Summations Only

You're going to have to supply evidence of what you are talking about.

You said there are lots of examples of Muslims being willing to die for their faith at the hands of others, but I don't know of any that are so certain as you seem to think. Perhaps there are, but you'd need to convince me.

Try comparing soldiers willing to die for America today with Christians being willing to die rather than recant their faith when given a choice. I don't see a lot of psychological similarity myself.

I don't know. The Crusades were more like an attacking army in what became a war, than quite what I have in mind. I think I'd need to see an individual Muslim threatened with the rack if he doesn't recant.

I read up on it HEREThat's a lie. The rack? The iron maiden? Do you mean perhaps the boring of a hole in the tongue of those who blasphemed the Trinity? It's a kind of torture but it's basically just a mode of punishment along lines practiced back then. And besides who would blaspheme the Trinity? Both Protestants and Catholics affirm it. After a lot of political chaos and confusion the Puritans got into power and took away Catholic rights, whereas when the Catholics were in power they maneuvered things so that Catholics had all the power. Big political mess.Yes the Puritans did outlaw Roman Catholicism when they were in power, which they'd done in all the colonies as a matter of fact. The Constitution's granting religious tolerance to Catholics was treachery against the Protestant colonies.And again, there was no torture. Miscreants got hanged or punished in various ways when either side was in power. But no torture. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

OK, I'll concede the point. I'd still like to know about how Muslims would deal with the rack when threatened with it or recanting.

I didn't mean to discount dying for 72 virgins, I'm just interested in knowing how long that enticement would hold up if threatened with lengthy torture for not recanting.

I just wonder how long a Muslim will hold on to his belief if threatened with lengthy torture. I think that may be the ultimate test. I'm sure that anticipating death in a suicide bombing could be anxiety-provoking but they know it's going to be over quickly and I'd suppose they could sustain their hope of reward for killing some Jews or Christians that long.

I'll concede this too since apparently there's no way to make the case. I do rather think that the history of Christians dying for their faith in the tens of millions over the centuries -- eaten by lions, burned as torches for Nero's gardens, tortured in horrendous ways, burned at the stake down through the centuries -- adds up to a testimony to the truth of Christianity, but I can see that there's no way to prove it to others.

Nothing "funny" about it. Roman Catholicism had been thoroughly discredited by the Reformers as completely unchristian and the papacy as Antichrist. Their history of persecuting anyone who would not submit to their antichristian doctrine made them untrustworthy so they were deprived of political rights wherever Protestants had any knowledge of all this. In England they finally disbarred Catholics from the throne, after Bloody Mary's reign and the propensity of the RCC to attack Protestants and their attempt to blow up King James. In America the colonies were founded by Protestants who knew the history of Rome in Europe. Too bad all that has been forgotten over the last century or two. Maryland seems to have had a rather aberrant history compared to the norm,.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Catholic Church in the Thirteen Colonies

I figured your lack of information that required me to read up on Maryland deserved a bare link. Or less.Yes that was the point of the post. Protestants did not want Catholics in the original Colonies. There were degrees and variations but that was the overall trend. Because of their history in Europe. As I already said. Which you nastily and rudely and falsely denied.Religious toleration is nothing but suicide with religions that want to rule the world and kill people who refuse to believe as they do, or behead them and that sort of thing. The Puritans may have overdone their exclusionary principles but that can hardly be compared with the murder of fifty million by the Antichrist papacy. Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

There isn't any other way to know God than spiritually because God is Spirit: When we are born again, which means "quickened" or made alive, the idea is that our spirits have been brought to life. The idea is that in our natural state the spiritual part of us is dead due to original sin, we are "dead in trespasses and sins" as scripture puts it, and unable to know God. But when we come to believe in Christ our spirits are brought to life through the power of the Spirit of God given to us because of our faith in Christ's death and resurrection. Death came by the sin of Adam, but life, true life or eternal life, by Jesus Christ: With a resuscitated spirit we now can begin to know God who is Spirit. This drives me nuts every time someone says it because scripture records many ways "God has presented himself ...that produces actual evidence." What do you think all the miracles recorded there were but God's kind presentation of the evidence you all keep clamoring for? He provided miracles for the Israelites to believe in Him as the one true God, most of which I'm sure you know, and gave them at various times according to the need of the moment. To prove He is the Creator God who has power over all material Creation. Gideon needed to be sure God was calling him and asked God to put dew on the fleece and not on the ground, and another time to put dew on the ground but not on the fleece so he could believe. Why do you need God to do the same for you now when He already did it then? Then Jesus Christ did so many miracles to prove He was the Messiah you can hardly claim He left you without evidence.But of course you do, and that's your own fault, because the evidence is all there.=========================
P.S. on knowing God:
Scripture doesn't positively describe knowing God but there are some references to those who don't know God, meaning those who don't believe, which implies that believers do know God. This may be a different sense in which you are discussing it though, as it is more about knowing the true character of God than personally having a relationship with Him: Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Strictly speaking I don't think that is "hearsay," certainly not when we're talking about multiple witnesses to the same event. That would be ridiculous when the only physical evidence available is in the past and all you have is what the people who saw it say about it. (abe: "We all saw him shoot her but then they both fell overboard and we couldn't find them and never saw them again." /abe)As Jesus said, "Blessed are those who did not see but believed." He was talking about Thomas who refused to believe what all his friends had told him about seeing Christ risen. He had to see for himself. In that case Jesus graciously gave him the physical evidence he wanted, but then told him it would have been better to believe those trustworthy witnesses.And now, two thousand years after the written evidence was given it's all we have too, and blessed are we if we believe it. You aren't going to get any more physical evidence, He gave plenty and He gave plenty of trustworthy witnesses to it. We are told to "believe" after all. Faith is the way we learn anything in Christianity.And I'm afraid I have to laugh at the idea of Koranic or Hindu or Buddhist miracles. There's some odd stuff the Hindu gurus can do, weird manifestations of sparkly things out of the atmosphere, and milk on statues. Similar to Romanism with its weird blood on statues, same thing. I'm not sure about Buddhists though my Zen priestess friend had lots of personal supernatural experiences on that same level, demonic manifestations mostly. I had some experiences of that sort myself, they do serve as evidence for the supernatural at least, though not for God. Zen people don't believe in God. And I'm not aware that Islam has any miracles.In any case there's nothing in their written testimonies designed to prove the existence of God as there is in the Bible, and nothing in any religion anywhere near that order of evidence.But oh well, ho hum. just another way evidence is ignored when it proves what you don't want it to prove, right? That's what you always say about me, but it's certainly true about your argument here.ABE: Just a clarification: To "know" God from the physical evidence isn't to know any more than that He exists and has that sort of power. When I said He can only be known spiritually I was speaking in personal terms of how individuals can come to know Him through interactions with Him, through answered prayer for instance.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

Amazing how evidence can be so easily dismissed. LOTS of evidence over millennia yet, with multiple witnesses to all of it.My faith is based on trustworthy witnesses to the evidence.You might as well have faith in the man in the moon, Percy, if you have no evidence behind your "faith." In spite of yourself, though, you ARE trusting in witnesses, aren't you? Because your "faith" is in something conventionally considered to be at least borderline Christian, which you could only get from other people who believe it. Otherwise why not have faith in a sea monster you dreamed about once, or the man in the moon as a manifestation of "God" etc.Am I "chastising" you? Thought I was proving you wrong, isn't that standard debate? Edited by Faith, : No reason given.Edited by Faith, : To add Percy quote at top