Christian Pride.

Biblical English is the language being dealt with by me. It defines its own words. The word of God is not defined by the word of man (obviously) You imply faith as a last ditch when the 'superior' empirical isn't around. There is, of course, none of that stated or implied in the verse - thats your own view leaking through. Whilst I agree that if one had empirical evidence then they wouldn't require the evidence of faith. But I don't see how that diminishes the evidence of faith as evidence in any way.Did you notice how on the one hand your desire that I used the English Language for 'hope' whilst you yourself skip over the normal english language meaning for 'evidence'.I don't know all there is to be known of God. I only know what I have evidence for.

biblical english?there's only one language you can put "biblical" on the front of, and have it make sense: biblical hebrew. the bible was written in biblical hebrew, aramaic, and koine greek. the only variant of english that comes close to being defined by the bible is shakespearean/jamesian/modern english. yet you continually try to redefine the word of god through semantic arguments yourself. curious. you seem to have an attitude that the word of god is not what's actually on the page, but some lofty idea in your head which is poorly rendered by the actual language of the text. ie: god is not a very good writer.

---

This is what the Bible says on the matter : This is what you see : ....sigh.....(bangs head against wall)

quote:

---

Faith is...the evidence of THINGS NOT SEEN

---

Excuse me ? Did God choose Martian to convey his word to us ?We have his word in English and his word is bound by the semantic rules of this language.When he gives his word in Iano-speak then you can start making up your own definitions.Until then faith is the evidence of things NOT SEEN, the substance of things HOPED FOR. It exists in the absence of empirical evidence.It's your Holy Book that states that, for crying out loud!!(bangs head against wall some more)

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

we tried big letters before. it doesn't work.

it's just sooooooo frustrating trying to make a Bible inerrantist actually read his Bible!

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

Knowledege can be conveyed and tested. Convey your "knowledge" of God to me right now so the I may "know" him. Give me a means to test his very existence. If you can't my point stands. No. I did not ignore the fox "problem". It's only a "problem" to you and it's been debunked by others. The likelyhood of you seeing a Fox can be ascertained by the fact that others have seen foxes in a particular envrionment. If you live in such an area this would provide some evidence. A set of tracks/droppings/hairs would also help. These things can be observed.As I said in Msg 141 (to which you did not reply): The fox "problem". Both yourself and I can trust your belief in this "knowledge", and for day to day purposes this is sufficient as long as the context aligns with what is observed by others. However, if it was a matter of life and death (like in a murder trial) I would need to get evidence so that the veracity of your "knowledge" can be accurately established. That's they way the world works Ian. Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

I know that I saw a that particular fox then at that particular time and day. There is nothing I can do so that you can know what I know too. No tracks, no likelyhood of there being one there. Nothing. You cannot know it. I can. Perist in your claims if you like about knowledge is not knowledge unless demonstrable. Continue to conflate the issue of likelyhood with the issue of knowing. Me, I finished stating the obvious to you.

You seem to insist on ignoring what the word evidence means. So lets look at what English says about evidence In this context (for we can dispense with the empirical: sight, sound etc here) faith is evidence that allows a person to determine truth. It pleases me that wiki is more complete on the subject that some here - who seem to be fatally hooked on the idea of demonstrability. It is not required.I think the problem is that you are locked into an empirical mindset and you just cannot see the word evidence or ascribe to it some value or meaning which is not that which is stated.The evidence of things not seen does not mean you cannot determine it to be the truth. You just cannot determine it by seeing, smelling or touching. But you can determine it all the same. If you have the apparatus which responds to, picks up and transmits to you, the evidence. Nothing more is required.Its hardly a biblical secret that such apparatus is something a Christian recieves on conversion. The world is 'blind' to the evidence otherwise. Corinthians 2:14 puts it succintly.

No, but I CAN know that foxes might be common in the areas where you saw them. I CAN know that others have seen them. I CAN know that foxes truly exist because they have been objectively observed.Also, I can know HOW you obtained this information. You saw it, or perhaps heard it.Please tell me how you have gained your knowledge of God. That way I can verify your "knowledge".Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.Edited by RickJB, : No reason given.

You're conflating the meaning of two different words :A) Evidence, like wiki rightly says, allows a person to determine truth.
B) Faith, like the Bible rightly says, becomes the evidence when there is no empirical evidenceIn a nutshell, if you'd like something to be true but there is no empirical evidence for it, you place your faith in it.St Paul says as much ("Faith is...the substance of things hoped for") I think the problem is that you're so determined to stick by your POV that you're happy to change the meaning of words and even ignore parts of Bible (your own holy book) in order to do so. Yes, by having faith in it. If you want something to be true badly enough you place your faith in itIt's the last resort. It's either determine the truth by faith OR accept the possibility that you cannot determine the truth.The former being the easy option, ofcourse.It's just so much more difficult to accept that there might not be a big brother in the heavens who created you and is using you for a purpose and listens to your prayer and will take care of you when you die.This is why Christians have faith: because their pride won't let them accept the possibility described above. This possibility just doesn't make them feel special at all.Which brings us nicely back on topic again.

---

"In life, you have to face that some days you'll be the pigeon and some days you'll be the statue."

quote:

---

I know that I saw a that particular fox then at that particular time and day. There is nothing I can do so that you can know what I know too. No tracks, no likelyhood of there being one there. Nothing. You cannot know it. I can. Perist in your claims if you like about knowledge is not knowledge unless demonstrable. Continue to conflate the issue of likelyhood with the issue of knowing. Me, I finished stating the obvious to you.

---

I am tired of you equating the existence of foxes with the existence of God.Can you not see how ridiculous an argument this is?Does someone who claims that Zorkon the space alien visits him in his bedroom at night "know" that this happens, or do they "believe" that this happens?Is there a difference? How might we go about finding out if Zorkon really does exist or if the dude just has an active imagination and only has faith that Zorkon visits his bedroom?Why shouldn't the same methods apply to your claims?On the other hand, if you think knowledge and faith are more or less interchangeable, or at least should be treated equally, why shouldn't we license physicians who say that they can pray over people and cure them? Why shouldn't we allow scientists to include their personal feelings about whatever it is they are studying to carry as much weight as the statistical analysis of their data when making conclusions? Why shouldn't we allow engineers to build structures with only the "feelings of deep personal conviction in their hearts" to let them "know" that the bridge or building will be structurally sound?These are not rhetorical questions, Ian.Edited by schrafinator, : No reason given.

Really?! Should we get animal control to collect a bunch of foxes from that area so you can pick him out of a lineup? It seems that you are saying that noone can convey knowledge without providing direct observation of a particular incident as it happened. I would think that the level of technological advancement belies your claim.Actually, we cannot know you saw a fox. You could be a pathological delusional pompous ass with little grasp on reality and no grasp on the meaning of words or their contextual use in the English language, who imagined that finding fox tracks and fur meant that he actually observed the live fox that created those tracks. This is less likely than you having actually seen a fox. Back this up with tracks of coincident age, fur on brambles nearby and the fact that foxes are known to inhabit the area, then your story becomes even more believable.Additionally, your seeing a fox or lying about it really has little consequence in our lives or souls. So we would tend to take you at your word. Knowledge of God has consequences that are much deeper and far reaching.Therefore, your equating knowledge of God with knowledge of a fox observation as something that eludes us but not you, puts you in the category of "pompous prideful Christian know-it-all" that looks down on those who don't have the vision you do.....in my opinion.