Sentences with phrase «faith by definition»

Faith by definition is not contingent upon «evidence».

Faith by definition is the belief in something absent of proof.

No, faith by definition is believing in something without any evidence.

Faith by definition is believing in something that defies explanation,

Not exact matches

Biblical by definition excludes the other faiths and widens the debate, such as it is.

But to my point that Atheism is a religion by definition Religion: a cause, principle, or system of beliefs held to with ardor and faith Faith: belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without proof Atheism: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or defaith Faith: belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without proof Atheism: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deFaith: belief or trust: belief in, devotion to, or trust in somebody or something, especially without proof Atheism: unbelief in God or deities: disbelief in the existence of God or deities

Atheist reject the idea of a god and believe their view to be true or they would be agnostic unless they choose no stance at all of a god that of which would require unknowing of what the term «god» means so it would fall under a belief and since they can't prove that a god doesn't exist then by definition it requires faith for their view, meaning it would effect their view of the cause, nature, and purpose of the universe if a god was proven to be true.

By the simple definition of faith, the ability to accept something without proof, and that's OK with believers.

Faith in the supernatural is «blind faith» as the supernatural is unprovable by definiFaith in the supernatural is «blind faith» as the supernatural is unprovable by definifaith» as the supernatural is unprovable by definition.

Neither Catholic nor Protestant nor Mormons for that matter, see the Mormon faith, by definition, as fitting into their programs.

Craig that was exactly my understanding however if we believe that in that traditional sense a person could lose there eternal life by there actions by not walking in the Lord which i do nt think is right as eternal life is a free gift from God not based on works.Jeremys definition is that we are saved by faith in Jesus Christ to eternal life.I believe the term salvation has the meaning to be saved not necesarily to eternal life but saved from ourselves Christ gives us the power to be transformed into his likeness or to be Christ like.In the eternal picture our actions determine how we are rewarded from God although its not the motivation of the reward but because we love the Lord.regards brent

Thus, we can only address this issue with faith, which by definition, lacks empirical evidence.

Now, we certainly have two or more people gathered together, and they have asked in Jesus» name, and we have not one but a million faithful believers who, by definition, have faith and believe.

All those claiming the schools and the church was wrong, listen he taught theological courses at a theological school, which by definition means that you have to be a person of faith (not to mention that these are not theological schools at state or public universities but denominational theological schools) and to pastor or counsel a church you again by definition have to be a person of faith.

If he is going to be a person living without faith (an athiest), then by definition he can not have these jobs.

Now, we certainly have two or more people gathered together (Jesus liked the two or more thing), and they have asked in Jesus» name, and we have not one but a million faithful believers who, by definition, have faith and believe.

The cognitive dissonance it inspires brings out the best and the worst of human nature — a concept that is flabbergasting to Naturalists as religious faith, by its very definition is unquantifiable, unprovable and totally subjectice.

Instead of trying to prove your faith, just say that you have faith, and by definition, faith is not something one questions or tries to prove.

If you believe in faith you are by definition not believing in logic.

This definition of living by faith involves two aspects.

And if we do believe it, then, as the definition of living by faith says, this belief, this ongoing faith, will result in actions, will result in Christ - honoring works.

One definition of living by faith which I have been able to come up with is this:

One wonders, then, whether the fullest definition of «reading backwards» ought also to include retrospective reinterpretation of the Scriptures informed by the theological tradition, the rule of faith, and church history.

I am not influenced by institutionalized theology which teaches cut and paste faith to ministers today so they can create their own definition of Christianity.

Neville i agree with you Jesus has the power to forgive sin past present and future through the cross when he died his death covered past present and future.If those in the old testament were justified by faith and made righteous then they are covered by the blood of Jesus even though he hadn't died for them yet because there hope was in God.Isn't that what the definition of faith is it is the substance of things hoped for the evidence of things unseen.The proof is Enoch how could he go to be with God if he was not righteous and only the blood of Jesus is able to do that.

You do know that by your definition of proof, anyone can be convinced to believe in anything just cause it makes them feel good (you could now be worshiping LSD if that is what you tested and wanted to have faith in)

Faith, by definition, does not require evidence.

I'll leave it to others to debate his definitions of liberalism and other political philosophies, and there's a whole other debate to be had about whether his leadership of the Liberal Democrat party was doomed by his Christian faith, as he claims, or his failure to return a higher number of MPs at this year's General Election.

(11) These analyses, by utilising a functional definition of religion, (12) indicate different ways in which the mass media are serving a highly ritualised, integrative, value - forming, and community - cohering function similar to that which has traditionally been served by the established and recognized religious faiths.

Therefore, if pacifism is defined simply as «opposition to war,» or is summarized by a declaration that all war is wrong, then such definitions are not part of a biblically accurate Christian faith.

Atheism is a religion by at least a few official definitions, by definition «faith» has nothing to do with religion, its loosely defined as «a group of people with the same beliefs».

However, by the definition of faith, it's true.

Moreover, evangelical Christianity is, by definition, a faith that believes all Christians are to share the gospel with our neighbors and friends.

One can not be a believer, by definition, without faith.

By this definition faith and vision are mutually exclusive, which leaves us in the curious position of holding that Jesus Christ did not possess the theological virtue of faith, the one perfect in his humanity did not share in which the Catechism describes as the «virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us» (§ 1814By this definition faith and vision are mutually exclusive, which leaves us in the curious position of holding that Jesus Christ did not possess the theological virtue of faith, the one perfect in his humanity did not share in which the Catechism describes as the «virtue by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us» (§ 1814by which we believe in God and believe all that he has said and revealed to us» (§ 1814).

Besides, pure undoctrinated faith is not rational by definition, so it is never in conflict with a rational science.

Actually no, the author is arguing believing in something that can't be logically defended; faith, by its very definition, is a belief not based on proof.

They are the fundamentalists or purists of the faith, and believe in their mohammad's mandate to spread Islamic rule by the sword, putting to death those who will not «submit nor surrender», as per the definition of the word «muslim».

I propose as that definition, realizing that it would probably exclude some of those already discussed, the following: The sacred book contains writings that purport to have been produced under divine or extra human inspiration or impulse, and which have come to be recognized by a substantial number of people as the basis of their religious faith, since it is regarded by them as the authentic revelation of God to them and to the world.

And guess what, atheism isn't based on faith because by definition, atheism is LACK OF FAITH in a dfaith because by definition, atheism is LACK OF FAITH in a dFAITH in a deity.

I further accept the definition of euthanasia put forward by the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith (CDF) in its Declaration On Euthanasia (1980): «Any act or omission which of itself or by intention causes death.»

And faith is, by definition, about relatedness.

Demarest explains, «The early church defended itself against heretical teaching by appealing to «the rule of faith» or «the rule of truth», which were brief summaries of essential Christian truths... The fluid «rule of faith» gave way to more precise instruments for refuting heresies and defining faith, namely, creedal formulations such as the Apostles» Creed, the Nicene Creed, the Definition of Chalcedon and the Athanasian Creed.»

Thus «faith», the pattern of contemporary religious experience which is to relate us to God through Christ, can not by its very nature be built upon «the present evil aeon», with all that it provides of worldly security under man's control and invariably at his disposal; by definition «faith» is the life given in death, and consequently has its basis beyond our control, is lived out of the future, is «an act of faith».

«Faith is believing things by definition, which are not justified by reason.

When a Lutheran and a Catholic each talk of faith, does each define the word by some comprehensive abstract system, or by the complex associations the word has in a great range of shared biblical texts, such as Romans 1 with its talk of faith as that by which we live, I Corinthians 13 with its association of faith with hope and love, and Hebrews 11 with its definition of faith as assurance and conviction?

that's why it's a faith and not something that could be understood by substantiating with other «worldly» definitions or evidence

By definition, for true faith to exist, it must exist without proof.

Because pointing out the blatant differences in faith is relativism, I guess doing that it is, by definition, a bad thing.

Now we shall have a complete definition of faith, if we say, that it is a steady and certain knowledge of the Divine benevolence towards us, which, being founded on the truth of the gratuitous promise in Christ, is both revealed to our minds, and confirmed to our hearts, by the Holy Spirit.67