Originally posted by twhiteheadI apologise, I did not actually read the article myself. You are right: it uses the term faith but not the term faith perception
The phrase 'faith perception' does not occur on that site.
So Grampy, what is faith perception. Is it a term you made up yourself (which is fine so long as you define it for us)? Or is it recognised in the wider world (in which case, give us a link to a definition since no-one here has heard of it)
Essentially, what is the difference between faith and faith perception? And how is it demonstrated to create useful knowledge?
--- Penguin.
Originally posted by twhiteheadI'll bet you're a hit at all the parties.
So essentially you made up the phrase 'faith perception' and have just wasted my time because you didn't want to admit it. If you had just said that in the first place, I would have happily accepted the terminology and continued the discussion.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHIt was simply a term I was not familiar with so I wanted to know its origin. But instead of simply saying he made it up Grampy Bobby put a lot of effort into beating about the bush - I have no idea why as I am perfectly happy to accept new terminology.
I'll bet you're a hit at all the parties.
Why criticize me and not him?
Originally posted by twhiteheadOne, I've seen/heard the term prior to reading it here or from GB.
It was simply a term I was not familiar with so I wanted to know its origin. But instead of simply saying he made it up Grampy Bobby put a lot of effort into beating about the bush - I have no idea why as I am perfectly happy to accept new terminology.
Why criticize me and not him?
Two, upon exposure to the two-word phrase the first time, it did not seem unusual or so foreign as to cause any hiccup in understanding the meaning without further explanation by any one.
Three, since it is such a relatively simple phrase to assimilate, one can only speculate why a major issue is being taken on a minor point.
Originally posted by FreakyKBHThen I would be interested in any references you might be aware of.
One, I've seen/heard the term prior to reading it here or from GB.
Two, upon exposure to the two-word phrase the first time, it did not seem unusual or so foreign as to cause any hiccup in understanding the meaning without further explanation by any one.
Well it may be familiar to you, but it wasn't to me, is that good reason to criticize me?
Three, since it is such a relatively simple phrase to assimilate, one can only speculate why a major issue is being taken on a minor point.
I merely asked him what the origin of the phrase was, and he is the one that made a major issue out of it by rudely referring to books he read at university, then suggesting I do google search, then quoting himself using it, then finally sending me to a website that didn't use it at all.
I he has simply said he made it up, or he didn't know its origin, I would have happily moved on, but instead he made out that it was a commonly used term and that he knew of references that contained it, and I continued to push him in the hope that he would present something.
Then instead of apologizing for giving me the runaround he has the gall to say we have no 'common ground'. And then you criticize me?
1 edit
Originally posted by twhiteheadI have also never heard it before.
Then I would be interested in any references you might be aware of.
[b]Two, upon exposure to the two-word phrase the first time, it did not seem unusual or so foreign as to cause any hiccup in understanding the meaning without further explanation by any one.
Well it may be familiar to you, but it wasn't to me, is that good reason to criticize me? ...[text shortened]... g me the runaround he has the gall to say we have no 'common ground'. And then you criticize me?[/b]
If GB had used the term faith, then no questions would have been asked. But he used the term faith perception, implying a difference from faith alone (otherwise he would just have said faith.
Since it was clear that something other than faith alone was meant, TWhitehead just wanted clarification of what the difference was. It has become a big thing simply because the clarification never came.
--- Penguin
Originally posted by PenguinFaith perception to me means someone perceiving another person as having faith.
I have also never heard it before.
If GB had used the term faith, then no questions would have been asked. But he used the term faith [b]perception, implying a difference from faith alone (otherwise he would just have said faith.
Since it was clear that something other than faith alone was meant, TWhitehead just wanted c ...[text shortened]... rence was. It has become a big thing simply because the clarification never came.
--- Penguin[/b]
So that means it is outside the person who actually has said faith.
I perceive you are wet, I just saw you come out of the swimming pool.
The wet person is separate from the one who perceives that specific attribute.
Then the wet person cans say I perceive you are dry, etc., reversing the role.
At least that is what 'faith perception' sounds like to me.
Originally posted by PenguinTo be fair he did actually give a definition. It basically means believing something someone tells you because you have faith in that person.
Since it was clear that something other than faith alone was meant, TWhitehead just wanted clarification of what the difference was. It has become a big thing simply because the clarification never came.
I just wanted to know the origin of the term so I could read more about it before discussing it.
For example I want to know whether believing something others tell you even though you don't trust those people still counts as 'faith perception'. If the term is a standard one I can read through some references and get a feel for its meaning, if he just made it up then I must ask him for clarification, but asking Grampy for clarification is like asking a Norwegian what the fox says. At the end of the song, you still won't know.
Originally posted by twhitehead'Faith perception' as GB uses it basically has no clear definition. He just uses the term more or less willy-nilly, and if you press him for clarification on his intended meaning, he may give you one of several different (and in some cases, contradictory) characterizations. For evidence of all this, I would enter into submission the following threads:
To be fair he did actually give a definition. It basically means believing something someone tells you because you have faith in that person.
I just wanted to know the origin of the term so I could read more about it before discussing it.
For example I want to know whether believing something others tell you even though you don't trust those people stil ...[text shortened]... tion is like asking a Norwegian what the fox says. At the end of the song, you still won't know.
Thread 153483
Thread 153656
Thread 154159
"To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse. To deny the youth of today access to scientific empiricism because it doesn't corroborate a fable written by a wandering desert tribesman 4,000 years ago is lunacy. These wicked views implanted in young minds can be incredibly overpowering, a form of brainwashing, and they will take a stranglehold on their curiosity and love of knowledge. I believe the teaching of Creationism in schools to be a very serious crime." (OP)
First, an apology for the part my ancillary comments and contrarian points of view played in disrupting the flow of a robust discussion on this timely topic, "Teaching Creationism is a crime". Second, as an 11th Hour Courtesy to Pianoman1, an apropos seamless companion thread will be offered later this evening. Its topic: "Three Systems of Human Perception".
2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby
"To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse. To deny the youth of today access to scientific empiricism because it doesn't corroborate a fable written by a ...[text shortened]... anion thread will be offered later this evening. Its topic: "Three Systems of Human Perception".
Second, as an 11th Hour Courtesy to Pianoman1, an apropos seamless companion thread will be offered later this evening. Its topic: "Three Systems of Human Perception".
I for one look forward to that, provided that it is not just a rehash of Thread 153656.
Originally posted by Grampy Bobby"First, an apology for the part my ancillary comments and contrarian points of view played in disrupting the flow of a robust discussion on this timely topic, "Teaching Creationism is a crime. Second, as an 11th Hour Courtesy to Pianoman1, an apropos seamless companion thread will be offered later this evening. Its topic: "Three Systems of Human Perception".
"To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse. To deny the youth of today access to scientific empiricism because it doesn't corroborate a fable written by a ...[text shortened]... anion thread will be offered later this evening. Its topic: "Three Systems of Human Perception".
As promised: Thread 156150
Originally posted by Pianoman1There are thoughts that cross my mind on a number of levels.
To teach young children today that the world is less than 10,000 years old amounts to the most awful abuse. To warp young minds with the staggeringly ignorant dictum that faith is more important than evidence is more harmful than sexual abuse. To deny the youth of today access to scientific empiricism because it doesn't corroborate a fable written by a wan ...[text shortened]... love of knowledge. I believe the teaching of Creationism in schools to be a very serious crime.
First of all, science was never ment to become it's own entity concerning religious thought. Yet some people use it as an enemy of religion. That concept is foolish at best.
Second, many christain churches are on this kick, (past maybe 30yrs) that the earth was created in 6 thousand years. A philosiphy that is unsupported by the scriptures, and totally based on an Old Testiment prophet who was trying to explain the eternity of God. "One day is like a thousand years to God." Notice the prophet never said, one day was a thousand years. If people of that time comprehended a million, then the prophet would have said, one day was like a million years. Basically, time and space have no meaning to God. And as R.J.Hinds said to me, "God created time too"
Third, there is merit to having faith of one fashion or another. You can go to any hospital and ask the doctors and nurses about recovery habits. Those without a faith, tend to have slow and poor recoveries. And those with a faith will have a faster and be more physically/mentally whole.
More than just hospitals; children attending school - more wholesome outlook on life when faith is involved. Families in general - also a more wholesome outlook when faith is involved. These facts are not just my random thoughts, nor just some religious spewing, but scientifically proven.
Forth. My own personal view on creationism and evolution, why not both. I have no problem with 100 billion year old world, dinisours, etc. And until a certain point God steps in, and you have Adam and Eve.
Originally posted by PudgenikAnother view some hold in scripture is the gap theory, where there is a
There are thoughts that cross my mind on a number of levels.
First of all, science was never ment to become it's own entity concerning religious thought. Yet some people use it as an enemy of religion. That concept is foolish at best.
Second, many christain churches are on this kick, (past maybe 30yrs) that the earth was created in 6 thousand years. A phi ...[text shortened]... ar old world, dinisours, etc. And until a certain point God steps in, and you have Adam and Eve.
huge number of years between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. I have friends that believe
that, and a few of them know scripture very well, I've had hardy debates
with them. The belief holds that time was when the Dino's lived and so on.
I disagree with it, but I acknowledge it as possible.
Kelly
Originally posted by KellyJayOn what authority would you disagree?
Another view some hold in scripture is the gap theory, where there is a
huge number of years between Gen 1:1 and 1:2. I have friends that believe
that, and a few of them know scripture very well, I've had hardy debates
with them. The belief holds that time was when the Dino's lived and so on.
I disagree with it, but I acknowledge it as possible.
Kelly