There are thousands of manuscripts from the second and third centuries, and even some from the first, if I remember right. What few textual changes there have been are easily traced through the manuscript record, and nothing of theological importance is in question. We can have a much better idea of what the New Testament says than pretty much any other ancient document.It was translated multiple times to and from several different languages - I find it hard to believe that nothing of great import was lost throughout the years.
There's no \"hard evidence\" for the vast majority of events in history; they aren't observable, and we're reliant on historical records. Fortunately, the New Testament's evolution is well-documented and the best source of information on the life of Christ and other elements of Christianity, and many historical facts can effectively be established without accepting the theological conclusion (for example, Jesus' crucifixion, Paul's conversion, etc.)
No. In fact, I find Christianity a challenging and difficult religion to follow. It would be much easier for me to just become an agnostic and \"eat, drink, and be merry.\" The existence of an afterlife doesn't make me lean either way - if there isn't one, I'm not going to exist anymore to cognizant and miserable over non-existence, so who cares? I am convicted in the truth of my beliefs and follow them *despite* the difficulty (and even the possibility of future persecution) they may present.If you're honest, you'll admit that and say that you believe because it's all you can do (and all you want to do).
What Drakona is proposing is not God creating an opponent \"for himself,\" but for *us*, so that we can overcome evil. However, since Independent Baptists can be pretty darn crazy sometimes, I don't find it very surprising that you would be driven away from Christianity.
Jeff, I think that your objection over the nature of good in heaven is a valid one. If I had to take a shot at this, I'd say that this world is a \"proving grounds\" for us, so to speak, and that one of the chief reasons we are placed here rather than directly in heaven is so that we can exercise free will. Christians have made a conscious, free decision to accept God's gift of salvation, so in heaven they are \"locked\" into perfect behavior because in their time on earth, they freely chose salvation.
If God had just placed all of us in an evil-less dream world we'd be little more than automatons programmed to serve God; apparently not what he wanted, at least in the Judeo-Christian view. God does *eventually* allow us to be free from the influence of sin in heaven, but allows us, in our time on earth, to decide whether or not we will follow him. It seems like a perfectly reasonable approach to me.
God can't do anything wrong; righteousness is whatever he defines it to be. That's my answer to the so-called Euthyphro dilemma. It's especially obvious when you look at the Ten Commandments, for example - God can't covet his neighbor's possessions or have any gods above himself, among others!
Sure, God could have been a brutal madman who created a world full of suffering and torment that makes the worst human atrocities seem paltry in comparison, but the Christian God's actions are defined by His nature. Nobody argues that the physical constants governing the universe don't exist because if they were different, we couldn't exist! In the same way, it seems pretty pointless to complain \"what if God was evil (by our definition)??\" when it's strictly the real world (and real conception of God) we should be dealing with, not theoretical \"other-gods.\"
