Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83; site gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!mgnetp!ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart
From: stuart@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP (Stuart Kurtz)
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: Re: Re: Can a thinking man accept the Bible? (various authors)
Message-ID: <144@gargoyle.UChicago.UUCP>
Date: Tue, 5-Jun-84 18:17:08 EDT
Article-I.D.: gargoyle.144
Posted: Tue Jun  5 18:17:08 1984
Date-Received: Wed, 6-Jun-84 06:15:17 EDT
References: <897@ihuxi.UUCP> <153@mako.UUCP>
Organization: U. Chicago - Computer Science
Lines: 46

> CAN ANYONE GIVE SOME EXAMINABLE, VERIFIABLE EVIDENCE TO SUBSTANTIATE
> CHRISTIANITY?

There have been any number of challenges for evidence for Christianity
recently.  I'd like to speak from my own perspective:  Lutheran (LCA --
for those who understand such detail), intellectual, and egalitarian.

No, I can't give you any examinable, verifiable evidence to substantiate
christianity, any more than you can give me examinable, verifiable
evidence refuting christianity.  To answer another question, I don't
believe the objective evidence for christianity is obviously better than
that for most of the other major religions of the world, or (as is implicit
in the last sentence) no religion.

This is not a concession.  I simply think that you are asking the
wrong questions.  Science and theology are orthogonal.  Using one
in an attempt to analyze the other is misguided.  Thus, I believe
attempted "scientific" proofs and disproofs of the existence of God
are as relevant to theology as the creation myth of Genesis is to
explaining the origin of species.

In the final analysis, you either believe or don't.  The evidence in
my life which leads me to my faith is neither examinable nor verifiable
by a third party.  I simply find my own life's experiences take meaning
in the existence of God.  The fact that I am Lutheran and not Jewish
or Hindu is in all probability a historical accident; but I do find
the teachings of Christ immediately relevant to *me*.  I find the
Christian theology intellectually exciting -- and to the extent I
understand other religions, no other theology satisfies *me* so well.

I scarcely expect that this will be the final word on the subject, but
I would like to add my own plea for rationality.  None of us are going
to win any converts (to God/Humanism/Reason) over this net.  This whole
exercise in Christian/Atheist baiting does nothing but polish our
ability to offend one another.

I find discussions which explore the logical consequences of various
beliefs more interesting than attacking those beliefs.  For example:
"Assuming Christ is raised, is his resurrection bodily or spiritual?"
or even "Is the representation of Kalmari (sp?) in 'Indiana Jones
and the Temple of Doom' accurate to Hindu beliefs?"

----------------------------------------

Stuart Kurtz		:	Department of Computer Science
ihnp4!gargoyle!stuart	:	The University of Chicago