> I beg to differ, and here's why: The reason I trust the accounts
>that are found in the Bible is because God revealed himself to me. (In
>several ways, including a reading of the Scriptures, but most palpably in
>a gathering of Christians.)
Yes... and No. A fundamental claim throughout Christianity is that
it was historically verifiable. That was Peter's claim at Pentecost and
Paul's claim throughout his ministry.
Recognizing God's work around me tends to strengthen my belief in
the Bible. But the foundations of my belief are the historical claims.
I'll say this in a different, more aggressive way. If I were to
become convinced that Jesus did not rise from the dead then I would quit
being a Christian. Period.
> It is on this basis that I was able to make a leap of faith that the
>accounts are accurate (in the sense that they were accurate back then,
>not as a scientific truth. They were telling a true story and added
>perspective and embellishment as things were revealed to them by the Holy
>Spirit.) Look at John, which is as much a document on the nature of the
>Incarnation of God as a document about Jesus the man. (Its instead about
>Jesus the Son of Man.)
I don't like leaps of faith. I don't understand them, either...
> We can't prove Christianity, if we could, then it would be a
>philosophy and not a journey. One of the important things in this to me is
>that we often apply the epistomology of our fields of study/work to the
>living God, and I'm afraid its a very bad fit.
On your first sentence in the previous paragraph -- I'm not sure
what you mean by proof but the evidence for Christianity is quite strong,
frankly. Not a mathematical proof... but then what is?
I'm not sure about your second sentence ("epistomology of our fields").
Let me pose an overall response to your note. There are Buddhists
and Hindus who "know" they are right because of their readings, meditations,
feelings, the love from their religious community. Does the defense of
*your* beliefs differ much from theirs? I argue that the Christian
apologetic is fundamentally of a different nature than the apologetic of a
Hindu or Buddhist.
> I apologize if my tone is a bit strong in this letter. I am, after
>all, a romantic undergrad fizix student, but I do feel strongly on this
>point.
Well, that can all be fixed, you know! Undergrads graduate. And
physicists can change majors... ;-)
Probably be good to stay a romantic for awhile though.
More seriously, I saw nothing wrong with your tone.
In Christ,
Ken
PS. I was born in Austin, of accountants who met at the University of
Texas. My brother is a physicist. My sister is a computer scientist. Sigh
-- I'm the only one who saw the bright pure light of mathematics!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken W. Smith, Professor of Mathematics
Interim Director, Office of Institutional Research "In the future
Central Michigan University, Mt. Pleasant, MI 48859 computers may weigh
Work phone: 517-774-7222, fax: 517-774-4250 as little as 1.5 tons."
Home phone & FAX: 517-772-5042 Popular Mechanics, 1949