Board index ‹ Christianity

[Russian Troller]

This is just special pleading. It doesnt matter how "different" each persons interpretation of god is. How that god CHOOSES to communicate is essential.

The best yahweh could do is talk to goat herders in the middle east to write on scraps of paper and the originals don't exist. So everyones fighting and theres over 45000 different denominations all from reading thesame book.

As the author, he has the responsibility to come and clear this up. But he hasn't. So either he doesnt care or he doesn't exist.

All denominations cant be correct. So 1 of them is and he just doesn't care about the rest.

[jimwalton]

I don't think it's special pleading at all. I'm trying to have a reasonable conversation with you. You'll have to identify for me where you're accusing me of special pleading. What am I ignoring? You said Christianity was like every other religion. I showed you it's not. You said the Bible is like every other religious book. I've read the other religious books and know that observation is not true. So where's the special pleading?

> The best yahweh could do is talk to goat herders in the middle east to write on scraps of paper and the originals don't exist.

Now, now. This statement shows quite a bit of misinformation. Some of the writers of the Bible were educated by the finest schools available (Moses, Daniel, Paul) and by those respected by the educated classes (Nehemiah, Daniel, Solomon).

The originals don't exist for Tacitus, Suetonius, Julius Caesar, Homer, Alexander the Great's biographers, and thousands of others, but you don't disregard or disdain them. We have very little original documentation of a majority of the ancient world, but we still regard what we have as history.

As a matter of fact, the manuscript evidence for the New Testament is sort of an embarrassment of abundance: we have so much it dwarfs all other documentation by ridiculous proportions.

> So everyones fighting and theres over 45000 different denominations all from reading thesame book.

This is a red herring. If you want to discussion accuracy of documentation, there's no reason to bring up a fabricated quantity of denominations. There are plenty of reasons for denominations, on the other hand, that have nothing to do with biblical manuscripts.

> As the author, he has the responsibility to come and clear this up. But he hasn't. So either he doesnt care or he doesn't exist.

Of course He has. Which biblical text would you like to discuss? We can examine its documentary evidence, the grammar, and the interpretation of it.

> All denominations cant be correct. So 1 of them is and he just doesn't care about the rest.

Do you mean denominations or religions? I'm not clear on that. You say only 1 denomination is correct? You need to explain what you're talking about.

[Sue Me]

If you're saying that Christian belief is rational then what are your arguments for it that cannot be equally applied to some or all other religions? For example, intelligent design isn't owned by Christianity, but could apply to any religion with a creator deity involved.

[jimwalton]

I didn't say anything about intelligent design, so we can leave that out of the conversation. You wonder why I think Christianity is rational where other religions aren't. I'll mention a few.

1. The Bible presents a world just as we see it. It presents a world where evil is real (as opposed to Hinduism, where evil is an illusion). Christianity portrays humanity as noble but hopelessly lost, moral but corruptible, both good and evil, torn between self and others, having a conscience, knowing purpose, aware of morality, acknowledging beauty, capable of creativity, but in some ways animalistic and capable of horrific behavior. We see all these things in real life.

2. The Bible portrays "religion" not as a way to earn a place in God's graces, but as God reaching out to us, to love his way into our hearts. To me this corresponds to reality, because if we have to earn our way, we are all in hopeless trouble. We've seen what people are like. But if God would just reach out to us, invite us into the kingdom, pay any sacrifices himself, and make a way for us to find him, come to him, and be redeemed, this makes sense as the only possible way someone could ever find salvation, and this is what the Bible teaches.

3. A true religion must engage the whole of the human nature, not just the mind and not just the emotions. It can't possibly just be about swaying to the music, entranced and brainless, caught up in the rhythms, spells, notions and potions (like animism). By the same token, it can't possibly just be about deep philosophy, ironing out theological conundrums, connecting intellectually with the mysteries of the universe and transcending humanity to enter the divine (like Hinduism). True religion engages the mind and can fulfill the most intellectual queries, but at the same time enjoy expression, joy, uplifting emotions and the pull of our hearts. True religion is for the scholar and the child, the rich and poor, the civilized and the barbarian, the slave and the free, the man and the woman, the scientist and the poet. Christianity conforms to these categories.

4. A true religion must make sense out of history. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity is a historical religion (in contrast to Hinduism and Buddhism) where God works in history and among history, accomplishing his purposes, involved in people's lives, bringing out the redemption of all creation.

5. A true religion must makes sense out of science. It doesn't function above it or without it, compete against it or necessarily endorse it. Christianity teaches principles of cause and effect, beauty, regularity, predictability, beauty, purpose, design, and a world in which science is not only possible but explained.

6. Christianity teaches purpose, significance in humanity, forgiveness for wrongs, life out of death, hope for the hopeless, redemption, fairness, love, beauty, a God who is there, knowledge, conscience, renewal, and meaning. I think it addresses all of these (#s 1-5) with far greater satisfaction than other religions to such a great extent that I consider Christianity to be true.

I haven't even mentioned such things as the beauty, power, and authority of the Bible, the resurrection of Jesus, and the life changes that Christianity brings to so many. Such things are convincing to me, though objects of scorn to others.

7. In addition, I gain a relationship with God. In Islam, with Allah, one worships God, but there's no relationship. God is "out there" and unknowable. In Hinduism there is no relationship, either. I am my own god. Say what?

8. In Christianity I am forgiven from my sins and my slavery to sin. This "animal" inside me can be taken away; the darkness can be replaced with light.

9. I am given new life in Christ. I am a new creation. The old has passed away; the new has come! What great news. No other religion promises new life. Hinduism promises oneness with the oneness, and Islam promises heaven with many virgins to have sex with. Seriously?

In Christianity, God changes lives. In Jesus my mind is transformed and renewed and my actions are focused to the direction of purpose and significance: the glory of God, the improvement of life, justice in the world, hope and help for the poor, and goodness toward humankind.

10. Christianity gives my life meaning and purpose. I live for the greatest cause of all: for the glory of God.

I am a Christian because I find that the evidence for Christianity is convincing. I go by evidence, not by blind faith. To me Christianity is the best explanation for the world as I see it, for life as I see it, and for the evidences I see in the Bible of its truth (historical, psychological, spiritual).

As far as other religions, I don't find the worldviews of Hinduism, Islam, or Buddhism either consistent, true to life, or fundamentally true. I've explained a little bit about these; we can talk about them further if you want.

Islam that doesn't make sense to me is the radical transcendence of Allah: the distance between man and God is impossible to cross. Repetition and submission are the rule, not any kind of a relationship. And there is no certainty of heaven for the common person. It is all "the will of God," they say. One's destiny is left at the mercy of an unknown and unknowable will. That's doesn't make sense to me. Zacharias says, "When relationship is swallowed up by rules, political power and enforcement become the means of containment." That's Islam, and we've seen that to be true.

Islam is a religion of the Book, as opposed to Christianity, which focuses on the person of Jesus. But how does one hold that the written text is perfect (which it is not; there are textual variants)? Also, Jesus didn't come to give a certain group of people ethnic worth. That's Islam. Jesus loved the world and came to save the world.

To me, Hinduism also comes up lacking. They believe in the relativity of truth and not absolute truth. But how do they know that's absolutely true? They believe that there was no creator; we are the emanation of the divine. But then there's no diversity, particularity, or personality, which doesn't correspond to reality. They believe that evil and suffering are an illusion (we both know that isn't true). They define morality not as doing or being good, but as denying oneself. Hinduism just doesn't meet the criteria of truth in my mind.

I'm obviously willing to discuss any of this more. Just let me know.

[Russian Troller]

Lets say i take 10 magicians and line them up and ask them to pull something out of a hat.

9 of them pull out a bunny but the last one pulls out a cat.

What you're doing is saying the last one is true because he pulled out a cat.

You've asserted your religion is correct because it already agrees with your preference of what god is. It has no relevance to the truth.

We dont debate all other historical books because "special claims REQUIRE special evidence." Any god should know that. The evidence required to prove i have a cat is exponentially less than to prove a jewish man rose from the dead and became God. The fact that the originals don't exist say plenty towards your Gods efforts to preserve the truth.

Already many new testament scholars admit that very important parts of the gospels would not have been in the originals. Marks ressurection account The woman in adultery. To name a few.

And many scholars agree that most of the works of Josephus were forgeries by followers of Jesus. If they were willing to do this. It already casts doubt on the whole narrative.

Also, you missed my point when i said God hasn't cleared it up. What i mean is that, there should be an announcement by God clearing up all the contradictory, vague, and difficult to interpret portions of the bible. We have had churches split because verses could be interpreted 2 different ways.

I dont care how you want to interpret it. Its is just as reasonable as the other church down the street.

There are over 45000 denominations of christianity. They cant all be correct. They can all be wrong. God hasn't said anything about that. So place your bets.

[jimwalton]

> What you're doing is saying the last one is true because he pulled out a cat.

That's not what I'm saying at all.

> You've asserted your religion is correct because it already agrees with your preference of what god is. It has no relevance to the truth.

I never asserted this at all.

> "special claims REQUIRE special evidence."

No they don't. They require accurate evidence. As long as the evidence is reliable and true, it doesn't matter how special it is. As a matter of fact, Occam's Razor would lead us to believe the more straightforward and simple, the more likelihood of its being true.

> Already many new testament scholars admit that very important parts of the gospels would not have been in the originals. Marks ressurection account The woman in adultery. To name a few.

Mark's resurrection account is original. Mark 16.9-20 are not—everyone knows that. So also John 7.52-8.11. You say "to name a few." The problem is, you can't name more. We all know about these two. It doesn't detract from the rest.

Which text would you like to discuss?

> And many scholars agree that most of the works of Josephus were forgeries by followers of Jesus. If they were willing to do this. It already casts doubt on the whole narrative.

It is a theory that part of the works of Josephus were redacted by Christians, and we generally know which pieces they are. So why does that cast doubt on the New Testament? I say it doesn't. It's a separate work of writing that has to be judged on its own merit.

> there should be an announcement by God clearing up all the contradictory, vague, and difficult to interpret portions of the bible. We have had churches split because verses could be interpreted 2 different ways.

So what text would you like to discuss? Let's be done with generalities and floating accusations and dig into a good discussion.

> There are over 45000 denominations of christianity. They cant all be correct. They can all be wrong. God hasn't said anything about that. So place your bets.

My Google search shows about 10K denominations. Most of them have minor differences with each other. You're right that they can't all be correct, but most of the time we don't have to decide between them. The differences are minute. So what does that have to do with anything? We don't pledge ourselves to denominations, we pledge ourselves to God. We don't follow a denominational constitution, but the Bible. I've worshipped in Baptist, Presbyterian, Methodist, Charismatic, Congregational, and Brethren churches. As long as they follow the Bible, we're good.

So let's talk about why you seem so angry and attacking. What Scripture would you like to discuss?

[Sue Me]

1) The Bible presents a world as we see it because it was written by people. You say the Bible plays nice with science, but it doesn't, as science has found that the world is not as we see it. Science aside, why should the one true religion contain little esoteric information? Why should it be straightforward and relatively down to earth? There's no reason it ought to make tons of sense, but a religion which makes less sense is harder to convert people to.

2) This point really irks me. You're reasoning from the assumption that the Bible is true. I asked you what makes you think the religion is true, and the answer cannot be "assuming the Bible is true, it makes perfect sense." Also, God paying any sacrifices himself? The sacrifices are to him. He required the sacrifices. Him forgiving a debt he forced us into isn't that heroic.

3) All religions engage emotion, and only some engage intellectual thought in any meaningful sense. Christianity to me encourages intellectual pursuits like training wheels encourage properly riding a bike. You shouldn't be able to sit motionless on a bike and without falling over. You shouldn't be able to do zero intellectual work and have every question answered. God being mysterious, being perfect, being love, and being the basis of all morality is training wheels for intellectual pursuits. Lose your balance and run into a question you don't have the answer to? The answer is God is good. The answer is God is just. Why do bad things happen? God is just. God is a mystery. Etc. For an example of this, just look at Descartes' meditations and how he just slapped God in there.

4) I don't really get what this means honestly. Make sense out of history? Does history not make sense..?

5) I touched on this before, but Christianity and science do not play nice. Not only that, but you say a true religion can't function without science. Yes it can, and Christianity existed without science no problem, as did Jesus. Jesus never said anything about science. Miracles fundamentally go against science. If Jesus heals a blind man, the question of how he did it has no scientific answer. Obviously this is all putting Genesis aside.

6) I think most religions seek to give purpose and answers to life's big questions. Of course you think your religion does it best, but you're biased there, right?

7) I would argue that the relationship thing is overblown and is more something people say than something the Bible says. Idk, maybe Paul says it, but I don't know that Jesus does.

8) All humans are animals and nothing can change that. Animals don't sin, so idk how you're relating those two things anyways. This whole point presumes sin exists.

9) The rebirth thing is entirely symbolic. It's not as though becoming a Christian stops a person from sinning, from having some immoral desires. Also, not unique to Christianity. Buddhism has a self-actualization that can be attained, but it takes effort to get.

10) Again, this is the purpose of most religions.

I would like you to say more about Buddhism.

[jimwalton]

> 1) The Bible presents a world as we see it because it was written by people.

See, I disagree with this. I read lots of things written by humans that don't describe the world as we see it. Internet sites about conspiracy theories are one. Hinduism is a big one. Lots of journalism (fake news) is clearly not true. The question is: can humans actually write accurately? I think they can, which means that just because it was written by humans doesn't mean it's inaccurate or untrustworthy. Nor does writing present the world as we see it because it was written by people.

> You say the Bible plays nice with science, but it doesn't, as science has found that the world is not as we see it.

I disagree. The Bible and science are perfectly compatible. God created the natural world, and God is the source of the Bible, so the two can't contradict and don't.

> why should the one true religion contain little esoteric information?

Because the point is not to give us esoteric information for elites (like Gnosticism), but to reveal God. If God wants a relationship with us, then He has to reveal Himself. The object is not hidden and inscrutable riddles, but showing us who God is.

> This point really irks me. You're reasoning from the assumption that the Bible is true.

My reasoning is how the Bible corresponds to reality. I don't believe the Bible is true because it says it is (which is just circular reasoning), I believe the Bible is true because it squares with logic. If we have to find our way to God by being good enough or astute enough, then God is just for the elites, which is illogical and harsh.

> Christianity to me encourages intellectual pursuits like training wheels encourage properly riding a bike.

Are you kidding? Some of the greatest minds of history have devoted themselves to the understanding and elucidate of Christianity and Christian thoughts.

> 4) I don't really get what this means honestly. Make sense out of history? Does history not make sense..?

Christianity is the only historical religion. Hinduism is philosophical, and it has no intersection with historical events, nor does it attempt to interpret what is happening in real life. Islam, similarly, is more proverbial than historical. But Christianity, at every turn, is telling us: Here is what happened in history, and here's how we can understand that.

> 5) I touched on this before, but Christianity and science do not play nice.

Copernicus, Galileo, Kepler, Newton, and Pascal were all believers. Science was born out of Christian Europe and from the Christian community. How can you say Christianity and science do not play nice? Even scientists today, such as Francis Collins, head of the Human Genome project, and Jennifer Wiseman, director of the Hubble telescope, are Christians.

> Jesus never said anything about science.

This doesn't mean Jesus was anti-science or inimical to it. It just means Jesus's mission was not a scientific one. He was trying to tell people how to have a relationship with God, so science wasn't in His speeches.

> Miracles fundamentally go against science.

In a sense yes, and in a sense no. Some miracles are very natural events with precision timing (the earthquake that knocked out part of Jericho's walls, or the east wind that parted the Reed Sea). Some miracles are science on fast forward (like wine from water or healings). Others are contrary to what we know about science, but not necessarily against it (walking on water—we know that various situations can change the viscosity and surface tension of water, such as non-Newtonian fluids; resurrection—we know the Pyrrharctia Isabella [wooly bear caterpillar] ceases all life functions for months at a time and then "resurrects" in the spring). And some categories of miracles are contrary to anything we know about science (floating axeheads).

Miracles are supernatural exceptions to the regularity and predictability of the universe, and therefore not common occurrences, but they are not necessarily fundamentally against science.

> 6) I think most religions seek to give purpose and answers to life's big questions. Of course you think your religion does it best, but you're biased there, right?

No, I'm not biased. It's because I examined the evidences and inferred the most reasonable conclusion.

> This whole point presumes sin exists.

I don't have to presume sin exists. I just have to watch the evening news; it gets confirmed with every broadcast.

> 9) The rebirth thing is entirely symbolic.

This just shows me you haven't experienced it. It's not symbolic at all. I've heard people share what kind of person they were before coming to Christ and what kind of person they were afterward. I've seen the change. It's not symbolic at all, but very real.

> I would like you to say more about Buddhism.

Buddhism is not a religion at all, but rather a philosophy of life, mostly pertaining to enlightenment and suffering. There is no deity in Buddhism, and Siddhartha Gautama was an avowed atheist.

There are many similarities between Buddhist and Christian morals. Both are to abstain from killing, stealing, forbidden sex, lying, and the use of illicit drugs, for instance. Buddhists, like Christians, believe in right thoughts, right actions, right speech, and right efforts, among other things.

One basic difference is that in Buddhism, ultimate reality is non-personal, and so social relationships are not the primary concern. Buddhism in that sense is anti-social because it is non-relational. Social relationships in Christianity, however, are an important part of their moral system. Christians believe that morally we should love one another, help one another, feed the poor, visit the sick, and give of ourselves for the welfare of others. These are not Buddhist ideas. Buddhism therefore has no concept of social justice, as Christianity does. And that's a BIG difference. Justice in society is a large part of Christian morality.