Quote Originally Posted by Rhabbi View Post
Being a Christian does not mean that I cannot admit my doubts. There are some great treatises written by Christians through the years as they struggle with doubt and questions. The writings of Mother Theresa reveal her struggle with faith.

Being a Christian is about persevering through doubt. I began my life as an agnostic, and my journey led me to belief in YHWH. I never doubt that He exists, but I sometimes find that what I believe about Him is wrong. A scientist may question a theory without questioning the laws that underlie that theory.

I am a Christian, just not one of those that thinks he knows everything because he believes in God.

My faith does come from a line of reasoning that will not stand up to a logical analysis. This does not make my faith less real, or even invalid. That also does not mean I am not willing to present a basis for my faith through argument. It just means that I acknowledge a inability to prove my faith through logic.

Does the fault lie in my faith? My ability to use logic? Or perhaps in logic itself? My belief is that it is the latter, because in order to make a logical argument proving the existence of God we would first have to agree on a definition of god, something that is impossible under logic.
One of my heroes, Kirkegaard agrees with you. He said something like, a Christian, (ie follower of any faith) who doesn't question their faith can't call themselves Christian, (or what ever) because they don't know why they are Christian, (or the followers of any faith). So I'm all with you there.

But I wonder about this; do you really mean "persevering through doubt"? Doesn't that imply that you are trying to cling to your faith when it is tested? Isn't that just another way of saying that you want to affirm your belief rather than to seek the truth? Or am I missing something?

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but can a person really call themselves followers of the Christian faith if they keep a door open for atheism? Not to mention all the other myriad of versions on the supernatural theory we've had through history? The Christian theory is extremely specific, isn't it?

I actually think you are wrong when you are saying that your faith isn't a rational decision. I'm sure that you must think that it is on some level rational or you wouldn't be honest to yourself. Again, it is all about which kind of evidence you accept. If you accept that voices in your head may be god talking to you then it is a fully rational choice by you to be Christian. And the inference from this that it is the deity as described in the Bible. Others can question the validity of your quite rational choices. But I don't for a second believe it was a whimsical choice you made, which is what you get when your choice isn't based on reason. Right?

Just because logic can't be used to prove the non-existence of god, it surely can be used to prove it's existence?