I've believed in God for awhile now but it's only been recently that I've started to believe in Jesus Christ as the Son of God as opposed to just a prophet or a spiritual leader. The change came about from reading the following passage in Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis.
[Now] comes the real shock. Among these Jews there suddenly turns up a man who goes about talking as if He was God. He claims to forgive sins. He says He has always existed. He says He is coming to judge the world at the end of time. Now let us get this clear. Among Pantheists, like the Indians, anyone might say that he was part of God, or one with God; there would be nothing very odd about it. But this man, since He was a Jew, could not mean that kind of God. God, in their language, meant the Being outside the world Who had made it and was infinitely different from anything else. And when you have grasped that, you will see that what this man said was, quite simply, the most shocking thing that has ever been uttered by human lips.
One part of the claim tends to slip past us unnoticed because we have heard it so often that we no longer see what it amounts to. I mean the claim to forgive sins: any sins. Now unless the speaker is God, this is really so preposterous as to be comic. We can all understand how a man forgives offences against himself. You tread on my toe and I forgive you, you steal my money and I forgive you. But what should we make of a man, himself unrobbed and untrodden on, who announced that he forgave you for treading on other men's toes and stealing other men's money? Asinine fatuity is the kindest description we should give of his conduct. Yet this is what Jesus did. He told people that their sins were forgiven, and never waited to consult all the other people whom their sins had undoubtedly injured. He unhestitatingly behaved as if He was the party chiefly concerned, the person chiefly offended in all offences. This makes sense only if He really was God whose laws were broken and whose love is wounded in every sin. In the mouth of any speaker who is not God, these words would imply what I can only regard as a silliness and conceit unrivalled by any other character in history.
Yet (and this is the strange, significant thing) even His enemies, when they read the Gospels, do not usually get the impression of silliness and conceit. Still less do unpredudiced readers. Christ says that He is "humble and meek" and we believe Him; not noticing that, if He were merely a man, humility and meekness are the very last characteristics we could attribute to some of His sayings.
I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: "I'm ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don't accept His claim to be God." That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic - on a level with the man who says he is a poached egg - or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse. You can shut Him up for a fool, you can spit at Him and kill Him as a demon; or you can fall at His feet and call Him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Seems like sound logic to me. Now, the more interesting question is what are all the implications of taking that step from not fully believing in Jesus Christ to believing in Jesus Christ? What about the Atonement? What about the Resurrection? What about the Godhead?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
I suspect you will get answers to those questions in time. I think it helps that you are attending church regularly and asking honest questions and making the sincere effort to understand the implications of being a Christian. I also believe your family will provide answers to those questions. I know my son does that for me everyday. As Jesus said, "Seek and you will find." Keep up the good fight. Life is easier to deal with once you make the leap of faith and accept Jesus as your personal savior. Per our conversation the other day, the details are moot and irrelevant at this point. Read the first chapter of Mere Christianity. I know you would rather enter one of those doors Lewis eludes to rather than stand in the hallway.
My only comment on this one was the last thing you said around it "seems like sound logic to me." Not to read into your choice of words too much, but I think it's important to recognize that there are key differences between "logic" and "belief". That was one of the reasons I sent on that "truth" post on Wikipedia in response to your post about the scientific method. "Religion" doesn't fall under the realm of "science" because religions are meant to explain everything (i.e. the entirety of life, thought, existence, etc.), things that you can both objectively prove in reality and those things you can not. There is an implicit humility in there that requires an aspect of faith or belief (as opposed to just relying on logic). That's a faith that is not necessarily required in science. People generally have some personal reasons for making that leap of faith in religion. And those personal reasons are justification enough to treat those beliefs as truth. That probably sounds obvious, but I think it has profound implications for what you're looking for in this process. So just thought I would throw that topic out there again for you to consider.
Here's a couple Wikipedia pages to read through:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belief
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Science
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion
An interesting discussion on this page related to "religion vs. science":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religion#Religion_and_science
And then, apparently, there is a religion that believes that religious belief must be consistent with scientific observation (as opposed to the two sometimes being in opposition to each other). Here's a link about that faith:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bah%C3%A1%27%C3%AD_Faith_and_science
Yes, I understand that there is a key difference between logic and belief (or faith). I personal think that logic can help facilitate belief (or at least make you receptive to it) but it can't get you there entirely on its own.
Post a Comment