(March 16, 2014 at 11:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 11:33 am)truthBtold Wrote: So he is physical. . Now I can sleep better.. thanks

Can you give me empirical proof that Jesus was God?

Thought not.

Ur claiming jesus was god. So god is physical?

(March 16, 2014 at 11:19 am)fr0d0 Wrote: See above Jacob

Nothing from you that answers my question.

If you believe that more people come to believe through faith than by an experience of God, and faith means spiritual conviction, what does spiritual conviction mean to you?

Out of curiousity Jacob, who is the one person you know who became a xtian on the basis of examining the evidence? (ChadW?)

I think it is healthy for the forum that we can have open disagreement between xtians here. There have been times, as at least Frodo would know, when some group of xtian members would collude to provide a united front. I've just been in a little spat with a new atheist here who insists on seeing everyone in simplistic, stereotypical ways based on what they call themselves. It is good to get along but it is also healthy to face disagreement honestly without being preoccupied with appearances.

I must admit I don't understand what you two are on about. Sounds like you Frodo want belief in God to be based at least in part on considered deliberation leading to spiritual conviction. Jacob gives a more naturalistic explanation for how xtian belief fits in with the way people actually form beliefs generally. That or I've missed the mark again. Good luck to you both.

You had a question Jacob?!

I pointed you to my previous post for an explanation of faith.

As you ask me again about faith, it appears that my response was aimed correctly. I presume that you missed my meaning.

(March 16, 2014 at 12:55 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: You had a question Jacob?!

I pointed you to my previous post for an explanation of faith. As you asked me again about faith, it appears that my response was asked correctly. I presume that you missed my meaning.

I did fr0d0

(March 16, 2014 at 11:50 am)truthBtold Wrote:

(March 16, 2014 at 11:37 am)fr0d0 Wrote: Can you give me empirical proof that Jesus was God?

Thought not.

Ur claiming jesus was god. So god is physical?

I already answered you tb. Jesus was man AND God. The man bit was physical.

(March 16, 2014 at 1:02 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: I already answered you tb. Jesus was man AND God. The man bit was physical.

Proof or GTFO.

I honestly have no clue what you are on about wih the physical/unphysical discussion. What does that mean, and what is the point there?

(March 16, 2014 at 12:52 pm)whateverist Wrote: Out of curiousity Jacob, who is the one person you know who became a xtian on the basis of examining the evidence? (ChadW?)

Someone I know from real life. One of my dearest friends actually. She's a jehovahs wittness.

Quote:As you ask me again about faith, it appears that my response was aimed correctly. I presume that you missed my meaning

I think perhaps I must have. You refer to this?

What is Faith:

Quote: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.

It seems to me that this takes a lot of words to say something very simple, That faith comes from an analysis of, belief in, and trust in, the truth of the gospels.

Now you said,

Quote:I hate superstitious idiots, and you appear to be one. Sorry.

People come to BELIEVE in God through faith.

Seems to me that what I've done here is say that most of the Christians I know came to Christianity by route A, and your response was "no, people come to Christianity by route B". And then provided a pseudointellectual and needlessly obfuscated description of what route B is in an attempt to represent your bald assertion as a definitive fact.

As much as I'd love to concede to your total knowledge of How People Come To Believe, I'm afraid that your statement remains one of opinion, not fact.

Tell me frodo, do you have a relationship with God? Is your believe a pure intellectual thing? Or did you have some sort of conversion experience? At baptism perhaps?

B is what we actually do when we believe in God. A is meaningless superstition.

I had no conversion experience, no. I wasn't baptised. My denomination don't practice that.