These are questions that are certainly too deep to be answered
via the means of a humble forum like this. Before one considers any
evidence however, one needs to remember that how one consider's
evidence is directly a result of his or her thinking, which ought
to be based on logic.
Let's say we have compelling evidence that whales do exist, however
you do come across a person who for certain reasons, believes that
it is impossible for such an animal to exist. No matter what. No
matter how convincingly you might show him, or even get him to
touch and see the actual animal he can claim that all this is a
delusion or a trickery of the senses, or appeal to some alternative
reason as to why the very evidence he is seeing is not proof of a
whale. It boils down to if the person's particular point of view is
open to the possibility of the existence of a whale or not.
Evidence can help to strengthen one's logic, but it can never
create the logic itself.
It is the evidence that appeals to the logic, not the logic that is
birthed by the evidence. If the logic was created by the evidence
then there would be no reason whatsoever to consider why this or
that logic should be generated from that particular evidence. In
fact, it is as good as saying we can use any kind of logic on any
evidence as we do so, which is as good as saying nothing. Obviously
one needs the logic first before evidence is considered.
Of course, 'seeing to believe' is a very common logic that a lot of
people use in order to believe in something. However one needs to
think if this logic of belief is applicable to everything, and if not,
why. Indeed if one uses this logic only to go about life, then it
is no surprise that a lot of things will have to be taken on faith,
even though with a little shift of expectations many unreasonable
things may suddenly become perfectly logical and obvious.
Obviously, it's an issue of philosophy, first and formost.
Obviously philosophy can be strengthened or weakened by various
logics that can demostrate their truths in various ways.
The real question one should ask themselves before asking various
questions on the existence of a soul, heaven, hell or God is this:
are these notions that in my own point of view that are absolutely
impossible? Or are my expectations of their proofs unreasonable?
What do I consider more likely or less likely indeed? Is what I am
thinking logical, or emotional? If we have many things in our own
way of thinking that sets ourselves up from the start towards
disbelief, then it might not be very fair to answer these questions
on the sheer existence of hell, heaven or God at all.
Really, what indeed are your expectations? And if granted evidence,
how would you take it in? How much proof do you need?
I am certainly not sure, because first and formost I am not you.
But let me say first of all that among Christians I tend to be the
rather skeptical kind, and my personal conversion was hardly
emotional or wanting to buy pie-in-sky dreams. I don't think I
'reasoned' myself into faith (in the end you still have to leave
some things to belief), but first and foremost I would like to say
that the assumption that the belief in God or religon is illogical
or things that like to fly in spite of the evidence.
There are good and compelling reasons to be theist, even if you are
not a Christian. And obviously if you are a theist, one needs to
consider if polytheism or monotheism is more reasonable. And
lastly, if one chooses the either, one needs to wonder if any of
the either is to be the best form of the sort. But of course these
are yet again too complex questions to be answered in such a forum
without much cutting out of important concepts and questions.
And also I am not convinced that we are yet ready to engage in a
civil and fair discussion of things. It seems to me that many of us
are still raving to get our shots in at the opposite party, and not
really willing to listen or answer any questions at all. All too
often one might realize that one actually shares 90 percent of his
opponent's views when they truly start to debate. Obviously if
the skeptic here should view the Christians as cardboard characters
unworthy of trustful speak from which every world is hopelessly
marred by biblical bias, and the Christian viewing the skeptic as a
cutout of unbelief in 'obvious' things and just disrespect towards
God waiting to be put down... we shall get nowhere.
Shall we shake hands, make that cup of tea, and seriously listen to
each other for a change? Could the skeptics think more about what
they are really asking and the Christians consider if they really
understand what they believe and how to bring that across? That
would be most nice, and most fruitful as well.
On the issue of the bible being biased. First and formost one needs
to consider if this is a possibility. Was it all politics of
thelogy at the hand of church elders or rather was it an agreement
of the doctorine of the entire church versus a fringe group?
And is the victoring thelogy always a lie? Or are there other
reasons behind why the bible is the bible today? Has one considered
all the evidence? What would one like to believe? Is what one would
like to believe really happening? Is it congruent with
reality?
First and foremost I do not imagine for a moment one should use the
argument that the most popular version today is the lie simply
because it is the victoring version. It is as good as saying
nothing as it means that any losing idea or theory ought to be the
truth automatically simply because it was snubbed out. This means
that there ought to be no winners.
And I am not too sure as well, it is also as good as saying we
should not trust the accounts of WW2 written from the allies
perspective and should instead listen to the 'suppressed' nazi
version of history that is the suppressed truth. Yes the victors
may get to write history in the end, but that act of writing has
little bearing on if it is the truth or not. If the truth wins it
wins, as would a lie should it win.
To seriously consider what was the real christianity back then, one
needs to consider all the aspects of the case. I am disinclined to
agree with Judas' account simply because he is a vilified
character. One might as well agree with a gospel that paints all
the white as black, and black as white.
Do we dare to really test the evidence? Or just fit it into
whatever we'd like? This goes for both sides.
