trav<<OK,..look through Christianity's history,..then look through the history of Godless regimes,and tell me which fared worse,>>well im looking at iraq getting bombed back to the stone age[ditto palistein]in a few days iran..id say its pretty clear, who fared worse[what was the xtian crusades/witch burnings about..lol

<<who committed worse atrocities etc...Hint:..It's not Christianity.>>..mate your forgetting the inquisition in europia[or the anilation of the aztecs by spanish/bolcchovic/xtian mercenaries..[or busche and co..bring down building 7..911..[or the events of 7/7 where xtian security agencies set up muslim/stooges to take the fall

mate it must be re-asauring thinking one kettle blacker that the pot bellied xtian/zionista tutonic elites..ripping off the xtian govt tax payers..via huge lies and deceptions,..

via a media selling us out with red flag disinfo and black swan events..[like timmy mcveigh,..the govt operative set up to take the fall for yet another red-flag event..planned and exicuted via the xtian securities industry..[running the drug industry to finance their black-ops]

mate its a case of who does what being revealed and reviled for that they are known to have done..[not that they are accused to do..[like wepens of mass destraction[or them pennytraitors..lest we forget..[was all supplied by xtian[usa]

[or the sulpher-bombs dropped on palistein gulages..made in xtian usa[not doudt all church going evangelisers..[hoping to fullfill end time delusions and the messiahs return..via yet another amogeddon[noting he didnt come the last time..at the end of the first milenium..when the first ape-pox-o-lips occured]

then we get to the xtian/socital scientific fraud..to bring in the new car-bon tax...lol..using the high priests of greenie/science..[the neo[new]religion]

"OK, look through Christianity's history, then look through the history of Godless regimes,..."

not the point. the point is that you recognized an "islam" there which is open to criticism, while seemingly deflecting any similar criticism of "christianity". if islam is the sum/average/"best"/whatever of its practitioners, then so is christianity.

"As should have been clear from the context, I'm referring to any theism which anyone actually subscribes to. "

fair enough. take your pick:

http://www.graveyardofthegods.org/deadgods/graveyard.html

"My contention is that the Christian God makes complete sense of rationality. "

dear god, yes, i know that's your contention. christians on OLO are forever contending their blessed little hearts out.

what you are not doing is arguing for or justifying your contention. making the same claim over and over, or making a remark which amounts to "you just gotta get it" is not an argument. it's simply faith. that's fine. just don't pretend it's an argument.

Regarding the issue of evolutionary biology, can I suggest that people have a read of Francis Collins' 'The Language of God'? Collins was the Director of the Human Genome project, is a strong evolutionist, and a committed Christian. He makes a very strong case as to why there need be no conflict between science and religion. To the contrary, they can and should happily coexist.

Nils,
I haven’t read ‘The Language of God’ by Collins. But Christians who also hold to evolution are by no means rare.

As for the supposed conflict between science and religion, there need not be one and there largely isn’t one. The only conflict here is between biblical and naturalist views of history. In the everyday, practical sciences, both theist and non-theistic scientists work alongside one another pretty happily independent of their stance on theism.

One of the main questions addressed by the author of this article, Stephen, is why so many educated people in the West accept the creationist view? Might it just be because they find their arguments compelling?

Bushbasher,
What do I mean by ‘basis for reason’? I am asking how we can be confident that our thinking is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable. I’ve previously posed the question of how we can trust what flows from the chemical secretions in the brain of a hair challenged monkey. For at base, this is what we are if the naturalists are correct. Evolutionists at heart are naturalists, for they seek to find a solution for who we are outside of any reference to God or things spiritual.

I still invite an answer to that question.

Shadow,
I can agree with much in your last post. However, instead of the term prejudice, I prefer the term presupposition. (Another term with related meaning is the word hypothesis). That is, we usually start with certain presuppositions before even venturing an investigation.

Everyone has certain bias and prejudice. Could we deny this? Some Christians are quite open about theirs. For instance, I would quite openly declare that I believe the Bible to be inspired by God.

Now, if this is my presupposition, like a detective, I’ll use this to theorise what I might expect to see in the natural world, and how my presupposition matches reality. If it gave no good leads, then I’d be, as you say, burdened.

"What do I mean by ‘basis for reason’? I am asking how we can be confident that our thinking is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable. ... I still invite an answer to that question."

dan, i don't know on what level you want an answer. we see science work every day, with everything we do. but if you want to get philosophically deep, then that's fine.

but it's not my job to answer such a question. the fact that i (anyone) don't know the answers to ife, the universe and everything is not an argument for a god. except a god of the gaps.

it's your job to explain why proposing a god helps. further, either you have to argue why an arbitrary god helps, or why your particular god is not arbitrary. then, please tell me how you can be confident that your thinking about this god is accurate, worthwhile, and reasonable ...

or, are we back to "you just gotta know"?

Oliver,

Thanks for being more specific. But if you are clinging onto some hope that it is only apostates that can commit the unforgivable sin, then you need to cross-reference the passage with other accounts to get to the bottom of it.

In Mark 3:27, the same passage is repeated, adding a bit more gravitas: “But whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit will never be forgiven; he is guilty of an eternal sin”.

But why is this sin eternally unforgivable when “all the sins and blasphemies of men will be forgiven”? What about the murderers, the child abusers the rapists?

Scripture contains an important disclaimer: a necessary precondition for forgiveness is repentance, and repentence comes through belief in Jesus.

Although there is no need to venture further than the preceding verse (Matthew 29): “He who is not with me is against me, and he who does not gather with me scatters.”...we can flick over to John (3:18, 3:36) where the act of permanently rejecting Christ leads to condemnation and judgment.

Even if we simply look at the whole event (which the quote from Matthew refers to) in more detail, Jesus describes what blasphemy looks like in action: the scribes and Pharisees had just attributed Jesus’ miracles to the work of the devil instead of to God.

As Isaiah warned, “Woe to those who call evil good and good evil” (5:20).

Thus, speaking against the Holy Spirit is equivalent to rejecting Christ with such finality that no future repentance is possible.

So it is not the reserve of believers to “blaspheme against the Holy Spirit”, although it is tempting to declare “not guilty” if you don’t understand who or what the Holy Spirit, and what His role in salvation, is.

For these answers, John 16:8, 1 Corinthians 2:12-14 and Acts 7:51 are in agreement: it is the Holy Spirit who persuades and enables men to accept Christ and enjoy the saving benefits of the gospel.