I copied a few of those guys into google along with the claims made by The Christ Conspiracy, it didn't match up. It seems like more like wishful thinking by some atheist trying to sell books. I wonder if she would be willing to die for what she wrote like the writers of the New Testament.

------
So you understand God coming to Earth, healing sick people, raising the dead, dieing on the cross, taking the sins of mankind and coming back from the dead but if anyone believes that God created the universe they are idiotic and childish. That's funny.

You might be right. I'm going to have to rethink my position.

- Umm... I don't think I ever said that there was proof, or evidence that completely validates the Christian faith. I said there was evidence. This evidence serves the purpose of either introducing faith to someone who has never had it, or of strengthening the faith of a Christian.

- Is there a rational reason to believe that a person is NOT in control?

Note: "I haven't seen, heard, felt, etc. Him" is not a rational reason.

Make your mind up! is there or is there not evidence to validate your faith?

...if so is it still faith considering faith is belief not basen on proof?



Yes the same rational that would suggest that a crack-smoking-polka-dotted-one-legged-pygmy-hobgoblin is not in control, I have not heard, felt or seen him either...... so therefore I must not consider this as a possibility of what is in control. The burden of proof is with the one making the claim, I claim their was something, a singularity, where humans can not translate or comprehend what is beyond or prior to our own known realm. You are the one who is making the claim that you know what came before....so please.....do tell me.....

...... is there a crack-smoking-polka-dotted-one-legged-pygmy-hobgoblin in control?

- Are you seriously that illiterate, or are you playing games with me? I said:

"I don't think I ever said that there was proof, or evidence that completely validates the Christian faith"

evidence that completely validates = proof

You chose to ignore the "completely validates" part.

- Are you suggesting that not having heard, felt or seen a thing is sufficient proof that the thing does not exist?

- Are you making the claim that you know what came before, specifically a singularity, where humans can not translate or comprehend what is beyond or prior to our own known realm?

Im not playing games, merely trying to follow your ping-pong contradictions..........Okay lets go back to your initial statement.

In your next post you back track and change this too.....



but if thats not enough you then change your statement again.

So I ask once more, Is there or is there not evidence?


==========================================

If you read what I wrote, Im not suggesting anything. What I have stated is unless their is a rational reason or argument to believe something exists then it should not be the primary candidate for belief.

Those words I wrote that you quoted specifically the "......I claim their was something, a singularity, where humans can not translate or comprehend what is beyond or prior to our own known realm......." bit should answer this question with no problems.


FutureTrackStar why do you always avoid my questions and just return with your own forcing me to repeat myself over and over? If you would be so kind to answer the ones I asked in my last post as this discussion is not really progressing and Im going to bow out.

- Yes, Bananas, there is evidence. We humans are not omniscient, so everything we "know" is based on evidence. The difference is merely HOW MUCH evidence. For instance: If choosing the incorrect statement, out of the two shown below, meant certain instant death, which would you choose?

1. Dinosaurs' skin was of the same color as that depicted in Jurassic Park

or

2. Your parents existed before you became self aware at around the age of 2 or 3 (or w/e age at which we start to form memories).

Obviously you would pick the second one, because it is something you "know" (the probability of it not being true is extremely minimal based on the enormous amount of evidence you have accumulated throughout your life).

This demonstrates that everything you "know", or believe, has different amounts of evidence. From a secular point of view, the only thing that you can absolutely know for sure is that you exist, as Descartes pointed out.

That being said, there is most definitely evidence for the Christian faith. However, the amount of evidence is not so overwhelming as to convince you to the same degree as you are convinced that your parents existed before you became self aware. On top of this, I'm sure that many non-Christians will dismiss lots of the evidence as "not really evidence".... some people are obviously more skeptical than others.

- Well I hope to give some reason in the near future.

- Which means the burden of proof is just as much on you as it is on me.

- Because sometimes I think your questions have very obvious answers. I mean, really: "Is there or is there not evidence?" OF COURSE THERE'S EVIDENCE! Why would billions of people believe something if there is absolutely NO evidence for it?!

I guess this was just a miscommunication error. I meant to imply that the evidence for Christianity isn't like the evidence for the existence of the internet. But there's much more evidence for Christianity than there is for pots of gold at the ends of rainbows.

Why do you believe it is? On what evidence do you base this statement?

Horse feathers. Make up your mind. Does it have to be more reliable than any other book? Why?
Would you say, for example, that Ibn Khaldun or Thucydides or Tacitus's writings are more or less reliable than say... Harold Robbins? Are all other books more or less as reliable as the next?


Why does it have ONLY 66 books? Some Bibles have 79, some more some less. Do you have any idea how the Bible was put together?

Absolute herecy. Prophesy is not about predicting the future. A prophesy is "true" if it brings people to repentance. PERIOD. As I have suggested before.. read JONAH. The whole point of the story and why it is among The Old Testament scriptures is because it demonstrates that prophesy doesn't have to be "come true".
What you are talking about is condemned throughout the Bible as witchcraft.