Total Posts:110|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

What is Faith?

Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

Well not exactly but most similar to in the sense of researching or witnessing events and presenting them to the public... don't want to have any comparisons to "nightcrawler"...lol which was an awesome movie btw. B-)
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 11:09:47 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

Well not exactly but most similar to in the sense of researching or witnessing events and presenting them to the public... don't want to have any comparisons to "nightcrawler"...lol which was an awesome movie btw. B-)

I believe faith is all up to what the observer decides. If one thinks they are going to Valhalla, then that is where they are going. Has nothing to do with me and you. People have faith in something they have already known. For instance, as i kid i used to pretend i was in space wars ... so when i watched star wars i really liked it. It was a feeling/intuition that was already within. Bottom line it comes down to what you are living for. Christians are living for their paradise. The place that they want to go. They know the rules to get there. So, they live reality the way they should to get to their heaven. However, faiths can be different. I think this is why we debate so passionately. We are telling people their paradise doesn't exist just bc something else may be true. I don't understand this quarrel, why can't people see everything is true. Their paradise exists so does mine. Everything is written by humans. There has never been supernatural "magic" in this world. Heaven is just a word. If you ask two Christians how they want their heaven to be, you most likely will get two different answers. I believe religious text had a purpose, but we are dragging out its purpose for too long ... we need to move on spiritually. We are lacking acceptance. We don't realize we are quarreling with immortals that know their world is true. Would i stand in front of a Viking ready to die for his paradise and preach, "hey check out my religion"? That's the fastest way to get head chopped off.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 11:21:48 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 11:09:47 PM, Outplayz wrote:
I believe faith is all up to what the observer decides. If one thinks they are going to Valhalla, then that is where they are going. Has nothing to do with me and you. People have faith in something they have already known. For instance, as i kid i used to pretend i was in space wars ... so when i watched star wars i really liked it. It was a feeling/intuition that was already within. Bottom line it comes down to what you are living for. Christians are living for their paradise. The place that they want to go. They know the rules to get there. So, they live reality the way they should to get to their heaven. However, faiths can be different. I think this is why we debate so passionately. We are telling people their paradise doesn't exist just bc something else may be true. I don't understand this quarrel, why can't people see everything is true. Their paradise exists so does mine. Everything is written by humans. There has never been supernatural "magic" in this world. Heaven is just a word. If you ask two Christians how they want their heaven to be, you most likely will get two different answers. I believe religious text had a purpose, but we are dragging out its purpose for too long ... we need to move on spiritually. We are lacking acceptance. We don't realize we are quarreling with immortals that know their world is true. Would i stand in front of a Viking ready to die for his paradise and preach, "hey check out my religion"? That's the fastest way to get head chopped off.


I mean...sure? I'm not gonna tell you how to define faith as you see it. This post was more directed at Christians, or anyone who maybe wanted to understand how our "faith" works?

Not to kill you're point though, because it is interesting. I will admit I feel its actually a pretty popular view... sort of sincerity in spirituality. Maybe a more inner-truth or security. I think in just about every religion other than that of the Bible teaches something like that...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 11:32:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean...sure? I'm not gonna tell you how to define faith as you see it. This post was more directed at Christians, or anyone who maybe wanted to understand how our "faith" works?

Not to kill you're point though, because it is interesting. I will admit I feel its actually a pretty popular view... sort of sincerity in spirituality. Maybe a more inner-truth or security. I think in just about every religion other than that of the Bible teaches something like that...

To me there is nothing wrong with the Bible. i actually have an app that gives me quotes everyday. Some things i read are uplifting. In my opinion, your faith in Christianity is a good one. I just don't understand the faith when it thinks it is correct for everyone. It is very clear to me that those ultimatums were appropriate for those times. Of course i would write down, "don't leave this faith and other faiths are wrong" when armies are attacking. I have a problem with religion when it assumes it has all the answers for everyone. Yet, it is right for everyone. There are many teachings and morals that are good to know. To get to my own "paradise" i need to follow similar rules. However, faith, is within the observer that knows that is the type of paradise they subscribe to. When you heard the teachings you intuitively connected. However, i always like to ask this ... do you know what you have faith in? I mean, what is the end result? What is your faith in paradise, or what paradise is your god going to give you? Can you have this paradise forever? Infinity is a long time.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/17/2015 11:49:27 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

Yes, it is. All humans who live in societies abide by some sort of faith -- in trust that people will look out for one another, for example. When we exchange currency, catch a bus or drive on the roads, we are putting our faith in a system we cannot control and seldom inspect. We believe (because we have seen evidence, and have no good reason to disbelieve) that currency will be worth what we think it is, that bus-drivers are qualified, sober and competent, and that drivers in oncoming lanes are trained, and diligent in not coming into our lane -- and for the most part, we are correct.

But religious faith is not that, P7. I think it resembles the cognitive arrest that psychologists call denial [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...], which may include:
* a preconscious appraisal of danger (in this case, a threatening realisation associated with some contrary fact or another)
* painful affect (e.g. stress arising from cognitive dissonance or doubt as fact seems to conflict with belief);
* cognitive arrest (being unable to explore the idea to conclusion); and
* screen behaviour (finding a way to dismiss the idea so it need not be confronted or thought of again.)

That is more than just belief without evidence -- since acting on a conjecture can also be belief without evidence. Religious faith seems to me the expression of a crippling dependence on belief, even in the face of contrary or conflicting evidence.

That is what I think the religious are doing when they exercise theological faith. As the authors of the linked paper put it:

The subject's preconscious appraisal of some situation as actually or potentially dangerous or traumatic brings about the formation of some painful affect. The painful affect initiates a reaction in which the subject turns his focal attention from whatever disturbs him to something less threatening. This turning away or rejection of what is disturbing involves an arrest of the subject's perceiving and/or thinking about the painful object. In the cognitive arrest phase, the subject unconsciously in fantasy attacks the concrete representation of whatever he considers to be the cause of his psychic pain. These fantasy attempts to destroy the painful object arrest the subject's thinking at a primary process level. The fantasy attacks on the painful object and the consequent cognitive arrest is followed by screen behaviour. Screen behaviour is defined as the ideas, fantasies, affects, and overt behaviours motivated by the need to fill in the gaps created by the cognitive arrest, to substitute a different object relation for the one subjectively lost, and to support the defensive aims of the preceding phase. Auxiliary defences acting in conjunction with denial are frequently used in the screen behaviour phase.

I don't suggest that it's only the religious doing it. Elizabeth Kuebler-Ross has talked about a similar kind of denial as a prelude to grieving... and there are other forms of denial that can affect the religious and the non-religious alike.

However, what distinguishes denial with the devout for me is how rarely it gets beyond cognitive arrest and screen behaviour -- in fact theology and religous ritual seem to have highly-developed ways of helping the faithful keep it there.

In conclusion, I don't think it's worthwhile inventing some new definition of faith in this case, P7, since psychology has an existing one. It's called denial, and arises from inability to cope with the world as it is.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 12:21:04 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 11:49:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
But religious faith is not that, P7. I think it resembles the cognitive arrest that psychologists call denial [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...], which may include:
* a preconscious appraisal of danger (in this case, a threatening realisation associated with some contrary fact or another)
* painful affect (e.g. stress arising from cognitive dissonance or doubt as fact seems to conflict with belief);
* cognitive arrest (being unable to explore the idea to conclusion); and
* screen behaviour (finding a way to dismiss the idea so it need not be confronted or thought of again.)

That is more than just belief without evidence -- since acting on a conjecture can also be belief without evidence. Religious faith seems to me the expression of a crippling dependence on belief, even in the face of contrary or conflicting evidence.

That is what I think the religious are doing when they exercise theological faith. As the authors of the linked paper put it:

The subject's preconscious appraisal of some situation as actually or potentially dangerous or traumatic brings about the formation of some painful affect. The painful affect initiates a reaction in which the subject turns his focal attention from whatever disturbs him to something less threatening. This turning away or rejection of what is disturbing involves an arrest of the subject's perceiving and/or thinking about the painful object. In the cognitive arrest phase, the subject unconsciously in fantasy attacks the concrete representation of whatever he considers to be the cause of his psychic pain. These fantasy attempts to destroy the painful object arrest the subject's thinking at a primary process level. The fantasy attacks on the painful object and the consequent cognitive arrest is followed by screen behaviour. Screen behaviour is defined as the ideas, fantasies, affects, and overt behaviours motivated by the need to fill in the gaps created by the cognitive arrest, to substitute a different object relation for the one subjectively lost, and to support the defensive aims of the preceding phase. Auxiliary defences acting in conjunction with denial are frequently used in the screen behaviour phase.

That was a great explanation of denial. Seriously, if our brains are working that all out subconsciously (I assume it is), that is amazing! Unfortunately for your point, this is glaringly ambiguous. I'm sure you are aware of that though, right?

I don't suggest that it's only the religious doing it. Elizabeth Kuebler-Ross has talked about a similar kind of denial as a prelude to grieving... and there are other forms of denial that can affect the religious and the non-religious alike.

I'm sure there are, and I'm sincerely convinced that MANY people suffer from this. However, like I said before, had you not stapled it to religious faith, I was thinking almost immediately of people who claim to have no belief. Not to mention, that paper, said nothing about the religious; which obviously leads me and anyone else to believe you just prescribed it based on your own personal feeling on the matter. Which is actually ok.. cause you're probably right about a lot of religious people.

However, what distinguishes denial with the devout for me is how rarely it gets beyond cognitive arrest and screen behaviour -- in fact theology and religous ritual seem to have highly-developed ways of helping the faithful keep it there.

Do you have any example of these reilgious rituals? More specifically, Christian rituals.

In conclusion, I don't think it's worthwhile inventing some new definition of faith in this case, P7, since psychology has an existing one. It's called denial, and arises from inability to cope with the world as it is.

Well, the thing is my friend, this isn't a new definition-- by all means research it for yourself. This is, and has always been the faith described in the bible.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 12:52:40 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 11:32:52 PM, Outplayz wrote:
However, i always like to ask this ... do you know what you have faith in? I mean, what is the end result? What is your faith in paradise, or what paradise is your god going to give you? Can you have this paradise forever? Infinity is a long time.

My faith is in Christ. That he is the Son of God, and that he came for his Fathers glory, to die as a sacrifice for his creations sin. The end result has already happened I suppose, I mean he already died and rose from the dead so as he said "it is finished".
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 1:13:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 12:21:04 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/17/2015 11:49:27 PM, RuvDraba wrote:
But religious faith is not that, P7. I think it resembles the cognitive arrest that psychologists call denial [https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov...], which may include:
That paper said nothing about the religious; which obviously leads me and anyone else to believe you just prescribed it based on your own personal feeling on the matter. Which is actually ok.. cause you're probably right about a lot of religious people.

The paper was not studying the religious, which is why I said it was a resemblance and not a scientific finding. However, the resemblance is close. In particular, consider the following:

Despite its claim to absolute moral and physical authority, theology has repeatedly failed to accurately predict geology, geography, medicine, physics, astrophysics, psychology, climatology, biology, sociology and history. Religious apologetics have made many evasions for these failures, but when all evasions fail, the ultimate response is: you need faith.

In other words, the faithful need denial regarding theology's intellectual failures.

Yet in most intellectual endeavours, in the absence of evidence, doubt is considered healthy; in particular, holding doubt open until there is conclusive evidence is a sign of curiosity and open-mindedness. Yet in many religious sects, prolonged doubt is considered sinful, and is often conflated with pride. In other words, doubting is held to be a moral failure of the doubter -- which virtually forces the doubter to seek some sort of cognitive arrest to avoid the sin of doubting. On the other hand, closing one's mind to doubt is considered virtuous -- it's what the religious call 'faith', and is indistinguishable from denial of contrary evidence.

However, what distinguishes denial with the devout for me is how rarely it gets beyond cognitive arrest and screen behaviour -- in fact theology and religous ritual seem to have highly-developed ways of helping the faithful keep it there.
Do you have any example of these reilgious rituals? More specifically, Christian rituals.

Religion offers numerous rituals and platitudes resembling what the authors decribed as: fantasy attempts to destroy the painful object arrest the subject's thinking at a primary process level. The fantasy attacks on the painful object and the consequent cognitive arrest is followed by screen behaviour. Screen behaviour is defined as the ideas, fantasies, affects, and overt behaviours motivated by the need to fill in the gaps created by the cognitive arrest, to substitute a different object relation for the one subjectively lost, and to support the defensive aims of the preceding phase

For example, fantasising that harm is created by a devil and praying to renounce the devil constitutes a fantasy attack on the pain of the original harm. Holding that there is a divine plan for the harm in the world represents a fantasy used to fill in the gap created by cognitive arrest: that God didn't look after one as expected, in the first place. Turning suffering into a 'test' to prove piety can be viewed as a screening behaviour that makes suffering an opportunity rather than a betrayal. Praying to be forgiven sins that 'caused' past harm deflects blame from the faith to the faithful.

One could go on.

In conclusion, I don't think it's worthwhile inventing some new definition of faith in this case, P7, since psychology has an existing one. It's called denial, and arises from inability to cope with the world as it is.
Well, the thing is my friend, this isn't a new definition-- by all means research it for yourself. This is, and has always been the faith described in the bible.

You have no authority to hold that any word of the Bible is true, P7. Such authority can only come from physical evidence, and it has been shown repeatedly that physical evidence contradicts more Biblical claims than it supports. On the other hand, psychologists have made extensive studies of human behaviour, and anyone doubting the veracity of their findings can examine the studies. So I see no reason to privilege an unauthoritative and self-serving biblical definition when an independent, carefully-researched scientific definition already exists, and appears to capture the notion of theological faith very well.
Skyangel
Posts: 8,234
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 1:23:59 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

Well not exactly but most similar to in the sense of researching or witnessing events and presenting them to the public... don't want to have any comparisons to "nightcrawler"...lol which was an awesome movie btw. B-)

If you want a definition of the kind of "faith" referred to in the bible, whats wrong with using the biblical definition and description of it?
Is there something wrong with using the definition the book itself gives you ?

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

What does that mean to you ?
How do you interpret "Substance of things hoped for"..... "Evidence of things not seen" ?
It sounds to me like SUBSTANCE and EVIDENCE has nothing to do with "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."
Substance and evidence makes me think of something that has proof not something without proof.

Knowledge, believing data, Intellectual Assent, self convincing, fiduciary commitment, are not substance or evidence of anything but human thought processes, trust and belief.

Evidence of something you cannot see is like having evidence that the wind exists even if you cannot see the wind. You can still see how it affect things and can believe it exists because of the evidence of its existence.
Substance of things hoped for is like hoping for rain in a drought and your belief that the rain exists and will come is proved to be true when the rain arrives.
You have reason to hope it will happen because it has happened before and has been observed before so there is no reason to doubt that rain will eventually come to break any drought.

However, hoping an invisible unicorn will become visible clouds is a faith based on a fantasy. It has no substance or evidence to support it.

I can believe, have faith and hope a rainbow will appear in the sky because it has happened before but I cannot believe a man will ever appear in clouds without a parachute or plane of some kind.

People appearing and disappearing in literal clouds simply makes no sense in reality.
As a figure of speech it makes sense but not if you try to imagine physical people literally vanishing into literal clouds and reappearing in them like some magic trick. It only happens in man made illusions.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:39:13 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 1:13:19 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The paper was not studying the religious, which is why I said it was a resemblance and not a scientific finding. However, the resemblance is close. In particular, consider the following:

Despite its claim to absolute moral and physical authority, theology has repeatedly failed to accurately predict geology, geography, medicine, physics, astrophysics, psychology, climatology, biology, sociology and history. Religious apologetics have made many evasions for these failures, but when all evasions fail, the ultimate response is: you need faith.

Yeah, that would make sense. If all of that were true, then I would certainly consider a person to simply be in denial. However, its not. Let me ask you a question though, and this really could determine if this conversation will be at all worth pursuing.

If I were to take that paper you presented, and state it cannot be true because is fails to accurately predict geology, physics, and history etc etc, what would you say? You'd probably laugh, and rightfully so.

However, I don't think you're completely mischaracterizing the bible though, there are many things in the bible that must be true and I believe they've been sufficiently substantiated. For example: genealogy, history, psychology, and geography.

And yes, the answer would be faith: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

Yet in most intellectual endeavours, in the absence of evidence, doubt is considered healthy; in particular, holding doubt open until there is conclusive evidence is a sign of curiosity and open-mindedness.

I agree, with exception to open-mindedness; I don't think doubt is in anyway a sign of this.

Yet in many religious sects, prolonged doubt is considered sinful, and is often conflated with pride. In other words, doubting is held to be a moral failure of the doubter -- which virtually forces the doubter to seek some sort of cognitive arrest to avoid the sin of doubting. On the other hand, closing one's mind to doubt is considered virtuous -- it's what the religious call 'faith', and is indistinguishable from denial of contrary evidence.

Sure, doubting in some contexts is a symptom of sin, but that should be understood unless it would appear you are equivocating. Certainly you don't suppose that if one person doubted that another person could lift a heavy object that any religious sect would consider that doubt a sin...But, you are partly correct, some religious certainly use threats or scare-tactics to compensate for there inability to persuade or answer a doubter.

For example, fantasising that harm is created by a devil and praying to renounce the devil constitutes a fantasy attack on the pain of the original harm. Holding that there is a divine plan for the harm in the world represents a fantasy used to fill in the gap created by cognitive arrest: that God didn't look after one as expected, in the first place. Turning suffering into a 'test' to prove piety can be viewed as a screening behaviour that makes suffering an opportunity rather than a betrayal. Praying to be forgiven sins that 'caused' past harm deflects blame from the faith to the faithful.

One could go on.

Yeah, I can see how that would be perceived as denial and in a lot of cases, actually be denial. But, I can make an equally long list of situations, and beliefs that would just as easily be considered cognitive arrest from just about any angle I wish to take. This isn't sufficient evidence bro... its not sufficient at all.

You have no authority to hold that any word of the Bible is true, P7. Such authority can only come from physical evidence, and it has been shown repeatedly that physical evidence contradicts more Biblical claims than it supports. On the other hand, psychologists have made extensive studies of human behaviour, and anyone doubting the veracity of their findings can examine the studies. So I see no reason to privilege an unauthoritative and self-serving biblical definition when an independent, carefully-researched scientific definition already exists, and appears to capture the notion of theological faith very well.

I understand your opinion, and I respectfully disagree. However, I do not hold any authority nor did I claim to. I simply stated what I know to be a fact. That the way faith is defined according to the bible, which is universally accepted to be thousands of years old, and has withstood any and all attempts to be proven inaccurate or containing false information, is notitia, assensus, fiducia. If you want to define it another way, thats fine, but as you said earlier, denial was what the study was about, NOT faith, and you are merely making your own connection, which isn't scientific.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 2:51:32 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:39:13 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
If I were to take that paper you presented, and state it cannot be true because is fails to accurately predict geology, physics, and history etc etc, what would you say? You'd probably laugh, and rightfully so.

Paradox, will you be using straw-man arguments in future? If so, I can answer your question immediately: this conversation is not worth pursuing.

A psychological study predicts psychology. But theologians claim Biblical authority from revelation, and its revelations make incorrect statements about all the sciences. Therefore why should its metaphysical or moral statements be believed, when the same authors made them who either made or endorsed the other fallacies?

Born of cognitive arrest -- a fear- or pain-driven inability to digest facts running contrary to belief -- denial is the constant dismissal on pretext of matters that should be essential to the belief itself... like the identity, knowledge, and accountability of Biblical authors, the accuracy, consistency and accountability of theologians, the consistency of character and agency of the deity supposedly worshiped across the centuries of faith.

All these are areas of unnacountable error, inaccuracy, inconsistency and discrepancy -- flaws that would not be tolerated in any other intellectual endeavour (beyond perhaps, the equally-mendacious rhetoric of politics.)

But Christians tolerate these flaws and sweep them under the rug of 'faith'.

In both effect and process then, faith is therefore functionally equivalent to denial.

And if you want to divide it into denial of ignorance (Notitia), denial of scrutiny (Assentia), and denial of accountability (Fiducia), then those are just subcategories of the same intellectual evasions that caused fallacious authorities to be claimed in the first place.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 3:25:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 2:51:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:39:13 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
If I were to take that paper you presented, and state it cannot be true because is fails to accurately predict geology, physics, and history etc etc, what would you say? You'd probably laugh, and rightfully so.

Paradox, will you be using straw-man arguments in future? If so, I can answer your question immediately: this conversation is not worth pursuing.

A psychological study predicts psychology.

That was my point sir. The bible is about God, and with it we learn about him. Along the way, as we learn more about him, and his work with this world and in this world, we get tiny glimpses of information about the natural world; though this information isn't detailed, it has proven helpful in many fields of science. Hopefully now you understand why I asked that question.

But theologians claim Biblical authority from revelation, and its revelations make incorrect statements about all the sciences. Therefore why should its metaphysical or moral statements be believed, when the same authors made them who either made or endorsed the other fallacies?

None of the theologians I know claim any sort of special revelation. Perhaps in the general sense of the word... that is to come to knowledge of a previously unknown fact. But they arrive at these revelations the same way you seem to endorse... doubt or neutrality until sufficient evidence is brought forward. But, sure some people will use scriptures to make silly predictions all the time... the same can certainly be said of science as well though; as if they are so disconnected as you think they are.

Born of cognitive arrest -- a fear- or pain-driven inability to digest facts running contrary to belief -- denial is the constant dismissal on pretext of matters that should be essential to the belief itself... like the identity, knowledge, and accountability of Biblical authors, the accuracy, consistency and accountability of theologians, the consistency of character and agency of the deity supposedly worshiped across the centuries of faith.

All these are areas of unnacountable error, inaccuracy, inconsistency and discrepancy -- flaws that would not be tolerated in any other intellectual endeavour (beyond perhaps, the equally-mendacious rhetoric of politics.)

I suppose you should be more specific... because this bare assertion stuff is getting us no where.

But Christians tolerate these flaws and sweep them under the rug of 'faith'.

I don't... at least not in the sense of the way you use the word. I want to know the truth, and so far the evidence suggests that its in faith in Christ. Which is what I'm referring to you know? Not faith in Gods existence...

In both effect and process then, faith is therefore functionally equivalent to denial.

In both effect and process then, disbelief is therefore functionally equivalent to denial.

=/

And if you want to divide it into denial of ignorance (Notitia), denial of scrutiny (Assentia), and denial of accountability (Fiducia), then those are just subcategories of the same intellectual evasions that caused fallacious authorities to be claimed in the first place.

Should I simply accept you reasoning based on what you've said alone? Seriously. After all you've just said about evidence and cognitive arrest, yada yada, would you truly expect me to renounce my faith? Would that make sense to you?
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 4:35:07 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 3:25:44 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:51:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The bible is about God,
With respect, P7, you have no special authority to say what the Bible is about.

Written and redacted over a period of some 1,200 years, the works of the Bible have multiple authors and multiple audiences -- and you cannot with confidence name all its authors, identify the target audiences for which each wrote, cannot say what the authors intended with each work, and cannot name who redacted, curated, ordered, attributed or even titled most works, nor identify the criteria under which they did so.

So the Bible may or may not all be about God, but it is certainly about the ideas and beliefs of multiple cultures, polities and histories -- none of which are your own.

None of the theologians I know claim any sort of special revelation.
Then that's a pity, P7, because without detailed knowledge, it means they've been conjecturing -- and then propagating their conjectures as moral imperatives.

They arrive at these revelations the same way you seem to endorse... doubt or neutrality until sufficient evidence is brought forward.
That is patently untrue, since independent Biblical historians and linguists arrive at very different conclusions to most theologians (for example, serious Biblical historians say outright that the Old Testament is not theology nor history, but literature tracing cultural and political changes across approximately 600 years of Israelite turmoil.) And the reason for this discrepancy is that true scholarship comprises questions looking for evidence, while theology tends to be claims looking for justification.

I suppose you should be more specific... because this bare assertion stuff is getting us no where.
Okay. For just a sample, I invite you to consider which great scientific and humanitarian discoveries were predicted by the Bible. Can you identify where divinely-inspired and inerrant Biblical authors identified (for example):

* A germ theory of disease;
* A heliocentric view of the solar system;
* The correct age of the earth;
* The origin of species and an accurate descent of man;
* An accurate understanding of the origins of crime and recidivism;
* An atomic theory of chemistry;
* The laws of thermodynamics;
* An accurate and compassionate understanding of human sexuality;
* The benefits of democracy, freedom of speech and expression;
* The right for every human being to not live in servitude;
* The importance of not treating women and children as chattels;
* The obligations of a ruler to be subject to the rule of law;
* The benefits of secular democracy, and the importance of separating faith from politics; or
* The importance of literacy for human development?

(That's a rhetorical question. These were all ideas that arrived independently of Christian theology, and which are now seen as crucial to the dignity and welfare of human beings -- yet all contradict the Bible in either word or spirit.)

I want to know the truth, and so far the evidence suggests that its in faith in Christ. Which is what I'm referring to you know? Not faith in Gods existence...
Based on examinations of what other human thought have you drawn that conclusion, P7? What other faiths and beliefs would you say you know a lot about?

I'm asking because you seem to be advancing some naive ideas, both about Christianity and religion.

In both effect and process then, faith is therefore functionally equivalent to denial.
In both effect and process then, disbelief is therefore functionally equivalent to denial.

You mentioned this before, but didn't support it. If you feel that the history of Christian theology is based on diligent research, scrupulous contestability and unflinching accountability then I'm afraid you're in for some disappointment.

But if you don't think Christian theology upholds those virtues, then you need to ask yourself why it does not, when all other serious intellectual disciplines do. And when you've thought that through, I imagine you mightn't want to ape my words any more, because you'll see they don't apply. It's entirely appropriate to reject bad scholarship because it's bad.

Would you truly expect me to renounce my faith?
No, I don't mind if you keep your faith, P7. I mind if you claim authorities you're not entitled to. The authority of theological faith is particularly obnoxious because it defies all reasonable precepts of accountability. That might be okay if faith were kept private, but it's hardly okay when it's used for advocacy and to claim authority over the lives and beliefs of others.

Faith is denial -- of evidence, scrutiny, and accountability for error. It takes such a denial to keep Christians subject to erroneous, unjustified and flawed theological influence.
JJ50
Posts: 2,144
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 5:24:18 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!
:
:
Well not exactly but most similar to in the sense of researching or witnessing events and presenting them to the public... don't want to have any comparisons to "nightcrawler"...lol which was an awesome movie btw. B-)

You are joking! The less than credible stuff featured in the Bible is a figment of the human imagination with absolutely no evidence to back it up.
E2D2
Posts: 156
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 10:49:22 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

Well not exactly but most similar to in the sense of researching or witnessing events and presenting them to the public... don't want to have any comparisons to "nightcrawler"...lol which was an awesome movie btw. B-)

I don't think it's possible to read a Bible and be saved as Christians believe. Did Jesus tell his disciples to read the Bible to be saved?
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 3:58:32 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 12:52:40 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/17/2015 11:32:52 PM, Outplayz wrote:

My faith is in Christ. That he is the Son of God, and that he came for his Fathers glory, to die as a sacrifice for his creations sin. The end result has already happened I suppose, I mean he already died and rose from the dead so as he said "it is finished".

Sounds good. I don't understand one thing though, maybe you can help me. I ask some people what they would think if this didn't happen as magically as it sounds. That Jesus was just another man. To me, i still hold significance in the story, however, to the theists i've asked they say they would abandon the idea all together if this didn't happen exactly like this. I don't get this. Why does it have to be exactly like this? Why are theist afraid to admit some parts are either wrong or influenced by less than honorable men?
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 7:11:02 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 4:35:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/18/2015 3:25:44 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:51:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The bible is about God,
With respect, P7, you have no special authority to say what the Bible is about.

I require a "special" authority to state what I've found to be true? Do you also posses this "special" authority to say that those of religious faith are in denial? Or to judge my competence on matters of my faith?

Written and redacted over a period of some 1,200 years, the works of the Bible have multiple authors and multiple audiences -- and you cannot with confidence name all its authors, identify the target audiences for which each wrote, cannot say what the authors intended with each work, and cannot name who redacted, curated, ordered, attributed or even titled most works, nor identify the criteria under which they did so.

So the Bible may or may not all be about God, but it is certainly about the ideas and beliefs of multiple cultures, polities and histories -- none of which are your own.

Actually it was closer to 1500-1600 years, and the work of 40 authors. The times each book was written over the 15-16 centuries are considered to be reliable estimations by nearly all scholars. The audiences are also well known, and there is little debate with exception to perhaps a handful of books (namely: Hebrews and 2 Peter). All of this is not at all the issue you'd make it seem to be. This information is available for you to research; you can compare all of the evidence, and then make your conclusion truly sound, so it doesn't appear you are merely in denial. ;)

None of the theologians I know claim any sort of special revelation.
Then that's a pity, P7, because without detailed knowledge, it means they've been conjecturing -- and then propagating their conjectures as moral imperatives.

Perhaps, you should use less ambiguous terminology in the future, because "special revelation" doesn't seem an appropriate synonym for "detailed knowledge" which they do have. Have you ever heard the quote: "Seek first to understand, then to be understood"? I feel that you aren't really trying to understand what I'm saying but rather using this conversation to simply restate stuff you've rehearsed in case you run into a topic like this. This is the first time I've posted on faith.

That is patently untrue, since independent Biblical historians and linguists arrive at very different conclusions to most theologians (for example, serious Biblical historians say outright that the Old Testament is not theology nor history, but literature tracing cultural and political changes across approximately 600 years of Israelite turmoil.) And the reason for this discrepancy is that true scholarship comprises questions looking for evidence, while theology tends to be claims looking for justification.

I mean no disrespect when I say this, but that paragraph is non-sense. Theology is simply the study of God, and the Bible (OT and NT) are the authoritative means by which we learn about him. Saying the bible IS the study of God is like saying a hammer IS construction. So of course no historians consider it theology, theologians don't either! Not too mention just about everyone who studies God is a theologian, including a historian or linguist. You're post makes no sense.

Okay. For just a sample, I invite you to consider which great scientific and humanitarian discoveries were predicted by the Bible. Can you identify where divinely-inspired and inerrant Biblical authors identified (for example):

* A germ theory of disease;
* A heliocentric view of the solar system;
* The correct age of the earth;
* The origin of species and an accurate descent of man;
* An accurate understanding of the origins of crime and recidivism;
* An atomic theory of chemistry;
* The laws of thermodynamics;
* An accurate and compassionate understanding of human sexuality;
* The benefits of democracy, freedom of speech and expression;
* The right for every human being to not live in servitude;
* The importance of not treating women and children as chattels;
* The obligations of a ruler to be subject to the rule of law;
* The benefits of secular democracy, and the importance of separating faith from politics; or
* The importance of literacy for human development?

(That's a rhetorical question. These were all ideas that arrived independently of Christian theology, and which are now seen as crucial to the dignity and welfare of human beings -- yet all contradict the Bible in either word or spirit.)

Conjecture-- completely useless and irrelevant my dude!

Based on examinations of what other human thought have you drawn that conclusion, P7? What other faiths and beliefs would you say you know a lot about?

I'm asking because you seem to be advancing some naive ideas, both about Christianity and religion.

Man, for someone whom I've just only met, you seem to think you have some sort of upper hand here...lol Do you want my research and examination resume? Because if you do, then I think you should cough one up as well. Based on what you've shown so far, I don't think you don't know quite as much as you think you do. What idea have I actually put forward that you believe to be "naive"? Other than things you just disagree with.

You mentioned this before, but didn't support it. If you feel that the history of Christian theology is based on diligent research, scrupulous contestability and unflinching accountability then I'm afraid you're in for some disappointment.

Lol, so are you saying that I haven't already looked into this? for years? Seriously buddy... if you're gonna jump on this forum, expect to speak with at least some people who've done there due diligence to research what they're talking about, and don't assume you're the only one enlightened person here.

Would you truly expect me to renounce my faith?
No, I don't mind if you keep your faith, P7. I mind if you claim authorities you're not entitled to. The authority of theological faith is particularly obnoxious because it defies all reasonable precepts of accountability. That might be okay if faith were kept private, but it's hardly okay when it's used for advocacy and to claim authority over the lives and beliefs of others.

But, you have to realize, that's exactly what you're doing. The point of what I said, was to give you hint; step back and take a look at everything you've put forward so far... none of it would qualify under your own standards!

Faith is denial -- of evidence, scrutiny, and accountability for error. It takes such a denial to keep Christians subject to erroneous, unjustified and flawed theological influence.

Said RD.
Not science, and Not psychology.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:31:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 3:58:32 PM, Outplayz wrote:
At 6/18/2015 12:52:40 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/17/2015 11:32:52 PM, Outplayz wrote:

My faith is in Christ. That he is the Son of God, and that he came for his Fathers glory, to die as a sacrifice for his creations sin. The end result has already happened I suppose, I mean he already died and rose from the dead so as he said "it is finished".

Sounds good. I don't understand one thing though, maybe you can help me. I ask some people what they would think if this didn't happen as magically as it sounds. That Jesus was just another man. To me, i still hold significance in the story, however, to the theists i've asked they say they would abandon the idea all together if this didn't happen exactly like this. I don't get this. Why does it have to be exactly like this? Why are theist afraid to admit some parts are either wrong or influenced by less than honorable men?

Mainly because the whole book, as I understand it, is about God; not us. From the Genesis to Rev, its about God; his work, his promises, and his glory. So if you remove the central character to this type of a story, it falls apart.

Sure, there are bits and pieces of good advice in there, but they generally don't make any sense when removed from the original narrative.

I don't feel I identify with a person being afraid of being wrong... I don't like to be wrong, but I enjoy finding out whats right; what is true, even more. I'm definitely not the type of person who will think a person is somehow suffering from a mental disease for not seeing my way or suffering from delusion. I'm sure people do suffer from that sort of thing, but I don't think its very common, especially not the majority of people... certain people see the truth and some people don't. I could be among those who doesn't. =/
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:37:59 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

You left out obedience, which is inherent in the broader definition of pistis/pisteuo. Also, left out was "system of doctrine", as in "some shall depart from the faith."
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:44:36 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 8:37:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

You left out obedience, which is inherent in the broader definition of pistis/pisteuo.

Sure, this would fall under trust. True faith produces obedience.

Also, left out was "system of doctrine", as in "some shall depart from the faith."

Again, sure.. although I'm convinced that whom ever leaves the faith was never truly destined to persevere.(1 John 2:19)
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Saint_of_Me
Posts: 2,402
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:47:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

Well not exactly but most similar to in the sense of researching or witnessing events and presenting them to the public... don't want to have any comparisons to "nightcrawler"...lol which was an awesome movie btw. B-)

With all of the countless contradictions and just plain old errors and falsehoods in the Bible, an investigative reporter wouldn't last a week before getting fired fraud if he wrote stuff that false. Invesitigative reporters check their facts to ensure their are no contradictions or errors.

I mean, sure, if you want to have Faith in god or that JC was resurrected and was not simply a fully mortal teacher and philosopher, fine. But to take the bible as literal and not just as a compilation of allegorical and metaphorical fables written by dozens of authors over the span of 1500 years is to be so open-minded that your brains fall out.
Science Flies Us to the Moon. Religion Flies us Into Skyscrapers.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:48:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Mainly because the whole book, as I understand it, is about God; not us. From the Genesis to Rev, its about God; his work, his promises, and his glory. So if you remove the central character to this type of a story, it falls apart.

Sure, there are bits and pieces of good advice in there, but they generally don't make any sense when removed from the original narrative.

I don't feel I identify with a person being afraid of being wrong... I don't like to be wrong, but I enjoy finding out whats right; what is true, even more. I'm definitely not the type of person who will think a person is somehow suffering from a mental disease for not seeing my way or suffering from delusion. I'm sure people do suffer from that sort of thing, but I don't think its very common, especially not the majority of people... certain people see the truth and some people don't. I could be among those who doesn't. =/

But do you not understand, and i am not being offensive at all when saying this, if this book continues to be taken literally as it stands ... it gives a pass card to those with darker desires? More so in Islam ... but i will stick to the Bible for now since that is what we are talking about. You can twist it in anyway you want, but someone else may twist it differently ... allowing their evil for a short time. This is the only problem i have. I just don't understand why spiritual people can't just get over it and call them selves spiritual... I mean, i respect the Bible for what it is ... i can read many cannons that are uplifting and inspiring ... but, i unfortunately think it should be abolished as an organization ... it is literature ... the same as the prophets today write Ie: Stan Lee.
RuvDraba
Posts: 6,033
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 8:53:34 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 7:11:02 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 4:35:07 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
At 6/18/2015 3:25:44 AM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 2:51:32 AM, RuvDraba wrote:
The bible is about God,
With respect, P7, you have no special authority to say what the Bible is about.
I require a "special" authority to state what I've found to be true?
It requires evidence to say what a work 'means', rather than what you interpret it to mean. The difference is, when you say what the Bible is actually about you are making authoritative claims about the knowledge, methods and intentions of its original authors -- many of whom you cannot name, and whose cultural and political contexts you scarcely understand (because they're only partly understood by the best historical studies we have.)

Do you also posses this "special" authority to say that those of religious faith are in denial? Or to judge my competence on matters of my faith?
It takes no authority to submit for your consideration, a proposition based on evidence: that the part of faith which is specifically religious is functionally equivalent to what psychologists call denial. That's what I have done.

It also takes no authority to reject overstated claims that fail accepted tests of competence, scholarship, evidence and accountability, as I have also done.

None of the theologians I know claim any sort of special revelation.
Then that's a pity, P7, because without detailed knowledge, it means they've been conjecturing -- and then propagating their conjectures as moral imperatives.
Perhaps, you should use less ambiguous terminology in the future, because "special revelation" doesn't seem an appropriate synonym for "detailed knowledge" which they do have.
Lacking evidence of fact, theology's only recourse is to appeal to special revelation.

That is patently untrue, since independent Biblical historians and linguists arrive at very different conclusions to most theologians (for example, serious Biblical historians say outright that the Old Testament is not theology nor history, but literature tracing cultural and political changes across approximately 600 years of Israelite turmoil.) And the reason for this discrepancy is that true scholarship comprises questions looking for evidence, while theology tends to be claims looking for justification.
I mean no disrespect when I say this, but that paragraph is non-sense. Theology is simply the study of God, and the Bible (OT and NT) are the authoritative means by which we learn about him.
The Bible is a selection of works of varying provenance, curated and made canon principally by the First Council of Nicaea in 325CE -- centuries after most works were written. In order to claim the source works authoritative about anything, you would have to demonstrate that they were factual and/or divinely inspired, and that the Council was appointed competently, and followed a clear, competent, and accountable process for determining what was or was not authoritative.

If you can't do that (and I think we both know you can't), then you have to admit a weaker proposition instead, namely that Christian theology is the attempt to reconcile and apply Christian tradition to the emerging knowledge, beliefs and sentiments of the day, based upon justifications pieced together from works whose own authority cannot be attested.

I don't believe theology can claim more than that.

Okay. For just a sample, I invite you to consider which great scientific and humanitarian discoveries were predicted by the Bible.
Conjecture-- completely useless and irrelevant my dude!

A conjecture is a guess. What is it that you think I have guessed?

I want to know the truth, and so far the evidence suggests that its in faith in Christ.
Based on examinations of what other human thought have you drawn that conclusion, P7?
Do you want my research and examination resume?
You pitched your belief as diligently researched and evidence-based, P7. Therefore your process and qualifications must be accountable to public scrutiny. And if you're dedicated to truth, then you should have no objection to doing so, because this is done routinely in science, law, accounting, engineering and other investigative intellectual endeavours.

On the other hand, if your belief is just what you prefer to believe or grew up in, then it doesn't need that sort of scrutiny. But if that's the case, please don't dignify it with vain claims of being some sort of independent, expert, evidentiary finding.

What idea have I actually put forward that you believe to be "naive"?
The claims that most concern me are that:
* The Bible is authoritative -- In one version or another, the Bible is canon for Christianity, but that doesn't make it authoritative for the world. The gap requires a burden of evidence you have not met, and which we both know you cannot;
* Theology is the study of God -- while theology hopes to be the study of God, in practice it cannot prove the Bible authoritative, and until it can, Christian theology can only claim to explore the possible reconciliation and application of Christian tradition to the knowledge , sentiment and beliefs of whatever milieu it's in; and that
* Biblical authors are 'investigative journalists' -- I'm afraid the competence, diligence, protocols and ethics of good investigative journalism seem to have been lost on you, P7, but Biblical authorship fails to meet it in multiple regards, and so does Biblical redaction and curation.

You mentioned this before, but didn't support it. If you feel that the history of Christian theology is based on diligent research, scrupulous contestability and unflinching accountability then I'm afraid you're in for some disappointment.
Lol, so are you saying that I haven't already looked into this? for years?
I'm saying that flawed results bespeak a flawed process.

Seriously buddy...
I'm sorry, but if you use inappropriately familiar terms of address like bro, buddy and dude, I cannot take whatever else you say entirely seriously.

Would you truly expect me to renounce my faith?
No, I don't mind if you keep your faith, P7. I mind if you claim authorities you're not entitled to.
But, you have to realize, that's exactly what you're doing.
I have assumed that you are aware of (for example) the scientific issues associated with the historicity and meaning of the Old Testament, and the contention over the authorship and timelines of NT Gospels.

If you're not, my apologies. Please poke me for links. (Please be advised that I will be traveling for the next few days and may need to respond thereafter, but respond I shall.)

Faith is denial -- of evidence, scrutiny, and accountability for error. It takes such a denial to keep Christians subject to erroneous, unjustified and flawed theological influence.
Said RD.
Not science, and Not psychology.

P7, perhaps you didn't understand, but you've separated the conclusion from the context that preceded it. As mentioned earlier, I've submitted for scrutiny the proposition that theological faith is functionally equivalent to denial. It's appropriate for me to argue in support of that proposition, and what you have quoted is a conclusion of such an argument. It's also appropriate for you to offer counter-examples or other data of your own, or ask for more data if some element of reasoning appears to have a gap.

So far you haven't offered any data beyond an unsupported definition, or identified where more data are needed. You've just rejected the proposition on grounds of special pleading, appeals to authority, false equivalence, and now some growing ad-hominem.

I'm sure you could do better if you respected the conversation enough to do so.

I hope that you shall.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 9:04:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 8:48:16 PM, Outplayz wrote:
But do you not understand, and i am not being offensive at all when saying this, if this book continues to be taken literally as it stands ... it gives a pass card to those with darker desires? More so in Islam ... but i will stick to the Bible for now since that is what we are talking about. You can twist it in anyway you want, but someone else may twist it differently ... allowing their evil for a short time. This is the only problem i have.

I think people make their own pass cards, they don't need the bible to do it. Whatever a wicked person wants to do, if they are smart enough, passionate enough, convinced enough... they'll find a way to justify whatever it is they're determined to do. However, I do think using the word of God to advance the self, is a biggest issue facing the Church; not atheism, not homosexuality, or any of those other pop-culture controversies. It needs to be remedied by sound doctrine... People need to be educated.

I just don't understand why spiritual people can't just get over it and call them selves spiritual... I mean, i respect the Bible for what it is ... i can read many cannons that are uplifting and inspiring ... but, i unfortunately think it should be abolished as an organization ... it is literature ... the same as the prophets today write Ie: Stan Lee.

I mean, that some scary empire strikes back kinda sh*t if you ask me but oky doke, whatever floats your boat. I understand you feel that way, and tbh thats probably the majority position of the world, including a lot of people who consider themselves Christians! lol Most people just want to feel good, or find something that " works for them"... Christianity isn't that. I think that's why so many people feel threatened by it NOT because of the so called evil that happened once upon a time...
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Outplayz
Posts: 1,267
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 9:30:58 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I think people make their own pass cards, they don't need the bible to do it. Whatever a wicked person wants to do, if they are smart enough, passionate enough, convinced enough... they'll find a way to justify whatever it is they're determined to do. However, I do think using the word of God to advance the self, is a biggest issue facing the Church; not atheism, not homosexuality, or any of those other pop-culture controversies. It needs to be remedied by sound doctrine... People need to be educated.

Yes ... but did you see that one politician that molested a couple kids? Did you not see how they felt like repenting saved him? That is disgusting to me ... You cannot repent after "sinning" You cannot invade on another's consent ... Every person is powerful. So, my question stands ... why not just say you are spiritual? Why not take the good from your Bible and say ... spiritual people wrote these parts? Bc you see...everyone calling themselves christian (even if they don't mean it) they are giving power to this book, which is flawed ... not entirely, but come on ... Some of it is just stories, some of it is bias, some of it is primitive morality...clearly written by humans. Now, i still think spiritual intelligence is something interesting, our desire for immortality is interesting and we should seek the truth of our spirituality ... but, i think the Bible is just literature that began the hints to our spiritually, fiction plus some non-fiction. It is quite clear.

I mean, that some scary empire strikes back kinda sh*t if you ask me but oky doke, whatever floats your boat. I understand you feel that way, and tbh thats probably the majority position of the world, including a lot of people who consider themselves Christians! lol Most people just want to feel good, or find something that " works for them"... Christianity isn't that. I think that's why so many people feel threatened by it NOT because of the so called evil that happened once upon a time...

See that's where you have me wrong. So, let's say my paradise is a "Star War" type of world. Have you seen those trekky people ... i'm sure that is how they think of paradise. But, is that how you think? Is that the type of paradise you want? Who cares if i am going here, you will go to what you believe ...so i can't say you're wrong, yet vice versa. Our paradises are different. Will we ultimately get what we want, well it looks slim according to science, but .. hey, there are no absolute truths, hence in my eyes a possibility. So, why can't earth be a paradise for right now. This should be (bc for a fact, your eyes are open)...and, your last thoughts before you go...will be you. The observer makes their "heaven or hell." So, Christianity isn't this? It is not a promise to go to paradise if i subscribe? If not this, than what is it? And allowing evil once upon a time, doesn't defeat the purpose that it happened. If the religion stays, who's to say 100 generation later they don't make the same mistake ... and burn "witches."
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/18/2015 9:36:11 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 8:44:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 8:37:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

You left out obedience, which is inherent in the broader definition of pistis/pisteuo.

Sure, this would fall under trust. True faith produces obedience.

Also, left out was "system of doctrine", as in "some shall depart from the faith."

Again, sure.. although I'm convinced that whom ever leaves the faith was never truly destined to persevere.(1 John 2:19)

Then by your doctrine, they were never in it, so they couldn't depart from it in the first place.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 7:39:04 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 8:53:34 PM, RuvDraba wrote:

RD, bro.. (lol ;p)

This has already gone wayyyy to far off topic, and I really should have corrected course a while ago, but you presented too much fun for me to ignore.

So I'm going to create another thread where we can focus on your "concerns":

* The Bible is authoritative
* Theology is the study of God
* Biblical authors are 'investigative journalists'

But, we really need to get on the same page regarding this "Authority" business, because: It's silly!

First, I'm a layman, on a website full of layman, discussing my thoughts, findings, and beliefs. I'll lay it out there my studies and research consist of reading/studying/questioning other peoples work-- just like almost everyone else here! So, no I don't really have a bibliography of everything I've researched that brought me to my present understanding/position and quite frankly I don't think I'd know how to assemble one... =/ So what? If the defense/offense I provide is adequate then all of that really doesn't matter...

Which brings me to my second point: until the content of theory/claim/study is examined, who cares what so-called authority the person claims to have? If an engineer constructs a faulty machine that doesn't work properly, who care what his credentials are? what are they worth then? Nothing-- because the machine still doesn't work.

Finally, despite your squirming, you have committed the same crime you are accusing me of. You haven't presented ANY evidence, you've only made unsupported claims. For example:

*What evidence "faith" has denied?
*How "faith" avoids accountability?
*Why and who considers Theology to be the "absolute moral and physical authority"?
*And, why theology has to account for Geology, Psychology, Sociology, etc?

If you'd prefer, I can make a thread for me (or anyone else up to the challenge) to address your concerns listed above, and for you (or anyone else up to the challenge) to support you're claims.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 8:45:41 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 9:30:58 PM, Outplayz wrote:
Yes ... but did you see that one politician that molested a couple kids? Did you not see how they felt like repenting saved him? That is disgusting to me ... You cannot repent after "sinning" You cannot invade on another's consent ... Every person is powerful.

I've heard of such things happening, but I can't recall anything specific. I do understand you're frustration though, and it's something I deal with as well. You bring a good point though, and I think "repentance" is a concept that really separates Christianity from the other religions/faiths/spirituality. Its something that's very counter-intuitive. But, unless you sin, then you have nothing to repent of... after all repentance is turning away from your old self, if you're old self is sinless than what is the need of turning away from it?

Next, I believe the bible teaches that when you sin whether it be against another person, or yourself, you sin first and foremost against God, and since he is the ultimate judge he determines if you are forgiven, no one else. Now there is a horizontal component to Sin (person-to-person), and there are many passages that speak about seeking forgiveness from those you've sinned against, but they're forgiveness doesn't determine a persons reconciliation to the Father.

With all that said, repentance and forgiveness of the kind you are referring to really has nothing to do with us, and if you don't consider God to be "real" per se, than it shouldn't concern you at all since that person will still suffer the consequences in his time here, as well as the when he faces God if he hasn't truly repented.

So, my question stands ... why not just say you are spiritual?

Define Spiritual.

Why not take the good from your Bible and say ... spiritual people wrote these parts? Bc you see...everyone calling themselves christian (even if they don't mean it) they are giving power to this book, which is flawed ... not entirely, but come on ... Some of it is just stories, some of it is bias, some of it is primitive morality...clearly written by humans.

Lol, so far my friend, from what I've learned and discovered, all the turns and changes, all the problems, obstacles, and doubts I've faced, I don't believe any part of it to be bad. There is a whole lot I don't feel I understand adequately, but based on my experience, the knowledge tends to present itself rather consistently. So, I trust it. Morality isn't the central theme of the Bible, and it's clearly NOT human, you've displayed a human response to the thought of that pedophile being saved, its a sentiment I'm very familiar with, and it shows how different a human judgement is from a biblical judgement.

Now, i still think spiritual intelligence is something interesting, our desire for immortality is interesting and we should seek the truth of our spirituality ... but, i think the Bible is just literature that began the hints to our spiritually, fiction plus some non-fiction. It is quite clear.

I'm not sure I want to be immortal.. I mean sure the idea sounds interesting as presented in scripture, but I really don't know how to comprehend it and tbh it's not what I'd make my first choice... I'd like to like in the marvel/dc universe! that would be amazing...well If I had the possibility of being a meta-human of some sort! lol

See that's where you have me wrong. So, let's say my paradise is a "Star War" type of world. Have you seen those trekky people ... i'm sure that is how they think of paradise. But, is that how you think?

No, it's not how I think, and like I said above, I don't really have too much thought invested in the afterlife.. my expectations are that it will be perfect-- but I am completely unfamiliar with what perfect looks like.

Is that the type of paradise you want?

Agent Venom in the pre-secret wars 616 universe all day.. especially after finding out the true nature of the symbiotes! lol

Who cares if i am going here, you will go to what you believe ...so i can't say you're wrong, yet vice versa. Our paradises are different. Will we ultimately get what we want, well it looks slim according to science, but .. hey, there are no absolute truths, hence in my eyes a possibility. So, why can't earth be a paradise for right now. This should be (bc for a fact, your eyes are open)...and, your last thoughts before you go...will be you. The observer makes their "heaven or hell." So, Christianity isn't this? It is not a promise to go to paradise if i subscribe? If not this, than what is it? And allowing evil once upon a time, doesn't defeat the purpose that it happened. If the religion stays, who's to say 100 generation later they don't make the same mistake ... and burn "witches."

No Christianity isn't this.. I think a lot of main-stream denominations have adopted and diluted the faith to be more like that, but I don't believe it to be "ABOUT" paradise. LIke I told you Ruuvdraba(?) I believe the bible to be about God. It's not about us at all.. we're more like set props or extras. I believe God is in control of everything, and what he wills, will come to pass. I think compatibilism to make the most sense.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
Paradox_7
Posts: 1,870
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 8:49:38 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/18/2015 9:36:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/18/2015 8:44:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 8:37:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

You left out obedience, which is inherent in the broader definition of pistis/pisteuo.

Sure, this would fall under trust. True faith produces obedience.

Also, left out was "system of doctrine", as in "some shall depart from the faith."

Again, sure.. although I'm convinced that whom ever leaves the faith was never truly destined to persevere.(1 John 2:19)

Then by your doctrine, they were never in it, so they couldn't depart from it in the first place.

By my understanding, people can and may appear to truly believe and then change to seem like they no longer are. To me that would be an example of those who are apostate.
: At 10/23/2012 8:06:03 PM, tvellalott wrote:
: Don't be. The Catholic Church is ran by Darth Sidius for fvck sake. As far as I'm concerned, you're a bona fide member of the Sith.
annanicole
Posts: 19,785
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
6/19/2015 9:02:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 6/19/2015 8:49:38 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 9:36:11 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/18/2015 8:44:36 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
At 6/18/2015 8:37:59 PM, annanicole wrote:
At 6/17/2015 10:40:47 PM, Paradox_7 wrote:
I've been getting a real sense lately, that most of those who profess to be Christians on this site, do not truly understand what "Faith" actually is. Instead, it seems they've all sort of accepted the definition put forward by Atheists/secularists/anti-theists/etc...

That definition is something like: "Belief or trust in something, even if there is no proof for it..."

I don't want to throw every non-believer under the bus, though, so in your defense this isn't something you should know. After all, why wouldn't you just open a dictionary to find the definition of something like faith?

To begin, I believe it is important to note and to realize, that no one just expects people to believe something just because they said so.. or especially because of somebodies intuition or gut feeling alone. So, believers you must realize... this goes double for the authors of the bible, and the obviously the contemporaries of the stories/news told.

Biblical. Saving. Faith.

This faith, the one we as believers refer too, is distinct from the generic and modern sense of the word.

It is distinct in 3 ways:

1) Notitia or Knowledge; believing the data,

2) Assensus or Intellectual Assent; After receiving the information/data, you are convinced of it truthfulness,

3) Fiducia or fiduciary commitment; Once you are convinced you place your trust in it.

The entire bible is written in a way as to present News. The authors of the bible are more like investigative reporters!

You left out obedience, which is inherent in the broader definition of pistis/pisteuo.

Sure, this would fall under trust. True faith produces obedience.

Also, left out was "system of doctrine", as in "some shall depart from the faith."

Again, sure.. although I'm convinced that whom ever leaves the faith was never truly destined to persevere.(1 John 2:19)

Then by your doctrine, they were never in it, so they couldn't depart from it in the first place.

By my understanding, people can and may appear to truly believe and then change to seem like they no longer are. To me that would be an example of those who are apostate.

They "departed from the faith", but were never in "the faith" to begin with? That's like departing from a house that one only "seemed" to be in.
Madcornishbiker: "No, I don't need a dictionary, I know how scripture uses words and that is all I need to now."