nPeace
Veteran Member
I was merely pointing out the fault in your reasoning. I was not trying to convince you of anything.
-
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:- Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
- Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
- Access to private conversations with other members.
We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!
What's the term to describe this?
- Thread starter Unveiled Artist
- Start date
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Faith is not hope.
I had to scratch my head on this one.
"Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen." Hebrews 11:1
I usually don't quote the bible since I'm not a theologian, but the comment floored me.
Also, there's nothing wrong with the word assumption (or faith for that matter).
Assumptions aren't facts anymore than assuming god created the earth because we think it has a design. We're both in the same boat here.
The bible only confirms your already held belief. If it were true/a fact, it should be supported by many sources that are and are not religious in nature.
Anymore than there being a god who created the universe.
Well, if I (and you) declared our assumptions true whether it be the designer of the universe or guessing what people built thousands of years before our time period, we'd be highly (what's the word) highly misinformed.
Not sure about the last part, though. Assumptions-whether having a designer on faith or making intelligent guesses due to lack of skilled education and experience is not bad in and of itself. The problem is when you say you "know" something and don't have other alternative sources to back up what you know.
Do you "know" there is a designer or do you have faith there is one?
I'm not in that field of study, but assumptions aren't bad in themselves... just don't do so in medicine and physics, I'd be fine.
You compared not seeing the wind as an example of god existing even though you can't see him. So, basically, you're saying just because we can't see a designer doesn't mean there isn't one just like we can't see the wind, doesn't mean there isn't the wind.
This is, by strict example, a fallacy.
We still know the wind exist because of our other senses. We do not know this with god so your analogy cannot compare even if it were logically sound.
Maybe another analogy but definitely not a visual one.
No. Fallacy isn't a bad word, so you don't need to take offense or stab me in the back for it.
Can you use another example than a visual one to make your point?
Do you have references outside of scripture that point to the scriptural god as the designer of the physical universe and design?
nPeace
Veteran Member
I certainly am not surprised you are scratching your head, but the floor...? Is that what Pentecostals experience when they get in the spirit?
Steady yourself - Faith is not hope.
Let me know when you get on your feet again, and are ready for the solid food.
"I fed you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet strong enough. . " (1 Corinthians 3:2 ; Hebrews 5:12-14)
I wouldn't want you falling again. I don't want you to hurt yourself.
I do nothing different to what scientists do. They use reason and inference based on facts. That's exactly the same thing I do. So if you have a problem with that, then you must have a problem with science. So mentioning it would mean nothing to me.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Pentecostals??
What does Pentecostals have to do with the conversation?
What's wrong with the word hope?
How do those two verses (I read) refute the scripture I posted?
If a christian posted it, it would read just the same-is there another way to read Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see"?
(No sarcasm: I wouldn't want you falling again. I don't want you to hurt yourself) It's a totally turnoff in conversations.
I don't think this evening is a good day for you. You're attacking not discussing.
Last edited:
nPeace
Veteran Member
Wow. You are resorting to that also. I take note of the change Artist. I didn't think you would resort to this behavior though. Why? Peer pressure?
Why throw stones and then falsely claim someone is attacking you? Why are you upset? Was it something I said?
If I said I was floored at something you said, what would you call that?
Anyways...
Faith - the assurance of what is hoped for. How can faith and hope be the same...
Faith is not the hope. It's the assurance.
What assurance? The evident demonstration of realities, though not seen. Or, the substance of realities.
Strong's Greek: 5287. ὑπόστασις (hupostasis) -- a support, substance, steadiness, hence assurance
Strong's Concordance
hupostasis: a support, substance, steadiness, hence assurance
Original Word: ὑπόστασις, εως, ἡ
Part of Speech: Noun, Feminine
Transliteration: hupostasis
Phonetic Spelling: (hoop-os'-tas-is)
Definition: a support, substance, steadiness, assurance
Usage: (lit: an underlying), (a) confidence, assurance, (b) a giving substance (or reality) to, or a guaranteeing, (c) substance, reality.
HELPS Word-studies
5287 hypóstasis(from 5259 /hypó, "under" and 2476 /hístēmi, "to stand") – properly, (to possess) standing under a guaranteed agreement ("title-deed"); (figuratively) "title" to a promise or property, i.e. a legitimate claim (because it literally is, "under a legal-standing") – entitling someone to what is guaranteed under the particular agreement.
For the believer, 5287 /hypóstasis ("title of possession") is the Lord's guarantee to fulfill the faith He inbirths (cf. Heb 11:1 with Heb 11:6). Indeed we are only entitled to what God grants faith for (Ro 14:23).
I have the hope of living forever in paradise.
Is hope living forever in paradise? No. I am hoping for what I don't see. However, the guarantee of living forever is what my hope is based on, or standing on - faith. It is the substance of reality - the evident demonstration of realities.
So you are working in a lab. You hope to produce the ultimate anti-corona-virus. You have faith - the reality is right before you - the guarantee - the foundation - the support - the demonstrable evidence of the reality. You confidently express your conviction... "Corona virus ultra! Corona virus gone for good."
Your hope rests on that guarantee - that reality.
Nah. Stop dreaming.
Anyways... Faith is not hope.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
nPeace. I'm actually have been in a good mood talking with you. I'm also curious of a lot of things you mentioned that doesn't relate to my comments. I'm rarely a sarcastic person as a defense mechanism and tend to get red flags with negativity.
I can't have a full conversation with you when I'm weeding through your sarcasm and accusing me for pointing it out.
Maybe you're getting exhausted talking about this but regardless, you can take this as constructive feedback or not but it's easier if you change your tone...
I'll have more patience and willing to read your last post without our repeating ourselves.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Like I said before. Perhaps we are both hearing things, because your tone isn't pleasant to me, and I actually think my tone is much milder... if I compared.
I haven't changed from the way I have been in our past conversations, but I noticed a distinct change in you.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I'll repost with numbers so it won't sound harsh. They'll be straight forward questions and comments. Sarcasm doesn't work well and I don't believe I was sarcastic. I'm many things but not that.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
1. The translation of Hebrews 11:1 uses different wordings.
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the assurance of what we hope for and the certainty of what we do not see.
Now faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see.
2. You're putting your hope (trust, assurance, etc) in christ and his word
3. What is wrong with the word hope?
I wish that were the case. I did point this switch tone a couple of times. Sometimes you're fine and neutral and other times you're very sarcastic. You've never given me any constructive feedback so I wouldn't know. But some of your sentences are very sarcastic and cannot be mistaken as such.
So, I'm just pointing it out to you. Please read the context of what I'm saying. It's not a win/loose match.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
With that said.
All of this is not necessary. If you're going to rebut, please use the scripture Hebrews 11:1 translation and show me how I am reading that the wrong way. I can only go by what they translate in the bible in english. The verses you gave me I had to look them up because RF isn't easy to read.
What's wrong with the word hope?
Okay. You are confusing me honestly. Your hope is based on the guarantee on living forever. You can also say "I have faith... " or "I have assurance"
A number of synoymn. It's the context nPeace, not the word itself.
Yes. What's wrong with the word hope?
That's what one of the biblical translations used to describe faith.
"Stop dreaming" comment is not necessary either. I got your point but this threw it off.
All of this is not necessary. If you're going to rebut, please use the scripture Hebrews 11:1 translation and show me how I am reading that the wrong way. I can only go by what they translate in the bible in english. The verses you gave me I had to look them up because RF isn't easy to read.
What's wrong with the word hope?
Okay. You are confusing me honestly. Your hope is based on the guarantee on living forever. You can also say "I have faith... " or "I have assurance"
A number of synoymn. It's the context nPeace, not the word itself.
Yes. What's wrong with the word hope?
That's what one of the biblical translations used to describe faith.
"Stop dreaming" comment is not necessary either. I got your point but this threw it off.
nPeace
Veteran Member
Seems to be the same thing to me.
Context is very important when using words.
Nothing.
Cannot be mistaken? That's inaccurate. That would require that you make yourself judge, jury and executioner... or God.
Are you any of those?
Thanks, but I find that what is often pointed out, is not the truth.
Take this post for example. It was considered condescending, Whattt? and all I did was add a tiny bit of humor. ...and that's not the first... nor will it be the last.
It doesn't matter what I say, or how I say it, it will be judged negatively, and I think the reason is clear.
One of the reasons - just one - is that I don't normally tell people where to get off, so they try to take advantage of that, and want to push me around - "Don't use emojis nPeace. Don't speak this way nPeace. Answer the question nPeace."
Regardless of what I do, they make up stuff about me.
I see you made a post on how boring the internet is. I'm not here to be bored to death. So... No.
...and yes, it is a win lose match. One side wants to win in promoting their agenda to eradicate Judeo-Christian values, by painting Christianity as irrational, and the Bible, and faith, as baseless myth, with their beliefs being rational and scientific beliefs factual.
The other side stands on the side of truth, that Christians and the Bible, and faith, are logical, and reasonable, and science beliefs are as mythical as claims about religion.
I think because persons are angry that they find it difficult spreading propaganda, they resort to attacking the champions of truth... just as they did Jesus... and Stephen... and Paul...
There is a lot of anger, and I find it is leading to hatred. If I weren't digital, why, I'd be dead.
There goes my humor again. Can't help it. Being bored to death, might be the worst death.
I don't see any difference in any translation. They all say the same thing.
Pick one from here, and show me how it differs to RF's.
Nothing at all.
Please, put them in a statement for me.
Yes, context is important. Very good.
Nothing... for the third time.
No it does not. Say that again. What's the quotation?
We'll if those little things are bothering you, you certainly are taking offense, and for what?
Are you aware of what Ecclesiastes 7:9 says. It's a wise proverb, I think.
However, what I said there was not to you. It was to the scientist with the big dream.
If you take everything said personally, you will easily be offended.
Thanks for the reminder though. I was not thinking about your past experiences. I will try to remember that going forward.
Everyone's make up is different. Some of us are more sensitive than others. I've made a mental note.
This ought to help. Just read this small portion here. Then let's discuss what you understand or don't understand.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
Are you debating symantics?
Because when you put faith in something, you're in hope whatever you have faith in comes to pass.
Why do you say faith is not hope?
nPeace
Veteran Member
"Seems to be the same thing to me" refers to the translations all being the same. Not faith and hope being the same.
I explained the difference.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
My original post had to do with context not whether one should use faith, hope, assurance, assumptions (which it started from).
You said "Faith is not hope."
I'm saying you can use them in the same context and I showed scripture that does just that.
So, unless you're debating with scripture, I'm not sure the point you're getting at.
nPeace
Veteran Member
You showed me a scripture that did not use them in the same context.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
I'm reading your scripture-well, I have to put them in biblehub to understand it-and I gave you a list of the same verse on faith and hope and not sure if you read that. But when I say something, I'm focusing on context not content because sometimes it's hard for me to find the right word but as long as you get the "point", I'm fine with it.
Yes. It is. So why the hope/faith issue?
You're doing it again. I'm pointing out what's off-you're going back and forth from neutral to accusations to sarcasm and back neutral again.
I can't tell if you're discussing a topic or are you throwing things like "making yourself the judge" which doesn't support any point you're making.
1. You have to point it out to me instead of attacking it. Two wrongs don't make a right. I've pointed out where your sarcasm is very abrupt. Tone of voice is absent in online conversations so you'd need to point it out when it happens or at least close to.
2. Online, it does help to show where people go off in a nice way. It's better than sarcasm. I rather go through clarifications than yap at each other.
3. What??? (I type how I talk. At that time I was scratching my head-literally-and scrunching my eyebrows cause I had no idea where you got that idea or how you derive to a said conclusion) It's better to say "what do you mean when you said.... "
4a. I don't debate on RF to win or lose. I have nothing to prove and nothing to convince people of. Religiously, I'd think that's immoral to do such a thing and to anyone who uses scripture to "win an argument" I find that's like using scripture as a weapon not a teaching tool.
...and yes, it is a win lose match. One side wants to win in promoting their agenda to eradicate Judeo-Christian values, by painting Christianity as irrational, and the Bible, and faith, as baseless myth, with their beliefs being rational and scientific beliefs factual.
4b. You got the wrong person, then. It's irrelevant if christianity is right or wrong. It's not my religion. As long as christians aren't harming others and myself over it, I'm fine. I get something to eat and watch a movie without loosing sleep over it.
5. I don't know about attacking champions of truth, though. People have the right to their opinions but I do find christians get offended over these opinions. They're not the victim.
Yes. That was my point. There is no other way to really read it.
Post 185
The ones I linked from biblehub. When you said "they all seem like the same thing." That.
Sarcasm doesn't work well with me. If you want a sarcastic conversation, I am not the best person to talk to. It could be personality but online it isn't reading that way.
But your posts are sarcastic. Sarcasm in itself can be negative or positive regardless how the other person reads it.
Another way to help with the sarcasm is quote three or four sentences instead of one lines of mine so I get the context of what you're referring to.
Yes. It is. So why the hope/faith issue?
You're doing it again. I'm pointing out what's off-you're going back and forth from neutral to accusations to sarcasm and back neutral again.
I can't tell if you're discussing a topic or are you throwing things like "making yourself the judge" which doesn't support any point you're making.
Thanks, but I find that what is often pointed out, is not the truth.
Take
this post for example. It was considered condescending, Whattt? and all I did was add a tiny bit of humor. ...and that's not the first... nor will it be the last.
It doesn't matter what I say, or how I say it, it will be judged negatively, and I think the reason is clear.
One of the reasons - just one - is that I don't normally tell people where to get off, so they try to take advantage of that, and want to push me around - "Don't use emojis nPeace. Don't speak this way nPeace. Answer the question nPeace."
Regardless of what I do, they make up stuff about me.
I see you made a post on how boring the internet is. I'm not here to be bored to death. So... No.
...and yes, it is a win lose match. One side wants to win in promoting their agenda to eradicate Judeo-Christian values, by painting Christianity as irrational, and the Bible, and faith, as baseless myth, with their beliefs being rational and scientific beliefs factual.
The other side stands on the side of truth, that Christians and the Bible, and faith, are logical, and reasonable, and science beliefs are as mythical as claims about religion.
I think because persons are angry that they find it difficult spreading propaganda, they resort to attacking the champions of truth... just as they did Jesus... and Stephen... and Paul...
There is a lot of anger, and I find it is leading to hatred. If I weren't digital, why, I'd be dead.
There goes my humor again. Can't help it. Being bored to death, might be the worst death
1. You have to point it out to me instead of attacking it. Two wrongs don't make a right. I've pointed out where your sarcasm is very abrupt. Tone of voice is absent in online conversations so you'd need to point it out when it happens or at least close to.
2. Online, it does help to show where people go off in a nice way. It's better than sarcasm. I rather go through clarifications than yap at each other.
3. What??? (I type how I talk. At that time I was scratching my head-literally-and scrunching my eyebrows cause I had no idea where you got that idea or how you derive to a said conclusion) It's better to say "what do you mean when you said.... "
4a. I don't debate on RF to win or lose. I have nothing to prove and nothing to convince people of. Religiously, I'd think that's immoral to do such a thing and to anyone who uses scripture to "win an argument" I find that's like using scripture as a weapon not a teaching tool.
...and yes, it is a win lose match. One side wants to win in promoting their agenda to eradicate Judeo-Christian values, by painting Christianity as irrational, and the Bible, and faith, as baseless myth, with their beliefs being rational and scientific beliefs factual.
4b. You got the wrong person, then. It's irrelevant if christianity is right or wrong. It's not my religion. As long as christians aren't harming others and myself over it, I'm fine. I get something to eat and watch a movie without loosing sleep over it.
5. I don't know about attacking champions of truth, though. People have the right to their opinions but I do find christians get offended over these opinions. They're not the victim.
Yes. That was my point. There is no other way to really read it.
Post 185
The ones I linked from biblehub. When you said "they all seem like the same thing." That.
We'll if those little things are bothering you, you certainly are taking offense, and for what?
Are you aware of what Ecclesiastes 7:9 says. It's a wise proverb, I think.
However, what I said there was not to you. It was to the scientist with the big dream.
If you take everything said personally, you will easily be offended.
Thanks for the reminder though. I was not thinking about your past experiences. I will try to remember that going forward.
Everyone's make up is different. Some of us are more sensitive than others. I've made a mental note.
Sarcasm doesn't work well with me. If you want a sarcastic conversation, I am not the best person to talk to. It could be personality but online it isn't reading that way.
But your posts are sarcastic. Sarcasm in itself can be negative or positive regardless how the other person reads it.
Another way to help with the sarcasm is quote three or four sentences instead of one lines of mine so I get the context of what you're referring to.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
It started here. Many christians assume god is the originator or designer of the physical universe; and, to me, that doesn't make it so.
As for where faith and hope came from, I don't know... but I do know you can use them interchangeably so I'm not sure how I'm using it in different context. But my point still stands, though, with the designer. Maybe it's more of an intelligent guess based on confirmation biases and other fallacies, but definitely not a fact.
nPeace
Veteran Member
If your list was more than two items, I must have missed it. I'm not being sarcastic.
Good question. Why don't you tell me? I don't see an issue. I'm not being sarcastic.
You said you "Cannot be mistaken". Anyone that dogmatically declares that they cannot be mistaken about "someone's tone", in written text, has already judged the person without a jury, so they act as the jury, and they become executioner in condemning the person guilty - whether innocent or not.
The only other thing is, they would need to be God, in order to know that they are not mistaken.
Am I wrong? I'm not being sarcastic.
Two wrongs don't make a right is true.
However, some perceptions are not correct, and can cause one to consider everything a wrong. I'm not being sarcastic.
I think it can become an unnecessary and time consuming distraction to focus on and point out a perceived emotion or attitude.
I think as adults we can do better than that, and focus on what the person says, rather than on the poster themselves. I can understand if a person is constantly dropping snide insults about your post or referring to them as garbage... then I think the best thing to do is just ignore that person, and don't even respond to them.
That's what I have been doing, because I have found that if I do respond, there is a strong urge to just "floor them with one punch"... in words, of course.
I'm not being sarcastic.I did ask. You did not respond. If I said I was floored at something you said, what would you call that?
Good. Being a champion for truth does not mean winning an argument, but standing on the side of truth We use the sword both in defense and offense. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)
Great!
I don't know. Most people here get offended easily, apparently. I'm not being sarcastic.
I have seen people read the same sentence and have two opposite views of what they read. So while there is nothing wrong with what's written , there's obviously something wrong with what's going on in the brain. I'm not being sarcastic.
Post 185 is my post. Isn't it?
Sorry. I saw a link to RF. Maybe I missed that link.
Don't understand what you mean by this. Sorry. I'm not being sarcastic.
Unveiled Artist
Veteran Member
If your list was more than two items, I must have missed it. I'm not being sarcastic.
Good question. Why don't you tell me? I don't see an issue. I'm not being sarcastic.
You said you "Cannot be mistaken". Anyone that dogmatically declares that they cannot be mistaken about "someone's tone", in written text, has already judged the person without a jury, so they act as the jury, and they become executioner in condemning the person guilty - whether innocent or not.
The only other thing is, they would need to be God, in order to know that they are not mistaken.
Am I wrong? I'm not being sarcastic.
Two wrongs don't make a right is true.
However, some perceptions are not correct, and can cause one to consider everything a wrong. I'm not being sarcastic.
I think it can become an unnecessary and time consuming distraction to focus on and point out a perceived emotion or attitude.
I think as adults we can do better than that, and focus on what the person says, rather than on the poster themselves. I can understand if a person is constantly dropping snide insults about your post or referring to them as garbage... then I think the best thing to do is just ignore that person, and don't even respond to them.
That's what I have been doing, because I have found that if I do respond, there is a strong urge to just "floor them with one punch"... in words, of course.
I did ask. You did not respond. If I said I was floored at something you said, what would you call that?
Good. Being a champion for truth does not mean winning an argument, but standing on the side of truth We use the sword both in defense and offense. (2 Corinthians 10:3-6)
Great!
I don't know. Most people here get offended easily, apparently. I'm not being sarcastic.
I have seen people read the same sentence and have two opposite views of what they read. So while there is nothing wrong with what's written , there's obviously something wrong with what's going on in the brain. I'm not being sarcastic.
Post 185 is my post. Isn't it?
Sorry. I saw a link to RF. Maybe I missed that link.
Don't understand what you mean by this. Sorry. I'm not being sarcastic.
NPeace. It's just giving you feedback on your conversational tone. Sometimes it's fine. Sometimes it's sarcastic. Sometimes it's accusative.
Instead of going down the list and pointing out when and highlighting where you say you weren't sarcastic, just be mindful that online, that's how your sentences and words translate.
It's not my personal view but just in English etiquette in general, the way you speak (or how you phrase your words) sends signals that you may not be aware of. I'm letting you know it is really throwing off your points.
nPeace
Veteran Member
We all have beliefs.
On faith and hope and context, consider these...
Hope in (קָוָה - qavah) Jehovah
(Psalm 27:14 ; Psalm 37:34 ; Psalm 130:5 ; Proverbs 20:22)
Strong's Hebrew: 6960. קָוָה (qavah) -- wait
qavah ►
Strong's Concordance
qavah: wait
Original Word: קָוָה
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: qavah
Phonetic Spelling: (kaw-vaw')
Definition: to wait for
Click image to enlarge
Faith (אָמַן - aman) in Jehovah
(Genesis 15:6 ; Exodus 14:31; 2 Chronicles 20:20)
Strong's Hebrew: 539. אָמַן (aman) -- to confirm, support
aman ►
Strong's Concordance
aman: to confirm, support
Original Word: אָמַן
Part of Speech: Verb
Transliteration: aman
Phonetic Spelling: (aw-man')
Definition: to confirm, support
NAS Exhaustive Concordance
Word Origin - a prim. root
Definition - to confirm, support
Some translations use the term believe or believed in. It is understood as, to put faith in, as in having confirmation of or support for, so that it merits trust.
One needs faith to wait for/on, and trust someone.
One does not trust a woman with no basis for doing so... unless they are gullible. They trust the woman based on evidence, and certain facts... even if those facts are created with intent to mislead.
Trust in God, is based on faith - the conviction / confirmation / demonstrable evidence, that God is reliable, and worthy of trust. Hence reason to hope in him - wait for him, or hope in his promises - wait on his promises.
The faith allows for the hoping, or waiting.
They are two different things. Two different words. Two different meanings.
Hope (קָוָה - qavah)
Faith (אָמַן - aman)
Last edited: