Chockstone Forum

      Sponsored By
      ROCK
   HARDWARE

Chockstone Photography

Australian Landscape Prints

Chockstone Forum - General Discussion

General Climbing Discussion

Topic Date User

Off-topic: Climbers who believe in Jesus 5-Feb-2011 At 3:20:35 AM dave h.

Message

>I reckon you were saying a bit more than that. You were saying "yeah,
>everyone reckons it was a living hell, but it was a total beat up..........now
>lets move on quickly before anyone calls bullshit on what I just said"

Not at all.

Not everything that the church has done in the name of Christ was/is truly Christian. (That's what Ghandi was getting at when he said something along the lines of "I like your Christ, but not your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ.") I can't (and personally don't feel the need to try to) defend everything in the church's history. As a consequence, I'm prepared to accept that the church killed people during the inquisitions. I don't think the church gets any mandate for administering capital punishment in the New Testament.

>>
>>Do you think that's an appropriate standard of proof to apply to a historical
>>question? Would you apply it to any other historical question? Epistemological
>>consistency surely suggests that you should.
>
>Well, I think that the level of evidence one requires from historical
>'facts' should be proportional to how this fact affects one's life.

Yeah fair enough. Philosophically I disagree. Practically I agree. No-one has time to investigate everything for themselves.

>If new, irrefutable evidence surfaced that Jesus was not the son of god,
>but a high price rent-boy..........I suspect that your life would take
>a bit of a turn.

Well that particular hypothetical would have some implications for the doctrine of the atonement. But yes, Paul says in Corinthians that if Jesus wasn't resurrected then Christians are "fuched" (as you might say - 'still in our sins' is Paul's term), and are "to be pitied above all people."

More to the point, we both know such evidence won't be forthcoming. Just as we both know that we won't suddenly get historical evidence which irrefutably demonstrates that Jesus was the son of God. I don't think historical evidence can ever be truly irrefutable. But I think it can point pretty strongly in one direction.

>>
>>And what's wrong with proof beyond reasonable doubt?
>
>That is a very strange question coming from a Christian

Why?
It's intellectually honest. I don't have an irrefutable argument demonstrating that Christianity is true. The same standard of proof is good enough to condemn people to life in jail. Should we get rid of it and demand a higher standard of proof in court?