Debate on another forum. help?

[Renarax]

I’ve got caught up in this debate on another forum. They’re non believers. Till now I made it clear that I don’t really take the bible word for word and that it’s not really meant to be taken literally. I believe that different parts of the bible just explain how people in different times chose to view god. I wrote that the ggospels tell about gods true nature because they had a man named Jesus towards which they could look to. There was no chance for personal interpretation and corruption, because here was proof.

I could be wrong, but for now this is what is on there.

Now they ask, since I believe that Genesis through Judges is semi factual and mostly fable, why I believe in Jesus and why I believe he performed miracles. I admitted that that matter was purely faith and there was no proof or anymore debatable ground.

To Quote the reply- But now you’ve come to the most interesting part of all - is faith a valid and reliable way to know things?
Do you think you have knowledge of Jesus performing miracles or do you just pretend to do so?
Why is that a valid way of seeing the world?

So what do I reply to this?

 

[phil_at_dayboro]

I avoid religious debate like swinging a hammer on a thumb …
It’s just not worth it, because you will get caught out,
Unless your a champion debater ,

 

[1newcatholic]

Now they ask, since I believe that Genesis through Judges is semi factual and mostly fable, why I believe in Jesus and why I believe he performed miracles. I admitted that that matter was purely faith and there was no proof or anymore debatable ground.

To Quote the reply- But now you’ve come to the most interesting part of all - is faith a valid and reliable way to know things?
Do you think you have knowledge of Jesus performing miracles or do you just pretend to do so?
Why is that a valid way of seeing the world?

So what do I reply to this?

Answer: You could try “experience.” Your experience of the faith as a living practice trumps all arguments about abstract data. Once you go this route, however, you will be vulnerable to the counterargument that religious faith is therefore a private matter, and not binding upon all peoples.

 

[tm21]

Belief that Jesus performed miracles is not a matter purely of faith. The Scriptures attest that there were hundreds of people who saw the resurrected Christ. Then there is the historical fact of the explosive growth of the Catholic Church despite brutal persecution of the Romans…and the fact that all the apostles except John were martyred. We continue to find archaeological evidence that corroborates the history of the early Christian faith…like the discovery of the Didache manuscript…and the Apostle Philip’s tomb (for example).
zenit.org/en/articles/how-i-discovered-the-tomb-of-the-apostle-philip

 

[Renarax]

Answer: You could try “experience.” Your experience of the faith as a living practice trumps all arguments about abstract data. Once you go this route, however, you will be vulnerable to the counterargument that religious faith is therefore a private matter, and not binding upon all peoples.

Good suggestion but I doubt that would work with the same people who found fault with my reasoning that out of an infinite number of ways our universe could’ve ended up . . . The fact that it ended up with the birth of our star and species is enough reason to think that a higher designer/ creator, (even a possibility for a deist god)

 

[Origen52]

Ultimately, our belief is grounded in the witness given by Jesus’ disciples. St. James, St. Peter,St. Andrew, and the others chose death rather than stoping to preach the death and resurrection of Jesus. They died proclaiming that a historical event, the resurrection, was true. This is the difference between the four gospels and all other books of the bible. Though many others have died for their faith, they died proclaiming a “belief”. The apostles died proclaiming an event. Whether one believes the gospels, hinges on whether one accepts that they are based on reliable witnesses.

It is, my opinion, that one must first meet Jesus in the Gospels before a personal relationship with Christ is possible.

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Now they ask, since I believe that Genesis through Judges is semi factual and mostly fable, why I believe in Jesus and why I believe he performed miracles. I admitted that that matter was purely faith and there was no proof or anymore debatable ground.

He performed miracles not because they needed to be done, but to show that He had authority. His teachings about love and judgment and worry and fairness and the kingdom, are valuable in and of themselves and I believe the scientific literature could back up a great deal of the content of His teachings on the matters. In fact I am studying so that I may, among other things, write a book comparing modern psychological phenomena and knowledge, to the teachings of Jesus.

For example, Jesus tells us not to worry about the future because it doesn’t do any good and doesn’t help us deal with the present. I’m sure I could find studies in the literature that show the detrimental effects of generalized anxiety or specific fear of the future, on the ability to function in the present.

To Quote the reply- But now you’ve come to the most interesting part of all - is faith a valid and reliable way to know things?
Do you think you have knowledge of Jesus performing miracles or do you just pretend to do so?
Why is that a valid way of seeing the world?

So what do I reply to this?

Faith is definitely a valid way to see the world. Even our mental image (3-D model) of the world is an artifact of faith, just not “religious” faith.

For example, try going to San Francisco and driving around some of the steeper roads. When going downhill in a sedan where the engine is out front, I couldn’t even see the road. I just had to proceed past the intersection, “having faith” that there would be a road and not a cliff – or I suspect there would be a sign and barricade. Can I prove to a frightened passenger that there is a road there given what we can see? Or that there isn’t a big hole dug for construction and it wasn’t marked? Not unless we either get out of the car (in traffic) to look, or go ahead and drive forward and find out.

When I go to the store, I do not have scientific knowledge that the store will not be robbed, resulting in my getting shot. But I have faith that I won’t, knowing full well that if I’m wrong the results could be disastrous. But it’s a calculated risk I’m willing to take because without faith of some kind, and required “physical proof” of everything before I could act, I would never act. I’d just stay huddled up in bed in fear and depression. Actually I’ve done that before – losing hope and faith at the same time can be hell on earth.

So “faith” as a concept is not only useful, but necessary for everyday living. Faith in God is just one of a gazillion forms of faith.

I have “faith” that I can finish this paragraph and post it. I have no absolute proof that I will even live long enough to do that, just as I have no absolute proof that Jesus rose from the dead. But I’m confident enough about it that I will proceed in the same manner as if I did have proof, and if I’m wrong you’ll never know because this post won’t happen.

MS

 

[PietroPaolo]

I’ve got caught up in this debate on another forum. They’re non believers. Till now I made it clear that I don’t really take the bible word for word and that it’s not really meant to be taken literally. I believe that different parts of the bible just explain how people in different times chose to view god. I wrote that the ggospels tell about gods true nature because they had a man named Jesus towards which they could look to. There was no chance for personal interpretation and corruption, because here was proof.

I could be wrong, but for now this is what is on there.

Now they ask, since I believe that Genesis through Judges is semi factual and mostly fable, why I believe in Jesus and why I believe he performed miracles. I admitted that that matter was purely faith and there was no proof or anymore debatable ground.

To Quote the reply- But now you’ve come to the most interesting part of all - is faith a valid and reliable way to know things?
Do you think you have knowledge of Jesus performing miracles or do you just pretend to do so?
Why is that a valid way of seeing the world?

So what do I reply to this?

Your understanding of “not taking the Bible literally” is flawed. We don’t dismiss things as “semi-fable” b/c they contain miracles, we read each part of the Bible in the way it was intended to be read. The Gospels are clearly written as history. The first 3 chapters of Genesis are clearly a mythic interpretation of an actual event.

Here is something that goes into more detail - adoroergosum.blogspot.com/2014/09/atheist-who-read-bible-cover-to-cover.html

You might also read Dei Verbum from Vatican 2 or the CCC starting at paragraph 101. Finally, Pope Benedict’s post-synodal Apostolic ExhortationVerbum Domini is worth your time.

Your current position is both false and easily leads to the argument against Jesus that you encountered and isn’t in accord with the mind of the Church.

God bless.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

To Quote the reply- But now you’ve come to the most interesting part of all - is faith a valid and reliable way to know things?
Do you think you have knowledge of Jesus performing miracles or do you just pretend to do so?
Why is that a valid way of seeing the world?

Not only did you get caught up in a religious debate, your debater seems to be intelligent and insightful.

As MS said, a good response to this would be that faith (in this case defined as “making assumptions”) is the only way to know things. We learn from watching our parents as children, or from textbooks as students, on the faith that what we are learning is true. We take in information from our five senses on the faith that what we are “sensing” is true. There is almost nothing that we can prove perfectly.

If your debater is a proper atheist, a good argument would be that his lack of faith in a Creator of the universe is also based on a great deal of faith. In fact, that matter and the laws that govern it just popped into existence of their own accord requires a bit of a stretch in logic that Christianity doesn’t demand.

Yes, we accept on faith that God has performed “miracles” for the sake of humanity, but your debater accepts on an equal amount of faith that a miracle is an impossibility.

If you’re feeling cheeky, you could ask him “Do you think you have knowledge that divine intervention or inspiration has never taken place, or do you just pretend to do so?”

Finally, don’t loose sight of the purpose of any Christian debate–ask yourself: "By this conversation, am I doing a service to God, i.e. drawing others closer to communion with God, or am I giving sin an opportunity to influence me and/or others? (i.e. pushing myself or others away from God.)

 

[PietroPaolo]

Not only did you get caught up in a religious debate, your debater seems to be intelligent and insightful.

As MS said, a good response to this would be that faith (in this case defined as “making assumptions”) is the only way to know things.

Sorry, but this is fideism a heresy condemned by Vatican One.

 

[Kelt]

Your understanding of “not taking the Bible literally” is flawed. We don’t dismiss things as “semi-fable” b/c they contain miracles, we read each part of the Bible in the way it was intended to be read. The Gospels are clearly written as history. The first 3 chapters of Genesis are clearly a mythic interpretation of an actual event.

Here is something that goes into more detail - adoroergosum.blogspot.com/2014/09/atheist-who-read-bible-cover-to-cover.html

You might also read Dei Verbum from Vatican 2 or the CCC starting at paragraph 101. Finally, Pope Benedict’s post-synodal Apostolic ExhortationVerbum Domini is worth your time.

Your current position is both false and easily leads to the argument against Jesus that you encountered and isn’t in accord with the mind of the Church.

God bless.

I’m not sure we DO know how the bible is meant to be read. Jewish traditions about interpreting religious writings, so long ago, have been lost to most of us who now read something ‘straight’ to ascertain facts. The OT was not meant to be a history/science book and was meant to be (I expect it still is is Jewish quarters) interpreted and re- interpreted through time and during different circumstances. I don’t know, but I imagine this was still much the case in the early Christian church when the NT gospels were being written? Some Protestants (very recently in the great scheme of things) seized upon the bible as facts written by God thru’ men, and as this matches the way we read to get other information in modern times…it stuck! With the Catholic Church past and present, I don’t know…but someone will undoubtably put me straight on that!
I think in a way people were more imaginative in ancient times…they knew they couldn’t answer the Great questions like how we came to be here, but they needed explanatory stories…stories that got people thinking and discussing, stories that encapsulated ineffable truths…
In MHO we don’t do the gospels justice by trying to take them literally.
Keep up discussions though…For example, I’m learning a lot here and understanding helps tolerance …I hope!

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Sorry, but this is fideism a heresy condemned by Vatican One.

The Church may have some definition of faith in some context, which is OK because my argument doesn’t require a Church definition – which would be irrelevant to an atheist so it does not make a common term for clear communications. My usage of the term “faith” as it is used in the way the term is most often used to mean “confidence without requiring proof” is precisely the context that I was suggesting the atheist consider.

Because the term “faith” means the same thing whether it is God, the highway department, the piloting skills of the pilot and mechanical condition of the plane you’re on, in which you place your faith. This is the message to the atheist. The concept and practice of “faith” is not only useful, but omnipresent in our entire world. And as GS explained, the atheist requires “faith” in the same way as the believer does, IOW presumed knowledge, without definitive worldly proof.

Faith as defined in Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence** of things not seen.

If we could “prove” the existence of God or His nonexistence conclusively, then neither side would require faith. My personal opinion is no honest quantum physicist could say “there is no spiritual realm outside of what science can measure.”

MS**

 

[PietroPaolo]

The Church may have some definition of faith in some context, which is OK because my argument doesn’t require a Church definition – which would be irrelevant to an atheist so it does not make a common term for clear communications. My usage of the term “faith” as it is used in the way the term is most often used to mean “confidence without requiring proof” is precisely the context that I was suggesting the atheist consider.

Because the term “faith” means the same thing whether it is God, the highway department, the piloting skills of the pilot and mechanical condition of the plane you’re on, in which you place your faith. This is the message to the atheist. The concept and practice of “faith” is not only useful, but omnipresent in our entire world. And as GS explained, the atheist requires “faith” in the same way as the believer does, IOW presumed knowledge, without definitive worldly proof.

Faith as defined in Hebrews 11:1
Faith is the realization of what is hoped for and evidence** of things not seen.

If we could “prove” the existence of God or His nonexistence conclusively, then neither side would require faith. My personal opinion is no honest quantum physicist could say “there is no spiritual realm outside of what science can measure.”

MS**

Again, your ideas have been condemned by the Catholic Church as the heresy of fideism. In fact, we can have certain knowledge that God exists from reason alone (which was proclaimed infallibly by Vatican One in Dei Filius and which has been demonstrated by various philosophers dating back to Aristotle, but most perfectly by Thomas Aquinas). Such is also taught in the Bible by St. Paul, “ever since the creation of the world his (God’s) invisible nature, namely his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made.” (Rom 1:20). The Catechism of the Catholic Church says, “By natural reason man can know God with certainty, on the basis of his works.” (50) The old Baltimore Catechism also addresses this, “Can we know by our natural reason that there is a God?
We can know by our natural reason that there is a God, for natural reason tells us that the world we see about us could have been made only by a self-existing Being, all-wise and almighty.” (Question 22).

You mention that the Church might have a definition of “faith” somewhere. It does. In the CCC “Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him.” (153) and " In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.” (155)

Which builds on the passage in Hebrews you quoted - faith provides evidence, it isn’t a “leap in the dark”.

 

[Gregory_Olson]

I just read over my reply in a new light and was aghast at myself–It does seem extremely heretical. I apologize on behalf of myself and the Church which I so clumsily and wrongfully represented! Allow me to explain myself.

Not only did you get caught up in a religious debate, your debater seems to be intelligent and insightful.

Ouch. I meant: “Not only did you get caught up in a religious debate, but your opponent also seems to be no idiot; not only does he oppose himself against the Body of Christ on Earth, he does so skillfully and with misuse of a great deal of God-given shrewdness.”

As MS said, a good response to this would be that faith (in this case defined as “making assumptions”) is the only way to know things. We learn from watching our parents as children, or from textbooks as students, on the faith that what we are learning is true. We take in information from our five senses on the faith that what we are “sensing” is true. There is almost nothing that we can prove perfectly.

MS had my back on this one . Of course this is not the true Church definition of Faith (“Big-F”), but how the OT’s atheist opponent was trying to define faith (“little-f”).
Part of being in a fallen state means that much of humanity accepts many things irrationally, or based on assumptions (aka, in this case, little-f faith). I meant: “because of sin, there is almost nothing that we can prove perfectly in our fallen state on Earth;” of course, for the Church Triumphant in Heaven, everything is perfectly True, and everything can be perfectly proven through a perfect gift of reason. (At the same time, they are also perfectly Faithful.) Some saints were even able to draw closer to this perfection while on Earth, such as St. Thomas Aquinas.
This is in union with the CCC: “Faith is a gift of God, a supernatural virtue infused by him.” (153) and " In faith, the human intellect and will cooperate with divine grace: “Believing is an act of the intellect assenting to the divine truth by command of the will moved by God through grace.” (155)

Yes, we accept on faith that God has performed “miracles” for the sake of humanity, but your debater accepts on an equal amount of faith that a miracle is an impossibility.

Double ouch. Please forgive me here; try to interpret the best possible meaning of my words instead of their despondent worst. Miracles is quoted because I was trying to imply that the supernatural state of God is more true or real than the sin-distorted world in which we exist. Of course it didn’t at all come off that way .
Most Catholics accept these miracles with some big-F Faith (good) and, due to our fallen state, some little-f faith (bad). The OT’s opponent suggested that we accepted them on all little-f; I merely suggested a good counter would be that he must necessarily accept their falsity on all little-f too.

Hey, my conclusion was still spot-on :
Finally, don’t loose sight of the purpose of any Christian debate–ask yourself: "By this conversation, am I doing a service to God, i.e. drawing others closer to communion with God, or am I giving sin an opportunity to influence me and/or others? (i.e. pushing myself or others away from God.)

My inept representation of the Church will probably be listed in my next Confession.
Again, I apologize (no pun intended).

-Greg

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Again, your ideas have been condemned by the Catholic Church as the heresy of fideism.

OK sorry. I think the best strategy is to avoid suggesting to you, how you might reach out to somebody who hasn’t already committed to accepting the same authority you do.

You can go after the lost sheep, or you can yell at it from the fence telling it how wrong it is. Which is the action of the Good Shepherd?

Get out of the “comfort zone” of the pasture, go out and find them where they are, and bring them back. That’s one way.

Or, get out a dictionary and learn to use the term “faith” like others who don’t think like you, do, and then starting from there you can devise strategy to bring them back. Or you can tell those of us who try, that they should not because they will go to hell if they make one wrong false impression. Maybe that isn’t your intent, but that’s the chilling effect your words would have on me if I didn’t understand how limiting they would be for the cause of reaching out to others? Who knows but that such an act can bring an atheist into active Catholicism? If you don’t want to “play that game” of reaching “across the aisle” and finding terms of agreement before dwelling on divisions, that’s up to you.

MS

 

[PietroPaolo]

OK sorry. I think the best strategy is to avoid suggesting to you, how you might reach out to somebody who hasn’t already committed to accepting the same authority you do.

You can go after the lost sheep, or you can yell at it from the fence telling it how wrong it is. Which is the action of the Good Shepherd?

Get out of the “comfort zone” of the pasture, go out and find them where they are, and bring them back. That’s one way.

Which has absolutely nothing to do with our exchange at all. You contend, wrongly, that God can only be known through faith. Such isn’t the case. As you are a Catholic (look at your profile), I assumed I could show you the error of your ways by using our common Catholic Faith. If you haven’t “accepted the same authority as I do” then you are not Catholic. Of course, I wouldn’t cite Vatican docs to the atheist, but I’m not disagreeing with him - I’m disagreeing with you and your fallacious assertion that God can only be known through Faith, which is simply wrong, and not at all in line with the teaching of the Church you claim to be a member of.

Or, get out a dictionary and learn to use the term “faith” like others who don’t think like you, do, and then starting from there you can devise strategy to bring them back. Or you can tell those of us who try, that they should not because they will go to hell if they make one wrong false impression. Maybe that isn’t your intent, but that’s the chilling effect your words would have on me if I didn’t understand how limiting they would be for the cause of reaching out to others? Who knows but that such an act can bring an atheist into active Catholicism? If you don’t want to “play that game” of reaching “across the aisle” and finding terms of agreement before dwelling on divisions, that’s up to you.

MS

Again, I’m not speaking to an atheist, I’m speaking to a self-identified Catholic. As far as your definition of faith, if I was speaking to an atheist, I’d first try to clarify what we Catholics mean by “faith”, which isn’t “believing something w/out evidence.” Such a false idea of “faith” is one reason people become atheists in the first place. They simply don’t see any good reason why they should believe in God without any evidence. Luckily, we Catholics agree, as I demonstrated above from the Bible and the teaching of the Church.

I’d strongly recommend having a basic understanding of what the Church means by basic terms like “faith” and how the Church answers basic questions like “can we know God through reason alone?” before even trying to dialogue with non-believers. Much harm (and little good) is done by Catholics who misrepresent the Faith as something unreasonable to atheists. I can’t imagine an atheist who would be any other than confirmed in their atheism by your line of arguing.

 

[JimR-OCDS]

Faith is a gift from God, it is His revelation to us, however that may happen.

Faith isn’t belief per se, where a person decides, OK I believe in God, now I have faith.

Belief may open us up to faith, but unless God comes into our life, we will not experience the gift of faith.

Faith is tasting His divine love.

God can not be grasped except through love.

Jim

 

[Mystical_Seeker]

Which has absolutely nothing to do with our exchange at all. You contend, wrongly, that God can only be known through faith. Such isn’t the case. As you are a Catholic (look at your profile), I assumed I could show you the error of your ways by using our common Catholic Faith. If you haven’t “accepted the same authority as I do” then you are not Catholic. Of course, I wouldn’t cite Vatican docs to the atheist, but I’m not disagreeing with him - I’m disagreeing with you and your fallacious assertion that God can only be known through Faith, which is simply wrong, and not at all in line with the teaching of the Church you claim to be a member of.

Well then I assert that your assertion is fallacious, if your assertion is that my assertion that faith is required to know God, is fallacious. Show me peer-reviewed, replicatable, scientific evidence proving conclusively that God exists, that does not rely on any authority requiring faith – including presumed “divinely inspired” authority of Church doctors or bishops or saints. This is what most people would consider “worldly proof.” If you can’t do that, they you are resorting to faith.

Again, I’m not speaking to an atheist, I’m speaking to a self-identified Catholic. As far as your definition of faith, if I was speaking to an atheist, I’d first try to clarify what we Catholics mean by “faith”, which isn’t “believing something w/out evidence.” Such a false idea of “faith” is one reason people become atheists in the first place. They simply don’t see any good reason why they should believe in God without any evidence. Luckily, we Catholics agree, as I demonstrated above from the Bible and the teaching of the Church.

That explains it. The whole thread is about how to talk to an atheist, and I’m recommending ways to use common language in the way that language is invented to reach across and “bridge” between our beliefs and their non-beliefs, and you are trying to convert me because you think I’m running away from home.

I really wish you would consider my reference to finding a “lost sheep” and whether yelling “rhetorically pure” admonitions to it over the fence and refusing to leave the others even for a minute, and how it seems to come across here.

I say “let’s go get that sheep” and you say “wait a minute we can’t get out past the gate.” If that’s your concern, then I suggest you stay firmly inside the pasture and do not try to evangelize because if you cannot see any position except your own, then any sort of verbal interchange with those holding alternate views cannot be fruitful unless they first accept your premise and your way of looking at it, and your standards for authority. So it would seem that reasoning is best suited for “staying inside” and letting others do the “outreach” to those areas of thought that aren’t as close to your own beliefs as you are comfortable with.

I’d strongly recommend having a basic understanding of what the Church means by basic terms like “faith” and how the Church answers basic questions like “can we know God through reason alone?” before even trying to dialogue with non-believers. Much harm (and little good) is done by Catholics who misrepresent the Faith as something unreasonable to atheists. I can’t imagine an atheist who would be any other than confirmed in their atheism by your line of arguing.

What part of Hebrews 11:1 do you disagree with? Faith is the “evidence of things not seen.” If that isn’t what faith is, then we need to revise the scripture.

If you know a way to prove the existence of God without ultimately relying on “faith” then I applaud you for you have done what no other bishop or saint has ever been able to do.

MS

 

[JRKH]

I’ve got caught up in this debate on another forum. They’re non believers. Till now I made it clear that I don’t really take the bible word for word and that it’s not really meant to be taken literally. I believe that different parts of the bible just explain how people in different times chose to view god. I wrote that the ggospels tell about gods true nature because they had a man named Jesus towards which they could look to. There was no chance for personal interpretation and corruption, because here was proof.

I could be wrong, but for now this is what is on there.

so far so good…

Now they ask, since I believe that Genesis through Judges is semi factual and mostly fable, why I believe in Jesus and why I believe he performed miracles. I admitted that that matter was purely faith and there was no proof or anymore debatable ground.

I would have answered differently…Genesis is a book that was the writing down of an ancient oral tradition. As such much in it can be seen as allegorical rather than strictly historical. The other mosaic books - so far as I know and understand by tradition - were written by Moses (or someone close to him) and therefore would be more factually reliable.

As for the matter of Believing on Jesus and His miracles - it is not strictly a matter of faith, for the Gospels were written by eyewitnesses in at least two cases (Mt and John). Likewise Paul’s letters, with their own attendant miracles are an eyewitness account.
So - I apply the same “faith” (certainty of belief) to these that I do other ancient writings. Why do these people believe in Caesar, Antony and Cleopatra and so forth? They are taking these things on the same level of faith that we take the gospels…

To Quote the reply- But now you’ve come to the most interesting part of all - is faith a valid and reliable way to know things?
Do you think you have knowledge of Jesus performing miracles or do you just pretend to do so?
Why is that a valid way of seeing the world?

Faith is a huge part of ones world view no matter what that is.
For example - we take it on faith that we are not standing still but are in fact barreling around the world at more than 1000 miles an hour. Nothing in our own personal experience tells us this. So far as our bodies can tell us we are standing still…
Likewise - our senses tell us that the sun rises and sets, not that we spin around on an axis.

Yes there are studies and proofs and such like…that demonstrate these things…but we even take these things on faith. I’ve never left the planet to observe these things myself. Instead, someone describes them to me, and because they made sense to me, I accepted them - - On Faith.

Peace
James