Why did Jesus Leave?

[devolved]

Apparently (from my experience anyway) trust can influence reality, how it influences reality depends on the personality of the person who trusts.
.
For example, I had trouble sleeping the night before, by trusting, I can release most of the effects of dreaming while awake ... but not all of them. There is a certain degree of "surrender" that is not beneficial for me personally so I don't do it. It doesn't entirely bypass the laws of physics but does reveal that more is possible by trusting than not trusting. Especially for those who have stepped onto the bridge.
.
What is written about in the bible about the Apostles and Jesus bypassing the laws of physics and proclaiming the new world by their faith enacting miracles and healing and even raising the dead to that degree ... can't say I'm there, but I can see how it's possible.
.
The laws of physics are different because even if on an incremental level, the basis of acting is towards a new creation, because when "born again" one becomes aligned with this "new creation" that isn't like this one so much... but is enough like it that the two can interact when one acts as the bridge of trust between the two.
.
I try to look at what I can quantify from my own experience at the very least, remembering it's a kingdom for the childlike helps in simplifying it at times and understanding how the laws of physics are very different much like a child's game of make believe adding substance in the end of it.

It doesn't seem like you are talking about reality, in part, but interpretation of reality.

Either the bridge can hold you, or it can't. The laws of physics don't magically change with your trust. You may have a perception or a lack of confidence, and trust/faith can give you provisional confidence... but it doesn't really alter reality beyond your actions.

Either way, you don't seem to be talking about laws of physics here.

 

[stevenfrancis]

I agree that those who are skeptical of religion shouldn't be supercilious about it.

Thank you. I appreciate your tone, even as we discuss this.

Most skeptics honestly want to know why people of faith are so certain in their beliefs and how they justify the supernatural claims of their religion.

This is a toughie. On the one hand, we are to be prepared with an explanation for our joy in Christ. On the other hand, at it's core, the explanation is not entirely worldly. It is not scientifically empirical. It is individual experience. Many faithful Christians, including myself, are well meaning in our attempts to explain, but there are as many ways that the faith embedded itself as there are persons who have experienced faith.

My comment about the "faith card" relates to how I see many religionists trying to answer those questions: they invoke faith in an attempt to vanquish doubt.

This is probably not the most understandable way for the faithful to discuss their faith with non-believers, but to be fair to those who do use faith to vanquish doubt, it may be the only tool in their toolbox they know how to use.

But faith can be used to justify whatever one wishes, so it clearly cannot be relied upon as a path to knowledge.

Faith, as far as I understand it, is not by any means a 'path of knowledge'. Rather it is a state of being which opens a person to the presence of the Holy Spirit, who inspires one to be more receptive to the both the written and living word of God. Faith, for me, came DURING my search for the right path of knowledge. Oversimplification: At some point during my search, Jesus Christ made himself known to me, (He stands at the door and knocks), and I became willing to let Him in. Now, when I DO study the written word, by the grace of God, I study it in the light of Christ. So for me, all things point to Jesus. Either from the past in anticipation of Him, or from the present and future as fulfillment. Then, my Christilogical experience of the written word, combined with a sacramental life (which effects my character and action by sacramental grace), combines to form my overall faith life which informs all I say, do, and think about. So, how can I invoke anything but faith in Jesus Christ to vanquish doubt, when it is precisely this knowledge and way of life that DOES vanquish doubt for me. I am being honest about my experience, however that may come off in conversation or debate, it is genuine, even if not useful for the other person.

 

[devolved]

If you find that way of looking at the matter to be punk, I did too! I also found the particular argument that was presented to us to be unpersuasive.

I'm not talking about a better story. I'm talking about a more believable one from a perspective of a history, especially when it comes to having more external sources that validate the extraordinary claims, especially by known historians that specialize in documenting such things.

 

[Albion]

I'm not talking about a better story. I'm talking about a more believable one from a perspective of a history, especially when it comes to having more external sources that validate the extraordinary claims, especially by known historians that specialize in documenting such things.

I know.

 

[Gregory Thompson]

It doesn't seem like you are talking about reality, in part, but interpretation of reality.

Either the bridge can hold you, or it can't. The laws of physics don't magically change with your trust. You may have a perception or a lack of confidence, and trust/faith can give you provisional confidence... but it doesn't really alter reality beyond your actions.

Either way, you don't seem to be talking about laws of physics here.

I am glad to have explained my experience. It won't make much sense until someone else has had a similar experience. I appreciate you listening patiently up until now. As I tend to take a scientific approach to it, without evidence more than I personally can witness at any given time, what you say is fair.
.
It doesn't matter if I am experiencing an alternate dimension of reality if you cannot see any proof of that for conversation purposes. Thank you again for listening.
.
the basis of coming to the christian God is that first you need to believe that he is and second that he rewards those who earnestly seek him. I've seen people try to come to God not believing that he is, and sometimes not believing that he is good. From the results: I am not certain that they tuned into the same multiverse dimension, or the same god for that matter ... especially when it comes to matters of compassion.
.
Whatever you're seeking for, take your time in finding it.

 

[SteveB28]

"Delusion" is a loaded word that has become directly connected to and associated with mental illness. I would not use such a word to describe someone else's chosen faith just because I don't share that faith or agree with it.

It may be "loaded" for you, but I see it as nothing more than a false belief, a disconnection with reality. Are you suggesting that most Christians would view the beliefs that Muslims have (or Hindus and Jews, for that matter) are correct and true beliefs?

 

[SteveB28]

Fascinating. I've heard from many Christians describing their reasons for rejecting the religion of Islam. Not one of them took the approach you describe here.

Ah, but I wasn't asking about grounds for rejection. I was asking about Christians' opinions of the nature of the belief itself. Do you consider their beliefs to be correct? What about the beliefs of Hindus? Do you consider their gods to be a true representation of reality?

 

[Albion]

Ah, but I wasn't asking about grounds for rejection. I was asking about Christians' opinions of the nature of the belief itself.

OK. What I said still holds true.

 

[SteveB28]

Thank you. I appreciate your tone, even as we discuss this.



This is a toughie. On the one hand, we are to be prepared with an explanation for our joy in Christ. On the other hand, at it's core, the explanation is not entirely worldly. It is not scientifically empirical. It is individual experience. Many faithful Christians, including myself, are well meaning in our attempts to explain, but there are as many ways that the faith embedded itself as there are persons who have experienced faith.



This is probably not the most understandable way for the faithful to discuss their faith with non-believers, but to be fair to those who do use faith to vanquish doubt, it may be the only tool in their toolbox they know how to use.



Faith, as far as I understand it, is not by any means a 'path of knowledge'. Rather it is a state of being which opens a person to the presence of the Holy Spirit, who inspires one to be more receptive to the both the written and living word of God. Faith, for me, came DURING my search for the right path of knowledge. Oversimplification: At some point during my search, Jesus Christ made himself known to me, (He stands at the door and knocks), and I became willing to let Him in. Now, when I DO study the written word, by the grace of God, I study it in the light of Christ. So for me, all things point to Jesus. Either from the past in anticipation of Him, or from the present and future as fulfillment. Then, my Christilogical experience of the written word, combined with a sacramental life (which effects my character and action by sacramental grace), combines to form my overall faith life which informs all I say, do, and think about. So, how can I invoke anything but faith in Jesus Christ to vanquish doubt, when it is precisely this knowledge and way of life that DOES vanquish doubt for me. I am being honest about my experience, however that may come off in conversation or debate, it is genuine, even if not useful for the other person.

How do you know that "made himself known to me" was not a delusion on your part? Please note, I am not claiming that you are deluded, but how would you know if you were?

 

[SteveB28]

OK. What I said still holds true.

So, do you consider their gods to be a true representation of reality?

 

[Albion]

So, do you consider their gods to be a true representation of reality?

What I said was that, contrary to this comment below, I've never heard any Christian use those words or anything close to them when discussing Islam.

A delusion is usually described as a false belief, connected with a faulty assessment of reality. These would be almost the exact words used by a non-Muslim to describe Islamic faith.

 

[SteveB28]

What I said was that, contrary to this comment below, I've never heard any Christian use those words or anything close to them when discussing Islam.

To repeat, do you consider their gods to be a true representation of reality? It really isn't a difficult question.

 

[Albion]

To repeat, do you consider their gods to be a true representation of reality? It really isn't a difficult question.

You're right. It's not. But OTOH, I like to stay on topic when people attempt to get (whatever thread it is) off topic.

 

[HitchSlap]

To repeat, do you consider their gods to be a true representation of reality? It really isn't a difficult question.

The implications of an affirmative response has far reaching implications of their own beliefs.

 

[SteveB28]

You're right. It's not. But OTOH, I like to stay on topic when people attempt to get (whatever thread it is) off topic.

I think your evasion of my question is an answer in itself, don't you?

The law of logic that deals with non-contradiction would state that a premise cannot be simultaneously true and not true. Christians would, in large, be of the opinion that the belief in gods other than their own would not be a true representation of reality. Likewise, those with beliefs in other gods would mostly have the same opinion of Christian beliefs.

One only has to note the oft-repeated claim of the "one true God" to infer such an understanding.

Then, since 'delusion' is no more than a false belief, a disconnection with the truth of reality, it follows that each group would consider the belief of the other to be a delusion, whether or not they use that specific term.

 

[Albion]

I think your evasion of my question is an answer in itself, don't you?

Nope. I simply refuse to participate in a diversion like that one.

 

[Ana the Ist]

First, it was you who described it as a "better story." I merely used your terminology when replying to you.

Well I used the term story because you used the term "anti-climactic". I've only heard that term in reference to the climax of a story...but I suppose that it could apply to sex as well lol.

However, in the OP he did say the following:



So, I believe that he did, in fact, make the very same point.

With regards to his statement there...I merely think he was suggesting that if Jesus's goal was to convince people of his divinity, and any other parts of his ministry really, this goal would be much more effectively achieved by staying in existence. Instead, Jesus left and relied upon his few followers to propagate his story after he left.

Realistically, if his intention was to leave the new testament behind...he would've done much better if he had stayed around long enough to write it himself. He's god after all, right? I imagine this would've been a simple task to complete rather quickly and without the risk of error or misinformation that happens when you rely upon people who never even knew you to write your story.

 

[amariselle]

It may be "loaded" for you, but I see it as nothing more than a false belief, a disconnection with reality. Are you suggesting that most Christians would view the beliefs that Muslims have (or Hindus and Jews, for that matter) are correct and true beliefs?

The point is that I would never call people "deluded" just because they have a different faith than I do. I have never heard any other Christians say such a thing about a non-Christian and their faith either.

Why do you feel that such a term is necessary? Do you think it is perhaps helpful in some way to give the label of "delusional" to people who believe different things than you do?

 

[SteveB28]

The point is that I would never call people "deluded" just because they have a different faith than I do. I have never heard any other Christians say such a thing about a non-Christian and their faith either.

Why do you feel that such a term is necessary? Do you think it is perhaps helpful in some way to give the label of "delusional" to people who believe different things than you do?

The term is only as "necessary" as its accuracy in describing a situation. Simple logic dictates that, if Christians or Muslims talk about the existence of "one true God", it follows that they consider all other proposed gods as being 'untrue'.

The belief in something untrue is usually described as a delusion. It doesn't necessarily imply mental illness, but it does suggest confusion. For example, when the majority of humans believed that the earth was the centre of a revolving universe, they were deluded. But they weren't mentally ill.

 

[SteveB28]

Nope. I simply refuse to participate in a diversion like that one.

Really? Your series of comments on this particular issue would suggest otherwise. It would seem that it has only become a "diversion" once the question has become uncomfortable.