[Sophie]

Oh, the outward manifestations of an ignoble heart! I suppose it’s no worse than the attitudes of the Christian crusaders who burned villages in the name of Jesus. Just as I was turning to spew the venom from my mind, my beautiful cat rubbed against my legs. Sadly, I bent down and gently picked him up like any loving mother would, and held him close to my heart until the world was alright once again.

[jayceeii]

I just came across this quotation from Teresa of Avila, that seems to me to be a parallel exposition to Jesus’ remarks about turning the other cheek, and also from Matthew 5:10.

“The truly humble person will have a genuine desire to be thought little of, and persecuted, and condemned unjustly, even in serious matters.” 

The question is whether righteousness can ever show its meek head, or if it is doomed to be cast into the dirt of worldliness forever, hiding itself. Truth trounced upon is still true.

[Fred]

” I’m just not willing to believe anything simply because I want it to be true”

Only those who want Christianity to be true will consider there to be adequate evidence for it. Merely being open-minded isn’t enough. I base this on my personal reading of critical scholars (who approach the Bible as standard historical documents and agree Christian faith isn’t proveable) and of apologists (who generally seek to rationalize their beliefs, often cherry picking from the work of critical scholars to “prove” to themselves they’re right).

[Lelouch]

Faith is not solely based on testimony, but rather on a combination of factors, including personal experience, reason, and evidence. Christianity, like any other belief system, is not based on blind faith, but rather on a reasoned and rational understanding of reality.

In terms of evidence, there is a wealth of historical, philosophical, and scientific evidence that supports the Christian worldview. For example, there is strong historical evidence for the existence of Jesus of Nazareth and his resurrection, which is the cornerstone of the Christian faith. The reliability of the New Testament documents has been confirmed by numerous scholars, both Christian and non-Christian.

Furthermore, there are powerful philosophical arguments for the existence of God and the truth of Christianity. These include the cosmological argument, the teleological argument, the moral argument, and the ontological argument, among others. These arguments have been developed and refined over centuries and are based on rigorous philosophical reasoning.

In addition to historical and philosophical evidence, there is also scientific evidence that supports the Christian worldview. For example, the fine-tuning of the universe for life, the complexity of biological systems, and the existence of consciousness are all consistent with a theistic worldview.

It is also worth noting that Christianity has made numerous positive contributions to society, including the development of modern science, the abolition of slavery, and the promotion of human rights and dignity.

[K]

See this is where I get stuck. A Christian asserts that there is tons of evidence for Christianity, but then said evidence is either never provided or is from another Christian. For instance, I read from a Christian source that the vast majority of historians accept the historicity of the empty tomb. However, I can’t find a single non-Christian source making this same claim.

[jayceeii]

Surely you are not saying Christians are hypocrites, saying one thing while doing another! That would be a big surprise to me. Surely their wall of text is invincible! They’re going to take Heaven by storm, inflicting their presence on God instead of finding out what He prefers. I thought of an apt nickname, the Christian bulldozer.

[Algernon]

Read your OP as well as some of the other posts that you’ve made on this thread. Have you considered adopting the gospel preached by Jesus in lieu of the gospel upon which Christianity is based which is the Pauline gospel? By doing so, you can dispense with the Christian beliefs with which you are struggling. I can understand your struggle. Many of the beliefs of Christianity are ultimately based on faith rather than reason, no matter how strongly some may disagree.

[jayceeii]

I don’t operate by beliefs. I have mountains of evidence for my story, but up to now only antagonistic listeners, trying to trip me up. No one wants to walk with me. But as the story unfolds, the path gets more difficult than the one Jesus described, or perhaps you could say His warning of a “strait and narrow” way didn’t tell half the story. You could say that I accept what Jesus said but not Paul’s interpretations. I have new interpretations.

[wonderer]

Anyone new to the forum might want to look into “narcissism (vulnerable type)” at this point.

[Algernon]

You’ve responded to my post as if you thought that my post was in response to your response to @k64 . My post was intended for @k64 .

That said, everyone has a system of beliefs and therefore has beliefs.

[jayceeii]

Sorry, I was overzealous. I think that when the posts get to a certain depth the software stops indenting and I thought the limit was reached. Your post was a very interesting one.

Yes, I do have beliefs, but I meant I don’t rely on beliefs with respect to God or salvation.

[K]

Hi Algernon,

I also thought you were responding to jayceeii – it seems the forum put your reply under his.

I have considered it. However, it really only does anything for issue #3 (Hell). I’m still left with no positive reason to believe it over any other set of beliefs. If I was forced to pick beliefs without evidence, I would probably make up my own based on what I’ve observed in life instead of taking someone else’s. Since I’m not forced to, I just admit that I don’t know what’s true.

[Sophie]

Wonderer, what do you mean by a vulnerable narcissist? Everyone is vulnerable to being mischaracterized. Let’s look at the mainstream narrative. If I chose not to get the mRNA vaccine, I was labeled anti-vax or a grand-ma killer for not “protecting” others. Now, after the fact, we find out there was no science to back up three years’ worth of malicious attacks against me. Second reference is to the trans movement. If I don’t acknowledge he as she or she as they/them, then I’m transphobic. And a third that is disturbing, is if I agree with the government narrative of spending billions of dollars to protect Ukraine, I’m a Putin sympathizer. So by the general public’s consensus, I’m an anti-vax, transphobic, Putin supporter. Go figure. Am I vulnerable to those labels? Sure, but am I those things? The answer is subjective. I never once met a vulnerable narcissist for the two descriptions are totally contradictory.

[wonderer]

Sophie,

I’l leave it to you to google “narcissism vulnerable type”.

[Sophie]

I will if you google rascal.