by Kolbitar » January 23rd, 2005, 3:33 am
::As for me I believe in Christ not solely because of the historical facts but because of the existential truths. I "KNOW" it is truth. Even if it turns out the bible was written by a group of monkeys, I would still believe in the "truth of christianity". At this point the historicity is irrelevant, just like the quality of the paper on which a love letter is written is irrelevant to the message in it.
Mink, everything was going good till I read this excerpt sitting above. However, I am not beyond misunderstanding or failing, for whatever reason, to extend the benefit of a doubt. You start out saying "not solely because of historical facts," but end up pretty much saying "even despite the historical facts." What truth is there in Christianity without Christ? and what Christ is there without the relevance of his historicity? In your analogy the quality of paper is but a means expressing a substance, but the quality that is the historicity of Christ is the substance. It's like saying it doesn't matter whether the person I love, who wrote the letter, really exists, just that that person's truth exists for me. I think Lewis would have been appalled at such a notion. I don't say that notion is yours, but as I -- a quite fallible human being -- read it, it's hard to see any other meaning. Existentialism sometimes sends the will too far adrift from the intellect. As long as the intellect is still attached, like you started out anchored in the "not *solely* because of historical fact," implying an acceptance of fact -- but more in addition to, then I think you have a very profound and relevant point. If not, I shall have to break out quotes by Lewis, whose name you've invoked in support of your argument, on the "poison of subjectivism." :-)
Sincerely,
Jesse