nsTeam2RO, nsTeam2RW, nsTeam2_talkRO, nsTeam2_talkRW
13,254
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 334:
Line 334: + + + +
Conservapedia talk:Is the Bible Inerrant? (view source)
Revision as of 05:46, April 9, 2007
, 05:46, April 9, 2007→I do not understand this argument.: Your definition of "faith" is NOT the biblical one.
:PalMD is correct on all counts. Faith is a very personal thing, a subjective experience based as much on a longing for purpose as any active decision to believe, It is also much like a drug -- epiphantic moments trigger the same release of chemicals as most euphoria-causing drugs. There is a close affinity between the faithful and people who are substance-dependant: both need to rely on internalised experience based on an external catalyst to reach some form of temporary fulfillment or psychological rapture/ecstacy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
:PalMD is correct on all counts. Faith is a very personal thing, a subjective experience based as much on a longing for purpose as any active decision to believe, It is also much like a drug -- epiphantic moments trigger the same release of chemicals as most euphoria-causing drugs. There is a close affinity between the faithful and people who are substance-dependant: both need to rely on internalised experience based on an external catalyst to reach some form of temporary fulfillment or psychological rapture/ecstacy. [[User:NousEpirrhytos|NousEpirrhytos]] 14:29, 8 April 2007 (EDT)
::No, PalMD is not correct. He says "despite [my] protestations", but has said nothing to refute the linked article which explains why faith is what I said it is. Instead, he has simply asserted without any evidence that I'm wrong. He says that it is "defined" differently, but doesn't say where it is so defined. I'll grant that ''one'' of the meanings of the word is probably the one that he uses, but it is also true that ''another'' meaning is the one I gave, and the real question in this is, which meaning are Christians using (as opposed to their detractors)? Because they are quoting the Bible in support, they are using the meaning that the Bible uses, which is what the linked article was about.
::The problem with the non-overlapping magisteria idea is that they ''do'' overlap. The Bible talks about things to do with astronomy, geology, etc.
::[[User:Philip J. Rayment|Philip J. Rayment]] 01:46, 9 April 2007 (EDT)