How to prove Christianity for those who never heard of it?

[HitchSlap]

I’d say find some common ground and work from there. There are good/bad/terrible examples from historical first contacts with other peoples thoughts draw on also.

So, what do you consider to be common ground?

 

[Silmarien]

Agree.

When a lot is at stake (legal proceedings, taking away one's freedom), it makes logical sense to have a very controlled environment.

When it comes to hearing personal testimony of people in regards to any topic, I tend to ramp up what I require to give credibility to their claim, depending on how extraordinary their claim is.

Same here, though in some cases I have to wonder what does and doesn't count as an extraordinary claim--distinguishing between the two particularly in religious matters really depends on a bunch of underlying assumptions.

I'm in many ways a theological liberal, which means that mysticism is in and miracles are out. So I do not find the idea that Paul and the other Apostles had some sort of mystical experience at all extraordinary a claim, but I'm much less comfortable crediting the miracle claims. It just doesn't fit very easily into my ontology in the same way that it would for someone who believes in an intervening God, but by the same token, mystical claims that I'm more open to would be extraordinary both to materialists and even to certain religious people.

So what's extraordinary and what's not? It really depends.

 

[Tom 1]

So, what do you consider to be common ground?

That’s a good question. It would need to be something personally important to me and the person I was speaking with.

 

[HitchSlap]

That’s a good question. It would need to be something personally important to me and the person I was speaking with.

What’s important to you?

 

[Not me]

So how would I determine which one of you is interpreting scripture correctly?

For the answer to that question you will have to get to know Jesus personally.

much love in Christ, Not me

 

[Tom 1]

What’s important to you?

Maybe you’re looking for a more specific answer than I was thinking of - by common ground I mean the kind of things that naturally arise when you are talking with someone about belief - my brother in law for example is an agnostic, we sometimes talk about faith. A lot of his ideas are inherited from what I’d call ‘religious’ notions about Jesus, the sort of woolly notions people can get e.g from vague classes in school about religion. As I work with my brother in law in work that can be physically exhausting, the natural common ground is the everyday reality of life as Jesus lived it, e.g why did he live what was essentially a humble and in some respects humiliating life that was difficult and challenging in a lot of ways. That’s a way of separating the real Jesus from the religious Jesus based on a common experience, providing an opportunity for a rethink.

 

[Silmarien]

I have no problem with that; in fact, I embrace it, as a Buddhist.

Yes, I'm aware, though that has nothing to do with the definition of hearsay.

Now, if you want to argue over Buddhism at some point, I'm quite happy to declare myself in opposition to Gautama Siddhartha and his teachings. So that could be fun. Upanishads forever, though my critique is technically not a Vedantic one. More Nietzschean.

 

[ananda]

Yes, I'm aware, though that has nothing to do with the definition of hearsay. Now, if you want to argue over Buddhism at some point, I'm quite happy to declare myself in opposition to Gautama Siddhartha and his teachings. So that could be fun. Upanishads forever, though my critique is technically not a Vedantic one. More Nietzschean.

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of "hearsay"; here's another dictionary that refers to the recipient (Cambridge English Dictionary): "information that you have heard but do not know to be true".

 

[HitchSlap]

For the answer to that question you will have to get to know Jesus personally.

much love in Christ, Not me

Cool.

Take care.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

Do you think those preachers who profess death for homosexuals would claim your interpretation of the Bible is wrong?

Real preachers don't profess death for homosexuals. Rather, they proclaim that everyone is worthy of death for their sins; that's me, that's you, that's every straight guy and gal on the planet, as well as every non-straight guy and gal. It's the underlying premise of the entire Bible, Hitchslap. However, real preachers also profess that we are now in the Dispensation (Age) of Grace in Christ, which means that Christians--on a common civic level--should be dispensing opportunities to show Grace and Mercy to all those as yet unforgiven sexual sinners who are still outside of a relationship with Jesus Christ.

So, in that vain, **no**------------preachers who are preaching what is called a Reconstructionist view of the Bible (a.k.a. Theonomy) aren't really preaching the Gospel and are very much misappropriating the Bible, especially since we are now under the New Covenant in Christ. Any direct death penalty for Biblically defined sin is to be meted out directly from God's own Hand, or by the Governing authorities.

We're not doing that Old "Jewish" thing form yesteryear anymore, even if the Old Testament still serves a purpose for partially informing us as to what God's will is.

 

[2PhiloVoid]

So how would I determine which one of you is interpreting scripture correctly?

You start looking at things from as many educated angles as possible...which means learning and implementing Hermeneutics in your evaluation of what Christians say and do with their Bibles.

 

[bhsmte]

For the answer to that question you will have to get to know Jesus personally.

much love in Christ, Not me

How do you determine, whether someone knows Jesus personally or not?

 

[Silmarien]

I disagree with your interpretation of the definition of "hearsay"; here's another dictionary that refers to the recipient (Cambridge English Dictionary): "information that you have heard but do not know to be true".

That definition uses an example in a legal setting, and in the court of law, the recipient of the testimony is the judge and jury, not the witness. The judge and jury are hearing the testimony, but they do not know it to be true because they were not there. If hearsay refers to the recipient of the information, then everything ever said in the court of law is hearsay. Absolutely everything.

 

[ananda]

That definition uses an example in a legal setting, and in the court of law, the recipient of the testimony is the judge and jury, not the witness. The judge and jury are hearing the testimony, but they do not know it to be true because they were not there. If hearsay refers to the recipient of the information, then everything ever said in the court of law is hearsay. Absolutely everything.

Sorry, but there are other examples there that are not only in context of a legal setting:

"Many of them only heard about the war from the radio or from hearsay."

 

[Not me]

How do you determine, whether someone knows Jesus personally or not?

According to scripture you will see the “fruit of the Spirit” in their lives. Love, joy, peace,long suffering, gentleness, meekness, kindness, etc.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

According to scripture you will see the “fruit of the Spirit” in their lives. Love, joy, peace,long suffering, gentleness, meekness, kindness, etc.

Much love in Christ, Not me

Ok, thanks.

 

[Not me]

Ok, thanks.

Your welcome.

Much love in Christ, Not me

 

[bhsmte]

Sorry, but there are other examples there that are not only in context of a legal setting:

"Many of them only heard about the war from the radio or from hearsay."

When we hear from someone who has directly experienced something, it is NOT hearsay. If someone witnesses a car crash and they explain to you what they saw, they are giving you a first hand account of how they perceived the event. If you share with another person, what they told you, then you are into hearsay.

 

[Silmarien]

Sorry, but there are other examples there that are not only in context of a legal setting:

"Many of them only heard about the war from the radio or from hearsay."

And if they personally knew someone who had gone to war, they would not only know about it through hearsay. Even the radio here is not necessarily hearsay if they're offering firsthand accounts.

 

[ananda]

When we hear from someone who has directly experienced something, it is NOT hearsay. If someone witnesses a car crash and they explain to you what they saw, they are giving you a first hand account of how they perceived the event. If you share with another person, what they told you, then you are into hearsay.

It is hearsay because what I heard from the alleged witness is "information that I have heard but do not know to be true". There is nothing in that definition about hearing from someone who directly experienced something vs. hearing from someone who heard from someone else.