|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 15, 2017 20:18:16 GMT
I question my faith all the time, static faith means nothing. Consistent faith is not the same thing as static faith. |
|
|
|
Post by gadreel on Jun 15, 2017 20:23:26 GMT
I question my faith all the time, static faith means nothing. Consistent faith is not the same thing as static faith. 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. |
|
|
|
Post by CoolJGS☺ on Jun 15, 2017 20:33:30 GMT
Consistent faith is not the same thing as static faith. 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.
|
|
|
|
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? |
|
|
|
Post by progressiveelement on Jun 15, 2017 23:56:57 GMT
Because Britain rocks.
😀
|
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 16, 2017 8:20:33 GMT
One can see, then, exactly why it is required in the present instance.
I can see it still troubles you. But nobody asked you to take such an interest. If you don't like such questions being asked, then you are free to move on.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 16, 2017 8:25:47 GMT
One can see, then, exactly why it is required in the present instance. I can see it still troubles you. But nobody asked you to take such an interest. If you don't like such questions being asked, then you are free to move on. What you see is me calling your thread the pathetic attempt at ridicule that it is. It doesn't trouble me. I can find much more important things to trouble about if I care to be troubled. |
|
|
|
Post by FilmFlaneur on Jun 16, 2017 8:33:09 GMT
One can see, then, exactly why it is required in the present instance. I can see it still troubles you. But nobody asked you to take such an interest. If you don't like such questions being asked, then you are free to move on. What you see is me calling your thread the pathetic attempt at ridicule that it is. It doesn't trouble me. I can find much more important things to trouble about if I care to be troubled. What I see is you making no contribution other than bluster and personal rudeness. But this hardly a surprise. It is all ironic too since earlier you have admitted that you have, indeed, asked questions of your faith. Presumably then one might expect that you would be interested why others haven't, or don't.
If it really 'doesn't trouble' you, then that is not the impression one gets.
But don't those other 'important things' of yours require attention? After all, those chemtrails won't count themselves, you know...
|
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 16, 2017 8:42:20 GMT
Which ones of you cast votes in this stupid poll? Are you willing to admit it? We don't know, but they will all be believers, that's for sure, for that is for whom it is aimed at. Actually, I'm not religious and I hit "even if I asked, no answers to be had" because I took "faith" in its lightest sense ("a strongly held belief or theory"). I have faith that if I drop something of weight while near a huge mass, it will fall towards that mass, etc. Sort of in the way many theists try to argue that atheists/agnostics/etc. also engage in "faith". Too the best of my current understanding of a given matter, I expect "x", until such a time as there are further answers to be had via further study, experience, discovery, etc., or the result directly contradicts my expectations. i.e. if something I dropped inexplicably shot away from that same huge mass, my "faith" would be shaken and I would seek answers. |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 16, 2017 8:44:33 GMT
Man, you have worn a *hole* in that word since it was used to describe Ada those many years ago.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 16, 2017 9:09:05 GMT
We don't know, but they will all be believers, that's for sure, for that is for whom it is aimed at. Actually, I'm not religious and I hit "even if I asked, no answers to be had" because I took "faith" in its lightest sense ("a strongly held belief or theory"). I have faith that if I drop something of weight while near a huge mass, it will fall towards that mass, etc. Sort of in the way many theists try to argue that atheists/agnostics/etc. also engage in "faith". Too the best of my current understanding of a given matter, I expect "x", until such a time as there are further answers to be had via further study, experience, discovery, etc., or the result directly contradicts my expectations. i.e. if something I dropped inexplicably shot away from that same huge mass, my "faith" would be shaken and I would seek answers. Wow. How fair and balanced that was. Maybe you should consider working for Fox News.  |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 16, 2017 9:14:52 GMT
Actually, I'm not religious and I hit "even if I asked, no answers to be had" because I took "faith" in its lightest sense ("a strongly held belief or theory"). I have faith that if I drop something of weight while near a huge mass, it will fall towards that mass, etc. Sort of in the way many theists try to argue that atheists/agnostics/etc. also engage in "faith". Too the best of my current understanding of a given matter, I expect "x", until such a time as there are further answers to be had via further study, experience, discovery, etc., or the result directly contradicts my expectations. i.e. if something I dropped inexplicably shot away from that same huge mass, my "faith" would be shaken and I would seek answers. Wow. How fair and balanced that was. Maybe you should consider working for Fox News. That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the comment.  Comes off punch-drunk. |
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 16, 2017 9:19:45 GMT
Wow. How fair and balanced that was. Maybe you should consider working for Fox News. That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the comment. Comes off punch-drunk. Observe as Cinemachinery plays the "makes absolutely no sense" card. Subconsciously, it's also the anti-theist way of saying, "Duh......I don't get it." |
|
|
|
Post by Cinemachinery on Jun 16, 2017 9:22:35 GMT
That makes absolutely no sense in the context of the comment. Comes off punch-drunk. Observe as Cinemachinery plays the "makes absolutely no sense" card. Later than night: Attendant: "Help ya?" Erjen: "I'd like $20 on pump three." Attendant: "OK. Do you need a receipt?" Erjen: Observe as the employee plays the "need a receipt" card!" Attendant: "Sir I'm just aski--" Erjen: "RATTLED YOUR CHAIN!" |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 17, 2017 11:16:05 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 17, 2017 11:28:59 GMT
What religion do you follow? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 17, 2017 11:47:28 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by The Herald Erjen on Jun 18, 2017 19:21:43 GMT
What religion do you follow? |
|
|
|
Post by cupcakes on Jun 18, 2017 19:45:46 GMT
tpfkar  Did you have a good blackout?
You're getting desperate when you play the "no logical reason" card. |
|
|
|
Post by camimac on Jun 18, 2017 23:58:57 GMT
I do question my faith, but I have never lost my faith. I literally take my questions to the Lord in prayer and they have been answered to my satisfaction.
|
|
