Disagreement

I had about an hour's long conversation about my philosophy of Logos with a friend. And I had noted the sensation of it turning into a debate. There was that antagonism, that shame, that hearty readiness for a rebuttal. I, then, listened. As what else could I do if someone were so adamant about their view.

The topic was on Hebrews 11:1. Which in the KJV is interpreted as "The substance of things hoped for, and the evidence of things unseen." In his translation it was, "The assurance of things hoped for, the conviction about things unseen." We got lost in the rabbit hole of Interlinear translations, to which I drew out my own interpretation, which is likely the most accurate with regard to the original Greek, "The understanding of things hoped for, and the exposing of things not seen."

To which, Paul says not to quarrel about words. So, I simply laid out the evidence of God's existence. The Moral Law and the Fruit of the Spirit. As, these two go hand in hand. That we ought to minister, as Paul said, with power and not through man's reason. What is that power? It is kindness. Love. Patience. And if we obey those teachings---and others such as the Sabbath's Rest or to not Covet---we find ourselves happier. For that is the Logos, is God's word, as evidenced by the Great Sages who speak it through having found it by diligent search. It became clear to me that for a man to be a sage, he must have found God's word on his own. I had known this already, but I communicated it.

Where he disagreed was in the sense that he interpreted what I had to say as "Reason". I do use reason, as firmly based on the evidence for the faith. The overwhelming evidence, but that reason is not something which a man can put under a microscope, nor scratch at with a scalpel. It is rather something that comes through understanding the meaning, and sense of the world around you. To which, in that meaning---the invisible evidence---we discover God's existence.

He furthermore stated that one need assurance and conviction. I agreed wholeheartedly, yet what can a man stand on assuredly, without evidence? That is why Faith exposes what is unseen. It draws forth the hidden meanings and truths, which sensibly can be communicated and only a fool would refute it. This does not stop many men from being foolish. But, as the Founders of our Constitution felt, truth was self evident and established in God's Law. That God's Law was self evident---and on that framework, was our entire constitution framed. That truth is self evident. And surely it is, given that what we see from diverting from that truth is the pathways which directly cause suffering.

That is why God is true, because we observe what is true, and see it firmly establishes the Law God laid down in the Holy Scripture. Which, if one reads the Holy Scripture scientifically, they neither find meaning or reason because they are looking to describe the miraculous with something mundane. Rather, the end of our conversation derived the true meaning of faith, which is in light of the overwhelming evidence that God is Who He claims in the Bible, we can rest assuredly that the things we do not understand---such as King Saul's Death, Noah's Flood or Adam and Eve in the Garden and the Tower of Babel---are sufficiently provided through the omnipotence of God's love. For without that Love firmly established and rooted in the truth, what would life be but despair and suffering?