Chronology | Current Month | Current Thread | Current Date |
[Year List] [Month List (current year)] | [Date Index] [Thread Index] | [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] | [Date Prev] [Date Next] |
I am absolutely sure there are Christian seminaries, training future
Christian pastors, that do not teach literal virgin birth, do not
teach
literal resurrection, and do not teach the deity of Jesus. The
faculty
and graduates of these institutions will be very shocked to learn they
are not Christians.
This is a surprise to me. What is the document you are referring
to?
I agree with Aaron that it is not blind faith to believe that Jesus
existed and that we have reasonable evidence of his message. But I do
think it is closer to blind faith to believe in the virgin birth, the
resurrection, and the deity of Jesus.
In the end, eyewitness accounts that conflict with established science
are extremely suspect and accepting them as truth is indeed an act of
faith.
Can you give us any examples of the evidence used to establish the
credibility of the putative eyewitness testimony? IMO, believing in
the credibility of testimony on the basis of no evidence other than
the testimony itself is at least a first or second order
approximation to blind faith.
Most religious people I know are religious NOT because they were
convinced by evidence in the Bible but rather because they "know in
their hearts" through personal experience that what they believe is
true. Examining evidence for their belief is done only to give them
insight into their beliefs, not as a test of their beliefs.