Board index ‹ Christianity

[Shaggy]

The diverse nature of Christianity is a fundamental flaw to the claim that it is a true religion. Christianity is a diverse religion. It is composed of a vast array of different denominations each with their own take on what Christianity is or isn't and although granted most of these differences are relatively trivial in some cases there are disagreements over fundamental aspects of the religion.

Once a month I attend a local atheist get together and we sometimes get a few Christians attending. One evening the conversation drifted onto the subject of the trinity and it just so happened that one of the two Christians that had come along didn't believe in trinitarianism. This sparked off quite a lengthy debate between the two Christians and a few atheists and whilst I really appreciate it when anyone that believes in a God comes to our get togethers I couldn't shake the thought that we might as well be arguing about the colour of the Loch Ness monster.

The problem that the Christians were coming up against is that there simply isn't a method for establishing who, if anybody, has actually got it right. The Christians that came to our little get together may have identified as Christians but clearly they believed in two fundamentally different types of God.

I see this same issue happening on Internet forums. Christian beliefs are wide and varied. There is no possible way that they can all be right, it is worthwhile pointing out again though that it is entirely possible that they could all be wrong.

Considering all this how then can Christianity be described as a true religion? How can we call something true when there are numerous different versions of it, many of which are mutually exclusive from each other and there is no methodology for determining which version is the correct one? If Christians themselves are not capable of deciding what Christianity actually is or isn't then I don't see how it is even possible to consider it true.

[jimwalton]

Diversity in animal life is considered to be not only a value, and not only a strength, but a necessity. So also ecosystem diversity on the planet. In itself, diversity is not a negative claim for untruth.

On the homo sapiens level, we know there is wide diversity of skin color and cultures. These are regarded as part of a positive and beneficial aspect of our world that helps us to be less ethnocentric and barbaric (ideally), and to instead find the rewards and advantages that our differences offer.

We know from science that diversification and heterogeneity make things able to survive, such as the human body. We are the agglomeration of many different parts.

We also know from group dynamics and business management theory that heterogeneity makes an organization stronger, and that homogeneity leads us into groupthink and short-sightedness.

We also know that thinking, rational people are bound to disagree with each other. If we were all starlings, we would follow the path of the flock weaving through the sky. But if we are rational and thinking, meaningful people, we study, ponder, disagree, and debate. These are perceived to be healthy pursuits.

Christianity has an open door: Whoever wants to can come in. You don't have to qualify, there are no entrance exams, there are no filtering processes. We welcome anyone who walks through the doors. This is a strength, of course. Many would scream FOUL if Christianity was an exclusive club. But there are definitely downsides to the open door. Of course some bad apples will come in; of course some nefarious elements will slip in as well; sick people will come in, some seeking healing, and some just to leech off the body. We have a range of people who get and people who don't, of healthy people and sick people, of thinking people and of people who just want comfortable cliches. It doesn't mean the movement or the religion is fundamentally flawed. It means our door is open to everyone, and we expect people to use their minds (which means there will be disagreements).

Add to that that any form of communication (even the simplest "hello") is subject to interpretation. ("Why did she say hi to me? Hm. Did she mean anything by that? Is she trying to be friendly or was it merely polite? Is she interested in a relationship, or was it a blow-off? ...") The Bible is an ancient document, written in a different time, a different culture, and a different language. There are bound to be disagreements about it between thinking people, but that can be a real strength. We think, we study, we debate and discuss, we write books and weigh the thoughts in them. This is not a flaw.

Philosophers disagree with each other. So do educators, economists, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, politicians, and scientists. Diversity does not necessarily mean there is a fundamental flaw.

[Sure Breeze]

> In itself, diversity is not a negative claim for untruth.

The context is one religion with various denominations who have contradicting views all claim to have "the truth". "In itself", diversity isn't bad. In this context, it is. Half of your reply is simply invalid in this case.

> Christianity has an open door: Whoever wants to can come in. You don't have to qualify, there are no entrance exams, there are no filtering processes.

I don't believe you are correct. I don't think you can call yourself a Christian while being an atheist (yes yes). I don't believe you can call yourself a Christian by denying Jesus existed. I'm not sure if you can even be a Christian by not believing that Jesus was divine. There are plenty of arguments within Christianity about what makes someone a Christian. True, historically speaking, Christians have killed each other by the sects trying to figure this out, but today it's more of a debate. Mormons, for example, are often seen as heretics at best but certainly not real Christians.

What about other related but core beliefs? Can I do the following and consider myself a Christian?

reject the Catholic Church
reject the Bible as true
not believe in heaven or hell
not believe in sin and salvation
not care about the crucifixion of Jesus?

I think you'd get pretty heated discussions from people who you claim have no filtering processes, coming from a religion without qualifications. There are qualifications that otherwise meant a death sentence in times past.

> Philosophers disagree with each other. So do educators, economists, lawyers, Supreme Court justices, politicians, and scientists.

None of them claim (realistically) to have "the truth". Closest people are scientists who only try to explain reality.

[jimwalton]

The various denominations of Christianity don't often contradict each other. Many differences in denominations pertain to how congregations govern themselves, not in what they believe. The core of what Christians believe is probably better than 80% across the board of denominations. And the disagreements that are doctrinal aren't often about the core doctrines of the faith.

Christianity has an open door; anyone can come in. A church will take the healthy and sick, the smart and stupid, black and white, man and woman, slave and free. That's what I mean. You're right that you can't call yourself a Christian if you're an atheist. That's self-contradictory. So also if you don't believe Jesus didn't exist. That's also self-contradictory.

What about the core beliefs? God exists, he is holy, righteous, eternal, transcendent, imminent, love, etc. Jesus was God incarnate, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven, where he sits on the throne of God. Salvation is by grace through faith based on the work of Christ on the cross. All Christians agree on such things.

Can you be a Christian and reject the Catholic Church? Sure.
Reject the Bible as true? No.
Not believe in heaven or hell? No. Some (few) don't believe in hell, but all believe in an afterlife.
Not believe in sin and salvation? No.
Not care about the crucifixion of Jesus? No.

[Shaggy]

> Diversity does not necessarily mean there is a fundamental flaw.

When said diversity means that there are several different versions of Christianity many of which are mutually exclusive from each other, I am afraid it does. Which version of Christianity is the true one? Because they clearly can't all be true.

[jimwalton]

Please give examples of "mutually exclusive" rather than a spreading generality. Such stereotypes and caricatures are often not accurate. At the same time I will also admit that there are some small and isolated groups of so-called Christians who are not true to the Bible, and are just Christian falsely by name. Just because someone claims to be a Christian doesn't mean they are. This is true in every movement. Every movement has its posers and fakers. But that's not how we evaluate the integrity of a movement.

The various denominations of Christianity don't often contradict each other. Many differences in denominations pertain to how congregations govern themselves, not in what they believe. The core of what Christians believe is probably better than 80% across the board of denominations. And the disagreements that are doctrinal aren't often about the core doctrines of the faith.

What about the core beliefs? God exists, he is holy, righteous, eternal, transcendent, imminent, love, etc. Jesus was God incarnate, lived a sinless life, died on the cross for our sins, rose from the dead, and ascended to heaven, where he sits on the throne of God. Salvation is by grace through faith based on the work of Christ on the cross. All Christians agree on such things.

What are the "mutually exclusive" elements to which you refer?

[Shaggy]

> What are the "mutually exclusive" elements to which you refer?

Well how about the example I raised in my post—Is God a trinity or not?

[jimwalton]

The trinity is not mutually exclusive. There are several ways it's perfectly logical. The Trinity is not an example of the law of non-contradiction because of the idea of paradox. While some things seem to be self-contradictory, there are both possible and logical ways to reconcile the alleged variance. For instance, we know that light exhibits the characteristics of a particle and of a wave. So while it is a single entity (substance), it manifests itself in various ways. It’s a paradox, but also a reality. Light doesn't contradict itself, and particles and waves aren't mutually exclusive. It manifests itself in two different ways without being a contradiction.

Another way to look at the Trinity comes from an idea posed by Sheldon Vanauken in **A Severe Mercy**. His idea was this: Suppose I write a book, and I put myself in it. The character "me" says what I would say and does what I would do. It's ME in the book. He's exactly as I am. Now, is the character in the book different from the me outside of the book? Of course he is. But is it me? Of course it is. He's all me, but he's all a separate character. I can easily be both the author and a character without compromising either. Two characters, one person, not mutually exclusive.

In addition, we know that some people view human beings as unified entities—that we have no soul or spirit—but we just are: all of me is all there is of me. Some people, however, view humans as bipartite—a body and a mind. Is that a contradiction, to think that the "mind" of me is somehow a separate entity of the "body" of me, and yet I am "me," a unified whole? Not at all. It's possible. It's difficult to know the truth and reality of such things, but it's both possible and possibly reasonable. Is this mutually exclusive? Not one bit.

In the Bible, the Trinity distinguishes between the *principle* of divine action and the *subject* of divine action. The principle of all divine action is the one undivided divine essence, but the subject of divine action is either Father, Son, or Holy Spirit. The Father can send the Son according to his power, and the Son can be incarnated according to his nature without dividing the divine essence (light, person, nature, in my 3 analogies).

Joe Boot also explains, "If God is not the triune Lord revealed in Jesus Christ, then the doctrine of creation is rendered impossible, and man is just part of a cosmic chain of being. This is because a monadic conception of God as some kind of singularity leaves us with the emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate. If there is no plurality within God's being, then there is no subject-object relationship, no particularity, only a blank unity. In such a view of God there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. Indeed, without an absolute personality, there is no diversity or distinction basic to reality at all; ultimate reality is a bare unity about which nothing may be said. This is why the Trinity is so important in tackling the philosophical problem of the one and the many. Moreover, because a denial of the Trinity leads to a denial of an absolute personality, we cannot speak coherently of the will of God. Only persons have a will. But if God has no will, then creation is not the free act of an absolute, personal God. Rather, the universe is the emanation of divine being, and what we call the universe is merely the extension of god, or, as some pagans would say, it is the body of god."

Therefore, the Trinity is both a logical and necessary part of creation, love and life, and not mutually exclusive.