And here I should add, as I have many times before, that I think you should keep doing what works for you. If you have peace, a sound mind, etc., good for you. But it would be nice if just once, a believer would give me that same blessing.
I won't hold my breath.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Sure. It's a good, workable definition of faith, especially when you consider its implications:
1. "faith is the substance" And it is the only substance you will ever have for "things hoped for" in many cases. In other words, you will not receive what you hoped for. But, technically, faith isn't really substance. It's only imaginary substance.
2. "the evidence" Ditto. It is the only evidence, in many cases. Things you don't see may never actually be seen. If your faith in something unseen is the only evidence, then you can decide to have that kind of faith in literally anything! Heaven and hell, peace that passeth all understanding, leprechauns. Anything.
I should clarify my view: that is a good workable definition of faith, as believers use the term. But no, faith is not evidence in the real world. Not at all.
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
No, that is not my kind of faith. It is what the bible says to do in handling faith. That is not the definition of faith. The definition is trust in what someone says. The bible takes that and demands we have that and then says it is "or else," not me, nor it is MY kind.
Faith is not "believe me or else."
lol
Dictionaries help in these situations.
Is your Faith better than a Catholics Faith? Or a Baptist? Or a Mormon? How about a Jew? What about Islam? Oh wait, and the Buddhist? What about the 30,000+ other Christian Denominations? Who's right, and who's wrong with their Faith that cannot be proven?
If we would have enough proof to satisfy us we would no longer need to put our faith and trust in God. The point being that we will never be completely satisfied and have all the proof and answers to everything so why not just resign ourselves to God's way of faith.
If we would have enough proof to satisfy us we would no longer need to put our faith and trust in God. The point being that we will never be completely satisfied and have all the proof and answers to everything so why not just resign ourselves to God's way of faith.
And the only way you have of "knowing" God's way is to choose to believe a particular book.
Which book? Well, the one you have chosen, of course!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
You mean you are not really sure of what faith is? Look it up and it will make sense. Get Websters.
If Faith made sense, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Faith is the invisible realm of a Man's imagination, where anything can happen and anything can be said to say it's real, when it isn't.
I have a problem with that. Just like the Salem Witch Trials, where Faith was used in attempting to persecute the (supposable) guilty, where 19 innocent people were murdered, and hundreds were imprisoned using Spectral Evidence.
Mike, you can tell me until you're blue in the (Faith) face, you cannot tell us what will happen to a man/woman when they die. You can refer to a million books and other Religions who believe what will happen, but that's as far as you will get.
If we would have enough proof to satisfy us we would no longer need to put our faith and trust in God. The point being that we will never be completely satisfied and have all the proof and answers to everything so why not just resign ourselves to God's way of faith.
Because this leads to false doctrine and manipulation of the worst kind. God's way means a million things to a million different people, leading to answers that really go no where, accept to the person that "Believes" in their own answer.
And the only way you have of "knowing" God's way is to choose to believe a particular book.
Which book? Well, the one you have chosen, of course!
Well if it wasn't in a book then someone would have told me or I would have seen something for myself, just as the people in Jesus's day did. Which would be the more reliable source? Personal observation, word of mouth or written? I have hope in the resurrection because I've read about it, because it was written down after being repeated to others after it was observed.
Well if it wasn't in a book then someone would have told me or I would have seen something for myself, just as the people in Jesus's day did. Which would be the more reliable source? Personal observation, word of mouth or written? I have hope in the resurrection because I've read about it, because it was written down after being repeated to others after it was observed.
Why do you guys always leave out that one little (but supremely important) detail: you have chosen a book to believe!
__________________
Hebrews 13:23 Know ye that our brother Timothy is set at liberty
Linear Mode
