What’s the main reason, not reasons, on why you are a Christian?

Faith & Science Conversation
,
61

I love that.

But if your mindset disallows the existence God as a discrete being, then no experience can be from that God, “…even if someone rises from the dead.” Might arguments still have their place perhaps in God’s providence, by hopefully lending to persuade some to at least allow for his existence? There are of course resolute Sadducee1 ‘nons’ whom no amount of good reason or cordiality will help spiritual blindness or soften a stony heart. We should maybe pray for a crisis on the road to Jericho and a Christlike Good Samaritan for such a one.

1(Is there an adjectival form of that like there is for Pharisee? ; - )

62

You are right that a convinced pantheist or other sort of unbeliever may be resistant (not open) to an experience of God. Arguments may help in that case - or not. The decisive issue is whether the Spirit of God converts the person’s heart via the experience. Without the work of the Spirit no one truly believes; with the work of the Spirit no one fails to believe.

2 Likes
63

I can’t think of a worse introduction to philosophy than Kant’s CPR. Without guidance it’s virtually unintelligible. Once I saw a little booklet designed to give students a 4 page summary of the major thinkers starting with Plato. I turned to the chapter on Kant, and it began: “Confirms your worst fears…”

1 Like
64

It was a class on late modern philosophy and we were using Kant’s Prolegomena. I about fell out of my chair when I heard what the goal of history was for Hegel.

65

I do wonder what happens when people begin to consider what it means if the cause of the universe is unaware of its action.

I believe the NT calls this the testimony of the Spirit. Or what Jesus referred to as the blessing by which those who have not seen him, believe in him.

1 Like
66

That’s the right reaction!

2 Likes
67

It was reading Heidegger’s Letter on Humanism and seeing through the plural pronouns that brought me to my knees. Other stuff was going on, but the double meaning of the text was more than I could stomach.

68

No argument there. ; - )

Yes. That is what was behind my “Might arguments still have their place perhaps in God’s providence…”

69

John the Baptist explains this.

John 1:32 And John bore witness, “I saw the Spirit descend as a dove from heaven, and it remained on him. 33 I myself did not know him; but he who sent me to baptize with water said to me, ‘He on whom you see the Spirit descend and remain, this is he who baptizes with the Holy Spirit.’ 34 And I have seen and have borne witness that this is the Son of God.”

This was a sign to John identifying the messiah. So clearly this did not happen with others who were baptized – at least, not so John could see, otherwise this would not have worked, and God would not have told John to look for such a thing.

1 Like
70

Possibly. However, if the arguments fail to address the concerns of the one subjected to them in a meaningful and convincing way, then the arguments are ineffective.

An apologist cannot expect someone simply to change their mind after the same argument that was ineffective in the past is repeated many more times.

Likewise an apologist who does not respect the other person cannot build trust with them. People tend not to be convinced by people they don’t trust, much less feel comfortable giving them a hearing.

And if the person remains unconvinced after all of the apologist’s efforts, what is the appropriate way to treat the person, that is, the apologist’s neighbor?

1 Like
71

It depends somewhat on whether the neighbor is truthful or not as to what appropriate responses might be. (George Santos comes to mind. ; - )

72

In regard to the believability or effectiveness of an apologetic method, the apologist will have to take their neighbor’s word for it. The neighbor’s internal response is not verifiable.
If the neighbor, even George Santos, wants the apologia dropped, the apologist can continue to badger and condemn, which will continue to reinforce distrust and division.
If some sort of apologetic is to take place at that point, one would expect one of a very different nature.

1 Like
73

It is perplexing when the argument is about whether or not a person can snap their virtual fingers an infinite number of times.

74

Woah!!! :scream_cat:

I think I gave the machine (ChatGPT) a run for its money:

Generic question about an infinite series through successive addition, and a follow up comment confirming a program can complete an infinite number of tasks, gave me this response:

“In theory, a program can complete an infinite number of tasks, as long as the tasks can be described algorithmically and the program has access to an infinite amount of resources (such as memory, processing power, etc.). In practice, however, all programs have limitations in terms of resources and time, so they may not be able to perform an infinite number of tasks.”

At one point do the number of tasks go from a finite number to an infinite number?

(I expected an error, but instead got a flashing cursor for 30 seconds maybe, felt longer, and the following text came up slowly)

“The transition from a finite number of tasks to an infinite number of tasks is not a well-defined concept, as it depends on the definition of “finite” and “infinite.” In mathematical terms, a finite set is a set that has a finite number of elements, while an infinite set is a set that has an infinite number of elements. In the context of a program or a computer system, the number of tasks that can be performed can be considered finite if the available resources (such as memory, processing power, etc.) are limited. When the available resources are unlimited or extremely large, it may be possible to perform an unlimited or extremely large number of tasks, which can be considered to approach infinity. However, even in this case, there may still be practical limitations that prevent the program from actually performing an infinite number of tasks.”

(and then as if checking its answer, the cursor blinked for a few more moments before it completed the response)

1 Like
75

The Gospels largely only make reference to Him from the start of his ministry, so any speculation about his early life is just that, speculation. But I would think it odd if things suddenly changed at one point. If He is God incarnate, why would it be different before.

76

Some should just be walked away from.

1 Like
77

Shaking the dust from your feet, and while Jesus has harsh words about this, which is true, yet that word you shared may still find life in some of the most unexpected ways.

1 Like
78

Yes. Better to walk away than entrench enmity deeper. But that walking away must also include the humble commitment to leave the situation alone entirely. Not to return to the situation, or prod it or try to revive it. To recognize that one is powerless (for good, that is). The situation is in someone else’s hands entirely.

1 Like
79

Easier said than done, especially for my weak in many ways self. It also gets revived every not-infrequent time there is an in-your-face self-contradictory disingenuous statement.

80

For me, it’s related to solipsism.

Solipsism is the belief that I am the only “real” person - the only one with a consciousness. To the solipsist, the consciousness apparent in others is just an illusion. Others are just objects. Maybe they are just human-like robots, fragments of our imagination, or NPCs in a simulation.

Sounds silly at first. But the kicker with solipsism is that it cannot be disproven via reason or empirical evidence. Try it yourself.

So, why am I not a solipsist? I could treat others however I want! I could live without guilt, pity, or other nagging on the part of my conscience.

The sole reason I am not a solipsist - and indeed, whether they realize it or not, I believe this is why most people are not solipsistic - is faith.

Along with most others, I have made a prelogical choice to not only accept the existence of other souls, but to do my best to spare them of unnecessary pain.

Maybe it’s difficult to see how this led to my becoming a Christian. Jesus Christ is, as far as I’m aware, the only holy figure that preached and died for the notion of treating others as ends in themselves. He embodies charity as well as the bearing of another’s suffering - two sides of the same coin - otherwise referred to as “love,” “grace,” or “mercy.” (And in a way, “forgiveness” is also a form of this.)

Nearly all faiths preach the renunciation of earthly desires. However, Jesus goes further: “love thy neighbor,” “turn the other cheek.” He urges us to pursue kindness and mercy relentlessly, as though we were a father to all mankind.

So to summarize: whether we consider ourselves religious or not, being a good person requires faith. We need some kind faith to fill gaps that logic can never occupy. It doesn’t have to be religious faith, but if you’re anything like my old agnostic self you have to constantly tend to your gaps, refilling refilling refilling all the time like you’re trying to preserve the shape of a wet sandcastle.

Christ, though, inspires faith with the perfect shape and form to fill that gap. This faith still requires attention and maintenance, but unlike the hodgepodge of ’ secular’ faiths it replaces, it is fundamentally solid.

2 Likes