Is there such a thing as a Christian?

I think you are using faith as a synonym for hope.

I found this article by googling Faith vs Hope.

 

I think of it more as self assurance. We have faith that the car coming from the opposite direction on the same road as you is going to stay in their own lane as you pass each other. Regardless I told you already that I regard faith as a synonym for trust.

 

Faith is a dirty word in some circles, thedope.

 

Those people simply are not familiar with every conjugation of the word and do not recognize their complicity with it.

 

Well then such knowledge certainly was not represented in your original post, as you seem to realize now, given the response above concerning the Mosaic law. What other contradictions are you referring to?

So in reality I was not assuming anything, I was basing my statement on your and others comments I have read, such as the example given above.
I try not to assume, and anything I have remarked concerning anyone's lack of knowledge is completely based on what they have presented here on the forums.

 

You cannot call faith, or trust, which is reliance on the integrity
of something a suspension of judgement, since they are both affirmative.

If you were truly suspending judgement, you would be calling it hope.

I'm confused as to why you think those with a different
understanding than you MUST be the ones who are incorrect?
You are obviously disagreeing with us, but will not grant the
courtesy of your own words.

That you might be wrong.

You run away on the grounds that I'm too narrow minded
in light of this fact. I wonder if there is a scientific name
for this sort of double sidedness.

If you were really reflecting on what was being said here and
trying to understand, we would not be disagreeing.

 

hope is an affirmative word as well, and can actually act as a synonym for belief, desire and trust.

faith can be passive, as thedope has presented with his car analogy. our minds naturally place faith in the consistency of patterns that aren't, in fact, completely consistent.

 

Yes, but hope is a feeling. Trust and faith as thedope is attempting to describe
insinuates objective integrity.

 

Judgment can be considered negative or positive. To suspend judgment is to say neither yea nor nay. I can call faith trust by definition.
faith [fayth]
(plural faiths)
n
1. belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without logical proof
I wouldn't put my faith in him to straighten things out.

2. religion or religious group: a system of religious belief, or the group of people who adhere to it
3. trust in God: belief in and devotion to God
Her faith is unwavering.

4. set of beliefs: a strongly held set of beliefs or principles
people of different political faiths

5. loyalty: allegiance or loyalty to somebody or something


[13th century. Via Old French feid < Latin fides "trust, belief"]

Do you have something else because you have not demonstrated one thing I have said here to be in error?

 

Trust and faith carry a measure of judgement, just like distrust and doubt does.

The words represent a status of judgement, whether positive or negative.
You cannot say that having faith is suspending judgement, because having faith
in the first place is a judgement itself.

Coincidentally (or is it) The fact that faith is "Especially without logical proof",
is why the judgement is incorrect.

 

Again, for about the tenth time, I am only basing my comments on what has been posted on HF by you. You have consistently made comments and remarks that illustrate a very poor understanding of Christianity as relayed in the Bible.
You, as many people do, have passed judgment on the teachings based more on the behavior of the supposed adherents to it rather than basing it on a study and comprehension of the teachings themselves. You often just recite common rhetoric and misconceptions regarding the Biblical religions.
You have also jumped to some assumptions regarding me personally. Nowhere in this entire discussion have I stated my personal beliefs, just that your understanding of Biblical Christianity is rooted in partial, incomplete concepts and not the actual writings upon which the religion is based.
Again I have also never flat out stated that you or anyone else was wrong because you don't agree with me. Only that according to YOUR communications here, you don't have the grasp and understanding of the topic you believe yourself to have. That is a completely different thing then proclaiming you are wrong.
As far as my unwillingness to accept that I may be wrong, I HAVE said that more than once in this particular discussion and numerous times in others on HF. I also am a very staunch supporter of science and basing one's beliefs upon what we know THUS FAR according to scientific principles and philosophy. You would know that if you were more familiar with my communications here at HF.

All science can ever produce are PROBABILITIES based upon our human and thereby limited observations. The more consistently an observation conforms to a hypothesis and is observed to produce the same results, the higher the probability that it will always produce the same results, and we then act in FAITH based on the high probability of said occurrence.
But it is alway subject to change and revision.

You are the one who has repeatedly made comment that those who accept religious, specifically Christian, beliefs are delusional, sheep, blind followers, etc., because they don't agree with you. I have from the beginning only stated that such behavior is no different than the narrow minded opinions of the very people you are making the accusation against.

The portion of your comment in bold once again signifies that YOU are the one who is so convinced and certain of your position that any one who does not agree with it has to be wrong.

Did the possibility ever enter your mind or consideration that YOU may be the one mistaken and the Bible may be right?

 

The absence of logical proof does not automatically negate the possibility of something being "true". That appears to be a nuance that escapes you.

 

Faith is an action carried out in lieu of a judgement. To use thedope's example, whenever I am driving, I strongly believe that the cars in the other lane aren't going to suddenly swerve over and kill me.
I never say, "That car will swerve over or that car won't". The faith that they won't isn't the same thing as saying that they won't.

That doesn't make a judgement "incorrect".
If I am told the answer to a complex mathematical equation, and I can parrot that answer to anyone who asks, the fact that I can't explain how or logically prove why it's the answer doesn't make the answer any less correct.

 

Faith in the way I have described it is the suspension of judgment until the truth appears. The assumption that you will be alive to answer this post, is illogical in it's premise, yet we behave as though it were definitely so.

As I reminded you above, "faith in the way I have described it is the suspension of judgment until the truth appears".

What judgment is incorrect? By the way, there is no e after the g in the word "judgment."

 

Except your statement violates its own proposition.

An assumption is a judgment because it is taking something for
granted. Whether its the idea that everyone is aware of the rules of the
road or not.

Your saying that you don't know whether a driver knows the rules of the road,
but you trust that they do, and thats what keeps you in your lane.


And I'm saying that you trust them for a reason. Because if they were swerving,
you would not trust them with your life.


You can tell what someone understands about driving by watching them drive.

Any assertion without logical proof.

 

The logic of an answer is in the question.

 

An answer is correct whether it can be explained or not.
4 is still the answer to 2+2 even if I don't know why that is the case.

 

Yes, but you would have no reason to postulate the answer if you had nothing to
explain in the first place.

You cannot have an answer if you have no question.

 

I feel like we are on two completely different pages, but I'll give it a shot.

You said that a judgment without logical proof renders it incorrect, especially in the case of faith.
I was merely giving an example to show this isn't the case.
A student has faith that A2+B2=C2 even if they don't understand why or can't logically prove it's truthfulness. In the event that they can't, it doesn't make their use of the equation less true.

 

No, it does not. My statement contains the caveat, until the truth appears.
You assume you will be alive until you are not. We are required to make distinctions in life. Some plants are good for us to eat and some are poisonous to our system.

It is a measure of faith.

No, I don't go as far as the driver knows the rules, only that he will stay in his lane. Perhaps he stays in his lane because he doesn't want to get hit by another car.

What reason is that? Is it because I assume that in driving this car I will reach my destination?

I can tell what you understand by your speech.

You mean like you continuing to breath for ten more minutes?