Christianity: the unknowable faith?

Christianity is a rational religion and faith is the result of a logical process of deliberation. Like other viewpoints, it is a conclusion which is derived from evidence. Just like other conclusion we arrive at everyday, it follows a logical model which is fairly standard.

Premise 1 + Premise 2 = Conclusion

This is a basic model of logical process; and modern Christianity largely follows the model below.

Relationship with Jesus (Premise 1) + The truth of the Bible (Premise 2) = Belief in Christianity (conclusion)

If you believe Premise 1 and 2, then it only makes sense to adopt the logical conclusion. In this thread, I'm not going to be arguing that the Bible is false, or that Christians who believe they have a relationship with Jesus are wrong; simply that premise 1 is impossible to establish because of the problematic nature of spiritual experience. Again, I'm not stating that the Christian relationship with Jesus is false; simply that it cannot be established as true with any certainty.

Everyday, Buddhists, Christians, Muslims, Jews, Zoroastrians, Hindus and adherents from all over the world from other religions all celebrate the divine in their own way. Buddhists recall their enlightenment experience, Muslims feel Allah's presence in prayer, Hindu's understand that the divine manifests itself in the universe in many ways and respect this manifestation, and adherents of all religions experience moments of contact with the divine, each of which confirms their personal beliefs about god.

What I've stated above is an undeniable fact. Members of each religion all claim to have spiritual experiences with their god or divine force which prove that their religious views are correct.

If one acknowledges this fact, however, it is impossible to argue that any spiritual experience, including a relationship with Jesus, is a sound way of getting any closer to the truth. The consequence of the same kind of spiritual experience leading to a myriad of contradictory conclusions all over the world is that none of them can be trusted to get us any close to the truth. While spiritual experiences cannot be proven wrong, they also cannot, however, be used as reliable evidence of the accuracy of any belief system precisely because they regularly lead people to irreconcilably contradictory beliefs.

Having a relationship with Jesus, then, while it isn't a delusion, is impossible to use as sound evidence for Christianity.

All that's left at this point is the question of the Bible's truth; which is an extremely complex topic. The Bible also has a variety of interpretations many of which claim to reveal contradictory truths. When a relationship of Jesus is ruled out, also, there is no reason to assume the Bible is true in the first place!



Here, then, is my question for Christians: when many other religions claim to have the same kind of spiritual experience that yours does, how can you say that your faith is any closer to the truth than theirs is?

 

A quick question for you.

In all of those other religions, which one of them includes a teaching that states "I am the way, the TRUTH, and the life."?

 

God is logos

Not really. Our faith in god leads also to logical processes of deliberation.

Seems to me you like to speak about teh famous christian philosospher Aristotle

Not really. To become a faithful person is one of the longest ways of developmental psychology. It's perhaps comparbale with the growing of a tree. It starts very early in life and it needs often a very long time until fruits are growing. We need a lot of patience - not only with others. On the other side: There's only one life - that's not much.

Sounds empty

Is a car false or true or a car?

Thanks

Premise 1 is what? I guess I have a problem now with my attention or my memory and not with my spirituality. it is "Relationship with Jesus (Premise 1)" ... hmm . Jesus is a good friend.

So yu sdo not believe that he's my friend? Whatever - your problem - not my problem.

Are you sure there are still existing some Zoroastrians?

Personal? They are sharing their belifs with the members of their communities and cultures, their nations and civilizations.

Strange belief: Undeniable facts are not existing.

Why not? One is using an abacus another an eletronic calculator the third is using circles another pencils and so on and so on. Everyone is able to find the truth - but everyone is also able to make mistakes.

God is logos - true creating word - so who tries to be in the near of the truth looks for his logos and inspiration.

Only the blue stones are the bad stones - throw with red stones if you don't like to see blood.

I have the feeling you try to meditate about the sentence of Jesus Christ: I am the truth, the way and the life.

Thatsä why deeds are so important.

Hey - I understood this sentence. Nice.

Jesus Christ said: "'Do not let your hearts be troubled. Trust in God; trust also in me. My Father's house has plenty of room; if that were not so, would I have told you that I am going there to prepare a place for you? And if I go and prepare a place for you, I will come back and take you to be with me that you also may be where I am. You know the way to the place where I am going.'" http://youtu.be/YaqQnhBtxaI

http://youtu.be/PbWT7cpbT78

 

The 7,000,000,000 question. Each individual will decide for themself. Everyone will be accountible and spend eternity of their own choosing. You are not seeking answers for your mind is already made up. You don't know the truth, you don't want to know and in your case, it's probably best you don't know. Pity the poor man that sits on the fence while the excavators are removing the ground around him.

 

Can you clarify a point?

Christianity is rational, yet water turns to wine? Men walk on water? Innocents are killed in he act of killing sinners? God rapes a woman, allows her to give birth to himself, he convinced people to follow him so that he may forgive them for the laws they would be punished for, then he sacrifices himself to himself so that he can convince himself to change a rule made in the first place so that he may punish people for all eternity that choose not to follow that particular faith over all the others?

How is that rational?

 

funny...............

christianity a 'rational religion'????????????????

Fricken hilarious!!!!

good rational

ie..... No magic + no such thing as magical miracles = no manmade god creating existence from nothing (the conclusion)

Or; man created the word + man can mislead = the god of beliefs is manmade

jesus is not making relationships + the bible is a manmade creation = christianity is a manmade belief

that be true. Each have created their own belief systems.

ie.... conclusion; theologies are 'manmade'

as the story shares the buddha 'touched the earth' and became aware he is a part of it

islam is the evolution of the previous abrahamic sect + the evidence found in quran = islam's 'allah' is the same god of judaism and christianity

ie...... 'mankinds' creator is nature + nature shares the divine manifestations of life = nature is 'god' itself

that should be my line

no it aint.

Mankind created all words + people can mislead = mankind created the bible, which is not always 'truth' (an undeniable FACT)

great BOLD point

perhaps because they have used force, lies and abuse to make it that way


ie... a child is circumcised without the choice; so are the educational impositions binding the children to believe their way

 

Hmmm ... and atheists discover what should be common sense.

Religion is not science.

Science regarding religion can only to take you to the point where the evidence is inconclusive regarding God.

Science does not deal well with the realm of religion: Love, compassion, ethics, friendship, marriage, emotions, purpose, wisdom, leadership, honor, sexual morality, passion, drive, etc.

Logic is a tremendously useful tool, but, in regards to God, the best it can do is neither confirm nor deny. As it is supposed to be.

I see others deny the miracles of Jesus, but they deny the miracles that happen in this day and age as well.

In the end yo umake your choice - logic is either one tool in a rational tool kit, or it is the only tool you use. It is the acknowledgement of both subjective and objective, or the acceptance of only objective.

You can see the shortcomings in ONLY using logic in dealing with God, just as you can see the error in attempting to deal with other human beings ONLY using logic.

Funny that the Bible itself stresses this point, of knowledge being a gateway to wisdom and the paramount importance of wisdom over knowledge. And this was written thousands of years ago.

 

for example; anyone can 'walk on water' by just freezing it first (common sense)

agreed....

religious wingnuts will lie to themselves with ease.

science minded folks have a innert pursuit to learn

religious folk will break the command of no false witness, to sustain the very god that tells them not to lie (false witness)

science is bound to LOVE, compassion, ethics,....... etc.... as part of the innert precept of science......... it is about the evolution of knowledge, in which the practictioners are pratically bound to an oath of devoloping knowledge and evidence for the next generations.

Most of science already accept the fact, that what they believe as true may be found untrue, the very next day.

religious wingnuts; will lie to themselves versus sustain a personal responsibility to OTHERS over themselves

so why do religious wingnuts deny fact to sustain their beliefs?

for example; science as a discipline of progressing knowledge has saved more lives than any religion ever to exist

You never witnessed a miracle of jesus but deny sustaining the integrity of the command, 'no false witness'

The greatest miracle each can sustain is the capacity to be honest over beliefs and maintain a personal responsibility in choice

ie... the pursuit of truth exceeds beliefs

It's a common sense logic to be objective versus subjective.

ie.... idiots subject to the belief over the truth

 

Here I'll clarify what I'm trying to argue (the original post was written late at night and was originally supposed to address something different).

What I'm saying is that Christianity follows a logical process, not that it is rational in the traditional sense. As in, again, Christianity follows the logical structure of having premises and a conclusion where the evidence is a spiritual experience with Jesus and the Bible and the conclusion is belief in Christianity. That's what I meant by "rational" and "logical" not that Christianity actually makes logical sense; I probably should have chosen different words since I meant more that Christianity follows a logical process than anything.

I totally agree though, human sacrifice, talking donkeys and snakes, God giving birth to himself, a horde of zombies invading Jerusalem, and other absurdities make no sense whatsoever from an objective viewpoint. All I'm claiming is that Christians, like everyone else, follow a certain logical process in arriving at their beliefs whether they admit it or not; their religion is not exempt from the rules of logic.

 

However the religion itself resides outside of logic and common sense.

You cannot look at some bits and claim them to be logical then dismiss others. If it is to be taken as a religion or a belief system, then it is to be taken as a whole.

A person could still obtain certain bits of morality from the texts, while ignoring the vile bits, and while ignoring the nonsensical parts, and still be "right".
However that person would not be a subscriber of Christianity, simply adopting certain pieces.

 

Let's us your logic to present the view of the atheist toward religion.

You cannot look at some bits and claim them to be illogical then dismiss others. If it is not to be taken as a religion or a belief system, then it should not be taken as a whole.

A person does not ignore the nonsensical parts harping on the vile bits while obtaining bits of morality from the texts and still be wrong.

However that person could be a subscriber of atheism simply adopting certain pieces.

You can look at some bits and claim them to be logical then dismiss others. It should be taken as a whole if it is taken as secular reasoning.

 

This may be relevant if atheism had a holy book, a doctrine, however, it does not.

 

Can a you clarify a point?

Secular humanism is rational, yet drinking wine can turn one into an alcoholic, men walk on the moon? Guilty are not punished for their killing of innocents. Men rape women, force them to have an abortion, convince people that this is right and best for the mother and child that could live a horrible existence, forgive the butcher doctor for the laws are on the books, then convince others not to change the immoral law so that the unborn are punished prior to passing into an eternity with God so that those that choose to follow atheism over all other options?

How is that rational?

 

You're right. It has nothing to base it's not understanding nor reasoning. Just what their predecessors have passed down through the generations. Though I will suggest that the many works about evolution and darwinism may in fact be the unholy books and dogma that sways the consciousness of those that live for darkness.

 

lol

Thats is a straw man of sorts.

Secular humanism is not necessarily atheism. Atheism is a simple lack of belief, secular humanism is an attempt for an ethical and morals code of sorts. I suggest reading the Humanist Manifesto 2000.

As for the rest of it, I have no idea where you are going. You need to be a bit more clear in your point, and draw a connection between the delicious nature of wine, landing on the moon, and abortion.

 

Um...... I am bit confused. Atheism seems to share a basic tenant, evidence based beliefs. However that is hardly dogma, it is simply common sense.

Also, the theory of evolution does not sway the consciousness of those "who live for darkness" (whatever that means). It is simply a context for understanding the diversity and progression of life. There is nothing philosophical about evolution.

 

'Tis good to hear that the secular humanist may come to terms with a God, apparently this is not the case for the atheist.

You may not know where I am going, but I do. And I think I know where you're going.

 

I understand your confusion. Atheism does tend to lend itself to a limited concept of the world and the reality thereof, not to mention understanding of things not seen. Oh, how glad I am not to be so shallow.

 

I do not believe you know what secular humanism is.

If you know where you are going, spell it out. Unless you are insinuating a heaven for the faithfully blind and eternal torment for the skeptics, then there isn't much more to discuss.

If things are not seen (not observed, not measured, etc) they do not exist. I need not lie to myself it give myself a false sense of understanding about the world around me. It is fascinating enough as it is, there is no need to conjure up an invisible being with imaginary laws to give it all meaning.

 

We can't prove God through private experiences or the Bible.

My proof of God is that we are here, and there is no explanation for us being here that science can provide.

 

So instead you base your world view on a fallacy.

Argument from Ignorance
God of the Gaps

 

Good question but then you enter the circle of faith. Your faith says its true so it is true. Logic and science have nothing to do with faith. A great Church Father once said "in science find the truths that seem good to you but remember all is from God." (Paraphrased for brevity)

 

If you're calling me ignorant go ahead. I'm not.

My father the professor has a big interest in science and he has taught me much of what he knows.

There is no scientific explanation for the existence of the universe and all the matter and energy it contains.

There is no scientific explanation for how inanimate matter became animate matter.

Scientists are unable to create matter or energy out of nothing in their laboratory.

Scientists are unable to create life out of inanimate matter in their laboratory.

 

Some things cannot be understood by the "rational" mind.

 

On the contrary. Everything can be understood when fabricated justifications are brought into consideration.