stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson) (03/06/91)
Lately I've been having disturbing doubts about the existence of God. First a little history; I was raised in a household that never went to church and had a Bible simply for the sake of having one. My parents always said their was a God and I know they really did believe in his and Christs existence. However I would not call them Christians in the sense I've come to know what a Christian is. Anyway, Shortly before getting married my future wife and I started to attend the church we planned on getting married at. In short order I grasped the gospel became a Christian and was immersed. I could not get enough of Gods word and I consider that the time of my life I felt best about everything. My wife and I moved out of state and stopped going to church, stopped reading the bible and entered a pro-longed period of backsliding. Nineteen months ago my daughter was born and soon after my wife felt the need to practice our faith again. About ten months ago we started to attend a local church and soon became members. Now my problem; I just don't feel the comfort I had before. When I first became a Christian I never questioned the existence of God. I just took it for fact that there was a God, that Christ was his son and that the Bible was solid truth. Now I find inconsistences in the Bible, can't seem to make it fit my life and our times. It feels more like legend to me now then the word of God. I find that I believe more in the scientific account of how the universe and earth were formed and I believe in some form of evolution. I can't believe that earth is the only place with life and I now realize that the 'demons' of old are the mental diseases of today. I learned that their is no historical evidence of Jesus's existence and if there was I would still wonder if he was just a charismatic nut or a super-natural being. I've learned that it was a group of men who made decisions about what would and would not go into the compilation of books called the 'Bible' and I wonder if I can trust them. I mean I would not trust someone in todays day and age who came to me and said " Hey, look here, we put together a bunch of these old writings in to this book and, you know what, its the holy word of God". So how can I believe these long dead folks? That is not even addressing the people who wrote the books in the bible. Is it divine inspiration that caused the creation of the books of the bible? Or is it the fanciful stories of people who did not understand the way the natural world around them worked. I wonder if the Bible is not a compilation of wishful thinking, exaggerations or pure story telling. This is just skimming the surface of the doubts that creep into my mind. What about the Neanderthal man, dinosaurs, super-novas and galaxies. Why are there no outright miracles anymore? No earth standing still, no seas parting, no visions and no thundering voices from heaven. Why no non-biblical record of Christ? Why no demon possessions anymore? Why is my religion correct but the thousands of others wrong? I don't mean to sound anti-Christian, I just seriously have these doubts. I don't know what to do. I want to believe in God, Christ and life after death. I just can't keep from wondering if its all a pipe dream. Then again I look around and I know this didn't all 'just happen'. -- <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<*LIVE FREE OR DIE*>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Steve Matson ***COLORADO***
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) (03/08/91)
Two ways of proof are available to those who doubt the existence of God. One, at the second Coming, will be too late. The second is given us in the Bible, which claims to be the word of God. My suggestion is to use it for what it claims it is good for, teaching, reproof, doctrine, and correction. (Not a science book, a history book, or whatever). If there's something to this Christianity, then there should be some advantage to this method, and the proof you will see is the change in your own life. (To be fair, following the Bible line requires that you first believe in God for these things to happen, so in a way it's circular reasoning. But if the postulate of God's existence is inconsistent , it will show up.) The experimental result I cannot shake is, that although there's no reason why praying to omniscient God should make a difference, I know it does. Search for God in what you understand, not in that which you can't explain. Hope this helps, Steve Timm
tblake@bingvaxu.cc.binghamton.edu (Thomas Blake) (03/08/91)
In article <Mar.6.00.29.49.1991.25695@athos.rutgers.edu> stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson) writes: > I just don't feel the comfort I had before. When I first became a Christian >I never questioned the existence of God. I just took it for fact that there >was a God, that Christ was his son and that the Bible was solid truth. Now I >find inconsistences in the Bible, can't seem to make it fit my life and our >times. It feels more like legend to me now then the word of God. I find that >I believe more in the scientific account of how the universe and earth were >formed and I believe in some form of evolution. I can't believe that earth is >the only place with life and I now realize that the 'demons' of old are the >mental diseases of today. I learned that their is no historical evidence >of Jesus's existence and if there was I would still wonder if he was just a >charismatic nut or a super-natural being. I'm curious, from where did you learn that there is no historical evidence of Jesus? Certainly there is much dispute about who Jesus was or wasn't, but I've never read any disputation of his existance. > I've learned that it was a group of men who made decisions about what would >and would not go into the compilation of books called the 'Bible' and I wonder >if I can trust them. I mean I would not trust someone in todays day and age who >came to me and said " Hey, look here, we put together a bunch of these old >writings in to this book and, you know what, its the holy word of God". So how >can I believe these long dead folks? That is not even addressing the people who >wrote the books in the bible. Is it divine inspiration that caused the creation >of the books of the bible? Or is it the fanciful stories of people who did not >understand the way the natural world around them worked. I wonder if the Bible >is not a compilation of wishful thinking, exaggerations or pure story telling. Did you believe that an early scribe was wandering along and stumbled upon the first bound edition of the Bible? Of course the books were chosen by a group of people. Your faith may tell you that their choices were divinely inspired. The original books were written by people. Perhaps God moved their hands through the motions to draw each line and dot that formed the letters. Perhaps they did their best to write what God had placed in their hearts. Perhaps they did their best to explain something they didn't understand themselves. Perhaps they wrote what they did as a series of practical jokes. I doubt this last one, but I can't *prove* otherwise. For me, with any work, I go by the "ring of truth". If an author (or in this case authors), makes statements which I am willing to accept as true, then I am much more willing to accept those things they say which I may not automatically agree with. To me it seems clear that the (editors if you will) of the Bible did not set down the Bible as definative. (To me), it seems that there are two creation stories included for instance. The (editors) apparantly felt that the reader would best be served by having both at their disposal. Four Gospels are included along with a number of letters. There is clear reporting of disputes between the various apostles. It seems to me that the Bible was compiled as a group of writings intended to help the reader understand Jewish tradition, their laws, their relationship with their God, their understanding of the world, their place in the world etc. Similarly, the New Testament explains about the early church, their relationship with their God, their laws etc. I believe that the word of God can be in the Bible. I believe that God can speak to us through the Bible.) I do not believe that every word of the Bible is inerrant. I try to focus not on the individual words, (I have different translations with different words in them), but on the underlying theme of the words. To some I may seem a heretic, so be it. I believe that the tree shall be judged by it's fruits. I have, I admit, on occasion envied those individuals who have the faith to simply accept everything that Scripture and Tradition tell us, it seems that it would make this whole faith thing much easier. (No doubts, no questioning!) But then, I remember the accounts of Thomas (or the twelve) who would not believe until he had placed his hands in the wounds of the risen Christ. If Jesus did not condemn him/them for his/their doubting will he comdemn me for my doubts? If I do my best to follow his teachings and his laws, will he not forgive me as he forgave Peter his weakness? > I don't mean to sound anti-Christian, I just seriously have these doubts. >I don't know what to do. I want to believe in God, Christ and life after death. >I just can't keep from wondering if its all a pipe dream. > > Then again I look around and I know this didn't all 'just happen'. Okay, start with that. You cannot "know" this logically. This requires faith, and seems to imply faith in a creator/creators. Next, pick up your Bible, and see if there are those things that ring true with your soul. (My favorite, turn to Romans. Paul seems to speak quite clearly to our church today.) Find out what else it is that you "know" without proof. Don't expect proof. The God I know doesn't provide proof in the rigorous sense. I have had experiences in my life that serve to bolster my faith, but prove it logically? No. That's why they call it "faith". I know no adult who has never questioned their faith. I know a good many clergy who have had grave doubts. I think you will find that after you have examined your faith, and nurtured it, that the faith you grow will be stronger than the one you had before. Fine old statements of Faith: Behave as if you had faith and you will have faith. Lord, we believe, help our disbelief. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
meadows@cslvax.weeg.uiowa.edu (03/08/91)
In article <Mar.6.00.29.49.1991.25695@athos.rutgers.edu>, stevem@solbourne.com > > Lately I've been having disturbing doubts about the existence of God. [rest of his account omitted, as it was quoted in the previous response --clh] I can gladly tell you that there IS historical evidence of Jesus' existence in an abundant amount. I'd like to suggest a couple of books to you if you are in search of solid historical evidences. The two are written by a guy named Josh McDowell and are named "Evidence that Demands A Verdict" Volumes I and II. This guy was a magna-cum-laude college graduate who set out to disprove Christianity with the research for these books, and instead became a Christian based on the evidence he found. I found both books very informative and well researched. Howard *************************************************************************** * Howard Meadows Sr. Systems Programmer Weeg Computing Center * * University Of Iowa Iowa City, Iowa 52242 Phone: 319-335-5519 * * meadows@cslvax.weeg.uiowa.edu or meadowva@uiamvs.bitnet * ***************************************************************************
bredy@alkp.serum.kodak.com (Dan Bredy (x37360)) (03/09/91)
[Stephen Matson describes his experiences with Christianity, which at the moment are primarily those of doubting: > I don't mean to sound anti-Christian, I just seriously have these doubts. >I just can't keep from wondering if its all a pipe dream. > Then again I look around and I know this didn't all 'just happen'. --clh] Steve, Let me speak to you as someone speaking from the 'other' side (I am an agnostic). I was a practicing Christian for almost all of my 22 years before I adopted my present life philosophy. I too had many of the same doubts you had, and I too eagerly seeked answers to these. I found none. I finally decided that it was more important to me to live for Truth than to live a lie, no matter how much comfort I found in it. What I would suggest you do is to explore these doubts (talk to ministers or other Christians), but if you find the answers wanting, do not accept compromises. Either choice you make will probably cause pain and confusion (as one whose been on both sides of the fence, I know) but in the end you will be much happier. I sense that you would almost suppress your doubts than to believe that maybe there isn't a God. I humbly submit that whichever choice you make (wether it is for God, or to follow no religion) it is O.K. as long as you know in YOUR HEART that it is the TRUTH. For too long in my life I believe I let doubt rule rather than truth and that was a rough period. Now by truth I do not mean some absolute thruth that anyone can know beyond a shadow of a doubt-- I sincerely believe it is not possible to know all truths about the universe, and beyond. I am talking but a truth which provides peace of heart and mind. I as an agnostic have this truth. I know many Christians who have this truth, also. I hope this helps some. Good Luck! Dan
ajm@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au (Tony McGregor) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.6.00.29.49.1991.25695@athos.rutgers.edu> stevem@solbourne.com (Stephen Matson) writes: > Lately I've been having disturbing doubts about the existence of God. [I think you really need to read the rest of Stephen's article to put this in context.] I know _just_ how you feel. I really can't go far towards answering your questions but here are some thoughts from my own life. o The Bible predicts that we won't always find it easy to be Christians. It uses the dramatic language of war to describe the struggle we are caught up in so don't think that your doubts are in contrast with the way a `true Christian' should feel. If God is for real they are a part of Christian life that you will grow through. Remember faith doesn't mean pretending it's true when you think it's not. o Christianity is a relationship. You are human so in many ways the relationship is a human one. In a marriage there are times when you have to remember the good times and take action to get past a problem in the relationship. It's the same with God. In particular you need to set aside time to be with God, like you did when you felt close to him. This time it will feel dry and dead, at least for a time, but do it because you remember the fellowship and want it back. Be prepared to keep it up. I think this kind of action is part of the meaning of the word faith. o God has promised to help us in our need. Ask him to make himself real to you again. Faith is a gift from God; ask for it. Do it daily. Be prepared to go on asking for a while. When I did this after about 2-3 months something happened that removed my doubt. It was a simple quiet thing that wouldn't convince a non-believer (because they wouldn't know enough about me and the situation) but was exactly what I needed. o Look at your life. Is there anything you know God, if he's real, would be unhappy with. If so so something about it. Do it because what you remember about a relationship with God is worth it. o Some of your problems have been adequately dealt with by others. For example I have read some good books about the historical likelyhood of Christ having lived. I believe that almost all scholars accept that he did live and that the general record of the Bible is accurate. There are, for example, structures in Jerusalem that are described in the Bible but were not discovered until comparatively recently. You might enjoy looking around a Christian bookshop. o Be prepared to work with an imperfect model of God/Christ/the Bible/the Church etc. After all we will be wrong on some of the things we believe. Our knowledge is not complete. Concentrate on the core of the gospel and how you can know God and what he wants you to do in your life rather than on peripheral issues like whether he has created life on other planets or even if Genesis is meant to be understood literally. Perhaps your Church is a fandamentalist Church. It may be that `the word of God' when spoken through an imperfect person is inerrant in all respects but that is not the essential quality of God's' word. There are some Christians who are not able to understand God and the Bible in quite the same literal way that a fundamentalist would. One group or the other has an imperfect model of the Bible and, no doubt, is missing some of the richness of God. But our God is an abundant God and he blesses us despite our frailness and our sin. There are many who have a close relationship with God on both sides of this particular fence. Don't give up on God because you have a different view of him from those immediately about you. o You have many other specific questions. You should ask God about them. Christian people _have_ found plausible answers to most or all of them. We could be wrong, of course, but the basic question is "Is there a God." If there is the other questions become challenges to our understanding of him. The answers throw light on his nature. You should be prepared to proceed with some unanswered questions though. After all you don't know everything about computers but can work them quite well. You know there are answers to the other questions because of your experience with computers you just don't know them yet. I hope this helps a little. I know just what it feels like to have had a relationship with God, to want it back but to find you're not sure if you believe at all. I, like others on the net, will be praying for you. God bless you Tony. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Tony McGregor ( ajm@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au ) Department of Robotics and Digital Technology, Monash University PO Box 197, Caulfield East, Vic 3145, Australia Phone: +61 3 5732014 Fax: +61 3 5732745 ----------------------------------------------------------------------
lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) (03/09/91)
In article <Mar.8.00.30.10.1991.24474@athos.rutgers.edu> st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: >(To be fair, following the Bible line requires that you first believe in >God for these things to happen, so in a way it's circular reasoning. But >if the postulate of God's existence is inconsistent , it will show up.) Well . . . . One could argue that God's existence is akin to Euclid's parallel postulate or the continuum hypthesis. God's existence may be unprovable. One can then either assume it or not, and obtain a consistent system. I think most atheists and agnostics would agree with this and cite Occam's razor as a reason for *not* believing in God. The question really is, which choice corresponds with REALITY? Taking the prallel postulate as an example -- one can make a different assumption and obtain an alternate geometry. However, the world as we experience it seems to be Euclidian. (This may not be the best example -- I'm on somewhat shaky ground when it comes to modern physics.) So, the postulate of God's existence might not be logically inconsistent at all -- however, I believe that assuming His existence *is* consistent with reality (and assuming He does not exist is *not* consistent with reality). One reason is (as you mentioned above) the visible changes in the lives of Christians I know, my own life included. Another reason is answered prayer (as you mention below). The most convincing to me is that there really does seem to be an absolute morality (see _Mere_Christianity_ about this -- C.S. Lewis explains it much better than I). >The experimental result I cannot shake is, that although there's no reason >why praying to omniscient God should make a difference, I know it does. Isn't that amazing? I don't understand this either, but this experiment has been verified in my own life time and again. Regards, Andrew Andrew Lumsdaine "We don't understand the software, and lums@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu sometimes we don't understand the hardware, MIT RLE but we can *see* the blinking lights!"
jeff@ics.uci.edu (Jeff Erickson) (03/09/91)
st0o+@andrew.cmu.edu (Steven Timm) writes: | The second [proof of God's existence] is given us in the Bible, | which claims to be the word of God. | My suggestion is to use it for what it claims it is good for, teaching, | reproof, doctrine, and correction. (Not a science book, a history book, | or whatever). If there's something to this Christianity, then there should | be some advantage to this method, and the proof you will see is the change | in your own life. Very true. This can also be said of Judaism, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Taoism, Druidism, Wicca, atheism, agnosticism, Scientology, past life regression, the martial arts, yoga, existentialism, solipsism, political activism, feminism, hedonism, the use of hallucinogenic drugs, bungee jumping, philanthropy, selfish materialism, and so on. Every one of these things has made a positive impact on someone's life. Every one of them is objectionable to someone else. Just because one of them has a positive impact in you, it is unreasonable to assume it will have a positive impact on anyone else. | (To be fair, following the Bible line requires that you first believe in | God for these things to happen, so in a way it's circular reasoning. But | if the postulate of God's existence is inconsistent, it will show up.) I don't believe so. I believe that it is possible to assume God's existence without deriving a contradiction with experience. I also believe that it is possible to assume God's NONexistence without reaching a contradiction. Neither choice can be verified experimentally; both alternatives are consistent. | The experimental result I cannot shake is, that although there's no reason | why praying to omniscient God should make a difference, I know it does. I believe there is a very good reason why it works, regardless of whether God exists or not. Prayer is a very good way of getting stuff off your chest. Prayer is a very good way to open yourself to the possibility of good things happening to you. (I know, that sounds like mystical bullshit, but it fits my experience rather well.) I agree wholeheartedly with Steven's suggestion. If Christianity has a positive impact on your life, wonderful. That's a great reason to be a Christian. More power to you. -- Jeff Erickson \ Humpty Dumpty sat in a chair. jeff@ics.uci.edu \ Humpty Dumpty had no hair. jeff@128.195.1.1 \ Humpty Dumpty wasn't very fuzzy, was he? \ -- cthulhu, krazy, and wombat, respectively
jeff@ics.uci.edu (Jeff Erickson) (03/09/91)
meadows@cslvax.weeg.uiowa.edu writes: | I can gladly tell you that there IS historical evidence of Jesus' | existence in an abundant amount. I'd like to suggest a couple of books | to you if you are in search of solid historical evidences. The two are | written by a guy named Josh McDowell and are named "Evidence that Demands | A Verdict" Volumes I and II. This guy was a magna-cum-laude college | graduate who set out to disprove Christianity with the research for these | books, and instead became a Christian based on the evidence he found. | I found both books very informative and well researched. I found McDowell's work full with unwarranted assumptions and faulty reasoning. "A Verdict that Demands Evidence" would be a more accurate title. -- Jeff Erickson \ Humpty Dumpty sat in a chair. jeff@ics.uci.edu \ Humpty Dumpty had no hair. jeff@128.195.1.1 \ Humpty Dumpty wasn't very fuzzy, was he? \ -- cthulhu, krazy, and wombat, respectively
hedrick@geneva.rutgers.edu (03/11/91)
I've delayed responding to Steve Matson, so I could give some attention to writing a response. However I find that I still can't respond to everything in detail, since that would call for a complete treatise on apologetics and theology. So I'm going to pick a few things that seem like critical issues. I see two things in his posting. One is a set of intellectual problems, primarily with the believability of Scripture. But what I see underlying these questions is a question that isn't really intellectual: how, in a world where we seem to be able to explain everything scientifically, can we still believe in things like spirits? This posting is going to deal with the primary intellectual issue: whether the Bible is simply "made up" stories. I'll try to come up with something useful to say about the deeper issue next weekend. I think you're caught in two problems: (1) your contact with Christianity seems to be with the fundamentalist type. I think some of their claims really are unbelievable, so I don't fault you for finding them hard to swallow. (2) I think many of the things you say you have "learned" are just plain wrong. I'm not sure where you learned them. What I'd like to convince you is that Christians can hold realistic scientific and historical views. This may require adjustments both in your idea of Christianity and your idea of history. It may require an adjustment in your idea of Christianity if you think Christians have to reject evolution or any other science because of the Bible. It may require an adjustment in your idea of history, because you seem to have come up with ideas about the Bible that are more sceptical than even non-Christian scholars. If you've been reading this group for a while, you'll know my position on the Bible: I believe it is a good historical source, and best where it's most important: for the Resurrection. However I do not believe it is in principle free from error. From what I know of Biblical and historical studies, both the OT and the NT stand up well as historical documents. In general those scholars with the most objective ways of checking it -- archaeologists -- have a more positive valuation of it than those that are using speculative methods. In a widely known essay, C.S. Lewis commented that the types of analysis that have led scholars to the most negative conclusions about Scripture have led to demonstrably incorrect conclusions when applied to his works. There was also a hilarious parody (which unfortunately I've not seen) showing that works by the critical scholars themselves must have been written by multiple authors. I have no reason to doubt that the OT historical books are, in the later periods, based on records of the doings of various kings. (They are often cited in the text.) This doesn't mean they are perfect, but they seem to be better than most other historical documents from the period. Typically contemporary chronicles were produced by royal historians, and had as a primary goal to glorify the king. Thus they exaggerated victories and didn't report defeats. The theology behind the OT led its authors to be reasonably honest about defeats as well as victories. To the extent that relatively late OT history, i.e. Kings, can be checked against archaeology, it comes out fairly well. That God was responsible for victories, that God gave the Law, etc., is not a matter that archaeologists can comment on, of course, and there will be differing evaluations of that aspect of the record. I'm speaking only of what the OT says about history. Where things get harder to be sure about is in earlier periods, where it's unlikely that there were written historical records available to the authors. Archaeologists now believe that the historical backgrounds in the stories of the patriarchs are fairly accurate. This implies to me that those stories are not simply made up, but are based on real memories from the time. Thus I believe there were historical Abraham, Moses, etc. On the other hand, many scholars believe that accounts from that period have been somewhat "idealized". E.g. the process of taking over Canaan is generally believed to have been more complex than what is shown in the OT. (Exactly how accurate the OT account of the entry into Canaan is is the subject of lively debate among scholars at the moment.) For history before Abraham, frankly I am very sceptical. The creation and flood stories look to me like remakes of the myths that Abraham would have brought with him from Ur. (In fact we have documents that give Babylonian versions of these stories.) This is not surprising. Since the Jews didn't exist before Abraham, they wouldn't have their own traditions for older periods. It would be natural for them to base their primeval history on what the most advanced scholars in the world believed, i.e. on what we would consider Babylonian mythology. I see no reason to think that Christianity is committed to the literal truth of these accounts. However when you compare the Hebrew versions with the Babylonian versions, you'll find that major changes have been made to the religious implications of the stories. I'd say that the religious aspects of the Gen. accounts have a much better claim to our attention as Christians. This means that you do not have to reject evolution in order to be a Christian. Every time I read a posting like yours I get more upset at the fundamentalists. They are trying to convince people like you that you can't be a Christian without giving up your scientific knowledge. I do not blame you for being thrown into confusion by this. I can only say that there are plenty of Christians who do not buy that. I think the view I'm summarizing here would be accepted by most "middle of the road" Biblical scholars, i.e. those that are not fundamentalists and who don't go for the more extreme methods of speculative literary criticism. I'm reasonably familiar with the range of Biblical scholarship, and can assure you that most scholars, even non-Christians, believe that there is a lot of good history behind the Bible. It's not just "made up". Where the disagreements come is in the details. That is, there is some reason to think that although the basic outline in the Bible is right, some of the stories got "embroidered" as they were handed down. I'm going to talk primarily about the NT, because that's probably most important to Christians. However you should recognize that it's also somewhat of a "best case", because the NT was written much nearer the events than the OT. Probably Paul's letters are from 20 to 30 years after the crucifixion, and the Gospels 40 to 60. (Incidentally, we have very good textual evidence for the NT. Current translations are done from 4th Cent. documents, but there are enough ancient pieces to provide a good cross-check back to the 2nd Cent. Now and then you see claims on Usenet that the Bible has been continually adjusted through the medieval period. That is simply silly.) I don't know any scholars -- Christian or non-Christian -- that doubt Jesus' existence (though there are some people posting to various Usenet groups that do). If you're serious about this, I can try to find detailed responses. See my comments below on the Resurrection. Basically, we know that Christians were going around proclaiming that Christ had been crucified and resurrected, and I think our evidence is within about 10 years of the events. It's a bit hard to believe that such preaching could happen, and that Jesus' words could be preserved through such a variety of sources, without there having been an actual Jesus. It's also nearly inconceivable that if a group of Jews were going to make up a story about the Messiah, they would have him get crucified. The question is not whether Jesus existed, but how accurate a portrait of him we have in the NT. Let me try to set some limits on the possibilities. On one side we have the claim by fundamentalists that we have completely accurate accounts, that the words in the NT are his actual words and that every miracle reported actually happened as reported. This simply can't be. On the other hand, we have people who seem to believe that the whole NT account is fiction. The truth is somewhere betweeen. Let's look at Jesus' teachings. The NT can't be reporting his exact words, as if we had a tape recorder there. This is obvious if you simply compare accounts of the same episode in Mat, Mark, and Luke. On the other hand, there's a limit to how far it is reasonable to carry scepticism. Norman Perrin wrote a book where he analyzed Jesus' teachings, based on the assumption that the Church adjusted his teachings to fit its own conceptions. Thus he started with only Jesus' teachings that were opposed to the known beliefs of the early Church. I don't want to go through a detailed analysis of what he did. But I think the point that is relevant here is that even using this sceptical methodology, the teachings he came up with are still recognizably Christian. The actual truth is surely somewhere in between the concept of the Gospels as tape recorder accounts and Perrin's exercise in scepticism. In fact Jesus' teachings don't seem to be a big matter of debate between Christian and non-Christian scholars. Next I'd like to comment on Jesus' miracles. This is an area where I think there is the largest disagreement. Again, I'd like to try to place some limits around the area of disagreement. There are obvious reasons to have qualms about Jesus' miracles. Aside from biases that miracles just can't happen, note that most of Jesus' miracles involve healing. Nolan's book "Healing" is a recent investigation of miraculous healers. They range from Phillipine "psychic healers" to a well-known "Christian" healer, Kathryn Kuhlman. (I use quotes around Christian because she also seems to have been involved in astrology, so I have some qualms about her orthodoxy. But when I was in Pittsburgh, her healing ministry was well-known.) In all cases, Nolan got good cooperation from the subjects of the investigation (rather surprisingly, since some of them were clearly frauds), and was sometimes able to do medical followups. Nolan shows that even honest witnesses can believe a healing occured where it did not. I believe the reports of healings in the NT are historical, in the sense that they are based on memories of Jesus' ministry. But I think Nolan's work suggests that at least some of the reports we have are probably in error. Note that Jesus himself is reticent about healing, both in the sense that he seems to be far more interested in preaching and in dealing with people's spiritual situation, and in the sense that when a healing happens, he normally attributes it to the person's own faith. So on one side, I'd have to say that it's reasonable for Christians to have some scepticism about the healings reported in the Gospels, while still believing that the Gospels are based on actual memories of Jesus. It doesn't seem like there's much I can do on the other side. Sceptics generally seem to reject all of the miraculous aspects of the Gospels. This doesn't necessarily mean they regard the Gospels as entirely made up after the fact. It's probably more typical to suggest that there was a combination of healings of psychosomatic illnesses with stories getting exaggerated as they are retold. By the way, I don't want to be understood as saying that I think all the miracles have natural explanations. This sort of approach was common in the 19th Cent., but has generally been abandoned by modern scholars. I'm simply saying that it's OK for Christians to realize that if we were there at the time with modern medical equipment we might have alternative explanations for at least some of the events. (An example of where I think there would not be a natural explanation is the raising of Lazarus.) The most important example of miracle is the Resurrection. This is worth treating separately both because of its importance to Christianity and because there's better evidence for it than for the other miracles in the Gospels. The earliest evidence is I Cor 15:5ff. There is no question among scholars that Paul actually wrong I Cor. Nor does there seem to be any serious doubt that it was written by the mid-50's. If you place the crucifixion at about 30 AD, this makes I Cor about 25 years after the fact. However I Cor 15 is clearly quoting a creed, i.e. a stereotyped formulation of the faith used in worship and/or teaching. Scholars generally believe that this creed is much earlier than I Cor itself. It's hard to be sure how much earlier, but if you take seriously that it's what was passed onto Paul, then it sounds like something he learned either when he was converted or three years later when he met with Peter and James. This is within a few years of the Resurrection. Note a couple of things about it. One is that it mentions at least two people that Paul says he spoke to: Peter and James (Gal 1:18ff). So although this is not a direct eyewitness account of the Resurrection, it is at only one remove, and we know the people involved. It's not like the Gospels, whose authors are not known and whose sources of information can only be inferred. Some other comments on the passage: There is some concern about Paul's experience of Christ. It has been claimed, based on both the account in Acts and Paul's words, that Paul's experience was a "vision", not contact with a physical person. If I Cor 15 is saying that the appearance to the disciples was of the same kind, the disciples might have had what amounts to a hallucination, and the empty tomb story grew up later. However I Cor 15 -- while not referring directly to the empty tomb -- seems to presuppose it. It says that Christ was buried and raised. This is the way you talk about his body, not a vision of some sort. I believe scholars now consider I Cor 15 to be an allusion to the empty tomb. Another comment is that the creed refers to a simultaneous appearance to 500 people at one time. 500 people don't see a hallucination. There is certainly room for debate on these issues. I do not claim that the Resurrection is proven beyond doubt. But I believe we can make a good case that Paul knew of a number of eyewitnesses to the Resurrection, and had talked to 2 personally. Natural explanations really aren't that attractive. I think we can count on the Romans to have made sure Jesus was dead. A hallucination in the normal sense doesn't seem too attractive. Cognitive dissonance can explain lots of strange things. People can imagine they have seen what they expect to see or want to see, as any magician can testify. However that requires you to think that the disciples were in a frame of mind where they expected to see Jesus raised, which I personally don't think likely in this case. At any rate, I don't think you require a proof of the Resurrection. You're more concerned that it's somehow not intellectually respectable to believe in it. I don't think that's the case.
cklim@athena.mit.edu (Carl K. Lim) (03/11/91)
Hi Steve, I probably don't have any answers to your doubts that you haven't heard. There is no way to know all truth (that's where it requires faith); however, there is one thing I am certain of. In particular, that is the nature of sin--that every man is sinful. Sin is sin. There's no way to rationalize it or deny it. Philosophies may deny it or make it sound less serious to make it more comforting, or other religions may provide some "do"s and "don't"s to make up for sin and grant us salvation. Yet from looking into my own soul and around me in the world, there's no denying that something is terribly wrong. That is the evidence for sin. And to me, no other belief reveals the truth about sin more clearly and truthfully than Christianity. And the good news is simply that "For God so love the world that whoever believes in His only Son shall not perish but have everlasting life." The Bible offers us the only way to be rid of our sin. Trust in God. I sincerely hope that you do not walk away from Christianity because of your unanswered questions. By man's own wisdom, there are never any clear answers to them. I don't mean you should not have questions or doubts, but do not let them get in the way of the central gospel. If you believe that you are a sinner and wants to be forgiven, put your faith in Jesus Christ. Faith will spring from the love and grace that God offers to us. A brother, Carl
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (03/12/91)
In article <Mar.9.01.19.54.1991.23326@athos.rutgers.edu> lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) writes: >So, the postulate of God's existence might not be logically >inconsistent at all -- however, I believe that assuming His existence >*is* consistent with reality (and assuming He does not exist is *not* >consistent with reality). One reason is (as you mentioned above) the >visible changes in the lives of Christians I know, my own life >included. Of course I must note that people who submit to other religions and systems of belief also undergo discernable change in their lives. I personaly know two individuals who underwent tremendous change when they started practicing Buddhism. I'm sure new adherents to other religions also experience a change in their lives, obviously. This does not, however, prove the validity or inherent truth of these religions. It just proves that they are effective at modifying human behavior for one reason or another. >Another reason is answered prayer (as you mention below). >The most convincing to me is that there really does seem to be an >absolute morality (see _Mere_Christianity_ about this -- C.S. Lewis >explains it much better than I). Of course for every answered prayer there is an unanswered prayer. I know... I once used to pray to the same god you do. I'd be more willing to bet that you work for what you pray for and mere chance stipulates its fulfillment. I'm sure followers of the varrious gods of the Hindu belief would be as addament in their belief that prayer to their gods is effective in bringing about desired effects for them... >Isn't that amazing? I don't understand this either, but this >experiment has been verified in my own life time and again. If I pray for rain (here in Seattle) and get it... is it the act of God, or just the weather? Jeff Lindborg
muchlis@math.wisc.edu (Ahmad Muchlis) (03/12/91)
[Stephen Matson described his experiences with Christianity, which at the moment are primarily those of doubting. There were several responses, including one quoted here from Dan Bredy: >Let me speak to you as someone speaking from the 'other' side (I am an >agnostic). I was a practicing Christian for almost all of my 22 years before > [stuff deleted] --clh] Just a reminder: belief in God is not a monopoly of Christianity. This is true even if we mean *a unique God*. So the choice is much broader than Biblical God vs agnotism or atheism. Look other directions too.
fiddler@eng.sun.com (Steve Hix) (03/13/91)
In article <Mar.12.04.33.41.1991.1873@athos.rutgers.edu> lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) writes: >In article <Mar.9.01.19.54.1991.23326@athos.rutgers.edu> lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) writes: > >>Another reason is answered prayer (as you mention below). >>The most convincing to me is that there really does seem to be an >>absolute morality (see _Mere_Christianity_ about this -- C.S. Lewis >>explains it much better than I). > >Of course for every answered prayer there is an unanswered prayer. I >know... I once used to pray to the same god you do. Can you be sure? How can you differentiate between no answer and an answer of "no" or "not yet" or "wait"? Bugs my kids when I don't say "yes" (understandable), and usually I try to explain why I decided the way that I did. In some cases, it's not possible to so explain at the time...but they're learning to trust that I have some reason(s) for giving them the answer, and that I'll explain why later on. They're learning to trust that I love them and have their best interests at heart. >If I pray for rain (here in Seattle) and get it... is it the act of >God, or just the weather? Yes. -- ------------ The only drawback with morning is that it comes at such an inconvenient time of day. ------------
lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) (03/14/91)
Andrew Lumsdaine says: [ Although God's existence may be undecidable, there is good reason to include it in one's belief system because it seems to correspond more closely to reality. The reasons cited are: changed lives, answered prayer, and the evidence of absolute morality. ] In reply, Jeff Lindborg says: [ Regarding answered prayer: ] >Of course for every answered prayer there is an unanswered prayer. I >know... I once used to pray to the same god you do. I'd be more willing >to bet that you work for what you pray for and mere chance stipulates >its fulfillment. I'm sure followers of the varrious gods of the Hindu >belief would be as addament in their belief that prayer to their gods >is effective in bringing about desired effects for them... > >If I pray for rain (here in Seattle) and get it... is it the act of >God, or just the weather? My first reaction here was to start listing off some of the remarkable answers to prayer that I *have* had. But let's face it, there is no way that I can sit here at my terminal and share with anyone what my experience with God has been. I'm not a capable enough writer, for one thing, plus there are inherent limitations in the medium itself. So, a list of the events in my life that I am convinced are answers to prayer would just seem like a nice set of anectdotes -- inspirational to some, maybe -- to the agnostic, well, they would certainly not be convincing evidence that prayers are answered. I realize this. So, I'm going to spare everyone the heartwarming stories (or nauseating self-delusion, depending on where you're coming from :-) ) But, in defense of my belief in answered prayer, let me say a few things. Your response seems to imply that designating a certain event as an answered prayer is mere superstition. But, don't you think that it is up to the indiviual actually involved to make that decision? Any prayer and (supposed) response are going to exist within the context of the rest of one's life. I know my life, I know the context in which I made requests of God, and I know the context in which these requests were answered. When I consider the prayer-response events, I am overwhelmingly convinced that my prayers were heard and that they were answered. But, I could never convey to a total stranger what the context of my life surrounding the prayer-response events was. Perhaps if we spent enough time actually developing a close personal relationship, you would understand -- not necessarily that the events were answers to prayer, but maybe you would understand that my reasons for believing so are not based in superstition. And maybe I could understand the reasons that you feel the way you do. I have to agree with Michael Bushnell about the severe limitations of trying to communicate over the newsgroup -- some (important) things just can't be shared this way. Regards, Andrew Andrew Lumsdaine "We don't understand the software, and lums@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu sometimes we don't understand the hardware, MIT RLE but we can *see* the blinking lights!"
lums@soggy-fibers.ai.mit.edu (Andrew Lumsdaine) (03/14/91)
This is a continuation of a previous post in which I replied to Jeff Lindborg's comments about prayer and its role in determining God's existence. In this post, I reply to Jeff Lindborg's comments about changed lives. [ To the moderator -- you can combine the two if you like, but they're both somewhat long, so it may be best to leave them separated. ] Andrew Lumsdaine says: [ Although God's existence may be undecidable, there is good reason to include it in one's belief system because it seems to correspond more closely to reality. The reasons cited are: changed lives, answered prayer, and the evidence of absolute morality. ] In reply, Jeff Lindborg says: [ Regarding changed lives: ] >Of course I must note that people who submit to other religions and >systems of belief also undergo discernable change in their lives. I >personaly know two individuals who underwent tremendous change when >they started practicing Buddhism. I'm sure new adherents to other >religions also experience a change in their lives, obviously. This >does not, however, prove the validity or inherent truth of these >religions. It just proves that they are effective at modifying human >behavior for one reason or another. By changes, I meant positive changes -- I assume that's what you mean as well. Please take what I said in all of its context. I did not say that changed lives prove the existence of God. I said that the existence of God may be undecidable, but that a belief system including God's existence corresponds more closely with reality. One evidence of this correspondence -- for me, at least -- is the positive changes in the lives of Christians that I know, myself included. One of the fundamental effects of Christianity is that Christians' lives will be changed -- they are supposed to be changed, and for the better. When I see the changes occur, just as they are supposed to occur, it makes me think there could be something to Christianity and to all this talk about God. Furthermore, as far as I can determine, the changes stemming from Christianity are absolutely the correct ones. Christians are to love our neighbors as ourselves, we are to love our enemies, we are to be like Christ. Now, to nip any ad hominem attacks in the bud -- I realize that not every Christian is going to fully exhibit these qualities. But the question one has to ask is not: "Is Christian A a nicer person than Agnostic B?" Rather, one should ask: "Is Christian A a nicer person than he or she used to be?" Or better yet: "Is Christian A a nicer person than he or she would have been if he or she were not a Christian?" That's not as easy a question to answer as it might seem. You certainly cannot pick some public or historical figure and say, "Look at so-and-so." Neither you nor I know that person well enough to say anything about the role true role of Christianity in his or her life. About people you know personally, well, you have to answer the questions for yourself. I have answered them for myself and seen it as supporting evidence that God exists and that Christianity is true. It's not the only evidence and certainly not a definitive proof, but it compels me. Again, I express my regret that we don't know each other, that you will probably never be able to appreciate my experiences, and I will probably never be able to appreciate yours. Regards, Andrew Andrew Lumsdaine "We don't understand the software, and lums@rice-chex.ai.mit.edu sometimes we don't understand the hardware, MIT RLE but we can *see* the blinking lights!"
JMS111@psuvm.psu.edu (Jenni Sheehey) (03/14/91)
In article <Mar.12.04.33.41.1991.1873@athos.rutgers.edu>, lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) says: > >Of course for every answered prayer there is an unanswered prayer. I >know... I once used to pray to the same god you do. I'd be more willing >to bet that you work for what you pray for and mere chance stipulates >its fulfillment. I believe that someone else has already commented on the fact that there's a difference between an unanswered prayer and a prayer which has been answered "no" or "in My time, not yours". However, I would like to inject some personal experience... I started smoking when I was young, stupid and far from God (ca. 12 years old). When I got to college as a music education major, I realized that my life would be much easier if I quit. So I tried, unsuccessfully, for a while (a year and a bit), but eventually changed my major and gave up trying to quit. A year or two later I allowed God into my life and realized that I made a worse witness because I was still a smoker. (not that this is the case with all smokers, I just noticed that people took me, a 21-year-old female, less seriously as a Christian because I smoked) Anyway, within 2 months of my deciding to quit, I went cold turkey, and have not restarted since. (That was last May.) I can't say, in all honesty, that I haven't had any since, but I've had less than a pack, I think, and that's down from almost 3/4 pack/day. It'll do for me. =) >If I pray for rain (here in Seattle) and get it... is it the act of >God, or just the weather? Is there a difference? I never read where God was only allowed to work directly in the world in ways which are contrary to His own physical laws... --Jenni
billy@tcom.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) (03/19/91)
There is no way you can say that there are unanswered prayers! God will answer all prayers, but he may sometimes say 'NO!'
chappell@symcom.math.uiuc.edu (Glenn Chappell) (03/20/91)
In article <Mar.18.23.40.56.1991.28891@athos.rutgers.edu> billy@tcom.stc.co.uk (Billy Khan) writes: > God will answer all prayers, but he may sometimes say 'NO!' I've heard this phrase several times before, and to a certain extent it's true, but it doesn't solve the problem. The Bible doesn't say God will "answer prayers" - it says you ask Him to do something & He'll do it (e.g. John 16:23-24). Now there are Biblical examples of prayers which did not result in the requested result, e.g. 2 Corinthians 12:7-9. There is also "fine print" in the "prayer contract", e.g. James 1:6. Therefore, I would say that this whole thing is really somewhat of a complex issue.... We do know, however that we can have trust & confidence in God (those of us who have received Christ, that is). But I wonder what passages like John 16:23-24 really mean in light of passages like the other 2 I mentioned. GGC <><