VehementiDominus
Active Member
Faith is belief in something without evidence, which is bad enough, but believing in something when science says otherwise is just outright stupidity.
Upvote
0
Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Faith is believing something when science says otherwise.
Yes, I agree with that too.Faith is belief in something without evidence...
Yes, I agree with that too.
The long definition I have come up with is: Believing in something when there is no evidence, or when science says otherwise.
This means that I have faith that the Flood was global, despite what you guys claim science says about it being only local.
When I first came here five years ago, all I heard was, "There's no evidence of a global flood."
After I started chanting, "Keep looking" every time someone said that, they switched to, "Evidence says a global flood didn't happen."
Thus the definition: Faith is believing in something when there's no evidence to support it, or when science says otherwise.
Both cases are idiotic.
Yes, I agree with that too.
The long definition I have come up with is: Believing in something when there is no evidence, or when science says otherwise.
If you do not know God, then human faith is basicly positive thinking. It is very popular with motivational speakers for sports, business and in some cases even education. God's faith is both a gift and a fruit of the Holy Spirit in us. You can not seperate His faith from His love & Healing. In fact all the fruit of the spirit come together in one pkg" love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfullness, gentleness & self control. The gifts or chrisma's are a work of God that He does as He joins us together as one in the Church. So the faith of God works though us and they say God will give to us what He can get through us to others.Faith is belief in something without evidence, which is bad enough, but believing in something when science says otherwise is just outright stupidity.
How do you reconcil the difference in Gen ch 1 where man was told to "fill the earth" compared to ch 2 when Adam was put in the Garden of Eden to take care of it.This means that I have faith that the Flood was global, despite what you guys claim science says about it being only local.
Good question, bro; thank you for asking.How do you reconcil the difference in Gen ch 1 where man was told to "fill the earth" compared to ch 2 when Adam was put in the Garden of Eden to take care of it.
SOURCE1. An examination of the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) shows that the word was used to mean fill from the thirteenth to the seventeenth centuries. In no case quoted in these five centuries does it unambiguously mean re-fill. The OED defines replenish as having 10 meanings throughout its history:
Note that only 9 includes the idea again. This use first appears in a poem in 1612. It appears again in Pepys Diary, where he says: buy ... to replenish the stores. Only the year 1612 is anywhere near the date of the KJV (1611), and its a poetic use. The Hebrew original of Genesis 1:28 is not poetic. All other uses range from the seventeenth to the nineteenth century, when it tends to die out in normal writing.
- Replenished (adjective):
- fully stocked; provided, supplied;
- filled, pervaded;
- physically or materially filled;
- full, made full.
- To replenish:
- make full, fill, stock with, as in: This man made the Newe Forest, and replenyshed it with wylde bestes (AD1494);
- inhabit, settle, occupy the whole of;
- fill with food, satiate;
- fill (space) with; fill (heart) with (a feeling);
- fill up again; fill up (a vacant office) (AD1632);
- become full, attain to fullness.
And yet he'll still whale on TEs.
Another sterling AV double standard.
Because I think you're trying to eclipse my point with algebra, and you're only confusing yourself, not me.Why you not respond to my post, AV? Have you no answer?
Or perhaps that if you answered it, you be put in the position of either admitting that there's no just reason for believing in something that has no evidence, or giving equal weight to any nonsense idea that comes along.
And neither of those is very good, is it? And yet that is what your position has led you to.
Want me to ask it without the algebra? Fine.
If an event always causes certain consequences, is there any reaon to believe that the event took place if those consequences do not exist?
Because I think you're trying to eclipse my point with algebra, and you're only confusing yourself, not me.
Forget it, Tiberius -- any answer (or question, for that matter) which AV cannot twist in his great commission to promote AV can take a hike.
Wouldn't half of any class be in the bottom 1/2 of that class for all professions?
It depends on how good you are at cleaning up after the crime or event.If an event always leaves behind three things, yet these three things aren't there, where they should be, then did the event occur or not?
It depends on how good you are at cleaning up after the crime or event.
It depends on how good you are at cleaning up after the crime or event.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?