Does 'Goddidit' constitute an explanation? (2)

[Doveaman]

His faith is evidence.

I think it's blind.

 

[Nathan Poe]

What I believe is based on the evidence of faith. If I had no faith, then the belief would be a blind belief.

I believe because I have faith, and the faith proves that what I believe is true.

So, you have faith because you believe you have faith, and your belief is valid because you have faith.

And the wheels on the logic go round and round...

 

[Skaloop]

Faith without evidence is blind. You know that.

Well, the evidence would be your posts. So there's faith that you don't know what you'r talking about, and evidence to back it up. Slam dunk.

 

[Skaloop]

I think it's blind.

I don't.

 

[sandwiches]

Faith without evidence is blind. You know that.

So you do have evidence? I hope you won't go circular on us with faith needs evidence, which is the faith itself and then say something nonsensical about the inadequacies of language or some other vaguery.

Edit: There is more and more nonsense in your posts:
You contradict yourself claiming you have no evidence. Then you say faith without evidence is blind. You say you have faith in the proof and that proof is your faith because it's a special kind of faith but you can't show us why your faith is the correct one without having to assume that you're right in the first place.

*sigh*

As much as I miss the bliss of thinking I was going to fly from cloud to cloud when I died, I don't miss the horrible mental acrobatics one must perform to have to swallow such nonsense.

 

[Jnwaco]

There is evidence - it's called the New Testament. It just doesn't get the credit it deserves in these types of discussion.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

NO.

I have faith in it, which proves it is true.

How, exactly?

 

[Freodin]

What I believe is based on the evidence of faith. If I had no faith, then the belief would be a blind belief.

I believe because I have faith, and the faith proves that what I believe is true.

This does not answer my question.

You claim that you have "faith". You also claim that this is "biblical faith", not to be confused with "dictionary faith".

Now what is this "biblical faith" that you claim to have and how do you know you have it?

 

[Skaloop]

There is evidence - it's called the New Testament. It just doesn't get the credit it deserves in these types of discussion.

Are you kidding? It gets far more credit than it deserves. It really deserves no credit at all, but there it is nonetheless...

 

[sandwiches]

This does not answer my question.

You claim that you have "faith". You also claim that this is "biblical faith", not to be confused with "dictionary faith".

Now what is this "biblical faith" that you claim to have and how do you know you have it?

The evidence of his faith being the right one is the Bible. Which through that same faith we know is telling us the truth.

In other words: The king has no clothes.

 

[Jnwaco]

The evidence of his faith being the right one is the Bible. Which through that same faith we know is telling us the truth.

In other words: The king has no clothes.

Actually, there's a bit of knowledge to be had about how the New Testament came to us which gives it credit. But that's a lengthy discussion and tons of books have been written on it.

 

[Jnwaco]

Are you kidding? It gets far more credit than it deserves. It really deserves no credit at all, but there it is nonetheless...

In your opinion. I'd question whether or not you've studied it though, or you would have some questions about how it came to be.

 

[AV1611VET]

I was Catholic, started asking questions and things didn't add up with what the Bible says. After some years of pleading, begging, praying, no answer or anything came to calm my fears and doubts.

What did you pray?

Dear Lord, why aren't we out hanging witches like we're supposed to?

When's the next Crusade?

Why did You let the Inquisition dry up?

I'm trying my best to be a good Christian, but it's so hard in a world where no one seems to care about Your commands anymore.

And now look at the world!

The tares are growing faster than the wheat.

Dispensation Theology is creeping into our churches, and I just learned that some people are starting to preach a literal Genesis 1!

And now this King James Bible is starting to breed King James Only apologists.

Don't they know King James was a homosexual?

I'm getting pretty discouraged, and I need some answers.

Just asking ---

 

[sandwiches]

Actually, there's a bit of knowledge to be had about how the New Testament came to us which gives it credit. But that's a lengthy discussion and tons of books have been written on it.

So, you can believe the Bible without faith that it was divinely inspired?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

In your opinion. I'd question whether or not you've studied it though, or you would have some questions about how it came to be.

Unless he knows everything there is to know about how it came to be, and came to his conclusion rationally.

Which is more than can be said for your hand-waving excuses for NT veracity.

 

[sandwiches]

What did you pray?Just asking ---

You're not asking. You're just being your hateful, bigoted self, son.

 

[Jnwaco]

So, you can believe the Bible without faith that it was divinely inspired?

Well, I believe it was divinely inspired. People were obviously inspired by Christ to write numerous accounts of his life.

 

[AV1611VET]

I think it's your vector that needs to be double-checked.

Well when I do, it sure won't be with science's templates --- they change with every generation.

 

[sandwiches]

Well, I believe it was divinely inspired. People were obviously inspired by Christ to write numerous accounts of his life.

So, people can believe the NT without having to have faith that it was divinely inspired. In other words, is the NT objectively verifiable regardless of belief?

 

[Jnwaco]

So, people can believe the NT without having to have faith that it was divinely inspired. In other words, is the NT objectively verifiable regardless of belief?

It's history, you should know better than to ask questions like that. I believe George Washington was the first president of the United States, too, but there's no objective evidence in the scientific sense that it's subject to repeatable experiment.