This conversation started because you responded to my claim that faith isnt based on logic or empirical evidence. You responded that it is based on the results by basically claiming that you feel love when you follow jesus teachings. But empirically many people feel love beyond “jesus teachings”. So empirically, and results based, what you are claiming doesnt add up. I wasnt asking to be preached to and be given a sermon. Your “faith” as you describe is just you trying to be a good person. Thats not what makes you “christian”. Being a good person and loving others doesn’t give you a special label.
I think its more like you dug a hole in your response about “faith” and now refuse to address it.
We were clearly discussing “christian” faith
So what is it you really wish to discuss?
Following the will of God does not result in being special. (You seem to really have a bug about that.) The Letter to the Hebrews addresses what truly happens. People truly have to struggle to turn from sin (disobedience) to obedience. Hebrews offered some tough love advice about that: Have we struggled against sin to the point where we are shedding our blood? Then we have no reason to wallow in discouragement as we continue in our struggles to obey.
Once more, no one has said other people do not do good things or love people. (That’s another thing you seem to have a bug about.) Does it bother you that people of faith ALSO do good things and love people? What is the true problem you have here? We can discuss that as well.
Saying the only difference between others and Christians is that Christians believe Jesus died, rose, and is the son of God is another ‘duh’ moment. So what?
Because we were discussing logic and empiricism in the context of CHRISTIAN faith. Lol duh. And you responded by making it seem like “christian” faith is just watered down to being a good person and spreading love. So, maybe you should read your own words
Are you saying what you really want is a discussion on Jesus’ death and resurrection and that he is the son of God? That’s fine. What, specifically, do you wish to begin with?
Yes that is what makes “christian” faith special and unique. I want to begin with whether or not there is an empiracl and logical basis for it. Glad we are on the same page finally.
What’s wrong with that? My belief/perspective is that God is One, and He is the God of all. Others (because we are all unique human beings with unique perspectives) subscribe to a plurality. So?
Theres nothing wrong with it. Im explaining the correct context of why a certain faith is subscribed to vs another. You subscribe to one because there are certain things you believe beyond “love” abd being a good person through your actions, that makes you label yourself as “christian”.
This is exhausting
Again, I didn’t say I “feel” anything. That is your (limited) thinking about love. I said, “One thing that happens is that the love of the Lord increases. When love expands, it expands to others we come into contact with.” In this context, love is not a “feeling”; it is an action.
Think in terms of, A body in motion remains in motion; a body at rest remains at rest until acted upon. The same is true with love. One act of love leads to others.
Christians do not have a “special label” any more than Jews, Hindus, Buddhists, Muslims have “special labels”. How do you suggest we describe ourselves? “Umm, well we are not Jews, or Hindus, or Buddhists, or Muslims, or atheists, or pagans, or (et al)?”
Being a good person is a part of the Christian (oh, dear! that word again!) faith. But here is some news. My atheist husband (and other non-religious family members) are all about being good people, too. So again, What is your point? That Christians should not be good people? What do you think Christians should be?
I dont know how many times i need to explain it.
If you were reading closely, you will notice I used the word ‘reason’. Faith based on reason. One of the reasons for my faith is that that I had enough faith to truly begin living the Beatitudes, and when that worked in my life, logic suggested I continue. That seemed like sound reasoning. Can you understand the distinctions I introduced?
The reason you are confused is because you keep stripping the context out of the initial discussion i was having. Dare i say you formed a conclusion without understanding what i was saying. My point was that there is no logical or empiricle basis for CHRISTIAN faith. What separates christian faith from generic “acts of love” is the belief that jesus was god and performed miracles. So your response about “actions of love” does not address my initial point, no matter how many times you try to hijack the context
I do read my own words. I would like you to pay closer attention to what I actually say, not what it “seems” I said. That’s all.
Again, you are hijacking the context. I wasnt talking about reasons to act with love. I was talking about CHRISTIAN faith, in the context of what separates it from other religions. Holy cow
Yea, i understand the hyper focus on what you say. But maybe trying slowing down and read what i am saying, you will be less confused. Discussions are 2 way streets. And it seems you are unwilling to give in an inch so have a good day.
Have you read the Gospels? What do people of those times have to say about the Crucifixion? If I recall correctly, there are three sources outside of the Bible that also speak of it.
What seems illogical about that?
People have also been abducted by aliens.just because some 2000 year old story exists and people in the story or in another make claims about it isn’t remotely meaningful in a generic sense. Im sure north korea teaches some good stories about the un family. I can use the same logic with kim jung un family. The stiries themselves need backed by thorough empirical evidence and logical basis
And what does any of that have to do with the life and times of Jesus?
Now we agree on something! Here is a friendly suggestion. The post I first responded to said nothing about the resurrection. While I try to keep up on a thread, that is not always possible, and I miss posts–obviously which is what happened when you were speaking of the resurrection.
My thought is that when you read my post responding to a post of yours that did not speak of the resurrection, even though that is what you wished to discuss, perhaps say something to the effect of, “How does that tie into another Christian belief that Christ rose from the dead?”
That would get us both back on track faster than listing at least three things I never said, right? Again, just a friendly thought.