Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site ssc-vax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!harpo!decvax!ittvax!dcdwest!sdcsvax!sdcrdcf!hplabs!tektronix!uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david
From: david@ssc-vax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Failure of the Christians
Message-ID: <134@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Date: Mon, 7-May-84 15:15:50 EDT
Article-I.D.: ssc-vax.134
Posted: Mon May  7 15:15:50 1984
Date-Received: Fri, 18-May-84 00:06:22 EDT
Organization: Boeing Aerospace, Seattle
Lines: 49

[]
Daryel Akerlind:

>From what I have been reading in net.religion lately, the Christians have
>been challenged with a question regarding their belief, and they have failed
>to meet that challenge.

I don't think so.  Net.religion is polarized between Christians and
non-Christians (with a tiny smattering of articles in catagory "other").  All 
the mail I've recieved is just as polarized; people think I am doing a great
job of defending Christianity or a lousy job.  The evidence seems to indicate
that the basis for such judgements are the predispositions of the judge.

>     1. The objective evidence for Christianity is not strong.  It is 
>certainly not stronger than the evidence for some other religions.
>     2. The subjective evidence for Christianity is very much the same as the
>subjective evidence for other religions.  Certainly, it is not stronger.
>     So, how do you Christians justify your belief?
>Surely, you Christians feel challenged by points 1 and 2.  Surely, in your own
>mind, you feel called upon to answer that challenge.  Please sit down at your
>keyboards and answer honestly and openly.

Here is my honest and open answer.

No, I do not feel challenged by points 1 and 2, nor do I feel "called upon" to
answer that challenge.  Because that's just what it is; a challenge; a request
to enter into a debate (or verbal battle).  Most of the Christians on this net
are not here to enter a debate.  I am personally willing to discuss 
Christianity with anyone who asks honest questions of me.  This is best done
by mail, as such correspondence is not so easily sidetracked with public
comments;  I am usually in active correspondence with 4 or 5 netters at a time
(BTW, the quality is usually much better than the public forum).  

As an aside, what measuring stick you use to examine and compare subjective
evidence; i.e., A's subjective evidence is better than B's?

>Christians point to certain historical evidence that Jesus actually existed.
>That evidence is weak.

I do not think that the evidence is so weak.  See Josh McDowell's "Evidence that
demands a verdict".  Albright has some good stuff for archeology-oriented 
people.

>The most convincing evidence, in a Christian's mind, is probably subjective.

A relationship IS subjective.

	-- David Norris        :-)
	-- uw-beaver!ssc-vax!david