Should Christians be hated?

[plaingirly]

Random question! I opened my Bible on Matthew 10 and verse 22 says :

And all nations will hate you because you are my followers. But everyone who endures to the end will be saved.

I think there is another verse similar but can't remember it.

So if someone is really a follower of Jesus will people hate them and if people don't hate them are they not strong enough in their faith?

I don't really want to be hated! Also at work we have to get along with people so having them hate us wouldn't be ideal. Unless the verses are more specific or maybe aimed at the disciples.

1 Corinthians 1 v 18
"For the message abut the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to those that are being saved it is the power of God".

A difficult verse to read and post.

I am not sure that anyone should write themselves off Christian wise, but it does explain how some people will never be able to understand.

I didn't realise John Prescott wrote part of the bible.

IIRC, Decartes' problem was that there is no evidence for any entities or objects outside his own reasoning mind. For Decartes, of course, God is the only guarantor of the existence of the external world. But the implication of Decartes' thought, and the problem of empiricism more generally, is that it leads to a kind of solipsism, where the external world is simply the by-product of neurone activity. From that point of view I have no proof that anyone else exists at all -- for all I know you might all be hallucinations caused by irregular brain activity.

ISTM that Sieglinde is saying something rather different, which is that what we are able to imagine is historically determined: a person in 1600 (before the invention of the microscope) would not have regarded it as at all likely that the the room he was standing in was filled with microscopic life forms, because none such had ever been seen. But that did not, of course, mean that none were there. What we regard to be unalterable truths regarding the nature of the cosmos, the way matter behaves, and so on, may well be similarly subject to entire revision. The truths of science, such as they are, are always provisional and contingent.

Thing is, once microscopes were invented and it became possible to see microorganisms, then there was evidence of their existence. There's no evidence of the existence of gods - or fairies, or genies, or fox spirits or the mythical being of your choice/culture.
Actual evidence of the existence of some kind of supernatural Higher Power, if someone found some, well I'd certainly take a look at it. But it wouldn't be the god of any of the existing myth systems, because there's no evidence of anything behaving in the way that these particular imaginary beings are supposed to behave ie being egotistical meddlers prone to throwing tantrums and intervening capriciously in human lives.

Niminy wrote, much more cogently than me ISTM that Sieglinde is saying something rather different, which is that what we are able to imagine is historically determined: a person in 1600 (before the invention of the microscope) would not have regarded it as at all likely that the the room he was standing in was filled with microscopic life forms, because none such had ever been seen. But that did not, of course, mean that none were there. What we regard to be unalterable truths regarding the nature of the cosmos, the way matter behaves, and so on, may well be similarly subject to entire revision. The truths of science, such as they are, are always provisional and contingent.

Yes, that's my point exactly. Thank you.

SGB, your next point is - well, pointless. I KNOW there's no evidence for God now, just as in 1600 there was no evidence for micro-organisms. But one day our very idea of what constitutes evidence WILL change - it will because science is not static, but always in a process of re-evaluation. This I also take to be the basis for Higgs's criticism of Dawkins - that he - Dawkins - is worryingly fundamentalist about the nature of things. I'm not sure there will be evidence in future, but it seems premature ot be sure that there won't be.

Of course science learns new things every day.

But the scientific process will always require information and evidence to support hypotheses - I can't see how that will change.

What seems impossible is that evidence will ever emerge to support the idea of 'God' as he appears in the Bible - or any other god from any other religious tradition. Since no two people seem able to experience 'God' in the same way, it seems to me there will be an awful lot of disappointed people if he ever reveals himself to BE something observable and measurable.

But isn't that the point? Just because you cannot envisage it, doesn't mean that it will not happen.

Cannot envisage what - that science will always need to be able to observe and measure things in order to draw any conclusions about them?

Yes the boundaries of what can be observed and measured will change, almost certainly, but scientists aren't going to suddenly start 'believing' that things are true for the sake of it.

Badly worded: what I meant was that your inability to imagine that there will ever be evidence to support the existence of God doesn't mean that there will never be evidence to support the existence of God. (Or rather, evidence of a kind you would consider admissible within the protocols of scientific method.)

It's not simply that scientists discover new things; they also discover that what they previously thought to be the case was wrong. The history of science is the history of error.

Well yes - that's the point of science. To find out which parts of our knowledge are flawed and improve on them.

But isn't the Christian god supposed to be ineffable (as in indescribable / indefinable)?

Isn't it the case that often the errors are only visible retrospectively?

Anyway, yes, God is ineffable. But he is also personal. He is both unknowable and knowable. He is indescribable and familiar. He is divine and he is human.

As a Christian I am happy with that: the desire to make God measurable and observable seems to me to be, at root, the desire to cut God down to size, to make him into something we can fully comprehend. And that seems to me to be both a foolish and an ultimately doomed enterprise.

"Isn't it the case that often the errors are only visible retrospectively?"

Yes

And of course 'proving' that a god exists is doomed to failure - especially when there's no consensus on what 'god' is supposed to be, except that he/she/it is generally (and handily) 'unprovable'.

That's why you can't expect people to take it seriously. Obviously some people do choose to take it seriously and that's their business, as long as it doesn't impinge on my life.

But proving (with or without the inverted commas) that anything exists is doomed to failure. Positive proof is an empirical impossibility.

"Positive proof is an empirical impossibility."

Yes it is of course (hence the inverted commas).

But a fundamental problem for gathering evidence for the existence of god is that you first need a hypothesis and something to examine / measure. As no one seems to agree on what god actually is, or what the Bible actually says / doesn't say - where does anyone even start?

As opposed to say, studying the effects of electricity. You can't see it but it does have measurable, testable, consistent effects, leading to robust theories as to how it works.

Ellie, I certainly would not ask you for evidence regarding your belief. I simply wished to establish whether your views were based on belief (as I suspected), or absence of belief.

Dione - regarding atheist 'belief' - speaking for myself, I would say it's absence of belief. In the same way as I have an absence of belief for Father Christmas, for example.

'Belief' and 'believe' are rather difficult words anyway, as they have subtle shades of meaning.

eg
'I believe I'll go down the shops later'
'I can't believe it!'
'I have no evidence, but I still have belief'

Hi all. Not really back yet, hopefully in a few days. I'd like to just throw in one thought.

A man in 1400 who claimed he knew the room was full of other living things would be mistaken or lying depending on his sincerity/state of mind..

The fact that technically it would be full of microorganisms doesn't make him right. HE couldn't know that so whatever he was imagining was there wouldn't be the microorganisms that we later discover. It just sounds related.

Anyone who took his claim seriously wouldn't be be reasonable even though much later on microorganisms would be discovered. The later discovery doesn't retroactively make their belief sensible.

The correct response to the man from 1400 would not be "No I know for a fact that there can't possibly be living things we can't see"

It would be "Do you have anything at all to indicate there ARE living things in here?... No? Ok, then what's for tea?"

dogsandcats wrote ^1 Corinthians 1 v 18
"For the message abut the cross is foolishness to those that are perishing, but to those that are being saved it is the power of God".

A difficult verse to read and post.^

What abut people who used to believe? And more to the point the bible would say that wouldn't it? It's not just Christianity that doesn't make sense, it's all religions/supernatural beliefs.

"What about people who used to believe".
I dont quite get your point. It is possible to be saved but later on reject it all.

For the rest of your last paragraph, see your first paragraph as regards Christianity.

Okay, put it this way. All religions seem foolish to me, but you say Christianity is the real deal. There is as much reason for me to think Christianity is the truth as there is Islam etc. How do you know you've got the right religion?

Christianity works for me.
I am a "if it aint broke, dont fix it", type of person.

BackOnlyBriefly surely your argument about what the man knew or did not know in relation to the room is trying to put the emphasis back on the man. The real emphasis is on what is true. It was true (that there were microorganisms) but he did not know it, it is true now, and we know it. The real issue is - it being true.

Being able to prove it is true or not does not make it true. I totally get where you are coming from but I think as humans we worry a lot about what we can prove when really the most important things in life are things we can't really always prove or not prove, just experience.

headinhands that's a very good question, how do we know it is the real deal. For me the fact that God took the initiative. He came down to earth to seek us out. Yes, before we get back into the old proof was Jesus real and all that circle, can I just say it how I see it and you can question as much as you like?

Because I know everything I say as a Christian will be contentious or will be in tension for an atheist or agnostic so I value your even being interested in it.

For me it is the fact God looks on the heart, and is concerned for the poor, the broken hearted etc (it says it in the Bible but I also feel it in my spirit). The church is full of ritual and I think people like ritual and maybe that is why God allows a lot of it in there but at his heart (and I say his meaning his or hers rather than its) I believe God just wants to know us and love us, and to be known and loved by us. Which is why the imagery of the Bible is of a father and a mother. There are also images of a king, Prince of Peace etc and these are all facets of God. God is matchless, someone beyond our comprehension, and yet also knowable! How weird and wonderful is that!

I am petty and angry at times and if I had made God in my own image I would have made him like me, yet he is not like me, he is utterly bigger and better - yet he draws me in and makes me part of what he is doing in the world.

I believe God puts things on my heart and that is why I know he has a compassion for the poor. I could go on and on but I won?t now. So for me The Lord (Father, Son and Holy Spirit) is the real deal. Thank you for asking, headinhands.

Being able to prove it is true or not does not make it true. I totally get where you are coming from but I think as humans we worry a lot about what we can prove when really the most important things in life are things we can't really always prove or not prove, just experience.

I suppose what you're trying to say is that the objective truth value of a claim isn't necessarily contingent on us being able to prove or empirically support it. This is arguably the case - the inverse is not: if you cannot conclusively disprove a claim, it is not therefore true or even plausible by default.

BackOnlyBriefly's argument actually makes a lot of sense: given that there is no such thing as an infallible objective-truth-o-meter our best shot at establishing what is in fact true is to take into consideration the best evidence available to us. Obviously imperfect evidence (e.g. the lack of microscopes) may lead to incorrect or incomplete conclusions. That doesn't make any old conjecture just as valid a view as what you can actually demonstrate.

Yes, the claim "lots of living things exist in this room" may have been factually correct even in 1400. However, if you're arguing that this would have been a sensible claim to make at the time because it turned out to be true, you're also implying that claims about crystal therapy being effective, masturbation leading to cancer, aliens mutilating American cows and the CIA being after my schizophrenic uncle are sensible claims to make. There's no reason to believe any of that is true - but we cannot conclusively demonstrate that it isn't either. All of this might - however unlikely - still turn out to be true. Chances are it won't.

TL;DR: Even a broken clock is right twice a day - that doesn't therefore mean that having a working one isn't still a lot more likely to tell you what time it is, ...

I am petty and angry at times and if I had made God in my own image I would have made him like me, yet he is not like me, he is utterly bigger and better - yet he draws me in and makes me part of what he is doing in the world.

If you have fallacies, why would you create a god in your image? Wouldn't you make him perfect? Or at least try?

I think you're referring to the argument that man made god, not the other way around, but it's not that man made god in his image, it's more that the nature of god as portrayed in the bible is exactly what you'd expect from one created by man as a myth or legend.

Incidentally, I've always been confused by god creating man in his own image because humans are so imperfect (due to evolution) we have so many bit which aren't required or don't work properly or are routed bizarrely around the body. Seems that if we are in God's image, god is pretty flawed.

Yes, Pedro I agree we are flawed but IMHO that is because we are fallen, not because we were created flawed. I was indeed referring to the idea/accusation that man 'made God in his own image'.

Yes, Stackoverflow (what an interesting name , That doesn't make any old conjecture just as valid a view as what you can actually demonstrate. Just because we can't prove it doesn't make it true either. We are back to taking things on faith, and of course this is where Christians make up their own minds about what they believe based on the 'evidence' or the 'experience' of God they have. The examples you have given of prefixed with you're also implying that... ( claims about crystal therapy being effective, masturbation leading to cancer, aliens mutilating American cows and the CIA being after my schizophrenic uncle are sensible claims to make), are all individual things that may or may not be true, in this case I would assume are not true (I don't know your uncle) and I was not implying these things were true. I was not implying that any old thing we cannot prove is true. I was saying that I believe Jesus lived and died and rose again, to redeem the world. That I can't offer evidence for this this that will provide proof to satisfy some but I believe it, just as I cannot prove evidence for the love I have for my family and them for me, yet I also believe it based on experience.