Just my opinion, I think at least a portion of them have to learn to live with "faith" being the answer to some hard questions. You also don't have to look hard for doctrines that are contradictory. For example: was Jesus human or God? (and keep in mind that God is traditinally viewed as tri-omni, meaning omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent)
Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God." I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question (it answers a question about how Jesus and God the Father can both be God yet still be "monotheistic"). When pushed it has always come down to "some things have to be accepted on faith." That is obviously enough for plenty of people, but I personally find it insufficient. Back when I was a believer I had cognitive dissonance over that question that I somewhat learned to live with (obviously not entirely as I am no longer a believer, but it wasn't that question that led me to ultimately lose my faith).
> Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God."
Does this surprise you? The council of Nicea where this was defined as the orthodox claim happened in A.D. 325.
> I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different for
The _vast majority_ hold that, because the vast majority affirm Nicea. The only major denominations not holding to the orthodoxy here are (in descending order of size) Latter Day Saints (Mormons), Oneness Pentecostals, Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians, and Christadelphians. They represent approximately 1.6-2.4% of the Christian population.
> you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question
The real (orthodox) answer depends on a metaphysics of substance that most Christians, even those who hold the orthodox view, are ill-prepared to elaborate on.
My experience in Australia and India is that increasingly commonly people, especially but not exclusively laity, don't really believe the Nicene Trinity, but more ignore the Father and make Jesus God. That’s a particularly common view among Hindus, too (I remember a school textbook saying the Christian god was named Jesus), which is almost weird given that their notion of “avatars” isn’t too bad a fit for the trinity.
There are just as many problems or difficulties with viewing Jesus as the only god as with the trinity, but comparatively few professing Christians are all that critical about it.
this is the first time I've heard of Christadelphianism. I looked it up, expecting it to have cult-like beliefs, but it really seems pretty unobjectionable to me. I would feel more at ease around you and your Brethren than with Presbyterians, since while you don't subscribe to universal salvation, nor do you seem to believe in Predestination or a Hell of eternal torment.
Traditionally the explanation involves distinguishing between nature ("what") and person ("who"), which is the basis of the term "hypostatic union". There is one Person (which the gospel of st John refers to as "the Word"), which is of divine nature, i.e., is God; this Person assumed also a human nature, on the incarnation; and that is Jesus. This is what is meant by Jesus being truly God and truly Man: the one Person had united in himself both natures, the divine and the human.
I agree it's unfortunate that these kinds of questions sometimes get answered by inadequate metaphors or simply by dismissals. The whole joy of theology, while still requiring faith, is trying to answer these questions rationally.
Asking logical critical questions will not get you far with any hardcore believer, at least I havent met any, ever.
What you will get plenty of depends on personality - outright attack, run away in some form, or usual blanket statements with 0 actual meaning like "its faith", "you have to believe".
As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior. Made up rituals very specific to given sect, on different dates, some ignored, some have other meanings. You shouldn't take it all literally, but they often take it literally to absurd levels.
Yeah, I cant give much respect to believers or faith which cant handle a minute or two of critical thinking, and deeply ignore its own past and rather harsh moral failures. Mistakes not acknowledged and acted upon are mistakes waiting to happen again.
> As if anything else mattered but a clean moral behavior
this is actually a strongly non-Christian view point: 'all have sinned and fall short of the glory of God' i.e. no morals are clean enough unless it's 100% of God (why should he accept less?). yes, our harsh moral failures, or even successes could never be enough
hence 100% humanity and divinity of Christ -- he alone provides a 100% perfect bridge, paying 100% the cost for us, one that was infinitely beyond our ability to pay
this is 100% grace, joy, freedom and surety. thanks be to him
There are plenty of denominations- Catholics foremost among them- who agree that good morals and works are not contributing to your redemption, but a natural consequence of having genuinely accepted Christ.
To "believe" without good morals or works entirely is to put on a false face, essentially. Therefore, some manner of effort is expected of believers. It's a bit of circular reasoning, but not much.
One data point: I took the first few chapters of Genesis literally until age 27. I also went through college as a physics major. I’m sure I embarrassed myself in debates with my atheist lab partner.
I loved science from when I was really young, read every book in my school library’s J523/Astronomy section, including Cosmos in 3rd grade. But I also went to church every week with my family, read through the entire Bible in middle school, and believed that my faith would crumble and I’d go to hell if I ever gave up the belief that the Bible was 100% true and literal.
I also chose to keep emotional distance from non-Christian friends. They might lead me astray.
I remember an exchange with my mom (who was a teacher, mostly at Lutheran schools) during a car ride when I was maybe 6 or 7. I was excitedly talking about the big bang or something, and she said “yes, but we know from the Bible that the earth is 6,000 years old, right?” “Yes,” I answered, and in that moment I believed it. I didn’t feel conflicted: the Bible must be true, so someday I’d figure out in what sense the science was true too.
As I got older, I sustained this by basically hand-waving away the less intuitive explanations for an old earth. There are plenty of books out there for helping people do just that. Maybe the speed of life was different in the past. What can we really say with certainty about evolution? That kind of thing.
The beginning of the end was the day I learned about dendrochronology: tree rings. They’re too simple to hand-wave away. Soon after, I lost my faith.
Another huge area of cognitive dissonance: we prayed all the time, we talked about “miracles”, but I never heard any really credible evidence for one. It took some serious introspection, while still a Christian, to discern whether I actually believed in them or not.
Presumably the conflict between an ostensibly scientific, materialist, atheistic reality of modernity and the non-empirical, spiritual, theistic reality of their faith. Though I think it's implicit in the criticism of religious believers that they resolve the dissonance by, e.g., rejecting scientific truths. And arguably the other side does the same, by rejecting the metaphysical; compare atheism to agnosticism, where the former rejects what the latter says it cannot logically do as core religious beliefs tend not to be falsifiable. Personally, I like F. Scott Fitzgerald's perspective--"the test of a first-rate intelligence is the ability to hold two opposed ideas in the mind at the same time, and still retain the ability to function." Dissonance is everywhere, including in the modern so-called evidence-based world, often inescapable, and perhaps even fundamental to the human experience.
(Many) true believers believe that prayer has the power to heal people. So if you pray for someone with cancer, and they get better, then it shows the power of prayer.
If you pray for someone with cancer, and they don't get better, then it was all part of God's plan.
This may not strictly meet the definition of cognitive dissonance, but it is close enough for me.
