Re: political

"Alex W." <ingilt@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in

My objection is not that one ought to have faith IN something.

The point is, that the "something" needs to be explained.

Rather, it is the demand to have faith in something

There is no "demand". Faith is trust, and you can't demand
that someone trust in something. Second, Faith is in the
heart, not the mind. The instruction tells you about
your faith, but it, itself, is not "faith". There are
various usages for the word "faith", but the important one
is what we call "saving faith". It's hard (or impossible)
to define, but we would reject any definition that implied
that an infant could not have it. Also rejected are
implications that one "commits" faith (thereby making faith
into a work.)

with very, very
particular specifications which I, as the prospective faithful, am not
demeed qualified to evaluate and set out for myself.

Yeah, I know it's an ego problem. I just wonder why more folks
don't have the same attitude about calculus. If I let my
calculus students decide their own curriculum, and decide
which bits of math they liked and which they disagreed with,
the class would be a shambles, no one would learn anything,
except maybe a few false facts.

Assuming that this person is literate, give him a copy of the Bible
and let him get on with it.

That's the way fundamentalists think. It doesn't work. It's like
giving a kid an abacus and hoping he'll discover calculus on his

That is not the issue here, Bart.
The issue is that if I give 100 preachers/pastors/Fathers/popes the
same passage to base a sermon on, I will get 100 different
interpretations with one common unifying theme: that each will insist
theirs is the only correct path to a truthful exegesis of His Word.

So many wrong things:

1. The issue is that you said insulting things about me religion
based on ill-informed stereotypes. You can try to change the
issue if you want, but it's not correct to pretend that the new
issue has been the issue all along.

2. The statement is false. If you gave 100 preachers the
same passage, there'd be a narrow variety of sermons. The
nonsense about "interpretations" is, again, fundamentalist.
The Bible is preached, not interpreted.

3. Two pastors who wrote fairly different sermons on the same
passage wouldn't say the other guy was wrong, but say something
like "Yes, the passage can be preached that way." The story
of The Rich Young Man has more than one lesson in it.

Which circular route brings us right back to my point: that one's
state of salvation is judged differently by every sect, church,
denomination and order.

Which shows that your point is based on a fake fact. Denominations
say that each other's theology is in error. That's way different
from pointing to a particular human and determining his state of
salvation. If infants can have saving faith, then so can Methodists.


Cheerfully resisting change since 1959.