Probability your religion is true?

[fatboys]

Living under grace and not under the law, my religion is a light yoke, Christ broke the chains that bound me to RC rules and dogmatic beliefs. Nothing against RCs, i just needed some truth in my religion.

Sent from my LGLS665 using Tapatalk

Your still under the law? When did God take away the laws? Are you saying that it is okay to cheat and lie? To murder and commit adultery?

 

[Goatee]

I will let you know once i cross from life to death.

 

[cloudyday2]

I will let you know once i cross from life to death.

That is cheating. LOL
Do you have high or low confidence that Catholicism is correct? How about a more generic form of Christianity?

EDIT: I remember reading in the Catholic catechism, that Catholics are required to profess that Catholicism is true when they are asked by non-Catholics? (Maybe I'm remembering that wrong, but it seemed a little bit strange.)

 

[Jack of Spades]

So I'm curious what probabilities you might give that your religion is true.

I'd estimate that I have gotten something between 5 - 30% of this right, and the rest wrong. Which parts exactly, I can't really tell. I don't also think that I'm particularly more out there with my beliefs than humans usually are.

Just for the background info, I'm a theistic mystic influenced by various religions and philosophies. I believe that my 'religion' is unlikely to be the ultimate truth. But I also believe that there is some truth to it.

For me my beliefs are a user interface to experiential spirituality, not so much a consistent religious world view. I might pray to God, because that happens to be the religious language my soul is used to speak, but as for is God, as I understand him, anymore of a god than something else is in the great scheme of things, I'm not so sure about that. Chances are he might not be.

If I am wrong totally, I would expect that I never find it out since I would simply cease to exist after my death. So, if I rejected what I believe now, the next most likely thing would be materialism where there is no afterlife. I'm not particularly scared of having gotten this wrong in a sense that I end up finding out that Islam is the truth for example. Religions don't impress me because they have so visible touch of a man to them. But behind the something that inspired man to invent all the religions, there might be something great.

 

[Chesterton]

It seems to me that "belief" in a religion is the decision to behave as though that religion is true. A person might reason that a religion is 5% likely to be true, but that same person might decide to "believe" that religion - i.e. live according to that religion. This is similar to when a person places a large bet on a horse to win after studying all the statistics. In addition, most people don't behave as though their religion is true all the time; most people will only stick their necks out so far. This is similar to how much a person is willing to bet on their chosen horse.

So I'm curious what probabilities you might give that your religion is true.

This reminds me of the scene from "Expelled" where Dawkins is asked about the probability that he's right, at about 1:48 in this clip. There's a kinda funny part:

Dawkins: ...it's quite far from 50%.
Stein: How do you know?
Dawkins: I don't know.

Anyway you can't put a number on this, but if I sort of work in reverse: someone once said it would take one greater than Jesus to invent Jesus. I believe the probability that the person of Jesus was invented is very close to zero. Therefore, I have to believe Jesus is real and is who he says he is and the rest of Christianity follows from that.

 

[Jack of Spades]

Anyway you can't put a number on this, but if I sort of work in reverse: someone once said it would take one greater than Jesus to invent Jesus. I believe the probability that the person of Jesus was invented is very close to zero. Therefore, I have to believe Jesus is real and is who he says he is and the rest of Christianity follows from that.

There are two biased assumptions there:

- You assume that Jesus was invented by one person. He could be say, collection of stories of 30 teachers put together into the life of one person. So, all of them had to be 1/30 of what the outcome (Jesus) is.

- Every fiction writer can imagine characters that are more noble, wiser and better people than they themselves are. Human imagination is not bound to our own character.

 

[Chesterton]

There are two biased assumptions there:

- You assume that Jesus was invented by one person. He could be say, collection of stories of 30 teachers put together into the life of one person. So, all of them had to be 1/30 of what the outcome (Jesus) is.

- Every fiction writer can imagine characters that are more noble, wiser and better people than they themselves are. Human imagination is not bound to our own character.

No, I don't assume the first one and I don't deny the second one.

 

[eartheart]

Your still under the law? When did God take away the laws? Are you saying that it is okay to cheat and lie? To murder and commit adultery?

In my experience I have done away with stealing, lying, etc under grace which allows me personal study of the scripture to understand why the laws make logical sense. The law however was under capital punishment under human non forgiveness while grace is an open door to understanding how to rid these sins through Christ and through his works. His sermon explaining in depth the commandments made me realize how breaking these laws provokes anger in others and unwillingness to change.
Grace is a fancy word for ones pitching tent with God in his kingdom through the WORD.
The Holy Spirit worked with me through life experiences other than just reading btw, and this was only possible through communion with him. Grace is a different approach to the laws and more effective in my case.

Sent from my LGLS665 using Tapatalk

 

[cloudyday2]

someone once said it would take one greater than Jesus to invent Jesus. I believe the probability that the person of Jesus was invented is very close to zero. Therefore, I have to believe Jesus is real and is who he says he is and the rest of Christianity follows from that.

If by "Jesus was invented" you mean that Jesus was not a historical person, then most historians agree with you. I don't know how that implies the truth of Christianity though. Probably I am misunderstanding your argument.

 

[Chesterton]

If by "Jesus was invented" you mean that Jesus was not a historical person, then most historians agree with you. I don't know how that implies the truth of Christianity though. Probably I am misunderstanding your argument.

I mean his historicity, the things he said, things he did, people's reactions to him, the whole totality of what was recorded in the documents - I don't believe it could have (or would have) been made up.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I mean his historicity, the things he said, things he did, people's reactions to him, the whole totality of what was recorded in the documents - I don't believe it could have (or would have) been made up.

Well, there is evidence that parts of it are made up. For example, the story of Jesus, Pharisees and the sinning woman and the famous line about sinless people throwing the first stones.

This story is not found in the earliest manuscripts of the gospel, which means that it was added there sometime later. Now, when a part of the story can be made up, isn't it at least possible that some other parts could be made up too?

 

[Chesterton]

Well, there is evidence that parts of it are made up. For example, the story of Jesus, Pharisees and the sinning woman and the famous line about sinless people throwing the first stones.

Who made it up?

 

[Jack of Spades]

Who made it up?

Nobody knows. Someone likely added it there somewhere in the process of making copies of the original manuscripts. For a simple briefing of the topic, take a look at Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus...istory_of_textual_criticism_on_John_7:53-8:11

During the 16th century, Western European scholars – both Catholic and Protestant – sought to recover the most correct Greek text of the New Testament, rather than relying on the Vulgate Latin translation. At this time, it was noticed that a number of early manuscripts containing John's Gospel lacked John 7:53-8:11 inclusive; and also that some manuscripts containing the verses marked them with critical signs, usually a lemniscus or asterisk.

 

[Chesterton]

Nobody knows. Someone likely added it there somewhere in the process of making copies of the original manuscripts. For a simple briefing of the topic, take a look at Wikipedia page:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus...istory_of_textual_criticism_on_John_7:53-8:11

During the 16th century, Western European scholars – both Catholic and Protestant – sought to recover the most correct Greek text of the New Testament, rather than relying on the Vulgate Latin translation. At this time, it was noticed that a number of early manuscripts containing John's Gospel lacked John 7:53-8:11 inclusive; and also that some manuscripts containing the verses marked them with critical signs, usually a lemniscus or asterisk.

That's neither proof that it wasn't in the earliest manuscripts, nor that it was made up.

 

[Jack of Spades]

That's neither proof that it wasn't in the earliest manuscripts, nor that it was made up.

I won't argue, but if you want to know the truth about the originality of the stories in the Bible, I recommend studying the topic in depth. There is no need to take my opinion about it, credible Christian theologians who have studied the history of the manuscripts can tell you all the facts about this aswell.

 

[cloudyday2]

That's neither proof that it wasn't in the earliest manuscripts, nor that it was made up.

Here is a wikipedia link specifically on that disputed story in John. There are scholars who argue both sides. My understanding is that the majority of scholars think the story was not originally in John, but there is evidence both ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

 

[dlamberth]

A Christian on CF professes the Nicene Creed and that lists some things.
- Christ was born of a virgin
- Christ was resurrected
- Christ will judge everybody
- etc.

So, this is just me mind you, but I'd put this list that you provided as "religious beliefs". For spiritual Truth, I'd go beyond all of that and head more towards where the Divine Source becomes an absolute reality in ones' life and see what the tapestry of life looks like from that perspective.

 

[Chesterton]

I won't argue, but if you want to know the truth about the originality of the stories in the Bible, I recommend studying the topic in depth. There is no need to take my opinion about it, credible Christian theologians who have studied the history of the manuscripts can tell you all the facts about this aswell.

I've studied some, thanks.

Here is a wikipedia link specifically on that disputed story in John. There are scholars who argue both sides. My understanding is that the majority of scholars think the story was not originally in John, but there is evidence both ways.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jesus_and_the_woman_taken_in_adultery

I'm familiar with things that scholars dispute and the things they don't dispute. Even the fact that they're disputed doesn't still mean they couldn't all be true. And as I said, given everything I believe that in totality Jesus couldn't have been made up.

 

[Jack of Spades]

I've studied some, thanks.


I'm familiar with things that scholars dispute and the things they don't dispute. Even the fact that they're disputed doesn't still mean they couldn't all be true. And as I said, given everything I believe that in totality Jesus couldn't have been made up.

Alright. The same evidence suggests to me that at least parts of it are myths.

 

[cloudyday2]

So, this is just me mind you, but I'd put this list that you provided as "religious beliefs". For spiritual Truth, I'd go beyond all of that and head more towards where the Divine Source becomes an absolute reality in ones' life and see what the tapestry of life looks like from that perspective.

How certain are you that a Divine Source exists, and that this Divine Source can become an absolute reality in your life and create a new perspective? I'm not sure what evidence you have, but could you be hallucinating, experiencing different odd biological states of mind, etc.? If you have insights that feel like inspiration, maybe they are only ideas from your subconscious mind?