>>97617473The context indicates that the faith spoken of is that one that's without works
One must prove His faithfulness, otherwise his faith is fruitless and meaningless, dead. Faith without works is simply a belief that's not backed up by action.
>>97617290>God?No
>Jesus?Also not what I meant, but yeah He's a historical figure also, including His claims, but history doesn't prove Him true
And i wasn't replying to you, i meant the claim that Christianity is for dumb people that don't think at all ever, which IS historically incorrect
>not gnosticWell my evaluation of you was that you were either in error or a gnostic schizo, of which you showed both, but i guess you're the former after all
>People rely on first hand experience(also called personal experience) all the time and it even is recognised in many fields, including science and history
Also ironic because in that paragraph you're kind of self describing? You're guilty of that yourself by seemingly intentionally going against the grain of traditional thought and interpretation of the bible and of history, probably because of your desire to be superior? But I know you not, so i shouldn't assume, though I'd say that's a pretty good guess
>> logic and reason led me to God>As you have just demonstrated, you’re absolutely horrendous at logic and reason.You can't even keep your post consistent, just before that you replied to someone else, don't include a response to me before AND after, either one or the other
And this is not an attack of character, I'm simply pointing out the irony
>>97617608>Surprising that no one else has talked about this possibility.They have
