In fact, you're failing your faith in a far more critical area - in your certainty that your beliefs are correct. For example, your belief that your examples of your god's guidance are true, and your belief that you've proven your god's existence ...
jaimehlers you portray my beliefs as having only a foundation in feelings when you know that they are based upon God's direct demonstrated interventions in my life. That is hardly touchy feely stuff. What you are trying and failing to do is box me in with others whose faith you have managed to dislodge that base their "beliefs" on un-demonstrated faith. You cannot do that with me though you're doing your best. But what has happened is you discredit your arguments and diminish the credibility of your reason to continue hounding me about having unsubstantiated faith, when you know all too well that I would be unreasonable to dismiss the continual interventions. They may fail your standards of courtroom evidence but only if a circumstantial cases were never allowed, but you know that a circumstantial case can be a good case, and in my case it's open and shut.
That certainty, however, is false. How can anything you take on faith be a certainty to begin with? Even scientists who work with things that actually exist know that they can't be completely certain that they're absolutely correct in their understanding of how those things work, even though they can present solid evidence to convince others that they have the right of it. You can't even do that much, as far as your belief in your god goes, yet you claim that your belief is certain and sure.
I am as uncertain as any scientist that I have fully captured the intentions and machinations of God. I'm absolutely uncertain of my interpretations of God's intentions, but in all that uncertainty of myself is absolutely no uncertainty about God's repetitively demonstrated power in my life. That repetitively demonstrated power does find its counterparts in the Scriptures so my reasoned judgement is that those that wrote the scripture were experiencing the same repetitive demonstrations that caused them to write of the phenomena that characterizes my experience. It is both reasoned and rational to arrive at the certainty that God exists, and for me it would be the height of idiocy to arrive at any other conclusion.
A scientist may doubt his understanding of how the speed of light works but he doesn't doubt for a moment that light exists. (Unless of course he's blind).
It rings false, Wayne,
To the Blind maybe.
and it will always ring false to anyone who pays attention,
because your belief is not based on knowledge, it is based on feelings.
You feel your belief is right,
It's demonstrated, feelings aren't controlling it here reason is.
you feel your visions are true,
What's so touchy feely about an earthquake for heaven sake?, give up jaimehlers.
and so on. When people try to convince you otherwise, you feel they're not correct, no matter how good their arguments are.
Just because they are well seasoned arguers doesn't lend merit to to their case, OJ's defense attorneys held their own arguments in high regard, and only fools were persuaded by them.
You've said as much directly to me - that my explanations were reasonable,
Your explanations were worthy of regard even though they fell short of overturning the repetitive pattern they sought to dismember.
But you didn't believe them because you 'knew' your god existed and had done what you 'knew' he had done.
You got that right.
But you don't know, you feel.
Wrong , yet again.
But what you need here, at this site, is knowledge and evidence, not feelings and beliefs. And as long as you persist in trying to answer us with your feelings and your beliefs, you'll continue to fail.
And as long as you continue to deny the repetitive demonstrations I submit to you, and continue to call them feelings, you will continue to discredit your own ability to reason.