you have an emotional relationship and conversations with someone you think its possible might not exist. there is no parallel whatsoever there to how I think about science. there is of course a parallel to BAD science there - becoming irrationally/emotionally attached to certain hypothesis or whatever, but that does not describe me.
Did you not say this crow? You've side stepped my response and completely turned it into something else. Figured I would bump your original response to avoid confusion.
That's where you got me all wrong. The original question asked to me is "would I look at evidence that Jesus Christ didn't exist?" I said yes. Just as you would to bad thesis or studies on science that you care about. If you want to dance around this topic on your tip toes, just say so crow
The difference, Mags, is that scientists don't have a personal relationship with science. We have a personal relationship with God. Crow's statement was that he can't imagine having a personal relationship with someone for whom you allow the possibility that they don't exist. It would be like carrying on a year-long online romance with someone without ever having spoken to them face-to-face; how could you commit to that relationship unless you were absolutely certain that person was genuine?
The question was if you were presented with actual (not hack) evidence that Jesus did not exist, would you take it into consideration. The implication of your response was that you think there is at least some possibility such evidence might exist. I'm not understanding how anyone could (sanely) have what they consider a meaningful relationship (assuming you still do so) with an entity they think there's any practical chance might not exist. I don't think there's any realistic chance I'm imagining the family members I have a relationship with. If somebody asked "if presented with evidence that you are insane and your family is a delusion would you consider it?" my response would be that's a silly question, not "absolutely".
No I was explaining that I will look at all evidence, including the hack's. There is nothing wrong with looking into other views. If you study how nazi Germany innovated some incredible technology; does that make you a nazi? Will you tell those people how they blow your mind?
Oh I see where he's coming from now. I look at all because I know there is none that's substantial. It's more "seeing what the other side sees". Atheist will claim they have proof, but I know there is a Jesus and I know he's God. They can search long and hard and will never find one. That's why they take the agnostic approach. They understand there really is no possible way to get proof.
Seems to me that believers wouldn't have any issue if Jesus did turn out to be either just a regular guy, or a complete fiction, or a pastiche of various historical people. Believers would just pivot to 'Jesus is a metaphor' and go right on believing. Same as happens every time part of the bible turns out to be bunk. barfo
I think that would be different. Christians can get away with incorporating things like evolution without serious damage to their core beliefs because Genesis 1 and other parts of the OT really are of a vague/metaphorical stylistic nature. The Gospels however are clearly intended to be a historical account. Without the divinity of Jesus Christianity would become socially marginalized and fall apart very quickly.
I think you underestimate the power of belief I have faith that the Gospels can come to be viewed as metaphorical too. barfo
Magnifier or Brian, perhaps you can help me with a question that I asked my pastor a couple weeks ago and couldn’t really get what I felt was a good answer. First, my background is that I was raised Catholic and eventually stopped attending because I felt that mass was just a ritual and didn’t have much personal meaning. Later, I started attending a non-denominational church and I felt that the message was much more relevant to my life. A couple weeks ago, the service was about doctrine and affirming what we, as Christians, believe. One of those things was that the Bible was the literal word of God. Now, I’ve always believed that the bible is metaphor; that God would tell us how to live through stories, just like how Jesus taught by using parables. My question was why does it matter if it is literal or not. In this case, questioning the existence of Jesus seems extreme but why does the bodily resurrection matter. I have no doubts about the existence of God, and I believe that Jesus was his son and taught valuable lessons. Shouldn’t that be what is important? Does it make me less Christian if I have some doubts about what I feel are more trivial points?
The message and the benefit to society is the same whether Jesus was a verifiable historical man, or a spiritual symbol of Christianity. Christianity exist all around you today and where it is allowed to exist and influence the hearts and minds of people, it is a good thing. Where it is not accepted and allowed to influence the hearts and minds, the detrimental results are apparent. The places in our society dominated by Godless, Fatherless, feral children have been without the benefit of Christ in their world way too long. Godless, Fatherless, feral are not a list of adjectives, it is a step by step progression, resulting from absence of Christ in lives.
I don't think it matters brother. The single most important thing should be having a relationship with God through Christ. The "grace" is what's important. Everything else is different interpretations of the little things. There is no such thing as "less of a Christian". You either are or aren't. I have 3 kids. If one of my kids moves out and doesn't speak much to me, does that make them less of my kid?
