Oscar
Guest
|
|
« Reply #19 on: March 18, 2006, 05:52:16 am » |
|
PART II
During this period I developed an interest in history and archeology. I was living 40 miles from Ephesus, which I visited several times. On a hill overlooking Izmir there is a fortress begun on the orders of Alexander the Great, enlarged by the Romans, and completed by the Crusaders. I only had to walk a hundred yards from the gate of my base to walk out on a Roman aqueduct! I visited Lebanon, Syria, Egypt, Jordan, (which in those days included Jerusalem and Bethlehem), Greece, and several other European countries.
The downtown headquarters had an excellent library, with many books on History, Philosophy, Religion, and Archeology. I read constantly, and soon discovered something about Archaeology. Archaeologists interpret their finds according to their theological bias. (no surprise) They tend to come in three flavors: 1. No archeological finds support the Bible. 2. Many archeological finds corroborate the Bible. 3. Archeology proves the Bible to be true. Later, when I took Archeology in graduate school, I found that the majority are of the #2 variety, including my professor.
When I was rotated back to the states I decided to deal with the issue of my own questions about Christianity. Sometimes I would ask myself if, as wonderful as it seemed to me, I had not just believed something that was just wishful thinking. So, I decided to put it to the test. I would face the “big guns” of atheism and skepticism. Accordingly, I read books such as Bertrand Russell’s, “Why I Am Not a Christian” and Eric Hoffer’s, “ The True Believer”. I was shocked to find out that although they stated their arguments eloquently, they said basically the same things I had heard in the barracks! I was not, and still am not, impressed. Incredibly, these brilliant men make egregious logical and factual errors in order to support their skepticism. Could it be that sin darkens the understanding?
In August of 1963 I was discharged from the USAF. They let me out a few weeks early so I could enter college in the Fall semester. As soon as I hit the classroom, I knew I was in an environment that was not very friendly to Christianity. American culture was just entering the era of the “Sexual Revolution” and the Great Satan of the times was “Puritanism.” Since the Puritans were Christians, they took them as representatives of Christianity and constantly railed against them. It didn’t matter what the subject was. Psychology, Philosophy, Mathematics, English Literature, every professor seemed to be able to work in a few shots.
One of the objections to Christianity that I encountered in college was the “Dying and Rising Gods” theory. This objection is still encountered from time to time. The idea, first proposed in Fraser’s “Golden Bough” and popularized by Joseph Campbell, is that religion has evolved from myths concocted by primitive cultures to explain natural phenomena. One of the myths found in many near-eastern agricultural societies was that some god, Baal, Tammuz, Adonis, Osiris etc. descends into the underworld as winter begins, then returns in the spring. This corresponds to the change of seasons, and is believed to be an explanation by a primitive society of the change of seasons.
One problem this objection is that it commits a categorical fallacy. The life, death, and resurrection of Jesus is nothing like these myths. In the Osiris myth, for example, Osiris is a god. He is tricked into climbing into a coffin by Set, his brother. Set kills him by throwing him into the Nile. Osiris’ wife, Isis, finds the body and brings it back. So Set, gets it again and chops it up, then throws the pieces into the Nile. Isis hunts down all the pieces and re-assembles them. She then uses magic to restore Osiris to consciousness. He is not really alive, though, and must dwell in the underworld as its king. Not exactly the gospel of Matthew.
Another form of this objection is to claim that Greek mystery religions have many dying and rising savior gods who are then eaten in sacramental meals. The problem with this one is that all the sources of information about these mystery cults come from around the third century AD. It is therefore more likely that they were copying the very successful Christians rather than the other way around.
|