Enigma of the Mystical

Alright, gotta confess I plagiarise HIMYM idea again for my journal, but there's a reason to that. It's cause I literally cried twice watching the episode.


Maybe I felt upset because I really wanted to see God as my heavenly Father. When Lily doubted her own father, she demanded proof for miracles to happen...and it did.


Yes, evidence. It's something that is necessary for belief. If you think otherwise, and dare to quote me 2 Corinthians 5:7, you might as well throw the bible away, because that is the very purpose of the bible anyway.


With that in mind, it is nonetheless only half true when someone tries to rebut a conflicting proposition by saying "because the bible says so".


While often being ridiculed for utilising statements of such as an apologetic tool, the statement is not entirely wrong.


Objectively, one does not need to consider the inherent religious values the bible carries. The bible is in fact a bundle of historical documents containing testimonies. Its veracity has been tested with the same "acid test" used for any other historical document.


Furthermore, there are other empirical evidences to corroborate occurrences in the bible, such as the finding of Noah's ark and the remnants of the Egyptian's army in the Red Sea.


Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has adopted such arguments in theological debates. Apart from empirical corroborative evidences, he has also formulated epistemological theories such as the Kalam Cosmological Argument to support occurrences in the book of Genesis.


These are all very comforting for a believer, since it explains why the bible is not just a mere collection of enigmas of the mystical, and convincingly rebuts all the parodical analogies to Twilight and Harry Potter.


I am of the same view with Dr William Lane Craig, with one MAJOR difference.


If the bible is placed in a logical context like any other historical document, it is then subjected to a logical realm of knowledge. To put it simply, the bible then becomes nothing but an empirical evidence of its content, thus rejecting the notion that it is absolutely flawless due to its Godly origin.


To input some personal sentiments into all these thoughts, I find that many Christians, especially smart ones, have the proclivity to espouse double standards in favour of their beliefs.


I do not believe that Dr. William Lane Craig oversaw such a huge flaw when he used such an argument to rebut the probings on the veracity of the bible as an "independent source of evidence without extrinsic support" in one of his debates.


Many, like said philosopher, refuse to acknowledge testimonies in the bible that are incongruous to orthodox beliefs. For example, many refuse to consider the existence of reincarnation though there were people who believe Jesus was the reincarnation of John the Baptist.


Conversely, if a testimony is in favour of the orthodox belief, it is seldom questioned, and be swept under the blanket carpet of apathy.


There are just way too many testimonies in the bible that I wish to contest, way too many thoughts that I wish to go through and pen down now, but they are also way too contentious and valuable to be rushed through in one day (I'm way too tired anyway to even refer to the online Hebrew concordance for today's journal).


As for now, I'm just gonna be like Lily who demanded proof and got a knock on her door with a fluffy human sized teddy bear or Job who cried in agony and received blessings beyond and above an audible reply from God. I want proof. Proof that it's not just a silly enigma of the mystical, but a compassionate Father who is looking after me from a distance.