Editor:

With regards to Brian Grove's letter "Columnist should not assume God is always a Christian God" (April 23), I'd like to address some of his common questions by laying down a few fundamentals of the Christian faith. An often-heard contention, which seems to be implied in Brian's title (although it may not be implied) is the idea that, "It doesn't matter what you believe - what's important is that you have your own belief." In other words, it is just the act of believing that is good, which implies that there is no absolute truth.

Well, when examined, all religions cannot be true at the same time because they teach many things completely opposite from one another. So, while they could all theoretically be wrong, they could not all theoretically be right, which means that it does in fact matter what you believe. The question is, which one, if any, are we to believe? As a fellow Christian, to answer, for John Keisling, Grove's question, "John, please enlighten me as to how your powerful and logical mind made that connection" (that God is a "Christian God"), I'd like to say that Keisling is in fact perfectly logical, as the decision to become a Christian is based on sound logic, and this faith is no more "blind faith" than any other everyday experience.

The Christian faith rests primarily on one event to ultimately back the claims of its founder, which is the resurrection of Jesus Christ from the dead. No one has ever been able to refute Christianity, due to the fact that this phenomenon has never been successfully refuted. All reasonable explanations fail to explain it, leading to one ultimate logical conclusion based on the given historical evidence (which is supported and cross-checked by eyewitness accounts of various apostles) - Jesus Christ was in fact who he claimed to be - none other than God in the flesh.

As for the "blind faith" argument, one has to examine the nature of convincing proof. Nothing in this world is certain. Decisions are made based on probability and never on absolute certainty, and if you disagree, then consider this. Decisions in a court of law are based on the probability that something happened based on presented evidence. If this evidence is lacking, then there is no case. Ideas are "proved" by showing them "beyond a reasonable doubt," as that is the best anyone can do. The same goes for, say, crossing the street. If no cars are coming, evidence suggests favorable crossing, even though no one can prove for sure you'll make it. The bottom line is, people do not stop making decisions because they cannot reach absolute certainty; therefore, it is hypocritical for Grove to say that "Christian apologists have to take a leap of blind faith and leave reason behind," because this same standard of absolute certainty cannot and is not applied to anything else.

Christianity relies on sound logic to back its faith, which is reasonable when compared to anything else one does on a normal basis, and this is, in fact, "the logic behind this momentous, theological discovery," the revelation that God is a "this momentous, theological discovery," the revelation that God is a "Christian God."

Chad McNichol
chemical engineering sophomore