> It is the historiocal rootedness of the Judeo-Christian tradition that
> makes it above all a rational faith (as compared to all other religions)
> and also makes it critical that we understand the historicity if
> revelation--which of course is why we spend so much time asking what the
> historical import of the early chapters of Genesis really is.
Stephen Froehlich responded:
>I beg to differ, and here's why: The reason I trust the accounts
>that are found in the Bible is because God revealed himself to me. (In
>several ways, including a reading of the Scriptures, but most palpably in
>a gathering of Christians.)
I have a problem with this basis for belief Stephen. Mormons,
Hindus and many other religious folk base their faith on a personal,
subjective experience too. They too would claim that God revealed Himself
to them. That's is why it is important that we Christians have something
more to offer than feelings or opinions.
The historicity of Christ; the reliability of the manuscripts; the
confirmation of Biblical events, places and persons by scientific
investigation is one of the things that set Christianity apart from all
other religions.
The personal experience is important, in fact it's indispenable.
But we must not let such subjectivity be our sole base.
>We can't prove Christianity, if we could, then it would be a
>philosophy and not a journey.
What exactly do you mean "we can't _prove_ Christianity"?
Depending on your standard of proof I may or may not agree.
Mike Jaqua
Kalamazoo, MI
pmjaqua@pwinet.upj.com
*********************************
ALAN KEYES FOR PRESIDENT !!!!!!
*********************************