by WizenedSage (Galen Rose) ~
It strikes me that Christians accept the foundational event of Christianity on extremely weak evidence. Supposedly, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as described in the Gospels, is taken as proof that he was a god and thus deserving of worship. The sum total of the evidence amounts to several descriptions written in those ancient Gospels in a superstitious, pre-scientific age.
It occurs to me that I would not believe the resurrection was what it appeared to be, even If I had seen it with my own eyes. In fact, I actually have seen a resurrection of sorts, and didn't believe it.
Once, this dude in a tux was on a stage with a very pretty young lady. He had her get into a long, narrow box and lie down in it; her head protruded from one end of the box and her feet from the other end. Then he proceeded to saw the box in two and pull the two halves apart. The young lady had to be dead, right? Well, then he pushed the two ends of the box together again, opened the box, and helped the young lady step out of the box. Ta-da! She was as good as new!
What simply amazes me is that they accept this absurd "explanation" on such scant evidence - some words in an ancient book; there really is no other evidence. Now, I witnessed this resurrection first hand, but I still didn't believe it was an actual resurrection. I'm pretty sure it was a trick and the young lady was never dead. Now, with this alleged resurrection involving Jesus, there are several possible explanations. It could have been a magic trick, similar to the one described above, or it could have involved a mirage, or a hallucination, or the authors simply embellished a story they had heard from others, or perhaps they simply made up the story from scratch. Now that's five possibilities (and there are more) which involve things we know for a fact happen frequently in this world. So why do Christians accept the least likely explanation of all, that Jesus was dead for several days and then just came back to life? That is the one explanation that we know for a fact to be biologically impossible.
It seems that Christians have accepted this least likely explanation because they've been told to believe it, and because they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it just might be true and if they don't believe it they'll be given a ticket to hell.
What simply amazes me is that they accept this absurd "explanation" on such scant evidence - some words in an ancient book; there really is no other evidence. They appear to give little thought to other possible explanations, like those that I have proposed.
Perhaps I never got taken in by this story because I was just lucky enough to have witnessed that "resurrection" that I described above. I mean, I saw one with my own eyes, and I still didn't believe it. So, I'm certainly not about to believe a written description from an ancient book. And this makes me pretty certain that if I had been there 2 thousand years ago and seen Jesus’ apparent resurrection with my own eyes, I still wouldn't believe it.
Perhaps this explains why so few Jews of the time became Christians; this resurrection just wasn't that convincing to those who were there at the time. Supposedly, thousands of Jews followed Jesus around, being fed with just a few fishes and loaves, and observing dozens of other miracles, and yet so few of them accepted Jesus as the Messiah that Paul decided to look to the Gentiles for converts. And I always thought it was suspicious that even Jesus’ closest followers didn’t recognize him after his alleged resurrection. What's up with that?
Isn't it obvious that we should never believe the scientifically impossible without truly extraordinary evidence? And accepting the impossible on faith makes even less sense. How can we possibly think we have a grasp on how the world really works, if we haven't insisted on having an accumulation of solid evidence?
It strikes me that Christians accept the foundational event of Christianity on extremely weak evidence. Supposedly, the death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, as described in the Gospels, is taken as proof that he was a god and thus deserving of worship. The sum total of the evidence amounts to several descriptions written in those ancient Gospels in a superstitious, pre-scientific age.It occurs to me that I would not believe the resurrection was what it appeared to be, even If I had seen it with my own eyes. In fact, I actually have seen a resurrection of sorts, and didn't believe it.
Once, this dude in a tux was on a stage with a very pretty young lady. He had her get into a long, narrow box and lie down in it; her head protruded from one end of the box and her feet from the other end. Then he proceeded to saw the box in two and pull the two halves apart. The young lady had to be dead, right? Well, then he pushed the two ends of the box together again, opened the box, and helped the young lady step out of the box. Ta-da! She was as good as new!
What simply amazes me is that they accept this absurd "explanation" on such scant evidence - some words in an ancient book; there really is no other evidence. Now, I witnessed this resurrection first hand, but I still didn't believe it was an actual resurrection. I'm pretty sure it was a trick and the young lady was never dead. Now, with this alleged resurrection involving Jesus, there are several possible explanations. It could have been a magic trick, similar to the one described above, or it could have involved a mirage, or a hallucination, or the authors simply embellished a story they had heard from others, or perhaps they simply made up the story from scratch. Now that's five possibilities (and there are more) which involve things we know for a fact happen frequently in this world. So why do Christians accept the least likely explanation of all, that Jesus was dead for several days and then just came back to life? That is the one explanation that we know for a fact to be biologically impossible.
It seems that Christians have accepted this least likely explanation because they've been told to believe it, and because they want it to be true, or they are afraid that it just might be true and if they don't believe it they'll be given a ticket to hell.
What simply amazes me is that they accept this absurd "explanation" on such scant evidence - some words in an ancient book; there really is no other evidence. They appear to give little thought to other possible explanations, like those that I have proposed.
Perhaps I never got taken in by this story because I was just lucky enough to have witnessed that "resurrection" that I described above. I mean, I saw one with my own eyes, and I still didn't believe it. So, I'm certainly not about to believe a written description from an ancient book. And this makes me pretty certain that if I had been there 2 thousand years ago and seen Jesus’ apparent resurrection with my own eyes, I still wouldn't believe it.
Perhaps this explains why so few Jews of the time became Christians; this resurrection just wasn't that convincing to those who were there at the time. Supposedly, thousands of Jews followed Jesus around, being fed with just a few fishes and loaves, and observing dozens of other miracles, and yet so few of them accepted Jesus as the Messiah that Paul decided to look to the Gentiles for converts. And I always thought it was suspicious that even Jesus’ closest followers didn’t recognize him after his alleged resurrection. What's up with that?
Isn't it obvious that we should never believe the scientifically impossible without truly extraordinary evidence? And accepting the impossible on faith makes even less sense. How can we possibly think we have a grasp on how the world really works, if we haven't insisted on having an accumulation of solid evidence?
Comments
Post a Comment