(August 15, 2016 at 7:55 pm)Jesster Wrote:(August 15, 2016 at 7:46 pm)bennyboy Wrote: 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 think you get it, and I think benny described it imperfectly. It's not really about trust. It's actually a sort of knowing. It's that moment when you do something, and then your mind starts giving you the answers in a weird way, it works extremely efficiently, you know exactly what and how to do it to achieve what you want in the moment.
