Even if that fate is hell? There are plenty of Christians out there that say if you don't do certain things you will go to hell. So getting it right seems of upmost importance. Just trusting god could send you to hell.
How do you know this?
...well, that's another issue and being that I subscribe to a more Inclusivist type position on salvations, I'm more of the mind that God is less dogmatic on the theological details than we often are.
That's interesting, because it was my study of Epistemology that has helped prevent me from just jettisoning my faith like an escape pod in Star Wars and landing in the arid desert world of 'unfaith.'
Sure, lots of folks can have faith without 'all' of the studying that I've attempted to suggest. I'm not arguing with that at all. But I would aver that the need for further study will vary by person.
The problem here with this approach of yours is that you're ignoring an important epistemological detail ... one that I've repeated to various folks here off and on over the years. And that detail is that if God has decided FOR us the how and the what of what it is we're to generally look for in the evidence He's going to provide, then it would be a fools errand (and an immense waste of your and my time, too) to start pulling out 'evidences' in some serendipitous fashion.
Yes and no.
Others are not, why do you think you are right and the are wrong?
It seems contradictory to me that someone an study epistemology and then conclude god exists on faith.
What is your evidence?
Can you explain what you mean further?
Yet you have not provided one.
Which is not an answer.
...Well, it's essentially that after considering all that I've studied, it looks to me like the Inclusivist position is more or less the better of the 3 or 4 (5+?) positions that are out there. Of course, I don't discount that I could be wrong, but being that the Bible doesn't present most of its theological ideas in comprehensive terms but rather in various sizes and levels of fragmentary description and detail, I'm almost certain that the Exclusivist position has some 'missing links' in its doctrine that are needed to show that it has finality over all of the other positions.
Well, if through my study, I've come to think that ALL epistemological approaches are imperfect in and of themselves as they attempt to provided systems or frameworks by which we THINK we've justified our various beliefs, pro or con, AND being that I've also studied Biblical Epistemology, I don't think anyone can get a last word over on me by which I have to blink, stare up at the sky and say, "Y'know, you got me!"
The Bible and a few, small, personal, anecdotes. The thing that enables me to believe is my understanding about the nature of what it I've read in the Bible and experienced as a human being, and with this, I look at the patterns of meaning I see in these things and compare it with what I see in the world and in history. And then, some of it seems to (fortunately or unfortunately) coalesce.
I could, to a limited extent.
Ok. I'd assert that the first piece of evidence is that, according to a number of scholars, Jesus more than likely existed as a man. That's a place to start, and then we go from there hermeneutically, epistemologically, historically, and Biblically, taking into account EACH and EVERY conceptual conundrum on all sides of the interpretive spectrum that we can.
Yes, it is an answer, just not the one you want; this isn't to say that it can't be worked through further per the disciplines I've suggested to you above.
What is the evidence and why do you believe it?
What is your belief based on. What specific evidence do you have that is the basis for your belief?
Ok, but most Christians do not feel this way in my experience.
You keep describing how you came to your evidence but you have never actually presented any.
I can agree that a man named Jesus said things around 2000 years ago, I have no problem with that.
No, when you say "Yes and No" with no further explanation to a question, that is a non answer. It in no way answers the question I asked in any meaningful way.
I begin with the idea that Jesus (of Nazareth and/or Galilee) was a real, historical person; this is the very least significant thing we can think about that is relevant to our inquiry, and I hold this idea about Jesus just as I do for any other reportedly 'historical' person from the past. I believe Jesus the Man is a fact, even if a debatable fact among some, and then I move on to hermeneutically evaluating the various historical data, along with the ongoing social, cultural and sociological factors which pertain to each century.
Are you asking me if my belief comports with a Foundationalist structure of rational inquiry and justification? I hope not, because I don't believe that the Foundationalist approach is the epistemic way by which one comes to faith. Remember.......I'm an Existentialist, and while various pieces of data can be evaluated rationally, and then other, various logically considered ideas can be entertained in depth, at the end of the day, none of us will EVER be able to BUILD a structured, Foundationalist type justification that will somehow "compel" mental assent.
Yeah, and most Christians over the past few hundred years have eschewed the likes of Pascal and Kierkegaard as well ... But, like Paul the Apostle realized, there are limits to just how much I'm supposed to assume that I should show utter fealty to the dogmatic conceptions that other Christians may hold about their respective denominational interpretations of the collections of Sacred Writ that we all now share.
... and you haven't described to me exactly the process(es) by which YOU THINK anyone should best and most cogently assess the evidences. I have to mention this because if any kind of evidence in the world is open to interpretation (and it is), then even biblical type evidence is going to fail if a person expects to see something in it and refuses to realize that there has to be an ongoing, hermeneutical realization within the mental model one holds that affects the dynamics of that model. And it is this interior realization that begins to separate 1st order thinking from 2nd order thinking, both of which should be a part of our ongoing, daily praxis in chasing after Jesus.
Ok. So, we now can glean together two facts, three really: 1) You don't agree with the likes of Richard Carrier, and 2) & 3) both you and I, each, seem to agree with the basic idea that, at the least, the potential holds that because Jesus was real, we inhabit a possible world wherein not only did Jesus exist, but He could also be recognized, pending further deliberation, to be the Son of God, the Lord and Savior of the World. And that, my friend, isn't a bad place to start! Now, we just have 8,983 bits of various ideological, social, historical, philosophical and theological fragments to sort through..........
It is an answer; but regardless of the fact that you think it wasn't, I think you see that you and I are now in discussion ...
I already agreed that there was a person named Jesus and said things. I do not believe he was anything like the Jesus described in the Bible.
So you cannot show that God exists in any real way that we can be sure of.
Yes becasue it requires faith not evidence.
You don't seem very serious in having a real conversation.
That is a huge jump and if I need 8983 evidences to believe Jesus was god then go have fun. I am not playing. 99.99999% of the Christians that ever lived did not believe becasue of these evidences. I bet only you have.
No we are not. You don't have any real evidence. For you to believe in a god requires years of study, if so, then god is inaccessible to almost everyone on the planet. Most Christians believe with far less evidence and mumbo jumbo. I am also not going to engage with someone that thinks that "Yes and No" without explanation is a reasonable answer to a question. It tells me nothing about what you think about my question.It is an answer; but regardless of the fact that you think it wasn't, I think you see that you and I are now in discussion ...
Since you 'believe' in the efficacy (somehow) of 'evidence,' what is your evidence that Jesus ISN'T as more or less described in the various New Testament writings?
... what were you expecting?
Uh, no. That's not at all what I'm attempting to say when I say that Foundationalism 'fails,' as do most epistemological modes. Keep in mind that I see 'faith' as a response to God via one's thoughts and experiences in life and in ongoing interaction with our understanding and application of the biblical contents.
Actually, I am, but I don't think faith is some coordinated, lock-step, instantaneous effect like you get aboard a naval submarine. That's not how it works, and you make it sound like evidences are something that are independent and self-revelatory and, if you just find the right one, one that is a silver-bullet, then you'll somehow find faith. But, that's not how it works.
Do you actually think I meant 8,983, in a literal fashion? I would think that you'd understanding that I'm simply pointing out that there is some howework in Christianity to do. How do I know this? Well, I'm pretty sure that 99.99999% of the Christians who have been truly Christian in God's sight received their essential truths about the Christian faith........from other Christians (i.e. 'The CHURCH), which is what letters, narrative, as well as live lectures, sermons and preaching has been. So, there is some amount of education involved, even if it might take 30 minutes to 30 days (or for some, 30 years) to work through.
Look here, Clizby. If you have a bible (and you said you do), and you've read it (and you say you have), then you have what it is that God has provided as evidence, along with the presence of His Church and the Jewish people (for good and bad). These are evidences! Then too, you have the history of the world for the last 2,000 years since Christ, and all of that can be evidence as well-----if you'll allow it to be.
I have the same evidence that everyone else in the present world has, and I don't think it's a failure on my part to say so. You seem to want a military grade silver bullet by which to puncture the epistemological ceiling. Well, I have some bad news, that isn't going to be provided to 99.999999% without passing to the other side ...
I don't have to have any. I am not making a claim. You are making the claim that Jesus was as more or less described in the Bible. Show me evidence that supports this and will look at it.
Evidence that can be evaluated.
That is not the biblical definition of faith. Why should I believe your definition of faith over another?
If I need revelation to believe then God is on the hot seat not me.
I studied Christian doctrine for a long time. In the end when I learned how to evaluate evidence I realized there wot any good evidence for belief.
No, I want good evidence for belief. Do you have any?
It is evidence but is is all bad evidence. Why should I believe the bible is true? A ton of bad evidence does not make good evidence. It is just a ton of bad evidence.
I just want good evidence. No one seems to have it. Are you saying that I must believe without good evidence?
So you don't know and are taking a risk just like me I guess. I am doing the same, I don't know so I choose reason and humanism instead of Jesus. It has a better foundation.
So no one really knows what god wants or even if he exists.
You don't know but you believe anyway?
I disagree. The Greek word genesetai in Mt 18:19 means "it shall be done" or "it will be done."
Oh, I guess I missed it! I have been arguing with Christians to much I guess.
Yeah that was pointed out. I guess I was in debate mode.
