If you’re going to tell fantastical stories, it helps to add that the most important thing is to believe in those stories, even though they are clearly nonsense. Religions that have fantastical stories without that caveat just didn’t fare as well.
In the big religion derby, “faith” is probably a successful trait. You’re asking this question about Christianity because that is what you see around you, but actually, you see it around you because it was successful. It was successful partially because it required faith where certain other didn’t.
Reportedly “seen” isn’t proof, it’s just weak as hell evidence. Actually “seen” isn’t proof either, it’s just stronger evidence. People recall seeing things that didn’t really happen all the time, or do you disagree?
But that’s what it means right? Blessed are those who believe with less evidence than Thomas? Blessed are those who just believe stories without verifying for themselves?
Sure it does, but to be charitable to you, maybe we should say that faith means to believe in extraordinary claims based on less than ordinary evidence. That’s what you do right?
If you want to be strict about it, then yes, seeing is not necessarily the same as proof either. That’s not a problem for me, since I don’t claim that faith means belief without any proof whatsoever.
Jesus wasn’t talking about believing just any old thing. Rather, he said that those who specifically believed in the Resurrection are the ones who are blessed. This includes millions of believers in the 21st century – people who never got to see Jesus face-to-face, and who nevertheless believe for a variety of reasons.
As for not “verifying for themselves,” that’s simply a strawman. I said that faith does not require proof. I did not say that faith means not performing any inquiries at all into the facts. Consider Albert Henry Ross, a journalist who set out to disprove the Resurrection, but who wound up changing his mind as a result of his investigation. He never met Jesus personally, but the evidence compelled him to believe. According to the words of Jesus, he is blessed as a result.
Y’know, you might want to done it back a bit. You say that you’re being charitable, but that last sentence of yours strikes me as a bit accusatory. If nothing else, the condescension is unmistakable.
It would be more accurate to say that faith sometimes requires believing even when the evidence is less than EXTRAordinary. Contrary to what you claim, it does not require that this evidence fall short of even mere ordinary evidence. I won’t deny that people – religious or otherwise – can have faith in something for very little reason, but faith itself does not require less than ordinary evidence.
Now, you’re probably going to claim that extraordinary claims MUST require extraordinary evidence. That’s a common assertion, but it has no solid foundation. For example, one does not require extraordinary evidence to establish that somebody is alive. Nor does one need extraordinary evidence to determine, with an exceptional degree of confidence, that somebody is dead. Yet to establish that someone has come back from the dead, it is sufficient to simply establish that he was dead and that he was alive at some later point. One would be justified in choosing to doubly verify that claim, but it would be fallacious to say that this fact can only be establishing using some outlandishly extraordinary degree of evidence.
Incorrect. Faith is about believing when there is no evidence at best, and usually against the evidence. Christianity like other religions has no evidence for it and makes no logical sense, and therefore requires that one deny facts and logic to take it seriously; that’s faith.
My take on it is we must believe that man(kind) is also God and also God’s child, because without that belief we will never realize our own divinity as I believe we are all eternal being and all able, and suppose to, live eternally.
Again it is my take that people die, and go through karmic reincarnation - which is a cycle of dieing over and over, because they don’t believe they can live eternally and since they are gods, that belief makes it so. Their own belief that they must die, and them being gods, having the power to make their belief reality, traps them in this cycle.
The hard evidence is not what is needed, you don’t need proof that Jesus is God’s child so much as inside of you, you need to know that you are God’s child, and that comes through self discovery. Once you know that you are God’s child, then you know that Jesus (and Buddha, and Mohammad, and Joe Shmo, etc) is God’s child.
But for some, perhaps many, they need to come to realize this by first recognizing Jesus as the son of God and man before realizing that they too are a child of God.
That’s like asking why is data so important in Science? Belief is the fabric of Xtianity. Without belief, there is no magick. Why did the powerful religious leaders set the bar at belief? If they didn’t keep you off-balance and in fear of damnation, you might get complacent and stop attending services and offering tithes.
Right, I’m just saying that the Bible describes faith as belief based on things you don’t see and things you want to be true, which is pretty close to no proof whatsoever. You can use a more modern dictionary definition of faith if you want, it’s just not that Biblical.
Right, Jesus was talking about believing miraculous stories about himself, instead of someone else. That’s usually how it works.
Yes, I think those millions are believing in things they didn’t see, things they want to be true, rather than things they have sufficient evidence to believe based on reason.
That atheist examined the evidence and turns Christian story is a pretty good schtick. I bet he sold a ton of books. Your link says he was an advertising agent, hmmm.
I don’t know, did he give all his money to the poor?
If you are aware of sufficient evidence to justify reasonable belief in the resurrection of Jesus I would happy to have you present it. Maybe in a new thread. Otherwise wear that shoe, cause it fits.
It’s been my experience that Christians only appeal to faith when they don’t have sufficient evidence, else they would just appeal to that evidence.
Are you so lax with your requirements regarding extraordinary claims of other mythologies or just Christianity?
Neither are extraordinary claims.
See that’s where you are mistaken, especially if you have not witnessed the death and resurrection yourself but are relying on personal testimonies of others, which are known to be unreliable. Are you familiar with David Hume on the subject?