Posted on 08/16/2004 12:16:13 PM PDT by Mr. Silverback
Note: This commentary was delivered by Prison Fellowship President Mark Earley.
When Julie went away to college, she made a point of sharing Christ with her three roommates. They listened politely and seemed supportive. Julie was excited; they all seemed open to the Gospel. But to her surprise, they responded just as warmly when Sally said she was into the New Age and believed in “the god within all of us”; and when Amy said she believed that God is a “force,” like in Star Wars; and when Ruth said she was a “very spiritual” person but didn’t believe in any god at all.
But what baffled Julie most of all was when the others agreed that “we’re all saying the same thing in the end.”
How can Christian students like Julie make sense of the bewildering range of beliefs they encounter in this post-Christian age? In his recently re-issued book, How to Stay Christian in College, Professor J. Budziszewski explains that Julie had run into the powerful myth that “truth is whatever you sincerely believe.” It holds that, if you believe it, then it’s “true for you”—and rules of logic and evidence don’t apply.
The “myth of sincerity” is especially potent when it comes to life’s big questions—about God and morality. Consider abortion, for example. A few years ago, abortionist James McMahon said, “I frankly think the soul or personage comes in when the fetus is accepted by the mother.” In other words, an unborn baby only becomes human when the mother sincerely believes he’s human.
Christian students encounter the same type of reasoning on the college campus. If a classmate sincerely believes her unborn child is human, friends will call the child a “baby” and congratulate her. But if she doesn’t, they call it a “fetus” and encourage her to have an abortion.
This is such an obvious fallacy. Can we really make something true just by believing it? How about a concrete example? If you sincerely believe your onion rings are French fries, do they become French fries? If you sincerely believe that you’re a frog, do you become a frog? You might leap in the air, but you will not be a frog.
When it comes to concrete, familiar objects, no one falls for the sincerity myth. We all know there’s an objective reality that exists on its own, despite what we may believe about it—and no matter how sincere we are. If we accept the idea of objective truth when dealing with trivial questions, then logically we have to accept it when dealing with big questions about God and morality as well.
When students like Julie leave home, they need to know how to counter the myths they’ll face on college campuses. Why not get your college-bound son, daughter, or grandchild a copy of J. Budziszewski’s book How to Stay Christian in College. You can order a copy through BreakPoint (1-877-322-5527).
Christian young people don’t need to be baffled about how to respond to their roommates or their professors. With a little help, they can learn to cut through the myths and fables with the sharp edge of biblical truth.
Forgive me for that. I was in a hurry to get somewhere. As I looked at it anew, I can see it bears further explanation. I can't do it right now, but if you're interested, we can take it up later.
> Why is that?
I suggest you take a good look at the world around you.
> There is more serious evidence that He existed than there is that Plato existed.
ERRR. Wrong, but thanks for playing. There are books written *by* Plato, around 30 of them, I believe. There were sculptures of the man made during his lifetime. There were numerous references to the man from other people who knew him, *right* *then*, not decades later.
Importantly, we are not being led to believe that Plato was the son of a god or could do miracles. "Just A Guy" is a description that we can state with good certainty has referred to many billions.
> I, like McDowell, was a skeptic before Christ brought me to him.
And before I was a skeptic, I was the Pope. Do you believe that?
Ok, I'll be back in a couple of days.
You could say the Dumb Ox rocks!
The earliest manuscripts we have of Plato were written something like 1000 years after his death. So it's not true to say that we have them from people who knew him *right* *then.*
Importantly, we are not being led to believe that Plato was the son of a god or could do miracles. "Just A Guy" is a description that we can state with good certainty has referred to many billions.
But then, we're only talking about the historocity of Jesus. It makes no sense to make claims about His Godhood if we cannot even agree if He existed.
I think an important question, besided the one of rising from the dead, is this..were anyone's sins really forgiven by the death of Jesus, and how would anyone know?
> were anyone's sins really forgiven by the death of Jesus, and how would anyone know?
Ahem...
wait for it...
"Damned if I know."
Well, I would say that if Jesus really did rise from the dead in the manner the Bible describes, such a feat would lend significant credibility to the premise that He was who He said He was. If He accomplished that, after having been crucified, then the other claims of miracles are probably true as well--which, with the healing and so forth, should demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt His goodness. A prerequisite to goodness is not lying or misleading others about the requirements of salvation. Such a thing would actually be cruel, and could not be reconciled with goodness.
Demonstrating how it can be derived, through reason, that He rose from the dead is the challenging part, IMO.
> The earliest manuscripts we have of Plato were written something like 1000 years after his death. So it's not true to say that we have them from people who knew him *right* *then.*
Fair enough. It *seems* that we have the passed-down manuscripts of Plato. But then, there are no extant mentions of Jesus from within a hundred years of his supposed death... and unlike Plato, Jesus was seen by his followers as The Single Most Important Person To Walk The Earth Ever. One would suspect they woudl do their best to keep copies of difficult-to-obtain writings...
> It makes no sense to make claims about His Godhood if we cannot even agree if He existed.
INdeed so, but the math changes based on the claims. Again, let's say you claim you had Jello at lunch. I'll accept that, no proof needed... it's sufficiently mundane. But make a sufficiently wild claim, and I just might begin to doubt everythign you have to say that cannot be easily verified.
> If He accomplished that, after having been crucified, then the other claims of miracles are probably true as well--which, with the healing and so forth, should demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt His goodness.
Devils Advocate: Let's assume that Jesus was, in fact, an AntiChrist, and that The Jews Had It Right The First Time. Wouldn't this hypothetical AntiChrist act in just this way? What better way to mislead people than to demonstrate serious "goodness?"
Indeed. I believe there is an objective reality. God and His son may be a part of it, or not, it's beyond my ken. Really, we have no way of knowing whether what we experience as reality is any such thing at all, a well known position in philosophy known as radical skepticism. Descarte's "Cogito ergo sum" (I think therefore I am) makes a convincing argument for each of our own's personal existence in some form, but beyond that all else is essentially faith. I (and most of us, presumably) choose to believe, i.e. have faith, that the reality we experience is, well, real.
Given this small leap of faith that we all make, whether knowingly or not, I can't really criticize another for making a larger one. I would prefer that people use their natural skepticism and ability for reason to examine their faith. The circular "reasoning" used by some who believe that the Bible is the literal and inerrant truth because it says that it is is difficult for me to comprehend.
I envy those who have faith in something larger than themselves that brings them some certainty and solace in life, although I can't make that leap myself. I do believe that the Judeo-Christian belief system is one of the more consistent and humane, and is responsible for much of the progress in the western world in the last thousand years.
Just a few random thoughts from my admittedly muddled brain.
I believe it is strictly a matter of faith...no logic or proof available.
I don't agree with the second half of the sentence.
This is in the same vein as something that C. S. Lewis said. Christ if not God, would not be a mere "good man." He would either be a looney of the sort that thinks he is a poached egg, or else the devil of hell.
But if the devil can deceive perfectly with no penetration possible, then for all practical purposes the distinction between good and evil has been obliterated.
That statement suggests you or someone you know of has examined the evidence for numerous claimed miracles, of which there are quite a few, and come up with reasonable explanations (other than being miracles). Which is it?
I think it's good to ask what sorts of behaviors you could expect from the Antichrist. To answer your question to the best of my ability... I don't thinks so...because you cannot get good fruit from a diseased tree. Likewise, Satan cannot do good things, as far as I know. Instead, he does bad things and says they are good. If you have evidence to the contrary, let me know.
First of all, the Gospels are clearly such. And the evidence is overwhelming they were written within a few decades of his death, not second century as some claim. Secondly, Josephus wrote of him in the late first century. And no, most of the references were not forgeries by Christians. There is general agreement on that, although a couple of sentences have been called into question.
From my understanding of what we have, your information is about 30 years out of date. We have manuscripts within the same century, according to Christian as well as secular scholars.
Yes. We do not live in a "Matrix" of sorts. The objects we feel and see and touch really exist apart from our minds. I agree, and I commend your recognition that this requires some sort of faith.
I will grant you that it is difficult matter to prove someone lived no matter who you're talking about, especially from so long ago. We would not be able to produce a body, for instance, because even we claim the tomb was empty. If the tomb were not empty, all the Jews would have to had to have done is produce a body. "See? He's dead. No savior for you." All that we have are the claims of the eyewitnesses--several of them, in fact, that all corroborate the story. This is no different than anything else in history. The extant facts that we have from secular sources, that are also written as a historical background of the era, support the accuracy of the eyewitnesses in all other matters.
Since we have no body, this is of no small importance. We're left to judge the veracity of the claims on the believability of the Apostles. You mentioned it before: They were liars, lunatics (or so gullible that they could be mistaken for lunatics), or Jesus was Lord. There are only so many options. Given all else we discussed, would you agree with that?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.