Faith is being sure...

[jimb]

The bold is OK for the requirements for 'proof' usually applied to subjective logical arguments. This is the reason that subjective beliefs are only believed by those that accept the logical argument for that belief. This is the basis for your argument that only those that believe as you do understand the Bible.

This is the reason for the problematic assertion that one belief is the only true belief and interpretation of scripture. The lack of a standard for "the conviction of things not seen."

True, but you have not presented any viable standard that could differentiate the many conflicting subjective beliefs that disagree with your beliefs and make the claim that their belief is the only "true" belief.

I do not apply the principle of 'proof' to any claims based on subjective assumptions and beliefs, because in logical arguments it requires subjective assumptions that must be believed for the argument to be valid.

The many subjective variable religious beliefs in all religions lack a basis of objectivity beyond those that believe they are "true."

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your posts. You are stuck in a groove of denying faith, which you clearly do not understand.

Like yourself, I do not apply the principle of 'proof' to any claims based on subjective assumptions and belief.

One again, "... faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". That is what the Bible says. Attributing that statement to me is absurd.

Until you understand that simple declarative statement there is no point in further discussion.

 

[shunyadragon]

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your posts. You are stuck in a groove of denying faith, which you clearly do not understand.

Like yourself, I do not apply the principle of 'proof' to any claims based on subjective assumptions and belief.

One again, "... faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". That is what the Bible says. Attributing that statement to me is absurd.

Until you understand that simple declarative statement there is no point in further discussion.

Nice dodge and duck out the back door when you cannot respond coherently to the posts and references making absurd claims of "academia vs God," and base everything on the faith of what you believe.

I did not attribute the quote as yours. I stated the problem of the subjective nature of making any definitive statement of exclusive understanding based on what is unseen.

I question your ability to understand English when I made no such claim of attributing the citation as yours.

 

[F1fan]

Frankly, I'm getting tired of your posts. You are stuck in a groove of denying faith, which you clearly do not understand.

Given the massive disagreement among the faithful, what is there to understand about faith, except that is it inconsistent and something anyone can create for themselves?

Like yourself, I do not apply the principle of 'proof' to any claims based on subjective assumptions and belief.

One again, "... faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen". That is what the Bible says. Attributing that statement to me is absurd.

Until you understand that simple declarative statement there is no point in further discussion.

Faith is unreliable, and is little more than minds gambling on outcomes and reality. It's fine in trauma, but terrible for a way of life.

 

[jimb]

Nice dodge and duck out the back door when you cannot respond coherently to the posts and references making absurd claims of "academia vs God," and base everything on the faith of what you believe.

I did not attribute the quote as yours. I stated the problem of the subjective nature of making any definitive statement of exclusive understanding based on what is unseen.

I question your ability to understand English when I made no such claim of attributing the citation as yours.

You're joking! a) unlike yourself, I have been blessed by God and have complete faith in Him. b) you think that you have the answers about life but obviously you do not. c) clearly you are very unhappy (for which there is a remedy), d) you insist that I discuss issues on your terms, which I will not do.

Let me know when you want to discuss the subject instead of sinking to the level of personal ad hominem attack (a definitive sign that you have lost the debate).

Finally, you should carefully read my "signature" below.