Muslims believe the same, too. Hence the "claim" that the Quran can never be corrupted.
There is no "pre-condition" james, what is required is the initial recognition that the individual has sin in their life and that it has separated them from God.
Again, this is your faith. However, there is NO WAY you can arrive at this conclusion about your chosen deity, without people telling you about this "property" of the deity. This is a problem that arises precisely because faith in a particular dogma and the associated deity relies on scriptural knowledge of the same, and is thus a pre-condition. You wouldn't be a Christian without having access to the Bible men have brought to you, would you?
Supply scripture to support your construct james - you may learn something in the process. Fundamental point no. 1 - they are not 'saved' because they are ignorant of God, they are not saved because they sin. It is sufficient to inform then that they are in need of a savior. At such point, as they seek after the truth of God, God has promised in scripture he will be found by them. The exact mechanism for the development of that final step is not spelled out. What is spelled out is that God will reach out to those who reach out to him.
Muslims believe the same, too. Hence the "claim" that the Quran can never be corrupted.
The koran doesn't stand the scrutiny on a daily basis as the Bible does. INteresting to note that atheists spend their time attacking Christianity and not islam.
Again, this is your faith. However, there is NO WAY you can arrive at this conclusion about your chosen deity, without people telling you about this "property" of the deity.
Oh really - so very confident of you james - you've become all knowing now? The same statement could be made of atheism I suppose. The point of the issue is that I arrived at this conclusion from multiple avenues of investigation. But the fundamental point is that atheists like you can't handle Jesus, can't handle textural criticism, can't handle the externals of the development of the church, can't handle the resurrection. It isn't a great wonder that many Christian apologists are former atheists who challenged these claims james. But since you can't read my mind in-spite of all your bravado, you statement is still invalid.
This is a problem that arises precisely because faith in a particular dogma and the associated deity relies on scriptural knowledge of the same, and is thus a pre-condition. You wouldn't be a Christian without having access to the Bible men have brought to you, would you?
I wouldn't be a Christian today if it wasn't for the LIVES I witnessed in those who eventually brought me to the bible james. I further wouldn't be a Christian if it wasn't for the supernatural calling by God on my life leading me to him and out of a family situation that was counter to such an endeavor.
When balanced against all the evidences james, the bible wasn't necessary to judge me of my sins - I knew them well enough on my own to recognize my badness. What the bible does provide is a communication record on how to know God and when put to the test - historically, contextually, internally, externally, textural critically and experientially I found it to be reinforced on every level.
Your presupposition (learned from someone else's teachings) is that there is no god - therefore there can be no inspired writings from same god. Mine is focused on Jesus Christ and his resurrection. Is there a degree of faith in that - yes - but not from just the bible - but from the results of that event. Nothing else - not even atheism's bleats - can adequately explain that event in a logical, substantive manner.