Board index ‹ Christianity

[Cogitate]

Why should your religion be treated with more respect or seriousness than a new religion being developed in the present? For example, I hereby create the Church of Suspiciously Convenient Revelation. God speaks to me, and I am his prophet, but all of his divine revelations will appear to non-believers as self-serving and obviously made up bullshit. But it's my religion. Is there any reason my religion should be treated as less valid, or my belief less sincere? Should I be granted religious exemptions from common rules?

Because I cannot think of one single reason why your old religion should be considered any better than my new one. I can invent hundreds of new religions in an afternoon, and I'd consider them all just as good as christianity. I can write nonsense on a napkin and it would be just as sacred to me as your scripture is to you.

[jimwalton]

Christianity is the only viable religious worldview that is historically defensible, in contrast to your "Church of Suspiciously Convenient Revelation." The central claims of the Bible demand historic inquiry, since they are based on public events that could be falsified (and some are still subject to that kind of scrutiny). In contrast, the central claims of all other religions, yours included, cannot be historically tested and, therefore, are beyond falsifiability or inquiry. They just have to be believed with blind faith, which means Christianity should be treated with more respect and seriousness.

Think about it: The believer in the Islamic faith has to trust in a private encounter Muhammad had, and this encounter is unable to be tested historically. We have no way to truly investigate the claims of Joseph Smith (and when we do, they don't hold up). Buddhism and Hinduism are not historic faiths, meaning that they don’t have central claims of events in time and space that can be investigated. So also with your religion, or any new religion. You either adopt their philosophy or you don't. There is no objective way to test them. Run through every religion that you know of and you will find this to be the case: Either it does not give historic details to the central event, the event does not carry any worldview-changing significance, or there are no historic events which form the foundation of the faith. But this is not what Christianity is.

And this makes sense. If you decided to start a religion, as you have proposed, deceptively or not, you would not make false claims to recent historic events that did not happen. Why? Because you know that these claims could be tested. More than that, you wouldn't give details about the time, place, and people involved. More than that, you wouldn't invite contemporaries to investigate these claims. For example, if I were to say today that in 1965 there was a man named Titus who was born in Guthrie, OK, and traveled around Oklahoma City doing many miracles and gaining a significant following, this could be easily falsified. I would not say that Mary Fallin, the governor of Oklahoma, along with Tom Coburn, US Senator from Oklahoma, had Titus electrocuted. I would not detail that it was in Bricktown on January 13, 1968 at 9 am. Then, added to this, to claim that Titus rose from the dead and gained a significant following throughout Oklahoma City which has spread across America. Why wouldn’t I make these claims as the foundation of my new religion? Because they can be easily tested and falsified. This religion couldn't possibly get off the ground. If I were to make up a religion, all the events which support the religion (if any) would be private and beyond testing, like yours.

This is why you don't have any other religion based on historic events. They are all, with the exception of Christianity, based on private encounters which cannot be falsified or subjective ideas that are beyond inquiry. The amazing thing about Christianity is that there is so much historic data to be tested. Christianity is, by far, the most falsifiable worldview there is. Yet, despite this, Christianity flourished in the first century among the very people who could test its claims. And even today, it invites us to "come and see" if the claims are true.

That's at least one of the reasons Christianity should be considered any better than your new one. You can invent hundreds of religions in an afternoon, but they don't have the element of verifiability that Christianity has. And your nonsense on a napkin is just that: nonsense. Or it even might be wise moral teaching or good philosophy. But Christianity has a historical element to it that the Church of Suspiciously Convenient Revelation conveniently lacks.

[Dance the Tango]

Which is what exactly, besides none?

[jimwalton]

Wow, I'm surprised by this reply. Hm. We could start in the Old Testament and just trace it right through.

Genesis: The cities mentioned have been found in the era of the early 2nd millennium BC. Genesis's descriptions of cultural practices, religious practices, people groups, and geography have all been confirmed.

Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers, Deuteronomy: All of the cultural and religious elements, along with the political situation and geopolitical dynamics have all been confirmed. Exodus's description of Egyptian culture is right on target. Numbers's description of the wilderness wanderings is right on target.

Joshua: The Conquest of Canaan has been confirmed. The burned cities of Hazor and Lachish, et al., have been found. The settlement of a new people group in the hill country has been confirmed, and their failure to conquer the flatlands has been confirmed.

1 Samuel - 2 Chronicles. Many many many historical, geographical, political, cultural, and religious claims made by the Bible have been corroborated by archaeology. This list would be a long one.

Psalms - The Tell Dan Stela, discovered in 1995, evidences the existence of David.

The Gospels are filled with historically, culturally, geographically, politically, and religiously correct details.

The writings of Paul are widely considered as authored by him and reliable accounts.

In answer to your disparagement, there are thousands upon thousands of historically-verified details, places, events, references, people, and practices in the Bible.

[You may worship me]

I don't think you understand the word falsifiable.

[jimwalton]

I would be pleased to have a discussion with you. You may just be surprised by what I understand. Possibly we need to start with concepts like "falsifiable" and "defensible," or maybe you would just like to talk in more specifics using examples from the Bible of your own choosing. In either case, let's talk.

[Quicksilver]

Thank you for being an educated voice on this forum. It's refreshing to see someone using objective fact based on personal knowledge and experience rather than platitudes gained by second-hand knowledge.

Too many people speak from a place of severe ignorance, and when I spot the ones who live above that, I greatly appreciate reading what they have to say.

[jimwalton]

Well, thank you for your kind words and encouragement. I appreciate that you took the time to say that.