Christian Forums

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Growth Believing Without Seeing

netchaplain

Member
This article is not an attempt to address personal beliefs concerning any individual teaching, but to emphasize significance concerning the opportunity for the believer to understand faith in a fuller sense in relation to its exercise. For we “hope for what we do not see” so “we can eagerly wait for it with perseverance” (Rom 8:25).


Believing Without Seeing​

In these post-apostolic times it is more blessed to “hear the word of God and keep it” (Luke 11:28) than to seek for, or even “require a sign,” which was the normative for the Jew during the time of Christ (1Cor 1:22) due to the confirmations required for their Prophets (Deu 18:22). Since those days it presently serves understanding that faith resulting from observable (physical) evidence impedes the opportunity for its fuller development, which should more now than ever, reflect that which is apart from the natural (physical nature).

Though the observable universe is physical proof of God’s sovereignty (Rom 1:20), and that He has physically proven Himself within the Law and Apostolic eras, I believe He has in these times purposed for faith to consist more so of that which is apart from material observances in order that faith can potentially be exercised in its greatest capacity. For the highest blessing in faith results in believing without seeing physical evidence (John 20:29). Hence, faith is at its pinnacle, not when it is evidenced from things seen but rather when it “is the evidence of things not seen” (Heb 11:1).

In times past I believe God manifested Himself by “many infallible proofs” (Acts 1:3) in order to establish faith in His written Word. As His manifestations continued the necessity for external confirmation progressively decreased. It wasn’t until after the completion of the Scriptural cannon that the written Word of God would confirm itself apart from the necessity of visible manifestations, thus allowing for a greater capacity of faith. For where would there be a need of faith in a reality which is already seen (Rom 8:24)?

I believe the significance here lies within the fact that it is in this life only that faith will be exercised (2Cor 5:7), hence the significance of its highest use. I also believe this is why one cannot now physically prove the reality of God, so that faith in Him could be primarily based upon His Word more so than on the senses or science.

As before mentioned I believe the primary intention for physical proof during the apostolic era was to “confirm the Word” (Mark 16:20; Heb 2:4), because belief in the written Word of God results in faith (Rom 10:17), not “by” but “through” (Eph 2:8) which salvation is received. Thus the Spirit regenerates (rebirth) the minds and hearts of believers in the life of Christ (Col 3:4)—through the written Word of God, and since the completion of the Scriptures as a cannon, faith can now be based more on the invisible than the visible.

Regardless of where believers are concerning the development of their faith and their conformity-level in Christ (Rom 8:29), the Father “works everything together for good” (v 28) in their lives. The tinsel-strength of our faith here consists in not just knowing this, but understanding that we can expect everything, every day to be pre-arranged to benefit for our “good” (i.e. strengthening faith, drawing closer to God and to one another, more effective outreaching to others, etc.) even if we at times for any reason may think otherwise!
 
After many years of wrestling with this subject, my conclusion is that faith is a product of experience, observation, study and intuition. I'm really not sure what a completely non-empirically-based faith would consist of or look like. There does seem to be a subset of Christians who pride themselves on a faith that is entirely divorced from reality, but I have a difficult time relating to this mindset.

My faith has grown through personal experience of the divine in my life; experience and observation of myself, my fellow humans, the world and the universe; a great deal of study in many different fields; extensive reflection on my experiences, observations and studies; and the exercise of intuition. This has led me to conclude that Christianity provides the best explanation for what I experience and observe and for what others have experienced and observed.

Many great religious teachers, Christian and non-Christian alike, have concluded that intuitive knowledge is the highest form of knowledge and that it is only through intuition that we are able to approach the divine. Extensive experience, observation and study led me to the point where intuition could operate and I could take a "leap of faith" into Christianity. This occurred some 30 years after I had theoretically been born again during my junior year in college. I am not discounting the born-again experience and do firmly believe the Holy Spirit was at work in my life throughout the subsequent years, but I do not believe I had anything that deserved to be called faith until many years later.

My definition of faith is, "Living your life as though what you believe were true, while acknowledging that it may not be." My Christianity does not require me to claim (or pretend) I am 100% certain the Nicene Creed is 100% true. If I were being completely honest, I'd say I'm perhaps 85% certain the Nicene Creed is 75% true, which is my basis for living my life as though I were 100% certain it is 100% true. I don't believe God asks or expects more than this. But to understand what you believe is true, I believe you must allow experience, observation and study to provide the raw data and intuition to operate. Then you can take the leap of faith in the direction in which intuition points you.

If there were still the sorts of dramatic manifestations of God reported in ancient times, belief would pretty much be coerced. There would be little room for faith. I don't need faith that my Ford is sitting in my garage; I can look out the window. Perhaps these dramatic manifestations were required to get the attention of primitive peoples.

My avatar, as you may have noticed, is the face of the Shroud of Turin. After really extensive study over many years, I have come to believe that this "silly old Catholic relic" is probably the burial shroud of Jesus and probably direct evidence of His Resurrection. If it is definitively proved to be a medieval fake - OK, fine, my faith in the Resurrection will have suffered a minor fender-bender but will still be intact. My point is simply that I do believe God still manifests in ways that can provide an evidentiary basis for faith and that there is no particular "honor" in claiming that one's faith does not rely on any evidence. That sort of faith often seems to me to be a house of cards that doesn't withstand life's challenges.

When Jesus said to Thomas, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing," the circumstances were unique. Thomas had walked with the pre-Resurrection Jesus and seen Him perform untold miracles, and the other Apostles had reported to Thomas their post-Resurrection experiences. Thomas thus had a more solid evidentiary foundation than you or I will ever have. Compared to Thomas, we are indeed "believing without seeing." But I believe it is incumbent upon each of us to give our faith as solid a foundation as we can through experience, observation, study and intuition.

I'm not arguing with you, since I would agree that faith can never arise solely out of worldly knowledge - just presenting a somewhat different perspective. As Kierkegaard famously said, faith ultimately has to be a leap out over 70,000 fathoms of water. I also agree that faith cannot rise and fall with the vicissitudes of life - once one has made the leap into Christianity, one has to trust in the ultimate wisdom and goodness of God, regardless of what life may bring or how mysterious God's ways may seem.
 
After many years of wrestling with this subject, my conclusion is that faith is a product of experience, observation, study and intuition. I'm really not sure what a completely non-empirically-based faith would consist of or look like. There does seem to be a subset of Christians who pride themselves on a faith that is entirely divorced from reality, but I have a difficult time relating to this mindset.

My faith has grown through personal experience of the divine in my life; experience and observation of myself, my fellow humans, the world and the universe; a great deal of study in many different fields; extensive reflection on my experiences, observations and studies; and the exercise of intuition. This has led me to conclude that Christianity provides the best explanation for what I experience and observe and for what others have experienced and observed.

Many great religious teachers, Christian and non-Christian alike, have concluded that intuitive knowledge is the highest form of knowledge and that it is only through intuition that we are able to approach the divine. Extensive experience, observation and study led me to the point where intuition could operate and I could take a "leap of faith" into Christianity. This occurred some 30 years after I had theoretically been born again during my junior year in college. I am not discounting the born-again experience and do firmly believe the Holy Spirit was at work in my life throughout the subsequent years, but I do not believe I had anything that deserved to be called faith until many years later.

My definition of faith is, "Living your life as though what you believe were true, while acknowledging that it may not be." My Christianity does not require me to claim (or pretend) I am 100% certain the Nicene Creed is 100% true. If I were being completely honest, I'd say I'm perhaps 85% certain the Nicene Creed is 75% true, which is my basis for living my life as though I were 100% certain it is 100% true. I don't believe God asks or expects more than this. But to understand what you believe is true, I believe you must allow experience, observation and study to provide the raw data and intuition to operate. Then you can take the leap of faith in the direction in which intuition points you.

If there were still the sorts of dramatic manifestations of God reported in ancient times, belief would pretty much be coerced. There would be little room for faith. I don't need faith that my Ford is sitting in my garage; I can look out the window. Perhaps these dramatic manifestations were required to get the attention of primitive peoples.

My avatar, as you may have noticed, is the face of the Shroud of Turin. After really extensive study over many years, I have come to believe that this "silly old Catholic relic" is probably the burial shroud of Jesus and probably direct evidence of His Resurrection. If it is definitively proved to be a medieval fake - OK, fine, my faith in the Resurrection will have suffered a minor fender-bender but will still be intact. My point is simply that I do believe God still manifests in ways that can provide an evidentiary basis for faith and that there is no particular "honor" in claiming that one's faith does not rely on any evidence. That sort of faith often seems to me to be a house of cards that doesn't withstand life's challenges.

When Jesus said to Thomas, "Blessed are those who believe without seeing," the circumstances were unique. Thomas had walked with the pre-Resurrection Jesus and seen Him perform untold miracles, and the other Apostles had reported to Thomas their post-Resurrection experiences. Thomas thus had a more solid evidentiary foundation than you or I will ever have. Compared to Thomas, we are indeed "believing without seeing." But I believe it is incumbent upon each of us to give our faith as solid a foundation as we can through experience, observation, study and intuition.

I'm not arguing with you, since I would agree that faith can never arise solely out of worldly knowledge - just presenting a somewhat different perspective. As Kierkegaard famously said, faith ultimately has to be a leap out over 70,000 fathoms of water. I also agree that faith cannot rise and fall with the vicissitudes of life - once one has made the leap into Christianity, one has to trust in the ultimate wisdom and goodness of God, regardless of what life may bring or how mysterious God's ways may seem.
Rom 12:3 For I say, through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think of himself more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God hath dealt to every man the measure of faith, but according to 2 Pet 3:18 we grow in grace, and in the knowledge of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ.

What is that God given faith?
Heb 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

I would ask if any think that Jesus didn't know the end from the beginning, but Brother Runner, Jesus needed to experience it also.
Heb 5:8 Though He (Jesus) were a Son, yet learned he obedience by the things which he suffered.

As God’s work in progress we too will undergo change as we read of in Rom 12:2 And be not conformed to this world: but be ye transformed by the renewing of your mind, that ye may prove what is that good, and acceptable, and perfect, will of God.
Blessings in Christ Jesus. :wave2
 
My point is simply that I do believe God still manifests in ways that can provide an evidentiary basis for faith and that there is no particular "honor" in claiming that one's faith does not rely on any evidence.
Hi Runner - Thanks for your energetic reply in sharing your comments. Myself, I believe there can be no greater faith than fully trusting God at His Word only, apart from additional evidence other than faith, which "is the evidence."

God confirms Himself with us primarily by His Spirit (Rom 8:16) and it is this work that solidifies the most our faith. This is not to claim there is no blessing in faith because of seeing natural evidence, but that faith without requiring seeing is superior and this is the crux of the Lord disclosing that there are those who "believe because they have seen" (John 20:29).

Thus opportunity for greater faith results from believing without requiring seeing, though the believer can be shown physical evidence after believing, i.e. realizing how God always eventually "works all things together for good to those who love Him" (Rom 8:28).
 
Hi Runner - Thanks for your energetic reply in sharing your comments. Myself, I believe there can be no greater faith than fully trusting God at His Word only, apart from additional evidence other than faith, which "is the evidence."

My respectful thought on that would be: What causes us to conclude in the first place that it is really His Word we are trusting? Why do we trust in the Bible and not the Koran? To me, the confidence that it is really His Word is largely a product of experience, observation, study and intuition. One perspective, of course, is that this is entirely God's doing - it is He who elects and calls us and it is the leading of the Holy Spirit that causes us to recognize the truth of His Word. I have no serious quibble with this perspective (how could I?). My point would be that often, as in my case, the initial "faith" is really more of an "emotional response." If it stops there, which in my experience it sometimes does, it is a shallow thing that may not withstand the storms of life. I, at least, want an informed faith, one where I know what I believe and understand why I believe it.

If the bones of Jesus were conclusively identified tomorrow, I'd be moving on to a new religion because, as Paul recognized, the Resurrection is the sine qua non of Christianity; my "faith" would simply not withstand such conclusive evidence (bear in mind, I'm talking only about conclusive evidence). I certainly don't expect Jesus' bones to be conclusively identified tomorrow because of certain personal experiences I have had, some really extensive study I have done, and my intuition that the Resurrection is a historical reality. I could say that I have faith in the Resurrection solely because I trust in God's Word, but the reality is that the faith in the Resurrection I have arrived at on the basis of experience, observation, study and intuition is, in my opinion, far deeper and stronger than that.

To my mind, God endowed us with investigative and analytical abilities so we could exercise them. It seems to me that some Christians wear their blind faith almost as a badge of honor: "I wouldn't care if Jesus' bones were conclusively identified tomorrow, I'd still believe in the Resurrection because I trust God's Word over my own eyes, ears, intellect and any evidence there might be" - that sort of thing. I'm not going to harangue someone who defines faith this way, but it's not a definition that resonates with me at all.

I guess I could have added "the working of the Holy Spirit" to "experience, observation, study and intuition." On my road to faith, there have been numerous critical junctures where I have no doubt the Holy Spirit guided my path and informed my experiences, observations, studies and intuition. I don't want to give the impression that I think I "worked" my way to faith through my own efforts and thus deserve "credit" or "praise" for now having faith. I'm really talking at the definitional level - i.e., what is faith? Can we really talk intelligibly about having faith entirely apart from our experiences, observations, study and intuition?
 
Faith gives you access to grace. The whole point of faith is to bring something from the invisible realm around to the visible realm. Faith is the master key! It will open every door. It will access every promises.

Levels of faith: (many other examples in the bible)
Great faith - Matthew 8:5-10
Unfeigned faith - II Timothy 1:5
Wavering faith - James 1:5-7
Perfect faith - James 2:22
Rich faith - James 2:5
Full of faith - Acts 6:1-5
Little Faith - Matthew 6:25-34, Matthew 14:25-31
No faith - Mark 4:35-40
 
Faith is trust.
When a preacher tells you to "release your faith".., or when the bible tells you that "if you can believe"..., what they are really saying is...
>IF you can just TRUST.<
Trust, not hope, is the highest form of belief.
 
Faith is trust.
When a preacher tells you to "release your faith".., or when the bible tells you that "if you can believe"..., what they are really saying is...
>IF you can just TRUST.<
Trust, not hope, is the highest form of belief.
And Biblical hope is trust. Our English "hope" is crossing our fingers behind our backs.
 
My respectful thought on that would be: What causes us to conclude in the first place that it is really His Word we are trusting? Why do we trust in the Bible and not the Koran? To me, the confidence that it is really His Word is largely a product of experience, observation, study and intuition. One perspective, of course, is that this is entirely God's doing - it is He who elects and calls us and it is the leading of the Holy Spirit that causes us to recognize the truth of His Word. I have no serious quibble with this perspective (how could I?). My point would be that often, as in my case, the initial "faith" is really more of an "emotional response." If it stops there, which in my experience it sometimes does, it is a shallow thing that may not withstand the storms of life. I, at least, want an informed faith, one where I know what I believe and understand why I believe it.

If the bones of Jesus were conclusively identified tomorrow, I'd be moving on to a new religion because, as Paul recognized, the Resurrection is the sine qua non of Christianity; my "faith" would simply not withstand such conclusive evidence (bear in mind, I'm talking only about conclusive evidence). I certainly don't expect Jesus' bones to be conclusively identified tomorrow because of certain personal experiences I have had, some really extensive study I have done, and my intuition that the Resurrection is a historical reality. I could say that I have faith in the Resurrection solely because I trust in God's Word, but the reality is that the faith in the Resurrection I have arrived at on the basis of experience, observation, study and intuition is, in my opinion, far deeper and stronger than that.

To my mind, God endowed us with investigative and analytical abilities so we could exercise them. It seems to me that some Christians wear their blind faith almost as a badge of honor: "I wouldn't care if Jesus' bones were conclusively identified tomorrow, I'd still believe in the Resurrection because I trust God's Word over my own eyes, ears, intellect and any evidence there might be" - that sort of thing. I'm not going to harangue someone who defines faith this way, but it's not a definition that resonates with me at all.

I guess I could have added "the working of the Holy Spirit" to "experience, observation, study and intuition." On my road to faith, there have been numerous critical junctures where I have no doubt the Holy Spirit guided my path and informed my experiences, observations, studies and intuition. I don't want to give the impression that I think I "worked" my way to faith through my own efforts and thus deserve "credit" or "praise" for now having faith. I'm really talking at the definitional level - i.e., what is faith? Can we really talk intelligibly about having faith entirely apart from our experiences, observations, study and intuition?
I understand what you are saying. But our experiences, observations, study and intuition apart from the Spirit are worthless to us. It is only through the Spirit That we can see the truth behind our experiences, observations, study and intuition.
 
And Biblical hope is trust. Our English "hope" is crossing our fingers behind our backs.

sure.
biblical "hope" is spiritual/mental and not just "feelings'' based, but they are connected.
just as biblical love is Agape, but its also Eros,..... its both "charity", and its also "sensual".
its Paul describing love as ........., and its also The Song of Solomon.
God is not a neuter life form....He is a consumate artist, full of perfect feelings, and a completely Righteous being who understands the sensual.
He is also perfect love.
God is Love.
 
sure.
biblical "hope" is spiritual/mental and not just "feelings'' based, but they are connected.
just as biblical love is Agape, but its also Eros,..... its both "charity", and its also "sensual".
its Paul describing love as ........., and its also The Song of Solomon.
God is not a neuter life form....He is a consumate artist, full of perfect feelings, and a completely Righteous being who understands the sensual.
He is also perfect love.
God is Love.
Love. I think this were Christianity steers themselves of the cliff. Most think God loves us because of who we are and what we do for Him. When God loves us because of who and what He is. And this is why we love, our love for the Father, brings love(impersonal and unconditional) to all of man. It does not come from ourselves, It is our personal love for the Father that expresses love to mankind.

Virtue love~~He loves us because of who He is, and we love because He is in us. It does not come from ourselves.
 
Several have made comments that are part of what I get out of my belief.

The Holy Spirit fully entered has into sons and daughters at a point in time (I understand prophets, priests and kings etc. in times past). Since Pentecost the inward evidence of the Holy Spirit has been available.
Hebrews 6:4-5
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

This modern experience does not require external evidence ( if your senses are trained by experience etc.).

Previous to the coming of the Holy Spirit to the general church, God seems to have encouraged faith with external encouragement.
Hebrews 11:32
And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and ofSamson, and of Jephthae; ofDavid also, and Samuel, and ofthe prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

All the good things encouraged their faith in God. Having a Rahab help
Encouraged Them. Having a prophet drop by with a word helped them.

Now the inner witness does a lot of this.

eddif
 
Last edited:
I actually brushed post before I finished on the previous post) got to love touch screens). So the errors and incomplete post was me trying to hurry before the edit time frame finished. Keeps you humble (another aspect of not requiring external encouragement).

Before Holy Spirit they did not have the full inner encouragement or correction his presence brings. King David had a prophet come to reveal his sin with Bathsheba . Today we can be made aware of sins from the striving of Holy Spirit within us. Of course we can quench the Spirit and need church discipline.

We can also have his will worked in our inner man. Holy Spirit also does positive things inside us.

Sorry for needing 2 posts to present one concept.

eddif
 
Several have made comments that are part of what I get out of my belief.

The Holy Spirit fully entered has into sons and daughters at a point in time (I understand prophets, priests and kings etc. in times past). Since Pentecost the inward evidence of the Holy Spirit has been available.
Hebrews 6:4-5
4 For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the Holy Ghost,
5 And have tasted the good word of God, and the powers of the world to come,

This modern experience does not require external evidence ( if your senses are trained by experience etc.).

Previous to the coming of the Holy Spirit to the general church, God seems to have encouraged faith with external encouragement.
Hebrews 11:32
And what shall I more say? for the time would fail me to tell of Gedeon, and of Barak, and ofSamson, and of Jephthae; ofDavid also, and Samuel, and ofthe prophets:
33 Who through faith subdued kingdoms, wrought righteousness, obtained promises, stopped the mouths of lions,
34 Quenched the violence of fire, escaped the edge of the sword, out of weakness were made strong, waxed valiant in fight, turned to flight the armies of the aliens.

All the good things encouraged their faith in God. Having a Rahab help
Encouraged Them. Having a prophet drop by with a word helped them.

Now the inner witness does a lot of this.

eddif
I believe you are correct here. All the external evidence before Pentecost, pointed to the proof of the Indwelling of God in believers. Once that was established, most of the external evidence stopped. The Church has the completed canon, and all the external evidence is recorded in it.

the Christian way of life is a mental attitude and having His mind in our soul......study,study,study. A believer and an unbeliever give to the poor. We can't see, through their actions, who is a Christian or not. Because it is the WHY(real fruit) they gave to the poor. We can't "see" that.
 
Faith is trust.
When a preacher tells you to "release your faith".., or when the bible tells you that "if you can believe"..., what they are really saying is...
>IF you can just TRUST.<
Trust, not hope, is the highest form of belief.
I would agree that "trust" is probably the closest synonym for "faith." "Commitment" might be close as well. I don't think, however, that I would characterize it as a form of belief. It seems to me that belief leads you to the point where you are able to trust. For example, even the most simple-minded believer has had to go through at least some process of becoming convinced ("believing") that (1) there is a deity, as opposed to no deity; (2) this deity is the God of Christianity, as opposed to the many other alternatives; (3) God has spoken to mankind through the Bible, which does not necessarily follow from numbers 1 and 2; and (4) the Bible is a reliable record of what God has spoken. My position is that arriving at beliefs 1-4 is a process of experience, observation, study and intuition, aided by the Holy Spirit. Believing items 1-4 does not require 100% certainty, since we can seldom be 100% certain about anything, but it does require some level of confidence. When we have arrived at beliefs 1-4, we are in a position to trust, to have faith in things unseen. Certainly the atheists have a point when they complain that the world in which we live - the evidence - hardly seems consistent with an omnipotent, omnibenevolent God; nevertheless, we trust in the ultimate wisdom and goodness of God. In some sense, I might say that I "believe" in the ultimate wisdom and goodness of God, but I believe it is more accurate to say that I "trust" in the ultimate wisdom and goodness of God. As an honest and sane human being, I acknowledge the possibility that I could be wrong and that even belief number 1 may prove to be incorrect.
If I seem to belabor these issues, it is because I believe the dynamics of faith are quite complex, some Christians seem to regard mindless, groundless faith as a badge of honor ("I have real faith because I don't need any foundation at all"), and some of these folks are in for a rude awakening (which I have observed numerous times) that their supposed "faith" was a house of cards waiting to collapse. To claim that one simply "accepts on faith" items 1-4 is, to me, unintelligible.
 
Matthew 9:2
And, behold, they brought to him a man sick of the palsy, lying on a bed: and Jesus seeing their faith said unto the sick of the palsy; Son, be of good cheer; thy sins be forgiven thee.
3 And, behold, certain of the scribes said within themselves, This man blasphemeth.
4 And Jesus knowing their thoughts said, Wherefore think ye evil in your hearts?
5 For whether is easier, to say, Thy sins be forgiven thee; or to say, Arise, and walk?
6 But that ye may know that the Son of man hath power on earth to forgive sins, (then saith he to the sick of the palsy,) Arise, take up thy bed, and go unto thine house.

While we come to the position of not needing external encouragement, someone else may receive a sign as God wills (while they are headed to receiving Holy Spirit).

Spiritual gifts do encourage folks not yet grown to spiritual maturity. Peter's shadow healed / delivered. If people are encouraged that eternal life is possible; let the signs follow. Later in their growth they should not continually seek a sign.

Healing is a symbol used to show there is power to save. Rejoicing in demons being subject to disciples, misses the importance of salvation.

I am getting beyond the OP .

eddif
 
I would agree that "trust" is probably the closest synonym for "faith." "Commitment" might be close as well. I don't think, however, that I would characterize it as a form of belief. It seems to me that belief leads you to the point where you are able to trust. .

As a Christian concept, i find the word "faith", to be slightly obtuse.
Whereas, the word "trust", for me, is the best way to understand what it means to believe.

Another way to think of it is this.
I may believe your story, but i dont trust you.
It can be both.
whereas, if i trust you, then i will believe you.
It will be both.
So, there is a difference.



K
 
Back
Top