Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site iuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker
From: dsaker@iuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Failure of the Christians
Message-ID: <1700020@iuvax.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 22-May-84 13:53:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: iuvax.1700020
Posted: Tue May 22 13:53:00 1984
Date-Received: Sat, 26-May-84 10:18:11 EDT
References: <134@ssc-vax.UUCP>
Lines: 94
Nf-ID: #R:ssc-vax:-13400:iuvax:1700020:000:4873
Nf-From: iuvax!dsaker    May 22 12:53:00 1984


[]
David Norris - 
Let me thank you for at least giving some kind of a reply to my note entitled
A Challenge.  But let me say that I was very disappointed with your reply.

First, I think it is obvious that the question I posed has not been met by
the Christians.  The question is

>>>  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?

What I am asking for here is how you Christians deal in your own minds 
with points 1 & 2.  Come on, David, none of the Christians, including you, 
has answered this question.  

Now, my note stated this question directly, but it seems to me
that several other notes dealing with the issue of evidence for Christianity 
have virtually stated the same question.  None of the Christians has answered 
this question.  That is why I wrote
>>>the Christians have been challenged with a question regarding their belief,
 and they have failed to meet that challenge.        

I wasn't talking about whether they were, in general, meeting challenges.
I was talking about their failure to answer the particular question.

Also, David, you seem to have misunderstood my use of the word "challenge".
Let me quote you.
>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).  

When I wrote "Surely, you Christians feel challenged by points 1 and 2",
I wasn't calling you to do verbal battle with me.  I was using "challenged" 
in the sense of "personally challenged".  I meant that you must wonder about 
how such things can be, that you must try to explain them.  As an example, 
I was expecting some replies to say that the subjective evidences experienced
by followers of non-christian religions were caused by the devil.  

If I was a Christian, I would certainly feel challenged by, say, the spiritual
experiences of an ardent Muslim.  I can imagine asking myself: 
"How it can be that he has such experiences?  His beliefs are false.  How can 
he have these inward experiences of spiritual growth and confirmation of his 
beliefs?  Do they come from God?  Or do they come from the devil?  Or is he 
just deluded?"

So, you see, I was just asking how you Christians deal with the issues raised
by points 1 and 2.  I was asking how you, in your own heads, explain them.
I was asking a question, not requesting a verbal battle.

(BTW, it seems to me that you often debate with non-christians on the net.)

You asked me a question.
>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?

I expect that you are referring to my point 2.  I expanded on this point in 
the latter part of my note, but I will try to rephrase things here.
What I meant was that the subjective experiences reported by Christians as 
confirming their beliefs (the feeling of spiritual growth, their life coming 
together, and so forth) are very much like the subjective experiences reported
by followers of non-christian religions.  (Only the details vary according to 
the beliefs of the believers.)  Now, if Christians were the only ones who had 
these experiences, and the followers of other religions had to report that 
they had none or only very minor experiences (like feeling happier), then the 
subjective evidence for Christianity would be stronger than for these other 
religions. 

You replied to one of my statements by writing
>I do not think that the evidence [that Jesus existed] is so weak.  
>See Josh McDowell's "Evidence >that demands a verdict".  Albright has some 
>good stuff for archeology-oriented people.

I find this sort of reply really disheartening because you ignored the rest of
the paragraph within which my statement occurred.  The paragraph was

>>>Christians point to certain historical evidence that Jesus actually 
 existed.  That evidence is weak.  Besides, the evidence that, say, Mohammed 
 existed is an awful lot stronger.  BTW, there is even better evidence for the
 existence of the Rev. Moon.  That doesn't make the Moonies' claims for him 
 true.

You see, David, suppose the historical evidence for the existence of Jesus
was just as strong as the evidence today for the existence of the Rev. Moon.
That would not make Christians' claims about Jesus' divine nature true.

Finally, David, if you don't want to answer my question by posting to the net,
then you can mail your answer to me.

                                    Daryel Akerlind
                                 ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker