How do you "know" that Jesus/Christianity is not just a crazy story?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
...then "The God Delusion" by Richard Dawkins. A fascinating treatment of the human capacity for faith. |
Anonymous
Books by Christian apologists (like the above) really do no more then validate what somebody else already believes. I read the above book as well as some others and did not find them convincing. And I'm not sure if the above book still cites Josephus as a valid source as "proof" or not - it definitely is not. |
Anonymous
|
OP, my brother is a priest, and from his experience, "smart" people will examine the evidence, the assumptions, the premises, the possibilities, and the conclusions, and then they will make a decision. That decision is one of faith based on reason, but primarily, it is an act of the will, an act of submission and obedience. The intellect can bring you so far, faith can bring you farther, but if you still say, "My will, not Thine," it doesn't matter.
My husband is an adult convert from Hinduism/agnosticism. Even after he intellectually accepted the probability that Jesus is who he claimed to be, he insisted he could never be Christian, because he was South Asian, and to be Christian would be to betray who he was. It took a profound act of the will to overcome his ingrained repulsion for all things Christian. And it was a matter of allegiance--"Lord, to whom should we go? You have the words of everlasting life." So the possibilities regarding Jesus are limited, and you get to choose among them. We all do. But it is not blind faith, it is not pure reason, and it can be deep prejudice and personal pride in the way of both faith and reason. |
Anonymous
| God/Jesus may not be real, but if you act as if he's real, we'll all be better off. (The New Testament's love "thy neighbor and turn the other cheek and meek shall inherit the earth" God, not the "fire and brimstone and you shall sin and be damned" God that many "religious" leaders claim they represent). |
Anonymous
Not OP, but I think this is what OP was getting at: you say he "intellectually accepted the *probability* that Jesus is who he claimed to be", and yet you haven't given us any evidence that could reasonably lead one to that conclusion. Why probability? That's OP's original question as I understood it. |
Anonymous
OP here... yes, that is what I'm talking about. I know that the "evidence" may not be irrefutable, so there will be some degree of "faith" required, but I would like to know what makes people tip the scales in favor of belief. Maybe it will be enough for me too. Right now, I kind of feel like an imposter when we go to church. |
Anonymous
I suggested it because it addresses OP's questions. She is of course, free to ignore my suggestion but This is what he/she wrote in his/her OP (OP, I would also suggest 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel,a former atheist): "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." This is what the product description says on Amazon: http://www.amazon.com/gp/aw/d/0785242198/ref=aw_d_detail?pd=1&qid=1326991939&sr=8-1 Amazon.com Review Bestselling author and Christian apologist Josh McDowell hopes The New Evidence That Demands a Verdict will further document historical evidence of the Christian faith. As such, it is a straightforward compilation of notes prepared for his lecture series, "Christianity: Hoax or History?" The entire book (over 750 pages) is laid out in outline form, which makes it easier for researchers, scholars, and students to access. As a result, this is not reflective fireside reading. Rather, it is a tool for locating supporting "evidence" whenever the need arises. Part I addresses the trustworthiness of the Bible; Part II offers historical evidence and supporting attestations for Jesus' claim to God; Part III addresses "radical Christian criticism" of the Bible; Part IV is devoted to quelling the voice of numerous skeptics, including "a defense for the existence of miracles" and "answers to divergent worldview." Product Description Evidence I & II-The classic defense of the faith: Now fully updated to answer the questions challenging evangelical faith today. The New Evidence maintains its classic defense of the faith yet addresses new issues. The New Evidence is destined to equip believers with a ready defense for the next decade and beyond |
Anonymous
Sure, but I think OP was looking for evidence, not a tome that is aimed at equipping existing "believers with a ready defense". I can't remember who it was that said, "you understand a thing when you can explain it". Surely there's a lemma to that: "If something is so utterly complex you can't even provide a synopsis, it's either not true, or you don't understand it yet." |
Anonymous
I think most "literalist" Christians misunderstand the point of FSM (or Poseidon). While they immediately jump to "offense at mocking my faith", that's not the point of the exercise. Comparisons to FSM/Poseidon/Mormonism cut right to the heart of the question of *what* we believe. The problem with "rational" defenses of a particular creed is that they start from the conclusion and work backwards. Start with the divinity of Jesus, and you work your way backwards to the evidence. Start with the divinity of Joseph Smith, and you can work your way backwards to the evidence as well. Same with FSM. So let's leave aside the FSM, and we'll concentrate on Joseph Smith: If Smith wasn't the only true modern prophet, then why did Moroni give him the golden tablets of The Book of Mormon? What FSM does is remove the "special pleading" aspect of Jesus, and replace him with an equally plausible--but absurd--alternative. The fact that this makes literalist Chrisitians go ballistic isn't evidence of "mockery" but the fact that FSM quite neatly sums up the fundamental weakness of your arguments. It's a sign of disrespect to the truth and your interlocutors that you want to give your particular creed--call it the Jesus Hypothesis--a privileged place in the constellation of gods throughout history, and get hugely angry when anyone suggests a counter-hypothesis. In summary, you've got it exactly wrong: when a non-believer brings up FSM or Poseidon, we're giving you the respect afforded to someone whose ideas are taken seriously. That you cannot bring yourself to engage the most pertinent question that applies to this topic is a sign of disrespect--not that non-believers refuse to validate your particular set of beliefs unconditionally. |
Anonymous
| As regards taking on Jesus "directly", what would that look like exactly? I'm honestly curious to know. |
Anonymous
OP, Are you getting anything else out of attending church? A sense of community or maybe a homily that inspires you during the week? If you feel like an imposter and you don't get anything out of the service, maybe you need to give yourself permission to stop going for awhile. I stopped attending church for years, primarily because I just 'didn't get it' either. A few years ago, I found a church that allows me to have my faith without accepting every word in the Bible as gospel and I'm so much happier for it. I actually look forward to attending every week. OP if you are this conflicted, TALK to your pastor/priest/minister. If this person gives you grief for your doubts, you're attending the wrong church. Maybe you'll find your way back and maybe you won't, but really that's your business. |
Anonymous
|
12:25 pp, as I said, the OP is free to ignore my recommendations. Perhaps you have better suggestions?
I hope the OP finds what he/she is looking for. |
Anonymous
This seems like a fallacy to me. |
Anonymous
OP was asking for a narrative, and you gave her a book title. You could have at least bothered to type up a short review. |
Anonymous
There is just too much data to list out here. The outlines of the various possibilities for Jesus and the Resurrection were already given, along with some good essays based on those outlines. OP and PPs can examine the evidence or not. It's been many years now, so I don't even really remember what stood out the most to me or my husband, and certain evidence/arguments will be uniquely meaningful to each inquiring mind that comes along. Since my husband has experience as a criminal defense attorney, it was significant to him that the eyewitness accounts were similar, but not perfectly synched, and that every single one of the men who claimed to have seen the risen Christ proclaimed the "good news" right through torture and grisly death (except John), and the consistency of their story/beliefs/actions, even when they were far from each other and under duress. Since I am a writer and a student of history, I found the contrast of Christianity with both prevailing Roman and Jewish civilizations, as well as the humanity and unpredictability of the gospel narratives, to be compelling. That's just a few. I am an adult "revert," and I readily admit that I did not really have rational objections to the preponderance of evidence. Mostly, if I admitted that Jesus was God, that would give him absolute authority over my life, and I never liked authority, and I like to be in control. How objective is a drug addict about the morality of her actions when she is in the throes of her addiction? I was addicted to selfishness, as I think most humans are, and I didn't feel like changing. Also, it's not intellectually fashionable to believe Christ was anything more than a nice, wise man, and I didn't want to be seen as dumb. But those are not reasonable objections, just motives for disbelief. |