100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: Faith is not a warring tactic! | |
|---|---|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sat 08/16/08 09:25 AM
|
|
By the way.  
faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. now if the word, itself, were the very criteria of faith, then faith can be reduced to mere confidence, by definition, Voila!!! But in describing faith which is entirely a greater matter, a word is given to earmark its importunity. Sometimes, in life, living examples of showing what things are not employs showing things that are not that they are not what they claim to be. With respect to faith, faith is not employed equally by all those that bandy about the word. It means, apparently, different things to different men, and respecting the differences is not always yielding faithfulness. Now, whom is being less than diligent in that regard is a questionable matter, my friend. And that, my friend, starts wars, doesn't it? Oh, if you could only receive that by faith, faithfully.  
Correct there wouldee...people have faith in things all day long...they just are not conscious of it. For example...you know by faith a chair will hold you up. You know by faith that a stop sign means danger to those who don't stop. You know if you stick your hand in the fire it will burn you. Of course all these things have to be learned....right? Same for faith in God. The arrogance of those who think quoting the Bible is just quoting another book is absurd. It does beg the question why people who are seeking don't believe God's word? It's the way of learning too. That's why God instructs people to KNOW Him by His word or they will fall under any old spirit...and yes, there is a spirit world. People have faith all the time. Another reason why I say anyone who calls themselves an atheist lies...to themselves mostly. Focus kids!!! You're all over the place! Faith in god! meets 'Faith in a chair???' Do you QS have faith (belief without proof) in a CHAIR??? If so, I feel fo you. I took great care to offer the essential definition of Faith which is being discussed in this thread. Faith; belief without proof. I didn't make up this definition. It is webster's as it relates to the meaning of faith we are discussing here. If you wish to discuss another definition of faith, or re-invent its meaning, I suggest you start a new thread. It will avoid all the confusion. Faith in 'chair'!!! Faith in 'bible'!!! Faith in science!!! or faith ion your mother, doesn't equate with the definition of faith discussed in this thread. Please, try again! OUCH! Does the truth of what I said hurt that much??? LOL You're not only funny your silly... You discount God's divinity & the faith of many by experience & want bragging rights too???? I gave samples of everyday faith & you can't stand that either. Ha! hahahahahahahah OMT...you say faith without proof... how about miracles sign & wonders that follow those who walk according to God's ways? The only thing about blind faith for me would be that I don't have to experience EVERY bit of God's word to know it's true...seemingly contradictions & all, because of what I have experienced. Maybe God doesn't reveal Himself to all because this ain't no freak show. The who's who in the spirit world. Or maybe it's you & yours who want God's vengence more than His mercies? God challenges all of us to test & approve "HIS" perfect will according to His word. Anyone who believes in a spirit world knows there has to be guidelines ... for discernment purposes. I suppose for some it doesn't matter but it should. No matter...it's all for our good. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have faith in the law of attraction. It is something that is used by many consciously and by everyone subconsciously.
According to our science, it cannot be proven except for vague laws like the law of cause and effect. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." But that law does not observe the unseen forces at work, only the observable ones. My faith is not 100 percent or I could probably figure out how to win the lottery or move mountains. JB |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
OpenWounds wrote:
If it's because you (I'm talking generally, not to a specific one of you) believes you need to act as some kind of saviour, then perhaps it's time you accepted that some people just dont want 'saving'. The whole idea of being 'saved' is a farce. That idea comes from Christianity. But it's a bogus idea even within their own religion. Jesus, the God who is supposed to do the saving said,... John 12:47 "And if any man hear my words, and believe not, I judge him not: for I came not to judge the world, but to save the world." This clearly states that he will not judge those who do not believe. He's not going to hold it against anyone for not believing. This flies in the face of the idea that somehow belief is important to being 'saved'. The whole religion got seriously off-track. Their proclamations that a person needed to be 'saved' is bogus and does not even agree with the very words of their God. Where did they come up with this bogus idea in the first place? It's a seriously confused religion. abra. correct. to assume ones faith is in the perceived outcome of establishing the saving grace of a concept or an idea alone upon anothers person is not faith, but a deluded agenda. be it the agenda is Jesus, evolution, existentialism, herd mentality of any given congruent stripe, or the fabrications of the guilty or innocent, LOL Of course you see the humor in that as well as the stupidity of that. having faith in truth does not reveal truth by itself. Th have the capacity to do so, would impart preconditions on truth to begin with, and I cannot truthfull deduce that faith can be measured as itself in that regard. faith in truth, and faith in the depiction of truth by another can be assumed, but it is the prsuit of knowing such things of another by wearing them that may or may not lead one to believe as the other does. Belief stemming from the experiences associated by wearing thwe faith of another will lead to opportunities to test the viability of the faith needfully imposed on the faith of another. Somewhere in that pilgrimage must come revelaTION THAT LEADS TO BELIEF. If there is no revelation of the faith of another importing belief and acknowledgement of facts established by that faithful offering of another, then no belief is due. However, when such revelations show through the application of the faithful belief of another, then certainly revelation of that belief shall reveal itself if and when truth is involved. That then turns faith into knowledge through belief, which is established through revelation and supplanting belief becomes direct knowledge.. Noiw then, if YOU can agree with me that knowledge does not necessarily be excluded from these parameters i am stipulating for knowledge and its acquisition, by one oof another, I would like to continue on. Now, knowledge comes with responsiblities and duties employable upon it's own veracity and value as having any substantiation of benefits, be they any kind. Understanding knowledge does not even begin to come from declaring knowledge as fact and deliberating to cease from scrutinizing that knowledge, at all. It is premature for anyone to share knowledge gleaned as a fact or as a truth to any without understanding the depths of the meaning of that inherited knowledge through experiences that lead to it being believeable to any one so enamored with such knowledge. In understanding any specific integer of the sum of all knowledge requires testing all other knowledge in the crucible of the same pilgrimage one took to establish for oneslf that anything received by faith from another is in fact consistent with knowledge itself and just what knowledge is, in fact. Such understanding leads to a deeper pigrimage. That pilgrimage is not yet competently due proseyization to others. Ahhhhh, if you see this, then I shall continue, cinvincingly. Understanding knowledge of anything in particulaR IS NOT THE END ALL BE ALL FOR ANYONE TO PRESUPPOSE THAT IT IS SUFFICEINTLY DIGESTED AND oop and prepared to be faithfully shared with others so that they may begin to investigate the merits of that knowledge for themselves. There is one more necessary step in the prcess which is another pilgrimage of sorts. Now then, if any can establish for themselves that knowledge of one thing and knowledge of another thing can be impreically tested with the same rules of personal examination through wearing that knowledge and experiencing the benefits of that knowledge with a greater understanding, thwen that greater understanding does not complete itself in just the understanding of that knowledge itself. Understanding must lead to another pilgrimage of sorts, or knowledge gleaned cannot explain the faith it took to begin the pilgrimagge in the first place to examine through experience just how viable the knowledge of another is as fact. So again, proselytizing is still a premature and irresponsible act and not in concert with the full duty of man. Understanding knowledge is the beginning of wisdom. That requires faith, but is not faith itself in a circular end all be all concerning faith, in anything, of anyone else, so absorbed willfully and intelligently by any. And where wisdom leads, depends on faith, yes, but on everything else pigeamaged as well. It is in the seasoning of wisdom that all things known and come of age as inscrutibly viable can begin to display their nmerits to others. And it is in the credible actions of those that so do inherit of wisdom that others will seek, through faith, to adopt for themselves. That removes the need for proselyzing anything. It does suggest, perhaps, that full and total communion with others in intimate detail and care and due diligence nmay yield the greater fruit, but patience is required if that is the goal of one to truthfully imaprt to another. and such things as patience are virtue, not wisdom, itself. LOL So before I loose this train of thought and head off on yet another pilgrimage of sorts, by analogy, let me close this and suggest that faith is not faith itself, but a piece of something greater and cannot be understood fully by itself as independent of all things surrounding knowledge, but rather a very simple explanation , by analogy, of a pilgrimage, of sorts. We all understand this definition of faith, in whatever life has given us. Whether or not I am correctly defining faith with my words, the best I can, I am certain that we can all agree that the pilgrimage I am describing hasbeen ventured by everyone in something at least many times in life.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
well said QS
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
voileazur
on
Sat 08/16/08 09:53 AM
|
|
The arrogance of those who think quoting the Bible is just quoting another book is absurd.
Q.S. Why would you call that "arrogance?" To me, arrogance is thinking that just because you believe a book to be "God's word" for no reason other than it says it is, that you would expect other people to believe it too. Yours is only faith and that it is God's word. Why is is arrogant for someone else to doubt your faith when you have no proof? It does beg the question why people who are seeking don't believe God's word? It's the way of learning too. That's why God instructs people to KNOW Him by His word or they will fall under any old spirit...and yes, there is a spirit world.
Q.S. You can "beg the question" and you will get the answer. There is no proof and no reason to believe that the Bible is God's word. There is your answer. No begging necessary. You say God "instructs" people to "know him by his word." Really? How does he do that unless you are reading "his word" which you claim is the Bible? What if the Bible is not God's word? What if it was written by men? What if the whole story of Jesus was written by Calpurnius Piso family, who was a Roman aristocrat (as it says in the book "The True Authorship Of The New Testament by Abelard Reuchlin?") What if the New Testament and all the characters in it - Jesus, all the Josephs, all the Marys, all the disciples, apostles, Paul, John the Baptist - all are fictional? What if the story if Jesus is a plagiarized myth similar to the myth of Mithra told 500 years before the "birth of Jesus?" What would you do then? Where would your faith in God be then? JB That is exactly the point of this thread JB and QS!!! Faith; a belief without proof. Of course QS, everyone requires 'a' belief without proof to access the abstraction of faith, the instinctive need to 'have' faith. This is where 'belief' comes into play. Belief is an 'assent of the mind', a mental construct, which yields a 'sense', a picture, a seemingly likelyhood of what might be true for one person at a time!!! ... ALL THAT, WITHOUT ANY 'PROOF' WHATSOEVER!!! Personal experiences maybe. Personal justification of those personal expereriences, MAYBE, BUT NOT PROOF!!! So faith in your case QS is clearly mentally constructed around a belief in the bible, every word of it. That is personal to YOU. Even if it is personal to a few friends of yours whom share the same mental construct for themselves, it is still personal to you and them. The only fact here, is that your faith is 'fed', it could be said, by that particular mental construct which sits on a 'belief without proof' in the bible. No problem with that. The problem, where 'faith', completely mischaracterized, becomes a warring tactic, is when the micharacterization difforms 'a belief without proof', into this perversion a lot of you claim as the 'only proof of a true faith'!!! The lie and mischaracterization and ensuing war of words+, starts when you (the larger 'you'), imply that everyone else's faith, ... based on a similar 'mental construct' which also sits on a 'belief without proof', isn't acceptable, somehow due to the fact that THEIR faith, is derived from a DIFFERENT mental construct, which sits on a 'belief that is equally without proof', just as yours. That's the rub. No getting out of it. It only leads to war. Spirit?!?!?! Forget it! There is no spirit possible in separation!!! When one consciously or unconsciously, with or without conviction, denies someone else's legitimate faith construct, presuming theirs is the only right ONE!!! A War of Separation occurs, not a meeting in spirit!!! That's it folks!!! Bible inerrancy, which pushes for the bible (belief without proof), to be the 'proof of the belief', IS THE DROP OF PISS IN THE SOUP!!! THE SAND IN THE TRANSMISSION!!! THE TADPOLE IN THE BED SHEETS!!! It is the ennemy!!! Not the fundies!!! Not the evangelicals!!! Not the bible thumpers!!! Those are our brothers and sisters whom are crying out to be 'saved' from the lies and divisive evil of 'bible inerrancy'!!! A human concept of the worst perversion. Let's not throw the illusion of 'fundamentalist babies' with the bathwater!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voila,
but is it faith itself that is undertstood by you, at all, for what it is, in truth? I see prejudices in your examination of QS's response, and I dpo not see the opportunity for which her words should apply to your careful desemination of explaining faith as you know it to be. You see, my short sided friend, you have precludud her to be bearing assumptions you yourself impart to your own conclusions. that is even more conclusory that QS's remarks. Her remarks are conclusory, yes, and according to her experiences, but they in no wise, excuse the pun, ignore the resounding of glorying in faith itself. Her wordds establish for me that she knows what faith is and that it is not God, by definiton, but a step we all take in life, no matter our poersonal pilgrimage of choice, and that, my deluded friend, is faithfully shared here by her conclusory remarks. I am shocked that you do not recognize that she understands what faith does as an action to her being. Do reconsider your evaluation of faith, won't you?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sat 08/16/08 10:00 AM
|
|
I have faith in the law of attraction. It is something that is used by many consciously and by everyone subconsciously. According to our science, it cannot be proven except for vague laws like the law of cause and effect. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." But that law does not observe the unseen forces at work, only the observable ones. My faith is not 100 percent or I could probably figure out how to win the lottery or move mountains. JB Exactly JB...your analogy is correct & humorous too. Some things don't come naturally...that is where faith comes in.  To believe what is not yet in spite of the temporary discomfort is faith.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
By the way.
faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. now if the word, itself, were the very criteria of faith, then faith can be reduced to mere confidence, by definition, Voila!!! But in describing faith which is entirely a greater matter, a word is given to earmark its importunity. Sometimes, in life, living examples of showing what things are not employs showing things that are not that they are not what they claim to be. With respect to faith, faith is not employed equally by all those that bandy about the word. It means, apparently, different things to different men, and respecting the differences is not always yielding faithfulness. Now, whom is being less than diligent in that regard is a questionable matter, my friend. And that, my friend, starts wars, doesn't it? Oh, if you could only receive that by faith, faithfully.
Correct there wouldee...people have faith in things all day long...they just are not conscious of it. For example...you know by faith a chair will hold you up. You know by faith that a stop sign means danger to those who don't stop. You know if you stick your hand in the fire it will burn you. Of course all these things have to be learned....right? Same for faith in God. The arrogance of those who think quoting the Bible is just quoting another book is absurd. It does beg the question why people who are seeking don't believe God's word? It's the way of learning too. That's why God instructs people to KNOW Him by His word or they will fall under any old spirit...and yes, there is a spirit world. People have faith all the time. Another reason why I say anyone who calls themselves an atheist lies...to themselves mostly. Focus kids!!! You're all over the place! Faith in god! meets 'Faith in a chair???' Do you QS have faith (belief without proof) in a CHAIR??? If so, I feel fo you. I took great care to offer the essential definition of Faith which is being discussed in this thread. Faith; belief without proof. I didn't make up this definition. It is webster's as it relates to the meaning of faith we are discussing here. If you wish to discuss another definition of faith, or re-invent its meaning, I suggest you start a new thread. It will avoid all the confusion. Faith in 'chair'!!! Faith in 'bible'!!! Faith in science!!! or faith ion your mother, doesn't equate with the definition of faith discussed in this thread. Please, try again! OUCH! Does the truth of what I said hurt that much??? LOL You're not only funny your silly... You discount God's divinity & the faith of many by experience & want bragging rights too???? I gave samples of everyday faith & you can't stand that either. Ha! hahahahahahahah OMT...you say faith without proof... how about miracles sign & wonders that follow those who walk according to God's ways? The only thing about blind faith for me would be that I don't have to experience EVERY bit of God's word to know it's true...seemingly contradictions & all, because of what I have experienced. Maybe God doesn't reveal Himself to all because this ain't no freak show. The who's who in the spirit world. Or maybe it's you & yours who want God's vengence more than His mercies? God challenges all of us to test & approve "HIS" perfect will according to His word. Anyone who believes in a spirit world knows there has to be guidelines ... for discernment purposes. I suppose for some it doesn't matter but it should. No matter...it's all for our good. You truly speak in bad faith!!! Litterally!!! Faith: belief without proof!!! Take it out with Webster! Mine, or anyone else's faith, which sits on beliefs different than yours, is no less ethical, moral, or spirit rich!!! You are profoundly arrogant QS. If you have faith, try having faith (belief without proof) in the fact that others have faith too. Whether or not you agree with their beliefs. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I have faith in the law of attraction. It is something that is used by many consciously and by everyone subconsciously. According to our science, it cannot be proven except for vague laws like the law of cause and effect. "For every action there is an equal and opposite reaction." But that law does not observe the unseen forces at work, only the observable ones. My faith is not 100 percent or I could probably figure out how to win the lottery or move mountains. JB Your faith in the concept could very well be 100%!!! It is the 'proof' that is 0%. ... and no need of proof for the belief to be whole. It's not that complicated, and it is not BLIND FAITH!!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voila, but is it faith itself that is undertstood by you, at all, for what it is, in truth? I see prejudices in your examination of QS's response, and I do not see the opportunity for which her words should apply to your careful desemination of explaining faith as you know it to be. You see, my short sided friend, you have precludud her to be bearing assumptions you yourself impart to your own conclusions. that is even more conclusory that QS's remarks. Her remarks are conclusory, yes, and according to her experiences, but they in no wise, excuse the pun, ignore the resounding of glorying in faith itself. Her words establish for me that she knows what faith is and that it is not God, by definiton, but a step we all take in life, no matter our personal pilgrimage of choice, and that, my deluded friend, is faithfully shared here by her conclusory remarks. I am shocked that you do not recognize that she understands what faith does as an action to her being. Do reconsider your evaluation of faith, won't you?
EXACTLY...Wouldee!!! If that's "dogma" I'll take it any day!!!! LOL Somehow I attach that word dogma to religiosity, not faith. Am I wrong in my assumption? |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sat 08/16/08 10:12 AM
|
|
if faith is likened to sailing on in a vast and open sea, waves, troughs and all manner of calm, then the journey leads aimlessly towards more of the same or to an island of refuge sought perhaps to the destination sought as a discovery itself which would also require mapping ones course beforehand, et al.
After all, the journey home is not the discovery itself or the mapping would not require that home is elsewhere, and not home the home port od embarckation. The aimless pursuit of the discovery ventured into blindly and incoherently unknown seas is according to the journey itself. Such a journey as such would be illogical and ludicrous and void of the understanding that it took to make the boat that floats in that sea. But should one come to understand that a pebble of calm has been thrown into a raging sea of doubt and unbelief to calm such a sea as that, one should have recognition that such a pebble of calm has been so tossed. Where is such a pebble (as that one) found?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Is it a pearl of great price?
is it the jewel of all jewels?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
Quikstepper
on
Sat 08/16/08 10:14 AM
|
|
By the way.
faith is the substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things not seen. now if the word, itself, were the very criteria of faith, then faith can be reduced to mere confidence, by definition, Voila!!! But in describing faith which is entirely a greater matter, a word is given to earmark its importunity. Sometimes, in life, living examples of showing what things are not employs showing things that are not that they are not what they claim to be. With respect to faith, faith is not employed equally by all those that bandy about the word. It means, apparently, different things to different men, and respecting the differences is not always yielding faithfulness. Now, whom is being less than diligent in that regard is a questionable matter, my friend. And that, my friend, starts wars, doesn't it? Oh, if you could only receive that by faith, faithfully.
Correct there wouldee...people have faith in things all day long...they just are not conscious of it. For example...you know by faith a chair will hold you up. You know by faith that a stop sign means danger to those who don't stop. You know if you stick your hand in the fire it will burn you. Of course all these things have to be learned....right? Same for faith in God. The arrogance of those who think quoting the Bible is just quoting another book is absurd. It does beg the question why people who are seeking don't believe God's word? It's the way of learning too. That's why God instructs people to KNOW Him by His word or they will fall under any old spirit...and yes, there is a spirit world. People have faith all the time. Another reason why I say anyone who calls themselves an atheist lies...to themselves mostly. Focus kids!!! You're all over the place! Faith in god! meets 'Faith in a chair???' Do you QS have faith (belief without proof) in a CHAIR??? If so, I feel fo you. I took great care to offer the essential definition of Faith which is being discussed in this thread. Faith; belief without proof. I didn't make up this definition. It is webster's as it relates to the meaning of faith we are discussing here. If you wish to discuss another definition of faith, or re-invent its meaning, I suggest you start a new thread. It will avoid all the confusion. Faith in 'chair'!!! Faith in 'bible'!!! Faith in science!!! or faith ion your mother, doesn't equate with the definition of faith discussed in this thread. Please, try again! OUCH! Does the truth of what I said hurt that much??? LOL You're not only funny your silly... You discount God's divinity & the faith of many by experience & want bragging rights too???? I gave samples of everyday faith & you can't stand that either. Ha! hahahahahahahah OMT...you say faith without proof... how about miracles sign & wonders that follow those who walk according to God's ways? The only thing about blind faith for me would be that I don't have to experience EVERY bit of God's word to know it's true...seemingly contradictions & all, because of what I have experienced. Maybe God doesn't reveal Himself to all because this ain't no freak show. The who's who in the spirit world. Or maybe it's you & yours who want God's vengence more than His mercies? God challenges all of us to test & approve "HIS" perfect will according to His word. Anyone who believes in a spirit world knows there has to be guidelines ... for discernment purposes. I suppose for some it doesn't matter but it should. No matter...it's all for our good. You truly speak in bad faith!!! Litterally!!! Faith: belief without proof!!! Take it out with Webster! Mine, or anyone else's faith, which sits on beliefs different than yours, is no less ethical, moral, or spirit rich!!! You are profoundly arrogant QS. If you have faith, try having faith (belief without proof) in the fact that others have faith too. Whether or not you agree with their beliefs. Uh...I come from a place of not knowing what another's beliefs are. I don't have to accept anything more since I now know that God is real & He rewards those who believe in Him & Him alone. That is not arrogance but being convinced in what I believe. No amount of assumptions, temper tantrums or name calling will change that. ...Hope you're enjoying your day though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voila, but is it faith itself that is undertstood by you, at all, for what it is, in truth? I see prejudices in your examination of QS's response, and I dpo not see the opportunity for which her words should apply to your careful desemination of explaining faith as you know it to be. You see, my short sided friend, you have precludud her to be bearing assumptions you yourself impart to your own conclusions. that is even more conclusory that QS's remarks. Her remarks are conclusory, yes, and according to her experiences, but they in no wise, excuse the pun, ignore the resounding of glorying in faith itself. Her wordds establish for me that she knows what faith is and that it is not God, by definiton, but a step we all take in life, no matter our poersonal pilgrimage of choice, and that, my deluded friend, is faithfully shared here by her conclusory remarks. I am shocked that you do not recognize that she understands what faith does as an action to her being. Do reconsider your evaluation of faith, won't you?
Insulting only shows your ugly side wouldee! A weak moment to be sure. Shake yourself out and get back on that good leg of yours!
Read my previous post one more time, but from a peaceful angle. I have faith (belief without proof) we could even get to discussing intelligently our very different perspectives of the 'bible inerrancy' principle. The divisive of all divisive 'faith warring tactic' !!! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sat 08/16/08 10:17 AM
|
|
Voila, but is it faith itself that is undertstood by you, at all, for what it is, in truth? I see prejudices in your examination of QS's response, and I do not see the opportunity for which her words should apply to your careful desemination of explaining faith as you know it to be. You see, my short sided friend, you have precludud her to be bearing assumptions you yourself impart to your own conclusions. that is even more conclusory that QS's remarks. Her remarks are conclusory, yes, and according to her experiences, but they in no wise, excuse the pun, ignore the resounding of glorying in faith itself. Her words establish for me that she knows what faith is and that it is not God, by definiton, but a step we all take in life, no matter our personal pilgrimage of choice, and that, my deluded friend, is faithfully shared here by her conclusory remarks. I am shocked that you do not recognize that she understands what faith does as an action to her being. Do reconsider your evaluation of faith, won't you?
EXACTLY...Wouldee!!! If that's "dogma" I'll take it any day!!!! LOL Somehow I attach that word dogma to religiosity, not faith. Am I wrong in my assumption? QS, I choose not to go there. 
this thread has a title. I am content with that discussion. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
if faith is likened to sailing on in a vast and open sea, waves, troughs and all manner of calm, then the journey leads aimlessly towards more of the same or to an island of refuge sought perhaps to the destination sought as a discovery itself which would also require mapping ones course beforehand, et al. After all, the journey home is not the discovery itself or the mapping would not require that home is elsewhere, and not home the home port od embarckation. The aimless pursuit of the discovery ventured into blindly and incoherently unknown seas is according to the journey itself. Such a journey as such would be illogical and ludicrous and void of the understanding that it took to make the boat that floats in that sea. But should one come to understand that a pebble of calm has been thrown into a raging sea of doubt and unbelief to calm such a sea as that, one should have recognition that such a pebble of calm has been so tossed. Where is such a pebble (as that one) found?
Your hostile reaction, parading in a half baked lyrical display is somewhat surprising. I thought you could have handled this conversation a bit further. Not dissappointed, just surprised. Try giving up the bad faith filter, and read my words again from a common perspective, even if your journey and mine might have vastly different shades of experiences. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voila, but is it faith itself that is undertstood by you, at all, for what it is, in truth? I see prejudices in your examination of QS's response, and I dpo not see the opportunity for which her words should apply to your careful desemination of explaining faith as you know it to be. You see, my short sided friend, you have precludud her to be bearing assumptions you yourself impart to your own conclusions. that is even more conclusory that QS's remarks. Her remarks are conclusory, yes, and according to her experiences, but they in no wise, excuse the pun, ignore the resounding of glorying in faith itself. Her wordds establish for me that she knows what faith is and that it is not God, by definiton, but a step we all take in life, no matter our poersonal pilgrimage of choice, and that, my deluded friend, is faithfully shared here by her conclusory remarks. I am shocked that you do not recognize that she understands what faith does as an action to her being. Do reconsider your evaluation of faith, won't you?
Insulting only shows your ugly side wouldee! A weak moment to be sure. Shake yourself out and get back on that good leg of yours!
Read my previous post one more time, but from a peaceful angle. I have faith (belief without proof) we could even get to discussing intelligently our very different perspectives of the 'bible inerrancy' principle. The divisive of all divisive 'faith warring tactic' !!! Voila!!!!!! do excuse my impertinence. I hadn't realized that your intent was to war. Thart is a different sword, my deluded friend. I won't address faith itself through your filters. It would not be pretinent to faith and it's viability with respect to the limitations you are visibly sequestering it with as a concept. Actually, faith itself is not an indiscriminate inanimate object. It is more distinguishable to us as an obnservable component of breathing in and out. WEhat constitutes the "air" of this discussion is meeting with the resistance of the OP. Is that in keeping with the title of this thread, mon ami? That is why I address you as, O deluded one. Sorry . I find that "warring tactic" necessary. I do hope you agree that it fits your initial premise.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
wouldee
on
Sat 08/16/08 10:57 AM
|
|
if faith is likened to sailing on in a vast and open sea, waves, troughs and all manner of calm, then the journey leads aimlessly towards more of the same or to an island of refuge sought perhaps to the destination sought as a discovery itself which would also require mapping ones course beforehand, et al. After all, the journey home is not the discovery itself or the mapping would not require that home is elsewhere, and not home the home port od embarckation. The aimless pursuit of the discovery ventured into blindly and incoherently unknown seas is according to the journey itself. Such a journey as such would be illogical and ludicrous and void of the understanding that it took to make the boat that floats in that sea. But should one come to understand that a pebble of calm has been thrown into a raging sea of doubt and unbelief to calm such a sea as that, one should have recognition that such a pebble of calm has been so tossed. Where is such a pebble (as that one) found?
Your hostile reaction, parading in a half baked lyrical display is somewhat surprising. I thought you could have handled this conversation a bit further. Not dissappointed, just surprised. Try giving up the bad faith filter, and read my words again from a common perspective, even if your journey and mine might have vastly different shades of experiences. Voila!!!! Forgive me for not being condescending. You are employing the same filter to my remarks as you do to QS's remarks. At the very least, you are consistent, in THAT inescapably visible regard. With that, I have faith that you have not fully understood my own remarks in the spirit intended. Let me remind you that I was responding to abra in love, as a friend, sharing something on my heart. May I remind you that my eccentric and oftentimes obtuse humor gets ignited by your perceived hostilities? I am doing my best not to make light of your intents. But you are inciting my vulnerability to temptation. Do find it within you to not add deliberately to that propensity of mine. War will insue, my friend, and I wish not to disturb you with my folly in jest of things possibly conceived as lustful fuel for a firestorm of belly laughs. I shall refrain from such expediences as that, patiently. Patience is my greatest virtue. God told me that one day. I told God that I didn't have any. God said, thank you. He proceeded to teach me some from that point some odd 20 years ago.. Are you his helpful mate, my friend? 
Oh Gideon!!!! (hint) wherefore art thou in thine echo of God's hand to lift me out of my own mire made all the more so miry without God's lovong hand in my own?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voila, but is it faith itself that is undertstood by you, at all, for what it is, in truth? I see prejudices in your examination of QS's response, and I dpo not see the opportunity for which her words should apply to your careful desemination of explaining faith as you know it to be. You see, my short sided friend, you have precludud her to be bearing assumptions you yourself impart to your own conclusions. that is even more conclusory that QS's remarks. Her remarks are conclusory, yes, and according to her experiences, but they in no wise, excuse the pun, ignore the resounding of glorying in faith itself. Her wordds establish for me that she knows what faith is and that it is not God, by definiton, but a step we all take in life, no matter our poersonal pilgrimage of choice, and that, my deluded friend, is faithfully shared here by her conclusory remarks. I am shocked that you do not recognize that she understands what faith does as an action to her being. Do reconsider your evaluation of faith, won't you?
Insulting only shows your ugly side wouldee! A weak moment to be sure. Shake yourself out and get back on that good leg of yours!
Read my previous post one more time, but from a peaceful angle. I have faith (belief without proof) we could even get to discussing intelligently our very different perspectives of the 'bible inerrancy' principle. The divisive of all divisive 'faith warring tactic' !!! Voila!!!!!! do excuse my impertinence. I hadn't realized that your intent was to war. Thart is a different sword, my deluded friend. I won't address faith itself through your filters. It would not be pretinent to faith and it's viability with respect to the limitations you are visibly sequestering it with as a concept. Actually, faith itself is not an indiscriminate inanimate object. It is more distinguishable to us as an obnservable component of breathing in and out. WEhat constitutes the "air" of this discussion is meeting with the resistance of the OP. Is that in keeping with the title of this thread, mon ami? That is why I address you as, O deluded one. Sorry . I find that "warring tactic" necessary. I do hope you agree that it fits your initial premise.
Please slow down the reading of my posts!!! and switch filters!!! You keep jumping the gun!!! I said: '... I have faith (belief without proof) we could even get to discussing intelligently our very different perspectives of the 'bible inerrancy' principle...' If you are not ready to discuss that element of the topic, just say so! I won't force you to a challenge! I am not into war, I invited you to an intelligent discussion of the subject. IMO opinion, it is intrinsically linked to the topic as one of the most salient example of 'faith as a warring tactic'. In theory, this could be a subject that could be discussed inteligently. In practice, in takes 'friends' on both side of the debating coin, to accept and welcome the exchange. Simply, and politely acception or declining my invitation would have suffice. Either way, there would be no judgment. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Voila, but is it faith itself that is undertstood by you, at all, for what it is, in truth? I see prejudices in your examination of QS's response, and I dpo not see the opportunity for which her words should apply to your careful desemination of explaining faith as you know it to be. You see, my short sided friend, you have precludud her to be bearing assumptions you yourself impart to your own conclusions. that is even more conclusory that QS's remarks. Her remarks are conclusory, yes, and according to her experiences, but they in no wise, excuse the pun, ignore the resounding of glorying in faith itself. Her wordds establish for me that she knows what faith is and that it is not God, by definiton, but a step we all take in life, no matter our poersonal pilgrimage of choice, and that, my deluded friend, is faithfully shared here by her conclusory remarks. I am shocked that you do not recognize that she understands what faith does as an action to her being. Do reconsider your evaluation of faith, won't you?
Insulting only shows your ugly side wouldee! A weak moment to be sure. Shake yourself out and get back on that good leg of yours!
Read my previous post one more time, but from a peaceful angle. I have faith (belief without proof) we could even get to discussing intelligently our very different perspectives of the 'bible inerrancy' principle. The divisive of all divisive 'faith warring tactic' !!! Voila!!!!!! do excuse my impertinence. I hadn't realized that your intent was to war. Thart is a different sword, my deluded friend. I won't address faith itself through your filters. It would not be pretinent to faith and it's viability with respect to the limitations you are visibly sequestering it with as a concept. Actually, faith itself is not an indiscriminate inanimate object. It is more distinguishable to us as an obnservable component of breathing in and out. WEhat constitutes the "air" of this discussion is meeting with the resistance of the OP. Is that in keeping with the title of this thread, mon ami? That is why I address you as, O deluded one. Sorry . I find that "warring tactic" necessary. I do hope you agree that it fits your initial premise.
Please slow down the reading of my posts!!! and switch filters!!! You keep jumping the gun!!! I said: '... I have faith (belief without proof) we could even get to discussing intelligently our very different perspectives of the 'bible inerrancy' principle...' If you are not ready to discuss that element of the topic, just say so! I won't force you to a challenge! I am not into war, I invited you to an intelligent discussion of the subject. IMO opinion, it is intrinsically linked to the topic as one of the most salient example of 'faith as a warring tactic'. In theory, this could be a subject that could be discussed inteligently. In practice, in takes 'friends' on both side of the debating coin, to accept and welcome the exchange. Simply, and politely acception or declining my invitation would have suffice. Either way, there would be no judgment. Voila!!!!! agreed. and the problem is? chew on that. Might I suggest spitting out your criticism of my own remarks as unfruitfully distracting, seeing as i am not refuting that found immediately so, from above in its own context as such, per se?
|
|
|
|
|
