Thoughts on Atheism and Apologetics

[Crossless2.0]

Why is a personal face-to-face, undeniable encounter with Christ good enough for Thomas, but these days we have to rely on people like Randy and his supposed "deep understanding of theology" for reliable 'evidence'?

The Thomas portion of the story simply served as what might pass for evidence in such superstitious and ignorant times: "Look, I know what I'm telling you sounds crazy, but there was this disciple, Thomas, who blah, blah, blah . . ."

Even then, it seems, there were people within the movement astute enough to know that they were peddling a story that would strike others as seriously whacko, and they needed to shore up their claims with something that seemed to have one foot in reality.  Hence stock character Thomas.

And here we are two-thousand odd years later: We children of an age that actually values evidence are expected to just swallow the story based on nothing more than ancient hearsay (and of course the deep theological understanding of some people -- so deep it wouldn't fill a mud puddle), and on such thin reeds our eternal destiny hinges.  Because, you know, God's perfect plan for salvation . . . .

Yeah, I'm buying that.