What happen to my statements, after BWS responded my post disappeared.

Shhh! Shhh!! We need to stop picking on God's chosen one (GC), or he'll curse us, and God will send She-Bears to maul the fuck out of us.

---

(August 9, 2013 at 3:08 pm)Godschild Wrote: What happen to my statements, after BWS responded my post disappeared.

You quote tags were messed up. I would've fixed 'em, but I'm no mod. Instead I simply quoted you.

At least with Santa, the worst that can happen if I'm bad is I don't get any presents. He's not threatening to lock me in a dungeon and torture me forever; not unless he wants to be a candidate for Operation Yewtree anyway. Plus I get another chance to redeem myself next year.

Not to mention that the only criterion for getting the presents is being nice. He doesn't care whether or not I believe in him. (Although many years ago when my little nephew Chris - about 12 at the time, now aged 23 and twice my height and build - realised he didn't believe in Santa anymore, I left him a note from Santa as I'd always done; but this time 'threatening' to send the elves round as proof of his existence. Luckily he's got my sense of humour so I knew he'd appreciate it.)

I'll fix it for you, GC. A wave of my magic fingers (as Sam called them) and...

(August 9, 2013 at 2:57 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: GC, why are you an atheist to all the other religions out there? You believe in the Christian God, so it should be simple for you to pick up the Bhaghavad Gita and also believe in Shiva and Rama.

Because God has proved Himself to me and He states in His word that He is the only God, so I would be wasting time looking into those others.

GC

(August 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Godschild Wrote: Because God has proved Himself to me and He states in His word that He is the only God, so I would be wasting time looking into those others.

How did God prove himself to you? How do you know what his word is?

---

(August 9, 2013 at 3:30 pm)fr0d0 Wrote:

Quote:Maybe it's just your reading skills that are out of whack.

zombie atheist: "evidence"

(August 9, 2013 at 2:16 pm)Chas Wrote: No, my reading skills are fine. It is your lack of critical thinking skills that is the problem.
And you clearly do not understand what constitutes evidence.

TWAT!

You ask about evidence when the question is about your misunderstanding of what faith in the Christian sense means.

Evidence zombie!

Here you are. I won't dumb it down for someone with such superior intelligence:

What is Faith:
Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

How is the notitia tested? Information, which is notitia, can be true or false. If it's putting trust in notitia without first testing its validity, this is still blind faith, so you can have all three but still be blind to it.

---

Damn, how did my reply to fr0d0 get posted above his?

EDIT: Swapped the words assensus and notitia by accident. Fixed now.

Quote:

(August 9, 2013 at 2:04 pm)Chas Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 2:00 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: That isn't the Christian definition of faith Chas.

Please enlighten me. What evidence is there for your beliefs?

Pro tip: The Bible is not evidence. "Feeling the presence of Jesus" is not evidence.

Maybe it's just your reading skills that are out of whack.

zombie atheist: "evidence"

(August 9, 2013 at 2:16 pm)Chas Wrote: No, my reading skills are fine. It is your lack of critical thinking skills that is the problem.
And you clearly do not understand what constitutes evidence.

TWAT!

You ask about evidence when the question is about your misunderstanding of what faith in the Christian sense means.

Evidence zombie!

Here you are. I won't dumb it down for someone with such superior intelligence:

What is Faith:
Being persuaded and fully committed in trust, involving a confident belief in the truth, value, and trustworthiness of God. When it comes to Christianity, 'faith' is defined by three separate but vitally connected aspects (especially from Luther and Melancthon onwards): notitia (informational content), assensus (intellectual assent), and fiducia (committed trust). So faith is the sum of having the information, being persuaded of its truthfulness, and trusting in it. To illustrate the three aspects: "Christ died for ours sins" (notitia); "I am persuaded that Christ died for our sins" (notitia + assensus); "I deeply commit in trust to Christ who I am persuaded died for our sins" (notitia + assensus + fiducia). Only the latter constitutes faith, on the Christian view.

Consequently, notitia and fiducia without assensus is blind and therefore not faith. This shipwrecks the egregious canard that faith is merely a blind leap. Faith goes beyond reason—i.e., into the arena of trust—but never against reason. From the Enlightenment onwards, faith has been subject to constant attempts at redefining it into the realm of the irrational or irrelevant (e.g., Kant's noumenal category); but all such attempts are built on irresponsible straw man caricatures that bear no resemblance to faith as held under the Christian view: notitia, assensus, and fiducia.

(August 9, 2013 at 3:26 pm)Godschild Wrote:

(August 9, 2013 at 2:57 pm)BadWriterSparty Wrote: GC, why are you an atheist to all the other religions out there? You believe in the Christian God, so it should be simple for you to pick up the Bhaghavad Gita and also believe in Shiva and Rama.

Because God has proved Himself to me and He states in His word that He is the only God, so I would be wasting time looking into those others.

GC

Well that settles that! On to the next topic. So...What is the best form of government?

(August 9, 2013 at 3:13 pm)Stimbo Wrote: At least with Santa, the worst that can happen if I'm bad is I don't get any presents. He's not threatening to lock me in a dungeon and torture me forever; not unless he wants to be a candidate for Operation Yewtree anyway. Plus I get another chance to redeem myself next year.

No you don't get a chance next year, he's not coming, he's not real.

God doesn't threaten you, nor does He torture you, you are born to the destination of hell, just as everyone else is. God does offer a way to change that destination, the offer is to all, and those who accept it will have their destination changed.

Stimbo Wrote:Not to mention that the only criterion for getting the presents is being nice. He doesn't care whether or not I believe in him.

Really being nice is a criterion, can you prove that, I've known bad kids who got plenty at Christmas. Of coarse he doesn't care, there's no Santa to care.

GC

Ooh, you're so close it's almost painful! Just take that vital next step and you'll have made it - come on, I know you can do it!