What you want to know about Christ.

It's not a lobotomy that you require before you accept anything that Jesus offers. It's circumcision. And that of the (thankfully you might say) spiritual kind. There is no need for (thankfully I might say) more than one.It's very difficult to imagine how anyone would accept what Jesus offers without one. To do so would be to be irrational.And I know you and I are not that. Otherwise you'd have an excuse.Edited by iano, : No reason given.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Sure, but you do remember we have had this discussion? You'll probably remember this.If God of the Bible exists is there anything to prevent him from ensuring a person knows it is him and not another? The answer, clearly, is no. No one could build an evidential case stronger than he could. If he exists.You place the onus on me to be able to discern when it is clearly upon God to demonstrate himself. And it turns out he has - to me and many others. You shouldn't confuse our inability to empirically demonstrate our knowledgge to you with his ability to demonstrate himself spiritually to us.Man-dependant-upon-God is the fulcrum of salvation. In this matter of God revealing himself as in so many others. He does the work - not us.

For the natural man it cannot be but so. There is a whole dimension of information missing and without it the dots will never join for you. You are being frank and so am I when I say you are a 2 dimensional man commenting on the world in 3D. In order to take it seriously you must have reason to do so. Finding out that it is true is a reason to take it very seriously indeed. And the only way of finding out it is true is to undergo a trauma of sorts. One term used for this is dying and being born again. Another is spiritual circumcision. Just terms. But until that happens, you have no good reason to take it seriously at all.Deep psychological trauma is as good a means as any to prise fallen, proud, independant man off his throne. There are as many means/combination of means as there are people I imagine. Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I didn't say that. I said that it was inappropriate to shift the onus of a persons telling onto the person. I said that nothing could stop God letting a person know it was him. The ability of the person "to tell" lies in Gods ability to convince them over any pretenders ability to convince them of something else.As always I think that some of your issue (wrt me saying "I know God exists") lies in your assumption that "knowing something" means it is necessarily the case. Let's face it Schraf, this could be some alien kids playstation game and all that both you and I "know" could be in fact nowt at all. We simply assume otherwise. You and me both.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

And all you've done is assume the higher ground without telling anyone how you got there. You do it unconciously granted, but do it you do all the same. Granted. Gods gaze, in so far as it is utilitarian, is directed at the salvation of mankind viz-a-viz eternity. Whether people die due to Black Death or Atomic Bomb is in that regard, irrelevant. Your utilitarian focus is on the here/now/touch/smell/taste. That you find that "better" is your perogative. Like I said: higher ground assumed. Hmmm. You agree that what a person knows to be the case regarding the nature of 'reality' need not be the case. Which should resolve the question you asked initially. That I know God exists doesn't mean he does necessarily. That I know it is God and not some demon or delusion doesn't mean that that is the case either. My knowing something doesn't make it so - as I have often said.It's precisly the same with you. You know that there is computer screen in front of you but that need not be the case. You could be a brain in a jar. Empiricism doesn't come to the aid of brains in jars telling them they are not brains a jars.It's not that this doesn't mean anything. It's that it's a waste of time considering for longer than it takes to come to the following realisation. When it comes to the reality we perceive ourselves to occupy we both assume that what we perceive to be the case is the case. That my reality contains God and yours does not is (within the confines of the point) neither here nor there. What unifies us - what levels the playing field - is that we both employ precisely the same base assumption.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Technically, it works a little differently. You could envisage it as before/at/post salvation- God attempting to draw a person to salvation. He is attempting to convince them of something. The person can resist this - unto damnation even. There is no need that the person be aware it is God attempting to convince them.- A person at the point of salvation and passing through it. From being a lost person to being a found person. Call it a change of state.- God takes up residence within the person. This includes demonstrating his existance to the person to their complete satisfaction. If not Schrafs As above. That God attempts to save a person doesn't mean a person must be saved. Permission to resist and finally refuse is a God-given right. We are people - not robots. Because the set up of things is such that a person is permitted to escape being convinced. Why does God do this? Well, he gave man will and permits it exercised. I know this to be the case* I know this not to be the case* No harm is most of this. Globally speaking, a man has to come to the end of himself before he will turn to God. God is found at the very bottom of the barrel thus. You can either let the ache draw you. Or you can refuse to be drawn and stuff the ache with all sorts. Each to his own. Not at all. The direct post-salvation evidence of Gods existance although convincing, is not empirical. It is detectable only by those who have been saved and have the necessary "sensory" equipment. Everyone who is saved see's, everyone who is not doesn't. You are not dealing with some homongenous population "Come to me all ye who are heavily laden and I will give you rest".All who are heavily laden. Gods work in bringing a person to the point of salvation is to attempt to place a load upon them that will bring them to halt in their wandering their own path. That's who Jesus was addressing there.Whilst God is Love wants that all men would be saved, God is Wrath will be satisfied that many are not.* that I know something to be the case doesn't mean it is the case anywhere but within the matrix of my reality.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I’ve taken the liberty of rewriting the above to reflect what I think you meant - although I suspect you haven’t taken in the point already made.Like, when you say “real” what do you mean? I have already made the point (with which you agreed) that even our knowing something (a grade up from ”felt was genuine’) doesn’t mean it is actually the case in absolute reality. “Real in our perception of reality” is about the best that can be said by anyone - whether the experience is spiritual or run-of-the-mill empirically demonstrable. According to me, the way people are convinced of anything at all is down to “the anything” presenting itself/being presented to the person in some way that permits conviction to occur. When we are talking conviction (as opposed to some weaker, more tentative level of knowledge) the thing itself needs to make an appearance. That is how God convinces. Christianity does not rely on a blind-faith kind of faith. Not in the least. I think people imagine “real” spiritual experiences all the time. I suspect that people dabbling in such things write-off real spiritual experiences as imagination too. In supposing all this to be the case I am using what I know to be real (w.r.t. my perception of reality) as a baseline against which to compare others spiritual experiences.

There is a lot that could be said about it. Salvation from sin is but a facet of the diamond. Me? I think this whole gig is all about God having kids. Like order kids. ...with a view to being the delivery mechanism by which others are made sons. Ultimately I would hold that the point of our being saved (and others not) is to glorify God. That he be vindicated in all he does. Our task is also to talk about the terrifying wrath of God. It belongs just as much as the other aspects you mention. I believe Jesus work was sufficient for all but not effective for all.Abraham didn't believe in Jesus Christ - he just believed what God said and was 'saved' I suppose there will be many in the kingdom who have never heard of Jesus Christ

The best way to tell is to ask yourself whether the quality of your knowing is at the max possible. For example: are you as sure of that fact as you are of the fact of your own existance. If you are then it is as real as can be. For you. We might define real as being what a person perceives reality to be. You, for example, would hold reality to be all that is empirically demonstrable (although I'm sure you make an exception for your thoughts which are not empirically demonstrable but might well be considered by you to be real occurances). You have already accepted that what you hold reality to be might not be reality - you might be a brain in a jar and all your empirically demonstrable flying is as real as your dreamtime flying.Given all that, I can't see how empirical demonstrability assists or hinders evaluation of whether an (spiritual) experience is real or not. Unless of course you are an empiricist who has forgotten empiricism is but a philosophy.

I don't think you've followed the discussion. Demonstrating something doesn't mean it is really real. "You" could be a character in some alien kids playstation game and all your "demonstration" is so much button pushing by the kid.What we individually decide is the extent of reality may or may not be the extent of it. The method doesn't involve convincing others. My job is simply to act as a messenger boy - to deliver the gospel message to people. It is the work of God, specifically the Holy Spirit to activate that in the attempt to convince them. Consider the gospel to be a tool. I bring it to the site - the Holy Spirit works it. If Jesus' miracles had not necessarily that effect I doubt this would be the case. It is not my concern that you find my beliefs credible. My concern is that you read what I write so that you are exposed to (aspects of) the gospel.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Suppose for a moment that the voice you call your conscience is Gods voice. Sounds like your own perhaps...The Bible says that man suppresses the truth revealed by conscience and seeing as all truth comes from God..That's how. It's not about resisting convincing evidence as to his existance. Convincing evidence of his existance comes post-salvation, after surrender has already been declared by you. Pre-salvation, when you are still fighting, the resisting that goes on is resisting being convinced of something else that God is trying to convince you of. What he is trying to convince you of is NOT that you believe he exists. He is trying to convince you that you have a problem requiring the existance of God to solve.You don't have to believe in the existance of God to believe that you need God to exist. If you are convinced (by God) that you have a huge problem that would take the existance of God to resolve then you have arrived at the point of salvation.btw: Man doesn't have free will. Or at least he didn't have it after he chose to eat a certain fruit. But that's another story.)Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm not doing back-of-a-cornflakes-box theology today. Sorry.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

Right. And that goes for any experience (empirically demonstrable or otherwise). I've already answered this. "Real" has been defined by me. According to that definition the 'how' is answered. If you want to define 'real' in a way that disallows what I say, then fine. Who do we refer to for the absolute definition of 'real'.Come back with a debate point answer this time. Or forever hold..Edited by iano, : No reason given.

I'm sure he would want classical empiricism challenged. It is but a philosophy. And not one that at all represents God that well. See the discussion in the context of the person with whom I am discussing. Schraf is an out and out empiricist. She's wriggling around trying to find a way to say "can you empirically demonstrate your spiritual experience because if not then it is not (according to my philosophy) real" - all without including the bit in brackets.It's more of a game of words LQ. Don't take it too much to heart. Out-of-the-closet-seekers won't find so much obfuscation from me. In-the-closet-seekers like (potentially) Schraf, (although she doesn't realise she is (potentially) one) are a different matter.

Post-modern? Sounds like name-dropping.The answer to your framed-and-constrained-so-as-to-ensure-the-answer-you-desire-question is. Yes/No.(delete as you think best - I can't even follow it anymore)