What would it take to make you a Christian?

[cloudyday2]

They were not giving their money to a leader to become wealthy, they gave it away to the community. I'm not sure what you mean by power. Power would be more easily found outside such a community, where you could amass your own possessions and wealth rather than give it away.

Cult leaders are almost worshiped like demigods. The literally have the power of life and death over the cult members and they have control of the combined wealth of the community. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Take the example of Acts 5 where Ananias and Sapphira lie and say they are giving the cult all the money from selling their property when they are actually not. Peter declares them guilty of attempting to lie to the Holy Spirit and they die immediately. ... A skeptic like me can easily imagine cult violence. Most cults behave that way, so early Christianity would have been exceptional if it did not include some power struggles, ruthless intimidation of followers, assassinations, etc.

Here is a quote describing the death of the heretic Arius that supposedly was a result of his conscience getting the better of him (somewhat like Ananias and Sapphira). To a skeptic like me this is obviously describing an assassination.

It was then Saturday, and Arius was expecting to assemble with the church on the day following: but divine retribution overtook his daring criminalities. For going out of the imperial palace, attended by a crowd of Eusebian partisans like guards, he paraded proudly through the midst of the city, attracting the notice of all the people. As he approached the place called Constantine's Forum, where the column of porphyry is erected, a terror arising from the remorse of conscience seized Arius, and with the terror a violent relaxation of the bowels: he therefore enquired whether there was a convenient place near, and being directed to the back of Constantine's Forum, he hastened thither. Soon after a faintness came over him, and together with the evacuations his bowels protruded, followed by a copious hemorrhage, and the descent of the smaller intestines: moreover portions of his spleen and liver were brought off in the effusion of blood, so that he almost immediately died. The scene of this catastrophe still is shown at Constantinople, as I have said, behind the shambles in the colonnade: and by persons going by pointing the finger at the place, there is a perpetual remembrance preserved of this extraordinary kind of death.

Arius - Wikipedia

 

[Sanoy]

Cult leaders are almost worshiped like demigods. The literally have the power of life and death over the cult members and they have control of the combined wealth of the community. Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

Take the example of Acts 5 where Ananias and Sapphira lie and say they are giving the cult all the money from selling their property when they are actually not. Peter declares them guilty of attempting to lie to the Holy Spirit and they die immediately. ... A skeptic like me can easily imagine cult violence. Most cults behave that way, so early Christianity would have been exceptional if it did not include some power struggles, ruthless intimidation of followers, assassinations, etc.

Here is a quote describing the death of the heretic Arius that supposedly was a result of his conscience getting the better of him (somewhat like Ananias and Sapphira). To a skeptic like me this is obviously describing an assassination.

Arius - Wikipedia

Paul was beaten and imprisoned regularly, and before that he beat and killed Christians. Can such motives honestly be attributed to someone who already had a promising Jewish career? Can it honestly be said that he left that life to assume one of beatings, imprisonment, and servitude to Christ just so he can rule over Churches via expensive letters, sometimes sent from prison? I can't see how this can explain such a broad experience of the resurrected Christ. This is why people often turn to Christ when they try to dutifully discount the Gospels. The alternate explanations adhere only to a select gathering of facts and leave the rest unexplained, in so doing they lack explanatory scope.

Is there any historical reason to believe Peter had Ananias assassinated? It may be easy to imagine under the backdrop of a modern day Jim Jones, but is there actually any reason to assign such attributes to Peter who dies for his belief in the resurrection of Christ? If not, these are the ad hoc explanations I'm talking about. We can deny any historical figures motives or any historical event whenever we are so inclined to insert our own beliefs about what really happened.

 

[cloudyday2]

Is there any historical reason to believe Peter had Ananias assassinated? It may be easy to imagine under the backdrop of a modern day Jim Jones, but is there actually any reason to assign such attributes to Peter who dies for his belief in the resurrection of Christ?

There are at least two reasons for believing that Peter killed Ananias (depending on the belief system of the person who supplies the reason):
- For an atheist: "people cannot die of supernatural causes"
- For a God-is-love type of theist: "God wouldn't kill people for something like that and allow child molesters to live."

As for me, if I thought God killed Ananias as told in Acts, then I hope I would oppose Him rather than worship Him - even if my opposition might be only petty and cowardly.

 

[Sanoy]

There are at least two reasons for believing that Peter killed Ananias (depending on the belief system of the person who supplies the reason):
- For an atheist: "people cannot die of supernatural causes"
- For a God-is-love type of theist: "God wouldn't kill people for something like that and allow child molesters to live."

As for me, if I thought God killed Ananias as told in Acts, then I hope I would oppose Him rather than worship Him - even if my opposition might be only petty and cowardly.

None of those are historical reasons to believe Peter was a murderous cult leader though. These are merely external beliefs that are being asserted into the text. They are reasons, based on a personal world view, why the person is creating the premises that they are adding to the set of events in a text. That is the very definition of eisegesis, and should be avoided.

 

[cloudyday2]

None of those are historical reasons to believe Peter was a murderous cult leader though. These are merely external beliefs that are being asserted into the text. They are reasons, based on a personal world view, why the person is creating the premises that they are adding to the set of events in a text. That is the very definition of eisegesis, and should be avoided.

There is a subtle difference. Confirmation bias is when new data is unable to adjust your world view. What I am describing is taking a world view and adjusting it to new data. Everybody does that. It is probably unavoidable. However, people with different world views are able to reach different conclusions from the same data.

 

[mukk_in]

As a Christian and a former pagan I can say that people need to see the supremacy of Christ over the other "gods" to believe that Christ is the only true God. The Lord isn't obligated to do so, but I experienced the Presence of God for the first time in a Church and have never looked back. Peace in Christ.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

You might just as well ask me what it'd take to make me a Scientologist or a Mormon: their foundational myths are similarly detached from what we KNOW about the nature of reality at this point in history, even if less far removed in history.

So, what would it take? Either a compelling demonstration that proves some of our most basic assumptions about life, the universe, and everything are fundamentally wrong, or a divine presence that establishes that the "holy" books are just ancient writings of people trying to make sense of something that transcended their means of understanding, signifying little more than the godhead's attempts at making them understand.

Yes, I know there are believers who acknowledge the findings of state-of-the-art science, and do not hold to the simplistic creationism and literalism embraced by the radical fringe. I also know that these moderate believers are probably the vast majority. But even their world view is incompatible with what we know about and experience of the natural world, necessitating all sorts of random rationalizations ("God works in mysterious ways").

 

[Sanoy]

There is a subtle difference. Confirmation bias is when new data is unable to adjust your world view. What I am describing is taking a world view and adjusting it to new data. Everybody does that. It is probably unavoidable. However, people with different world views are able to reach different conclusions from the same data.

I agree that we all perceive things within the backdrop of our world view, but our world view should allow itself to be challenged to the result of accepting or rejecting a historical account. If we make our world view the concrete paradigm we open ourselves to the getter problem of false premises. But whenever we use that world view to insert historical things without any historical reason to believe those things, like Peter being a Jim Jones style assassin, it's eisegesis. We cease to do history and begin to do speculation to establish a conclusion that personally satisfies our own world view.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

Well, Ockham's Razor dictates that Paul was a Joseph Smith-type cult leader instead of a Man Changed By A Vision Of The Lord.

1. He never met the historical Jesus.
2. His teachings show virtually no connection to what we know of the historical Jesus's.
3. He very much states that the historical Jesus (and his teachings, and the disciples still passing on his teachings such as the "Jerusalem Pillars") are inconsequential compared to his own wisdom supposedly received from On High.

I grant you, though, that Paul was MUCH more intellectually competent than the blatant con man who founded the LDS.

 

[Silmarien]

Well, Ockham's Razor dictates that Paul was a Joseph Smith-type cult leader instead of a Man Changed By A Vision Of The Lord.

No, it doesn't. Mystical visions are a well documented phenomenon, so the simplest explanation for just about any religious founder is that they actually were having some pretty intense mystical experiences, something that often can be life changing. There's no need to immediately rush to the least charitable interpretation possible and accuse them of lying and intentionally misleading people.

 

[Jane_the_Bane]

No, it doesn't. Mystical visions are a well documented phenomenon, so the simplest explanation for just about any religious founder is that they actually were having some pretty intense mystical experiences, something that often can be life changing. There's no need to immediately rush to the least charitable interpretation possible and accuse them of lying and intentionally misleading people.

It's not Paul's vision per se that makes me doubt his credentials.
It's his relationship with the people who actually knew Jesus and continued to teach in his tradition (and with the actual content of their teachings) that gives me more than a little pause. He clearly doesn't care at all about what the Nazarean preacher had to say when he was alive, it's all about the risen sacrificial god for him, the one that he claims gives him instructions.

Granted, Paul is a thousand times more intellectually appealing, rewardingly insightful, and rhetorically competent than a Joseph Smith or an L.Ron Hubbard. But I, for one, am fairly certain that his peace with the "Jerusalem Pillars" was little more than a begrudging "well, as long as you stick to gentiles who do not want to follow our ways, anyway..." on their part. There was clearly no love lost between them.

 

[Yttrium]

What would it take to make me a Christian?

In my case, I have no philosophy of life, the universe and everthing that I adhere to. I'm flexible. My opinions are subject to change as I learn new things. On the other hand, I'm naturally skeptical, and gaining faith is problematic.

I can certainly imagine new evidence that would sway me to consider the Gospels likely to be true. Christianity, however, requires faith, which I'm unable to provide. I also perceive what I consider to be a few key logical contradictions in mainstream Christianity (but not in the Gospels).

 

[Principium]

Some people I suspect are open if they found some reasons to believe (evidence), and other people have reasons to disbelieve that would trump any evidence.

I must atleasts sense there`s gods around me and I haven`t yet

 

[Caliban]

Some people I suspect are open if they found some reasons to believe (evidence), and other people have reasons to disbelieve that would trump any evidence.

There is a quote floating around the internet that relates to this question, it say in paraphrase: I don't know what would convince me but, if there is a God, he sure does know what would convince me; and, the fact that he has not done so, suggests either there is probably no God, he doesn't care to let me know, or it isn't time to let me know. I personally think the argument for the hiddenness of God shows that the first proposition, there is probably no God, is the most reasonable case.

 

[CherubRam]

I would require personally validated proof of the Christian deity's omniscience & omnipotence, and proof that it itself possesses and can grant the summum bonum I seek - perfect peace & bliss.

I do not seek or care for eternal life, nor new heavens or a new earth, nor an eternal city, nor a kingdom or greatness or a room in it, nor white garments, nor a pillar in the temple of god, nor the privilege of eating from a special tree, nor a white stone or a new name. (It reminds me of a quote supposedly made by Napoleon: “A soldier will fight long and hard for a bit of colored ribbon”) None of that matters to me. I simply seek perfect peace & bliss.

Perfect peace can be found in death, that is why people choose life.

 

[ananda]

Perfect peace can be found in death, that is why people choose life.

Have you died, that you know that perfect peace?

 

[CherubRam]

If Christianity not only saw but experienced the Light of God as alive and vibrant within others of other spiritual paths as well as the very foundation of Life itSelf across the whole of the Cosmos, than just maybe that might move me.

Is truth narrowly defined, or is it broad and all encompassing?

 

[CherubRam]

Have you died, that you know that perfect peace?

As a matter of fact I have. I have also had out of body experience.

 

[CherubRam]

There is a quote floating around the internet that relates to this question, it say in paraphrase: I don't know what would convince me but, if there is a God, he sure does know what would convince me; and, the fact that he has not done so, suggests either there is probably no God, he doesn't care to let me know, or it isn't time to let me know. I personally think the argument for the hiddenness of God shows that the first proposition, there is probably no God, is the most reasonable case.

According to the bible God will make Himself known during the days of the Two Witnesses to come. And also during the last resurrection.

 

[Theophilus2019]

More than mere evidence is required to make someone become a Christian. Remember how Jesus did miracles right in front of people and they didn’t believe? Remember how St. Paul tells us we are all dead before we become living Christians, and there’s not much you can do for dead people. Remember how Jesus told Nicodemus you must be born again simply to even see the kingdom of God.

To make a person a Christian needs God’s supernatural initiative to awaken people to the truth and its personal significance, and to draw them to Christ. In doing that God may use “evidence” or he may not.