|
#30772 - 06/11/01 12:44 PM
Re: "Anchorite" demonstrative quote
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
Bryan Hayward
journeyman
|
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
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
|
|
|
|
|
#30774 - 06/11/01 10:02 PM
Then why?
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
Bryan Hayward
journeyman
|
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
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Aug 2000
Posts: 3,409
|
|
|
|
#30777 - 06/12/01 11:57 AM
Indeed.
|
Joined: Apr 2001
Posts: 69
Bryan Hayward
journeyman
|
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.
|
|
|
|
|
Forums16
Topics13,878
Posts223,916
Members9,019
| |
Most Online3,341
Dec 9th, 2011
|
|
|
1 registered members (wofahulicodoc),
53
guests, and
4
spiders. |
|
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
|
