Let’s say we were talking about Santa, would your reaction be the same? If you take the positive and I the negative, how would this same argument play out?
I could say Santa is silly to believe in because we have never seen flying rain deer, or a flying sled, or a sack filled with millions of toys, or a rather large man fitting in a small chimney who likes to have milk and cookies. You could point out how I didn’t follow the orthodox teachings by the right set of books, so that is why I don’t believe in Santa. If only I had been orthodox instead of the heretical version I understood, I would believe. But I could point out that your beliefs come from a very old set of books. Your version is just as unbelievable as the one I have. This would essentially be the exact same argument I am making about Christianity.
We have never seen a person born of a virgin, turn water into wine, stop a storm with just words, multiply bread and fish to feed thousands, heal the blind by spitting on clay, or being resurrected three days after a brutal Roman crucifixion. Yeah, but I didn’t believe in the orthodox version! No, because it is just as unbelievable. You just have an old set of books that tell you this happened without a single shred of evidence to support your claims. You could see this is the fact if you weren’t so convinced it is true. I am not the one making a claim, I am simply not accepting the claims Christianity makes without corroborating evidence to support it. If Jesus still walked the Earth I would believe. No, he simply leaves the Earth without a trace. How convenient.
