Rautakyy and I have been having a discussion in the comments section of my post: Test for an Unfaithful Wife. At one point, he seemed to suggest that Christians didn’t believe that evidence was part of Christian faith (i.e. Christians were supposed to “just have [blind] faith”) until the dark ages. I responded by saying that this could not be true because the disciples appealed to evidence in the Bible which was written long before the dark ages. In particular, I argued that when the disciples said that Jesus was risen, they didn’t say ‘you just gotta have faith’. They said they had evidence for it – that they had seen Jesus for themselves. Ergo, evidence was a component of Christian faith before the dark ages.
Rautakyy responded by completely dropping that point and picking up something else entirely! He said that there are other explanations for what the disciples saw besides the idea that Jesus resurrected. This completely threw me off. I thought we were talking about whether evidence was a component of the Christian faith before the dark ages? Why are we switching topics?
Does that mean he thinks I’m right or did he just not see it? Did he get tired of that line of discussion? Is he coming back to it? I don’t know.
I would like to say I understand this, but I don’t actually. I tend to have a one track mind. Unless the person I’m discussing with changes the topic, I like to keep discussing the same thing until we either tire of it or come to some sort of agreement. If it starts going off-track, I like to bring it back in line. Switching topics like this confuses me. For one, it introduces a new topic that I might have no interest in discussing or no knowledge of. It also makes me wonder why we are discussing the new topic. In short, I’m finding that I don’t really like it.
I suppose there’s nothing to be done about it. I’ll just keep scratching my head. Next, I shall write about the swoon, theory, Rautakyy’s alternative explanation for what the disciples saw. Oh, joy.