That needn't be quite as iron-clad as you set it out, perhaps. C.S. Lewis has a bit (sorry, can't say where; it's been a long time), where he proposes, to people who think they have first to believe in the existence of God before they could then put faith in Him, that they just try it out for a while the opposite way round; live your life trusting in Him (as revealed in the Bible? as mediated by Anglicanism? That would be it's own separate issue, I suppose), and see whether that lived experience doesn't give grounds for believing in His existence. I'm ninety percent sure that Lewis makes it a matter of these different definitions of "believe" that have just come up.
I thought it was a clever argument, at least, because I think Christianity is not primarily an explanation for the workings of the universe, but a frame-of-meaning for one's life.
C.S. Lewis writes extremely well and he also freely admits to being a flawed human being who came to Christ quite late. He's highly recommended. Did any of us who entered into relationships understand the gravity of what we were doing when we gave them our alleigance? I doubt this as I reflect upon my misteps in relationships. We learn by doing and sometimes appreciate the Other more due to the history of that relationship.
You're conflating 'fact' and 'evidence'. I am using the terms differently. You use evidence to create your beliefs. For example, the testimony given in Matthew is useful, but is deemed less credible (to me) since the author sometimes just makes up stuff for unknown reasons and presents them as fact. This makes the reporting of incredible events less, well, believable.
I quite like the Matt 22:37 instruction. It's why I commonly suggest Christians shuck the parts of the Bible that clearly are libelous towards God.
So I wonder, do you cut out verses from other texts when you dislike them? I wonder what libraries would look like under such censorship?
Righto. As you wish.
It makes no difference how you spell it in Latinized script. It's a transliteration.
Koran, Quran, Qur'an. Take your pick. I've used them all.
It's pertinent because you seem to take the Bible as the literal word of God. Presumably because it declares itself to be so.
The Qur'an also declares itself to be so. Why do you accept the one but not the other?
That is if you don't accept the Qur'an.
What is the basis for you not accepting it?
Interesting. It's like using the quaint word Negro. It's correct but hopelessly dated.
I have no opinion of the beliefs of those who follow Islam. I cannot persuade them not to believe and I will not comment upon the veracity of their claims.
In Christianity, and I can only speak from personal experience and education, what another believes in none of my business due to Free Will. I cannot persuade he/she to believe anything.
The path to Christianity is about being allowed to find God. Unless called by God, you could hunt forever in the wilderness and never find God. It's a choice to enter into that relationship if so called. I cannot make one person love another. At best, I can love another with all my heart, soul, and mind. I hope to find someone to love me in that depth too. It's a misnomer to think I can somehow act as an agent to alter another such that they believe in God and Jesus Christ.
The history of witnessing is about establishing an intimate friendship with another to truly care for them. How would it be possible to do this on an Internet forum, and do it effectively, so that they encounter the Gospel?
Regardless of whether I believe in the words of the Quran as valid, what could be possibly served by being intolerant on an anonymous Internet forum to attempt to dissuade them of their beliefs, which is not only a violation of Free Will, it's bad form. There's nothing considerate about that.
Well actually... I am an (alumni) member of the Whig-Cliosophical Society... but does that matter to you? Probably not, so I am not sure why you asked.
.
The horror! 
The embarrassment!... fixed
thanks
