How Do I Know If There's A God?

[Ice_nine]

You're right.  Christ was either a liar, a lunatic, or God.   Sorry, I missed one.  Also thanks for that link.  I will check it out.  I don't know if it is going to be worth my time though.

 

.  

 I believe the idea that Jesus was none of these things, merely a charismatic figure who had a mythology built around him by other people through no real fault of his own, is en vogue. Maybe that's what Hassan was getting at?

Edited May 4, 2014 by Ice_nine

[4588686]

 I believe the idea that Jesus was none of these things, merely a charismatic figure who had a mythology built around him by other people through no real fault of his own, is en vogue. Maybe that's what Hassan was getting at?

 

 

Sure.  That's also an option. 

[Guest]

I don't know how atheist do it.....Because they now have to deal with the facts this universe was fine tuned for things to happen the way they did.....The odds are to slim that it happened by chanch.....So their hand is forced and they have to believe in the multiverse and this is just the lucky universe things worked out in....

Edited May 4, 2014 by Guest

[Anomaly]

An angel appears to you and tells you you're having God's child. That would be pretty convincing to me, personally.

That's how you know you picked the right mushrooms IMO.

[Guest]

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=oyH2D4-tzfM 17:00

[Socrates]

 I believe the idea that Jesus was none of these things, merely a charismatic figure who had a mythology built around him by other people through no real fault of his own, is en vogue. Maybe that's what Hassan was getting at?

 

This idea, while popular, has its own set of very serious problems when examined in any depth.

 

Among other things, this would mean that the first generation of Christians were willing to go to great lengths, and risk or give up anything, including their lives, in order to knowingly perpetuate a fraud or hoax.

Or else, the entire early Christian community was utterly mad and delusional.

 

The "lunatic or liar" problem is simply transferred from Jesus Himself to His immediate followers.

[Anomaly]

The "lunatic or liar" problem is simply transferred from Jesus Himself to His immediate followers.

It's not a lie if you believe it. Insanity is not required to be mistaken.

[Fidei Defensor]

It's not a lie if you believe it. Insanity is not required to be mistaken.

It is, however, required if one is going to die for their lie.

[Anomaly]

It is, however, required if one is going to die for their lie.

People are willingly marteryed for all kinds of beliefs. If you know it's a lie, yes that's insane, but a known lie is not a belief.

[Fidei Defensor]

People are willingly marteryed for all kinds of beliefs. If you know it's a lie, yes that's insane, but a known lie is not a belief.

Indeed, there are people who die for many things. However, the first Christians were within living memory of Jesus. If they weren't convinced he had a message worth dying for, they wouldn't have.

[Anomaly]

Indeed, there are people who die for many things. However, the first Christians were within living memory of Jesus. If they weren't convinced he had a message worth dying for, they wouldn't have.

.
So what is your conclusion?

[4588686]

It is, however, required if one is going to die for their lie.

No it's not. Lots of young men during WWI went off to fight for a Tsar who they believed to be a representative of God on earth.

They were wrong. Whoops

[4588686]

This is why this argument is so bad. It just lacks any real nuance. Human beings are complicated and social movements, particularly radical ones are complicated. This messiness only is exacerbated when the events and actors existed 2,000 years ago and the historical record is scant.

[Fidei Defensor]

This is why this argument is so bad. It just lacks any real nuance. Human beings are complicated and social movements, particularly radical ones are complicated. This messiness only is exacerbated when the events and actors existed 2,000 years ago and the historical record is scant.

This I will agree with.

[Socrates]

It's not a lie if you believe it. Insanity is not required to be mistaken.

 

If Jesus Christ was not in fact  the Only Begotten Son of God, nor claimed to be, and did not work miracles and rise from the dead, then Christ's followers who knew Him and preached these things were either deliberately lying (as knowing Christ, they would know things to be false), or else were hallucinating or deluded (in other words, insane).

 

As the Gospels and other Christian works such as the Pauline letters were written well within living memory of these events (claiming to be eyewitness accounts or written from eyewitness accounts), if they spoke falsely regarding Christ and His deeds, then surely there would be opposition from Christ's actual apostles who knew him if these were false, and Jesus were nothing more than a good guy with some nice moral teachings. (Especially as an man's claim to divinity was considered a grave offense of blasphemy by the Jews.) However, there is absolutely no historical record or evidence of such opposition.  For example, St. Paul became close with apostles of Christ who new Jesus, and was accepted by them, and his beliefs regarding Christ appear to be in accord with accepted Christian belief at the time.

 

As in those days the risks and costs of being Christian were pretty high, including persecution and death, people would generally need to have good reason to believe the Christian message in order to convert to the new Faith.

 

Interestingly, the Jewish Talmud, which is strongly anti-Christian, does not deny the miracles of Jesus Christ, but claims He worked them by the power of the devil rather than God.

[Socrates]

I think it is reasonable to assume that Christ Himself thought that He was the Word of God. Messianism and the idea of the Logos was a part of the religious culture of the time. None of the ideas in Christianity were made out of whole-cloth. Philo posited the Logos as the first-born of God. The Logos acted as an intermediary being between God and the World. The genetic similarity between Philo and Christian thought is unmistakable. 

 

Somehow I missed this.

 

The truth is, despite your ill-informed claims, that claims of a man to divinity were certainly not part of the religious culture and beliefs of the fiercely monotheistic first-century Jews, who regarded any human identification with the One Almighty God, or claims to be His Only-begotten Son, as blasphemy - considered by Jews to be worst possible sin, and punishable by death.

 

This was the final reason the Jewish authorities condemned Jesus to death - for making statements claiming equality with God, the great "I AM."  This event is recorded in all four Gospels.

And Christ did not retract or explain away HIs statements, but chose to be killed instead.

 

If Jesus was merely a man who was deluded into thinking He was the Only-Begotten Son of the Most-high God, His delusions certainly put him at odds with accepted beliefs of the society He grew up an lived in, and ultimately led to His painful death.  

If Christ was delusional then, His delusions must have been serious indeed!  (And yet somehow He was able to convince many other apparently sane people to follow his delusions.)

 

 

Of course this begs the question, if you believe Jesus Christ to not be Our Lord and Savior, but merely a tragically deluded egomaniac, why identify yourself as "Catholic" in your profile?

You're not even Christian.

[Socrates]

This I will agree with.

 

The record of Christ and the early Church is actually very strong compared with that of most events of the ancient world (for many ancient events, the only written records we have were written many generations after the events themselves.)  By standards of ancient writings, the four Gospels were newsflashes.

 

The only reason the recorded events of the life of Christ are so controversial is the miraculous, supernatural content - which obviously conflicts with the beliefs of atheists and other unbelievers.

[4588686]

Somehow I missed this.

 

The truth is, despite your ill-informed claims, that claims of a man to divinity were certainly not part of the religious culture and beliefs of the fiercely monotheistic first-century Jews, who regarded any human identification with the One Almighty God, or claims to be His Only-begotten Son, as blasphemy - considered by Jews to be worst possible sin, and punishable by death.

 

This was the final reason the Jewish authorities condemned Jesus to death - for making statements claiming equality with God, the great "I AM."  This event is recorded in all four Gospels.

And Christ did not retract or explain away HIs statements, but chose to be killed instead.

 

If Jesus was merely a man who was deluded into thinking He was the Only-Begotten Son of the Most-high God, His delusions certainly put him at odds with accepted beliefs of the society He grew up an lived in, and ultimately led to His painful death.  

If Christ was delusional then, His delusions must have been serious indeed!  (And yet somehow He was able to convince many other apparently sane people to follow his delusions.)

 

 

Of course this begs the question, if you believe Jesus Christ to not be Our Lord and Savior, but merely a tragically deluded egomaniac, why identify yourself as "Catholic" in your profile?

You're not even Christian.

 

 

Right.  You totally missed his point.  

 

 

Also, just as an aside to your sweeping, unnuanced historical claims:
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

Edited May 9, 2014 by Hasan

[4588686]

Oh, hey there, Philo, I guess that society 2,000 years ago was also really complicated.  Hmmmmm....

[Socrates]

Right.  You totally missed his point.  

 

 

Also, just as an aside to your sweeping, unnuanced historical claims:
 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philo

 

 

Okay, perhaps you can explain what his point was that I apparently missed.  Or better yet, let Comrade John explain for himself what his point was.  (Not sure why you feel compelled to reply to all my responses to other posters.)

 

In any case, it is clear you totally missed my point.

 

 

And thanks for the Wiki link, though I'm not sure how it's supposed to refute anything I said.  The Church has always recognized the contributions of philosophy towards better understanding of theological truths (albeit imperfectly), and the philosophy of the Logos has contributed towards understanding of the Blessed Trinity.  No one denies that.

 

I'm not sure how much of this philosophy Jesus would have come in contact with as a small-town carpenter, but that's largely beside the point.

Just because one believes in the existence of the Divine Logos, it does not follow that it is in any way rational for one to believe himself to be the Divine Logos.

 

John's post (particularly the first sentence) implied that believing oneself to personally be the Only Begotten Son of God, or the eternal Divine Logos, was a perfectly rational, normal thought for a devout first-century Jew, while in truth it would be quite the opposite.

 

In the religion and society of Jesus' time and place, any identification of a human being with God was considered damnable blasphemy.

 

If I were to claim that I was personally the Only Son of God, or the Divine Logos incarnate, you would think I was nucking futs,and rightly so.

Such a claim would be no less outrageous and crazy in first-century Judea.

Probably more so, as I while might get sent to psychiatrist for such claims, Jesus faced painful execution.

 

The claim would be utter egomanical lunacy - unless, of course, Jesus Christ actually was in fact who He claimed to be.

 

The "liar, lunatic, or Lord" dilemma remains totally valid.