(August 15, 2016 at 7:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote:(August 15, 2016 at 7:22 pm)Jesster Wrote: I got to your definition and stopped. As soon as you can redefine something, we are no longer talking about the same thing. I know you want me to read to the end, but what's the point?
I'm not redefining it. It's well within the parameters of the word "faith." When a word has more than one meaning, or an ambiguous meaning, you have to say what you mean when you use it.
And what's this "we" stuff? I'm talking about faith. You aren't doing anything except joining my thread to say there's no point joining my thread.
I'll respond to the useful bits of that because the second bit isn't relevant.
What I see you doing is using trust and calling it faith. Everything you have described relies on people taking previous experiences that have been reliable in the past and trusting that they will work similarly in the future. Just because not all of it is entirely explained to them doesn't mean they are using faith.
If you want to equivocate trust and faith, then it's not possible for you and I to have a useful conversation. Faith may be a subset of trust, but that doesn't mean you get to use the wider definition.
I don't believe you. Get over it.
