Given a God, why Jesus?

[Mystic]

Consider the case of corrupt Nixon lawyer, Chuck Colson. After his stunning conversion experience and resulting prison ministry, people tried to distance him from Nixon, but he would have none of it. Colson recounted how Nixon took him aside and said, "Don't blame other people for my mistakes." [Nixon's cover-up was influenced by even dirtier tricks by the JFK campaign, including mailing anti-Catholic flyers to trigger a pro-JFK backlash and, worse, rigging the Illinois presidential ballots.]

Colson was the perfect whipping boy for Democrats, and yet one Democratic senator was kind to Colson and shared his Christian testimony. Colson was not that impressed--until he walked to his car by the senator's garage, and was ambushed by Christ, so tenderly and powerfully that he could not drive because the tears flowed so intensely as he was enveloped by wave after wave of liquid love in Christ's healing and forgiving presence.

 

[chansen]

Myth has some basis in history - a telling of the way things were, subjective interpretation, storytelling using imagination, yes. What's wrong with imagination again? Why is it not a valid way to except code the brain? And I don't think if you go back far enough, that history can be completely objective and factual in any detailed way, anyway.

It can certainly be better than a book confirming itself.

I've been told on this site how belief is not about evidence. But then we're continually bombarded with people attempting to provide evidence. Really, really bad evidence. So which is it? Does Christianity hinge on evidence, or does it not? If not, why do so many Christians seem to latch on to pathetic attempts to legitimize the faith with terrible excuses for evidence?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Oh? Please explain.

It not for me to explain your claim of resurrection and eye witness account. That is your problem. You have first show that there are eye witness, good luck with that! And you have to show that resurrection is actually possible, so far nobody has ever returned from the dead. Apart from characters in books of fiction.

Also, a caveat: I don't have to work hard to convince anyone of my beliefs. I choose to believe them because I feel Christian truth makes the most sense of the world we live in, and I believe there is a rich philosophical case for it. I cannot prove any of it to be true. I can only offer reasons for my belief.

And yet Mendalla ask. Why Jesus? Why Christianity? You chose to participate in this thread. All I've done is show you, your arguments fail, tis all.

you don't want to discuss them in a reasonable, non-sarcastic sort of way, I'm not stopping you!

If I sound sarcastic then that's a failing of yours, not mine. I'm just showing you where you err. However like a lot of religious people, when your faith/beliefs get question you claim your being mistreated.

 

[Mendalla]

I've been told on this site how belief is not about evidence. But then we're continually bombarded with people attempting to provide evidence. Really, really bad evidence. So which is it? Does Christianity hinge on evidence, or does it not? If not, why do so many Christians seem to latch on to pathetic attempts to legitimize the faith with terrible excuses for evidence?

Exactly. I'm not looking for "evidence" as I know most of it is dicey as "evidence" at best. You aren't going to prove Christianity on an intellectual level to someone like me or you. We'll demolish it fairly quickly because most of the intellectual evidence really only works if you already believe some of the basic axioms (e.g. the Bible is literally true, or at least mostly so). As @Mystic amply illustrates with the Colson story (a cite would be nice, by the way). Colson wasn't convinced by arguments but by an emotional mystical experience. And even that might not be enough, to be honest. I've had a couple of those in the past (while still a Christian) and they didn't end up keeping me in the fold.

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Myth has some basis in history - a telling of the way things were, subjective interpretation, storytelling using imagination, yes. What's wrong with imagination again?

Never said there was anything wrong with it, Just it is not something you shouldn't form your life around. Just use it as the tool it is.

Why is it not a valid way to except code the brain?

Because it isn't reality, there are a lots of people in insane asylums who believe in things that are not there!

And I don't think if you go back far enough, that history can be completely objective and factual in any detailed way, anyway.

And yet we have evidence for it. That's why we know it's true.

 

[Luce NDs]

But you're not appealing to a "rich philosophical case for it." You're appealing to a large number of eyewitness testimonies. A big round number of supposed eyewitnesses thrown into a book of the claims you're saying counts as history.

That doesn't even deserve a moment's thought.

Never eliminate or deny the details ... what would we do without the small things ...

 

[Luce NDs]

How would all inclusiveness work with the isolated beings? It doesn't ... thus that isn't embraced ... forensic drop out?

 

[Mendalla]

And yet we have evidence for it. That's why we know it's true.

I would probably amend that to "That's why we know it's probably true." It is rare that any historical truth prior to the modern era is 100% certainly and incontrovertibly true. It is not like science where you can make observations to confirm your hypothesis. You can only look at the mass of evidence and see if it fits your thinking.

Even in modern history (20th century and later), there are some questions around some events and personalities. And once you get into ancient history, it can be a bit of a moving target as archaeology, textual analysis, and so on discovers new information that contradicts or clarifies old understandings. That's part of the problem with the Bible as history; it exists in a part of history where having multiple sources or a mass of evidence for any given personality or event is not always possible. Too much has been lost to the sands of time.

There's also a certain amount of spin doctoring that goes in history, as historians push pet hypotheses or favorite personalities by sifting the evidence in various ways. They aren't necessarily "making s**t up" or ignoring evidence. It's just that two or more historians may take the mass of evidence around a personality or event and read/understand that evidence differently. Again, it's that pesky problem that in history, unlike in science, you simply cannot make new direct observations to test your hypothesis, only support it with a mass of evidence and hope that maybe some new discovery will be made in a library or archaeological site somewhere to add more to the mass.

 

[Luce NDs]

I would probably amend that to "That's why we know it's probably true." It is rare that any historical truth prior to the modern era is 100% certainly and incontrovertibly true.

If winning authorities write their own history .... is there some question involved?

What do the small or wee people write ... omegad .... myths ...

 

[paradox3]

What do the small or wee people write ... omegad .... myths ...

TANGENT ALERT

I had an Irish grandmother who believed in leprechauns . . . she called them the wee folk.
Luce made me think of this.

 

[chansen]

Exactly. I'm not looking for "evidence" as I know most of it is dicey as "evidence" at best. You aren't going to prove Christianity on an intellectual level to someone like me or you. We'll demolish it fairly quickly because most of the intellectual evidence really only works if you already believe some of the basic axioms (e.g. the Bible is literally true, or at least mostly so).

But you could convince us, if you actually had something that wasn't so pathetic. God is completely unremarkable when lined up among the other gods humans have created. The story of Jesus doesn't impress me more than any other story. The appeals to scriptural authority are so circular they roll away with no effort required. The appeals to love and emotion are not unique to Christianity, or even theism. The appeals to design and creation have been thoroughly debunked to the point that many religious groups are openly hostile toward science for having the gall to report what it finds instead of what their book says.

How many failed attempts to impress me are required before I'm allowed to say that Christianity is complete crap? I'm sometimes told I have a closed mind, so how many attempts to convince me do I have to allow before reaching the conclusion that Christians just don't have the evidence required to make me believe? I mean, even if I didn't want to believe, there would be a point at which I'd have no choice. If Trump wins the nomination and the election, I may not want to believe it, and I may not like it, but I could not deny reality. To deny Christianity, I don't have to deny reality at all.

 

[Luce NDs]

TANGENT ALERT

I had an Irish grandmother who believed in leprechauns . . . she called them the wee folk.
Luce made me think of this.

I took frozen yogurt drumsticks to friends for St Paddy's Jigg's Diner ... just to observe the points of dunces that know something unseen to the other group ... if inverted and filled with something cool ... tis good ...

 

[Luce NDs]

But you could convince us, if you actually had something that wasn't so pathetic. God is completely unremarkable when lined up among the other gods humans have created. The story of Jesus doesn't impress me more than any other story. The appeals to scriptural authority are so circular they roll away with no effort required. The appeals to love and emotion are not unique to Christianity, or even theism. The appeals to design and creation have been thoroughly debunked to the point that many religious groups are openly hostile toward science for having the gall to report what it finds instead of what their book says.

How many failed attempts to impress me are required before I'm allowed to say that Christianity is complete crap? I'm sometimes told I have a closed mind, so how many attempts to convince me do I have to allow before reaching the conclusion that Christians just don't have the evidence required to make me believe? I mean, even if I didn't want to believe, there would be a point at which I'd have no choice. If Trump wins the nomination and the election, I may not want to believe it, and I may not like it, but I could not deny reality. To deny Christianity, I don't have to deny reality at all.

@chansen

Are you talking about an alternate idealism? Gutte god of the Goths ! A bit on the dark side?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Never said there was anything wrong with it, Just it is not something you shouldn't form your life around. Just use it as the tool it is. Because it isn't reality, there are a lots of people in insane asylums who believe in things that are not there! And yet we have evidence for it. That's why we know it's true.

I believe imagination plays a strong part in faith - and I don't believe there's anything wrong with that - people daring to dream of better and believing better can happen. Whether it is religious faith, or the inherent sense that things do not need to remain the way they are and can get better, that's faith. Faith in Jesus is faith in a particular moral truth that he taught, for me, more than it is about material evidence of the literal truth of the bible stories, and it is about faith in a good outcome for humanity, sometime somewhere. That in itself is 'real' to me - 'real' potential, not yet achieved in this time and place.

As John Lennon said - imagine - once we get there, there'll be no heaven, no hell, no religion - unnecessary if life is peaceful and just for everyone - faith, in action, 'living faith' being a means to that outcome.

Stories and legends take on a life of their own - somewhere, they connect - through culture, through language, through story, through common hopes. Here's another one, to music:

 

[Luce NDs]

Let me ask ... is imagine a white wash or blackout as a thin line between jinnis and in san-ite ? Hoo dah gnoest?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

I believe imagination plays a strong part in faith

The invisible and the non-existant and exactly the same, faith according to the dictionary is "strong belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." the imagination according to the dictionary is "Forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses."

Stories and legends take on a life of their own - somewhere, they connect - through culture, through language, through story, through common hopes. Here's another one, to music:

What you want to believe is entirely your prerogative. However all to often what people believe imposes itself onto other people without there permission, and sometimes to there extreme detriment, I.E. Death.
This is why imagination should only be used as a tool, not as a belief system.

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

The invisible and the non-existant and exactly the same, faith according to the dictionary is "strong belief based on spiritual conviction rather than proof." the imagination according to the dictionary is "Forming mental images or concepts of what is not actually present to the senses."
What you want to believe is entirely your prerogative. However all to often what people believe imposes itself onto other people without there permission, and sometimes to there extreme detriment, I.E. Death.
This is why imagination should only be used as a tool, not as a belief system.

Non-belief has imposed itself on people to their detriment, too, even death. Nobody's ever been killed in past history because they were religious by a non-religious entity?

 

[Pavlos Maros]

Non-belief has imposed itself on people to their detriment, too, even death.

Really where? And please don't say communism, that was despots. they may have been non-believers. but that does not mean all atheists are guilty. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in the claims of the religious. same as not all religious people are killers but the doctrines and tenets of religion,( which atheism has none) can and does cause people to kill.

Nobody's ever been killed in past history because they were religious by a non-religious entity?

If I understand that correctly, you are absolutely right. However on the converse, a myriad of people have been killed..

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Btw, faith is also defined as "strong belief or trust in someone or something".

@Pavlos Maros ?

I don't know where the rest of my post went...can you find fault in the potential outcome of "loving our neighbours and enemies, forgiveness"... If practiced by all (that would be the caveat that should be easier, but is not, to achieve - that has not happened, but "could" even though it is not yet a reality here), as a way to peace and fairness?

 

[Kimmio Laughterlove]

Really where? And please don't say communism, that was despots. they may have been non-believers. but that does not mean all atheists are guilty. Atheism is merely the lack of belief in the claims of the religious. same as not all religious people are killers but the doctrines and tenets of religion,( which atheism has none) can and does cause people to kill.If I understand that correctly, you are absolutely right. However on the converse, a myriad of people have been killed..

I think it's a human problem more than a religious one. A problem of power, oppression, xenophobia, and people developing a framework of some kind for justifying it. It's wrong regardless.