So, who insisted that Christianity is built entirely on faith? That’s never been my viewpoint and I’m struggling to think of even one Christian who makes this notion their line in the sand.
And yet, someone in an atheist Internet community posted this graphic and figured it would cause lots of people to nod in agreement.
But making a statement in a graphic doesn’t make it true. It would be like me insisting all atheists are militant, arrogant and patronizing. Equally false.
Before I get going here, let me make it clear that faith is definitely a key part of following Jesus of Nazareth (who many people believe is the Son of God). In fact, one of Jesus’s ancient followers spells it out: “Whoever comes to God must believe that He is real and that He rewards those who sincerely try to find Him.”
But nowhere does any of the ancient source documents about Jesus claim that evidence is irrelevant. Indeed, evidence is mentioned at key points.
Consider the resurrection of Jesus, which is one of the most important parts of Christianity. In a letter from a missionary named Paul (who spent much of his life telling people about Jesus), he wrote that after rising from the dead, “Christ appeared to more than 500 other believers at the same time. Most of them are still living today, but some have died.”
That certainly reads like evidence to me, especially as the underlying message is ‘if you don’t believe me about the resurrection, then go ahead and investigate for yourself’. If following Jesus is built entirely on faith, why would any of his ancient followers make this statement?
Here’s another example, from one of the people Jesus personally trained to follow after Him: “We didn’t repeat crafty myths when we told you about the powerful coming of our Lord Jesus Christ. Quite the contrary, we witnessed his majesty with our own eyes.” Again, more evidence.
The website FaithFacts.org has this take on the faith vs. evidence debate:
Blind faith is faith without evidence, which would be superstition. The Bible does not call us to blind faith. The Bible calls us to faith in evidence. We submit that various truth claims, including Christianity, should be evaluated on the evidence.
I can tell you, without any hesitation, that if I was called to follow Jesus based solely on faith, I probably wouldn’t be a follower today. I was presented with evidence, then asked to make a leap of faith based on that evidence and based on the logic of following Jesus. I made that leap and have never regretted it.
So, where do you stand? Does a mix of faith and evidence make sense to you when considering Jesus? If it does, have you done any research? You may have friends or family members who discourage checking out the claims of Jesus, but this is important stuff.
Do the work. And if you still have questions, check out the Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry (http://carm.org/). Or email me at fdking@hotmail.com. I’ll do my imperfect best to help.
Frank's Cottage 
Something that was allegedly witnessed by people two thousand years ago is not evidence. You believe that “evidence” on faith.
Thanks for reading and for expressing your opinion, Doug. 🙂
Our God is so amazing! Although at first, it may appear that He is distant and unknowable, just try searching for Him. And just like the Mom or Dad who is “hiding” from their toddler behind the sofa, He is quick to appear with a smile and a big hug when we set our face to seek Him!
The Bible says He is a rewarder of them who diligently seek Him. So if you diligently seek Him, He will reward you with a revelation of Himself that you cannot refute!
Great point, Brook. Thanks for contributing. 🙂
I would love to see irrefutable proof. Sadly, this is lacking. The documentation presented as such does not stand up to analysis. Furthermore, contemporary documentation which certainly should be available – isn’t.
Christianity is a mix of evidence and faith. “Irrefutable proof” is for mathematics.
When you last took a plane flight, did you insist on irrefutable proof that it was safe before boarding?
I certainly wouldn’t venture anywhere near an aircraft that was held up by the ‘proof’ offered for Christianity. In short, the arguments proving that the ‘proof’ was cobbled together afterwards outweigh those that they are genuine.
Uh, there’s no proof offered up for Christianity, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about. Perhaps you can clarify, or use a more accurate word.
What could be more accurate than ‘proof’?
You say there is evidence but no proof? Therefore the evidence is unreliable. My very point.
Please look up the dictionary definitions of evidence and proof.
Very well.
Evidence:
That which tends to prove or disprove something; ground for belief; proof. 2. something that makes plain or clear; an indication or sign:
Proof:
-something which shows that something else is true or correct
-an act or process of showing that something is true
Now perhaps you need to stop trying to hide behind semantics and admit that there is actually neither true evidence nor proof. All that remains is faith or superstition.
It saddens me that you don’t see the difference between those two definitions. I guess this conversation has run its course, so it’s now finished. 😦
and exactly none of what you post here to be considered as evidence is real evidence.
Thanks for your opinion. Perhaps some people, especially hardened atheists, believe the writer of ‘2 Peter’ was lying. I don’t.