No, FK, I always qualify my statements that this is the a priori basis for all religions. The initial step is an a priori blind acceptance of God as a matter of fact, because there is no objective proof of God.
The "proof" offered with various reasons are invariably human fancy. Different people see and know different things and go through different experiences and live in different cultures are local "realities," and based on that human, individual knowledge, they make a conclusion that makes sense to them, and they accept it as true and absolute.
The eyes and ears are present in all faiths. It's just that the Jews hear one thing, the Christians another, the Muslims something else, the Hindus something else, the Buddhists something else, the Baha'i something else, etc.
Monotheism is an assumption. It is based on individual human experience (revelations) in dozens of faiths in the world. Polytheism is also an assumption based on similar experiences.
We probably believe in one and the same phenomenon which we all a priori "know" i must be true, namely that something caused all this exist, that something was the initial step in this creation. The details of this "something" are filled in by human fancy.
We all believe in the same "something;" we just paint it differently. Our fancy creates God in our image, FK.
That doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally valid. Just as we have preferences for everything else, we prefer God suited to our image, culture, experience,e etc. It's a choice which religion we will embrace.
Some people find the Zeus-like OT God preferable to Jesus; others find Allah the "true" God; others yet see Christ as perfect God-man, and God as a perfect of union of three Hypostases, all being one and the same God, yet only one of the Hypostases being "without cause." To others this is polytheism; to others yet, the reeks and Latins are "idolaters."
All this betrays human element in all these religions. The basic belief in God is a semi-rational conclusion based on the world we know exists and the universe around us; we makes a reasonable assumption (within the confines of our mental capacities), based on observatrion (which can be erroneous, of course) that "something" must have created this and that something was the "first principle" that 'existed" before all this existed.
There is nothing absolute about human minds or conception. We assume things that "make sense" to us, that we like, that fits our idea of the order of universe. Thus, we reduce even God to a "sensible" phenomenon and even claim to "know" Him through some voices and possibly hallucinations, some of which may have seeds of truth.
For example, without a REAL Fall, in real space-time, then how does one explain the need for Christ? Did Christ come to die for something that never happened? Another example would be Jesus celebrating the fairy tale of the Passover.
I can't answer that. If it is "real" in people's minds, then it shapes their attitudes and beliefs and it may be as "real" as real gets. That's what we call delusions.
What if your parents are not your real parents? What if you were adopted and never told about it? You'd live in a delusion, based on a logical assumption, that your parents are indeed your parents. And even though they are not your real (biological) parents, they are your real parents because they raised you as their son.
Love is real no matter what the source of it is. Those who love you are your family, core or extended. But we don't find love occurring in nature spontaneously; animals show no mercy and neither does man left to his own devices. Is that proof that love is not of this world? It seems that way but it is not a proof.
I'm not sure what I would tell a person who asked me that if he should disbelieve the historic truth of the OT, then why should he accept the historic truth of the death and resurrection of Christ?
The death (and resurrection) of Christ is a matter of belief, not of historical fact. There are no verifiable eyewitness accounts of either. We affirm it on belief; the Jews deny on belief. The churches keep relics of saints on belief that they are indeed relics of those saints, even when the DNA doesn't match. You hold the Bible to be inspired word of God on belief. The Muslims hold the Koran to be God's spoken word on belief.
It doesn't matter how you frame it, whether you say it's "eyes and ears" or simply beliefs, or "knowledge" or some spirit inside of you, etc. It all defaults to what you feel inside, what you prefer. No one is a Christian against his will.
If you believe the OT stories are true, then as far as you are concerned, they are true. I have no problems with anyone's beliefs so long as their intentions are good and they reflect an individual's inner reality and not a club with which one is going to beat his faith into someone else.
No, FK, I always qualify my statements that this is the a priori basis for all religions. The initial step is an a priori blind acceptance of God as a matter of fact, because there is no objective proof of God.
How does this disagree with what I said? Your attitude towards "a priori" is that it is made up, not supported by facts. That's what I would call baseless. One cannot claim that his faith has a base if it is in "baselessness". :)
The eyes and ears are present in all faiths. It's just that the Jews hear one thing, the Christians another, the Muslims something else, the Hindus something else, the Buddhists something else, the Baha'i something else, etc.
Really? Your argument appears to be like saying that if there is one very bad football team in the NFL, then they all must be bad. IOW, I think that just the existence of false faiths and false texts, by itself, lowers your opinion of the Bible. And, that would be an expected result if one thought that all sacred texts have equal internal authority, meaning none. :)
Monotheism is an assumption. It is based on individual human experience (revelations) in dozens of faiths in the world.
Then you must believe that Christ's resurrection is also an assumption, along with everything else in the Bible. The Church can't help you here since it unequivocally holds to monotheism based upon revelation.
That doesn't mean that all beliefs are equally valid. Just as we have preferences for everything else, we prefer God suited to our image, culture, experience,e etc. It's a choice which religion we will embrace.
In that case it must be in large part luck if any particular person will become a Christian. It would depend on random variables such as where and when a person was born. I mean, by this thinking what chance would you have had becoming a Christian if you had been born in China? Probably almost none, right? Is that how a loving God works, or doesn't work?
Some people find the Zeus-like OT God preferable to Jesus; others find Allah the "true" God; others yet see Christ as perfect God-man, and God as a perfect of union of three Hypostases, all being one and the same God, yet only one of the Hypostases being "without cause." To others this is polytheism; to others yet, the reeks and Latins are "idolaters."
You forgot the others who believe that the OT God is exactly the same as the NT God, such as Reformers and the Latin Church. :)
FK: "For example, without a REAL Fall, in real space-time, then how does one explain the need for Christ? Did Christ come to die for something that never happened? Another example would be Jesus celebrating the fairy tale of the Passover."
I can't answer that. If it is "real" in people's minds, then it shapes their attitudes and beliefs and it may be as "real" as real gets. That's what we call delusions.
That is the classic dilemma with "leap of faithers". There just ARE no answers to these issues. For those who hold to historic Christianity, there are plenty of answers.
What if your parents are not your real parents? What if you were adopted and never told about it? You'd live in a delusion, based on a logical assumption, that your parents are indeed your parents. And even though they are not your real (biological) parents, they are your real parents because they raised you as their son.
I have plenty of evidence that I am the son of who I think my parents were. Besides the documents and the family who has known me since I was born there are pictures of my parents showing strong resemblance. I am satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt. I am even more sure of the Christian God described in the Bible. :)
The death (and resurrection) of Christ is a matter of belief, not of historical fact. There are no verifiable eyewitness accounts of either.
Oh, well, I have to admit, I wasn't expecting that. :) I have no idea what to say. :)