Re: [Bulk] RE: [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus?

[Lance Muir]

Could you shorten up that replay a bit? One only has so much time you know? ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: May 10, 2005 13:25 Subject: [Bulk] RE: [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus? Whatever.   From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Debbie Sawczak Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 8:18 AM To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus?   This might be clearer, Izzy, and ends up with agreement, so read to the end: the same tension between the two ways of knowing still appears in what you wrote below. By submitting all claims to the criterion of proof, I didn't mean you go out looking for proof or can't believe without proof, I meant that you are prepared to give final authority to that way of knowing. However, when you say things like "I have a hard time even writing something so ridiculous" (with reference to the idea that there could be proof that God does not exist), that is my clue that you are just giving lip-service to the authority of that way of knowing ("proof"), and your real way of knowing is faith. We have that in common. Ultimately faith is the only way of knowing anything. (And it doesn't mean irrationality.)   Debbie    ----- Original Message ----- From: Debbie Sawczak To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 9:06 AM Subject: Re: [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus?   I understand, Izzy.     Debbie   ----- Original Message ----- From: ShieldsFamily To: TruthTalk@mail.innglory.org Sent: Tuesday, May 10, 2005 6:42 AM Subject: [TruthTalk] Proof of Jesus?   Izzy's stance below is an attempt to have one's cake and eat it too: to live by a system in which all truth claims must be submitted to the criterion of "proof" while at the same time exercising, about this particular truth claim, a confidence that is independent of proof.   Debbie   Where’d you get that assumption, Debbie?  My stance is no such thing—that is only your inference.  I never required “proof” to believe, and don’t require “proof” to continue to believe.  But, since you were the one to ask the question, if you COULD prove to me that Jesus wasn’t “real” I would have to no longer believe in Him, or live in total denial of actual proof.  That isn’t faith; it’s insanity. Faith triumphs over doubt—not over actual reality.  I can have all the faith in the world that the gravity doesn’t exist, but that doesn’t get me anywhere.  If God could be proven to not exist (I have a hard time even writing something so ridiculous) it would be foolish to continue to believe, as there would be no possible purpose or reward for it.    Perhaps you have decided ahead of time to believe in spite of real proof to the contrary because you think it is possible that He can actually be proven untrue? I have no fear of it, and don’t go seeking after proof for that reason—I need no reassurance that Jesus is the Way the Truth and the Life. He is my every breath. Izzy