TIME OUT!!!


We could start another thread, and call it :

'FAITH: belief with proof!!!'

And carry on this conversation.


But this thread 'faith as a warring tactic', invites everyone to 'ponder', consider', 'discuss', 'explore' openly, the particular 'conditions' which bring about the most counterproductive 'spectre' of 'faith as a warring tactic'!!!

I propose that the very definition of faith matters.

I further propose that holding faith as a 'proven by beliefs' phenomenon, contrary to its Webster definition, is a source of confusion and divisiness, to paraphrase my previous posts.

No one has to agree. No one!!!

But to become hostile is unacceptable. It is the topic of the thread: DISCUSSING FAITH AS A WARRING TACTIC!!!

Very disctinct from: 'INVITATION TO AN OPEN WAR ON THE MEANING OF FAITH!!!'

Belief without proof! You don't know, and I don't know!!!

Let's not come across as if we did.

Just sticking to that modus operandi might allow this discussion to 'evolve' where it may!!! (sorry about the pun. No malicious intent. Just a light 'olive branch')

I agree, Voila!!~~

I do want to hear from abra some more later.

And I am concerned that we have distracted ourselves from that in just chatting as we have been.

I also thought of another title for another thread, but not oine that should enjoy my facilitation, seeing that so many here would not entertain it, intelligently, coming from me.

That is, borrowing from the word, "tactic", that "tactical genius" might also imply a warlike symptom of the different definitions of what constitutes faith in action as a verbal intent with prerequisite instigation found chosen in the will of man.

granted, that "genius" inplies elitism and an advantaged privilege enjoined, but then, isn't that the rightful duty of sound judgement?

Oftentimes in war, the middle ground is found in the widest valley for which to engage in a skirmish of push and pull.

Casualty and victory are inescapably evident in any skirmish.

Is not war itself also a metaphor of the whole duty of man to consecrate oneself to the destruction of falsehoods and and fruitless discoveries that are yielding only strife and contention?

It seems to me that personal battles are waged within and that those same personal battles often project themselves frictionally upon others in ineptitude.

Which brings me back to "tactical Genius".

oh, well......

I muse....

is tact always 'nice'?



I digress.

as in 'tactics'?

As spider has pointed out elsewhere, 'stupid' used to enjoy being the definition of 'nice' in the Old English.

Have we really actually evolved, at all?

Is adaptation to the environment not causal in its effects?

TIME OUT (II) !!!

In my humble opinion, the discussion is has yet to get past the proposed definition of faith: 'faith; belief without proof'.

Debating doesn't require necessarily agreeing with ANYTHING, but it promotes WELCOMING one anoter's differing views.

One can offer a completely different view of a point, without a hint of attack of the opposing 'viewer'. It has been done here on this thread. That is a debate.

'Faith: belief without proof', is an OP proposed building block which IMO is fundamental piece of 'FAITH AS A WARRING TACTIC'.

No has t agree with this. Abra doesn't (so far), neither does JB (I think). Of course, wouldee and QS don't agree either. And all that is totally legitimate. The attacks on the viewer (and believe me (with proof!!!) I don't take them personally) simply choke the discussion, the debate! That's all.

If you do not agree with the premise of 'faith: belief without proof' as a buiding block of 'FAITH AS A WARRING TACTIC', I welcome that. I don't agree, but I welcome it.

But sincerely, what do you propose is at the source of 'FAITH AS A WARRING TACTIC', if not the misconception of faith itself.

Suggest your premises supporting the topic.

Attacking the host does not address the topic of this thread. Not a judgment. Just a fact.

War is declared always, in the context of a total breakdown in COMMUNICATION!!!

An incapacity in allowing legitimacy to one's different point of view.

There are instances in history where war was inevitable. Where the other point of view, by overwhelming consensus, held no legitimacy, and no amount of diplomacy could have changed it.

But 'total communicatuion breakdown' due to illegitimate points of view with regards to faith is an oxymoron.

It is not possible.

In spite of that, discussions of 'faith' in general, remains to this day, one of the most conflictuous tabou between otherwise coherent individuals.

Why is that?

That is the question raised here.

It implies rising above the taboo, and privileging 'open communication channels', over personal beliefs and convictions.

'War' is one's ultmate failure to make piece with one's own demons.

When the 'fabricated truth' of one's beliefs, superceedes everything else, one must declare 'war' on all others whom do not share same beliefs (fabricated truth).

'... This IS what I believe, and therefore you must die!!!...' Will always be a false belief.

And yet all wars are fought on such.

No different when it comes to faith.

If faith, being the ultimate personal experience, is mischaracterized as a 'belief with proof', which all must endorse (no more personal) at the risk of being 'metaphorically' dead, or needing to be saved, 'war' is the only possible outcome.

When faith shifts towards the ultimate righteous and divisive 'weapon' in one's journey (albeit unconsciously so), one seriously needs to re-group, or accept remindings of others todo so, and realize that FAITH is no longer driving the day.

well, ineptitude as a visible trait or tactic is a projection of the implementation of 'faith as a warring tactic".

proselytization could be viewed as using "faith as a warring tactic", also, if faith is found wanting by some or any display of its use, ineptly so or not and in every case, it seems to me.

That has already been forwarded by me in a previous post addressing abra for comment.

I still look forward to his views on that.

he , abra, sees with unique and purposeful eyes, you know.


So, maybe it is too premature yet to say that I also disagree, Voila!!!!!


Heavily dependent upon "faith as a warring tactic" are my previously proffered observations made about "faith" itself.

If the polar capacities of aptitude and ineptitude are gainfully explored in this discussion (of the diligent use due anyone's faith), then perhaps the presence of "warring" tendencies can be better arbitrated in their respective relevance towards faith being used at all as a tactic in the exercises of emeliorating unresolved conflicts as they arise between men, and not between men and God, (however God may perceived to exist by any man ; male and female alike).

I do not believe that God is a pertinent consideration in the understanding of what constitutes faith in general, though faith is generally accepted to be a subjective component of the ethereality of God in specificity.

Where I find a problem is in the confining of the definition of faith as "Believe without proof."

While this may be so, and it may be in a dictionary, if you look closely at the statement you have to have a good understanding what constitutes proof.

So what constitutes "proof?"

Witnesses? Not really. They are unreliable.

Variable scientific observation? Probably.

What then? A group of people have to all see it, verify it, and agree upon it, then call it "fact."

Is it a fact that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west?

Not really. The sun stays in the same place in the solar system, and the earth revolves and rotates.

Then it is a fact that it only appears that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.

This is only a fact if everyone agrees which direction is east and which direction is west. It is not an apparent fact in the north pole however.

****

On a more personal note, proof is completely dependent upon acceptance and belief of the evidence.

A man tried to patent an invention which could train a deaf person to hear via his skin. The government would not patent it because even though they were looking at the complete plans and diagrams, they did not believe it would actually work. They did not understand the technology.

That man had to go to Washington and do a demonstration with a deaf man (chosen by the government) to prove that the device worked.

Proof had to be experienced and believed. The diagrams were not enough. Proof is a matter of belief. Seeing and experiencing is the final proof.

If you get enough people to actually agree, then you can call it a "FACT."

My point is, to say that IF faith is "belief without proof" you have to understand and define the entire process of what proof is and how it requires belief and agreement.

My belief is supported by my personal experience which is my personal "proof."

To me, some of my beliefs are in the area of my considering them to be "facts" but it may not be a "FACT" to anyone else.

My proof is like my belief, it is personal. I can't force anyone to believe.

So ultimately "proof" is a matter of belief. "Facts" are a matter of agreement.

JB

On another note, to define "Faith" as "Belief without proof"
if you have no qualifications or definitions for what constitutes proof, it is then unclear if you are talking about one person only or one person vs. the rest of the world.

If you are talking about one person who believes on faith but has no personal proof or experience, then that person is probably trusting an authority.

If you are talking about one person who believes on faith that there is a God because they experienced or witnessed what they perceived as a miracle that is faith based on personal experience and it is "proof" to them, but not accepted as "proof" to others.

So when a person like Feralcatlady proclaims that she has proof, it is her own personal "proof" she is proclaiming, plus her trust in her authority (the Bible) which on both occasions, may not be proof to anyone else, until and unless they acquire faith in her and her authority.

JB

So proof is a matter of belief. Facts are a matter of agreement.

therefore, as JB says, it is no small wonder that God is not a singularly proved fact believed by all to be as any one singularly viewed entity in scope of character and content, when viewed through the example of men by their actions alone.

Accordingly, God is, as funches says, a delusional mirage painted on the lanscapes of man's tongue.

Were faith simply limited to being as JB concludes, no agreement is possible.

were it be as such as JB concludes, all should agree with this conclusion she argues as definitive of faith itself.

This describes the plausibility of faith being used as a "warring tactic" as an inevitable consequence of any dialogue between individuals.

In that regard, faith can only be evident in "warring tactics".

reason being, that faith cannot be a universally accepted concept in any one singular expression.

I find that to be an unsustantiated attribute of "faith" itself.

I hold better substance for "faith" than that.


Otherwise, noting would be learned at all, and nothing would be agreeable at all.

Not just partly so, giving way to consensus of being, itself.

I find them that faith is still a component of something greater at work in man.

Since, some thinga about life are universally accepted as fact and are imperically unavoidable, even though personal experience has not made the proof self evident.

One of those things is, that death of othe human body is ineveitable and inescapable as having already happened, yet time has not yet revealed the manifestation of that death to the livng, yet not concluded as having passed, irrevocably yet on a personal level.

it requires faith to know that one's physical body is already dead.

Knowing that to be a truth, irrevocably, why do we act as though it matters at all in this temporal existence that we struggle one with another when we are all equally disposed to death and shall not always bear the burdens and pleasures of that done while yet in the body.?

Yep, we're all dead men and women walking.

yup


and it stinks to High Heaven .

and the stench of proud hearts shall awaken the fury of the minds that see thru it.....

I tend to think the same about the word dogma QS.

OK! Great, let's look at that JB.

'Faith: belief without proof'.

Faith:
- belief not substantiated by proof.
- spiritual acceptance of 'truths' or 'realities' not certified by reason.

Belief:
- an assent of the mind to that which one constitutes to be true about a declaration, proposition or alleged fact.
(assent of the mind: that's the personal mental construct we all need to go through individually, in order to bring ourselves to believe in anything. Important aspect).

Prove:
- To ascertain through experiments. To establish the truth or reality of something, through reasoning, induction or evidence.

Proof:
- An effort, process, or operation that ascertains thruth (trial) or fact (science).

There are the definitions which might be useful to share, in the context of our discussion.

Now, you bring up proof in the context of personal experience. I have no problem with that, and it might actually help shed light onthe whole topic.

While one will 'personally ascertain', and thereby be satisfied with 'personal proof' or evidence, in constructing one's belief, that is very much distinct from 'public proof'. The legal or scientific kind.

It is a whole other story to legally or scientifically ascertain something in the public domain, as opposed to convincing oneself of the same.

'... I'm convinced he is innocent of that crime!...' doesn't cut it in estrabishing the 'public' or 'civic' innocence of a suspect.

'... I'm convinced that god exists, and I have proof, through so many manifestions, of his existence...' migh very well be the personal proof one needs in constructing a belief (assent of the mind to what occur as true for one), but in no way does that personal proof constitute scientific proof, to ascertain the absolute existence of god for all.

True for me, doesn't mean true for everyone else, regardless of personal proof.

For it to be true for everyone else, so to speak, or be accepted as true of proven at large, it needs to be ascertainable, and must be ascertained on a public basis.

The public, and generally shared notion of the actual existence of 'god', has not ever been proven or ascertained at large, regardless of people assertions to the contrary.

Yet, one's personal experience, and belief through personal proof and evidence cannot be denied.

Thus the distinction of 'Faith: belief not substantiated by proof', to allow both the personal experience, where god might 'exist' out of personal belief, and the public experience, where the personal 'proof' completely breaks down.

If your belief can 'exist', without anyone requiring you to prove, ascertain or substantiate it, because it cannot be publically ascertained, in spite of assertions to the contrary, why would anyone insist on 'proving' 'it' to the world!?!!?

Personal, and public domain of 'proof'. Important distinction.

Does that forward the discussion for you JB?!?!?!

Yes I can't argue with that.

Public domain proof. I like that...

Any faith who has power and claims to be the "one and only true and right way" is divisive in any environment. They will by fear and guilt try to make ALL like them. Very divisive.

Where have you been all this time 'dragoness'?!?!?!

Faith as a warring tactic!!! Divisiness! My words exactly!

Stick around why don't you?!?!?


:)

Voila!!!!!!!!!!!!

what would the good people in your class think of you stepping out to test faith as a warring tactic?

what would they learn of your prowess in sailing the billowy seas with your mast in disarrray and the unknotted furrels blowing in the wind abstractly and incoherently?


why, they might even think that you cannot sail at all and that you are winging it without a map in discovery of some yet uncharted isle as destinaton for your as yet unknown soft landing.

what if a hard landing is in store?

Oh my, such peril for the facilitator that dissects and the approves or disapproves of the merits with the anarchistic audacity of unfavorable and unpredictable winds.

or, it could just be hilarity awaiting.

I vote fo hilarity.

Voila! is king master manipulator.

To vote, please click on the little number in dear Voila's avatar and read his wonderful incites and forays into the unknown of his haphazard journey through his own raging sea and see if in fact he finds a pebble of calm out and about that serves his good will and pleasure most credibly, won't you.?

Hurrah Captain.

your boat floats, mon ami, wherever it lists, where ever it is tossed, wherever it ventures for vainglorious plunder and gain.

Hide your treasure map! Keep it close, and your enemies even closer good Captain Hook.

Don't want to give away secrets now, do we?






all in good fun Homer.

Landing within 1 000 miles of topic, showing minimum intellectual effort in understanding the pros and cons, and possibly forwarding the discussion ...

... WOULD ALSO BE IN GOOD FUN JC2!!!

As for being annoyingly off topic?!?!?!


... well, it's just being annoyingly off topic!!!

Hope someone will visit you at home soon, wouldee. There is only so much attention you can get from a chatting forum!!!

mon capitan!!!

no need to be sore.

I thought you would be pleased.


we need to know, capitan, was it a fun sail?


Tell us of your exploits and how deep the waters are in " faith as a warring tactic"!!!!!!

Please, mon capitan!!!!

Do tell of your successful exploitation of lesser men!!!!

your students need you.

I need you.


Who will lead us mon capitan?

when you leave again for so long an absence.

Oh you leave us in such dire straits.

These rocks shall tear our hulls and leave us wrecked on the craggy shore forlorn and in distess without your masterful guidance, O Enlightened One!!!!

Do tell of your exploits against that mean man.

please, pretty please?????




I am SO on topic, Homer.