Comment: No: Do you understand the difference between "proofs?"

(See in situ)

In reply to comment: True faith is not blind belief : (see in situ)

No: Do you understand the difference between "proofs?"

The "proof" of RP's "continued" support of liberty being an act of "faith" on our part is not the same thing as "proof" Jesus rose from the dead "so take it on faith" -- you do see the difference?

I have met people who met Ron Paul and who worked directly under Ron Paul -- I have videos, radio excerpts, and books to back up everything RP has ever said (at least publicly).

I do not have "faith" my great grandfather was a "good man" -- I could draw the conclusion that since my grandparent is "good" that he must have been born from "good stock" -- you see how "loose" that is right?

The case for Jesus is far far far worse. No one today can claim to know of anyone, even by familial lineage, that could attest for Jesus greatness let alone his divinity.

If we take organizations word-for-it, that Jesus was "good" (let alone great and divine); we'd have to begin overlooking all the evil those organizations have wrought -- which makes the "leap" a lot harder than the one for my grandparent.

I'm not saying there isn't value in in "faith" but one cannot make a good argument that having faith is better-than having a great imagination -- from imagination we can see terrific entrepreneurial pursuits, skyscrapers, automobiles etc etc.

Faith is natural -- but in modern times it usually comes with many legal-ethical-binding contractual-assurances. I'm thinking of the certification saying an elevator is in perfect working order -- which I examine every time I get in an elevator.

The faith required for the Bible, especially with the organizations "legitimizing" it, is a huuuuuuuuuuge stretch; if one uses reason and logic as a guide.