@SuperBigV
Thanks for indulging my curiosity. Obviously, I think you came to the wrong conclusion, but I respect the fact that it came after a long search and struggle. Your story reminds me of Bart Ehrman’s, although your intellectual difficulties were centered on hell and salvation, while his were about suffering and evil. I assume that your father, being a pastor, has discussed your loss of faith with you many times and at length, so I won’t presume that my words will carry more weight with you than his.
Getting back to the “bend the curve” trend, I’m not sure any particular “program” or group would have prevented your own crisis and loss of faith, but at the same time, I feel that many (not all) Christian gatherings, whether Sunday schools or youth groups or parachurch ministries, do not encourage honest discussions. Questions indicate a lack of faith, so people keep their problems and doubts hidden, where they fester until they explode into a crisis.
I grew with you. No program or group can address my struggles.
Please keep in mind that I still regularly attend the church and find that people are actually open to discussions such as the one we are engaged in. (not all of them and I’m not flashing my agnostic atheism at them). I don’t understand it, but a few people lovingly embraced me and thanked me for sharing my doubts. We all share the one world and in our own ways, we are all searching for the truth.
I see a good case for this from the primarily circumstantial historical evidence about his life and the early church.
That is assuming, of course, that one does not categorically reject the possibility of the miraculous (as many Atheist materialists tend to do. That means you would throw out all the evidence as inadmissible and demand I cite ancient scientific journals verifying the incident. If that’s where this is going…)
I would be interested in your definition of “God”. Also, what do you think about the following reasoning: “I don’t know how ancient Egyptians could have made the pyramids, therefore aliens must have built them”
This is also assuming, as many Christians tend to do, that only your Gods miracles are valid. For example, Satan or another supernatural entity could not have tricked the first Christians. Or God himself could not have tricked the ancient Jews to see if they will defect from the true religion of Yahveh
You realize that there are a great many people like you who would believe aliens built the pyramids long before they would believe in Jesus.
I don’t know if aliens exist, but I do know God exists. That would make miracles more plausible in my book than alien actions.
There is a fundamental difference between the concept of God and the concept of Aliens. (or Santa clause, fairies, flying spaghetti monsters, Zeus, etc…) They are all finite, limited beings, without a creator.
How did you come to conclusion that the God can only be one? And, how did you decide this God even cares about you? And how do you know this God can work miracles?
And, btw, I remain agnostic leaning towards atheist but having an open mind on the existence of a prime mover type God or Gods.
The vast majority of the religious world (Jew, Christian, Islamic, Most Hindu) have all arrived at the general idea that “God is One”. The reason for this, in my opinion, is that it is a self-evidently superior idea. God is a metaphysical conception of the ultimate, and a Multi-god system is inferior and would “lose” to a Unitary God. When you start comparing different ideas of gods you find that the Monotheistic conception is “more powerful”. Such a God excludes the possibility of other gods, while those other gods do not exclude the possibility of God. A One God could thus be viewed as the “equilibrium” or apex of the ultimate. For example, in Anselm’s Ontological argument, God is the being such that no greater being could be conceived. Obviously a single all-powerful God is greater than two gods who share power, thus God is should be one. If you take a Boolean sum (or rock-paper-God) of all possible Gods (or all possible metaphysical realities), you end up with I AM.
Given our conception of God, how could he not have such an ability? When and how he chooses to exercise (or not exercise) this ability is the real question.
And what is the difference between Trinity God vs Three equally powerful Gods?
A God of Islam is a unity (as I understand it) where as Christians claim their God has a Son. Both concepts are Unitary, yes? And if God were to have 1000s of Sons would still be Unitary, yes?
Ultimately, as you say, you hope in Jesus Christ. I dont see a good reason for me to do so.
There is one God. Jesus is God, he is not “as great as” God. The same can be said for the spirit. This does not compromise the oneness of God. I don’t fully understand the trinity. But if I were to go out on a limb I could say that Harrison Ford, Hans Solo and Indiana Jones are One Man, and yet different persons.
As I explained earlier, three gods < one God.
Yes.
Not in the Mormon sense. But many Hindu’s believe that the One God, Brahma, has millions of Avatars.
What is your impression of the historical evidence then?
I think this whole discussion is a good example of how apologetic arguments are useful for bolstering the faith of people who already believe, but they don’t seem to be much use when it comes to arguing someone into belief. You just can’t do that. Faith is a gift. No amount of natural theology, or logic, or empirical observation, or historical fact is going to get you to “Jesus’ death on the cross atoned for humanity’s sin and reconciled believers to God and his resurrection united them in new life with the Holy Spirit.” Either you accept a priori that the truth claims of the Bible are valid and reliable or you don’t. There is no “why” underneath that acceptance. It seems to me that it’s either disingenuous or arrogant to pretend that acceptance of divine revelation in the Christian Scriptures is “based on” anything at all. If it is based on something, whether reason, experience, tradition, hearsay, or warm fuzzies, then ultimately that is what your faith rests on.
I don’t think Jesus is historical. But even if he was, I don’t think there is a good reason to trust him for anything I can’t verify (i.e. Salvation, eternal life) when his promises I can verify fail. And I can observe that they fail for all Christians I know.
Generally people come to internet forums to argue and debate, not seek truth. But I think the discussions are good for learning about the arguments for both sides and developing ones own views. In-person discussions are generally more fruitful, and less adversarial in my experience.
I don’t mean to attack you, but, I strongly disagree with your dismissal of apologetics. The gospels were clearly written with the intent to provide testimony and evidence for early believers, and there are many questions that CAN be addressed fully, and many more that can be addressed to a fair degree.
We are obligated to do our best to answer the questions of non believers. Your attitude strikes me as defeatist. We do not accept Christ a priori, as I pointed out earlier:
We accept that Christ is who the Bible says he was and accomplished what the Bible says he accomplished a priori, don’t we? I don’t know what you mean.
I think faith is an encounter with the divine, not an intellectual assent. I have nothing against giving reasons for our hope, I just think we need to remember “It is foolish to the Jews, who ask for signs from heaven. And it is foolish to the Greeks, who seek human wisdom. So when we preach that Christ was crucified, the Jews are offended and the Gentiles say it’s all nonsense. But to those called by God to salvation, both Jews and Gentiles, Christ is the power of God and the wisdom of God. This foolish plan of God is wiser than the wisest of human plans, and God’s weakness is stronger than the greatest of human strength.” (1 Cor 1:22-24) I have come to terms with the nonsense of it all.
This is the opposite of what I thought you meant, which was “by blind faith and without any evidence”. I don’t think faith is blind, but I agree with your general sentiment I think.
Do you not think that apologetics can help remove barriers to faith? It is not so much about proving faith in my mind as it is about challenging worldly “truths”.