I followed you up until step 3. I'm missing the part where God asks up to suspend our rationality. Is it not possible to "worship with our minds" by thinking on things that are pure, lovely, and holy while still continuing to live our daily lives? Or possibly, "worship with your mind" means to educate yourself with the scriptures and historic background of your faith, growing your intellect in a different way.
In step 5, my answer came to me quickly. For me to change my mind about my beliefs, Jesus would have to be exposed as a regular man and not the son of God. Easy enough for some people to commit to, but the evidence of his miracles and that he rose from the dead lead me to believe otherwise. The most interesting thing, to me, about the resurrection is that it was documented has having been discovered by women, the least reputable citizens of the day. If anyone wanted the strongest argument to convince the world of Jesus' coming back to life, they would not have used women as their main witnesses.
After thinking through my answer, step 6 did not even apply. I'm having a problem seeing how these steps would lead me away from my beliefs. It seems that all they have done, strangely, is reaffirm them.
What evidence? Scripture written decades after his death by people that never actually met or even saw him in person? Pretty compelling evidence. Also, you are asking the impossible, proof that Jesus was not the son of god? How would we get that, a 2,000 year old DNA sample of his real father? Even with that impossible evidence in hand, Christians would still find a way out of believing in the rational. Faith is not based on evidence, and any believer who claims it is or even could be is deluding themselves.
Jesus' divinity cannot be proved either way, which I agree with. What's interesting to me is that we are both relying on faith. If it can't be proven, your belief that Jesus was the same as everyone else is based on faith as well.
Your statement that it was written by people who had never met or seen him, however, is not accurate. The resurrection was accounted for in the gospels by people who were Jesus' closet friends.
My main confusion with this entry is that I don't understand how you got that God would require you to abandom your rationality in order to worship Him with your mind. Could you explain?
Your belief is a priori because you have to first believe in a god, to believe that what was written in the bible is true.
Any historical analysis that is going to be done has to start with the assumption that the laws that govern the universe (i.e. the inverse square law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics) applied then and were constant as they are today, because that is something that cannot be proven. It extends then, that to believe that these laws were suspended, as was written (walking on water, changing water to wine, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.), you have to have an a priori belief that that could happen. This belief cannot be substantiated rationally. By extension, the simple fact that there are miracles in the story, makes it unhistorical. Sure it could be believed, but you'd have no reason.
Therefore, if that belief is required to be held by the sky daddy, it is an unreasonable requirement, because it asks one to suspend their rational minds to hold it.
"If it can't be proven, your belief that Jesus was the same as everyone else is based on faith as well." I don't have a "belief" that Jesus was the same as everyone else. I lack a belief that he was different. The responsibility is on you to say why you believe something, not on me to say why I don't. I lack a belief in the tooth fairy because I have no reason to believe one exists. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist, just that before I believe it, I need evidence.
The point of faith is that you don't have enough evidence. Otherwise you'd just call it rationally justified belief. Faith is the suspension of your rational mind which your system of belief requires.
"For me to change my mind about my beliefs, Jesus would have to be exposed as a regular man and not the son of God."
This is a perfect example of an a priori belief. You start out believing it, and then constantly reaffirm yourself with your bible and your community of fellow believers. But the evidence to believe that Jesus ever even lived, is not all that great.
Maybe there should be another step.... like: ask your self, "What evidence would I need to believe that someone else (not Jesus) was the son of god?" (although that might belong in step 4) This may help to preempt what happens when Christians start to think the word "Jesus" in their head, they're conditioned to at that point get fuzzy and start thinking with their emotions.
Contrary to what you might think, I have gone through much doubt and deliberation in my search for "the truth".
"You start out believing it, and then constantly reaffirm yourself with your bible and your community of fellow believers."
I have personally looked into the life of Christ because it didn't seem very plausible to me. I had grown up hearing about it, but to me it still seemed like stories people would tell themselves for reassurance. I did research in arena's outside of the Bible and the ideas other Christians had, and secular records do exist affirming that Jesus did in fact perform miracles. One of the best resources I uncovered was 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. Before you discredit it by saying that he is a "believer", know that when he started his own research he was a cynical, athiestic journalist who was annoyed by his wife's faith. He set out to prove her wrong. He explains what I discovered much better than I can.
I have read "The Case for Christ," and the difference between you and me is that you thought it was convincing. Robert M. Price is coming out with a book soon that is supposed to be a blow for blow rebuttal of "The Case for Christ," in any case I don't have time to do that here.
"...secular records do exist affirming that Jesus did in fact perform miracles."
A statement like this should have citation, but even then it wouldn't matter. No document no matter how old or how often it was printed and reprinted could prove that a miracle took place. Miracles do not happen, at least not in the sense you're using. Statistical miracles do happen. But whatever "miracle" we would observe, we would add into our current understanding of how the world works and call it natural. See http://eatheiun.livejournal.com/28727.html#cutid1 for more. Out of time for now.
PS Please understand my motives are genuine. I'm interested in what you believe and why and am always open to having my mind changed. Please forgive me if anything I've said has been offensive.
In step 5, my answer came to me quickly. For me to change my mind about my beliefs, Jesus would have to be exposed as a regular man and not the son of God. Easy enough for some people to commit to, but the evidence of his miracles and that he rose from the dead lead me to believe otherwise. The most interesting thing, to me, about the resurrection is that it was documented has having been discovered by women, the least reputable citizens of the day. If anyone wanted the strongest argument to convince the world of Jesus' coming back to life, they would not have used women as their main witnesses.
After thinking through my answer, step 6 did not even apply. I'm having a problem seeing how these steps would lead me away from my beliefs. It seems that all they have done, strangely, is reaffirm them.
Reply
Reply
Reply
Your statement that it was written by people who had never met or seen him, however, is not accurate. The resurrection was accounted for in the gospels by people who were Jesus' closet friends.
My main confusion with this entry is that I don't understand how you got that God would require you to abandom your rationality in order to worship Him with your mind. Could you explain?
Reply
Any historical analysis that is going to be done has to start with the assumption that the laws that govern the universe (i.e. the inverse square law of gravity or the second law of thermodynamics) applied then and were constant as they are today, because that is something that cannot be proven. It extends then, that to believe that these laws were suspended, as was written (walking on water, changing water to wine, virgin birth, resurrection, etc.), you have to have an a priori belief that that could happen. This belief cannot be substantiated rationally. By extension, the simple fact that there are miracles in the story, makes it unhistorical. Sure it could be believed, but you'd have no reason.
Therefore, if that belief is required to be held by the sky daddy, it is an unreasonable requirement, because it asks one to suspend their rational minds to hold it.
"If it can't be proven, your belief that Jesus was the same as everyone else is based on faith as well."
I don't have a "belief" that Jesus was the same as everyone else. I lack a belief that he was different. The responsibility is on you to say why you believe something, not on me to say why I don't. I lack a belief in the tooth fairy because I have no reason to believe one exists. That doesn't mean one doesn't exist, just that before I believe it, I need evidence.
The point of faith is that you don't have enough evidence. Otherwise you'd just call it rationally justified belief. Faith is the suspension of your rational mind which your system of belief requires.
Reply
This is a perfect example of an a priori belief. You start out believing it, and then constantly reaffirm yourself with your bible and your community of fellow believers. But the evidence to believe that Jesus ever even lived, is not all that great.
Maybe there should be another step.... like: ask your self, "What evidence would I need to believe that someone else (not Jesus) was the son of god?" (although that might belong in step 4) This may help to preempt what happens when Christians start to think the word "Jesus" in their head, they're conditioned to at that point get fuzzy and start thinking with their emotions.
Reply
"You start out believing it, and then constantly reaffirm yourself with your bible and your community of fellow believers."
I have personally looked into the life of Christ because it didn't seem very plausible to me. I had grown up hearing about it, but to me it still seemed like stories people would tell themselves for reassurance. I did research in arena's outside of the Bible and the ideas other Christians had, and secular records do exist affirming that Jesus did in fact perform miracles. One of the best resources I uncovered was 'The Case for Christ' by Lee Strobel. Before you discredit it by saying that he is a "believer", know that when he started his own research he was a cynical, athiestic journalist who was annoyed by his wife's faith. He set out to prove her wrong. He explains what I discovered much better than I can.
Reply
"...secular records do exist affirming that Jesus did in fact perform miracles."
A statement like this should have citation, but even then it wouldn't matter. No document no matter how old or how often it was printed and reprinted could prove that a miracle took place. Miracles do not happen, at least not in the sense you're using. Statistical miracles do happen. But whatever "miracle" we would observe, we would add into our current understanding of how the world works and call it natural. See http://eatheiun.livejournal.com/28727.html#cutid1 for more. Out of time for now.
PS Please understand my motives are genuine. I'm interested in what you believe and why and am always open to having my mind changed. Please forgive me if anything I've said has been offensive.
Reply
Reply
Leave a comment