Thanks Dcalling (Golgotha). Absolutely, the reaction is squarely on the student. However I feel its a reasonable and valid reaction based on what is presented to us. God, or rather his followers have apparently presented us with evidence which is around 2000 years old and which in turn is based on personal reports of certain events.
If I were today presented with that same category of evidence about a medicine, a philosophy, a science, a business (etc), which would require me to invest time, energy and/or money, I wouldn't give it a second thought. I'd laugh it off.
I think that it may be wise to acknowledge that Scripture was written by folks who were living in a particular culture, spoke a language that is not use today, and had a much different view of ontology than we do in this post-modern era. The ANE (Ancient Near East) culture could only record and reason in accordance with their cognitive environment. It is not logical to expect the ancient texts to relate to modern science, business, etc. So, in that respect, I also would laugh at the notion that ancient science would have any relevance to todays science.
However, that is not what God had in mind when He inspired the authors of the Scripture. First of all, He was not speaking to this post-modern culture, the audience was rooted in the same culture and bathed in the same cognitive environment as the author the Biblical text was: the ANE. Therefore, what was written from that ANE culture had to speak to that audience, otherwise it would have had no impact on them and they would have had no way of understanding what God was revealing. If we demand that God should have written to this post-modern culture from the ANE culture, then we are violating logical communication. What I have just presented is an example of some of the tools of hermeneutical study that makes the Scripture less mystical and makes them clearer.
Accurate interpretation of the bible and its associated texts is apparently a lengthy and time consuming procedure. I believe that many spend years doing this.
1) Based on what reason should I even start this rather daunting journey? There are already so many demands on our time.
2) Surely there is a better way of presenting the evidence? I am really struggling to believe that a current God still feels that 2000 year old texts, some missing, some hear say, and many translated several times, is the best or even an adequate way of presenting his evidence.
It does take effort and time but you are not asking simple questions and that means that the answers to your question must be thick enough to cover your doubt. The challenge to your first point is: how much temporal time should be spent on an eternal answer? Not just for yourself but also for your children.
One of the purposes of those Biblical texts is to demonstrate Gods character and attributes, one of which is His eternality. Like I said before, if God is eternal then He necessarily must still exist. So, who is the God that exists? That is revealed in the ancient text as well and the pinnacle of His character is the death and resurrection of Christ. We dont need an update as to Gods character and trustworthiness since the Bible declares that He is never changing.
No matter how many times one feels that the Biblical texts have been copied or translated, the salvific message is still the same. Christ died to cover our sins and faith in that transaction guarantees the believer a life with Him in a place that is perfect in every way.
There are some scholars that maintain that the Biblical texts have been fully recovered through textual criticism methods. Whether this is true or not, I dont know but the discipline has brought us much closer to the original texts than before.
Whether one agrees that we have the original texts or not, the narratives of Christs death, resurrection, birth of the Christian faith, and the growth of the Christian church stand as witnesses to some historic event that was remarkable. Logic dictates that the event was the bodily resurrection of Christ.
Well, I grew up in a Christian community and went to a church school. I was told by my teachers and elder peers that God existed. I believed them because ... well because they were adults and I was brought up to trust and respect adults.
Now, I'm an adult and being asked religious questions by my kids. Silly as it sounds I feel uncomfortable telling the little white lies parents do (Santa, Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy ...). So when the more serious topic of religion comes up, I am struggling with giving them answers I am comfortable with. So I find myself here.
Short answer: When I was young I was told I was a Christian. Now I'm not so sure.
I appreciate your candor and I hope that the above dialogue helps you find some solid ground. If not, I am open to further discussion.
I actually have no problem in believing there was a creator at some point in time. Purely because my little mind can't come up with a better alternative. In fact I cant come up with any alternative.
I can however come up with a few imaginary scenarios on who or what that creator was. Out of respect at being on a Christian forum, I have used the term "God" as the creator. That was possibly not the best way to do it.
If I could convince myself that God exists now, then it would be an excellent reason for me to investigate the Bible and its origins in detail.
It seems that you have it backwards, logic would demand study and investigation to find the truth.
But I think it conveys the point that Religion can be a difficult sell, without the use of history and peers.
