Why so friggin' confident?

Well, He used to live up the road until His parents had Him removed. The Person of the Lord, Jesus Christ, spent most of his time roving the neighborhood with sea gull feathers sticking out of his shoulder length, unkempt hair administering salvation to solitary road sign and throng of bushes alike. He never tried to save me, but often commanded that I be glad in my day; I complied as resistance is futile. (I don't really know what became of Him; He may have ascended.)He was as certain of His identity as I of mine. Your testimony seems to indicate that I erred in listening to my mum. Should I, instead, have thrown down my nets and followed Him as He lapped the block? Or nailed Him to a tree?And for the big question and the point of this thread: How was I to know?In addition, having read Percy's post #71, I too seem to be missing a subtlety in the topic. My question above does seem to ask for evidence so let me rephrase it. If I were to have faith in our municipal Person of the Lord, Jesus Christ, would I have been wrong, and how do you know?Edited by lyx2no, : Addition

---

Genesis 2
17 But of the ponderosa pine, thou shalt not eat of it; for in the day that thou eatest thereof thou shalt sorely learn of thy nakedness.
18 And we all live happily ever after.

Percy writes:You point is well taken and understood. But for those of us that are proceeding form a Biblical perspective, it should be understood that the Bible does at times refer to faith and belief as the same thing. They are often used interchangably. It simply depends on the subject matter and context of the topic.For example in Romans 1:20. The scriptures describes faith or belief as supported to the point that a person is "without excuse" for not seeing the available evidence.In other instances, faith or belief is used in the context of not knowing all the facts, but still believing and having faith, that God can and will follow through with that he has promised.So it depends on the context in which you are wanting to describe faith.If his contention is about the word faith or belief soley, then I would say that any faith is either supported or unsupported any faith or belief is blind or not. I would have to have blind faith that Abraham Lincoln actually did all the things attributed to him, even though there is much evidence (supported belief)to suggest that he actually existed and was president. There is a difference in the two concepts.There is more than one definition of faith and belief. Wrong thats only one definition of the word faith, even from a secular position.D BertotEdited by Bertot, : No reason given.

All of us here at EvC tout our various beliefs. The problem with the OP is that it essentially classifies all faiths/beliefs as blind and having no evidence. It is implying that the Biblical arguments have no evidence and only the secularist arguments have evidence. Some of us are effectively debunking that OP implication.Example: Cited fulfilled prophecy relative to phenomenal restoration of the nation of Israel by descendents of ancient Israel scattered globally lends evidential support to the yet unfulfilled aspects of the prophecy relative to the future destiny of the nation of Israel. This all lends evidential support to the Biblical record at large. That's just one example. The more of these kinds of things you can corroborate as evidence the more balanced the faith becomes with the evidence relative to the Biblical record.The OP also implies that there is no element of faith in secularist hypotheses and theories when in fact there are aspects of these which are unknown but assumed in order to accommodate the given hypothesis or theory. Therefore some of us are claiming that there are some (I say some) elements of faith in secularist sciences.If you are alleging that evidence supported faith is not faith, then, well I guess belief in the Biblical record is not faith and arguments for it's claims, like the belief in the existence of the Biblical god Jehovah, are not faith based arguments.Having said the above, some faith based ideologies do require blind faith having no evidence. However, most of the debates here at EvC pertain to Biblicists, some of who require and cite more evidence than others to under-gird our faith in the Biblical record. Some preach faith and philosophize. Others debate evidence. Still, others do both.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

Replying to both Message 77 and Message 78. Staying within the context of this thread would be nice. The definition of faith for this thread is in Message 5. Read the messages above that one where I express my concerns about this turning into another discussion of Biblical evidence. Consider it a hypothetical that doesn't apply to you, in which case you shouldn't be posting to this thread. Having evidence for what you believe is easy to understand. That's what everyone likes to think of themselves, that they hold beliefs that make sense in the real world. What makes no sense is not having evidence for what you believe. That's what this thread is supposed to be about.For example, the Reverend Billy Sunday once said, "When the word of God says one thing and scholarship says another, scholarship can go to hell." While that's perhaps expressed a bit strongly, it at least makes clear the type of faith this thread is about.--Percy

Message 5 does not define faith. It asks what faith is and why Biblicalists believe in such things as the virgin birth.The opener in message 5 states: Then this: (embolding mine for emphasis)This sure sounds like what we've been discussing and debating relative to evidence enhanced faith to me. Nevertheless, if you still insist that this thread is not for me, say so and I'll find something else to do. Well then, with all due respect for your authority, you shouldn't have promoted the topic at all because message 5 asks for reasons why folks believe in the such things as the virgin birth.

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.

So have you read the Quran or the holy book of any other religion to confirm that they do not promise something similar? Have you discussed with people of other religions their experiences which has affirmed their belief in their respective deities?

Hi Buz,You might want to read Message 4 that Message 5 is a response to. Your interpretation is precisely the one that I told the originator I wanted excluded. Also, quoting the portion of Message 5 that you're ignoring: Do you see the part about "no substance, physical or theoretical"? Does that sound he's talking about material evidence to you?You can talk about evidence supporting your faith as long as that evidence is immaterial, such as, "I know the Bible is the inerrant word of God because I can feel God's presence in every word."--Percy

Just as Muslims get to explain what Islam is all about, and Jews get to explain what Judaism is all about, followers of the way of Jesus get to explain to unbelievers what Christianity is all about.You may reject what Jesus has to say, but if you are a follower of Jesus, your faith as a Christian must be based in God's word as revealed in the Bible, the Person of the Lord Jesus Christ, letting Him draw you to Himself.

How do you know that what happened in Acts 1 & 2 did not really happen? You don't! All you know is that you don't believe it and reject it as God's truth.How do you know that you are not the one being deceived by rejecting Acts 1 & 2 as God's truth?If you want to believe that I'm deceived because I base my faith in the Lord Jesus Christ on receiving the same experience as the believers in Acts 1 & 2 received, then so be it, but I've been in good company for 2000 years now.Blessings

You don't, which is why I am skeptical of such things without any corroboration.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

The problem with your testimony regarding why you rejected Christianity was that you said you based your faith on what others told you Christianity was all about.Sorry, Christianity doesn't work that way. God doesn't have any grandchildren that base their faith on the faith of others. God only has children in every generation that are born into the kingdom of God through their own faith in the Lord Jesus Christ. Blessings

Yes, I've read the Quran several times, and I know that it does not promise nor fulfill any of the promises that the Lord Jesus Christ gives to His children.Most other religions in the world claim to provide some way of earning God's favor, but I know of none who started their religion to have ever made the claims about Himself that Jesus made about Himself.

You have every right to be skeptical, but I am not skeptical because what I read about in Acts 1 & 2 has happened to me, and to countless others for 2000 years now.Blessings

In a nutshell? I'd have to say: it's about reality, man.What's "reality" but a decision that what you perceive you percieve to be is as you perceive it. 99% of what you perceive you don't test - you take what you perceive you percieve to be.. is as you perceive it. For the rest of it? You check what you perceive to be, against what others (who you perceive to be) perceive. In the measure that they (who you only perceive to be) agree with your perception, does your confidence in what you perceive to be the case increase.Even though that's circular reasoning...Faith? It's like an extra sensory perception that has been switched on. And which has no middle ground. It's no more rationally/evidentially explained than is the quality RED explained to a blind man. In fact, given it doesn't belong to the perception class PHYSICAL, it's even less explainable.The RED analogy works if you want to know something of the gulf between those of the faith I speak of and those without. If you want to argue the point so as to stretch RED so that it doesn't work anymore then it won't serve to inform.

Typical. We bonafide creationists must operate with half our brain tied up. The OP etc up through message 5 goes all over the spectrum of faith from blind to "science" and knowledge based faith abe: as I have documented. You choose to limit your counterparts here to the end of the spectrum which eliminates the effectiveness of evidence relative to Biblical based faith and limit the arguments to "faith is blind feely nonsense."Sorry, feely feely faith doesn't cut it for me so I'll find something else to do. Enjoy. Edited by Buzsaw, : emboldened

---

BUZSAW B 4 U 2 C Y BUZ SAW.
The immeasurable present eternally extends the infinite past and infinitely consumes the eternal future.