Jenny in Atl Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 I don't mean to speak for Sputterduck, this is just my own thoughts. But I think perhaps there is such a fundamental difference in perspective here that there is some miscommunication going on. In our culture, we often see faith or God as something separate and apart from other aspects of our life and the world at large. Kind of like the non-overlapping magisteria view promoted by Stephen Jay Gould. Even many people of faith have this view of it. (I used to.) But some do not. For some, the joy of their family, the sparkle in their child's eyes, the beauty of the natural world are all tangible manifestations of God's love. They cannot be separated from God. The entire world, our entire lives, are infused and permeated with God, faith, divine love. So the thought of a world without God is not the world as we know it, it's just an empty shell. I'm not sure if I made much sense. This is my first attempt at putting these thoughts into words, and it isn't easy. OK, I think I see what you are saying, but... let's try this example. What if you had a mother, who you thought was your biological mother. She raised you, fed you, loved you, and you loved her. Then you found out she was not your biological mother, would you love her any less? I still don't understand how anyone could love their child any less if there was no God. How they could not enjoy the taste of a good meal, not see the smile of a friend as just that, a smile. Why does it only have meaning because some being/creator made it so? I guess I am just a product of the West... more stuck in a logical mindset then the divine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jenny in Atl Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 If that's the case, then ALL would be vain and we might as well eat, drink, and be merry. I disagree... I still believe people still will form cultures and norms that will seek to control and mold groups to their liking. I don't think the lack of a God will cause chaos. I see many of the same rules and morals staying, just a different reason for them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Haiku Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 If you were presented with IRREFUTABLE PROOF that your religious/faith/beliefs were false, would you denounce your faith? Yes, just as I quit believing in the Tooth Fairy and Santa Claus when I found out they weren't real. I chose my faith because it represented the truest picture of reality for me. Were it proven false, it wouldn't hold any meaning anymore. Tara Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy in TN Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 You are correct. You do NOT have to know the answer to every single detail in order to believe. We can't know every single detail. But do YOU believe that WHAT you believe is REALLY REAL? Do you believe it is Truth? 1. If a Christian were to answer that question with: Yes, I believe that the basic principles of Christianity are Truth, then they would have to answer KingM's question about whether or not Christianity and Hinudism can both be Truth with NO. You can't have two opposing ideas BOTH be Truth. If one is truth then the other is, by virtue of the meaning of truth, not truth. I do consider myself a Christian and I answered this question differently. Religion is not TRUTH! Religion is but a means to explain truth. 2. this is the same line of thinking that lead to the hypothetical question in the first place. No, we cannot PROVE that Christianity is Truth. But what if we could? Would those who are not Christians convert? What if we could PROVE that Christianity is a hoax? Would you walk away? The idea behind the topic was to get at the heart of what you REALLY believe. You're confusing religion with Truth. You're confusing religion with God. They are not the same thing. Truth is a constant. Religion changes throughout time to accomodate the cultural group currently practicing the religion; therefore, religion is not a constant and cannot be truth. HTH- Mandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Jenny, I've been thinking about your questions a lot, and have finally had to admit to myself that I am neither eloquent enough, nor mature enough in my faith to be able to give you the answer you deserve. I am hoping someone more qualified can jump in here and rescue me! :D Just a couple of thoughts, though . . . What if you had a mother, who you thought was your biological mother. She raised you, fed you, loved you, and you loved her. Then you found out she was not your biological mother, would you love her any less? I'm not sure this analogy really holds. I think it's more like finding out you had no mother because you were never really born and what you thought was your life was just an illusion. I still don't understand how anyone could love their child any less if there was no God. I did not mean to say that I would love my daughter less if I lost my faith. Most of my years as a parent I was an agnostic, then a panentheist, and only very, VERY recently came to believe in the Christian concept of God. And from day one, I assure you I loved my daughter as much as any other parent, and experienced a joy in her beyond what I could have imagined before she was born. But now, I experience an even greater joy and peace in my parenting with the knowledge that there is a God who loves her and who is providing for her in ways that are so vastly beyond my capability and even my comprehension. I guess I am just a product of the West... more stuck in a logical mindset then the divine. :001_smile: That's where I've been most of my life, and have only just begun to see the tiniest glimpse into that divine realm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secular_mom Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 If that's the case, then ALL would be vain and we might as well eat, drink, and be merry. :001_huh: This raises several questions for me. Are people who feel this way not eating, drinking, and being merry now, while they do believe in a god? Why not? If ALL would be in vain, then loving other people has no meaning and is not a good thing in and of itself? We would still have to work to provide food, so would the work be in vain? Or should we all just curl up and wither away if there was such proof that there is no god? If we should just try to wither away (not fight to stay alive), why? Is it because there would be no reward in an afterlife? Is it because there will be no punishment for those who have wronged you? :bigear: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 The entire world, our entire lives, are infused and permeated with God, faith, divine love. So the thought of a world without God is not the world as we know it, it's just an empty shell. I'm not sure if I made much sense. This is my first attempt at putting these thoughts into words, and it isn't easy. I'm trying to understand what you mean. I can see without glasses, but the world is fuzzy - it doesn't have a clarity that, for me, brings beauty. I can't see the detail, the shades of colour. When I put on my glasses, it's still the same world, but it means a lot more to me. If I lost my glasses and wasn't able to get new ones, I'd have to learn to appreciate the world in a different way, because I could no longer see gossamer on the grass at sunset. Is that anywhere close to your feeling? Laura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 (edited) Is that anywhere close to your feeling? Yes, I think that was well put. Kind of funny than you can express my feelings better than I can! :lol: ETA: Only, I think the analogy should perhaps be a bit more extreme, maybe more like losing one's sight completely, and having to find a totally different way of functioning in the world. Edited October 15, 2009 by GretaLynne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 :001_huh: This raises several questions for me. Are people who feel this way not eating, drinking, and being merry now, while they do believe in a god? Why not? If ALL would be in vain, then loving other people has no meaning and is not a good thing in and of itself? We would still have to work to provide food, so would the work be in vain? Or should we all just curl up and wither away if there was such proof that there is no god? If we should just try to wither away (not fight to stay alive), why? Is it because there would be no reward in an afterlife? Is it because there will be no punishment for those who have wronged you? :bigear: Eating, drinking and being merry will not in itself bring true happiness. It is hollow. The temporary jovial feeling fades. I cannot imagine a life with no hope for the future. If there were no God: The earth will eventually be destroyed because men are not taking care of it. I will die and that will be that. The suffering that I am going through now has no end. I will always be sick and struggling. I will never see Papaw again. My daughter will also grow sick or old and die. If she were to die tomorrow I would have no hope of seeing her again. Wickedness and suffering will continue, but people will not. That seems terribly bleak and depressing. I don't think I would be alive today if I truly believed that to be the case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Eating, drinking and being merry will not in itself bring true happiness. It is hollow. The temporary jovial feeling fades. I cannot imagine a life with no hope for the future. If there were no God: The earth will eventually be destroyed because men are not taking care of it. I will die and that will be that. The suffering that I am going through now has no end. I will always be sick and struggling. I will never see Papaw again. My daughter will also grow sick or old and die. If she were to die tomorrow I would have no hope of seeing her again. Wickedness and suffering will continue, but people will not. That seems terribly bleak and depressing. I don't think I would be alive today if I truly believed that to be the case. I am content without god. Dorothy L. Sayers, through Harriet Vane, expressed my attitude to life: Peter and Harriet are sitting in a little garden, together and alone. "Harriet," he said suddenly, "What do you think about life? I mean, do you find it good, on the whole? Worth living?" She turned to him with a quick readiness, as though here was the opportunity to say something she had been wanting to say for a long time. "Yes! I've always felt absolutely certain it was good - if only one could get it straightened out. I've hated almost everything that ever happened to me, but I knew all the time that it was just things that were wrong, not everything. Even when I felt most awful I never thought to killing myself or wanting to die, only of somehow getting out of the mess and starting again." "That's rather admirable," Peter says. Laura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KidsHappen Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 How can you prove someone you have met is non-existant? :confused: Well, there are many possible alternatives but the most acceptable one would be that simply mistook the person (or in this case God) to be someone they are not. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Eating, drinking and being merry will not in itself bring true happiness. It is hollow. The temporary jovial feeling fades. I cannot imagine a life with no hope for the future. If there were no God: The earth will eventually be destroyed because men are not taking care of it. I will die and that will be that. The suffering that I am going through now has no end. I will always be sick and struggling. I will never see Papaw again. My daughter will also grow sick or old and die. If she were to die tomorrow I would have no hope of seeing her again. Wickedness and suffering will continue, but people will not. That seems terribly bleak and depressing. I don't think I would be alive today if I truly believed that to be the case. Conversely, I cannot imagine living a life whose purpose hinged on the chance of some "heavenly" future. To me, living the life I have with all the joy I can muster is purpose enough. I know when I die, that's it. I dealt with the fact that I'll never see my parents again when they died. That's just part of life. We live. We die. We love. We lose. And, I am quite fine with that. Sure wickedness will continue, as it always has, but so will love, as it always has. I don't live for the possibilty of an afterlife. I live for the life I have now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted October 15, 2009 Author Share Posted October 15, 2009 I do consider myself a Christian and I answered this question differently. Religion is not TRUTH! Religion is but a means to explain truth. You're confusing religion with Truth. You're confusing religion with God. They are not the same thing. Truth is a constant. Religion changes throughout time to accomodate the cultural group currently practicing the religion; therefore, religion is not a constant and cannot be truth. HTH- Mandy No, YOU are the one who keeps bringing up religion. Religion has nothing to do with this question. What I am asking is, for a christian who believes when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life", for a christian who REALLY believes that, to then find out that Jesus never existed....it was all an elaborate hoax...would you walk away from your christian faith? Investigate islam? buddhism? hinduism? etc. etc. There was a huge study by the Barna Research Group about Christians in America. I don't have the stats in front of me but it basically showed that a really high percent of americans claimed to be christian but when surveyed about the basic tenents of the christian faith, the percent dropped dramatically. So this begs the question, how do you call yourself a christian if you don't believe that Jesus was God's son, was crucified for our sins and was resurrected? Again, what they found is that people who claim to be christian really aren't, they just like the type of morality that results (or should result) from christianity (kindness, compassion, etc) OR they call themselves that because their parents took them to church when they were little OR because they have a nebulous sort of belief in God. etc. So when asked if they had proof that Jesus was a hoax would they still consider themselves a christian, most people said yes. Which, to be honest, makes no sense to me whatsoever. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
secular_mom Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Eating, drinking and being merry will not in itself bring true happiness. It is hollow. The temporary jovial feeling fades. I cannot imagine a life with no hope for the future. If there were no God: The earth will eventually be destroyed because men are not taking care of it. I will die and that will be that. The suffering that I am going through now has no end. I will always be sick and struggling. I will never see Papaw again. My daughter will also grow sick or old and die. If she were to die tomorrow I would have no hope of seeing her again. Wickedness and suffering will continue, but people will not. That seems terribly bleak and depressing. I don't think I would be alive today if I truly believed that to be the case. I cannot imagine a life with no hope for the future either. :) The earth may be destroyed eventually, if science is not allowed or able to advance enough to help us find new ways of doing things in time. But there is hope that we will find cures for diseases, find ecologically friendly ways of living in comfort, colonizing moons, other planets, space stations, etc. Though I can understand the need for comfort that some get by believing in god, and I would not take that away from anyone. The life that I KNOW I have, the time that I am alive (RIGHT NOW) is more precious to me knowing that life is too short and I don't have an eternity to enjoy my family, friends, beauty, love, etc. It is always amazing to me, to see how we all view things so differently. What is depressing to one is uplifting to another, what is stifling to one is freeing to another. Vewy vewy intewesting. :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HRAAB Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 If that's the case, then ALL would be vain and we might as well eat, drink, and be merry. Do you mean that if your faith (Christian?) was proven false, there would be no reason to do the right thing? To feed a starving person or give shelter to a homeless person or to give love to an elderly person all alone? I know many people with no faith in God, no religion, yet they don't look at life as some party. In spite of their lack of belief in God, they're charitable, helpful, compassionate, honest, responsible. If Jesus' claim were proven to be false, would you really just start living like life was a big party? I've been thinking about this all day and can't get it off my mind. I've been in a major faith crisis for over 8 years; there was quite a long time that I couldn't say I believed in anything, including God. But never once did it occur to me that I should just go out and live for me. Maybe it was because I was raised in a Christian home, and those lessons are so ingrained in me that I can't shake them. Maybe it's because that although I abandoned God, he never abandoned me. Or maybe people with no faith really do have faith in something, they just don't know it. I dunno. I find that sentiment just so incredibly sad, but maybe I'm not understanding your viewpoint very well. Janet Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
katemary63 Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Yes I certainly would and then I'd have no reason to live. What is the point without God? :iagree:On Christ the solid Rock I stand. All other ground is sinking sand. Without Christ, life would completely loose it's meaning for me. And I certainly wouldn't continue to worship a god I knew for a fact to be false. However, this question causes me no concern. There has never been a more hypothetical question posed! Edited October 16, 2009 by katemary63 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yes! That is it Katemary, meaning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Yes! That is it Katemary, meaning! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 (edited) Yes! That is it Katemary, meaning! Why would I persevere if I wasn't providing an answer to Satan's taunts and making my God's heart glad? If I wasn't upholding God's name and the reputation of faithful mankind? What meaning would any suffering have if it wasn't to prove Satan a liar and ultimately fix this broken world? What would be the point? I do understand what some are saying here, because if I believed in God but didn't know/understand the reason he allowed suffering, then I wouldn't worship him. Edited October 16, 2009 by Lovedtodeath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anne in CA Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 If I were wrong I would not be a Christian. Now, does that mean that I should lose my faith over something as stupid as the Divinci Code? No. It would have to be real proof, not wishful thinking on the part of someone like Dan Brown. My Muslim boss and I discussed this one day and he was shocked that I said such a thing. He said, "You can't just change your religion because it's wrong. Come on, you are a nice Christian lady, you are who you are." I told him I was only interested in the truth. That really upset him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 "You can't just change your religion because it's wrong. Yes. That sentiment gets a big :thumbdown:, but it is not so uncommon. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Donna T. Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 If you were presented with IRREFUTABLE PROOF that your religious/faith/beliefs were false, would you denounce your faith? For instance, if you found out that... - Jesus Christ is NOT the son of God etc. etc. Would you walk away from your faith? These questions came up in my apologetics course and I found them fascinating! No, I'll never walk away from my faith. I don't care what irrefutable proof is provided. John 6:67-69 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that a great falling away will occur prior to the coming of the Son of Man. I believe that falling away will be proceeded by "irrefutable proof" that will convince multitudes that the Lord Jesus did not raise from the dead. Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. I expect the "irrefutable proof" to come forth at just about anytime really. So while the question seems interesting and perhaps even entertaining to consider, I think Christians need to be honest with themselves. It's a very serious thing to consider really. What will the Church do if some "irrefutable proof" comes forth? Well, I know what I'll do. I'll go to the Bible and there I'll find the answer because it contains the Words of Eternal Life and it will carry me through. Because, my faith is based on the Bible alone and not what any man can ever give to me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Shelly in the Country Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (ESV) 12Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest janainaz Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I would still believe in love and in God. You can't deny the powerful thing that love IS. It exists without being able to see it and you certainly know that it's there. Someone might be able to explain away the creation of matter, but no one can explain the power of love and why we feel it. To have love, you also have to know mercy, grace and forgiveness. I guess I would say that my belief in who God is would remain because that belief, at the core, is in love. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 1 Corinthians 15:12-19 (ESV)12Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is in vain and your faith is in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified about God that he raised Christ, whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If in Christ we have hope in this life only, we are of all people most to be pitied. Beautiful. I do love quoted scriptures. No, I'll never walk away from my faith. I don't care what irrefutable proof is provided. John 6:67-69 67Then said Jesus unto the twelve, Will ye also go away? 68Then Simon Peter answered him, Lord, to whom shall we go? thou hast the words of eternal life. 69And we believe and are sure that thou art that Christ, the Son of the living God. I believe the Bible clearly teaches that a great falling away will occur prior to the coming of the Son of Man. I believe that falling away will be proceeded by "irrefutable proof" that will convince multitudes that the Lord Jesus did not raise from the dead. Thessalonians 2:3 Let no man deceive you by any means: for that day shall not come, except there come a falling away first, and that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition. I expect the "irrefutable proof" to come forth at just about anytime really. So while the question seems interesting and perhaps even entertaining to consider, I think Christians need to be honest with themselves. It's a very serious thing to consider really. What will the Church do if some "irrefutable proof" comes forth? Well, I know what I'll do. I'll go to the Bible and there I'll find the answer because it contains the Words of Eternal Life and it will carry me through. Because, my faith is based on the Bible alone and not what any man can ever give to me. Thank you so much for this. Wonderful, encouraging post, and a good reminder. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Janet in WA Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 If you were presented with IRREFUTABLE PROOF that your religious/faith/beliefs were false, would you denounce your faith? For instance, if you found out that... - Jesus Christ is NOT the son of God - Mohammed was insane and had no part of the Quran - the Hindu Gods were really just fairytales etc. etc. Would you walk away from your faith? These questions came up in my apologetics course and I found them fascinating! Maybe. But that's what faith is -- believing something that can't be proven -- and therefore can't be disproven. So I'm not betting on that every happening. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy in TN Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 (edited) I really thought that by the time I had a chance to respond that this thread would be long gone. Well, my professor feels differently. The question came out of a discussion about TRUTH. Since we live in a post-modern, "truth is relative" sort of world it is a pretty relevant question. If there is no such thing as Truth, or if what is true for me is not necessarily true for you then are we putting our faith in a lie? (whatever faith that is?) So the question as it relates to me personally is "IF, hypothetically speaking, you had irrefutable proof that Jesus is not who He says He is, He is not the son of God, he was not resurrected, etc. would you still be a Christian?" My answer is no. Why would I follow a lie? The question is designed to get at the heart of WHY you believe not just WHAT you believe. Truth is constant. Religion is not constant. Religion changes over time. Therefore, if your faith is only in a specific interpretation of specific religious stories from a particular religious document, then you are following a lie. Mandy Edited October 17, 2009 by Mandy in TN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy in TN Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 No, YOU are the one who keeps bringing up religion. Religion has nothing to do with this question. What I am asking is, for a christian who believes when Jesus said "I am the way, the truth and the life", for a christian who REALLY believes that, to then find out that Jesus never existed....it was all an elaborate hoax...would you walk away from your christian faith? Investigate islam? buddhism? hinduism? etc. etc.. I would say that this is very much about religion. Christianity is a religion. I am pretty sure that the nun who taught my religious studies classes at Christian Brothers was a Christian, but she was pretty clear that Biblical myths could be interpreted in various ways. Religion and people can use these myths to point to God. There was a huge study by the Barna Research Group about Christians in America. I don't have the stats in front of me but it basically showed that a really high percent of americans claimed to be christian but when surveyed about the basic tenents of the christian faith, the percent dropped dramatically. So this begs the question, how do you call yourself a christian if you don't believe that Jesus was God's son, was crucified for our sins and was resurrected? Again, what they found is that people who claim to be christian really aren't, they just like the type of morality that results (or should result) from christianity (kindness, compassion, etc) OR they call themselves that because their parents took them to church when they were little OR because they have a nebulous sort of belief in God. etc. I am not familiar with that study, but I am pretty sure that you would be hard pressed to find any basic tenets of Christianity. Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, Southern Baptists, Mennonites and Eastern Orthodox Christians all will tell you that they are Christians, but they have different tenets of faith. Also, the Christianity practiced by any of these groups in all likelihood bears little resemblance to the Christianity practiced by the many different groups of early Christians (although I guess Eastern Orthodox Christians could claim to be the closest). OTHO- the response of anyone claiming to be Christian, should be that the judgment call on who is or is not Christian can only be determined by God. So when asked if they had proof that Jesus was a hoax would they still consider themselves a christian, most people said yes. Which, to be honest, makes no sense to me whatsoever. Many of the books included in the New Testament were written long after the ascension. Many books excluded were certainly closer in time and perhaps in doctrine. In this respect the Christianity practiced today is indeed a hoax. I would guess that different people would have different things that for them would make Christianity a hoax. If the virgin birth story was a mistranslation/ misunderstanding, would Jesus having a human father make Christianity a hoax? Son of God/ Messiah- these are merely titles. Jesus was not the only person in Jewish history to be given these titles. Jesus is not the only person in scripture said to have returned from the dead. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but only died for your sins, does that make him less significant or all of Christianity a hoax? Jesus isn't the only person in scripture said to have gone to heaven in bodily form. If Jesus didn't ascend to heaven it bodily form, is all of Christianity a hoax? If Jesus didn't die on the cross, but instead was stoned to death or something, is all of Christianity a hoax? If your faith is based on believing that the English translation of the Bible you hold in your hand is literal and is The Truth, then if any of it were found not to be literal you would need to reevaluate your faith. This is very interesting to me, but this is all hypothetical. Mandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy in TN Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 If you were presented with IRREFUTABLE PROOF that your religious/faith/beliefs were false, would you denounce your faith? To answer your question directly and personally (not something I do often in religious threads), for me much of Biblical scripture is not literal and therefore is not subject to being proved false. However, for me personally, Jesus was the sacrifice that ended the need for sacrificial offerings to God; therefore, metaphorically he was the Lamb. No amount of good works will render me good enough for my spirit to be in eternal communion with God. Through the blood of Jesus, the Lamb of God, there is no need for me to sacrifice animals for the forgiveness of sins. If it were proved that Jesus never died for my sins (and this would not be dependent upon him dying on a cross), then I would need to shop around for another faith. HTH- Mandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted October 17, 2009 Author Share Posted October 17, 2009 I would say that this is very much about religion. Christianity is a religion. I am pretty sure that the nun who taught my religious studies classes at Christian Brothers was a Christian, but she was pretty clear that Biblical myths could be interpreted in various ways. If she referred to them as "biblical myths" I would question her teaching on anything related to Christ. Religion and people can use these myths to point to God. I am not familiar with that study, but I am pretty sure that you would be hard pressed to find any basic tenets of Christianity. "The foundation of Christian theology is expressed in the early Christian ecumenical creeds, which contain claims predominantly accepted by followers of the Christian faith. These professions state that Jesus suffered, died from crucifixion, was buried, and was resurrected from the dead to open heaven to those who believe in him and trust him for the remission of their sins (salvation). They further maintain that Jesus bodily ascended into heaven where he rules and reigns with God the Father. Most denominations teach that Jesus will return to judge all humans, living and dead, and grant eternal life to his followers." I am not talking about discussions of infant vs. believer's baptism, and other more controversial issues. I am talking about the basics. Jehovah's Witnesses, Roman Catholics, Mormons, Methodists, Southern Baptists, Mennonites and Eastern Orthodox Christians all will tell you that they are Christians, but they have different tenets of faith. Also, the Christianity practiced by any of these groups in all likelihood bears little resemblance to the Christianity practiced by the many different groups of early Christians (although I guess Eastern Orthodox Christians could claim to be the closest). OTHO- the response of anyone claiming to be Christian, should be that the judgment call on who is or is not Christian can only be determined by God. I suppose one could call themselves anything they want but a Christian is a follower of Christ. If you do not believe Jesus was the son of God, born of a virgin, died for your sins, was resurrected and will come back again, I don't see how you can be a Christian. Believing in God does not make you a Christian. How you "practice" Christianity (as in high church vs. low church, church governance, traditions, rituals, etc) may look different but Yes, there ARE basics to the Christian faith. Many of the books included in the New Testament were written long after the ascension. The books of the NT were written between 55 AD and 95 AD. That's only about 25 to 65 years after the ascension which really isn't that long in historical terms. Heck, we are still writing books about the Civil War and that took place almost 150 years ago. Many books excluded were certainly closer in time and perhaps in doctrine. In this respect the Christianity practiced today is indeed a hoax. A discussion of canonicity is another thread entirely. If the virgin birth story was a mistranslation/ misunderstanding, would Jesus having a human father make Christianity a hoax? Absolutely yes. Son of God/ Messiah- these are merely titles. Jesus was not the only person in Jewish history to be given these titles. Jesus is not the only person in scripture said to have returned from the dead. If Jesus didn't rise from the dead, but only died for your sins, does that make him less significant or all of Christianity a hoax? If he was not resurrected then my faith is in vain and Christianity is a hoax. If your faith is based on believing that the English translation of the Bible you hold in your hand is literal and is The Truth, then if any of it were found not to be literal you would need to reevaluate your faith. I believe in the verbal, plenary, inspiration of the Bible and that it is infallible in its original languages. Therefore, I read several English versions not just one and I study a lot and I rely on the Holy Spirit for discernment. But yes, I belive the Bible is to be interpreted literally. I don't think God was trying to trick us. I think the Bible means what it says. This is very interesting to me, but this is all hypothetical. Hence the title of the OP. Mandy . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 If she referred to them as "biblical myths" I would question her teaching on anything related to Christ. I'll say it till I'm blue-in-the-face, but the term "myth" (used properly, and not in a "corrupted" sense) does not mean falsehood. The Bible does deal with mythos. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted October 17, 2009 Author Share Posted October 17, 2009 I'll say it till I'm blue-in-the-face, but the term "myth" (used properly, and not in a "corrupted" sense) does not mean falsehood. The Bible does deal with mythos. Bill I'm sorry, Bill. I know how much that word means to you! :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
keptwoman Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Truth is constant. Religion is not constant. Religion changes over time. Therefore, if your faith is only in a specific interpretation of specific religious stories from a particular religious document, then you are following a lie. This is what I think too. I don't believe that anyone in any religion knows what the truth is, they are all using what they believe to comprehend and explain the inexplicable. I often feel this way when people talk about seeing God's hand in nature or getting a carpark, or things going right for them. To me that's just the way things worked out today and yes nature is stunning and incredible, awe inspiring and to me inexplicable. If you want to use God to give credit to, more power to ya. Truth is out there somewhere, but I don't believe anyone at all knows what it is, I certainly don't. So if someone came and said to me "this is the truth, here's the proof" I'd probably say "well how about that, blow me down, someone did figure it out after all" Conversely, I cannot imagine living a life whose purpose hinged on the chance of some "heavenly" future. To me, living the life I have with all the joy I can muster is purpose enough. I know when I die, that's it. I dealt with the fact that I'll never see my parents again when they died. That's just part of life. We live. We die. We love. We lose. And, I am quite fine with that. Sure wickedness will continue, as it always has, but so will love, as it always has. I don't live for the possibilty of an afterlife. I live for the life I have now. Me too, imagine if you'd lived all that time for something that isn't to be. I want to make life the best I can make it and make other peoples lives the best THEY can make it because maybe that's all we have. I don't understand the idea that without God we would all be horrible to each other. People can have morals and values without believing that God is the truth. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mandy in TN Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 If she referred to them as "biblical myths" I would question her teaching on anything related to Christ. She did indeed refer to the Bible as the collection of Christian myths, but she certainly did not mean lie. As Bill said myth does not mean lie. Myths are complex stories often metaphorical that are an integral part of religion. They are used to help explain the big mysteries of life and the universe and are often used along with doctrine to complement the perspective of a cutural group. I've got to run to work, but really myth is not a bad word. I like this quote from Myths, Gods, Heroes and Saviors: "Still neither doctrines or myths are to be equated with the experience of the Absolute Reality. This would lead to dysfunction, and perhaps a loss of faith." I can't sum it up better than that. Mandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Robin Hood Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 I don't think it's healthy to accept that premise and speculate on it. There are so many questions like that that are really not helpful or even relevant. I don't think it's right to worry about them. I'm not sure it's even good to think about them. One is 'If God is omnipotent, can He make a rock He can't lift?' I think that the only way to think about questions like that is to be in awe of how much cooler and multi-dimensional God is than us, and that He is beyond our complete description. For the original question, I don't feel that God is subject to proof, totally. I feel that we now see through a glass darkly but then shall see in full. I have to accept that because I'm just a measley human. I think that to pose the question implies that God is subject to proof, which tends to deny His being above all and through all and in all. It's like that Escher drawing of the continuous stairway--it's like an optical illusion to pose that question. I'm sorry that life seems so worthless to you without god. I try to find joy in the little things: the curve of Hobbes' shoulder as he sits writing next to me; the woodpecker on the bird feeder this morning; Calvin's sparkling eyes as he makes me laugh; the cup of tea that husband brought me last night as I marked papers. Laura In our culture, we often see faith or God as something separate and apart from other aspects of our life and the world at large. Kind of like the non-overlapping magisteria view promoted by Stephen Jay Gould. Even many people of faith have this view of it. (I used to.) But some do not. For some, the joy of their family, the sparkle in their child's eyes, the beauty of the natural world are all tangible manifestations of God's love. They cannot be separated from God. The entire world, our entire lives, are infused and permeated with God, faith, divine love. So the thought of a world without God is not the world as we know it, it's just an empty shell. I'm not sure if I made much sense. This is my first attempt at putting these thoughts into words, and it isn't easy. In the fashion of It's a Wonderful Life, let's pretend there was no Jesus. Since there is the claim that all things were created by Him and through Him, there would be no existence of the world in which we live. There would be no man nor woman to procreate so there would be no curve of child's shoulder to gaze upon. No husband to bring you tea. No papers to grade. The other alternative would be evolution in which we would be merely animals with out a soul or intelligence because those cannot exist without God. There would be no reason to have them. So I agree with GretaLynne and Carol in Cal. These things cannot be separated from God and this type of questioning is neither helpful nor relevant. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted October 17, 2009 Author Share Posted October 17, 2009 These things cannot be separated from God and this type of questioning is neither helpful nor relevant. Then definitely do not take any graduate-level apologetics courses because you will deal with questions like this all day. I found the question to be quite relevant because it made me focus (or re-focus) on the fact that I am a Christian because I believe it is Absolute Truth. I truly believe that...not I just sort of hope in it, not I believe in it because my family does and it's all I've ever known...I really believe it is REALLY REAL. If I did not, I would walk away from it in a heartbeat. Two more things to think about: we are doing the Truth Project study with the seniors in my school. The class is about half Christian and the other half is Hindu and Buddhist and a few Muslim. They were asked this same question. Most (not all) of the Christians answered as I did, they would give up Christianity if it were proved untrue (remember this is a hypothetical question). The non-christians were appalled. They couldn't imagine giving up Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam "just because" it was proved untrue. Some felt it would be giving up their entire identity. Others said it didn't matter if it was true or not. I was shocked. But I shouldn't be. Here is another question posed during the series: Do you believe that God is Omnipresent and Omniscient? Of course, most Christians answered yes. That is what we are taught. But how many of us Christians REALLY believe that God is everywhere all the time and knows all? If we REALLY believed that then why don't we take that into consideration when we do the things we do? The point is this, we as Christians talk a good game. We can recite the attributes of God, the story of Jesus, the message of the Gospel but then we go right on living like we don't REALLY believe a word of it. Myself included. So the final question became: What if all the people who claimed to be Christians, who said they believed that it is TRUTH, really started acting like it? We would turn this world upside down. I think it is a VERY relevant question. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Laura Corin Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 Since there is the claim that all things were created by Him and through Him, there would be no existence of the world in which we live. There would be no man nor woman to procreate so there would be no curve of child's shoulder to gaze upon. No husband to bring you tea. No papers to grade. I responded to Sputterduck's thought, 'What would be the point without God?' (I paraphrase). If she had said, 'I would not exist without God', then I would not have responded as I did. Laura Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 The non-christians were appalled. They couldn't imagine giving up Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam "just because" it was proved untrue. Some felt it would be giving up their entire identity. Others said it didn't matter if it was true or not. I was shocked. But I shouldn't be. I think I might understand where the kids who said they wouldn't give it up are coming from. I think they may intrinsically tie their faith to their culture. Growing up in the mostly white american christian communities that I did, this was not an issue. In general, white american christians don't have a singly identifiable "culture." But then I moved here and for the francophone Catholics here, the religion is tied to the language is tied to the heritage of being French Canadian. It all goes hand-in-hand(in-hand?). The point is, they are fiercely defensive of all 3 equally (religion, language, heritage). They wouldn't give up any one of those aspects no matter what proof you could provide of its untruth, irrelevancy or whatnot. Maybe that is the kind of paradigm from which your kids are thinking? I think it is a VERY relevant question. I do too, but not just for religious or christian people -- for non-believers, too. Like I said, if you could provide irrefutable proof to me that your god existed, then of course I would have to believe it existed. However, there would still be the question of whether I (or any other non-believers) would worship that god. Probably a separate question though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Greta Posted October 17, 2009 Share Posted October 17, 2009 (edited) The non-christians were appalled. They couldn't imagine giving up Hinduism/Buddhism/Islam "just because" it was proved untrue. Some felt it would be giving up their entire identity. Others said it didn't matter if it was true or not. I think I might understand where the kids who said they wouldn't give it up are coming from. I think they may intrinsically tie their faith to their culture. Growing up in the mostly white american christian communities that I did, this was not an issue. In general, white american christians don't have a singly identifiable "culture." But then I moved here and for the francophone Catholics here, the religion is tied to the language is tied to the heritage of being French Canadian. It all goes hand-in-hand(in-hand?). The point is, they are fiercely defensive of all 3 equally (religion, language, heritage). They wouldn't give up any one of those aspects no matter what proof you could provide of its untruth, irrelevancy or whatnot. Maybe that is the kind of paradigm from which your kids are thinking? This is a good point, Audrey. When I read your post Heather, I wondered how much of this difference is in the vastly different way that the West and the East approach religion. I think the whole notion of a religion backed by logical proof, of it being something that takes place in the head, and should add up like 2 + 2 = 4, might be distinctly Western in origin. I'm not saying Eastern religions are "irrational" -- but something more like "beyond rational" maybe? That they exist on a different plane. I'm not familiar with Hinduism, but from my experience with Buddhism, I would say that Buddhism is not at all dependent upon Buddha in the same way that Christianity is dependent upon Christ. Even if you had definitive proof that no such person as the Buddha ever existed, it really doesn't change anything. A life of compassion and mindfulness is still real and true and valid, regardless. Every living being still has "Buddha nature" even if the historical Buddha was only mythical and not actually corporeal. Edited October 17, 2009 by GretaLynne Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I'm sorry, Bill. I know how much that word means to you! :D It's a one-man mission :D Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 This is a good point, Audrey. When I read your post Heather, I wondered how much of this difference is in the vastly different way that the West and the East approach religion. I think the whole notion of a religion backed by logical proof, of it being something that takes place in the head, and should add up like 2 + 2 = 4, might be distinctly Western in origin. I'm not saying Eastern religions are "irrational" -- but something more like "beyond rational" maybe? That they exist on a different plane. I'm not familiar with Hinduism, but from my experience with Buddhism, I would say that Buddhism is not at all dependent upon Buddha in the same way that Christianity is dependent upon Christ. Even if you had definitive proof that no such person as the Buddha ever existed, it really doesn't change anything. A life of compassion and mindfulness is still real and true and valid, regardless. Every living being still has "Buddha nature" even if the historical Buddha was only mythical and not actually corporeal. Excellent points ladies...it was startling for me to hear too. And I had another small epiphany too. I know lots of missionaries here (obviously, half my students are MKs). While there are quite a lot of christians here, I was wondering, with all the missionaries around, why aren't there more? What is hindering their effectiveness? But what I am starting to realize is that there is a difference between "converting" to christianity here and "converting" in the US. Here it means giving up life as they know it....their customs, traditions, often their manner of dress, sometimes it means losing their family, their job.... But what you end up with are TRUE converts....someone who has been so changed by the gospel message that they are willing to go through all of that. In contrast, in the US we try on religions for size, discard them, try a new one, as quickly as we change our underwear. We don't lose everything if we try something new. Sure, people might think you are a little weird but that's about it. There isn't much real sacrifice involved and the conversion itself is easy (repeat these words after me...). Our religion tends to be a mile wide and an inch deep. And with such a shaky foundation, many cave at the first difficulty and question everything they thought they believed. In other words, we get converts, but not many true disciples. Which of course explains why about 80% of America claims to be Christian but only about 10% have a biblical worldview. Just some interesting observations from a displaced, white, christian girl. :tongue_smilie: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spy Car Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 But what I am starting to realize is that there is a difference between "converting" to christianity here and "converting" in the US. Here it means giving up life as they know it....their customs, traditions, often their manner of dress, sometimes it means losing their family, their job.... But what you end up with are TRUE converts....someone who has been so changed by the gospel message that they are willing to go through all of that. If you are talking about Muslims converting to Christianity (or other faiths), that is called "apostasy" in Islam is the supreme sin a Muslim can commit. Apostasy is a "death-penalty" offense. It may not always be enforced, but that's not always the case in areas where fundamentalists control the situation. Even in relatively liberal places like Malaysia, a missionary puts a potential convert at great risk, to say nothing of the danger to the missionary, school or institutions abetting the conversion of Muslims. It makes one a magnet for attack, and even a terrorist target. Be very careful. This is playing with fire. Bill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PineFarmMom Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I know that it wouldn't be possible to refute Christ, for one. God would have to stop speaking to me like He does and doing miracles in my life and the lives of others around me. I'd be more likely to doubt the "proof" than to doubt Christ. He is who He is, and ultimately it would be some fallible human who came up with the proof, so... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sunshine Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 I do too, but not just for religious or christian people -- for non-believers, too. Like I said, if you could provide irrefutable proof to me that your god existed, then of course I would have to believe it existed. However, there would still be the question of whether I (or any other non-believers) would worship that god. Probably a separate question though... If to an unbeliever, it were proven without doubt that the God of the Bible existed, it would then follow that what He said about those who worship anyone or anything other than Him would happen to everyone who did not worship Him. That is, they would go to Hell when they die. Forever without a second chance, permanently. Just out of curiosity, would that affect one's decision on whether to worship Him or not? Or, this is what got me, not the fear of Hell, it would also follow that God's incredible love for His creation provided a reconciliation for His creation and Him and His love welcomes all. Would that have any bearing on some people's decision to worship Him? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) If to an unbeliever, it were proven without doubt that the God of the Bible existed, it would then follow that what He said about those who worship anyone or anything other than Him would happen to everyone who did not worship Him. That is, they would go to Hell when they die. Forever without a second chance, permanently. Just out of curiosity, would that affect one's decision on whether to worship Him or not? God does not want us to worship him out of fear. He wants us to love him. Why wouldn't he have just made us worship him without free will if he wants hell to be a motivational factor? I don't believe in a hell of torment. I believe it to be extra-biblical. The Bible speaks of sheol and hades, which if I remember right are both the grave, and it speaks of gehenna, which is a trash pit that was at times set on fire, it speaks of the lake of fire, which means eternal destruction. The rich man and Lazarus is a parable that is not to be taken literally. Revelation 20:13 "And the sea gave up those dead in it, and death and Ha´des gave up those dead in them, and they were judged individually according to their deeds. 14 And death and Ha´des were hurled into the lake of fire. This means the second death, the lake of fire." Ecclesiastes 9:10, “There is no work nor devising nor knowledge nor wisdom in Sheol, the place to which you are going.” Edited October 18, 2009 by Lovedtodeath Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kate in Arabia Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 In contrast, in the US we try on religions for size, discard them, try a new one, as quickly as we change our underwear. We don't lose everything if we try something new. Sure, people might think you are a little weird but that's about it.This has not been my experience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Audrey Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 (edited) If to an unbeliever, it were proven without doubt that the God of the Bible existed, it would then follow that what He said about those who worship anyone or anything other than Him would happen to everyone who did not worship Him. That is, they would go to Hell when they die. Forever without a second chance, permanently. Just out of curiosity, would that affect one's decision on whether to worship Him or not? Or, this is what got me, not the fear of Hell, it would also follow that God's incredible love for His creation provided a reconciliation for His creation and Him and His love welcomes all. Would that have any bearing on some people's decision to worship Him? Well, lovedtodeath's post just below yours illustrates part of the point I am going to try to make here. Even if your god existed, that still would not follow that I would necessarily worship it. Exactly what of your god is true then? Because even just here on these boards of relatively few representations of persons who say they believe in this god, there are vastly differing interpretations on what the nature of this god actually is. Is the fear-mongering god paradigm, the loving god paradigm, the somewhere-in-between god paradigm? Is it the god of the Jews, the Muslims, the christians? And which version of those gods is it? It would depend entirely on what the "irrefutable proof" reveals of said god as to whether I would decide to worship it or not. However, like I said earlier... this is probably a separate question than Heather intended, so I won't derail it any further. Edited October 18, 2009 by Audrey Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lovedtodeath Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 It is not impossible to find out who God really is. :glare: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heather in Neverland Posted October 18, 2009 Author Share Posted October 18, 2009 If you are talking about Muslims converting to Christianity (or other faiths), that is called "apostasy" in Islam is the supreme sin a Muslim can commit. Apostasy is a "death-penalty" offense. It may not always be enforced, but that's not always the case in areas where fundamentalists control the situation. Even in relatively liberal places like Malaysia, a missionary puts a potential convert at great risk, to say nothing of the danger to the missionary, school or institutions abetting the conversion of Muslims. It makes one a magnet for attack, and even a terrorist target. Be very careful. This is playing with fire. Bill You are absolutely right. It is illegal for a christian to witness to a muslim here. That's why most missionaries are not here as "missionaries" as far as their visa is concerned. They are here under other pretenses...an alias if you will. And they take the Great Commission so seriously that they are willing to risk their lives to do it. And the muslims do put themselves at risk by converting (although it is very moderate in Penang). But that just proves my point...their conversion is so REAL...Christ talked about his followers needing to "pick up their cross daily" and be "crucified with him"...these people are really doing that. It kind of makes me a little ashamed of my own watered-down faith. :blushing: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asta Posted October 18, 2009 Share Posted October 18, 2009 Jenny, I've been thinking about your questions a lot, and have finally had to admit to myself that I am neither eloquent enough, nor mature enough in my faith to be able to give you the answer you deserve. I am hoping someone more qualified can jump in here and rescue me! :D Just a couple of thoughts, though . . . I'm not sure this analogy really holds. I think it's more like finding out you had no mother because you were never really born and what you thought was your life was just an illusion. This was the premise for the movie "The Matrix". a Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts