Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

by Narkissos 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Midget-Sasquatch

  Too much of what is written in the Gospels (e.g. miracles, alleged history) is implausible and can't be rationally accepted as objective truths. To try and defend them, detracts from the impression others would have of the person and other parts of the Christian message. I personally would consider them at the very least unaware of several facts, and I don't find any pragmatic value in error.

  But if I saw a person, who simply lived what I Iike to consider the core Christian faith (that the divine operated through one man's way of life, and that it can be similarly propagated through others by their way of life), I wouldn't need an explanation to be moved to accept that message as valuable.I'd have a tangible experience of the most valuable part of the whole faith. Who knows it might even move this cold agnostic antisocial prick to act accordingly....now and again ;)
• 

  Pole

  Narkissos,

  I think Rochelle's post is an excellent example of how the inner logic of faith can lead a Christian to avoid apologetics, regardless of any anti-Christian criticism.

  Kierkegaard's stance is another. He was aware of early Bible criticism but dismissed it. He just held that both Christianity and existential truth belong to the realm of subjectivity (cf. for instance

  All I am saying is that modern Christians are in a position where they have to question some of the fundamental currents of early christianity. Of course it's possible to be a non-apologetic christian, but that is tantamount to taking a rather liberal approach to some beliefs of some prominent varieties of the early christian faith.

  Rochelle,

  the examples you've posted are somewhat different from what I think of when I think of Christian apologetics. Miracles, prophecies, etc.... Even those had to be accepted on faith by people who weren't eyewitnesses to them, and I never saw anyone (especially not Jesus) arguing ad nauseum with unbelievers. The believers just presented the facts as they knew them and left the rest up to their audience.

  When I think of apologetics, I think of how I've seen people INSIST on the scientific merits of the Bible or some other non-issue, and subsequently argue said issue right into the ground well after it becomes obvious that neither side is listening to the other.

  What I meant was apologetics by ancient standards. There was no science then as we know it. I think miracles and revelations were a form of apologetics because they were presented as objective facts which confirmed the validity of christian faith.

  I mean look at passages such as this one:

  1 Corinthians 15

  12But if it is preached that Christ has been raised from the dead, how can some of you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. 14And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. 15More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. 17And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. 19If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men.

  I think the writer clearly imlpies that faith is dependent on some facts such as the resurrection of Christ and that it is futile to believe in Christ if resurrection was not a fact. Isn't that apologetics? Isn't Paul (?) discrediting those varieties of Christian faith which didn't recognize Christ's resurrection? And don't modern christians have to take some of the crucial Christian texts with a pinch of salt to avoid being apologetic?

  Pole
• 

  Sunchild

  I think the writer clearly imlpies that faith is dependent on some facts such as the resurrection of Christ and that it is futile to believe in Christ if resurrection was not a fact. Isn't that apologetics? Isn't Paul (?) discrediting those varieties of Christian faith which didn't recognize Christ's resurrection? And don't modern christians have to take some of the crucial Christian texts with a pinch of salt to avoid being apologetic?

  Is Paul Jesus? Is Paul God? Does Paul respond to my prayers? Did Paul send the Holy Spirit? Please talk to me again when you can prove that all of the above are answered in the affirmative.

  Trying to play lacrosse under the rules of synchronized swimming will never, ever work. Neither will trying to process faith and spirituality using only the rules of the physical world.

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  LittleToe

  Rochelle:

  That makes about as much sense to me as defending the fact that you've fallen in love.

  Well put, especially since "love" is synonymous to "faith" for many.
• 

  Pole

  I wrote:

  And don't modern christians have to take some of the crucial Christian texts with a pinch of salt to avoid being apologetic?

  Rochelle replied:

  Is Paul Jesus? Is Paul God? Does Paul respond to my prayers? Did Paul send the Holy Spirit? Please talk to me again when you can prove that all of the above are answered in the affirmative.

  There's no need for me to do this homework. And thank you for proving my point so swiftly. You do take some early Christian texts with a pinch of salt. I have never said I have any problem with that. All I said was that different forms of apologetics have been present in Christianity from day two (day one being the life of Jesus). So I won't comment on the following if you don't mind:

  Trying to play lacrosse under the rules of synchronized swimming will never, ever work. Neither will trying to process faith and spirituality using only the rules of the physical world.

  Never brought up this issue.

  Cheers,

  Pole
• 

  OldSoul

  According to the Bible, faith is based in rational thought applied to evidence as a means to presuppose the uncertain. Hebrew 11:1 is the only definition of faith in the Bible. By to that definition, faith is the "evidence" (greek: elegchos; literally: proof) of things not seen, and the basis for or substance of hope.

  I can provide many examples of mathematically certain realities that we cannot see. These have only human abstractions (numbers) to back them up. We accept those realities by faith because we have evidence of the existence of things we cannot see.

  Other examples include the existence of invisible things that affect us, like wind. Wind is both a concept and a reality. You can't see wind even in a tornado, you can only see the effects of wind. But, no one doubts that wind exists.

  For what it's worth.

  Respectfully,
  OldSoul
• 

  Balsam

  Why is it that our faith and rational thought can't go together?

  What is wrong with God that he can't satisfy that need?

  If he is almighty, all knowing, and everything good, she could be able to satisfy our spiritual and rational minds with satisfying answers. Why is there there a need to dig? We dig and dig and only come up with individual thoughts on the same scriptures. If God is that obscure, why bother with knowing him?

  It is like the householders peaking out at us when we came to their doors as JW's. We would dust off our feet and move on. Perhaps we should do this with God. When he quits hiding and gives us something rational to grab hold of I would love to know him/her/it. But until that happens I am going to forget that there is a loving god and rather believe we all are a little piece of the divine all on spiritual learning missions experiencing life at its fullest.
• 

  Siddhashunyata

  The act of painting a picture and the act of defending a picture are not the same thing. One is alive, one is dead.
• 

  logansrun

  I think a better title to this thread would be "Can the Christian faith be rationally defended?" Personally, I think not.

  B.
• 

  zen nudist

  According to the Bible, faith is based in rational thought applied to evidence as a means to presuppose the uncertain. Hebrew 11:1 is the only definition of faith in the Bible. By to that definition, faith is the "evidence" (greek: elegchos; literally: proof) of things not seen, and the basis for or substance of hope.

  my interpretation of this is :

  Now [ your ] faith is the substance of things hoped for [not yet existing in the present moment], the evidence [to others] of things not seen [by them].

  in other words, your faith [a gamble on a story you have come to believe because you trust the source.] is shown to others by your living your beliefs despite the fact that there is no actual evidence to show your way is right or true at this time.

  which matches what James said-- faith without works is dead. [since you cannot demonstrate your belief to others if your life is not matching your claims.]