...Do you think about your own thoughts? Then yes, you metacognate.
Metacognition changed my life, or I should say that it changed my way of thinking and my worldview. Like most people I had grown up to become a product of the various environments I lived in. Most of my beliefs on religion, politics, ethics, etc., were simply reflections of pop rhetoric--sound bites and talking points that I had heard others say on television or in a barbershop or things that my parents had instilled in me that were passed down to them or that they had adopted. They made sense and there wasn't much push-back, so I adopted them as well. I lived in a world where these beliefs were bought wholesale and accepted, so they rarely faced a challenge. The few times they did face challenges, it was often easy to be dismissive. After all, this person was arguing against the well-accepted and well-established truth of my position; they had the burden of proof on their shoulders. Because they were the only crazy person to see things that way, that must mean that they are wrong, right? At least that was my justification for dismissing them.
Consider the Evidence
The four gospels all say Jesus rose from the dead. They give us almost excessive details. Setting aside the biblical reports of the resurrection for the sake of scrutiny, we still have to make sense of the other solid facts: a) Jesus's body disappeared and has never been recovered; b) The Roman guards would not have allowed his body to be stolen, and all the authorities wanted him dead and gone for good. c) The disciples had no faith that he would rise from the dead, and they had no reason to even try to steal a dead man's body in light of who they had expected him to be—an invincible Messianic deliverer, who had failed. Now, it is an historical fact that the disciples later believed that Jesus had risen. Is there a reasonable explanation for this?
Yes, there is. Consider the evidence.
Who were the responsible parties for the mock trial and condemnation of Jesus?
by Nathan McLatcher, Junior at UM Dearborn
In Jesus’s crucifixion, there is more than enough blame to go around. The Jewish religious leaders plotted against Jesus, seeing him as a heretic and a threat to their power. Pilate believed Jesus was innocent yet had him crucified in a cowardly effort to retain his grip on power. But there’s still blame left to share. When the Jewish crowd accepts condemnation for Jesus’ death, they place the blame on not just themselves, but on all humanity. The various actors in the trial serve not just as characters in a supernatural drama, but as archetypes, showing us the various ways in which the world is blind to Jesus’ message. These include the Romans, the Jews, and everybody.
Why the Fatherhood of God is Essential to His Nature
by Adam Simnowitz—
According to the genealogy in Luke 3:38, God was Adam’s Father. In the Bible, one of the main purposes of genealogies is to show a direct connection to someone who was great such as Abraham or the founder of a tribe such as the twelve sons of Jacob. In the case of Adam, he had an even greater honor than any of these men (not to mention the rest of humanity) because he did not come from any human but directly from God Himself, the Creator of the heavens and the earth! The Bible’s teaching about the Fatherhood of God, therefore, is implicit in the creation of Adam. The terms “son” and “Father,” in reference to Adam and God respectively, cannot refer to physical procreation. Adam had no human parents and God is not human, yet the very Word of God, inspired by the Holy Spirit, uses these terms. This helps us realize that “son” in reference to Adam – as well as Jesus, which point will be addressed below – and “Father” in reference to God means something other than a biological son and a biological father. Further, these terms are not metaphors drawn from any son born of a father and mother nor any human father.
A Critical Review of Sayed Modarresi's Book
Recently I read a short book called The Lost Testament: What Christians Don’t Know About Christ, by Sayed Mahdi Modarresi. It’s a provocative title. It was loaned to me by a dear Muslim neighbor who wanted me to read it, so I did. Out of respect for her, and from a desire to compile my reactions to the author’s main argument and sub-points, I decided to write this review. In general, I love the idea of a book esteeming the words of Jesus, which is captured so beautifully by these words on the back cover.
“The Words of Christ are so exquisite they make Aristotle seem sophomoric. His proclamations against corruption and injustice are so zealous, a million Ghandis would kneel down before him. His erudition is so profound, it is divinely inspired verses, not mere creations of the mind of a man that he was.” (p. 20)
As a Christian, I couldn’t agree more. Unfortunately, my agreement doesn't go much further. Despite Modarresi's apparent reverence for Jesus, he is the Jesus of Islam, not of Christianity. This book is actually a polemic against the Bible.