10 Reasons? 10? Try none. The only "reasons" Hart gives us in the article is "because I say so." What kind of English professor writes a title like this and then gives no reasons? It would take some kind of fringe figure, like the type of person who could write speeches for people like Nixon and Regan to be that insipid.

You can probably tell that I bristle at a lot of things in this article. For instance, why talk about "empirical" evidence, then provide virtually none at all? Just some list of goofy arguments that don't hold water if you actually think of them for more than a millisecond, and a view that is so jaundiced that it completely discards the real science of carbon dating in favor of those arguments.

What most gets me going, though is the idea that Christianity somehow requires more from its adherents than other world religions - a statement that is absolutely breathtaking in both its chauvinism and its sheer, magnificent, utter ignorance. You can almost hear this line "springing from his lips like pearls of nutcaseness" to quote Eddie Izzard. I'm offended on behalf of anyone else who has a faith, but I'm even more offended by the idea that a person of such diminished capacity should be able to decide for me what constitutes "Christianity."

Clearly, this article was written by someone who badly needs to believe, and is working very hard to convince himself of something. We should all respect the fact that everyone needs to do this for themselves from time to time. I just wish he could do it in a less bothersome format.

Since I can write a coherent English sentence, I am actually going to give you reasons why Jeffrey Hart should not have written the article:

1. Anyone who writes an article that promises to give you reasons for something should do so. he did not.
2. Hart has absolutely no background whatsoever as a theologian or historian.
3. Anyone who believes that Christianity absolutely hinges on the Resurrection, which is admittedly critically important, sells short the actual mission and teachings of Jesus, which are also critically important. Not being willing or able to look at Jesus' life and teachings in their entirety, when writing an article of this nature, should disqualify him.
4. His argument that " Christianity requires much more in the way of belief than Islam or Judaism does" either trivializes all faiths, or admits that Christianity is inferior to other world religions, since their teachings are more intrinsically true. Either perspective wold disqualify him as a wrier of this article.
5 His assertions about Paul are questionable at best and ridiculous at worst and should, at the very least, been made as qualified, personal beliefs, rather than empirical fact.
6. Darby Nock, who he cites as "our foremost Paul scholar," while admittedly a good classical scholar, has been dead for over 45 years and can thus hardly be cited as the best scholar we have on the subject. If we're going to work with the past, I'll see his Nock and raise him a Robertson, Lightfoot, and Brown.
7. The best he can do for "evidence" of the resurrection is a 30-year old book that reflects little contemporary scholarship and has some arguments that are so specious and speculative that even its author has to get a good laugh out of them every now and then.
8. The one widely accepted and well documented scientific practice he cites in his efforts to be "empirical", carbon dating, is dismissed, since it doesn't agree with the weak arguments offered before it was tested. In essence, he's admitting a strong bias that is antithetical to "empirical" science, even while claiming "empiricism" for him self.
9. He presumes that he can define Christianity for the rest of us. Anyone who would presume to do such a thing is about as trustworthy as Nixon or Reagan.

This argument reminds me of a quote I heard from Walter Brueggemann "Christianity is not about certainity. It's about fidelity."