Summations Only

So is that one of the parts of your bible you don't believe?

Even that much isn't clear.My only point was about Percy's use of the terms evidence and hearsay. Labeling something as hearsay does not make it non-evidence.

I believe it all. How to understand parts of it is nevertheless a question. But the snake in Eden we find out later in scripture was really Satan, and demonic beings have the ability to indwell animals and humans, so it's really not a problem that the snake could speak. As for Balaam's ass in Numbers 22, God caused it to speak, so that was a miracle.

Since the subject of the talking snake came up, tell us about the "LOTS of evidence" and the "multiple witnesses" for the talking snake. You said the snake was actually Satan, so tell us about the "LOTS of evidence" and the "multiple witnesses" demonstrating that Satan exists and was the snake.You also mentioned Jesus, so tell us about the "LOTS of evidence" and the "multiple witnesses" of his holy conception. Faith that is based upon evidence is not faith. You're making up your own word definitions again. My faith comes from within. Reflecting my upbringing my internal imagery is Christian, but my religious beliefs are not recognizably Christian nor anything else. I believe in God but have no idea what to believe about God. My faith is in a power and purpose to the universe about which I know nothing. Proving anyone wrong would involve evidence, something you don't have, and you chastise everyone of all faiths and no faith who doesn't believe as you do. Your beliefs seems to drive you toward a hostility to all other belief.More pertinent to the topic, there is internal and external evidence that the Bible is not inerrant, and no evidence that it was written by God or that he even exists.--Percy

On the contrary, strong evidence for some bits doesn't necessarily distribute over all bits. Just because Bristol is a real town doesn't mean that all of Treasure Island is true. Are you saying that you only believe in talking animals because the Bible sez so? That doesn't sound like common sense at all. It sounds like belief overriding common sense.

I was talking about the evidence for the miracles God gave as reported in the Bible to prove He is God, both in the OT and in the NT to prove Jesus the Messiah. Certainly some events were not witnessed, only reported to others. I believe those too of course because I find all the Bible writers to be honest and of course I believe that God inspired the writing and oversaw its preservation.You are wrong about faith, it MUST be based on evidence. There is no such thing as faith that just springs fullblown from one's imagination. You must have faith in the truth of something, in the trustworthiness of an individual, it must be faith in SOMETHING. This is how it has always been understood by Christians and the whole idea of faith as the foundation of a religion IS Christian, it has simply been distorted and misappropriated to other belief systems. When Jesus says "Believe" He means believe in Himself and we learn about Him in the scripture. When scripture writers say we are saved by faith in the Son of God they mean we can have faith in the person of Jesus and the events of His life and all the promises about the Messiah which He is that we find described in the Bible. Faith does not and cannot exist in a vacuum. It essentially means "trust." I can't possibly trust in any old idea about God or anything else that merely seems to make some kind of sense to me personally, that sort of faith would vanish in a flash if put to the test. But faith in a real God who made real promises can carry me through some pretty hard times because it can be tested and I've personally found that He is there when I need Him. I'm sure you don't think your mere idea of God could be a protection to you, but that's the whole point of faith, it's putting your trust in something or somebody you have learned is trustworthy.You keep denying the evidence I've given, the Bible is full of it, so what can I do? I haven't failed to provide it, you've failed to recognize it as evidence.My faith is in a system of truth, that system of truth can be compared to other systems to show that they are not the truth. This isn't about hostility, it's about truth versus error. I try to persuade people to the truth and away from error. Makes sense to me, strange it doesn't to you.As for the inerrancy of the Bible, again the evidence has been given, if you deny it you deny it but it's there and Christians have found it completely trustworthy.You've got a whole other way of construing the meaning of words than is found in the history of Christianity so that you arrive at your own ideas of evidence, faith and so on. There is no fighting that sort of terminological redefinition of everything. There is no point then even to having such a discussion, you will always be judging me by some utterly irrelevant system of your own while I'm relying on historical meanings I've learned over years of reading and hearing the teachings of orthodox Christianity, which conform beautifully to reality.

Now all you have to do is read it and believe it.If only you could find all of the napkin writers to be honest and of course believe that God inspired the writing and oversaw its preservation...

Are two fowl and seven fowl the same number of fowl?

Looking into this a bit I see that you're using an evangelical definition of faith, one that is not embraced by the rest of Christianity. Wikipedia has a section on evangelical views on faith. You've never provided evidence. You just make bald claims and then demand others accept it as evidence, as you've just done again. Whenever you're ready, please provide the evidence and witnesses of the talking snake who is Satan, of Jesus's holy conception, and of Biblical inerrancy. That you've been unable to do this is just more proof that you have no evidence for the things you say you believe because of evidence. You're making things up again. The definition of faith I've been using is the one that the preponderance of Christianity has used throughout history. Wikipedia has a short section on Christian faith, and also a longer article titled Faith in Christianity. We're not judging you. We're telling you that your claims are unsupported by any evidence, and that in many cases they're actually contradicted by the evidence. You're wasting your time declaring things to be true that anyone can tell are obviously false after just a casual inspection. If you had any evidence you'd be writing about the evidence, instead of spending all your time falsely claiming to have presented evidence.--PercyEdited by Percy, : Wordsmith final paragraph.

I meant judging my thinking more than me personally but I guess you're doing that too come to think of it. But judging my thinking is pretty clear from the context if you go review it.I don't know who wrote that but that's not the Christianity I've learned, Evangelicalism is closer to it but Evangelicalism is just today's name for Christianity. I prefer the term Protestant.No point in arguing this further. I believe the historical Christian view of faith is the only one that makes sense, it means having faith in something or someone to the point of staking your life on the message or the person. To be "saved by faith" is actually to be saved by it. Faith in the death and resurrection of Christ actually saves us.The idea of a "faith" that is just a nebulous believing in whatever you want to believe in isn't worthy of the word itself.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

The same could be said of muslims, Muhammed, and the Qu'ran. How are you any different than them? How is your faith in the gospel writers and the New Testament any different than their faith in Muhammed and the Qu'ran?

At least in that their "faith" can't save them. Their idea of salvation is that they are saved by their deeds. it's a works-based religion. Christianity is the only faith-based religion. We are actually saved by our faith in Christ.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

No one's judging you. We're just letting you know when you're clearly in error, as here: Evangelicalism is *not* just today's name for Christianity. I agree that the historical Christian view of Faith is the one that makes sense, but you're in error in believing that Christianity and evangelicalism define it similarly with regard to any need for evidence. Evangelicalism apparently insists that faith be based upon evidence, while traditional Christianity and Protestantism do not.True faith comes from within. If you have evidence, it isn't faith. If you declare your faith and call it evidence then I guess you're evangelical.--Percy

How sadly wrong you are but I'm leaving it here.

Declarations of belief aren't evidence. When you have evidence for your position you let us know what it is, okay?--Percy