Monday, April 01, 2002
You know, something just occurred to me. I'm sick of the "I'll only believe in God if he proves himself uncategorically to me" argument against belief in general and Christianity in particular. It isn't discerning, it's lazy. Of course you're going to believe something that's proven to you in such a way that you'd have to be out of your mind to dissent. When you make that argument, you're essentially saying that you're willing to do no work whatsoever to find the truth, but that you're open to being dragged kicking and screaming to where you need to be. Such a deal.
There is far more evidence that events in the Bible did happen than that they did not. I suppose it would be easiest to point out that there are very few (if any) eyewitness accounts that contradict biblical accounts. Thus, for instance, you at least twelve men (and women) who swear that Christ rose and they touched him. No dissenters, no recantations. You have the book of Exodus that describes the Jews' leaving Egypt and wandering in the Wilderness. You say that there's no evidence of this? What would you look for? These are people who wandered in the desert for forty years! They didn't build cities or anything like that. The only thing that probably was left was their own dead bodies, and the desert is notoriously harsh on bodies.
Sometimes it's just too much. Jesus said in Luke 8:8 "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." I think some people are just argmentative, and not sincere in their search. Other people think that by just listening, the truth will just magically descend on them. And there are plenty of people who are honestly searching, but either "aren't quite there yet" or who refuse to re-examine some treasured belief that's actually a hindrance. I'm sick of speaking to deaf people (no offense, Dave!).
ADDENDUM: Those who claim there is no evidence for Christ except the testimony of the witnesses, I challenge you to prove the existence of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle. For that matter, I challenge you to prove that Abraham Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater in 1865. You can't use any eyewitness accounts, and you must prove conclusively that what you believe to be the body of Lincoln actually is his, and was shot where and when purported.
There is far more evidence that events in the Bible did happen than that they did not. I suppose it would be easiest to point out that there are very few (if any) eyewitness accounts that contradict biblical accounts. Thus, for instance, you at least twelve men (and women) who swear that Christ rose and they touched him. No dissenters, no recantations. You have the book of Exodus that describes the Jews' leaving Egypt and wandering in the Wilderness. You say that there's no evidence of this? What would you look for? These are people who wandered in the desert for forty years! They didn't build cities or anything like that. The only thing that probably was left was their own dead bodies, and the desert is notoriously harsh on bodies.
Sometimes it's just too much. Jesus said in Luke 8:8 "He who has ears to hear, let him hear." I think some people are just argmentative, and not sincere in their search. Other people think that by just listening, the truth will just magically descend on them. And there are plenty of people who are honestly searching, but either "aren't quite there yet" or who refuse to re-examine some treasured belief that's actually a hindrance. I'm sick of speaking to deaf people (no offense, Dave!).
ADDENDUM: Those who claim there is no evidence for Christ except the testimony of the witnesses, I challenge you to prove the existence of Socrates, Plato, or Aristotle. For that matter, I challenge you to prove that Abraham Lincoln was shot in Ford's Theater in 1865. You can't use any eyewitness accounts, and you must prove conclusively that what you believe to be the body of Lincoln actually is his, and was shot where and when purported.
