The point is, there were witnesses to the resurrection. We believe it. You don’t have too. You will not convince us that we are wrong. We believe. I’m guessing we won’t convince you that you are wrong either. My question to you is; Why does it matter? Why spend so much effort to refute our beliefs?
Let me break it down into parts:
I’ve mentioned this briefly in a thread a few months back but I’m a puzzle solver by nature. My bathroom has a box filled with books with various mathematical puzzles, logic puzzles, brief mysteries. etc. I like understanding the logic behind things. I dislike when movies and novels seem to be written on the fly and forego an internal logic. Things like religion are no different. I want to see the underpinning of it all. As a kid who grew up Catholic (until about 13) I struggled with that, and the more I’ve studied into adulthood I get far more questions than answers.
There are quite a few believers (Catholics are no exception) that focus their attention solely on their faith and don’t have much concern with other faiths. At the same time there are also quite a few believers (and again Catholics are no exception) who not only focus on their faith but want to study other faiths, and in doing so see flaws or have questions about those other faiths. I would assume you would not have a problem with Catholics discussing incongruities they see in non-Catholic faiths with those believers. A Catholic asks a non-Catholic about his or her faith. He or she gets an answer, but sees issues with the answer and asks further question. Knowledge and understanding are good. What I am doing here is no different, except for the parties involved.
Some (not all) Christians see Christianity as more than just a belief system, but as something that is convincing on its face. The idea is that if one doesn’t see the harmony and logic within Christianity than that person is choosing to disbelieve and has not properly studied the faith. What’s interesting is that non-believers are often caught in a catch-22. If one presents an argument against Christianity the non-believer is often told they need to study A, B, and C. When that same non-believer presents arguements against A, B, and C the cycle continues until the non-believer is said to be malicious in his or her questioning, or fixating on it, or has ulterior motives, or some other character flaw that derives from doing a great deal of study on Christianity without also accepting it.
And just a thought, If you’re right, nobody will ever know it. But just in case we’re right, well, we’d like to err on the safe side.
I find the safe side to be “I can’t say for certain” while at the same time determining whether to apply a small or large amount of doubt. In my case I’m not saying it can’t be true but the story stinks like 2-day-old milk left in a hot car.
Thank you very much. A good day to you…