You’re not making a coherent case. I never said that you "claimed that people will infallibly be persuaded by evidence or logic? "
So, I can simply ask the questions back at you:
Have I ever said that? Ever in this entire thread? If not, then why is this argument useful? This is not the case I’m making.
My position is this: “Faith”, as defined by the Church, is not meant to mean believe in a god without any logical or evidential reason for it. Faith is a supernatural virtue that allows us to believe, but works in cooperation with our rational minds. It is an assent to what God has revealed.
And where do you see the passing on of faith by word of mouth, from father to son, generation to generation? Does it fit in your model?
It is proof if sufficient to establish belief, but I’m happy to concede that I should have used the word evidence.
Absolutely. Again, have I ever claimed otherwise? Have I ever said that evidence, without the virtue of faith, would convince someone into belief?
You suggested that when you used the word, “proof”, which you’ve corrected, above.
No, being “without blame” is virtue-neutral.
That’s only your opinion. But the Catholic Church says:
Philippians 2:15 that you may be blameless and innocent, children of God without blemish in the midst of a crooked and perverse generation,[a] among whom you shine like lights in the world,
So, if it is one of our goals, to be blameless, then it must be a virtue.
For instance, a family near where I live died in their sleep because someone had left the car running overnight in the garage. It was determined to be an accident. Supposing it was, the person who left it running was “without blame” in the same sense of someone who is invincibly ignorant of arguments for God. Was it, therefore, a virtuous act?
In this case, it was simply an accident. But, if one seeks to obey and to live without conflict, and thus remains blameless, that is a virtue. Therefore, the individual who seeks to obey his parents and teachers and learns his Vishnu faith based upon his desire to do the right thing in accordance to what he regards as the righteous thing. For him, that is a virtue in the eyes of God.
I agree. So I’ll refrain from answering because it is for God to determine someone’s faith, not me.
That doesn’t make sense. I said:
In general, Christians and Jews are considered faithful. Whether that is true individually, is a totally different question.
I don’t see where you got the impression that you were supposed to determine the faithfulness of individuals, as though you were supposed to judge their souls.