Hey! Thank you for your comment (and for watching our video)! It seems there's a common misconception about the nature of faith that might be worth addressing. The idea that faith is "persisting in a belief which has no credible evidence backing it" isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of what Christian faith really entails. Faith isn't about believing something despite evidence to the contrary, but rather trusting in something based on reasonable evidence. Christian faith is understood as trust in what you have good reasons to believe is true. For example, there are several arguments for the existence of God (like the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments), as well as historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. These are offered as credible reasons for belief, meaning that faith, in this context, is not blind or irrational, but informed by philosophical, historical, and experiential evidence. It's also important to recognize that we all exercise or trust based on evidence in many areas of life a kind of faith. Think of trusting in the reliability of scientific theories, the historical accounts we weren't personally present to witness, or even trusting other people. We often accept things we can't prove beyond all doubt but have good reasons to believe. In this light, Christian faith is not about denying evidence or persisting in the absence of it. Rather, it's about placing trust in what one sees as a well-supported truth, similar to how we trust things in everyday life when we have sufficient evidence. We hope this helps!

@@MissionsDoor2023 "It seems there's a common misconception about the nature of faith that might be worth addressing. The idea that faith is "persisting in a belief which has no credible evidence backing it" isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of what Christian faith really entails." Ok, my replies further down. "Faith isn't about believing something despite evidence to the contrary, but rather trusting in something based on reasonable evidence." I think there is a mismatch between what you and I call "reasonable evidence." Evidence is evidence when it is verifiable. Evidence must be of the verifiability that can convict someone of murder. It must be verifiable without credulity, and must be verifiable to a level where it cannot be disputed, even by it's worst skeptic. That is evidence. Religious claims, other than the incidental (i.e. Jerusalem actually exists) does not meet that standard. "Christian faith is understood as trust in what you have good reasons to believe is true." And that is the problem. Before we can apply the word "exists" to something, we must be able to demonstrate that the term applies. Things that exist, come with attributes. Those attributes must be definable, and those definitions must be verifiable without applying blind belief. "For example, there are several arguments for the existence of God (like the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments)..." Arguments are not evidence of existence. Logic is not evidence of existence. Perhaps look into "Ignosticism" with an "I" (not Agnosticism) or Theological Noncognitivism. Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition. Theological noncognitivism is the non-theist position that religious language, particularly theological terminology such as 'God', is not intelligible or meaningful, and thus sentences like 'God exists' are cognitively meaningless. That is exactly why, for us to be able to say something exists, we must assign repeatably measurable attributes to that which we claim exists, in order for the term to be applicable. "...as well as historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Having been in ministry for 20 years, holding a Master's degree in Theology, and having taught Christian apologetics at university level, I find no credible non-religious evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Crucifixion of who the Romans believed to be a Rabble-rouser, yes, resurrection, none. "These are offered as credible reasons for belief..." Again, we run into a mismatch of what we each see as credible. "...meaning that faith, in this context, is not blind or irrational, but informed by philosophical, historical, and experiential evidence." Philosophy is, again, not evidence. The history is inseperable from myth. I offer Mark 16:17 as my argument. "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Are you willing to drink poison to refute me? "It's also important to recognize that we all exercise or trust based on evidence in many areas of life a kind of faith. Think of trusting in the reliability of scientific theories, the historical accounts we weren't personally present to witness, or even trusting other people. We often accept things we can't prove beyond all doubt but have good reasons to believe." Firstly, scientific theories are falsifiable. Religious claims are not. They are called theories because they have some credible, verifiable, testable experimentation behind them, that back them up. You MIGHT not go test them, but you CAN if you really wanted to, and THAT is the difference between empirical knowledge and religious belief. And that makes ALL the difference, and is the reason why you can trust it. BECAUSE you can test it, and not test something like a claim of eternal life for truthfulness. That means that scientific theories CAN be tested, and are open to replacement if they are proven incorrect or lacking. You cannot do that with religious claims. They are seen as unchangeable. That is why you get flat-earthers and people who believe in alien abductions to this day. They employ the EXACT same tool, faith, to lend justification to their persistence in these beliefs, even though they have no supportive evidence. "In this light, Christian faith is not about denying evidence or persisting in the absence of it. Rather, it's about placing trust in what one sees as a well-supported truth, similar to how we trust things in everyday life when we have sufficient evidence." Claims of existence, the claim that an entity or object exists, is real, MUST without exception come with defined attributes that can be reliably, repeatably tested, sans belief or favor for the claim of said existence. ONLY then do we get to accurately apply the label "exists."

@@MissionsDoor2023 @MissionsDoor2023 "It seems there's a common misconception about the nature of faith that might be worth addressing. The idea that faith is "persisting in a belief which has no credible evidence backing it" isn't necessarily an accurate reflection of what Christian faith really entails." Ok, my replies further down. "Faith isn't about believing something despite evidence to the contrary, but rather trusting in something based on reasonable evidence." I think there is a mismatch between what you and I call "reasonable evidence." Evidence is evidence when it is verifiable. Evidence must be of the verifiability that can convict someone of murder. It must be verifiable without credulity, and must be verifiable to a level where it cannot be disputed, even by it's worst skeptic. That is evidence. Religious claims, other than the incidental (i.e. Jerusalem actually exists) does not meet that standard. "Christian faith is understood as trust in what you have good reasons to believe is true." And that is the problem. Before we can apply the word "exists" to something, we must be able to demonstrate that the term applies. Things that exist, come with attributes. Those attributes must be definable, and those definitions must be verifiable without applying blind belief. "For example, there are several arguments for the existence of God (like the Cosmological, Teleological, and Moral arguments)..." Arguments are not evidence of existence. Logic is not evidence of existence. Perhaps look into "Ignosticism" with an "I" (not Agnosticism) or Theological Noncognitivism. Ignosticism or igtheism is the idea that the question of the existence of God is meaningless because the word "God" has no coherent and unambiguous definition. Theological noncognitivism is the non-theist position that religious language, particularly theological terminology such as 'God', is not intelligible or meaningful, and thus sentences like 'God exists' are cognitively meaningless. That is exactly why, for us to be able to say something exists, we must assign repeatably measurable attributes to that which we claim exists, in order for the term to be applicable. "...as well as historical evidence for the resurrection of Jesus. Having been in ministry for 20 years, holding a Master's degree in Theology, and having taught Christian apologetics at university level, I find no credible non-religious evidence for the resurrection of Christ. Crucifixion of who the Romans believed to be a Rabble-rouser, yes, resurrection, none. "These are offered as credible reasons for belief..." Again, we run into a mismatch of what we each see as credible. "...meaning that faith, in this context, is not blind or irrational, but informed by philosophical, historical, and experiential evidence." Philosophy is, again, not evidence. The history is inseparable from myth. I offer Mark 16:17 as my argument. "And these signs will accompany those who believe: In my name they will drive out demons; they will speak in new tongues; 18 they will pick up snakes with their hands; and when they drink deadly poison, it will not hurt them at all; they will place their hands on sick people, and they will get well." Are you willing to drink poison to refute me? "It's also important to recognize that we all exercise or trust based on evidence in many areas of life a kind of faith. Think of trusting in the reliability of scientific theories, the historical accounts we weren't personally present to witness, or even trusting other people. We often accept things we can't prove beyond all doubt but have good reasons to believe." Firstly, scientific theories are falsifiable. Religious claims are not. They are called theories because they have some credible, verifiable, testable experimentation behind them, that back them up. You MIGHT not go test them, but you CAN if you really wanted to, and THAT is the difference between empirical knowledge and religious belief. And that makes ALL the difference, and is the reason why you can trust it. BECAUSE you can test it, and not test something like a claim of eternal life for truthfulness. That means that scientific theories CAN be tested, and are open to replacement if they are proven incorrect or lacking. You cannot do that with religious claims. They are seen as unchangeable. That is why you get flat-earthers and people who believe in alien abductions to this day. They employ the EXACT same tool, faith, to lend justification to their persistence in these beliefs, even though they have no supportive evidence. "In this light, Christian faith is not about denying evidence or persisting in the absence of it. Rather, it's about placing trust in what one sees as a well-supported truth, similar to how we trust things in everyday life when we have sufficient evidence." Claims of existence, the claim that an entity or object exists, is real, MUST without exception come with defined attributes that can be reliably, repeatably tested, sans belief or favor for the claim of said existence. ONLY then do we get to accurately apply the label "exists."

Well said!

Thanks for watching and for your comment!

@@MissionsDoor2023 I didn't watch after you lied. Very disappointing that people still pretend resurrection is real in 2024.

@@w4rsh1p At what point in the video did we lie?

@@MissionsDoor2023 You told Emily that Jesus was true because you had blind faith that people couldn't lie. Blind faith can justify anything. At what point did you decide to trade your honesty for a scam?

@@w4rsh1p I'm unsure how, when, or where you got that impression from the clip we posted. But please elaborate: at what point do we assert people can't lie? How does that dovetail with what you call "blind" faith? How is that derivative of our belief that Jesus is "true?" Further, it would be helpful if you explained what you mean by "Jesus was true." We certainly believe so - in fact, we'll go further and state that Jesus is Truth Himself - yet, at no point in the video do we state that; we are merely relaying Emily's story of faith and the part we were blessed to play in that journey. Finally - you assert that, at some point, we must have traded our honesty for a scam. What scam? And by your assertion, you must know of a moment before this that we were in your view, "honest." Can you point to such a time, and please help us understand your line of logic? It would be wonderful if we could understand how you are coming to these conclusions from such a short video.

¡Hola! ¡Gracias por tu pregunta! Lo que se quiere decir aquí es que en el mundo hispanohablante, hay diferentes traducciones disponibles para los lectores (similar al mundo angloparlante). De estas, la Biblia Reina-Valera es quizás la más popular (o al menos la más conocida).

¡Hola! ¡Gracias por tu comentario! Respetuosamente no estamos de acuerdo. Pero estamos más que felices de responder cualquier pregunta que puedas tener o discutir el asunto contigo más a fondo.

Thank you for your comment! We're pleased to say that the Peil's efforts to serve those marginalized and forgotten on the Wind River Reservation are done with tremendous respect toward both the Arapaho and Shoshone tribes. Their work has been so impactful to these communities that they enjoy incredibly warm relationships across both tribes! They are also very open about why they do what they do, and what motivates their love and care for the people they serve, so there is never any question as to what their convictions are - and said convictions are never imposed upon others. However, if others are moved by the Gospel message and are experiencing transformation through the work of God in their lives, we count this as a cause for celebration in addition to the social progress being made. If you'd like to learn more about the Peil's and the work they are engaged in, we have a featured article on them in our most recent Annual Report, which you can access for free on our website ( www.missionsdoor.org ). We'd also encourage you to reach out to them directly if you have any further questions or would like to get involved in serving the incredible people who call the Wind River Reservation home!

¡Nos alegra que hayas disfrutado de la entrevista! Fue un placer sentarnos con Marcos y José Manuel y hablar sobre lo que Dios ha hecho a través de ellos en la vida de su iglesia, ¡y lo que sigue haciendo ahora! Por favor, dale 'me gusta' y comparte el video con cualquiera que creas que se beneficiaría de escuchar la historia de José.

Well said! Thank you so much!