It would be nice

[Della]

I see you are trotting out the same old accusations. Sigh! If you don’t want answers, why ask questions? Why come to a Catholic forum just to regurgitate what you’ve read on some anti-Christian/anti-faith website? You can’t tell me you’re a biblical scholar, and yet you are telling people who have studied it (I have a B. A. in Bible and religious education) that we are the ones who are clueless and biased? I’m not buying it, nor will I respond to your ignorant comments.

 

[davidv]

… to have a Catholic equivalent of the Skepic’s Annotated Bible. You know, to list every chapter and verse and have the official, unchangable and infallible Catholic teaching attached to them, saying "this verse is to be taken literally, and that verse must be taken allegorically, and this is the way how the allegory is to be understood. A whole lot of misunderstandings could be avoided. It happens all the time that the defenders of the Bible try to argue on perfectly clear and unambiguous verses that they do not mean what they say. Of course those apologists never add just “how” those verses should be understood. Looks like that despite those 2 thousand years the Church never attempted to undertake such an important task. After all, it would help their own clergy, too. So why is there no such writ? I have my own suspicions.

What do you think?

Why would you want a line by line explanation of a work of fiction? Isn’t that what you declare the Bible to be?

 

[tonyrey]

Except I do not claim to be an authority… I am presenting my opinion, nothing more.

Do you mean you have no strong beliefs? Often you express yourself so forcefully you give the impression there is no doubt in your mind. Your view on what constitutes evidence, for example.

 

[R_Daneel]

I see you are trotting out the same old accusations. Sigh! If you don’t want answers, why ask questions? Why come to a Catholic forum just to regurgitate what you’ve read on some anti-Christian/anti-faith website? You can’t tell me you’re a biblical scholar, and yet you are telling people who have studied it (I have a B. A. in Bible and religious education) that we are the ones who are clueless and biased? I’m not buying it, nor will I respond to your ignorant comments.

I am interested is actual answers. No, I am not interested in “anti-Christian” websites, I have never visited one. I am not a Biblical scholar - but I can tell you that your answers are just composed of thin air. And if you are not interested in answers, that is fine by me. I wish I had not spent time on composing mine. But I was hoping to get some straight answers… but I was mistaken. Happens all the time.

 

[R_Daneel]

Why would you want a line by line explanation of a work of fiction? Isn’t that what you declare the Bible to be?

Oh, I do - at least some of it (not all). But I am interested in your perspective. How do you, believers separate facts from fiction? I consider it a legitimate question. If you disagree, that is fine by me.

 

[davidv]

Oh, I do - at least some of it (not all). But I am interested in your perspective. How do you, believers separate facts from fiction? I consider it a legitimate question. If you disagree, that is fine by me.

I accept the explanation provided by Dei Verbum.

And in a word: context.

 

[R_Daneel]

Do you mean you have no strong beliefs? Often you express yourself so forcefully you give the impression there is no doubt in your mind. Your view on what constitutes evidence, for example.

Of course I do have strong beliefs and views. But I do NOT consider myself an authority, self-proclamied or not. The Catholic Church does, but it does not come clean and state which verses are supposed to be accepted literally and which ones are supposed to be considered allegorically. That is the problem as I see it. If the Church would consider itself to be truly “infallible”, then it could make such a declaration, without misgivings.

 

[tonyrey]

Of course I do have strong beliefs and views. But I do NOT consider myself an authority, self-proclamied or not. The Catholic Church does, but it does not come clean and state which verses are supposed to be accepted literally and which ones are supposed to be considered allegorically. That is the problem as I see it. If the Church would consider itself to be truly “infallible”, then it could make such a declaration, without misgivings.

You may have missed the points I have made:

1. The Church has never claimed to interpret every single verse of the Scriptures infallibly nor is it necessary.
2. There could not have been any **development of doctrine **over the centuries in the light of revelations to individuals, theological investigation, philosophical analysis, scientific discoveries and archaeological evidence if the Church had made the mistake of doing what you expect…
3. The** fundamental truths** of Christianity are far more important than the exegesis of every verse in the Bible.
4. The very fact that there are differing interpretations of certain texts is inevitable given** the wide range of topics** that are covered and the variety of the authors’ intentions.
5. If there were uniformity of opinion about the meaning of the Scriptures one would be justifying in suspecting not only that the Church is excessively dogmatic and authoritarian but also that the texts were carefully selected to avoid the inclusion of inevitable discrepancies in the eye-witness accounts of historical events.

 

[Areopagite]

Of course those apologists never add just “how” those verses should be understood. Looks like that despite those 2 thousand years the Church never attempted to undertake such an important task. After all, it would help their own clergy, too. So why is there no such writ?

In my cursory study of theology, there are so many Biblical commentaries (many written by saints too), that it hurts my head. There are definitely no lack of Scriptural annotations in Church History. And they’ll be more probably.

The opposite objection people have raised is that the Church has written so much that it’s impossible to figure out what it teaches. Man, you can’t satisfy either one of them.

And as the others have said, Scripture, like all literature (and especially poetry … which the Bible actually has a lot of), is subject to so many interpretations … and so many valid interpretations too (valid … i.e. do not contradict each other). It’s sort of a strength and a weakness about poetry and stories (in contrast to straightforward philosophical and scientific treatises) … it can be much richer, insofar as there are more meanings that can be derived from it, but on the other hand, it is less clear … and even sometimes prone to misinterpretation as well. Thank goodness we have the millions of commentaries though.

A benevolent being does not allow meaningless or gratuitous harm to come indiscriminately to bad and good people, to adults and toddlers, to humans and animals.

You assume here that natural disasters are necessarily meaningless. God only allows (and I’m not afraid to say even causes) natural disasters to happen for good reasons … either to punish sinners, inspire repentance, detach people from worldly possessions, purify their souls, etc. … or all of the above.

And how can anything be considered “natural” in a “created” world? The notion of “natural” vs. “artificial” presumes that there are some things, which are not “artificial”, which are not "created’. For an atheist the concept of a natural disaster presents no problem. But for a theist there should be no “natural” disasters.

If you define “natural” as “not created/crafted by an intelligent being” then, indeed, nothing would be natural in a theist’s perspective. However, theists (including Jews, and Christians, and many pagans) have defined “artificial” as “that which has been crafted by humans” and defined “natural” as “that which has been created/crafted by God.” At least broadly speaking (perhaps I will need to clarify, but that is the general idea … and obviously the word “natural” admits to several other meanings depending on what you’re talking about … but good enough for now).

As you say: “it seems” to you. But the word does have the other meanings as well. Besides, “light” and “dark” are also used as synomyms for morally good and morally bad actions - when someone says that “darkness” is the “privation of light” and “evil” is the “privation of good” ()which is, of course a lousy analogy). And there are many of those “evil” actions commanded and personally executed by God.

God cannot do moral evil, but he can cause natural evils, that is, he can withhold something from a thing so that it no longer is fulfilled in its nature … i.e. a thing no longer is perfect or as perfect as it was or could be. God has every right to do this with anything if He wants, since He created everything and never relinquished His authority over anything.

Now, we can launch into a discussion of what constitutes moral evil and why it never applies to God … and, it wouldn’t be first time … so … just say the word.

Let me tell you a secret. The Church may “claim” infallibility, but that is just a claim, and claims are dime a dozen. The Church’s authority is self-proclaimed, based upon circular reasoning.

The Church’s authority isn’t founded simply on the fact that the Church claims that it has authority. The Church’s authority is founded on Christ. Now, for those who lack the divine gift of faith, this doesn’t mean anything. But for those who do have that gift to a sufficient degree and know it, then it does. But in either case, simply to deny the Church has divine authority on the ground that their authority is merely self-proclaimed (and not actually divinely founded) needs to offer proof. But you can’t disprove it. Or if you can, I’d like to hear.

Guess what? Theists know nothing about it either.

Whoa. How do you know that?

All they present is pure speculation, and their speculation does not conform with the observable facts.

If you mean that the claims of Christians cannot be proven by natural reason alone, then I agree with you. But if you claim that the claims of Christians are in conflict with natural reason (i.e. observable facts, I guess), then I disagree … and demand further explanation about what you mean.

 

[Areopagite]

Guess what? We must go by the data available to us.

And what the Church claims is that the theological virtue of faith is one of data. Those who have that faith have access to data that others do not.

So we go by the available data, and say: “there is no visible justification for their actions, therefore we judge them accordingly, and declare that they were evil”. God does not get any preferential treatment, either.

For those without faith (i.e. those who do not have the data regarding why there is suffering in the world and how it relates to our happiness), it’s not too far-fetched to think that God is evil … or at least apathetic. With that said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a non-believer to be open to the possibility that God might have a good reason for these things and thus make the non-believer open to faith.

Justitia, the ancient goddes of justice is properly depicted with a blindfold, she does not look at the accused, her verdict is based upon the available information.

I’m not a fan of this image of Justice, because true justice SEES everything as it is (including the accused … because he’s part of the case). The blindfold is there because … what? … Justice would get emotional … and thus not see things clearly. I don’t know. It doesn’t make sense. My opinion, of course.

Oh, yes, the good, old “might makes right” principle.

Nope. Not at all. If I own a car, and you don’t … and yet it’s okay for me to destroy my car, and it’s not okay for you to destroy my car … does that mean “might makes right?” Obviously not. Hence, God can destroy anything He wants because He made everything (and never relinquished ownership), and the same cannot be said of His creatures. It’s not about “might” (unless you’re defining it strangely) but rather “ownership” or “authority” or whatever you want to call it.

And no reward in some assumed after-life can retroactively justify the injusticies in this world.

I demand proof for this statement.

There is no collective guilt. Only individual one.

Groups of people are punished all the time … even in human courts. Such things happen when many individuals are guilty.

Oh, come on. The longevity means nothing. Also, it is not supported by objective evidence, only an old mythical book.

We’re not Protestants. (i.e. we don’t believe in Sola Scriptura). I admit, though, I may be missing your point here.
R Daneel;6944412:

Another staple answer. Of course those who disagree are always at fault. They are unable (read: stupid) or unwilling (read: stubborn) to swallow mindlessly whatever the “authority” happens to dish out.

Another staple answer. Those who follow the Church are mindless. Yeah.

Well, good for you. You are in a big crowd, just like all those who cheered when the emperor displayed his new, magnificent clothing. However, the street urchins are not blinded, and they are happy to point out: “The emperor has no clothes!”.

Actually, in the history of Christianity, there were large numbers of Christians put to death by Emperors. They didn’t accuse him of having no clothes but rather that he wasn’t a god. Somewhat similar.

The Catholic Church … does not come clean and state which verses are supposed to be accepted literally and which ones are supposed to be considered allegorically.

I don’t know what you mean by “does not come clean.” This is a conveniently ambiguous phrase. If the Church had said that it can and will do that, then you have a point. If it never said that (and, in fact, the Church never said that), then it’s not being dishonest.

That is the problem as I see it. If the Church would consider itself to be truly “infallible”, then it could make such a declaration, without misgivings.

Truly infallible? As opposed to just infallible?

The Church has claimed that it can make infallible statements on faith and morals, but that doesn’t mean that they will do so with the level of precision and nit-pickiness that some people demand. Oftentimes, the reason why it doesn’t make certain statements on something is that … it doesn’t know. Omniscience and infallibility are two different things.

 

[R_Daneel]

The Church’s authority isn’t founded simply on the fact that the Church claims that it has authority. The Church’s authority is founded on Christ.

And where does this come from? You guessed it, it comes from the Bible. The very same Bible, which was selected by a congregation of church members, who chose to include some books and decided to reject others - and this process was done by taking a vote. There is no external evidence for it. So, basically the Church claims that it was founded by Jesus, and the evidence for this is the Bible, which was selected by the Church… I call this process circular, though it is true that Dogbert likes to call it: “there are no loose ends…”.

If you mean that the claims of Christians cannot be proven by natural reason alone, then I agree with you. But if you claim that the claims of Christians are in conflict with natural reason (i.e. observable facts, I guess), then I disagree … and demand further explanation about what you mean.

Actually, the Cathecism claims (I just love that word!) that one can ascertain God’s existence by fully rational means - that is no faith is required. The funny stuff - as usual - that it is just an empty claim, there is nothing following it. I would have expected this “claim” to be followed by a detailed (or even just a cursory) explanation, just how does one arrive from a materialistic point of view, apply some valid and sound logical arguments and at the end one would be forced by the ironclad rules of logic to accept that God indeed exists.

This is the point I am making. Claims are dime a dozen. Where is the beef?

And what the Church claims is that the theological virtue of faith is one of data. Those who have that faith have access to data that others do not.

You gotta be kidding me. Cold, hard facts are data, wishful thinking is not.

For those without faith (i.e. those who do not have the data regarding why there is suffering in the world and how it relates to our happiness), it’s not too far-fetched to think that God is evil … or at least apathetic. With that said, I don’t think it’s unreasonable for a non-believer to be open to the possibility that God might have a good reason for these things and thus make the non-believer open to faith.

I am open to see just what those “good reasons” are. But to say: “we believe by faith that there are some good and valid reasons for God to behave as he does” - is just another empty claim. What are those good and valid reasons? As Ross Perot said: “I am all ears”.

I demand proof for this statement.

Simple. Even God cannot change the past. Whatever was done, remains done. If someone unjustly beats up a kid, and then gives a lollipop as a “compensation” or a “reward”, it does not change the unjust nature of the act.

Groups of people are punished all the time … even in human courts. Such things happen when many individuals are guilty.

It is still wrong. Guilt is always individual, even if a bunch of people gang up on someone. Sure, sometimes human courts save the time and the resources (which are always in short supply) to conduct a trial with multiple defendants. But if one person is not guilty within that group, and could not have prevented the deed even if he wanted to, then it would be a travesty of justice if that person would be found guilty - by association. I am sure that such events happened, but that does not exonerate God from making the same error.

Another staple answer. Those who follow the Church are mindless. Yeah.

I did not say that… Many believers do. It is a usual answer: “if you just wait long enough…” or “if you would just pray hard enough…” or “it is your pride that makes you reject God…” or “you just hate authority…” and many others. I agree that some atheists say the same thing, and I condemn them, too. But I, personally did not say that, and I have never seen you saying that. There was nothing personal in my remark.

I don’t know what you mean by “does not come clean.” This is a conveniently ambiguous phrase. If the Church had said that it can and will do that, then you have a point. If it never said that (and, in fact, the Church never said that), then it’s not being dishonest.

I did not say “dishonest”. I say that the Church is a wuss. Does not dare to say: “Verse X must be taken literally”, and “Verse Y is understood allegorically”. Now, is something is allegorical, then it may have many meanings, it may be subject to interpretation. But if a verse is literal, then there is no ambiguity, it means what is says. And not to say it outright is cowardice.

 

[Areopagite]

And where does this come from? You guessed it, it comes from the Bible. The very same Bible, which was selected by a congregation of church members, who chose to include some books and decided to reject others - and this process was done by taking a vote. There is no external evidence for it. So, basically the Church claims that it was founded by Jesus, and the evidence for this is the Bible, which was selected by the Church… I call this process circular, though it is true that Dogbert likes to call it: “there are no loose ends…”.

When I said that the Church’s authority is founded on Christ, it is incorrect to say that this idea has its origin in the Bible. Christ’s granting of the Church’s authority happened before the New Testament was written. So you are wrong when you say that “it comes from the Bible.” It is true that the Bible records the event. But the Bible didn’t make it up.

Now, you seem to suggest (and you obviously don’t … or do you?) that if there is no evidence for something having taken place then it didn’t happen. Obviously that’s not true. In any case, there IS evidence Christ gave divine authority to the Church (e.g. in the writings of the New Testament, and of the Apostolic Fathers, and of the early Church Fathers), but the truth that Christ did that does not depend on their witness. Also, a believer’s knowledge of the Church’s authority does not derive primarily from these things but from the supernaturally infused gift of faith.

So, once again, the truth that Christ gave the authority to the Church does not come from the Bible. It happened before the Bible was written. The Bible merely records it. That is the claim of Catholicism. Now, if you still object, I ask you to define “comes from” when you say “it comes from the Bible.” Also, I ask you to disprove anything I just said. You can’t. You either accept it on faith (if you have it), or you simply shrug with indifference. You cannot disprove it. Sorry, you can’t. You can then say, “Oh, that’s convenient.” And I’ll respond, “Yeah, sure.” The truth that Christ gave authority to the Church cannot be proven by any visible means. It must be discovered supernaturally by faith. You either have faith, or you don’t. A Catholic cannot prove his claims, but a non-Catholic cannot disprove the Catholic’s claims either. That’s all that the Church has ever said.

Actually, the Cathecism claims (I just love that word!) that one can ascertain God’s existence by fully rational means - that is no faith is required.

Yep. I agree. God’s existence can be known through natural reason. That’s why most people believe in God, even non-Christians. However, one cannot know by natural reason the unique claims of Christianity, such as, for example, Jesus Christ is God, or that God is three Persons.

The funny stuff - as usual - that it is just an empty claim, there is nothing following it. I would have expected this “claim” to be followed by a detailed (or even just a cursory) explanation, just how does one arrive from a materialistic point of view, apply some valid and sound logical arguments and at the end one would be forced by the ironclad rules of logic to accept that God indeed exists.

People object all the time that the Catechism doesn’t go into detail on anything. But it was meant to be a very broad overview of Catholicism. If you want to debate proofs for God … well, as you know, this is where it’s happening.

One reason that the Catechism doesn’t go into detail on that point is that most people believe in God already. If it was a bigger issue, it would probably go into more detail.

You gotta be kidding me. Cold, hard facts are data, wishful thinking is not.

What do you mean by “cold, hard facts”? A “fact” can mean a bunch of different things. One definition is “a thing that is indisputably the case.” However, if I see something, and yet cannot prove that I saw it, and people don’t believe me, then it is not a “fact” in that sense. Nonetheless, I still consider it data to me. So, if that is the definition of “fact” you are using, I reject your claim that “facts are data.”

You also have to prove that faith is mere “wishful thinking.” Of course you can’t prove that. But I welcome you to try.

 

[Areopagite]

I am open to see just what those “good reasons” are. But to say: “we believe by faith that there are some good and valid reasons for God to behave as he does” - is just another empty claim. What are those good and valid reasons? As Ross Perot said: “I am all ears”.

Well, if you are all ears, then you are in a good spot. Now, I think we’ve already discussed this problem in the past (in fact, is there anything we haven’t discussed), and I’m not sure what particular thing you’re asking … but I’ll say this at least …

Do you think that suffering can be beneficial to someone? Sometimes? And that’s all I’ll say for now.

Simple. Even God cannot change the past. Whatever was done, remains done. If someone unjustly beats up a kid, and then gives a lollipop as a “compensation” or a “reward”, it does not change the unjust nature of the act.

I agree. Now … how does this contradict what I said?

It is still wrong. Guilt is always individual, even if a bunch of people gang up on someone. Sure, sometimes human courts save the time and the resources (which are always in short supply) to conduct a trial with multiple defendants. But if one person is not guilty within that group, and could not have prevented the deed even if he wanted to, then it would be a travesty of justice if that person would be found guilty - by association. I am sure that such events happened, but that does not exonerate God from making the same error.

When God punishes, say, a whole city, it is true that suffering may befall those who are completely innocent but who nonetheless live in that city and thus share in the communal suffering. However, it is not unjust for God to do that. This is because God has the right to do whatever He wants because He created everything and never relinquished authority over anything. Now, you may object to that idea and call that unjust … but I don’t see why it would be. You need to explain why that would be unjust. Explain what you mean by justice and say why that infringes it.

Do keep in mind that even though God can cause the innocent to suffer, it is always for a good reason. And, before you object to that, let me ask you, again, can’t suffering be beneficial to someone? Or is it always completely bad and worthless and meaningless?

I did not say that… Many believers do. It is a usual answer: “if you just wait long enough…” or “if you would just pray hard enough…” or “it is your pride that makes you reject God…” or “you just hate authority…” and many others. I agree that some atheists say the same thing, and I condemn them, too. But I, personally did not say that, and I have never seen you saying that. There was nothing personal in my remark.

Okay. That’s cool.

I did not say “dishonest”. I say that the Church is a wuss. Does not dare to say: “Verse X must be taken literally”, and “Verse Y is understood allegorically”. Now, is something is allegorical, then it may have many meanings, it may be subject to interpretation. But if a verse is literal, then there is no ambiguity, it means what is says. And not to say it outright is cowardice.

No, there can be verses that express literal truth and yet have allegorical meaning too. Do you disagree? There can be a statement recording a historical truth and yet have an allegorical meaning, touching on some spiritual truth.

And once again, the Church, even if it’s infallible, doesn’t necessarily know everything … and doesn’t necessarily know which verses have what exact meaning. Or are you arguing that the Church has claimed that they know this and yet are not following through with their claims?

 

[tonyrey]

Originally Posted by R Daneel
Of course I do have strong beliefs and views. But I do NOT consider myself an authority, self-proclamied or not. The Catholic Church does, but it does not come clean and state which verses are supposed to be accepted literally and which ones are supposed to be considered allegorically. That is the problem as I see it. If the Church would consider itself to be truly “infallible”, then it could make such a declaration, without misgivings.

You may have missed the points I have made:

1. The Church has never claimed to interpret every single verse of the Scriptures infallibly nor is it necessary.
2. There could not have been any **development of doctrine **over the centuries in the light of revelations to individuals, theological investigation, philosophical analysis, scientific discoveries and archaeological evidence if the Church had made the mistake of doing what you expect…
3. The** fundamental truths** of Christianity are far more important than the exegesis of every verse in the Bible.
4. The very fact that there are differing interpretations of certain texts is inevitable given** the wide range of topics** that are covered and the variety of the authors’ intentions.
5. If there were uniformity of opinion about the meaning of the Scriptures one would be justifying in suspecting not only that the Church is excessively dogmatic and authoritarian but also that the texts were carefully selected to avoid the inclusion of inevitable discrepancies in the eye-witness accounts of historical events.

Your continued failure to refute these points is strong evidence that you are unable to do so. Since your suspicions about the Church have not been shown to have a rational basis it would be nice if you refrained from making allegations until you can justify them!

 

[R_Daneel]

Your continued failure to refute these points is strong evidence that you are unable to do so.

I am not interested in answering every post. Yours especially, since I do not consider you a worthy conversation partner. And there are a few more like you. Which part of “ignore” don’t you understand?

 

[R_Daneel]

When I said that the Church’s authority is founded on Christ, it is incorrect to say that this idea has its origin in the Bible. Christ’s granting of the Church’s authority happened before the New Testament was written. So you are wrong when you say that “it comes from the Bible.” It is true that the Bible records the event. But the Bible didn’t make it up.

And the Bible is the one and only evidence that it “happened”. Which Bible was written / composed my the Catholic Church.

Now, you seem to suggest (and you obviously don’t … or do you?) that if there is no evidence for something having taken place then it didn’t happen.

Not in general, no. However the lack of evidence indicates that doubting the event is the proper null-hypothesis. Is there evidence for Atlantis? There is not. is there evidence that LGM (little green men) visited the Earth? None. So how to confront a possible allegation that Atlantis “really” existed, or that little green men actually visited the Earth? With doubt. At least I do. Do you differ? Not just in these cases? In general.

Yep. I agree. God’s existence can be known through natural reason.

If that would be the case, why does not the Cathecism endorse the argument specifically? The usual arguments are collected here: godlessgeeks.com/LINKS/GodProof.htm Yes, they are caricatures. But the “real” arguments are not actually better.

What do you mean by “cold, hard facts”?

Something the existence of which can be demonstrated. And the success of the demonstration does not hinge upon the a-priori acceptance of the claim.

You also have to prove that faith is mere “wishful thinking.” Of course you can’t prove that. But I welcome you to try.

According to the Bible it is. Hebrews 11:1 says

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

Do you think that suffering can be beneficial to someone? Sometimes? And that’s all I’ll say for now.

Yes, in some instances, sometimes for someone it may be beneficial. Now your turn. Show me that in every instance, for everyone, every time it is certainly beneficial. And not just “beneficial”, but the benefit outweighs the suffering, and the suffering stopped in the precise moment when the benefit became certain. It is a tall order, but you insisted. The podium is yours, and I am eagerly waiting for the rational (faithless) demonstration.

Do keep in mind that even though God can cause the innocent to suffer, it is always for a good reason.

Yes, I object to that, but my objection is conditional. If you can answer my question above, I will retract my objection.

No, there can be verses that express literal truth and yet have allegorical meaning too.

Yes, it is possible. But the allegorical meaning in this case is not relevant. It either confirms the literal meaning (maybe expounds on it), or it contradicts it, in which case it should be discarded.

 

[fhansen]

According to the Bible it is. Hebrews 11:1 says

Now faith is the assurance of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.

“Now faith is the **assurance **of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

The operative word here is assurance. The “things hoped for” may be the result of wishful thinking or an innate human aspiration or perception but with the term “assurance” the writer is referring to a supernatural gift of faith in those things hoped for.

 

[tonyrey]

I am not interested in answering every post. Yours especially, since I do not consider you a worthy conversation partner. And there are a few more like you. Which part of “ignore” don’t you understand?

The real reason is not difficult to guess… Unanswered points speak for themselves.

 

[R_Daneel]

“Now faith is the **assurance **of things hoped for, the conviction of things not seen.”

The operative word here is assurance. The “things hoped for” may be the result of wishful thinking or an innate human aspiration or perception but with the term “assurance” the writer is referring to a supernatural gift of faith in those things hoped for.

How about both of them? And then comes the question: “just how can you be assured of something that you merely hope for? How can you be convinced of things which you do not see?”. Of course the phrase you “do not see” means that you have “no evidence for”? That is “faith”, the strong belief in something which is not substantiated - which is “wishful thinking”.

 

[fhansen]

How about both of them? And then comes the question: “just how can you be assured of something that you merely hope for? How can you be convinced of things which you do not see?”. Of course the phrase you “do not see” means that you have “no evidence for”? That is “faith”, the strong belief in something which is not substantiated - which is “wishful thinking”.

It cannot be substantiated by physical evidence-the hope can be conceived of on our own but it can only be substantiated by grace-as a gift of assurance and conviction-which you don’t believe in.