Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site pyuxn.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!gamma!pyuxww!pyuxn!rlr From: rlr@pyuxn.UUCP (Rich Rosen) Newsgroups: net.religion Subject: Re: Evidence for Christianity Message-ID: <1209@pyuxn.UUCP> Date: Fri, 12-Oct-84 14:37:15 EDT Article-I.D.: pyuxn.1209 Posted: Fri Oct 12 14:37:15 1984 Date-Received: Sat, 13-Oct-84 07:58:17 EDT References: <1700039@iuvax.UUCP> <567@bunker.UUCP> Organization: Bell Communications Research, Piscataway N.J. Lines: 76 > As far as I am concerned, both personal experience and external > evidence are important. I wouldn't give a nickel for the evidence > for Christianity if Christianity didn't promise wonderful personal > experiences. Remember what's been said numerous times about expectations, preconceptions, and wishful thinking being the cornerstone of why many people choose to believe? Here we see another example. > Conversely, though, I wouldn't have given a nickel > for Christianity's promises if they hadn't been backed up with some > evidence. Mike Huybensz's followup deals mostly with this, and it is a fascinating article. (Bravo, Mike!) I urge all readers of this newsgroup to look carefully at it. His conclusion: the strongest point in favor of the "evidence" is that if you believe in its inerrancy, it all makes sense. Assume that the stories about Jesus were not apocryphal/made-up/exaggerated/ etc. and then it's all obvious. Mike says it much better than I could. > When, as sometimes happens, I doubt the truth of > Christianity (strangely enough, such times seem to correlate highly > with those times when following Christ requires that I do something > I would rather not), I still recall the evidence presented to me at > the beginning, and I still cannot totally dismiss it. Well ingrained it must be. These times when you'd "rather not" do something that "following Christ requires" seem to be times of great sudden insights on your part. At times like those, one should look objectively at both the evidence that is causing you to doubt and the evidence "presented at the beginning". Is the former faulty evidence? Is the latter unverifiable and self-reinforcing (cyclic) in nature? I'd hope that you would take a good look next time this happens. > Now I must say something about the kind of evidence I am talking > about. I cannot make God do tricks for you, along the lines of, > "If God would only make the stars line up and spell, in my native > language, 'God did this', I would believe." Now when I was first > being presented with Christianity, I asked for something much > simpler; I said that I would believe if He would make a pencil > float in midair after I let go of it, instead of having it fall > as gravity is wont to make it do. So if you are going to insist > on that kind of evidence, I am sorry to say that you will continue > to be disappointed. Fact is, I'm not "insisting" on ANY level of evidence. Just because YOU might be searching for evidence, for a "reason to believe in god" doesn't mean the rest of us are doing the same. Even defiantly demanding evidence from god betrays a presupposition of god's existence, a desire to believe that a god DOES exist. If evidence presents itself, then it merits discussion; but picking up scraps and assuming the end result of your search for evidence, followed by patching it all up with preconception doesn't cut it. And it's purely wishful thinking (projection) to assume that those that don't believe are demanding evidence. If it presents it, then it presents itself. It hasn't. Which would mean that those who believe do so based on presuppositions about the existence of god, including those who are demanding specific evidence. > Basically, I think that leaves historical evidence. Christianity > is based on the teachings of a historical person, one Jesus (or > Y'shua or Iesous) of Nazereth, who was born nearly 2000 years ago. > It is also based on the life, death, and resurrection of that > same Jesus. It is the resurrection, as a real event in real history, > which originally convinced me that Christianity had a basis in reality A "real event"? Again, see Mike Huybensz's followup. > (It shouldn't be necessary > to be an expert, anyway; God supposedly wants to be found). Isn't this just more wishful thinking? -- WHAT IS YOUR NAME? Rich Rosen WHAT IS YOUR *OLD* NET ADDRESS? {ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!pyuxn!rlr WHAT IS YOUR *NEW* NET ADDRESS? {ihnp4,harpo,allegra}!pyuxd!rlr ALL RIGHT, OFF YOU GO! (AS OF 10/14/84) -----