Originally posted by ChessPraxisSounds good to me. 😏
I believe in God, the Father Almighty, Maker of Heaven and earth;
and in Jesus Christ, His only Son Our Lord,
Who was conceived by the Holy Ghost, born of the Virgin Mary, suffered under Pontius Pilate, was crucified, dead, and buried.
He descended into Hell; the third day He rose again from the dead;
He ascended into Heaven, and sitteth at the r ...[text shortened]... saints, the forgiveness of sins, the resurrection of the dead and the life everlasting.
Amen.
Originally posted by vistesdYes, but since you say you dont use the word "believe", in amongst an array of other things, could not you also say 2?
[b][...continued from above[
When people ask “What do you ‘believe’?”, or talk about “right ‘believing’”, and such—I normally take that in the epistemic sense. And I think that has become problematic for much of modern Christianity, turning soterias into a matter of “thinking right”. Of course, that is what is mostly argued about on here—both ...[text shortened]... ss all that (as much as I want to write and more than you likely want to read) comes down to—1).[/b]
BTW, thnx for my morning read. I'll have to TRY again later and see if I can come up with a better response- but I doubt it 🙂
1 edit
What do you believe? - Revision 1.3
1) Something? 2) Nothing. 3) Unsure. 4) Nobody else's biz. 5) None of the above. 6) All of the above. 7) Please repeat the question. 8) Seems I forgot. 9) Everything. 10) Those things I can see, touch, taste, smell. 11) Only things I can measure, weigh and test in the lab. 12) Facts with narrow parameters. 13) I'm still thinking. 14) Sermons in the general forum Thread 143629. 15) The Apostles' Creed. 16) Some of the stuff I don't reject. 17) Nobody else's biz or entertainment.
gb
Originally posted by vistesdThe Bible teaches us to have faith in God. Abraham was said to be the friend of God because he had faith in God and that faith was accounted as righteousness for him.
[b][...continued from above[
When people ask “What do you ‘believe’?”, or talk about “right ‘believing’”, and such—I normally take that in the epistemic sense. And I think that has become problematic for much of modern Christianity, turning soterias into a matter of “thinking right”. Of course, that is what is mostly argued about on here—both ...[text shortened]... ss all that (as much as I want to write and more than you likely want to read) comes down to—1).[/b]
My own take on this is that God has a plan for us and he is all knowing and benevolent and the source of all righteousness. It is only when we agree with his direction or word that we attain such righteousness, otherwirse, we can only hope to attain a degree of self righteousness that is prone to error.
In Hebrews it is said that hope is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen.
As my pappy used to tell me, hope is a "verb". It's not just wishful thinking, rather, it is action based upon wishful thinking.
And so it goes, where ever your faith is placed translates into how you live your life and why it is key to destiny.
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyIs this the same question as "In what do you have faith?"
[b]What do you believe?
1) Something? 2) Nothing. 3) You're unsure. 4) Nobody else's biz. 5) None of the above.
6) All of the above. 7) Please repeat the question. 8) I forgot. 9) Other? 10) ______ .
gb[/b]
Is seems to me that faith involves acting without the usual tests of everyday belief. Everyday belief is "seeing is believing" while faith is believing without, or while not, seeing.
Originally posted by JS357Quite sure we're on the same page. We have three means of perception: Empiricism (experience it), Rationalism (reason it out) and Faith Perception (accept it from a person who's authority you accept). In the context of "What Do You Believe?" my focus is on the person (God) or thing (idol) in which each member's confidence is placed for the eternal salvation of their immortal souls. The lively conversation in another current companion thread in the Spirituality Forum hould prove worthwhile.
Is this the same question as "In what do you have faith?"
Is seems to me that faith involves acting without the usual tests of everyday belief. Everyday belief is "seeing is believing" while faith is believing without, or while not, seeing.
Thread 143604
gb
Originally posted by whodeyThumbs Up.
The Bible teaches us to have faith in God. Abraham was said to be the friend of God because he had faith in God and that faith was accounted as righteousness for him.
My own take on this is that God has a plan for us and he is all knowing and benevolent and the source of all righteousness. It is only when we agree with his direction or word that we attai ...[text shortened]... ver your faith is placed translates into how you live your life and why it is key to destiny.
Originally posted by whodeyThe Bible teaches us to have faith in God.
The Bible teaches us to have faith in God. Abraham was said to be the friend of God because he had faith in God and that faith was accounted as righteousness for him.
My own take on this is that God has a plan for us and he is all knowing and benevolent and the source of all righteousness. It is only when we agree with his direction or word that we attai ...[text shortened]... ver your faith is placed translates into how you live your life and why it is key to destiny.
Do you mean us, or yourself? I don't partake in your 'us.
My own take on this is that God has a plan for us and he is all knowing and benevolent and the source of all righteousness. It is only when we agree with his direction or word that we attain such righteousness, otherwirse, we can only hope to attain a degree of self righteousness that is prone to error.
Again. you use the fourth person, grouped, and not the first person singular. Can't you be alone in your beliefs?
It is only when 'you' agree with 'your' direction and your words that 'you' may attain such..... that 'you' hope you are not prone to error.
And so it goes, where ever your faith is placed translates into how you live your life and why it is key to destiny.
Agreed.
- Joined
- 31 May 06
- Moves
- 1795
2 edits
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI believe....
[b]What do you believe? - Revision 1.3
1) Something? 2) Nothing. 3) Unsure. 4) Nobody else's biz. 5) None of the above. 6) All of the above. 7) Please repeat the question. 8) Seems I forgot. 9) Everything. 10) Those things I can see, touch, taste, smell. 11) Only things I can measure, weigh and test in the lab. 12) Facts with narrow parameters. Creed. 16) Some of the stuff I don't reject. 17) Nobody else's biz or entertainment.
gb[/b]
I believe that truth is important, and that it is good/best to try to believe as few false things,
and as many true things as possible.
To that end, all beliefs should be challenged and challengeable so that you only hold on to
those that stand up to scrutiny.
You also should only believe that which you can currently rationally justify.
If you can't yet justify something then you shouldn't yet believe in it.
I believe that scientific skepticism
http://sd4kids.skepdic.com/scientificskepticism.html
Is not [just] the best way of determining the truth about the world we live in, it's the only way of
determining the truth about the world we live in.
And that science can, indeed must, inform our moral and ethical values.
&feature=channel_video_title
I am, as well as being an agnostic strong atheist, (among other things) A Secular Humanist.
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?section=main&page=values
http://www.secularhumanism.org/index.php?page=declaration§ion=main
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secular_humanism
Does this answer your question?
1 edit
Originally posted by Grampy BobbyI tend to understand idolatry very broadly (which has generally been the Judaic view as well): can be words “graven” on a page; can be deeply “graven” conceptualizations of God that we are afraid not to cling to; can be ideas that we are afraid to examine, for fear we might be wrong. Thus, I think there can be such a thing as a “Christian idolatry”, a “Jewish idolatry”, a “Taoist idolatry”, a “Muslim idolatry”, etc., etc.—even among folks who are loudly denouncing (someone else’s) idolatry.
Quite sure we're on the same page. We have three means of perception: Empiricism (experience it), Rationalism (reason it out) and Faith Perception (accept it from a person who's authority you accept). In the context of "What Do You Believe?" my focus is on the person (God) or thing (idol) in which each member's confidence is placed for the eternal salva ...[text shortened]... in the Spirituality Forum hould prove worthwhile.
Thread 143604
gb
In sum, I think that idolatry has as much to do with attitude as with the object of that attitude. Thus, I have always found it difficult to say this or that person is caught in idolatry—how easy to misconstrue another’s words on here, let alone the underlying attitude! The most I might ever say is, “That seems to me that it could be a mite . . .”, or some such.
—Years ago, a poster on here who no longer participates, coined the phrase “True Christian™” to describe what seemed to be the attitude displayed in some of the intra-mural arguments among various Christians. That “TM” might be taken as an indication of an idolatrous (or quasi-idolatrous) attitude with regard to some specific set beliefs, dogmatically held. (Note the emphasis on “might”.) That is one reason—as well as the one I mentioned, of not wanting to get involved in those “TM” disputes, that I eschew the label as I explore my Christic roots after some years, in the light of new understandings (such as the metaphysical “beliefs” that I so laboriously outlined above). Again, I am not going to try to say that any particular person’s arguments on here are “idolatrous”.
—I also share with Suzianne the experience of having revealed personal data, feelings and beliefs, only to have them viciously attacked, in very personal terms, by the folks who said something like, “Come on, tell us about yourself.” [In my case, they happened to be mostly Christians; but I don’t extrapolate from that to any generalizations.] So, in terms of your list, there is also a bit of 17) from your list. Such attacks can’t hurt me, but they are a waste of time. Just as it is a waste of time to engage with people who only read a bit of what you say, and then attempt to tell you what you mean, what your beliefs “really are”. It is not a waste of time to try to clarify and attempt to defend in cogent argument beliefs that one has articulated; after all, one might be wrong, and exposing one’s thought to that kind of discourse can be valuable.
Your idea of faith as accepting something from a trusted authority, plus whodey’s comments and JS357s I think point up that faith can have varying valid meanings. As I use it, again, it has to do with an existential stance or attitude that (again following a bit on whodey and JS357 and your recent bungey-jumping analogy) has a sense of “letting go” about it—without the guarantee of a safety net (or how far the bungey will stretch). It is an attitude that allows decisive action without the security of certainty, or even of the ability to calculate (even subjectively) probabilities for the outcome. But that usage (which I would suggest is very Pauline, by the way) does not mean that the alternative usage you present here is in any way wrong.
In religious terms, seeking epistemic certainty is the opposite of faith (again, as I understand it). And I think that is a bit of what St. Paul’s paradoxical language that whodey referred to is trying to convey. In that sense, I might suggest (I’m just thinking “out loud” here!) that faith is inductive rather than deductive. One accepts, for example, the authority of a source that one trusts in the matter simply because it keeps working out—more pragmatic than epistemic. But, after, all no matter how strong the past evidence that the sun will rise tomorrow, it might not—that is the “problem of induction”. Similarly, an example I use often, why do twelve-step folks keep working the steps? Because they work for them. And the aesthetic part of it is simply how much it enriches one’s life.
Originally posted by vistesdPost appreciated!
I tend to understand idolatry very broadly (which has generally been the Judaic view as well): can be words “graven” on a page; can be deeply “graven” conceptualizations of God that we are afraid not to cling to; can be ideas that we are afraid to examine, for fear we might be wrong. Thus, I think there can be such a thing as a “Christian idolatry”, a “Je ...[text shortened]... use they work for them. And the aesthetic part of it is simply how much it enriches one’s life.
-m.
Originally posted by mikelomMuch thanks. By the way, I love that phrase "mind-wrought": very Zen (and also, methinks, useful for looking at the notion of idolatry). I wish I had had it the other night when I was talking with someone who had gotten caught in their own mind-wrought net, a net weighted down by their reification of what was, in reality, only mind-wrought, so that they were sinking into depression. That person also has a poetic and contemplative bent, so that phrase alone might have been effective at cutting the net. I will offer it at the next opportunity.
Post appreciated!
-m.
