|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 15, 2017 20:41:09 GMT
I sense that we are going to get into a semantic argument, but essentially I believe that your faith will only remain static/the same (insert word you want here) if you are not working on it, and if you are not working on it then you are paying it lip service. In short I believe that real faith is constantly examined and challenged. I rarely get into semantic arguments.
People create them from my statements all the time though so maybe I do start them. I try to be as blunt and simplistic as possible.
Our disagreeing about the notion of faith is not semantics.
You believe faith is something to be constantly challenged whereas I believe faith is the equivalent of confidence which means there's no reason to challenge it until it can be shattered.
It's a waste of time to have faith in something that is so easily and constantly challenged. It would seem that would just lead to having your faith match up to your opinion.
constantly challenging something does not mean constantly changing that thing. But consider this, you (hypothetical person) decides that they are a Christian when they are 12, as they grow up they learn more and (hopefully) apply that to their faith, over time their faith grows and changes with them as they learn more and are challenged against what they currently hold to be true. Moreover as their ability to understand grows their faith changes as well (simply because they are growing in understanding). Or you could 'know' at four and never change your belief, which is exactly what Ada claimed. now you tell me who is more likely to have a good understanding of faith and is more likely to have a deeper and more robust faith?
|
|