To whom would we go?

[yrieithydd]

Here I stand; I can do no other.

Not I believe that God exists but I believe in one God, the Father Almighty, maker of heaven and earth and in his son our Lord, Jesus Christ who was ... and in the Holy Ghost....

Christianity is not based on the abstract proposition that God exists, but is our response to God's revelation of himself in our incarnate Lord and Saviour, Jesus Christ, born of the Virgin Mary, who lived, preached, was crucified, dead and buried, but who rose again from the dead and then ascended to the Father and whose return to earth we await and who continues to reveal himself in the Spirit in the Church and in the World.

Whilst I believe that God created and sustains the world, I acknowledge that this is unproveable. Others look at the world around us and what we have learnt about it through exploring it with our (God-given, IMO) reason and do not see God and think that there are other explanations that fit the fact. Maybe they are right and we are wrong; maybe they are wrong and we are right. Neither can prove to other the axioms of their system. Both sides think that the burden of proof lies with the other, but logical arguments do not cross the gulf between the world views.

Whilst we could sit on the fence, or say it does not matter, I believe that the story of the Incarnation, Life, Passion, Death, Resurrection and Ascension of Our Lord Jesus Christ demands a response. I cannot remain neutral. If Christ has not been raised, then we are of all men/people most to be pitied but if he did? What then?

My fealty to the God who came in Christ Jesus was pledged for me at my baptism by my parents and godparents. Maybe that is unfashionable in this individualistic culture where we think we ought to be allowed to make our own decisions but I do not believe that we can make wholly independent choices and there are a number of matters, less important than this which our parents decide on our behalf when we were too young to decide for ourselves. For example, what language we speak. Now, for many of us who are monoglot maybe that does not sound like a decision, and for children of monoglot parents it is a default decision (although I know my parents regret not speaking another language well enough to bring us up bilingual), but where the parents speak more than one language then there is a decision to be made. A friend of my mother's from university is a Welsh speaker, but she's lived in England since leaving Aberystwyth and when she had children she decided against speaking Welsh to them lest it confuse them. I do not know how those children feel about it, but I would feel deprived in their place and I know of children of bilingual parents who do regret the fact that they do not have the other language.

Whilst language shapes our perceptions and interactions with the world (and being monolingual/bilingual has its own effects on that), I believe faith goes deeper. I am glad that I was baptised at 2 months and 6 days and brought up within the family of the Church. It is easier to pledge oneself to one who is known and from whom one has received grace. Yet I could have repudiated that baptism and gone my own way. But I chose (and signalled this in chosing to be confirmed at 13, though it should be remembered that the confirmation is not us confirming our baptismal vows (although that is a part of the ceremony for those of us who had been baptised prior to that evening) but us being confirmed by the Holy Spirit) and continue to choose in my daily life.

Though not logically proveable or scientifically falsifiable, I believe there is a good case for God as revealed in the ILPDRaAoOLJC. Could you prove entirely logically or on the basis of the empirical method whether you parents love you, or that your friends are in fact your friends? Would not such tests break the trust of those bonds?

I love the speech Puddleglum makes when the Green Lady is trying to enchant him, Jill, Eustace and Prince Tirian into admitting that there ideas about Aslan, about Narnia even are just pretty stories they've made up. This is not, whatever some people argue, about continuing to believe even after you know that what you believe is false because it is helpful in living a `good life', but about faith and loyalty in the temptation to despair. Yes, doubts assail us, but having pledged ourselves to the cause, we should not be tossed about by them, but trust in God even when we cannot see him.

Comments

[naath.livejournal.com]

empirical method whether you parents love you, or that your friends are in fact your friends?

No, I can't. But I can demonstrate to the satisfaction of allmost everyone (I'm sure that some people might claim that it is All In My Head, or All In Their Head) that these people exist and are capable of independent rational thought and action (ie they are intellegent beings not for eg computers-as-we-know-them). I can't demonstrate to the satisfaction of *anyone* (nor can anyone else I've met) that Jesus Christ lived when/where/how the gospels say he did nor that he was Resurected, nor that he Ascended-into-heaven... and I don't believe that anything other than a reasonably intellegent being can 'love' anything (dogs can, humans can, maybe AIs can but fictional constucts can't).

[caliston.livejournal.com]

We can't prove the existence of God because it's outside the realm of evidence. There's nothing around that says 'God woz ere' to the satisfaction of a court of law, nor is there evidence that he doesn't exist by the same token.

But the existence of Jesus Christ is something that is rooted in history. Either he did exist or he didn't. And that existence is grounded in a time and a place. So our court is reduced to looking at the usual kinds of evidence law courts are used to: documentary evidence (gospels plus others, aware of source bias), forensics (archaeology), circumstantial evidence etc. By the same token we can judge the Resurrection - did he really die, was he really alive again afterwards?

We can have a handwaving argument about the existence of God all day secure in the knowledge that neither of us will be proved wrong. But each fact from the existence of Jesus Christ upwards can be tested. And that is something we can know to some degree (conclusively or not, based on the evidence).

Personally I think there's a fairly good case for the Resurrection, which is pretty much the cornerstone miracle in the life of Christ. If this is true then it puts the rest of the gospel in a positive light (it's hard to believe that the boldest claim was true but the rest were false) and so suggests that ought to be taken seriously too.

[naath.livejournal.com]

I've seen nothing other than the gospels claiming the Resurection to be fact... and, well, I'm not going to take their word for it.

Besides... if J.C. did die and rise again well, what can we say about the rest of the gospels... they might be right. OR they might be someone taking his words and spinning them for their own ends (someone here would be, um, Paul for the most part and the The Church).

[caliston.livejournal.com]

So in looking at the sources we have to balance two views: one, in our experience dead people don't rise and two, the gospels which contradict this.

But we have no eyewitnesses who say he stayed dead. Maybe they existed and were hushed up, or have been forgotten over the centuries, we don't know. The best knowledge we have of the gospels is that they were written by eyewitnesses or people who knew eyewitnesses. And the gospels are a biased set of documents but they're still valuable for that (we can attempt to get at the grains of truth behind the bias, just like the fake alibi of a murder suspect still provides us with some information about them). So we need to look at the evidence in this particular case rather than assuming our general 'dead people don't rise' experience covers this too.

And we can look at the early Church, which is comparatively well documented. For example, look at the beliefs about resurrection. Some sects of first century Judaism believed in the resurrection from the dead, others didn't. But in these cases they were all in resurrection 'at the last day' (some point in the future to be determined) not resurrection in the here and now. Why did the early Church start proclaiming bodily resurrection? Because Paul brainwashed them? Maybe. But why would someone come up with an idea so profoundly different to the views at the time? In fact one that was easily contradicted - someone just had to wheel out the body of Jesus or find a witness involved in hiding it. If I were setting out to come up with a new cult it's a rather poor idea to base it on.

Secondly look at the behaviour of the early Church. If we believe the gospels the disciples were a ragtag bunch of uneducated peasants. The gospels may be spinning that too, but it seems an unlikely thing to make up. They had a visionary leader, who was sent to the electric chair (as it would be in modern terms). And in doing so demolished everything he stood for, or
so it seemed. I would be pretty despondent in that case. I'd hardly wish to wrest control of a gang for which its entire purpose was refuted. Nor would I bother to tamper with the evidence that proved I was all wrong because deep down I'd know I'd be living a lie and there was nothing to gain by living it. But why would such people shortly afterwards be telling
everyone what happened, going on long journeys to proclaim this, and then individually die for their beliefs? What did they get out of it? If it was all carefully fabricated it doesn't make sense. They could have self-deluded themselves but self-delusion for the rest of their lives even up to painful deaths?

As to fabrication of the rest of the gospels, that of course is possible. I think we have to accept their failings as historical sources, not to say that they don't have merit. It's quite possible that they were all carefully cooked up between Paul and the apostles and we would find it difficult to disagree because only they were there for some of it. But much of the gospels is a matter of public record: according to them thousands of people met Jesus and they would have been easily refuted had these people had contradictory stories (or indeed that thousands of people weren't there). But why would Paul and/or the Church cook up a set of beliefs that
ran completely counter to the prevailing culture then proceed to be persecuted to death for them? What did they seek to gain?

In my law court analogy, we can't know beyond reasonable doubt that Jesus was raised from the dead. There's no presumption of guilt or innocence here so it's not necessary to say that. But I can say that there's enough circumstantial evidence to make a reasonable case in my opinion.

[naath.livejournal.com]

But you could say the same thing abou the millions of people who believe that Mohamed received The Word Of God and wrote it down - you would have to be pretty dim to go arround getting yourself hated all because 'some guy' said you should.

All faiths have some 'illogical' premise, all faiths are full of people who believe in it, they all started somewhere - presumably with people rebelling against the current set of beliefs where they were and getting hated for it.

I'm not convinced that 'some people were convinced enough to die for this idea' means 'this idea is correct'. It would lead to my accepting many contradictory ideas for a start.