"Bob Crowley" <bobcrowley@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message
news:adff117.0308091510.7cf6ec6@posting.google.com...
> "Pope Dilbert" <Vatican@NYC.com> wrote in message
news:<E3%Ya.68576$Oz4.17265@rwcrnsc54>...
> >
> > No one has to prove he did not; it is the claimants who have to prove he
did
> >  ... if they claim it as fact.
> > They haven't., they won't, they can't.
>
> We don't have to prove it and we cannot.  Christians are expected to
> believe it.

That depends on the claims you make.
If you claim "I believe in god" - you have nothing to prove.
If you claim "god exists" - then you have something to prove.


>
> To Thomas, in John 21:29, the resurrected Christ told him to examine
> His wounds, and then said after Thomas' acceptance of His resurrection
> - "Have you believed because you have seen me?  Blessed are those who
> have not seen and yet have come to believe."
>
> So even a disciple as intimately acquainted with Christ as Thomas, who
> had shared the experiences of 3 years of miracles etc. would not
> believe until he had seen the risen Christ.  No doubt in his mind were
> the other instances of false Christs who had been part and parcel of
> Jewish life at the time. So he'd believe it when he saw it.
>
> You and Thomas probably have a good deal in common.

No. My reality can be supported with evidence.


>
> Granted a "belief" would be a lot easier to sustain if miracles were
> regularly performed by His followers, but even then the skeptics would
> assume every single miracle was a fraud of some sort.

Why not?
They have been shown either that, or scientifically explainable.
There are only a few left that are "scientifically" unexplainable ... and
that's ALL they are ... scientifically unexplainable.
To make any claim other than that - you MUST show evidence to support the
other claim.