Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.
Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
Whereas I read it as an historical document, and, while its context is relevant, for me its value is in exactly what it says ─ human voices across a great deal of time: what are they saying, and why?
Peace in our time, then. An interesting conversation.
Why would he. or she, not just call it self-confidence?
You share at least the first two of those assumptions I've made, or you wouldn't be posting here.
In your quote, I am 100% with you in saying this is absurd.
I usually do not read what other Christians write in their books. It tends to be boring.
Since my authority for what the faith should be is found in scripture, in the Bible, using a Harmonious Interpretation of All Scripture, it is possible to determine who is and who isn't an unbeliever. Large latitudes must be given due to the number of churches that exist; so, while I personally may form an opinion, I am sure that the Lord Christ might be stricter than I am in who he accepts.
I belong to no church any longer. I am too demanding.
Snake-handlers in particular, I frown upon. They are not holy in my book.
Thank you. I'll make a note of this somewhere, maybe.
There is great value in trying to decipher what people are saying, their motives, etc. I also try to listen to them, but not only to what is said, also to what their actions might reveal of hidden thoughts and motives. Thus, my understanding of why Adam sinned is not exactly what others may think. I don't belong to any church; so, I can conclude whatever wherever the data takes me.
Sure. I would say self-confidence is faith in one's self, but not that self-confidence is faith in the general sense.
I'm sorry if it sounded like a judgment call. Wasn't my attempt at all--as I am speaking purely in a Christian definition.
Excellent. This is something we can relate to on.
That's interesting to me. Why is it boring? I think I'd guess it's because you don't personally relate to it, so it sounds rather foreign. I can see that. However, my personal experience makes it incredibly interesting and meaningful to me.
I've found over the years that how I read and understood things from the Bible have changed, quite a fair amount, as I've changed as a person based on my life experiences. It kind of works that way.
I've found that's really not the case. Usually who I had said was an "unbeliever" was really more about what I was or wasn't comfortable with in my personal faith at that time in my life.
You see, I've come to see that Jesus isn't "strict" like that. In fact, I see him as very much about the spirit of the law, and not the letter. I think that pretty much defines Jesus Christ actually, from top to bottom.
Well I clearly said proof, so your rant about evidence is a straw man. At any rate you are very confused about the broad nature of evidence and also confuse on your scope and limited position to define such standards for other people.
That is certainly one kind of freedom.
Let me put it this way: it isn't necessary to have faith that some benevolent supernatural agent exists to have faith in oneself, in the sense of self-confidence.
AbsurdExcellent. This is something we can relate to on.
That's interesting to me. Why is it boring? I think I'd guess it's because you don't personally relate to it, so it sounds rather foreign. I can see that. However, my personal experience makes it incredibly interesting and meaningful to me.
I've found over the years that how I read and understood things from the Bible have changed, quite a fair amount, as I've changed as a person based on my life experiences. It kind of works that way.
I've found that's really not the case. Usually who I had said was an "unbeliever" was really more about what I was or wasn't comfortable with in my personal faith at that time in my life.
You see, I've come to see that Jesus isn't "strict" like that. In fact, I see him as very much about the spirit of the law, and not the letter. I think that pretty much defines Jesus Christ actually, from top to bottom.
So when I read him say, "Judge not, lest you be judged", I very much take that to heart, that to glance at your neighbor and pass ulitmate judgement on them from your point of view where you are at in your life, is actually what Paul warned us against to, "Grieve not the Holy Spirit." "Who are you to judge another man's servant", he also asks. As we point the finger outward, it's a reflection of ourselves we see, and the accuser, becomes the accused, as Jesus taught us with great stress.
To me, the lessons of Jesus were to teach us humility. When we place ourselves in the throne of judgement of others, we fall way short of what Jesus taught. We violate love, for our idea of "law". We haven't moved yet from strict adhere to rules to find God for ourselves, to the love of others, which is what Jesus died for, right?
In John's Gospel he said this:
I have no argument with being true ─ which I'd say meant being honest, as best one can ─ to oneself.
prosit!
You have got to be kidding. It is a wonderful goal, I must say. Even the ones who think they have attained this ultimate goal many a times have just pulled blinders down over their own eyes so that they can believe they have attained this blissful goal.
This is absolutely a must. But, again, so many of us have things that impeded this.
Faith does have to do with coviction of things. I think I see what your getting at but eventually faith runs out of reasons and at some point a premise is taken on. It's that premise which should leave a believer with at least an inkling of doubt, something that says the premise could be wrong.
certainty.....as in....Yeah, no doubt!