do.

Cheers,
Bryan



Cheers,
Bryan

You are only wretched and unworthy if you choose to be.
#30778 - 06/12/01 01:04 PM Re: Indeed.  
Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
maverick Offline
Carpal Tunnel
maverick  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Sep 2000
Posts: 4,757
Personally, I'll be sad if we ever rule off such areas as completely beyond discussion - this thread spawned some interesting langauge issues.

All the time we can keep from shouting at one another, I think we are doing OK - and you two have, I think, managed to disagree without unpleasantness (crucifriction?), so congratulations.


#30779 - 06/12/01 02:06 PM Re: Indeed.  
Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
of troy Offline
Carpal Tunnel
of troy  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Oct 2000
Posts: 5,400
rego park
yes-- like good company everywhere, we try to stay away from politics and religion... On the other hand-- we haven't gone all PC-- and while we don't go around insulting each other-- Pom, Ozzie, 'merkin and other slightly rude term are freely used. and if you get too free with your words-- the gutter police will track you down-- the real trick is to be very clever-- and then, no matter how riske your words-- we will chuckle before we blush.. and all will be fine. Or we will groan, and say--I wish I thought of that! There are some who race to be the first with a witty bon mot or pun. Most of us aren't too thin skinned-- or short tempered... we will firmly agree to disagree.. I am sure you've have a welcome from the welcome wagon-- Jackie heads it up.. but all of us welcome you.


#30780 - 06/12/01 09:16 PM Re: Indeed.  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858
wwh Offline
Carpal Tunnel
wwh  Offline
Carpal Tunnel

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 13,858


Pom, Ozzie 'merkin and other slightly rude term are freely used.

Forgive me for bringing it up again, but, please, why not "merikin" ???????

FAITH, n. Belief without evidence in what is told by one who speaks without
knowledge, of things without parallel.





#30781 - 06/12/01 10:09 PM Re: Indeed.  
Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
doc_comfort Offline
addict
doc_comfort  Offline
addict

Joined: Jan 2001
Posts: 618
Australia
As much as it pains me to question the great OT, shouldn't 'riske' be 'risque'?


Page 3 of 11 1 2 3 4 5 10 11

Moderated by  Jackie 

Forum Statistics
Forums16
Topics13,877
Posts223,586
Members9,003
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
Newest Members
bpatterson0032, Aladitya_khan, JdawgGaming, Hiteshi, JaneJane
9003 Registered Users
Who's Online Now
0 registered members (), 43 guests, and 3 spiders.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Top Posters(30 Days)
Top Posters(All Time)
wwh 13,858
Faldage 13,803
Jackie 11,613
tsuwm 10,538
LukeJavan8 8,879
AnnaStrophic 6,511
Wordwind 6,296
of troy 5,400
Disclaimer: Wordsmith.org is not responsible for views expressed on this site. Use of this forum is at your own risk and liability - you agree to hold Wordsmith.org and its associates harmless as a condition of using it.

Home | Today's Word | Yesterday's Word | Subscribe | FAQ | Archives | Search | Feedback
Wordsmith Talk | Wordsmith Chat

© 1994-2017 Wordsmith

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.6.0
Page Time: 0.014s Queries: 13 (0.003s) Memory: 2.7376 MB (Peak: 2.8696 MB) Zlib disabled. Server Time: 2017-05-28 10:30:31 UTC