A Question For Christians

[Justin A]

I'm not going to read the rest of the posts, but I really don't have an answer for this one. I would say E, because as a devoted Christian it's difficult to logically entertain the possibility. However, I don't think it's blasphemous and I find it to be a very interesting question. The difficulty comes in the fact that my whole belief system relies on Jesus being the Messiah and the son of God. Take that away and I have no idea what I would do.

The prophecies of the old testament say that there is a messiah, and I believe the Jewish religion believes that he has not yet arrived. If I say anything wrong about the jewish religion I apologize and I don't claim to know exactly what I'm talking about. Continuing on, if you somehow prove that Jesus was a fraud, then I would have a very hard time believing the old testament, now that some of the prophecies have turned out to be false. To me the Old and New Testaments work together, and I feel like either one would be incomplete without the other. I suppose what I'm saying is that I would have a hard time believing in the same God if it were proved that Jesus was a fraud.

[ThisHo]

[ QUOTE ]
It most cases the real reason is simply that they think straight and go where the evidence leads them.


[/ QUOTE ]
I have a feeling I'm going to regret doing this because DS's intelligence and ability to argue a point are so far beyond mine (and actually -- many of the poster's here are much more intelligent than me as well)... but:
Are you saying that ReligiousFolk aren't thinking straight? That just seems to be a pretty broadbrush generalization.

[ QUOTE ]
That is exactly the point that most religious people don't see. They somehow think that those who don't believe are psychologically predisposed not to.

[/ QUOTE ]
I've not met a Christian (or anyone from any other religion) that thinks those that don't believe are predispositioned not to. Isn't one of the main complaints about religious folks that they are always trying to convince non-religious folks to believe what they believe? Why would religious folks bother if they thought those who don't believe are predispositioned not to?
I don't think that this is an accurate statement.

[brick]

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not going to read the rest of the posts, but I really don't have an answer for this one. I would say E, because as a devoted Christian it's difficult to logically entertain the possibility. However, I don't think it's blasphemous and I find it to be a very interesting question. The difficulty comes in the fact that my whole belief system relies on Jesus being the Messiah and the son of God. Take that away and I have no idea what I would do.

The prophecies of the old testament say that there is a messiah, and I believe the Jewish religion believes that he has not yet arrived. If I say anything wrong about the jewish religion I apologize and I don't claim to know exactly what I'm talking about. Continuing on, if you somehow prove that Jesus was a fraud, then I would have a very hard time believing the old testament, now that some of the prophecies have turned out to be false. To me the Old and New Testaments work together, and I feel like either one would be incomplete without the other. I suppose what I'm saying is that I would have a hard time believing in the same God if it were proved that Jesus was a fraud.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is also a very good answer.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I really don't understand how people can actually believe this. Let me get this straight:

1: There was a guy, Jesus, who is God and man at the same time.

2: This guy did a lot of good stuff when he was on the earth, but various groups (Jewish elders, Pilate) decided to conspire to kill him primarily because they were jealous of his power.

3: That this good guy dying was actually not a bad thing, but was a good thing, because instead of just dying he died for our sins.

4: That if we believe 1,2, and 3, that our sins will be absolved and we will recieve eternal reward in heaven.

5: That if we do not believe 1,2, or 3, we will go to hell and various nasty things will be visited upon us.

Doesn't that seem a little self reenforcing to you?

[/ QUOTE ]

Wayfare, I am curious what your real point here is. Is your point that Christianity is self-reenforcing? Or is it that Christianity is false?

Those two points are quite different, and it is important not to mix them up .

[/ QUOTE ]

I want to add to this, because it is important.

The idea that you should use condoms during non-monogamous sex is similarly self-reinforcing. Should we conclude from this that condoms are bad?

[Wayfare]

The fact that it is self reenforcing is very obvious.

The general far-fetchedness of the claims are directly related to the self re-enforcing qualities: some people like christianity because they follow it and it will reward them if it is correct. Other people like it because they are scared (explicitly or implicitly) of what will happen to them when they die.

When have great incentives to follow a self reenforcing doctrine it makes it easier to pass off dubious claims as the "truth"

[SCfuji]

The truth can hurt, but until that is proven... go Jesus!

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
The fact that it is self reenforcing is very obvious.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you mean that Christianity promises rewards to those who follow Jesus and indicates punishment for most others, then I agree.

[ QUOTE ]
The general far-fetchedness of the claims are directly related to the self re-enforcing qualities: some people like christianity because they follow it and it will reward them if it is correct. Other people like it because they are scared (explicitly or implicitly) of what will happen to them when they die.

[/ QUOTE ]

Couldn't we say pretty much the same thing about exercise? Reward if you do it, punishment if you don't. Does it then follow that people who believe exercise is good are believing nonsense?

[ QUOTE ]
When have great incentives to follow a self reenforcing doctrine it makes it easier to pass off dubious claims as the "truth"

[/ QUOTE ]

Clearly this is true. But this proves nothing about whether Christianity is dubious. In a prior post, I linked to a description of the genetic fallacy. I suggest that you reread it.

[FrankieFish]

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is true. But this proves nothing about whether Christianity is dubious. In a prior post, I linked to a description of the genetic fallacy. I suggest that you reread it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're playing a silly game with this poster. I could play the same game by saying that an invisible monkey named Excelsior sits on my shoulder and offers me advice.

Only I can see and hear Excelsior, but I know he exists because I see and hear him. Now prove me wrong. Prove that Excelsior is dubious.

It's impossible to prove that something is not. So stop defending your sky daddy with non-logic and I'll stop defending my shoulder monkey with non-logic.

Accept my shoulder monkey as your saviour or BURN. He told me to tell you that.

[felson]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Clearly this is true. But this proves nothing about whether Christianity is dubious. In a prior post, I linked to a description of the genetic fallacy. I suggest that you reread it.

[/ QUOTE ]

You're playing a silly game with this poster. I could play the same game by saying that an invisible monkey named Excelsior sits on my shoulder and offers me advice.

Only I can see and hear Excelsior, but I know he exists because I see and hear him. Now prove me wrong. Prove that Excelsior is dubious.

It's impossible to prove that something is not. So stop defending your sky daddy with non-logic and I'll stop defending my shoulder monkey with non-logic.

Accept my shoulder monkey as your saviour or BURN. He told me to tell you that.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference between your monkey and Jesus Christ is that there are historical documents testifying to Jesus Christ. People who met him believed in who he was and lived and died for him. Are you prepared to die for your monkey?

EDIT: And this was my point to Wayfare. We can't get anywhere by talking about psychological reasons for belief. I could as easily come up with psychological reasons for unbelief. What would that prove? The only way to know for sure is to look at actual evidence.

Other edits too.

[FrankieFish]

[ QUOTE ]
The difference between your monkey and Jesus Christ is that there are historical documents testifying to Jesus Christ.

[/ QUOTE ]

There may be historical documents that refer in an offhand way to a human revered by other humans as Jesus Christ. This does not make him any more "powerful" than Excelsior the Shoulder Monkey.

I rather prefer ONE of the Jesus legend's precursor myths, that of Horus, born to the virgin Isis, conceived immaculately.

You see, it's in the best interest of a cult to deify it's leader, taking the coolest elements from previous cults to solidify the Divine Status of the current cult.

I don't deny that a historical figure existed as the basis for the Jesus legend, but take some time exploring your own faith by learning about the myths from which every single element of The Christ's divinity borrows. The Christ Legend doesn't have a single original storyline.