"Now faith is the substance of things
hoped for, the evidence of things unseen".
This is where scholarly Hermeneutics and Exegesis come into play, Estrid. And until you learn this lesson, you're going to keep making the same big mistake that so many make, even Christians.
It's more than high time for this to come to the realization of the World so that no one makes the solipsistic mistake of thinking that flapping the Bible open to some favorite verse and reading it out loud and in front of others somehow presents a self-evident, comprehensively understandable meaning.
It doesn't.
So..............NO! You are wrong! Hebrews 11:1 doesn't stand by itself, and it sure as heck doesn't provide a self-explanatory reference for denotation for the "essence of Christian faith." People need to stop doing and get educated.
Just as I pointed out. Such a concept,
such an approach to evidence would be
a disaster for any real research.
And I don't do this, so why say this to me. .... It doesn't apply.
Hoping for certain results is the opposite of
onjectivity. Faith in evicence that cannot be
detected but putting it into theory anyway is,
in science, the very definition of intellectual
dishonesty.
mmmmmmmmmmmmm. No. You're digging your own epistemic grave here, Estrid. Continuing to push this in a repetitive, ongoing manner just demonstrates your lack of education. I'd suggest you stop with this line of talk and start studying. Unless you like looking like you're ignorant, which I'm sure you're not really wanting to be seen as such.
If it works for your religion, terri. You deal, no
concern of mine.
My observation has to do with those who play
SEDI- "same evidence, different interpretation"
basing their "interpretation " on their faith. (In
themselves, speaking of o'erweening pride) as
ones gifted with True understanding of scripture-
and attending Knoweledge beyond that of any researchers
om earth
Stop the double talk, Estrid. And who is "Terri"?
Some people, less prejudiced perhaps
or fair minded, interested in substance,
would ask for such clarification. If they needed it.
It's trivially obvious, but.
Which you don't do, because academic clarficiation will require more than just hearing a sentence or two from other people. It often does---like at a university---require that you go to the library and actually check out some additional, diverse, scholarly sources to disambiguate the conceptual problems. So far, you give little evidence that you do so.
Some follow forum guidelines and respond
to the post rather than going for character attack.
No, sometimes an attack on another person's Epistemic and Scholarly Integrity IS EXACTLY WHAT IT IS: it's an act of exposing that lack. And if some people haven't been to college and learned this, TOO BAD FOR THEM!!!
It's not too bad for you because..........well, from my perspective, you should know better.
After your last post to me some days ago,
that was similarly nothing but a personal
attack. I didnt bother to respond, meant to
move you to ig city to spare at least myself
such unseemly displays as here where you
accuse me of being dishonest and a liar,
whatever else that I won't review to find.
As noted before, your claims would be
better applied., with more truth and less
calumny, to yourself.
More hubris. You're just making claims about my claims, NONE of my claims are hubris.
It's not my fault you don't believe. It's not my fault in the least, and YOU aren't going to lay that red herring at my doorstep.
