Imagine Pentecost happened today...

[Gorgias]

This is one of the things I was trying to point out when I was talking about valuing a personal experience, a miraculous one even, and juxtaposing it to the act of preserving its memory for the world’s collective history.

Hmm… doesn’t reading the Acts of the Apostles, and valuing the personal experiences recorded there, count for anything? After all, it’s more that “preserving the memory of the event”, isn’t it?

But when you tell me that an actual living dinosaur is in this world, right now. You’re going to have to be convincing by the standards of the age (photographs, DNA, everything).

Nope. You’re missing my assertion about ‘repeatability’ – unless you tell me that you control God and that you control God’s actions, you can’t claim that you must necessarily, therefore, have access to “photographs, DNA and everything.” After all, there are many events that happen that have no photographs that attest to them. There are plenty of events that are real that don’t have DNA evidence associated with them. It’s unrealistic to expect, then, that absence of evidence implies evidence of absence in this case!

And like it or not, the ‘standards of the world’ and standards that are reasonable tend to overlap.

Actually, they don’t. Is it reasonable to expect that there be anything more than records of eyewitness accounts written by third parties? Is it reasonable to expect that there be physical evidence of things for which those in 1st century Palestine wouldn’t collect evidence? Of course not. Yet, these are the ‘standards’ that the world holds to … at least today. And these are the standards that scoffers ask believers to produce. There’s no overlap there.

Likewise, the OP’s scenario should understand that how we demand evidence for a present event and how we rely on something else to prove a past event can be two different things.

Fair enough.

It’s one thing for someone to ask for some faith. It’s another to make sweeping remarks that those who lack a certain brand of belief as unwelcome or unworthy.

Hmm. What’s the “certain brand of belief” that you’re railing against?

 

[Lost_Wanderer]

Nope. You’re missing my assertion about ‘repeatability’ – unless you tell me that you control God and that you control God’s actions, you can’t claim that you must necessarily, therefore, have access to “photographs, DNA and everything.”

That’s not what I meant. Suppose I say I found proof there is a lost kingdom of gnomes living under my building. I bring back a magical stone that would open a gateway to it as proof. There is only however, one such stone. Therefore it lacks the repeatability that you’re implying. This gives the stone historical value but at the same time, its rarity should indicate just how powerful living, present proof can be even if faith has its own merit. Otherwise, what good is any piece of evidence at all? The fact is it is important for a person in the present context to always consider delivering sound, solid proof no matter how difficult the acquisition might be.

And I repeat, we are talking about proof for the present and proof for the past. I have to take the past at the face value of remains. However, you try pulling that sort of stunt with me for a present event and I might as well think you’re a con man. That’s why, should Pentecost happen at this very moment, I wouldn’t blame a man name Thomas to make demands as wild as King Herod’s!

 

[ialsop]

Look. Guys…the word Christian means one who believes in Christ’s Resurrection. SO I dont see why everybody is soo offended that I said if you dont believe thaty you rarent christian. BY DEFINITION you cant have a christians who doesnt believe. I NEVER said anybody wasnt worthy or welcome, because as somebody else said, NONE are worthy and ALL are welcome. So calm down.

 

[Gorgias]

Look. Guys…the word Christian means one who believes in Christ’s Resurrection. SO I dont see why everybody is soo offended that I said if you dont believe thaty you rarent christian.

Well… for some folks, ‘Christian’ means a person who believes in Christ’s teachings. So, your definition is a good one – and proper! – but not the only one that all believe in.

BY DEFINITION you cant have a christians who doesnt believe.

There are those who would disagree, but who nonetheless call themselves ‘Christian’. If we are to “make disciples of all nations,” we need to recognize that there are those who disagree with us, and evangelize them in charity.