Make a case for your faith (or philosophy)

[JA]

I generally dislike threads where the OP is asking someone to come make a case to them like they're a judge, so I hope no one interprets this thread in that manner. The purpose is quite simple: I'm looking for answers and, rather than simply read stale philosophical and theological treaties, I'd like to hear from people why they adhere to their faith or personal philosophy and what the fundamental ideas, principles, and teachings are of that belief system. Perhaps it could help others like me as well.

Basically, I was having a discussion with a Bosniak Muslim friend of mine and she made a very good point how me, along with others like myself, feel so lost and confused because we gather all this information, but don't have any worldview with which to structure it all. Sure, I may be liberal and hold basic humanist ethical values, but I don't have a fully developed belief system to really help guide or structure my life. Honestly, she's right. But I'd like to change that. This is why I'd like to hear from the Christians, Muslims, Buddhists, Pagans, Secular Humanists, Atheist Existentialists, and so on about their belief system - their worldview. Why do you believe in that faith or philosophy? How do you adhere to it when there are so many other options available? What are the basic principles and beliefs adhered to in your belief system? How would you explain it to someone like me who's searching and has an open mind?

[Antonio the Sixth]

I'm currently in the process of constructing my philosophical framework, so I can't really "make a case" for it as such. I can make a case for certain general principles I strive to follow, or even a case against many widespread philosophical ideas, though (in fact, I really enjoy doing that), but without a more specific prompt it's hard for me to know where to start.

[JA]

I'm currently in the process of constructing my philosophical framework, so I can't really "make a case" for it as such. I can make a case for certain general principles I strive to follow, or even a case against many widespread philosophical ideas, though (in fact, I really enjoy doing that), but without a more specific prompt it's hard for me to know where to start.

What general principles are you striving to follow? Do you have any faith in an afterlife, spirituality, god(s), or anything supernatural? What makes you think that you're beliefs (principles, faith, etc) are more worthy of your adherence than a different belief system, such as Sunni Islam or Reformed Protestantism or even Atheist Existentialism? What philosophical or theological ideas do you most oppose and why?

[Antonio the Sixth]

It would take me hours to properly answer your questions, and honestly I'd love to, but unfortunately I'm way to busy to do that now. I'm going to go back to that (in fact I was already planning to long before this thread!) when I have more time, but in the meantime here's the shortcut version.

What general principles are you striving to follow?

That's by far the hardest question. I have a few that I'm striving to link together into a coherent framework (not that they are incoherent per se - it's just that making the logical junctures isn't always easy). The most important of all is humanism: I see human beings as the most valuable beings - and in fact the source of all value in the world (although I'd be willing to extend the definition of "human" to encompass all beings capable of self-awareness and emotion). Importantly, I fully understand this humanism as a metaphysical belief (ie something that precedes observation of the material world and can't be deduced from it), as I'm convinced that a metaphysical framework of some kind is the requisite for any other form of reflection. I'm also an idealist: I believe that truth lies in ideas rather than in the material world that surrounds us, and I'd even kind of agree with Plato that the latter is by and large an illusion, though an illusion we have to live in). In terms of moral philosophy, I believe in virtue ethics above all (I'd have a lot more to say on that, but I will another time).

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I've been an agnostic for over 10 years now, and I think this aspect of my psyche is probably set in stone by now. I've found myself regretting it sometimes, because I understand how much faith can enrich a person's inner life, but it's not like I can just force myself to believe.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Well, the problems I have with alternative beliefs principles are obviously different for each. If you have a specific one in mind, I can try to explain what I think doesn't work about them. Beyond those that are just logically indefensible or inherently abhorrent, many of them are just not emotionally satisfying to me. I am enough of an emotivist to consider this a sufficient criterion to rule them out.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Here are a few, in not particular order:
- Moral naturalism, because it just makes no sense. It's trying to derive an "ought" from an "is" and anyone with an ounce of moral reflection knows that's just not possible.
- Utilitarianism, because it leads you straight down the path to Brave New World.
- Moral nihilism, because it's 3edgy5me.
- The consequentialism/deontology distinction. I have an elaborate argument for why it's logically inconsistent. I'll try to develop it later.
- Materialism, because nothing of the material world makes any sense without ideas to give it meaning.
- Theologies that require you to believe in direct supernatural intervention into the material world (eg faith healing, YEC, etc). The problem isn't just that many such theologies have been proven false by evidence, is that they set themselves up to be proven false. By bringing religion down into the empirical realm, they expose it to the attacks of the Dawkins of the world. Something as holy as religion ought to remain above such attacks. Religion speaks of a truth that transcends the physical realm. Everything about the physical realm could be false and religion would still remain true. That's why embedding the former in the latter is a terrible mistake IMO.

[JA]

The idealism vs realism debate in philosophy is one of the most interesting to me, so I'm curious why you favor idealism over realism. Don't material things exist as they are, independent of the symbolism of human abstraction being applied to them? And wouldn't truth, then, be the accurate correspondence of thought with the physical world? I mean, the ideals and symbols formed by human cognition may at best be described as an approximation of empirical reality, so shouldn't empirical reality be considered more "real?"

Also, your opposition to materialism obviously makes sense from an idealist perspective and to a certain extent you're right, nothing in the material world makes sense without abstraction. But doesn't human consciousness arise from the material world (as in the activity within the brain that enables consciousness) and is able to reflect upon and develop symbolic thought regarding itself as a direct result of its material basis? It's true that nothing in the material world makes sense to us without symbolic thought applied to it, but that symbolic thought arises out of that physical basis, which precedes it - no?

[Beet]

I have made the leap of faith that Jesus Christ was the son of God, who he sent down to earth to perform miracles, died for the sins of humanity, and then was miraculously resurrected. I try to live by the two greatest commandments, to love God with everything I am and to love my "neighbor" as myself, which means to love my fellow man and adopt a humanistic outlook, while not being shy that my faith in God is behind such an outlook.

My outlook has several advantages: (1) It is wholistic and comprehensive. Based on a few simple first principles, I can search my views and have a compass to guide me no matter what the facts are. (2) It applies in both the political, personal, and interpersonal realms. (3) It answers the question, "what is the meaning of life"? (4) It means no man is my implacable enemy always. (5) It guarantees fairness and justice for all. I would encourage everyone to adopt my outlook, and let us build a more humane and just world together that dares to imagine the existence of a Higher being!

[Young Conservative]

In its simplest form:
1. Christianity has a plethora of evidence and our stories are verified from sources not connected to our religion. (Re: roman records)
2. Even if Christianity is false, which it isn't, it has fulfilled me and is fufilling. Living my the values of Christianity is a wonderful way to live. It's full of joy, love, and fufillment.

[Lexii, harbinger of chaos and sexual anarchy]

In its simplest form:
1. Christianity has a plethora of evidence and our stories are verified from sources not connected to our religion. (Re: roman records)
2. Even if Christianity is false, which it isn't, it has fulfilled me and is fufilling. Living my the values of Christianity is a wonderful way to live. It's full of joy, love, and fufillment.

The same could be said for quite a few religions

[JA]

In its simplest form:
1. Christianity has a plethora of evidence and our stories are verified from sources not connected to our religion. (Re: roman records)
2. Even if Christianity is false, which it isn't, it has fulfilled me and is fufilling. Living my the values of Christianity is a wonderful way to live. It's full of joy, love, and fufillment.

How can you "prove" that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? That a triune God is real? Or that the Quranic account of Jesus Christ (essentially, no Prophet had ever been killed by man, so the Jesus on the cross was an imposter or that he was the one on the cross, but that God took him before he could be killed by man) is false? What about the Prophet Muhammad - he was real, there are independent sources that corroborate the facts of his life - why is he not accepted by you as a Prophet? How can you prove that he wasn't? What of the Jewish claim that Jesus was not the prophesied Messiah? Why are they incorrect? That doesn't even raise Atheistic questions about the supernatural or God, let alone Christianity conflicting accounts with other faiths.

[136or142]

My views are that the Universe, the earth and (some) life on it were created.  I'm prepared to believe that chemical processes can explain how life started from non living matter (I guess that's organic matter) but I don't see any explanation for consciousness. So, I believe this creator likely made some life conscious but that humans came from evolutionary processes as did other lower life forms with consciousness, .  There is no reason I'm aware of to believe this creator is the God of the Bible or the God of any religion.

I also believe that the near death experiences that aren't actually near death experiences but are misnamed brain death experiences are really something and the so-called scientific explanation of 'dying neurons firing' is pseudo science.

It's kind of interesting how similar the arguments used by those who believe in UFOs and the so-called scientific explanation of brain death experiences are:
Believers:  "We know UFOs are from outer space but we don't just don't understand the science of how they get here yet."
Scientists: "There is no explanation in physics to explain how UFOs can get here and you can't simply make up your own physics to explain it."  

And
Scientists: "We know 'NDEs' are just dying neurons firing but we don't understand the science of how that works yet."  
'NDE' believers: "There is no explanation in physics to explain how dying neurons firing can be coherent and you can't simply make up your own physics to explain it."

Similarly, I also believe that there is something going on with some of the reincarnation stories.

I don't know what to make of either the brain death or reincarnation testimonies, but, while I believe they are potentially evidence of an afterlife, I also see no reason to believe they validate the God of any religion.

I am a big believer in science and the scientific process, but as long as humans are scientists, it will never be perfect.  As I alluded to above, with all the conditions it took to allow for life on earth, I find it odd the degrees to which mainstream scientists will go to to rule out the possibility of a Universe or Earth creator.

Scientists say that 'a creator is outside of science' because it can never be proven, but then they explain the existence of life on earth by saying that physics shows it's possible for an infinite numbers of universes to exist.  Well fine, but that can also never be measured, so it also can never be proven, so it's also outside of science.

Scientists can believe what they want, and maybe the likelihood of an infinite number of universes is more likely than the likelihood of one creator (if probabilities can even be assigned to this), but scientists also take as a matter of faith that an infinite number of universes exist.

[136or142]

My philosophy is simply to go where the evidence leads on the basis of 'what is most likely' even if that means going against orthodox theories. Similarly my philosophy is to look for truth and intellectual honesty, while allowing for people to make honest mistakes in these endeavors and also allowing that there are many things that I (and everybody else) don't know anywhere near enough about to understand the evidence to form a valid opinion.

For instance, I would be interested if a scientist here disputed my assertion as to my claim that they essentially have faith in anything that allows them to not have to consider that there might be a universal or earthly creator.

So, in that regards, I don't agree that 'everybody is entitled to their own opinion.' The ideas that all opinions are valid or that all opinions are equal are possibly the worst concepts to be derived from egalitarian democracy.  People are only entitled to their own valid opinions.  This obviously does not include such things as favorite colors.

Valid opinions are:
1.Based on generally accepted facts
2.Logically consistent (free from cognitive biases or logical fallacies.)

My political philosophy is derived by trying to determine Pareto Optimality.

[RFayette]

In its simplest form:
1. Christianity has a plethora of evidence and our stories are verified from sources not connected to our religion. (Re: roman records)
2. Even if Christianity is false, which it isn't, it has fulfilled me and is fufilling. Living my the values of Christianity is a wonderful way to live. It's full of joy, love, and fufillment.

How can you "prove" that Jesus Christ was the Son of God? That a triune God is real? Or that the Quranic account of Jesus Christ (essentially, no Prophet had ever been killed by man, so the Jesus on the cross was an imposter or that he was the one on the cross, but that God took him before he could be killed by man) is false? What about the Prophet Muhammad - he was real, there are independent sources that corroborate the facts of his life - why is he not accepted by you as a Prophet? How can you prove that he wasn't? What of the Jewish claim that Jesus was not the prophesied Messiah? Why are they incorrect? That doesn't even raise Atheistic questions about the supernatural or God, let alone Christianity conflicting accounts with other faiths.

The strongest evidence for Christianity (IMO) is the resurrection.  As such, I'd refer you to Blake Guinta, who provides a very strong case for it here:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3R4DYhpvNzc&t=6642s

[Antonio the Sixth]

The idealism vs realism debate in philosophy is one of the most interesting to me, so I'm curious why you favor idealism over realism. Don't material things exist as they are, independent of the symbolism of human abstraction being applied to them? And wouldn't truth, then, be the accurate correspondence of thought with the physical world? I mean, the ideals and symbols formed by human cognition may at best be described as an approximation of empirical reality, so shouldn't empirical reality be considered more "real?"

What proof do you have that the external word exists as we currently think it exists - or even that it exists at all? All the proof you have come from your senses. Even complex and abstract scientific theories need empirical confirmation, and that empirical confirmation necessarily comes from our senses. But we know that our senses can be deceived, that they don't actually represent "the truth" per se. All that science can do is attempt to come up with theories that accurately predict what people's sensory perceptions will be - but that still doesn't tell us whether those theories are true. By definition, no scientific theory can ever be "proven true". For all we know, there might be no "outside world" at all, and our senses might be just the products of our own consciousnesses, as if we were into some kind of dream.

Our ideas, by contrast, are manifestly true. If I think about something, then this idea actually exists in my mind, and I know that with absolute certainty. Hence ideas are inherently truer than "things".

You must be logged in to read this quote.

That's a scientific theory. It's plausible, and it makes sense to base our thoughts on the assumption that it's true, but its degree of truth will nonetheless always be inferior to that of the concept in our mind, because we could not be aware of this theory if we weren't already aware of those ideas. You can think of ideas without reference to matter, but you can't think of matter without reference to ideas.

[TJ in Oregon]

St. Augustine wrote, "Truth is that which is. Falsehood is that which is not."

I am, apart from all else, a believer in the existence of objective reality, thus in objective truth. I believe the universe is self-consistent and causally intelligible. If it weren't, then attempts at science and knowledge would ultimately be futile. I do not deny the existence of subjective experience; I simply do not think reality is only subjective experience. Any attempt to articulate a faith or philosophy ought to be an attempt at more than an explanation of my experience, but an attempt at finding the truth.

How these ideas lead to conclusions about natural philosophy can be complex. The most popular answer you'll hear today is the Kalam cosmological argument, which roughly states that things which come into existence must have a cause outside itself, and since the universe came into existence, it must have a cause outside itself, and although one can add more steps in with alternate universes, ultimately there must be a first cause, which we call God. Now, there are a couple problems with this argument, but I bring it up because it is the simplest cosmological argument to understand. For one thing, it requires that the universe had a temporal beginning, which, despite being the most straightforward interpretation of modern science, is probably not rationally provable. A more robust cosmological argument is something along the lines of Aquinas's 2nd proof. In order to illuminate how this follows, it is necessary to distinguish between two types of causal series. One type, as described above, are causal series in time such as "I am here because my parents begot me, their parents begot them, etc." But if causal intelligibility holds in general, then it must also apply to what is called an efficient causal series per se. An example of this type of series is "I am living because of the current state of the cells in my body, which is sustained by what's going on at the molecular level, atomic level, gravity, electrostatics, nuclear forces, etc." Thus the First Cause must not just be at the beginning of the universe, but must instead be constantly sustaining us in existence. God, as understood as the classical God of the philosophers, does not usurp natural processes or override modern science. Rather the laws of science come from God. (Note that much of this paragraph is assertion, but hey, you try defending classical theism in a paragraph!)

All of the abstract philosophy about causes and such tells us about the existence of God, as well as some of God's properties (omnipotent, immutable, simple, etc.), but it doesn't tell us the identity of God. That cannot be known through reason alone and requires an act of faith. Now I think that the God of classical philosophy is, in fact, the God of Christianity. Reasons for thinking this is the case come from matching the properties of the God of philosophy to those of the God of Christianity, and from tracing the astounding, and yet humble, truth claims of Christianity. Now, some will object that I didn't actually come to that conclusion using the rational arguments outlined here in the same order in which I outline it. To this objection, I would argue that they are correct but it doesn't really matter. Virtually no argument in science or otherwise is found by its proponents in the same order as its logical progression. Others will object that by appealing to natural philosophy I've somehow subordinated faith to temporal concerns. To them I would argue that I have not, as the two are not in conflict. If I were to take the opposite approach and start of the Bible and try to shoehorn everything about the universe into a literal interpretation of it, I wouldn't be putting faith first anyway; I'd merely be coming up with my own cheap imitation of it.

In any case, the way people often equate "faith" with "the Bible" is incredibly problematic. If one starts off by asking the question of what is true, even presupposing Christianity, then there are many ways one could glean information about what is true. One could use reason from the natural world (see above). One could look to what Christians who have gone before us believed (Tradition). One could look to their personal relationship with God. One could appeal to authority. One could also read the Bible. It makes no sense to base one's faith exclusively on any one at the expense of the others. If they are giving objectively true information, all of them ought to be consistent anyway. Occasionally, Catholics get accused of not reading the Bible or not believing in it by a certain variety of Protestant. The way I see it is that those types of Protestants read the Bible and conclude that its contents are true because the Bible says so. Catholics read the Bible and conclude that the Bible says so because it is true.

Admittedly, this is a very meandering response, but it is hopefully illuminating.

[JA]

Justice TJ,

Thank you for your response! I enjoyed it quite a lot and found that it answered some of the particular questions I've been contemplating lately. While that helps me to better understand the argument for a God (which I will read more about), it doesn't quite clarify why the Christian God is that God. Why, for example, is Allah not the correct understanding of God and Islam the proper method of worshipping Him? What makes Christianity's case so compelling? And how does one acquire faith? Is it the result of personal effort, does God choose to whom He will extend faith, or is it some combination of the two?

[TJ in Oregon]

Justice TJ,

Thank you for your response! I enjoyed it quite a lot and found that it answered some of the particular questions I've been contemplating lately. While that helps me to better understand the argument for a God (which I will read more about), it doesn't quite clarify why the Christian God is that God. Why, for example, is Allah not the correct understanding of God and Islam the proper method of worshipping Him? What makes Christianity's case so compelling? And how does one acquire faith? Is it the result of personal effort, does God choose to whom He will extend faith, or is it some combination of the two?

First, by an "act of faith" I simply mean the choice to trust the testimony of others' experiences of revelation as opposed to considering only rational arguments. An "act of faith" as such is not a blind leap to one position or another but a decision that a particular view or person is trustworthy. For example, I have sufficient reason to believe when I get in an airplane that the pilot is capable of flying it, therefor I place my faith in the pilot to do so. Faith in the mere belief that Jesus is God is of that sort, open to anyone to whom sufficient argument presents itself, what is called natural faith. This type of faith is an act of will based on reason. Now, there is a different type of faith that is a specific gift from God, that is called supernatural faith ("supernatural" meaning beyond what is natural). Supernatural faith is that the grace to place one's complete and entire trust in God at the expense of all other natural considerations; this is the type of faith that allows men to be eaten by lions rather than renouncing the faith without harboring a grudge for those doing it to them. In our language we often fail to recognize the distinction between these types of faith because the word "believe" has a double-meaning. It refers to the simple belief in the existence of something (ie. "I believe in the Holocaust") or a belief in the principle of a thing (ie. "I don't believe in the Holocaust"). In the case of God, it is both a belief in God's existence, a belief in God's properties, and faith in God's personhood.

From the description of God deduced from the rational arguments given in my previous post, you're basically left with four options: Judaism, Christianity (including all varients and heresies), Islam, or no organized world religion. It would seem unlikely to me that the God who bothered making all of this never bothered to reveal himself in his creation at all, thus I would eliminate option 4 (no organized world religion). We're then left with the big three. These three religions all are in agreement about many of the basic properties of God and generally agree that their God is the same as the God of the philosophers. Distinguishing between these three ultimately hinges on the question of who Jesus was, since that is their main disagreement. There are some softer reasons to think Jesus had some correct notions of human nature in teaching that we ought to hate the sin vehemently but love the sinner relentlessly, that there is an objective morality not subject to either popular vote or the whims of society, that there is a point to our existence, that there is something more important that our own immediate gratification, that happiness is generally found not be be given everything we want but by losing things we have and letting them go without, that few things are heavier to carry than a grudge, and that everything we do has consequences whether we see them or not. Looking at the historical claims made about him, whatever else he did, he clearly convinced his disciples that he rose from the dead. If they hadn't believed that, they wouldn't have been willing to go forth and die for it, occasionally for that specific claim. As for the objection that Jesus wasn't really crucified, Judas was in his stead, well, John was there and saw the whole thing. The early Christians seem to have believed him. Look at how early Christianity spread versus how early Islam spread. Christianity was a set of true believers getting martyred; Islam was part of a conquering nation. I think the original claim for the nature of Christ is more convincing than the gnostic revisionist ones. Simply look to his words in the Scriptures and the action of his followers.

[afleitch]

Look at how early Christianity spread versus how early Islam spread. Christianity was a set of true believers getting martyred; Islam was part of a conquering nation.

I can give you your theology, but don't misinterpret history.

Christianity spread (and this is meant to be a very quick rundown) through the Roman Empire through missionaries at first with strong evidence it was adopted by soldiers (for the same reasons that Mithraism was popular amongst soldiers) when it was an interesting new cult which helped ‘prime’ some areas of the Empire before missionaries actually got there.

Incidentally it also went east by virtue of the silk road and survived in fluctuating pockets (before 500 ad, 1/3rd of the world’s Christians were in what we would now consider Asia).

Then of course it became mandated by the Empire itself to the point at which laws forbade the practice of all other faiths for the first time in the entire history of the Roman Republic/Empire until such a point that it became integrated within the imperial government, leading to a form of 'caesaropapism' that ended up surviving the collapse of the Empire itself. At the time of Constantine’s conversion it was estimated that a small minority of the population of the Roman Empire were Christian and we can say than in the loosest sense of the word because there were numerous competing Christian sects. Not only did Constantine prompt the beginning of the Empire’s general edict against paganism, he was also the first Roman Emperor to specifically target unwanted Christian sects. That in turn affected early Christian thinkers like Augustine of Hippo to find ‘merit’ in using violence against heretics which they had previously argued against.

Then followed periods of forced conversion and by the early 400’s the first instances of genuine political/state action taken against ‘heretics’ (literally eradicating them) Christianity then had to fight its way into Europe which wasn’t necessarily ‘completely’ Christianised until the 1000’s-1100’s. While Europe was busy bludgeoning itself over whether Jesus liked ruffs or puritan buckles, Europe managed to export Christianity to the New World in ways and means that are genuinely barbarous. Same in Africa too.

[Greatest I am]

I have made the leap of faith that Jesus Christ was the son of God, who he sent down to earth to perform miracles, died for the sins of humanity, and then was miraculously resurrected. I try to live by the two greatest commandments, to love God with everything I am and to love my "neighbor" as myself, which means to love my fellow man and adopt a humanistic outlook, while not being shy that my faith in God is behind such an outlook.

My outlook has several advantages: (1) It is wholistic and comprehensive. Based on a few simple first principles, I can search my views and have a compass to guide me no matter what the facts are. (2) It applies in both the political, personal, and interpersonal realms. (3) It answers the question, "what is the meaning of life"? (4) It means no man is my implacable enemy always. (5) It guarantees fairness and justice for all. I would encourage everyone to adopt my outlook, and let us build a more humane and just world together that dares to imagine the existence of a Higher being!

What of the morality of you using Jesus as savior?

Please view this clip and opine on the quote at the bottom.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Regards
DL

[Antonio the Sixth]

God help us, "Greatest I am" has found this thread.

[TJ in Oregon]

Look at how early Christianity spread versus how early Islam spread. Christianity was a set of true believers getting martyred; Islam was part of a conquering nation.

I can give you your theology, but don't misinterpret history.

Christianity spread (and this is meant to be a very quick rundown) through the Roman Empire through missionaries at first with strong evidence it was adopted by soldiers (for the same reasons that Mithraism was popular amongst soldiers) when it was an interesting new cult which helped ‘prime’ some areas of the Empire before missionaries actually got there.

Incidentally it also went east by virtue of the silk road and survived in fluctuating pockets (before 500 ad, 1/3rd of the world’s Christians were in what we would now consider Asia).

Then of course it became mandated by the Empire itself to the point at which laws forbade the practice of all other faiths for the first time in the entire history of the Roman Republic/Empire until such a point that it became integrated within the imperial government, leading to a form of 'caesaropapism' that ended up surviving the collapse of the Empire itself. At the time of Constantine’s conversion it was estimated that a small minority of the population of the Roman Empire were Christian and we can say than in the loosest sense of the word because there were numerous competing Christian sects. Not only did Constantine prompt the beginning of the Empire’s general edict against paganism, he was also the first Roman Emperor to specifically target unwanted Christian sects. That in turn affected early Christian thinkers like Augustine of Hippo to find ‘merit’ in using violence against heretics which they had previously argued against.

Then followed periods of forced conversion and by the early 400’s the first instances of genuine political/state action taken against ‘heretics’ (literally eradicating them) Christianity then had to fight its way into Europe which wasn’t necessarily ‘completely’ Christianised until the 1000’s-1100’s. While Europe was busy bludgeoning itself over whether Jesus liked ruffs or puritan buckles, Europe managed to export Christianity to the New World in ways and means that are genuinely barbarous. Same in Africa too.

You misunderstand the point I was trying to make with that sentence. It was meant to describe early Christianity, as in the 1st century. It was not meant to be a defense of every act of every Christian throughout history, nor a pissing match about what religion is the most underhanded (such arguments are an utter waste of everyone's time). My point in invoking it was not to claim Christian perfection but to indicate that the early Christians (ie. in the 1st century) actually believed Jesus was God, was crucified, and rose from the dead, and were willing to die for that claim. The implication of such a statement is that if Jesus was a meaningful prophet at all, that interpretation of him is the correct one rather than some variety of gnosticism.

[Greatest I am]

God help us,

I will do my best.

Regards
DL

[JA]

JusticeTJ,

I really enjoyed your explanation of faith and hadn't thought of it that way before. But there are so many factors that could still obstruct faith. For example, while faith in Jesus would rely on the testimony and conviction of his apostles, perhaps they had ulterior motives or there was a misunderstanding? We can't know those things for certain and, as humans, they're prone to error. But, I suppose that's the reason it's called "faith." That's quite an act of faith when there are so many incredible and serious claims being made in the story of Christ.

Assuming Christ is the Son of God, that'd only raising more questions for me. Why did the message of Jesus differ from the jealous, wrathful, genocidal God of the Old Testament? There are passages that describe God commanding children from other tribes to be dashed against rocks. It also justifies slavery and commands obedience of slaves to their masters - even those who treat them harshly. While it's no question many, if not most, western abolitionists were inspired by the Bible, slave masters also had passages they could cite to justify their position. There is also a passage concerning Lot's daughters being offered to a mob to be raped. Not to mention the harsh penalties the God of the OT commanded as punishment for various crimes. How can a God of such seeming cruelty also be the same one that came to spread a message of "love thy neighbor as thyself," "turn the other cheek," and befriended a prostitute? Those seem to be contradictions.

[Beet]

I have made the leap of faith that Jesus Christ was the son of God, who he sent down to earth to perform miracles, died for the sins of humanity, and then was miraculously resurrected. I try to live by the two greatest commandments, to love God with everything I am and to love my "neighbor" as myself, which means to love my fellow man and adopt a humanistic outlook, while not being shy that my faith in God is behind such an outlook.

My outlook has several advantages: (1) It is wholistic and comprehensive. Based on a few simple first principles, I can search my views and have a compass to guide me no matter what the facts are. (2) It applies in both the political, personal, and interpersonal realms. (3) It answers the question, "what is the meaning of life"? (4) It means no man is my implacable enemy always. (5) It guarantees fairness and justice for all. I would encourage everyone to adopt my outlook, and let us build a more humane and just world together that dares to imagine the existence of a Higher being!

What of the morality of you using Jesus as savior?

Please view this clip and opine on the quote at the bottom.

 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jKNup9gEBdg&feature=em-subs_digest-vrecs

As Ingersoll said; 'no man would be fit for heaven who would consent that an innocent person should suffer for his sin.'

Regards
DL

I like this man. But why his picture of traditional resurrection story so dark? The point of the story is the resurrection, not the sacrifice. Jesus did not permanently die. As far as guilt, does it not merely refer to the notion that people are not inherently good? The beauty of the story is that it invests people who are not inherently good with the authority of a being that is.

My opinion of the quote at the bottom is that I do consent to it, because it was already given willingly before I consented. The harm was already inflicted, and to refuse would be to make it a waste, and disrespectful. I am in prison for theft, and an innocent boy takes pity of me and spends a day to bring me a bucket of water from a stream. Do I refuse? I agree that the original sin rhetoric may be a bit overplayed.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I am not sure that my faith falls into either category. It is not an act of will based on reason, it is an act of will that consists in disregarding reason. If it is a blind leap, it must be blind because we are necessarily, ultimately blind with respect to God. But neither is it (necessarily) supernatural, it is probably perfectly natural, and can be explained by brain science. Nor is it necessarily a gift from God any more than any other act of will is. Indeed, choice never takes on a more profound meaning than the choice to make the leap of faith. I apologize if this seems absurd, but it is not.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

We are all going to Hell, and my case for it is to observe the world around you.

[Greatest I am]

JusticeTJ,

I really enjoyed your explanation of faith ntradictions.

Then you will enjoy what Lewis Black says at about the 4 min. mark.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=seuCWDSi8WQ

Regards
DL