From: utzoo!watmath!rtris Newsgroups: net.religion Title: Reasons for Christianity Article-I.D.: watmath.5006 Posted: Tue May 3 10:13:21 1983 Received: Wed May 4 00:17:54 1983 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 >reasonreasons< 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.