rtris (05/03/83)
Hail Jeff Mayhew,
I sent you a long letter, but here's a similar conversion for public
consumption. This could very well turn out to be a rather interesting topic.
Caveat: If people want to continue it, they should probably refrain from
flaming. The request is for one's reasons for accepting Christianity, and
despite the intellectual nature of >reasons< these things are close to the
heart of many, so let's not get abusive if you really want people to
communicate.
First let me say that I think there ARE a lot of people who accept Christianity
on purely emotional grounds. That however doesn't imply that that is the only
basis on which it is acceptable. Not everyone are the hopeless intellectuals
we are :-). The following is an amalgam of reasoning that is partly my own
and partly picked up from people I personally know.
I think that from the intellectual point of view, the first step is the
acceptance of >some< deity. (Caveat: throughout the article it shall be
taken for granted that >nothing< is >provable< (can you >prove< there is
>no< God)). This acceptance is often arrived at from an ethics point of
view. Suppose there is no God. Then the universe must be a thing purely
based on physical laws, and life just an enormous fluke. There is no basis
for saying life is valuable, it's just matter that has evolved in such a way
as to become aware of itself. Thusly there is no justification for saying that
rape is WRONG. The best you can do is say it is not beneficial to societies
survival. Similar for murder etc. etc. If there is no God, then you have no
ultimate justification for anything. Reasons are immaterial, and life is a
farce that just doesn't matter. There is nothing to stop one from going the
route of Marquis de Sade.
Many people find these consequences of a Godless universe unacceptable. It
contradicts their internal "sense" of truth. (Unprovable of course, but a
valid >reason<).
Thenly, a search for God starts. People investigate various types of religions.
TM, various eastern things, etc. etc. Many, obviously, stay there, having
found satisfactory answers of some sort. Others, also many, don't. Virtually
every religious system, is a description of how man can attain Godhood, or
meet God etc. by doing the appropriate things. Man however is finite, and
seems incapable of doing this to many. It seems impossible for man to know
God, while he is so full of faults and so constantly errs. It seems impossible
for man to know God. Christianity offers the converse. It claims that God
has come to man, to show him what He is like, and offer man a relationship,
that is FREE (come as you are type deal) (also note, Christianity is primarily
a relationship, not a set of rules).
(I read here that Hinduism recognizes avatars, but my skimpy knowledge of
these tells me that they weren't in the business of revelation, and relation-
ship). This is the exact opposity of man's expectations (who could have dreamed
up this absurd religion??).
Now to investigate Christianity, one must make up one's mind about Scripture.
(Since that is the primary source document). And although it is not >provably<
accurate, and although it was written by acolytes etc. etc. I don't think
it's throwing your mind out to accept them as reasonably trustworthy as a
working hypothesis for investigation. (No historical document is >provably<
trustworthy. Usual tests for trustworthiness, are # of manuscripts, internal
consistency and external consistency. Scripture passes the first with an
overwhelming amount of material, the second fine, and the third fine. It
doesn't contradict outside events (i.e., portrays rulers etc. accurately), and
has proven to be trustworthy by archeaology).
Two main things will appear from reading scripture. Christ's claim to
Godhood, and resurrection. The first point bars you from taking him to be
a fine moral teacher. He is either a raving lunatic (on the level of a man
claiming to be an egg), or a lier, or God. He CANNOT be a moral man, and
at the same time utter the unthinkable (especially to Jews) blasphemy that
he IS God. Yet, from the scriptural account, it's hard to believe that he
is mad, or so unthinkably evil as to delude millions into following him for
the salvation of their very soul.
The second, and crucial point, is his resurrection. This is what
Christianity stands of falls on. The empty tomb is the least disputed fact.
The reasons for it's emptiness are multitudinous today, and I'm sure
that many of you are aware of the whole diatribe, but let me point them, and
their counterarguments out quickly.
Someone stole the body. Who? I can think of only three groups with a motive:
Roman and Jewish authorities, and the disciples. The first two can be lumped
together. If they stole the body (and thus knew where it was), and also, as
can be seen from historical accounts, wanted to quash this upstart cult, why
WHY didn't they just cart the body out into the town square. That would have
made the claims of the apostles of his resurrection, quite ludicrous.
The disciples? When all but John died hideous deaths, for something they
knew to be a lie, in return for nothing but some self-delusion (there certainly
wasn't any power to be had in the early church). This also doesn't agree with
their character as portrayed in scripture (no we can't >prove< that's a
correct portrayal, but we think it's >reason<able).
Jesus recovered in the coolness of the tomb from a swoon. Sure! After hanging
on a cross, being poked with a spear until water flowed, being wrapped in
50 pounds worth of grave clothes, he gets up rolls away a two ton stone,
overpowers two guards, and appears to the disciples, not a sick dying man, but
as a conquerer over Hell and death. Hmmm.
The women were hysterical, went to the wrong tomb, and they all had mass
hallucinations afterward. Apart from the unlikelyhood of these events, the
question of why the authorities didn't produce the body appears.
So, under these considerations the resurrection seems much more likely (to me
anyway) and if that is true, than Christ would seem to be God. None of this
is (of course) conclusive or provable, but it is (can be considered)
substantial, and comprise >reasons< for accepting the Christian religion.
This is essentially apologetics, and not a full treatise on the subject, but
space and time (and knowledge on my part) do not permit more.
Ralph.