From: utzoo!decvax!duke!unc!tim
Newsgroups: net.religion
Title: Re: Testing Christianity
Article-I.D.: unc.4781
Posted: Tue Mar 15 15:46:27 1983
Received: Tue Mar 22 19:03:46 1983
References: tektronix.1017


Since my reply doesn't seem to have gotten to teklabs!bobb, and he
has posted his article to the net, I'm posting my reply to the net.
In the following, all the indented copy is from his bobb's letter
to me, and all else is mine.

	Subject: Evidencies for Christianity and the Bible

	The basic difference between Christianity and other religions is that
	the Christian God is a living God who is personally involved with each
	individual. No other religion can make this claim.

I don't know of many religions that do *not* make this claim. I don't know
of any religion at all that couldn't make this claim if they wanted to,
despite what you say.

	The test for the claim is that the results in an individual's life are
	as stated. The basic claim is a familiar verse "For God so loved the
	world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in
	him should not perish, but have everlasting life." (John 3:16) As I
	stated in one of my articles, we are all guilty of breaking God's law:
	"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and
	men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil."
	(John 3:19) Trust in Christ removes the penalty: "There is therefore no
	condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the
	flesh, but after the Spirit." (Romans 8:1)

	The claim is not only forgiveness but also a new ability. The position
	of man is accurately described by Paul: "for what I would, that do I
	not; but what I hate, that do I."  (Romans 7:15) But, "Therefore, if
	any man be in Christ, he is a new creature: old things are passed away;
	behold all things are become new." (2 Corinthians 5:17)

I've read most of the Bible. What you must realize is that quoting the Bible
only carries weight if you've already accepted it. I could quote you many
verses from the Koran that make similar statements.

	Since the claim is an individual claim, the test must be an individual
	test.  While I agree that 'Individual salvific experiences are not
	evidence unless it can be shown that they differ in quality and
	"reality" from those of other religions,' I believe that they do so
	differ. "I know God is alive; I talked to him today" is the Christian's
	experience.

How do you know they differ? Have you had any of them? The intensity of your
experience, which you mention in that last sentence, doesn't mean that a
Hindu couldn't feel the same way about Vishnu. "I know that Vishnu is alive;
I talked to him today."

	I was brought up in a Christian environment, so I don't have a dramatic
	conversion story to tell. However, I have had, and know others who have
	had, experiences that convince me that God is truly alive. I believe
	that these experiences cannot be duplicated by other religions. If you
	wish to disregard such experiences and believe that those who have
	them are lying
	or have been fooled, then of course you may.  But I note with interest
	that in most of life (including on the UNIX net), personal experiences
	are requested and valued as an aid in forming opinions. Yet experiences
	with Christianity are often discounted as valueless.

You say I can't dismiss the experiences of Christians, but must dismiss
the experiences of those of other faiths. Why should I treat you specially?

	The experiences of others can be no more than aids. The test must be a
	personal one. "Seek and ye shall find." (Matthew 7:7) The way for an
	individual to test this claim is to seek and discover whether or not
	he finds. (I must add, however, that the "seeking" must not be seeking
	after merely an experience or a proof that God exists. It must be based
	on a desire to find God's plan and accept the forgiveness, power, and
	change it offers.) Until you have individually tested God, you will
	never know that He is real. I urge you to do this.

I have. Yours is not the only God I have so tested; I tried not to enter
the search with preconceptions of what God would be like, since I would
no doubt find exactly what I expected to find. I suggest that you have
not done this, but only attempted to find a clearer image of the God
you had already accepted. I had religious experiences within the contexts
of many faiths, which is why I cannot take such a short-sighted and
limiting view as that of Christianity, or any single faith.

	In addition to its claims, the Bible contains statments which can be
	tested to determine whether or not they are true. Some of the strongest
	objective evidence are the fulfilled prophecies concerning Israel.
	The theme of a regathered Israel in the latter days runs throughout the
	Old Testament.  For many years Christians who believed this were laughed
	at. Today we see the reality in the headlines. Consider Ezekiel's
	prophecy of a  ". . .land that is brought back from the sword, and is
	gathered out of many people, . . .the mountains of Israel, which have
	been always waste: but it is brought forth out of the nations. . . ."
	(Ezekiel 38:8). This is a good description of the present nation of
	Israel. The passage tells of a future attack upon Israel by "Gog, the
	land of Magog, the chief prince of Mesech and Tubal." (Ezekiel 38:2)
	These names have long been identified with tribes that settled in
	Russia,
	which lies to the north of Israel and is her foe today. There are many
	more such prophecies.

Israel was created in deliberate fulfillment of the prophecies; if the
prophecies had been different, so would Israel have been. You are talking
about a classic example of self-fulfilling prophecy. As to the identification
of tribes with Russians, who has done the identification? Hal Lindsey?

Feel free to respond, but don't expect me to not point out the absurdities
of your rationalizations. I would also appreciate a little less jingoism
where other faiths are concerned.

Tim Maroney
decvax!duke!unc!tim