The Black Vault

humphreys wrote:

DIss0n80r wrote:I think it's Cool to Capitalize words to make them seem more Special too.

I think a new dictionary is needed just for capitalized words, seeing as they apparently have completely different meanings now!

And it shall be called... a Dictionary.

humphreys wrote:Really, no one here can define faith?

1. Confident belief in the truth, value, or trustworthiness of a person, idea, or thing.
2. Belief that does not rest on logical proof or material evidence. See Synonyms at belief, trust.
3. Loyalty to a person or thing; allegiance: keeping faith with one's supporters.
4. often Faith Christianity The theological virtue defined as secure belief in God and a trusting acceptance of God's will.
5. The body of dogma of a religion: the Muslim faith.
6. A set of principles or beliefs.

Some people abuse the flexibility of the word. We can have faith in real things. We can have faith in unreal things. We can have faith in people, faith in ideas, faith in both tangibles and intangibles. Some believers like to jump back and forth between the two, as if faith in a tangible also somehow proves the existence of an intangible.

It doesn't. Faith can be misplaced. It can be wrong. Often enough, it is.

humphreys wrote:Absolute unreadable gibberish.

Just give me a definition of both, dictionary style, or a little more in-depth if needed, not walls of text 99% of which is completely irrelevant.

What the heck did I just try to read...

You did not define either "faith" or "Faith" in that post, and I defy anyone to truly understand what you just wrote, even a fellow Christian. I don't particularly enjoy reading anything you write, because it's horrendously badly written, so please keep the word count to a minimum

I suspect he snorts a lot of "Salt".

Disson8or, what I have an issue with is when faith is used to justify belief.

Statements such as "I believe God is real because I have faith" really do not make sense going by any of those definitions above. That's why I was asking for a definition from greeney because he thinks there is a definition that justifies belief - but none of them do.

I understand trust, that someone could trust God to his word, but to trust God you also must first have justification for belief, and it's when faith is used for both the justification and the trust that logic completely goes out of the window.

Going by some of those definitions, logic and faith do not need to be at odds. I can have faith (definition 1) that I will not crash my car, based on my mental state, my reasonable driving skill, and basic statistics for instance, which would be a logical faith, but the faith being employed by Christians (and others) would seem to be of the illogical kind.

Greeney complains that I do not have faith in my son, but if I go by definition 1, I can say that I do have faith in him. I have faith that he will do well because he's a bright kid, and I believe he has good parents, but that "faith", again, is not the same as the faith greeney is using to justify his belief, so trying to equate the two is clearly an epic fail. You notice that my faith in both instances is backed up by reason, and that's the difference here.

To be reasonable you must have "faith because of xyz", not just "faith because ".

Well put.

Faith is not necessarily some kind of mystical magical concept. People put their trust in things all the time. When you ride in a car or elevator, there's an element of trust involved that it will work properly and you won't get hurt or killed.

That is having faith in man and technology, just as much as trusting the specific machine itself.

For instance, when Tom posts his unintelligible rants on an internet message board, he clearly shows his faith in technology and the fruits of mankind, as publically-uneducated as either may be.

There's nothing mysterious about faith. Nor can intensity of faith alone indicate correctness. If that were so, then surely Islam has the edge on strength of conviction. Because you don't hear much about christian suicide bombers.

So, faith is nothing Special. We see it and its consequences all the time.

LOL LOL LOL..Humphreys...and DIss0n80r,

I understand your responses were to be expected.

Orangetom stated..

Faith is the name of a person...not the traditions of men. For we are in Faith Believing.

I don't expect you to understand this and I do not post it for you Humphreys but for the Brethren...in Belief.

DIss0n80r,

Faith is not necessarily some kind of mystical magical concept.

Agree here. I don't believe in mysticism, magi ck, or the mystery religions. For I know what they are and the source of them going back into Ancient History. If I believed in some kind of magical mystical concept I would be deeper into sports and Hollywood.



As a matter of fact..I was just reading the bio of a political public relations manager named Edward Bernays. Very interesting article on him and how his studies were used in advertising to "control" people to buy products...and of course now days to get people to think and vote a certain way. Control..isn't that with a basis in religion???
Are not tons of Psychologists used in advertising and such planning to get people to cede or buy into the line in order to sell a plethora of products...be controlled....willing..consent. You know...science and control???
I am thinking someone is very faithful to this religion as they have invested alot of monies into it to sell products ..including candidates.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Edward_Bernays

I had been thinking this for a number of years in my readings but until recently had never come across the name Edward Bernays. I was finally able to put a name to much of what I had been thinking. What is interesting was learning how far back this knowledge and technique go in history...and still goes on.

The religion of Politics is still using this technique pioneered by Edward Bernays. Managed consent/control. However..I will pass on that religion. When that train pulls out I won't be on it...but instead back on the platform.

Thanks,
Orangetom

Faith is simply surrendering your free will to God's will.

But the question remains ...how do we know that the Biblical God is not just a demi-god?

khanster wrote:Faith is simply surrendering your free will to God's will.

But the question remains ...how do we know that the Biblical God is not just a demi-god?

You know khanster...that is an excellent question...very well thought out. Thanks for thinking it through and asking.

The answer is in the fruit they produce.
What is the historical fruit of demi-gods?? Do you know??

What does the history say about it??

Thanks,
Orangetom

orangetom1999 wrote:

khanster wrote:Faith is simply surrendering your free will to God's will.

But the question remains ...how do we know that the Biblical God is not just a demi-god?

You know khanster...that is an excellent question...very well thought out. Thanks for thinking it through and asking.

The answer is in the fruit they produce.
What is the historical fruit of demi-gods?? Do you know??

What does the history say about it??

Thanks,
Orangetom

I can argue that there is strong evidence that the Biblical God might qualify as a demi-god. Millions of people have been killed in the name of the Biblical God.

khanster,

I can argue that there is strong evidence that the Biblical God might qualify as a demi-god. Millions of people have been killed in the name of the Biblical God.

Really??...can you outline that for me on a time line?? You know..historically??

But what does history itself say about demi-gods and their record left to us in history??

This verses what is said in the Bible??



You know...khanster ...now that I re think it....how would you define a demi-god?? That should be a good place to start.

I define it as men seeking absolute power..

Or as stated in Morals and Dogma..."the absolute mastery of everything."

Thanks,
Orangetom