Adam & Eve

[AV1611VET]

How do you define faith?

Facts Accepted In The Heart.

 

[sandwiches]

Facts Accepted In The Heart.

Is that to mean facts accepted without evidence? Or could you be a bit more specific as the heart is just a muscle and it cannot "accept" anything?

 

[AV1611VET]

Is that to mean facts accepted without evidence?

Yup --- when we see something (called "walking by sight"), and we chose to accept what the Bible tells us over the interpretation of what we are looking at --- that evidence, in effect, becomes our faith (called "walking by faith").

Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.

Faith = evidence.

Or could you be a bit more specific as the heart is just a muscle and it cannot "accept" anything?

The Bible says the heart is capable of thinking.

For as he thinketh in his heart, so is he:

 

[sandwiches]

Yup --- when we see something (called "walking by sight"), and we chose to accept what the Bible tells us over the interpretation of what we are looking at --- that evidence, in effect, becomes our faith (called "walking by faith").Faith = evidence.The Bible says the heart is capable of thinking.

Two questions:
What does evidence mean to you?

How does the heart think?

 

[AV1611VET]

Two questions:
What does evidence mean to you?

Just that --- it's a vestige of something that happened.

How does the heart think?

I don't know.

 

[pgp_protector]

So if I have a heart transplant would I get the donors faith along with their heart ?

 

[AV1611VET]

So if I have a heart transplant would I get the donors faith along with their heart ?

No --- your brain would "reprogram" your heart.

It would be like getting a new hard drive.

 

[sandwiches]

Just that --- it's a vestige of something that happened.I don't know.

So, evidence is some kind of mark left over by some event.

Now, when I asked "Is that to mean facts accepted without evidence?"

You answered:

Yup --- when we see something (called "walking by sight"), and we chose to accept what the Bible tells us over the interpretation of what we are looking at --- that evidence, in effect, becomes our faith (called "walking by faith").
​

If you have a mark of an event as evidence, then you cannot believe that on faith per your response, for you agreed that faith was to accept facts without evidence. Care to revise your definition of faith?

 

[Cabal]

So, evidence is some kind of mark left over by some event.

Now, when I asked "Is that to mean facts accepted without evidence?"

You answered:

Yup --- when we see something (called "walking by sight"), and we chose to accept what the Bible tells us over the interpretation of what we are looking at --- that evidence, in effect, becomes our faith (called "walking by faith").
​

If you have a mark of an event as evidence, then you cannot believe that on faith per your response, for you agreed that faith was to accept facts without evidence. Care to revise your definition of faith?

Hoho, wait till you see some of the extrabiblical workarounds some of our resident creationists have come up with!

Gives the word "literalism" a whole new meaning!

 

[Cabal]

No --- your brain would "reprogram" your heart.

It would be like getting a new hard drive.

My goodness, it's almost like the brain could think for itself!

 

[AV1611VET]

So, evidence is some kind of mark left over by some event.

Now, when I asked "Is that to mean facts accepted without evidence?"

You answered:

Yup --- when we see something (called "walking by sight"), and we chose to accept what the Bible tells us over the interpretation of what we are looking at --- that evidence, in effect, becomes our faith (called "walking by faith").
​

If you have a mark of an event as evidence, then you cannot believe that on faith per your response, for you agreed that faith was to accept facts without evidence. Care to revise your definition of faith?

I have to run, sandwiches --- emergency.

( Nothing serious --- the "good kind" --- )

I'll pick this conversation up where we left off.

Nice talking to you ---

 

[sandwiches]

I have to run, sandwiches --- emergency.

( Nothing serious --- the "good kind" --- )

I'll pick this conversation up where we left off.

Nice talking to you ---

That's fine. Just don't forget!

 

[Hespera]

No --- your brain would "reprogram" your heart.

It would be like getting a new hard drive.

Is there some biblical term for people who make up religious concepts and then present them as fact?

 

[Jester4kicks]

So if I have a heart transplant would I get the donors faith along with their heart ?

Yes.


And their soul.


Their juicy, juicy soul.




and aids.




KAAAAPPPLLLLAAAA!!!!!!!!

 

[Jester4kicks]

Is there some biblical term for people who make up religious concepts and then present them as fact?

Christians.

 

[AV1611VET]

That's fine. Just don't forget!

Okay, sandwiches, I'm back.

Sorry --- I'm giving a lecture tonight titled:

Where is the Water Canopy Today? A Lecture on the Canadian Shield, or Laurentian Theology.

Just kidding ---

So, evidence is some kind of mark left over by some event.

Yes.

Now, when I asked "Is that to mean facts accepted without evidence?"

You answered:

Yup --- when we see something (called "walking by sight"), and we chose to accept what the Bible tells us over the interpretation of what we are looking at --- that evidence, in effect, becomes our faith (called "walking by faith").
​

If you have a mark of an event as evidence, then you cannot believe that on faith per your response, for you agreed that faith was to accept facts without evidence. Care to revise your definition of faith?

No.

For example: If evidence points to Egypt existing before the Flood, since this clearly contradicts the Bible, I take it on faith that the Bible is right, and these marks left over are wrong.

Then my faith [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right.

Science, of course, is going to disagree, and then it becomes a matter of he-said/she-said.

 

[Hespera]

For example: If evidence points to Egypt existing before the Flood, since this clearly contradicts the Bible, I take it on faith that the Bible is right, and these marks left over are wrong.

Then my faith [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right.

Science, of course, is going to disagree, and then it becomes a matter of he-said/she-said.

He said / she said of course applies when there is equal reason to believe either story.

What you want is equal value for your opinion over physical evidence.

it works like this. Detective has a huge dossier of photos, diagrams, charts, he has stacks of physical evidence laid out, all consistent with your guilt.

You say, nope I didnt do it! Its just he says / she says. That is your only defense.

Hows that going to turn out?


ps the Egyptians will also disagree.

 

[LifeToTheFullest!]

Okay, sandwiches, I'm back.

Sorry --- I'm giving a lecture tonight titled:

Where is the Water Canopy Today? A Lecture on the Canadian Shield, or Laurentian Theology.

Just kidding --- Yes.No.

For example: If evidence points to Egypt existing before the Flood, since this clearly contradicts the Bible, I take it on faith that the Bible is right, and these marks left over are wrong.

Then my faith [in the Bible] becomes my evidence that I'm right.

Science, of course, is going to disagree, and then it becomes a matter of he-said/she-said.

Actually AV, it becomes a matter of evidence / no evidence. You do not have permission to give your supernatural claims credence over actual, physical proof.

 

[Hespera]

Ha! Thou forgettest the Doctrine of Self-Auto Permittiation.

 

[gaara4158]

Ha! Thou forgettest the Doctrine of Self-Auto Permittiation.

Also known as Doctrina ex Ego-Permitticus