Enfield

http://headlines.agapepress.org/archive/4/122004mc.asp

A lovely article. However, why do Christians use the bible to try and advance their cause. I am skeptical because the bible is errant and nobody knows the truth behind who wrote it, when it was written and how alot of it cannot be substantiated. Its funny how it was written 40 years after Jesus supposedly died and that is alot of time to get their story straight...Jesus may have been a man (If he existed), but certainly, he turned into a god through the stories in the bible...

------------------------------------------------------------------
(AgapePress) - Nearly everyone understands the difference between a believer and a skeptic, but I'm not sure everyone knows the difference between an honest skeptic and a dishonest one.

An honest skeptic is someone who may have doubts about certain religious truths or doctrines, but when confronted with the evidence will face up to it and alter his life accordingly. A dishonest skeptic, however, is a person who has doubts and will never face up to the evidence. When blasted out of one foxhole of unbelief, he only takes refuge in a second. If blasted out of that foxhole, he'll just start looking for another.

In John 20:24-28 we read about Thomas, the infamous disciple for whom the well-known English epithet "a doubting Thomas" was coined. Thomas had not been with the other disciples when Jesus appeared to them after His resurrection. When Thomas rejoined them, he found them ecstatic, saying, "We have seen the Lord!!! He's risen!!!" But Thomas was a skeptic. "Unless I see in his hands the print of the nails," he said, "and place my hand in his side, I will not believe" (v.25).

Although Thomas was a skeptic, at least he was an honest one. A week after his resurrection, with Thomas present, Jesus appeared before His disciples and offered to Thomas the empirical evidence he had demanded earlier. Jesus invited him to stretch out his hand to touch His wounds. Yet Thomas didn't actually do it. He was obviously convinced without these assurances and immediately fell at Christ's feet confessing, "My Lord and my God" (v. 28).
------------------------------------------------------------------

Sparrow

Welcome Enfield. Perhaps if you peruse here through the fora and the library, you'll find arguments more coherent than the one you quoted.

IMO Christians use the bible to advance their cause simply because it is the only evidence (aside from personal revelation) that any of their belief is true. Gods were often mentioned in ancient documents, and most of these conflict with the Christian interpretation of god. Unfortunately Christians often cannot examine the evidence of the authenticity of their sacred text without bias. Evaluate the origins of the book of mormon and the koran; why are they false and the bible is true?

Put youself in their place. You believe strongly. You must spread the word. How will you do it? How will you convince me I'm wrong?

Enfield

Oh naturally. Im not disagreeing with their good intent. However ,it seems that if they want to get skeptics into church, they should stop using the bible and start using other methods.
Pascals Wager is probably very effective.

Roland

What I get from this article is that you can be an "honest" skeptic only if, in the end, you believe the Bible is true. If you come to the opposite conclusion, you are somehow being "dishonest."

Oh and by the way, speaking of Thomas, Luke apparently DIDN'T think he was missing when Jesus first appeared to "the eleven" after His resurrection. Luke records all eleven as having been present.

Nectaris

I don't think Pascal's Wager works well on skeptics, but does a much better job of convincing Christians that they should remain Christian. Since I don't believe in Hell, threatening me with it doesn't really have much of an impact. It also has some other problems, in that it does not present all the possiblities. After all there could be a god that hates only Christians and send only them to Hell. Since this wasn't the topic of the OP, I'll end my diatribe on PW here.

On the OP, wasn't Thomas given proof? I wonder what would have happened if Thomas asked for proof, and someone shoved a 1500 year old book in his face and claimed that the book was proof. If Jesus came to me and said "Hi, I exist," I would probably have to rethink my view of everything (I'd have a lot of questions, if he had the time to spare). However someone pointing at a 1500 year old compilation of books saying, "this is proof," doesn't work for me (and I doubt it would have worked on Thomas).

Dave

Wayne Delia

So that's why there are no atheists in foxholes!

WMD

Llyricist

And Paul said he appeared to "The Twelve".... go figure

Javaman

The most glaring problem with Pascal's Wager is that it assumes only two choices, belief or non-belief. A quick glance around will show multiple, mutually-exclusive, belief systems. That doesn't necessarily mean that non-belief is the "correct" answer, though. It just happens to be mine.

I'd consider myself an honest skeptic as I'm always open to new evidence but, as of yet, I've never seen anything of the supernatural sort.

Gawen

And why can't we be assured the same evidence? Surely Jesus can bridge the 2000 year gap and give us all a good showing. Nothing is impossible for the Son of God...

Shinobi

The irony....