Modern Churches puting too much emphasis on Jesus instead of God?

[Matt Langley]

Are we making up our own definitions here? I get your point but your choice of words 'belief' and 'acceptance' need re-thinking.

Nope... in fact your definition proved my definition of it, I just find my definition a much more common sense one, though yours works just fine.

Your definition from Webster (which is in fact how I derived my defintion):

be·lief (b-lf) n. 1. The mental act, condition, or habit of placing trust or confidence in another: My belief in you is as strong as ever.
2. Mental acceptance of and conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity of something: His explanation of what happened defies belief.
3. Something believed or accepted as true, especially a particular tenet or a body of tenets accepted by a group of persons.

Belief is the same as acceptance of true. You can't apply different meanings to the two words unless of course you disagree with Webster.

"Belief is the same as acceptance of true"

Correct. Which is not the same as [i]acceptance[/b]... the definition you posted has two parts

1. Mental acceptance
and (note it says and and not or)
2. Conviction in the truth, actuality, or validity


This reinforces my definition perfectly. You cannot deem something as true, actual, or valid unless you challenge it. Otherwise it just simply is and remains a simple "acceptance". If you don't challenge whether it is incorrect, not real, or invalid then it cannot be deemed truly as valid, actual, or true since one doesn't exist without the other.

Just like if you have no perception of Bad or Evil in your mind you would really have no perception of "Good" since it simply is the only thing that exists.

So by your own definition

"Beleif is the same as acceptance of true"

You are agreeing with me when I say:

"To me the biggest difference in a beleif and an acceptance is a idea you must challenge before it becomes a beleif; however, if you don't challenge it, it simply is an acceptance of an idea, nothing more."

Since you must challenge the idea before you accept it as true we are in fact agreeing.

[JosephM]

Originally Posted by Matt Langley

You are agreeing with me when I say:

"To me the biggest difference in a beleif and an acceptance is a idea you must challenge before it becomes a beleif; however, if you don't challenge it, it simply is an acceptance of an idea, nothing more."

Since you must challenge the idea before you accept it as true we are in fact agreeing.

Ok Matt. I understand what your are saying and I'm sure we agree in principle. Though I still say that I do not understand your belief that a person "must challenge the idea before you accept it" . That simply is not the case for many. People have beliefs and there is no requiremnt to them that they MUST challenge it to be a belief or accept it as true. It is only your opinion that they MUST challenge it and not at all fact. People accept ideas as true for a number of reasons without challenging them and challenging is not a requirement for it to be a belief. Perhaps they trust the source and accept it as a belief without question.

Either way, I understand what you mean but your statement "Since you must challenge the idea before you accept it as true we are in fact agreeing" is not a fact in my experience with people nor do I agree with it. But of course my agreement doesn't really matter as I was just pointing out possible confusion in the words you used..

Love in Christ,
JM

[Matt Langley]

Respectfully said... I see what you are saying. Though just becuase people use the word "true" and "belief" doesn't exactly mean it is in fact "true" to them and such making it one of their "beleifs".

People state empty words all the time because they think its the word that give the statement strength, when in fact it is the meaning and truth that gives the statement strength. Words are just a commincation of ideas. The problem is many people use the worth "truth" and "belief" as words so they can then accept the ideas. The wrong way around. The words themselves are meaningless and empty.

People accept ideas as true for a number of reasons without challenging them and challenging is not a requirement for it to be a belief. Perhaps they trust the source and accept it as a belief without question.

I would still disagree... beleif as you summed it up

"Belief is the same as acceptance of true"

So the two requirements

1) accept it
2) deem it as true

Now this is in personal context... so you accept it for you and deem it as true for you. The thing is if someone tells you something is true and then you "accept it as true" without challenging it (challenging is simply one word, questioning, validating, studying, etc) then it really isn't "true" to you, it simply is. Again if you can't consider something as incorrect then you can't consider it as correct since then it will just have one state in your mind which is neither.

So people often use the word "true" claim they think something is "true" when in fact they don't "think" something is true since they never thought about it. They simply are relaying and acceptance with the empty word "true" (since they really haven't deemed it as true to themselves).

I can say the sky is red all I want, though it doesn't make it so. Truth and something that is "true" is a powerful statement. Without this distinction the word "true" becomes empty as the personal doesn't in fact value it as a personal truth that they have reached but one they've been told and accepted as someone elses truth.

Then again I'm getting a bit off topic. In any case I have enjoyed the conjecture and if you have a counter statement feel free to message or e-mail me it and I would be i nterested in hearing your thoughts on it (or we can start a new thread with that as the topic).