Dan,
Sorry ? another long one.
I don't agree with all of your points. They can be argued back and forth - and the position we come away from them with is based upon the position we came to them with.
There are many scholars who have studied the available evidence and come to the conclusion that there is a case to be made, including many non-religious scholars and some who reluctantly became converts as a result of their investigations - such as:
'Dr. Frank Morrison, a lawyer who had been brought up in a rationalistic environment, had come to hold the opinion that the resurrection of Jesus Christ was nothing but a fairy tale happy ending which spoiled the matchless story of Jesus. He felt that he owed it to himself and to others to write a book which would present the truth about Jesus, expose the misconceptions, and dispel forever the mythical story of the resurrection.'
He ended by writing 'Who moved the stone? - The book that refused to be written'.
There are many, many academics that have come to a similar conclusion, as there are many, many who would find the evidence lacking.
I have noticed that a good number who attack the evidence seem to have a strong anti-Christian feel about them and I question their lack of bias - just as you would for those who state the evidence is compelling.
So I am left standing in the middle and you rightly ask the question - 'But given they are scholars and you are not what standing does your opinion have?'
Well I understand that academics who have had the time and means to study the evidence fall on opposing sides - so you are spot on when you say 'they always end up with the fact that you must accept religious teachings on faith'.
Though this is a very different type of faith to that of accepting Harry Potter as fact, (as you have drawn the parallel elsewhere). This at first seems to be a silly assertion, but does contain some truth, however it is still faith of a different order. Faith in Christ entails an experiential process that leads to conversion and certainly contains an experiential element that sustains that faith after conversion. I would probably not still be a believer if that were not the case. And the existence of Hogwarts is not pointed to in any historical sense - however contested the evidence may or may not be.
Much of the argument can only be referential to a position we already hold. For instance, you ask, ?How were the books of the bible chosen?? ? insinuating that this was an unreliable process, possibly corrupt and manipulative. A response is that God (as part of that process) ensured we have the texts that best help us get at the truth. Of course it is self referential and you would deny this because you don?t accept God in the process.
You state, ?We, on the other hand are talking about the word of God. There is NO miracle if the stories are not consistent. There is NO hand of god if the eye-witnesses can disagree about what happened. There is not divinely inspired writing if it is open to mistranslation and editing.
Here you are asserting that God could not be involved if eye witness accounts disagree (even in the small detail). It can be answered that God is using humans to convey what He wants and He does it despite their inability to remember and agree on the minutia (and what?s more the four accounts give us differing perspectives on the same events) ? but if what we have helps us to arrive at a position of truth then it is sufficient. Now you don?t think an all powerful God would work in that fashion, but I don?t see how you could constrain him one way or the other ? it is again a matter of opinion.
Your questions about ?God allowing evil and suffering and creating disease and not giving us the cure?, on one hand points, within your framework, to an incoherent nonsense, but in the Christian framework point to lack of understanding of the divine mind and what he is achieving in His creation. And here I know this statement will be preposterous to you and is probably the greatest example of the irreconcilability between the believer and unbeliever ? the believer wants to add to the argument, (God restoring ? eternal existence ? God knowing what he is achieving - we are not able to understand his actions due to insufficient information etc.) - and the unbeliever wants to stick to the basic argument that we suffer and so your view that God is good is fallacious ? therefore He is nonsense and cannot exist.
And this goes on and on.
The question in the end is, ?What evidence can we really have for the actions of an individual two thousand years ago that would satisfy us?? I would say none ? even if the entire events could have been videoed we would suspect tampering and trickery. Even if we were transported back to witness it we could either accept or believe we were dreaming or having an illusion. And we will discount it based upon whether it seems reasonable to us ? if we had accounts of Socrates healing the blind we would probably discount those portions and claim they were additions etc. And if Socrates? whole life was characterised by such things then we would possibly assign his life to myth and/or reclassify Plato?s writings.
One thing seems to be clear - God has left us all with the option to completely discount Him if we want to and to be able to rationalise it and live comfortably without it as well, but we also have enough to reach faith by and that opens the door to an experience of life that is fundamentally different to that before we accepted.
Regards,
Blacknad.
