I mean it just sounds like we are so far off base from one another, i don’t know how to even continue this conversation haha.
By human based, I mean everything you are referencing is still coming from humans. The Adam and Eve stuff is Bible (human written), God sending his son to save us is part of the background story we are told, again by tales passed down by humans. And thats what I mean too when you are saying “to believe Jesus when he said he was God”. You are using your Faith in that scenario to rationalize your faith. Its faith rationalizing faith. From my perspective, you not being able to simply see that concept is like how you see me not being able to accept God and accept Jesus as our savior and therefore believe Christianity. Its the same thing, just coming from different bases of experience and knowledge and influence. That is my claim.
I was raised Christian. The stories and character arcs and rules and guidelines were all carefully explained to me. The trinity is not a foreign or confusing concept, i just reject it based on lack of anything substantial to sway me. The best I heard it described was actually from an anti-religious documentary (albeit by a very Christian person that was trying to explain the concept to them). The religious man in the documentary described it as the transformation of water. It can either be in a liquid solid or gas state. The melted ice is water. The heated water is gas. They are all the same and equal parts of the same thing. They are all the same yet still different forms.
So returning to the part you mention in that section, saying “Christians with good reason believe Jesus when he told us who he was”. I just mean to say, to me, a PERSON with good reason does not believe him. The fact that you view the reasoning process there already from a Christian perspective means, to me, that you are already too thick in the weeds at that point, and there is no use of “reasoning” anymore.
It was passed down by humans, but it came from God. I don’t see why that would inherently discredit God’s existence or that Christianity is or at least could be true in principle.
The historical accounts of Jesus are not fairy tales. Historians don’t dispute that Jesus of Nazareth was a real person that really existed. It’s just that some people disregard the historical accounts that claim and confirm Jesus’ deity.
The historical evidence and some of the physical evidence such as the shroud of Turin is actually quite substantial. People as yourself are free to not be persuaded, of course, but to claim it’s all based on blind faith is not really true.
I’m not trying to convert you. If you looked at the evidence deeply and can’t get behind the God of the Bible, then that’s fine.
I was an atheist for many years too, so I can understand where you are coming from.
I don’t deny Jesus or the existence of these people, just the cosmic baggage that was attached to them. Theres a chance its all true, just too small of a chance for me to run with. Like you said, thats ok either way. On your end and mine.
And I know you aren’t trying to convert me, and I appreciate that. For what it’s worth, i’m not atheist. To me thats almost the same as Christianity in terms of faith and belief. Thats what i meant when I was saying i would be more open minded if it was a more general religious discussion than just “his god or her god. That religion or this one” type vibes.
Well i appreciate the good conversation and your ability to understand and empathize and just talk with a different view. Have a good one! 👏
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
Thread collapsed
