:ae: writes:
Hardly. I am familiar with several Christians who do not agree with you on this issue, and I did not while I was a Christian. Certainly the authenticity of one's faith does not hang on one's stance with regard to this one issue, does it?
I too am familiar w/ Christian's that do not agree with me on this. In fact, for most of my Christian life I did not. This is why I said it reinforces my suspicion as opposed to saying "it proves beyond a shadow of a doubt." The general premise being that non-Christians are generally (not always) more doctrinally ignorant of biblical principals than actual Christians.
As an aside, I should note that in my own Christian walk I did not experience the peace and joy I do today until I started embracing this doctrine. You might say I didn't believe it until I saw it at play in my own life.
Incidentally, I gave Crashfrog a little more detailed explanation of what I think authentic Christianity entails. You're welcome to look at that if you've not already.
:ae: writes:
You might want to reconsider how you phrased this response, as it seems reasonable to infer from your statements that you believe that an "unregenerated human" can act rightly without the "power of God" whereas Christians cannot. Doesn't sound like much of an incentive to be Christian if in the process of regeneration one loses the ability to act independantly right.
You think that's bad consider the Wonderful Cross hymn: "Oh the wonderful Cross, bids me come and die to find that I may truly live."
Or again when Jesus says something to the effect "whoever loses his life for my sake will find it"
The prospect of losing the only life one knows in exchange for the unknown can certainly be viewed as a disincentive. Almost makes you wonder why anyone would become a Christian doesn't it?
Of course, from a biblical perspective, ones perceived ability to act independantly right is hardly acceptable in the eyes of God, but I'll spare you the scripture references and justification.
:ae: writes:
This does not resolve the plain contradiction in the last sentence. That Jesus was weak matters not to Paul's assertion that he himself is strong when he is weak which is plainly contradictory.
This appears to be more of an insult or personal opinion than a thoughtful exegesis of the quoted biblical text.
:ae: writes:
I appreciate your honesty in these statements, but please note that I cannot find them convincing.
I don't blame you and don't expect you to. The only reason I initially offered an explanation for A_Christian's humility is because I thought you were genuinely interested in the doctrine behind it. Its hard enough for an authentic Christian to accept it and probably impossible for a non-Christian.
:ae: writes:
Too often I am confronted with the "believe and you will see" argument which is obviously question begging.
From my perspective, Christian's that tell you "believe and you will see" do not understand the mechanics behind why they believe what they believe.
:ae: writes:
Which I regarded as additional poisoning the well by setting up a false premise that my failure to see as you is a result of my fallen stature and perishing future.
Considering you believe it to be nonsense, I guess I don't understand why you regard it as poison. Wouldn't you agree that poison is harmful, but what one believes to be nonsense shouldn't be(in their mind)?
:ae: writes:
Yes, but among the comparable evidences one cannot include speculative conjectures regarding the consequences of holding a certain worldview. All you have in that case is an elaboration of Pascal's wager which is horrendously flawed.
What you refer to as speculative conjecture I believe to be reasoning derived from my understanding of scripture. I understand you don't put any weight into the bible or any world views derived from it, after all, you're an atheist. But as a born again believer I do and I am perectly fine with you're thinking my views are horrendously flawed.
For that matter, maybe I'm in the wrong forum. I'll have to review some of the other threads to see if my approach will contribute much.
:ae: writes:
Yet there have been studies which do not rely on the subjective reporting of recently converted individuals, and thus establish a reliable comparison for the benefit of being a practicing participant in a given religion.
If my understanding of what constitutes an athentic Christian is correct, the duration in which one has called themself a Christian has nothing to do with it.
For some time now I've been mentoring a guy that experienced the spiritual birth (making him an authentic Christian) that turned his life upside-down two years ago. Prior to that he considered himself to be Christian as he had been attending various churches for over thirty years. Considering the verse I gave you earlier, it is certainly possible that the studies you're referring to included "many" people like my friend that think they're are Christian's but aren't.
:ae: writes:
The plain, objective fact (which I haven't seen you dispute at all) is that other religions are measurably more beneficial than Christianity.
I go to a church of nearly 4K members that is littered with wonderful "measureable" life changing testimonies. But considering you're inclination to take them with a huge grain of salt I hardly see the point in offering any examples. Therefore, proving this to you might be impossible. So be it.
You're comment also rubs against the point of predestination I've been trying to relay to you. If the God of the bible and predestination are in reality true, then Christianity is relatively unbeneficial for those not chosen. I know, duh! But considering I believe this, I think it makes putting together a cost benefit analysis of Christianity vs. other religions pointless. Mainly because I believe that those predestined by God will become Christians anyway.
John 6:37: "All that the Father gives me will come to me..."
:ae: writes:
If I am not mistaken, "what {you} have in Christ" right now is the hope for a certain future. If that is not it, what is it that you have which we can observe?
I think I've already mentioned that I absolutely love the Christian life. The faith is my source for peace, joy, guidence, and strength to continually do what I know from experience I couldn't do on my own. The future is certainly a part of the equation, but by no means is all of it.
:ae: writes:
That you inserted the word "fact" does not make these statements any less fallacious. The initial premise begs the question with regard to the criteria for being Christian, even more so because the criteria cannot be objectively observed.
Considering I believe it is impossible for someone that doesn't personally know God to believe what he has written, I don't really see any value in chasing this one any further.
Indeed the spiritual birth cannot be observed by someone that take the evidence that follows "with a huge grain of salt."
John 3:8: "The wind blows wherever it pleases. You hear its sound, but you cannot tell where it comes from or where it is going. So it is with everyone born of the Spirit."
:ae: writes:
You're absolutely right since we can objectively observe whether or not any milk is on the cereal. The same cannot be said for your "spiritual birth."
Well, yeah, it is a spiritual birth and so long as you refuse to look past the events that follow you may never be able to reconize it.
:ae: writes:
How can I be certain that you're a Christian, then?
Considering you don't accept the biblical criteria I offered that establishes what authentic Christianity is, proving this to you is probably impossible. Its almost as if you're asking me to build a sand castle on what you believe to be a lake. Thanks, but no thanks.
:ae: writes:
Your last statement is irrelevant. I need not see "past the death on this earth" to know that every human will taste the only death which we know. That you wish to equivocate the meaning of "death" notwithstanding.
Considering you're not interested in biblical interpretation or explanations I don't think there is a need to pursue this one further.
Respectfully
)ed 
™ Version 4.2