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