How do you "know" that Jesus/Christianity is not just a crazy story?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You either have it or not and it usually develops after a personal experience (and not by pushy parents like some PPs want to imply).

Sure, and "faith" is a natural human impulse--whether it's a quirk of neurology or some deeper mystery--but it's a bit like the baby duckling that imprints on the first thing it sees: when you have "faith that Jesus is in your life", or some such thing, that's a purely social artifact. If you'd lived in 17th century rural India, the odds you'd have "faith that that cow is an incarnated deity" is about 100%. That "Jesus (or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith) is some sort of divine prophet" roughly 0%.

[Anonymous]

In other words a capacity for "faith" exists from childhood--that much is obvious--the question is whether it's going to be harnessed to some specific metaphysical belief system. That's why you gotta get 'em while they're young.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:i only know it because i've experienced things that confirm my faith. and it is faith because it's believing in things that can't be proven.

Would you be open to sharing the things that confirm your faith? Just curious. I absolutely am not egging you on to mock you later, I am genuinely curious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm with the OP. I know a huge number of physicians, scientists, professors, psychologists, etc. who consider themselves Christians (mostly Episcopalian or something else liberal and mainstream). Though I'm not Christian myself I can't help but notice that these are very smart, very accomplished people so I have trouble dismissing them as idiots, as so many atheists seem to do. I also can't help but notice that the atheists among my friends are entirely respectful of Jews and Muslims but entirely disdainful of Christians. It seems a bit hypocritical to me.

So, OP, I'd like to know this too and I too find it difficult to ask even close friends.

You have Evangelical Christianists and their stranglehold on American politics to thank for that. If your friends lived in a country where sharia law was rigidly enforced by some Islamic shadow justice system, I'm sure they'd resent them as well. As it is, Jews and Muslims (and Mormons, or any small religious minority) are usually quite modest in their claims to the public sphere. It's when they begin to dominate that suddenly they being throwing their weight around, as you see ultra-Orthodox in Israel, or Muslims in Afghanistan.

No hypocrisy there.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either have it or not and it usually develops after a personal experience (and not by pushy parents like some PPs want to imply).

Sure, and "faith" is a natural human impulse--whether it's a quirk of neurology or some deeper mystery--but it's a bit like the baby duckling that imprints on the first thing it sees: when you have "faith that Jesus is in your life", or some such thing, that's a purely social artifact. If you'd lived in 17th century rural India, the odds you'd have "faith that that cow is an incarnated deity" is about 100%. That "Jesus (or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith) is some sort of divine prophet" roughly 0%.

And you're completely right. I'm Christian, DH's family is Hindu, both parents have PhDs, live in the city and they worship the bush in the front yard (there's no reason to go back in time).

DH does not believe in it (or any other religion) but he does not judge me or them. Faith is personal.

BTW Christianity made all the way over here because of the martyrs that's for sure but some people have revelations and seek answers even without being formally preached and converted (my mom was one of them).

Like I said, belief is based on faith and the day we are able to prove anything all the value of faith will be thrown away and if you know at least a bit about Christianity you'll know that this will never happen.

[Anonymous]

They respect Muslims and Jews because it's the politically correct thing to do.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:They respect Muslims and Jews because it's the politically correct thing to do.

They respect Muslims and Jews because Muslims and Jews practice (of necessity) tolerance and pluralism. There is a very large number of American Christians who are swaggering assholes who try to impose their particular subset of religious beliefs on the rest of society. Everyone who is not a right-wing asshole finds this distasteful. Yes, even their fellow Christians. This has nothing to do with political correctness and everything to do with their not being particularly Christian.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You either have it or not and it usually develops after a personal experience (and not by pushy parents like some PPs want to imply).

Sure, and "faith" is a natural human impulse--whether it's a quirk of neurology or some deeper mystery--but it's a bit like the baby duckling that imprints on the first thing it sees: when you have "faith that Jesus is in your life", or some such thing, that's a purely social artifact. If you'd lived in 17th century rural India, the odds you'd have "faith that that cow is an incarnated deity" is about 100%. That "Jesus (or Mohammed, or Joseph Smith) is some sort of divine prophet" roughly 0%.

And you're completely right. I'm Christian, DH's family is Hindu, both parents have PhDs, live in the city and they worship the bush in the front yard (there's no reason to go back in time).

DH does not believe in it (or any other religion) but he does not judge me or them. Faith is personal.

BTW Christianity made all the way over here because of the martyrs that's for sure but some people have revelations and seek answers even without being formally preached and converted (my mom was one of them).

Like I said, belief is based on faith and the day we are able to prove anything all the value of faith will be thrown away and if you know at least a bit about Christianity you'll know that this will never happen.

Absolutely true. "Faith" is a neurological impulse--we're "made that way". Whether that's because God made us, or it's just a quirk of biology is unknowable. But "faith" is a vessel into which any particular "religion" is poured. Without faith, no religion. Also, it has nothing to do with Christianity--the Vikings who grew up in a culture where Valhalla was assumed to exist could not imagine "throwing that away" based on appeals to reason either.

Imagine a society in which the neurological phenomenon of "deja vu" was seen as the brief enfolding of the fabric of time when some omnipotent deity sneezed. When we experienced deja vu, that would completely jibe with our preconceptions, and confirm their validity. Try "arguing" someone out of that.

I find the whole thing completely fascinating.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And you're completely right. I'm Christian, DH's family is Hindu, both parents have PhDs, live in the city and they worship the bush in the front yard (there's no reason to go back in time).

I'll assume this is snark, but I'm not sure why. Are you arguing that Hindu wasn't a majority religion in India at that time? Or that the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth wasn't (isn't) a major component? Or that cows weren't seen as spiritually "special" animals?

If you're going to snark, you should have a point to it, otherwise you just sound incoherent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And you're completely right. I'm Christian, DH's family is Hindu, both parents have PhDs, live in the city and they worship the bush in the front yard (there's no reason to go back in time).

I'll assume this is snark, but I'm not sure why. Are you arguing that Hindu wasn't a majority religion in India at that time? Or that the cycle of birth, death, and rebirth wasn't (isn't) a major component? Or that cows weren't seen as spiritually "special" animals?

If you're going to snark, you should have a point to it, otherwise you just sound incoherent.

Sorry I don't know what you mean.

My point is to show that even TODAY well educated Hindus in the city believe in their religion so there's no reason to go back to a rural village in the 17th century to make your point.

There's absolutely no snark. I love my ILs and respect them immensely. They raised 3 wonderful children and I got blessed to marry one of them. I've learned a lot from them and their religion doesn't change anything re how I feel about them. And the same thing goes from them to me. They love me and respect me for who I am and not what kind of book I read.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Actually, OP, here is a slightly expanded argument:

I. Jesus claimed divinity
A. He meant it literally
1. It is true......Lord
2. It is false
a. He knew it was false......Liar
b. He didn't know it was false.......Lunatic
B. He meant it nonliterally, mystically.......Guru
II. Jesus never claimed divinity.......Myth

There is nothing "blind" about this faith. "Smart, analytical" people around the world have worked their way through the evidence for centuries and concluded "Jesus is Lord."

You know, the funny thing is, I can't figure out if this is an argument against Christian theism, a parody of an argument in favor, or an argument in favor "on the square". I think this says a lot about the impoverished nature of theocratic argument.

It's just an outline, my friend. Each aspect of it has a full exposition, with centuries of thought behind it. Beyond the scope of this board, but a good summation of the OP's question.

Ever hear of the ad authoritatum fallacy? I'm sure there are centuries of thought behind each, just as there have been centuries of refutation. If what you've posted is a brief synopsis, it looks profoundly unconvincing. In any case, can it even be described as an "argument"? It looks like a menu of possibilities some with a much higher likelihood than others.

Perhaps you are being disingenuous, or perhaps you honestly missed my point? I simply said that there are millions of pages written through the centuries about each aspect of the outline, on all positions and counter-positions, so it is too much to discuss here, in this limited medium. Where is the fallacious appeal to authority? You are free to pursue each premise and counter, and arrive at your own conclusion. But the outline summarizes the possible conclusions.

There is a similar outline for the various possibilities of the truth about the Resurrection:

I. Jesus died
A. Jesus rose......Christianity
B. Jesus didn't rise
1. The apostles were deceived......Hallucination
2. The apostles were myth-makers.......Myth
3. The apostles were deceivers........Conspiracy
II. Jesus didn't die........Swoon?

From where we stand today, the divinity of Christ, the resurrection, and even God's existence are not directly observable, but from data that are directly observable, we can reasonably conclude that the Christian explanation is the most likely one.

Or not. But the OP's question is how some people "know" Jesus is not just a crazy story. These outlines describe how.

[Anonymous]

I find it fascinating that the PPs who did not answer the OP's question, but took a moment to take a swipe at belief in Jesus, cited such reasons as "it's just how they were raised" or "you believe whatever myths you learn as a child" or "it's all faith, no reason." No one has taken the different possibilities about Jesus and the resurrection head-on. There are only so many. And they are either true or false. If you keep removing the ones that prove unreasonable, you are left with...what?

Just take the Resurrection. If it happened, Jesus rose from the dead. If it did not happen, what are the answers to these questions:

#1 Who moved the stone?
#2 Who took the body?
#3 Who started the Resurrection myth and why? What profit did they get from their lie?

There are real possibilities, with the option to accept or reject the data, the premises, the conclusions. But I never see that here.

And the most puzzling rejection of all is "it's just how you were raised," ignoring the millions of adult converts, or the fact that Christianity began with conversion, by necessity. As for those who never heard the name Jesus or the story of the Resurrection--they had nothing to accept or reject. They way they knew God has no bearing on Who God actually is. Jesus, if he is who he said he was, is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. In addition to a Jewish man who was crucified by the Romans.

So if you are reading this thread, you have the opportunity and the cognitive capacity to address the various possibilities and own your conclusion. Go for it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I know you think I'm a troll.... so let's move beyond that first off.

I really wonder if I'm missing some historical fact on which I can place confidence in the Jesus/Christianity stuff. I see people who genuinely believe, smart people who have made ministry their life's work ... and I wonder how they KNOW that all of it is real and why they are so confident that they are willing to base their careers on it. I admire their convictions (not the over-the-top evangelical pushy types), but I don't have the same conviction. I feel uncomfortable asking friends this b/c I fear that (a) they may not have an answer and (b) they may feel that they need to defend their beliefs.

It's certainly socially acceptable to be Christian in the US, but beyond family heritage and cultural acceptance, ... what give you the confidence that you're on the right track with Christianity?

I'm looking more for historical answers, "evidence" if you will, that the Jesus stuff is real. Although I've heard all the Bible stories and spent a good bit of time in church in my days, I just keep thinking I must be missing some bit of info. that glues it all together.

I can't give you historical answers only evidence of what faith has done in my life. I have prayed for guidance many, many times and it has been received, sometimes in ways I would never have thought. My life has been difficult but I know that I am not alone and my faith is deep and abiding and it has carried me through some very rough and scary times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I find it fascinating that the PPs who did not answer the OP's question, but took a moment to take a swipe at belief in Jesus, cited such reasons as "it's just how they were raised" or "you believe whatever myths you learn as a child" or "it's all faith, no reason." No one has taken the different possibilities about Jesus and the resurrection head-on. There are only so many. And they are either true or false. If you keep removing the ones that prove unreasonable, you are left with...what?

Just take the Resurrection. If it happened, Jesus rose from the dead. If it did not happen, what are the answers to these questions:

#1 Who moved the stone?
#2 Who took the body?
#3 Who started the Resurrection myth and why? What profit did they get from their lie?

There are real possibilities, with the option to accept or reject the data, the premises, the conclusions. But I never see that here.

And the most puzzling rejection of all is "it's just how you were raised," ignoring the millions of adult converts, or the fact that Christianity began with conversion, by necessity. As for those who never heard the name Jesus or the story of the Resurrection--they had nothing to accept or reject. They way they knew God has no bearing on Who God actually is. Jesus, if he is who he said he was, is the Second Person of the Holy Trinity. In addition to a Jewish man who was crucified by the Romans.

So if you are reading this thread, you have the opportunity and the cognitive capacity to address the various possibilities and own your conclusion. Go for it.

You make an excellent argument for the divinity of Joseph Smith, the founder of the Church of the Latter Day Saints. Lots of people believe it. There was no existing tradition. What other explanation is there?

It's actually kind of neat to be present at the beginning of a new world religion. In 500 years, they'll also have the patina of age. "Clearly it's true otherwise it won't have lasted for so long."

As I said earlier, fascinating stuff.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just take the Resurrection. If it happened, Jesus rose from the dead. If it did not happen, what are the answers to these questions:

#1 Who moved the stone?
#2 Who took the body?
#3 Who started the Resurrection myth and why? What profit did they get from their lie?

There are real possibilities, with the option to accept or reject the data, the premises, the conclusions. But I never see that here.

If "The Lord of the Rings" isn't all true, then how did Gandalf defeat Sarumon?