Posts: 544
Threads: 62
Joined: May 25, 2011
Reputation:
15
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 4:24 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2011 at 4:27 pm by Anymouse.)
As the resident pagan on these fora, I reserve the right to welcome all new people here, even though I don't own or moderate this place.
Most people here are well-educated and rational in their reasoning, some are crackpots, and one is an undereducated and opinionated Romance editor.
Anyhoo, welcome a-forum. There is discussion here from deep questions such as the meaning of life (if there is one) and how it got started, to drunk chicks (Amy Winehouse, what an appropriate name).
James
"Be ye not lost amongst Precept of Order." - Book of Uterus, 1:5, "Principia Discordia, or How I Found Goddess and What I Did to Her When I Found Her."
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 5:10 pm
(This post was last modified: July 23, 2011 at 5:10 pm by fr0d0.)
Let me try again for you guys...
(July 23, 2011 at 5:48 am)weakagnostic Wrote: how it is possible for people to abandon logic and reason to make a leap of faith They don't. You obviously misunderstand what faith 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." - Ryft
Any clearer?
Posts: 19
Threads: 2
Joined: July 21, 2011
Reputation:
0
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 5:23 pm
(July 23, 2011 at 4:17 pm)bozo Wrote: Hello and welcome. You might try looking at the thread " Why Agnosticism " to gauge the opinions here.
I have looked at the thread. Is terminally confused an accepted term here? 
Posts: 1446
Threads: 77
Joined: October 1, 2008
Reputation:
11
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 5:25 pm
bozo definition of faith...total bollocks.
 A man is born to a virgin mother, lives, dies, comes alive again and then disappears into the clouds to become his Dad. How likely is that?
Posts: 19
Threads: 2
Joined: July 21, 2011
Reputation:
0
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 5:50 pm
(July 23, 2011 at 5:10 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: Let me try again for you guys...
(July 23, 2011 at 5:48 am)weakagnostic Wrote: how it is possible for people to abandon logic and reason to make a leap of faith They don't. You obviously misunderstand what faith 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." - Ryft
Any clearer?
You obviously misunderstand (on purpose?) what "leap of faith" is.
Quote:A leap of faith, in its most commonly used meaning, is the act of believing in or accepting something intangible or unprovable, or without empirical evidence.[1]
Wikipedia
Any clearer?
I don't believe I actually had to qualify that...
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 5:54 pm
And do you know what empirical means? And what evidence is non empirical?
What you have empirical evidence for, you don't need reason for.
Now you have the choice to abandon reason, or join the thinking. Which will it be?
Posts: 281
Threads: 1
Joined: July 17, 2011
Reputation:
7
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 6:06 pm
fr0d0, do you know what sense is? I wonder if you could try making some.
Posts: 14259
Threads: 48
Joined: March 1, 2009
Reputation:
80
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 6:16 pm
I'm sorry, I should take my last post back. I explained to weakling his error and he repeated it.
Given reason he chose ignorance.
Posts: 281
Threads: 1
Joined: July 17, 2011
Reputation:
7
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 6:21 pm
Rewind to the bit where "faith goes beyond reason". You lost me there. Are you saying that although reason doesn't support faith it doesn't go against it either, or are you saying your faith is supported by reason?
Quote:What you have empirical evidence for, you don't need reason for.
Now you have the choice to abandon reason, or join the thinking. Which will it be?
Could you rephrase that for my benefit? I really don't understand what you're trying to say at all
Posts: 19
Threads: 2
Joined: July 21, 2011
Reputation:
0
RE: Hello
July 23, 2011 at 6:42 pm
(July 23, 2011 at 5:54 pm)fr0d0 Wrote: And do you know what empirical means? And what evidence is non empirical?
What you have empirical evidence for, you don't need reason for.
Now you have the choice to abandon reason, or join the thinking. Which will it be?
Sorry but I stopped taking you seriously when I understood I was talking to a guy who doesn't know the difference between "faith" and "leap of faith".
|
