Christianity requires no proof?

[jgredline]

Thanks for the response. Know also that I will not try to ''convert'' you nor anybody else. That is the sole Job of the Holy Spirit. I can only present you the truth as I know it according to the scriptures.

We don't do politically correct here!

Sounds good...I like it already.

As stated many times in this thread, "prophecy" is not logical proof. Art Bell does two "prediction shows" at the end of each year. They are then evaluated the following year to see which has come through. Nobody waits hundreds of years yet, over the course of a single year, he gets a higher hit rate than Christianity ever does. I guess all these late-night callers are prophets as well.

Great points! Now let me explain briefly the differences.
As I stated above, just because someone calls themselves a Christian, that does not make one so. I too have heard those late night Prophets on TV who want you to ''sow a seed'' or who call themselves prophets. I too have heard the false teachings of Benny Hinn and some of these other televangelist...
The bible teaches that if a man claims to be a prophet and if the man gives a prophecy that does not come to pass, that man is to be put to death..The sign of failed prophecy is a sign of a false prophet...What I am suggesting is that we hold the bible to this very same standard. If it can be proved that there is even a single failed prophecy, then the bible and God could be seen as ''false''

Once again, you can NOT prove a negative. That is logical nonsense. Why are so many Christians ignorant of the very basic concepts of logic while claiming to use it?

i do not understand your statement in regards to my comment.

You mean like Muslim suicide bombers? As you state, no one would die for a lie. I guess Allah really is the truth.

There is a huge difference between a Fundamentalist Muslim and Christian Martyr. Lets look at both extremes.
With a Fundamentalist Muslim (this being one who embraces the Koran and does what it says) you are guaranteed to have a terrorist..
With a Fundamentalist Christian (this being one who embraces the Bible and does what it says) you will at worse are guaranteed to have a good person...
This being said, there were hundreds of eye witnesses to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ both in the bible and from secular sources.

Once again, you can not prove a negative. Why is that such a tough concept? As for Newton, sorry to say but he was a great believer in the world of spirtits and ghosts which he clung to until his death. Newton was reprimaned by the church many times

I disagree...
VII RELIGIOUS CONVICTIONS AND PERSONALITY
Newton also wrote on Judaeo-Christian prophecy, whose decipherment was essential, he thought, to the understanding of God. His book on the subject, which was reprinted well into the Victorian Age, represented lifelong study. Its message was that Christianity went astray in the 4th century AD, when the first Council of Nicaea propounded erroneous doctrines of the nature of Christ. The full extent of Newton's unorthodoxy was recognized only in the present century: but although a critic of accepted Trinitarian dogmas and the Council of Nicaea, he possessed a deep religious sense, venerated the Bible and accepted its account of creation. In late editions of his scientific works he expressed a strong sense of God's providential role in nature.
one of many sources. http://www.newton.cam.ac.uk/newtlife.html

There are many contradictions in the bible! My goodness, keep up with biblical scholars! Many of the books in the Old Testament are actually intertwined threads of at least two, maybe as many as five, different authors. That's why they are so convoluted and contradictory. Also, many books were left out when the early church put the bible together.

Please show me 2 or 3 and lets see what we have. I have yet to run across one and i have been a Christian for 31 years and I can read and write Greek..I know very little Hebrew, but understand enough to be able to give it the ole college try.

LOL so much I think I'm going to burst. Yep, typical. Only MY religion is true, all the others are false. Wonderful example of blind faith! Thank you!

All religion can be proven false easily enough.
Christianity is not a religion.

No problem with this. That is the very definition of faith. It has absolutely nothing to do with logical proof.

cool

That's what Off-Topic is for!

Sounds good.

[jgredline]

I saw this joke today in another thread and keep in mind it is only a joke.
One Nation, 'Under God'.One day a 6 year old girl was sitting in a
classroom. The teacher was going to explain
evolution to the children. The teacher asked
a little boy: Tommy do you see the tree
outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Tommy, do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
TEACHER: Go outside and look up and see if you can see the sky.
TOMMY: Okay. (He returned a few minutes later) Yes, I saw the sky.
TEACHER: Did you see God up there?
TOMMY: No.
TEACHER: That's my point. We can't see God because he isn't there. Possibly he just doesn't exist.

A little girl spoke up and wanted to ask the boy some questions.
The teacher agreed and the little girl asked the boy:

Tommy, do you see the tree outside?
TOMMY: Yes.
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy do you see the grass outside?
TOMMY: Yessssss!
LITTLE GIRL: Did you see the sky?
TOMMY: Yessssss!
LITTLE GIRL: Tommy, do you see the teacher?
TOMMY: Yes
LITTLE GIRL: Do you see her brain?
TOMMY: No
LITTLE GIRL: Then according to what we were taught today in school, she possibly may not even have one!
(You Go Girl!)

'FOR WE WALK BY FAITH, NOT BY SIGHT'
II CORINTHIANS 5:7

[big baldo]

If the resurrection could have been disproved during the first century of the church, then Christianity would have been dead....Instead there were hundreds who died for their faith...Why? Why would anyone die for a lie?

If you can remember back a few years ago there was a religious group called, Heavens Gate. These people dressed the same(purple shrouds and matching sneakers) and committed a mass suicide so they could " board the UFO" to be reincarnated on another planet.

Many (me included) look at these people like they are loonies, but above all,they had faith. How do we know that they aren't up there right now laughing and living it up in the promise land?? Can you prove that they are not?? Of course you can't. As mwfanelli2 stated, " you cannot prove a negative."

I believe that its just part of human nature to"want" or "need" something to believe in. This theory has proved itself over and over throughout history, from Native Americans to the Roman empire.
Just my 2 cents.

[jgredline]

If you can remember back a few years ago there was a religious group called, Heavens Gate. These people dressed the same(purple shrouds and matching sneakers) and committed a mass suicide so they could " board the UFO" to be reincarnated on another planet.

Many (me included) look at these people like they are loonies, but above all,they had faith. How do we know that they aren't up there right now laughing and living it up in the promise land?? Can you prove that they are not?? Of course you can't. As mwfanelli2 stated, " you cannot prove a negative."

I understand and I hear you...From my perspective, I look on and say that Satan has done a good job of deceiving many people...That group I remember well. That group was a cult...

From your perspective ''Many (me included) look at these people like they are loonies, but above all,they had faith. How do we know that they aren't up there right now laughing and living it up in the promise land?? Can you prove that they are not?? Of course you can't. As mwfanelli2 stated, " you cannot prove a negative."

Again the proof I offer are the scriptures. I have the perfectness of the scriptures to back me up, were that cult did not..There is a huge difference in that...

I believe that its just part of human nature to"want" or "need" something to believe in. This theory has proved itself over and over throughout history, from Native Americans to the Roman empire.
Just my 2 cents.

I agree...But who placed that desire their?

[mn shutterbug]

There are many contradictions in the bible! My goodness, keep up with biblical scholars! Many of the books in the Old Testament are actually intertwined threads of at least two, maybe as many as five, different authors. That's why they are so convoluted and contradictory. Also, many books were left out when the early church put the bible together.

I believe jgredline specifically mentioned original Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I, myself, have never had the pleasure of reading those, have you? Unfortunately, every time a new version of the Holy Word comes out, there are more "minor" changes designed to make things easier for a person to understand.

Do you realize that the Bible is still the best selling book in the U.S., year after year? The Bible outsells the 2nd biggest seller by double. There is a reason for that.

[mwfanelli2]

A few points to avoid another long debate over the same issues...

i do not understand your statement in regards to my comment.

Logic can not prove a negative. Let me give you an example. I say that "we are controlled by little green men from Mars. Prove me wrong." You can't! Take that statement as such, or change it to anything you like, and the result is the same. You can not prove a negative.

I can say also say "we are controlled by little green men from Mars. Here is my proof of this statement."

There is a major difference there. You choose the first version all the time which is logically incorrect.

There is a huge difference between a Fundamentalist Muslim and Christian Martyr. Lets look at both extremes.
With a Fundamentalist Muslim (this being one who embraces the Koran and does what it says) you are guaranteed to have a terrorist..
With a Fundamentalist Christian (this being one who embraces the Bible and does what it says) you will at worse are guaranteed to have a good person...

So how do you fit the massive displays of Christan violence and sadism through history? The Crusades, the purging of French Protestants, the glorious Inquisition, the Christian genocide of entire cultures in the Pacific Islands, the Christian collaboration with the Nazis, the "Just War" theory to allow Christians to participate in Vietnam, the use of churches as meeting places for the KKK... The list goes on and on.

I always say that a religion or belief (you make the distinction, I don't) is defined by the way it is practiced. The theory and practice of Christianity are vastly different. For ALL Christians.

This being said, there were hundreds of eye witnesses to the Resurrection of the Lord Jesus Christ both in the bible and from secular sources.

Huge numbers of people saw mystery UFOs in Texas yesterday. Eyewitnesses, first person accounts from police officers, teachers, military, etc. I guess that also means that UFOs are true as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...15/wufo115.xml

All religion can be proven false easily enough.
Christianity is not a religion.

It is a popular cult of personality.

I saw this joke today in another thread and keep in mind it is only a joke.

Many people are stuck as "concrete thinkers." Children start out this way and, hopefully, evolve during their teen years to become "conceptual thinkers." Some never do, an excellent example being our current president. A young child, for example, believes that an object disappears when it can't be seen. Later on he starts to conceptualize this to the abstract notion that the object still exists when it can't be seen. This ability to abstract gets stronger and finally matures (or doesn't) by the end of the teen years. Your joke really doesn't apply because it uses the perception of a 2 year old, not even a grade school child. But hey, it was just a misguided joke!

Abstraction is a very powerful concept. But, it needs to have a basis in something. You abstract the the existence of god by using faith. I abstract the non-existence of god by using logic. Someone else might believe in the abstraction of love because of poetry. All of that is fine as long as you understand that they just don't mix!

Again the proof I offer are the scriptures. I have the perfectness of the scriptures to back me up, were that cult did not..There is a huge difference in that...

For you, as a matter of faith. I am very glad that you seem to admit this, your beliefs are built on faith, something you choose to believe. I can respect that honesty. What I get worked up about is when people choose to "prove" their faith or push their beliefs on others. That is a major contradiction.

You know, it might be amazing, but I don't really disagree with you all that much! I certainly don't buy into your faith but at least you are clear about where your faith comes from.

[mwfanelli2]

I believe jgredline specifically mentioned original Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I, myself, have never had the pleasure of reading those, have you? Unfortunately, every time a new version of the Holy Word comes out, there are more "minor" changes designed to make things easier for a person to understand.

Do you realize that the Bible is still the best selling book in the U.S., year after year? The Bible outsells the 2nd biggest seller by double. There is a reason for that.

Gee, in the world of Islam, growing much faster than Christianity, the best selling book of all time is the Qur'an. In the far east, I'd bet anything that it isn't the bible. Not many Chinese, or people living outside the western world in general, would have an interest. The Bible is a big fish in a small, mostly western, pond.

I have no problems with updating the text of the bible. Language changes, that's nothing new. But why is it that more people still favor the flawed King James version (flawed due to the time it was written, not by intent). Because it sounds flowery with the all the old language. It makes the book seem so much more important when its in an early form. Many people's faith requires that.

No, I don't read Hebrew or Greek. Even if I did, I wouldn't waste my time because the bible is nothing special to me as it is to others. But, that being said, I have never driven drunk so I shouldn't argue drunk driving. I have never murdered anyone so I'm not capable of discussing the death penalty. Your statement is spurious: sounds good is empty of meaning.

As stated in earlier posts on this topic (sigh...), I used to do all the research, spend hours gathering the evidence, when I lived in the Bible Belt. I learned a hard lesson back then, none of that matters! To a person of faith, it is "believe just like me or you'll go to hell." No one is actually interested in facts. So I don't do it anymore, its a big waste of my time.

The topic of this thread was that Christianity depends on logic, not "just" faith. After four pages, that has yet to be shown. And never will. Faith and logic are completely different approaches to viewing the world around us.

[jgredline]

I believe jgredline specifically mentioned original Hebrew and Greek scriptures. I, myself, have never had the pleasure of reading those, have you? Unfortunately, every time a new version of the Holy Word comes out, there are more "minor" changes designed to make things easier for a person to understand.

Do you realize that the Bible is still the best selling book in the U.S., year after year? The Bible outsells the 2nd biggest seller by double. There is a reason for that.

Thanks Shutter bug. You are exactly right. This is exactly why I mentioned the originally inspired Greek and Hebrew text. All of the others are translations or paraphrases and I can find some errors in those mostly because of the different syntax in the languages...It is also true that many translations like the NLT, NIV, Etc are made for the average person to be able to read and understand them as opposed to say old King James.
It is also True that the bible is the number 1 best seller in History...year after year, although, I must admit Harry Potter (YUK) gave it a close run this past year....

[jgredline]

A few points to avoid another long debate over the same issues...

i understand. Rather than go on a tangent, I will answer the concerns of this this post and perhaps we can stick to the faith part.

Logic can not prove a negative. Let me give you an example. I say that "we are controlled by little green men from Mars. Prove me wrong." You can't! Take that statement as such, or change it to anything you like, and the result is the same. You can not prove a negative.

I can say also say "we are controlled by little green men from Mars. Here is my proof of this statement."

There is a major difference there. You choose the first version all the time which is logically incorrect

. This is what I thought you meant, but was not totally sure. Rather than take you our of context, I would rather ask.. This is a fair assessment and I have no problem with it or you believing in this way. After all it is Logical..

So how do you fit the massive displays of Christan violence and sadism through history? The Crusades, the purging of French Protestants, the glorious Inquisition, the Christian genocide of entire cultures in the Pacific Islands, the Christian collaboration with the Nazis, the "Just War" theory to allow Christians to participate in Vietnam, the use of churches as meeting places for the KKK... The list goes on and on.

Another good point and I am glad you asked...
I absolutely agree with you when you say that many atrocious things have been done in the name of God and religion and in the name of Christianity. However, these atrocities were not perpetrated by God, but by evil human beings. If we look at the history of democide (which includes genocide, politicide, and mass murder, but not war-dead) prior to the 20th century, we find that millions of people were killed by people groups who wanted the other people groups eliminated....But let me take a couple of the examples you brought up...
The Crusades...The crusades are indeed one of the most evil and most twisted things that has ever happened...Basically Pope Leo (if memory serves me right) was selling salvation or indulgences to many a people in the name of God...These crusaders called themselves Christians, but the fact is they were Catholics, not Christians...Even though this happened centuries before the Protestant reformation, this was the start of it...These where not Bible believing Christians...

Next, lets look at the KKK...it is fair to say that this kind of hate is not of God...Not the God of the Bible. These people may call themselves Christians, but they do not have a relationship with the Lord Jesus Christ. If they did, they would read and understand the bible and do what it says...So instead of lynching good folks and burning them at the stake, they would be clothing them and inviting them home for dinner..You get the point.

Naziism...Again..No doubt Hilter started out as a ''CATHOLIC'' He was in cahoots with the popes and so forth...Again these are not Christians....

I always say that a religion or belief (you make the distinction, I don't) is defined by the way it is practiced. The theory and practice of Christianity are vastly different. For ALL Christians.

Now we are getting to the crux of it...This is why I started out to make a distinction of what a Christian is....Jesus himself warned us about this....Matt 7:21 "Not everyone who says to Me, Lord, Lord, shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. 22 Many will say to Me in that day, Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name? 23 And then I will declare to them, I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness! Notice Jesus said ''many'' Through out the scriptures we are warned of a false Gospel or ''another Jesus'' ...So yes we need to define a Christian according to the Holy Word of God...

Huge numbers of people saw mystery UFOs in Texas yesterday. Eyewitnesses, first person accounts from police officers, teachers, military, etc. I guess that also means that UFOs are true as well.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main...15/wufo115.xml



It is a popular cult of personality.

No argument from me here...I have wondered myself if there are other life forms out there, but the bible is pretty silent on this...But this is a discussion for another thread...

Many people are stuck as "concrete thinkers." Children start out this way and, hopefully, evolve during their teen years to become "conceptual thinkers." Some never do, an excellent example being our current president. A young child, for example, believes that an object disappears when it can't be seen. Later on he starts to conceptualize this to the abstract notion that the object still exists when it can't be seen. This ability to abstract gets stronger and finally matures (or doesn't) by the end of the teen years. Your joke really doesn't apply because it uses the perception of a 2 year old, not even a grade school child. But hey, it was just a misguided joke!

It was a bad joke, but I brought it in good humor...Obviously, I am not going to make a point with a Joke...

Abstraction is a very powerful concept. But, it needs to have a basis in something. You abstract the the existence of god by using faith. I abstract the non-existence of god by using logic. Someone else might believe in the abstraction of love because of poetry. All of that is fine as long as you understand that they just don't mix!

Hmmm, well written and I agree to a certain extent..I will explain my position in a bit..

For you, as a matter of faith. I am very glad that you seem to admit this, your beliefs are built on faith, something you choose to believe. I can respect that honesty. What I get worked up about is when people choose to "prove" their faith or push their beliefs on others. That is a major contradiction.

Yes, You are correct...But let me explain this further using the scriptures....
Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. . This verse is not a definition of faith, but a description of what faith does. Substance means "essence" or "reality." Faith treats things hoped for as reality. Evidence means "proof" or "conviction." Faith itself proves that what is unseen is real...This of course is directed to the believer ''Me''
The bible also tells us ''that faith comes by hearing, and hearing by the word of God.'' In other words, Faith is a gift from God...See, I will not try and push my faith on you because frankly, the bible tells us that it is the sole work of God (The Holy Spirit) to bring people to faith..I am but just a tool he can use, but ultimately it is your choice to believe or not...

You know, it might be amazing, but I don't really disagree with you all that much! I certainly don't buy into your faith but at least you are clear about where your faith comes from.

Thank you, I really appreciate it...You bring some very good and valid points and have enjoyed this conversation...

[mwfanelli2]

...I have wondered myself if there are other life forms out there, but the bible is pretty silent on this...But this is a discussion for another thread...

For what its worth, I don't believe in flying saucers either! Give me real proof, lke an honest alien, dead or alive, and I would change my mind. Or, better yet, I want to see one, clear and obvious, not just fuzzy blobs of light in the sky.

But you are right, that's another topic.

[jgredline]

Here is an article written by Albert Mohler that somewhat explains my point on religion.
At least in part.

Christianity vs. Jesusanity -- The Postmodern Temptation

Posted: Friday, January 18, 2008 at 5:01 am ET

The most hard-core forms of postmodern thought are generally limited to academic campuses, but the postmodern worldview is trickling down in various forms to the popular level. While postmodern literary theorists debate the meaning of "totalizing metanarratives," at the level of popular piety we see the widespread substitution of "spirituality" for biblical Christianity.



In this sense, spirituality is a project centered in the self and constantly negotiable -- more about "meaning" than truth. Where does Jesus Christ fit in all this? Darrell L. Bock and Daniel B. Wallace argue that popular culture is on a quest "to unseat the biblical Christ." They make their case in Dethroning Jesus [Thomas Nelson]..



As Bock and Wallace explain, classical biblical Christianity is being replaced by "Jesusanity." In their words:

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1038



"Jesusanity" is a coined term for the alternative story about Jesus. Here the center of the story is still Jesus, but Jesus as either a prophet or a teacher of religious wisdom. In Jesusanity, Jesus remains very much Jesus of Nazareth. He points the way to God and leads people into a journey with God. His role is primarily one of teacher, guide, and example. Jesus' special status involves his insight into the human condition and the enlightenment he brings to it. There is no enthronement of Jesus at God's side, only the power of his teaching and example. In this story, the key is that Jesus inspires others, but there is no throne for him. He is one among many – the best, perhaps, and one worthy to learn from and follow.



Biblical Christianity teaches that Jesus Christ is both fully human and fully divine. Thus, Jesus does not need to be "humanized." As the Apostle Paul taught in Philippians 2:5-11, Jesus humbled Himself to take on full and authentic humanity. So, the real issue in Jesusanity is not humanizing Jesus, but denying His deity. Christianity and Jesusanity tell two different stories and represent two very different faiths. As Bock and Wallace explain:



Both of these stories afford Jesus a great deal of respect, but they are very different stories in regard to his importance. In one, Jesus is worshipped. In the other, he is simply respected. In one, he is intimately associated with God. In the other, he points to God. In one he is the Way. In the other, he shows the way. We cannot understand the public discussion about Jesus without understanding that the discussion entails these two distinct stories.



Dethroning Jesus comes in the wake of much cultural conversation and media attention devoted to the so-called gospels of Judas and Thomas and the collection generally known as the Gnostic gospels. These texts, never accepted by the Church as Scripture, do present very different understandings of Jesus than that taught by the Apostles and confessed by orthodox Christians. These different understandings are now represented by very different portraits of Jesus in the postmodern public square. As Bock and Wallace argue:



The portrait of Jesus in the public square has led to two stories about Jesus, and this despite the fact that both of these stories have often been called Christianity. One is Christianity, while the other is Jesusanity. The distinction between the two stories has surfaced for a variety of reasons, the most relevant of which we have sought to trace in this first overview. Four basic areas have contributed to the rise of these two different portraits of Jesus: (1) historical skepticism, (2) new imagination, (3) cultural factors that have changed how we assess things, and (4) the innate desire in people to seek, cope with or understand the spiritual. Within these four areas are twelve distinct factors: (1) skepticism about institutional religion of all sorts, (2) the rise of higher criticism, (3) the new finds in archaeology, (4) a larger sea change in the way we view history (written by winners/losers), (5) a selective appeal to ancient evidence, (6) the way Christianity is taught in many religious study programs, (7) increasing media attention, (8) the appeal of public-square crossover novels, (9) the intrigue of the pursuit of a spiritual journey, (10) the cultural desire to acknowledge religious diversity, (11) the growing recognition that religion motivates people, and (12) a brittle fundamentalism.



Each of these factors plays a part, but the "increasing media attention" is surely a major factor. Much of this attention is superficial and sloppy. The National Geographic Society, for example, should be embarrassed by its sensationalism in promoting exaggerated and misleading claims about the Gospel of Judas in its magazine and on television. The authors of Dethroning Jesus helpfully debunk many of the confusing claims made in recent years, answering those who assail the integrity of the New Testament and those who promote sensationalistic claims such as the discovery of the "lost tomb of Jesus."



Of course, more is at stake here than a battle over rival intellectual understandings of Jesus. As Bock and Wallace acknowledge, "Christianity is not Jesusanity for a reason. Jesus is about more than ideas." We must never depreciate the urgency of getting the doctrine right and understanding Jesus Christ as the Bible presents Him. But Jesus demands faith, not just correct knowledge.



Jesusanity fits the postmodern mind and the postmodern mood, but it cannot save. We really do not know what Christianity is if we do not also understand what it is not.

http://www.albertmohler.com/blog_read.php?id=1038

[schrackman]

As stated many times in this thread, "prophecy" is not logical proof. Art Bell does two "prediction shows" at the end of each year. They are then evaluated the following year to see which has come through. Nobody waits hundreds of years yet, over the course of a single year, he gets a higher hit rate than Christianity ever does. I guess all these late-night callers are prophets as well.

In the first place, Michael, logical proof is not the only kind of proof that exists. Secondly, I would agree that certain kinds of prophecy, such as what you find on Art Bell's imaginative show, does not qualify as proof simply because it is not difficult to study trends in people or current events and then make predictions based on what is already known. This is similar to the astrologer or cold reader, who will get lots of things wrong before he gets anything right. In other words, his methodology will insure that he'll get something right...eventually.

Biblical prophecy, on the other hand, is quite different. It is made well in advance so that the prophet cannot be accused of employing the above methods. It is detailed, specific, not general, vague or obscure. And history has shown a confirmation of many biblical prophecies, such as the example I gave in reference to Cyrus and Jesus' prophecy of Jerusalem and the temple. So it is not going to be so easy for you do discount the evidence provided by the Scriptures. In other words, in light of the evidence that Scripture provides you for faith, you seem to me to be unnecessarily or overly skeptical.

There are many contradictions in the bible! My goodness, keep up with biblical scholars! Many of the books in the Old Testament are actually intertwined threads of at least two, maybe as many as five, different authors. That's why they are so convoluted and contradictory.

No, Michael, there are no contradictions in the Scriptures, only apparent contradictions that can be explained by either a scribal mistake or by clarification from other Scriptures or by paradox. I have dealt with so many of these with atheists that it really has become a waste of my time to even think about entertaining them any more.

Also, many books were left out when the early church put the bible together.

Okay, why don't you elaborate on this for us? Begin by telling us just when the early church put the Bible together.

[schrackman]

So yes we need to define a Christian according to the Holy Word of God

Excellent point, Javier. But atheists and skeptics don't like it when we have to define for them just what a Christian is, as it tends to take away too much fire from their arguments against Christianity.

I believe it was Justin Martyr (2nd century) who said, "He who does not follow the teachings of Christ, through he professes him with his lips, cannot be counted a Christian."

That's how this is answered to:

So how do you fit the massive displays of Christan violence and sadism through history? The Crusades, the purging of French Protestants, the glorious Inquisition, the Christian genocide of entire cultures in the Pacific Islands, the Christian collaboration with the Nazis, the "Just War" theory to allow Christians to participate in Vietnam, the use of churches as meeting places for the KKK... The list goes on and on.

[mwfanelli2]

Okay, why don't you elaborate on this for us? Begin by telling us just when the early church put the Bible together.

This has been answered several times already. Please read the thread for the reason I won't do this yet again.

In the first place, Michael, logical proof is not the only kind of proof that exists

Finally! This is what I have been saying for at least 4 pages of this thread! Faith and logical proof ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT REALITY. I have no problem with that. So why does the argument always come back to the faithful trying desperately to logically prove their faith?

I have chosen to look at the world logically. You have chosen to look at the world through the supernatural. That's all there is to it! What makes it so important to continue this thread that, by it's very nature, can never go anywhere?

[schrackman]

This has been answered several times already. Please read the thread for the reason I won't do this yet again.

I read through the threads but I failed to see where you answered to my particular question. Perhaps I'm just missing it, so if you don't mind could you point me to the post?

Finally! This is what I have been saying for at least 4 pages of this thread! Faith and logical proof ARE DIFFERENT WAYS TO LOOK AT REALITY. I have no problem with that. So why does the argument always come back to the faithful trying desperately to logically prove their faith?

I have chosen to look at the world logically. You have chosen to look at the world through the supernatural. That's all there is to it! What makes it so important to continue this thread that, by it's very nature, can never go anywhere?

I think the original essence of this thread was whether or not it would be logical for God to provide evidence for faith, not that logical proof was the only kind of evidence that could be offered for faith. Why do you restrict yourself to only one kind of evidence (and one to which, by the way, you yourself don’t always necessarily abide) while ignoring the other types of evidence provided, e.g. prophetical, archaeological, historical, manuscript?

Perhaps the real problem here in your way of thinking, Michael, is as Captain Janeway once put it to Tuvak, "Logic can be used to justify just about anything. That is its power, and its flaw!" Tuvak responds, "It was not my logic that was in error, but I."

[jgredline]

Excellent point, Javier. But atheists and skeptics don't like it when we have to define for them just what a Christian is, as it tends to take away too much fire from their arguments against Christianity.

I believe it was Justin Martyr (2nd century) who said, "He who does not follow the teachings of Christ, through he professes him with his lips, cannot be counted a Christian."

shrackman
Yep, I agree...There are self professed Christians and then there are bible believing who Christians who are doers of the word...

There are many self professed Christians in my own Church, yet their fruit says other wise...You shall know them by their fruit...This is important because to use
some of Mikes examples, what kind of fruit did Hitler, The Crusades headed by Pope leo, or the KKK put out...Do they, did they, put out good or bad fruit?