1. The difference between proof and evidence should be clear to anyone who graduated 6th grade science. Evidence leads to proof. Proof is certain knowledge. Sometimes you can't have certain knowledge (in fact most cases) but you can obtain evidence through investigation. Evidence grants rationality to beliefs and hypotheses, which are the 'conclusions'. They should be tested and retested- but often we can't ever have a final answer. Of course, blind belief without any evidence (say I told you that aliens invaded your brain last night) is irrational. Unless I give you sufficient reason to support my claim, you should not believe it. "Sufficient evidence" then, is such that it allows you to decide on an issue. It is different for everyone. My only point here is that people should think for themselves, investigate, and then decide. On anything. Don't blindly believe what you're told, don't hold irrational beliefs, and likewise- since we know that 'proof' can't be obtained in many situations, re-question and re-examine your beliefs, always seeking truth.
2. As for proof of God, I can't show you that. I can't show you that Jesus is his son (and also a part of God the being). I can show you the remarkable foresight and linkage of many different writers in different languages and cultures whose seperate accounts point to this figure. It's up to you to decide what you think on that and other things.
3. Care to elaborate on differences in the gospels? If you mean the way the accounts are given, yes I'd agree. But very little difference in the content itself.
1 OK, so proof is the result of evidence... fair enough, I'm with you on that one. I misunderstood that through talking to people who use the terms interchangeably in theological discussions.
2. That's the big problem for me. You could argue for Jesus' existence, but not for his position as messiah. Without the work of Saul of Tarsus, and the later death-bed conversion of Constantine the Jesus cult would more than likely have gone the way of all the other messianic cults of the time.
3. Well, I don't have my course notes any more, but some that spring to mind are:
the differing accounts of Jesus' genealogy and early years
Only one miracle appears in all 4 gospels, while there are 14 that appear in one gospel only
Matthew and Mark don't mention anything about Jesus being nailed to the cross, Luke and John do
John disagrees with many points in Matthew, Mark and Luke. John involves a lot of drama and is very popular with Christians, but unfortunately fails to mention the last supper, kiss of Judas, beheading of John the Baptist, Jesus walking on water, or being born of a virgin
The gospels can't even agree on Jesus last words - Compare Matthew and Mark with what is said in Luke and in John
Doesn't really fill me with confidence in the good book, know what I mean?
But that said, the message is good, and that's fine. I don't have a problem with that, but what I don't understand is why people need the alleged words of a Jewish teacher to back up what should be self-evident in terms of ethics.
There's plenty of crazy shit in the bible, some of which sounds ridiculous in this day and age..... which brings me back to the cherry-picking of parts to justify pretty much anything.
1. What is your favorite childhood memory?
Really long summers
2. If you could be reincarnated as anything besides human, who would you want to be?
A cat. Easy life
3. If you had to start your life all over, what are three things you would change?
none really
4. If you had to forget everything in your life, except one thing, what would it be?
My family
5. Do you have a lucky charm?
No
