Christian "faith" vs. plain "faith"

[Huggy Bear]

A man's word used to mean something. There was a time where you would take the word of a "gentleman" without second thought.

Your cynicism is more a reflection of the times you live in.

Hang on, WHEN did this period of a [gentle]mans word being acceptable on spec, take place? Because having studied history through from the dawn of civilisation shows continuous use of lying and manipulation.
Taking a mans word isn't a sign of that person's integrity, it is a sign of the gullibility and/or servility of the recipient.
You are expected to neglect checks and investigations as a mark of loyalty and obedience to the alpha-male under the implicit threat of reprisal.
This is why I never expect anyone to take me at my word but to investigate for themselves.

I guess you're not familiar with 18th-19th century warfare where it was common for a captured officer to be granted parole if he gave his word that he would not attempt escape. once granted parole, he was treated as a guest and free to move about at will.

http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/law/pow_parole.pdf

Parole is “[t]he agreement of persons who have been taken prisoner
by an enemy that they will not again take up arms against those who cap-
tured them, either for a limited time or during the continuance of the war.” The U.S. Department of Defense (DOD) defines parole more broadly,
however: “Parole agreements are promises given the captor by a POW to
fulfill stated conditions, such as not to bear arms or not to escape, in con-
sideration of special privileges, such as release from captivity or lessened
restraint.”

Medieval knights were also bound by rules of parole. “A knight who
escapes although he had given his word to remain in captivity offends God
and man

During the American Revolution, officers on both sides generally
expected and received paroles. One British commander even paroled
American enlisted troops. The terms and application of the paroles were
not always the same, however. American officers who were paroled by the
British were committed to three essential pledges. They agreed to abstain
from military activity, to refrain from correspondence with the enemy or
criticism of the British and to present themselves if summoned.

[AFTT47]

I tell you my closest neighbor is a blonde lady who loves animals. If you take that on faith, you're making a practical decision. What have I told you is not very important so going through the steps of verifying it isn't worth your time. Also, I have not made a claim that is out of the ordinary in any way and it's hard to see what motive I would have to make up such a trivial thing.

I tell you my closest neighbor has a unicorn. If you take that on faith... I'll let you fill in the sentence.

That's the difference between Christian faith and regular faith.

[watchamadoodle]

Just because I've seen evidence doesn't mean I require it. when Jesus walked up to the disciples and said "come follow me" they dropped what they were doing and followed him having no idea who he was... that's faith. Having spent enough time with him, they seen the evidence of who he was, now it's no longer faith. Get it?

I think what you really mean is that it was "an act of faith". The disciples' faith was close to 0% at the beginning, but the potential returns if Jesus was the "Son of Man" or the "Messiah" made it seem worth the risk in spite of their low confidence. Later the disciples faith increased from 0% to almost 100%.

So you're mixing faith with riskiness. The riskiness is higher when the faith/confidence is lower IMO. This is another example of "faith" meaning all kinds of things and causing confusion.

[Huggy Bear]

We can start here, because the actual point I was making during that conversation was that your position was that no rape had occurred. Given this, how on earth could you accuse me of saying your position was a justification of rape? Wouldn't you have to believe rape had actually happened, to even be in the business of justifying it?

I told you this the last time you made this point, and yet your argument hasn't changed. When you say something that you know is false, that's dishonesty.

The point is, that whole scenario was made up in your mind. Rape was never discussed....So whatever you thought my position was is moot...because that conversation never happened.

And as I said there, when you make two claims, the first being that fiat money has as much value as monopoly money, and the other being that gold has been valuable for thousands of years, the intersection of those two claims is that gold has some value over and above fiat currency. I pointed this out, and as far as I know you didn't respond. It's not my fault that the things you say have logical consequences that you evidently never think through.

Fiat currency IS NOT inherently more valuable than monopoly money, and gold IS more valuable than fiat currency because it is a COMMODITY.
Got it?

I'm not going to play games with you, Huggy. There's a ninety page thread of you braying "show me a cat giving birth to a dog! We've never seen a change between kinds!" When you spend so much time arguing against something and strawmanning it, you can't then pretend later that you don't deny the actual, scientific definition of it.

So you haven't found the quote? I'll help you
http://atheistforums.org/thread-31826-po...#pid896972

I doesn't in fact.
I have stated numerous times that a species evolves from it's own species.
The word the Bible uses for species is "kind" they are synonymous.

It clearly states that each animal is to be brought forth after their kind (species)

The Bible supports evolution, just not the idea that all creatures evolved from a single point.

Where exactly did I deny evolution?

[FatAndFaithless]

You're creating your own definition for evolution that is nothing like the actual scientific theory of evolution.

You deny the actual scientific theory of evolution, and accept your own version that is not the theory of evolution.

[Huggy Bear]

You're creating your own definition for evolution that is nothing like the actual scientific theory of evolution.

You deny the actual scientific theory of evolution, and accept your own version that is not the theory of evolution.

That definition came first thank you. Besides how are you going to try to apply an amendment of a definition to a 1500 year old document. You realize a lot of English words change in meaning right? When you sing that verse form deck the halls "don we now or gay apparel" you don't think they are talking about homosexuals do you?

[Ravenshire]

There is a difference between believing God and some random man off the street. I would even go as far as saying it is no longer faith in my case, I have SEEN the evidence, there isn't the slightest doubt in my mind that God exists.
Whether you believe that or not makes no difference to me.

Really, you've seen it. Then you should easily be able to convey that evidence to us, right?

[crickets]




As I suspected...

[FatAndFaithless]

You're creating your own definition for evolution that is nothing like the actual scientific theory of evolution.

You deny the actual scientific theory of evolution, and accept your own version that is not the theory of evolution.

That definition came first thank you. Besides how are you going to try to apply an amendment to a definition to a 1500 year old document.

No, there is no "theory of evolution" in the Bible. There is a current definition of the theory of evolution that is used in biology and science in general for that matter.

You are denying the scientific theory of evolution. You can try and redefine it as much as you want, but you just have to answer one question.


Do you accept the theory of evolution, as it is defined and described in science?

Obviously you don't, so yes, you are denying the theory of evolution.

[Huggy Bear]

That definition came first thank you. Besides how are you going to try to apply an amendment to a definition to a 1500 year old document.

No, there is no "theory of evolution" in the Bible. There is a current definition of the theory of evolution that is used in biology and science in general for that matter.

You are denying the scientific theory of evolution. You can try and redefine it as much as you want, but you just have to answer one question.


Do you accept the theory of evolution, as it is defined and described in science?

Obviously you don't, so yes, you are denying the theory of evolution.

No, I'm denying their version of evolution.
Besides you're the last one that should should be discussing science.....

[FatAndFaithless]

Good, so you admit to denying the scientific theory of evolution.

You can accept your own "biblical" definition of your version of evolution, but you are indeed denying the scientific theory of evolution, which is what people are referring to when they say you deny evolution.