Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: Notesfiles $Revision: 1.6.2.13 $; site iuvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxl!ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker
From: dsaker@iuvax.UUCP
Newsgroups: net.religion
Subject: A Challenge
Message-ID: <1700019@iuvax.UUCP>
Date: Sat, 5-May-84 14:57:00 EDT
Article-I.D.: iuvax.1700019
Posted: Sat May  5 14:57:00 1984
Date-Received: Mon, 7-May-84 00:47:57 EDT
Lines: 62
Nf-ID: #N:iuvax:1700019:000:3412
Nf-From: iuvax!dsaker    May  5 13:57:00 1984


From what I have been reading in net.religion lately, the Christians have
been challenged with a question regarding their belief, and they have failed
to meet that challenge.  (This question can also be posed, in a suitably 
modified form, to believers in other religions, but it has usually been placed
in a Christian setting, and so I will also place it in that setting.)
The question can be put as follows:
    
     1. The objective evidence for Christianity is not strong.  It is 
certainly not stronger than the evidence for some other religions.
     2. The subjective evidence for Christianity is very much the same as the
subjective evidence for other religions.  Certainly, it is not stronger.
     So, how do you Christians justify your belief?

Surely, you Christians feel challenged by points 1 and 2.  Surely, in your own
mind, you feel called upon to answer that challenge.  Please sit down at your
keyboards and answer honestly and openly.  Please don't give me any silly 
quips like  "The difference between Christianity and other religions is that
Christianity is true"  or  "Christian belief doesn't need justification".
Please don't play games with the wording of my question.  You understand the
sort of thing I am asking.  Please answer me.

In the rest of this note, I want to expand upon the question.

Christianity lays claim to miracles and faith healing.  So do other religions.

Christians point to certain historical evidence that Jesus actually existed.
That evidence is weak.  Besides, the evidence that, say, Mohammed existed is
an awful lot stronger.  BTW, there is even better evidence for the existence
of the Rev. Moon.  That doesn't make the Moonies' claims for him true.

Christians say: "If Jesus wasn't a miraculous figure, why would his followers
have believed in him?"  The same thing applies to leading figures in other 
religions.

Christians claim that (sometimes) their prayers are answered.  Followers of
other religions make the same claim.  Besides, prayers are only answered
sometimes.  When Christians pray for a terminally ill person, sometimes the 
person lives, other times they die.

The most convincing evidence, in a Christian's mind, is probably subjective.
The Christian feels that Christianity is true, observes their life coming
together where it used to be a shambles, feels themself growing spiritually.  
I can understand someone (initially) being convinced by this.  If it works, it
must be true, right?  But then followers of other religions are saying the 
same things.  Their religion works too.  This makes me doubt whether a 
religion working for somebody has anything to do with the truth of that
religion.  Some Christians say: "I tried Buddhism, but it didn't work;
Christianity does."  But some Buddhists say: "I tried Christianity, but 
it didn't work; Buddhism does."  I can understand that a Christian's feeling 
of certainty can be very strong, but surely the fact that others have such a
feeling of certainty about quite different beliefs makes that Christian
question the meaning of their own feeling of certainty.

So, please, you Christians out there, explain to me honestly and openly how
you deal with these challenges.  If you just shut your eyes, say so.  If your
personal conviction is just too strong for you to doubt it, say so.
Come on, all I want is an honest answer.


     Daryel Akerlind
  ...ihnp4!inuxc!iuvax!dsaker