Why I believe

It seems to me that lately Christians have entered into a bit of a no win argument with Atheists.  The debate of science vs Christianity, creationism vs Darwinism has been at the forefront of the news lately.  To be honest, scientists, atheists, generally people who seem to arguing from a fairly strong and reasoned point seemed to have been coming out on top.  I don't think Christians are really getting anywhere in this debate.  And frankly we just don't seem to be rational, logical and reasoned thinkers in these kinds of debates.

It's a difficult game to play.  While not trying to simplify the argument, Christians would seeem to start the wrong way around on the argument.  Gensis is the answer.  So we start at a position based on the beginning bible and then we see how what sceience seems to agree and hold onto that.  Anything that we don't think fits into the biblical narrative, we conveniently leave out, ignore or disregard as incorrect.  It doesn't really seem like the reasonable way to approach a proof.

For those outside the church it would seem like a slam dunk, home run win.  Reasonable logical conclusions win.  Closed minded, unmoving, dogmatic thinking lose, and is put back in it's place next to the flat earth society.  Those inside the church lament.  We aren't about to change our view on God.  We believe he exists but how do we "prove" that to everyone else.  Do we need too?  Clearly following blindly doesn't seem like a smart choice. 

One argument is to point out that we all place "faith" somewhere.  Some put faith in a religious text and teachers. Others in science.  Not everyone has done the research, or understood the papers, or checked the facts so in some sense we have to trust what we read.  Ahh that's faith too!  We must all be the same!

Another argument to "soften" the bible and it's creation science is to suggest we don't take the first part of Genesis literally.  While many wouldn't agree, I think this is bad way to start looking at things.  If we take parts of the bible as not meant for literal interpretation, then how do we know what's literal and what's allegorical?  Do we get to start picking and choosing what we feel comfortable including in our world view.  Sounds like a slippery slope.  

In some respects it sounds like an easy way out.  A way to explain away difficult concepts.  6 day creationism?  oh that's allegorical.  Noah building an ark and having 2 of every animal, massive global flood...hmm sounds implausible.  Let's call that allegorical too.

Can someone really believe in this day and age that everything that happens in the bible is historical?  A lot of crazy sounding stuff happens.  Angels, demons, people turning into pillars of salt, chariots of fire, Philistine giants fighting children, men whose strength is contained by long hair and beards. It all sounds crazy.  

The Old Testament has some weird things in it.  Can we really believe all of it?  Any of it?  Maybe just the bits that are less crazy.  Should we just stick to the New Testament.  Just Jesus and some disciples.  It's a lot safer.  Far fewer angels and demons.  Just the occasional healing of someone with leprosy.  Sounds much easier to believe.

What about teaching?  Do we do the same thing?  Just pick and choose what's easy and leave out what's hard?  It's a nice idea.  All that love your neighbour, and turn the other cheek stuff gets left where it belongs.  You can probably leave out the bit about giving money to the poor as well.  Now the bible starts to sound comfy and nice.

So what about it then.  Why do Christians believe this stuff?  Are we ignorant?  Do we just believe what we heard as children and then spout it back as adults, never questioning it?  Do we use it as a crutch to shelter us from the harsh realities of the world?  Lots of people would agree.  But I wouldn't.

The crux of the issue really comes down to Jesus.  And the most critical part of His life.  Was the resurrection real?  Most people would agree that Jesus existed and that he was executed.  But did He really rise 3 days later?  If he did then I think you have to believe everything in bible as being true.  If there is no resurrection, through the book out and don't worry about it.

This is exactly what Paul is saying in 1 Corinthians 15:17

"And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith"

He puts it pretty bluntly.

So the real question I think we need to get back to is not a question of how was the world created.  It's a question of whether or not Jesus rose from the dead.  Did he really appear to over 500 people over 40 days and then ascend into heaven?  If it's true then that's something truly remarkable.  No one else can claim that.  Some have tried, all but one unsuccessfully.

I don't want to go through the arguments for an against Jesus' resurrection.  Much better scholars than me have written volumes about it.  Probably one of the most famous is C S Lewis of Narnia fame.  An atheist turned Christian, has written excellent books on the proof of the resurrection and Jesus.  Go read Mere Christianity then come back.  I'll wait.

If we continue the argument that Christ did rise on the third day, then I believe it validates all His claims and actions.  Including His divinity, and His continual reference to Old Testament writers.  Jesus constantly refers to the Old Testament during His ministry, from multiple books, by author, never suggesting any of these writers was allegorical or anything but inspired and to be taken literally.

So if we take Jesus seriously, we need to take what He says seriously.  Jesus claims the bible is legit, so I make the same claim.  Do I find it hard to believe it sometimes.  Well yes.  It's sometimes hard to seriously suggest that every thing in the bible is true.  Was Jonah really inside a whale?  Well it was a big fish actually, and yes I believe it happened.  Jesus says it happened in Matthew 12.  He even tells everyone that Jonah in the fish for 3 days and nights is important because it points to Jesus in the tomb for 3 days and nights.

And that's the other thing that makes me believe.  The Old Testament constantly and I mean constantly talks about Jesus.  It has incident after incident which point to Jesus' life, death and resurrection.  It's no coincidence that Passover and Easter always around the same time of year.  We get Easter wrong, the orthodox church gets it right.  It's supposed to be on the same day.  Why?  Because Passover is all about Jesus.  He is our Passover lamb.  He rescues us, not out of the bondage of servitude to Egypt, but out of our bondage of sin.  

A father goes up to a mountain to sacrifice his only son. I'm confused, is this about God and Jesus, or Abraham or Issac.  The whole things sounds familiar.  As if God needs to be any more obvious, the events happen in the same spot.

The whole bible is about Jesus.  He completes it.  The rest of the New Testament is really people trying to explain what just happened if you weren't watching carefully enough.

So if Jesus is risen, it proves His power over death and confirms His divinity. Who am I to argue about the authenticity of the rest of the bible.

So while we argue about the creation of the universe, we should instead be discussing the resurrection.  That's the key issue.  The only real answer to the most important question in life.  If that tomb was really empty, if it's occupant really conquered death then the question of the creation of the universe becomes a moot point because we already have the answer.  He tells us at the start 

"In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth."