Board index ‹ Christianity

[jimwalton]

Thank you for your reply. I'm aware Buddhism arose in India, and it arose out of a Hindu context and their belief system, sort of as a branch, but some would say a cult, since Buddhism denies any divine beings that are sometimes part of Hinduism. Buddhism is more a philosophy of life rather than a religion, per se, since Buddhism is a-theistic. It is based, I'm sure you know, in the four Noble Truths, and the noble Eightfold Path, none of which has anything to do with a deity of any sort. It teaches the law of cause and effect (karma) and morality. There is no G(g)od or supreme creator. Gautama Buddha took the Hindu understandings of his upbringing and cultural context, purged them of certain divine elements, changed others, and so Buddhism was born as a branch (but more accurately detached) of Hinduism.

[Got Game]

I see why you choose Christianity now, although I'm not sure if I understand all of your philosophical points.

Point 1: All knowing and powerful yes, but why loving? The "God" can just as easily be not caring. We're but one planet among trillions in a galaxy among trillions of others. Potentially one universe among an infinite amount. We frequently say that God is so far beyond our understanding yet also give him human characteristics like being loving. Also you say he plays by his own rules but I'm not sure if I agree. His doings like leading crusades, flooding the world, and making a bet with Satan (Book of Job) would send any human to hell, but we give him a pass for being almighty.

Points 4-6: Why? How do you say what a true religion should be like? If I were to say something like "A true religion involves mind, emotions, AND a 5 day workout routine. It must be 100% historically accurate but also needs to be completely mystical without science", what exactly would make your points more valid than mine? Or are these simply your own beliefs which happen to line up with Christianity? I do understand where you come from on these points, but I just want to know the "why".

Thank you for your response.

[jimwalton]

> All knowing and powerful yes, but why loving? The "God" can just as easily be not caring

If God is truly the ideal being, and if perfectly moral and good, then "loving" is necessarily one of His essential attributes. A God who is cruel, apathetic, or malicious is neither ideal, moral, or good. So it's self-contradictory if God is not loving & caring.

> We're but one planet among trillions in a galaxy among trillions of others.

True

> Potentially one universe among an infinite amount.

This is way more speculative, and there is no evidence for multiverses, but I get your point: We are but a speck in an immense vastness.

> We frequently say that God is so far beyond our understanding yet also give him human characteristics like being loving.

Yes, a God that is not personal could not have created. Creation requires a subject/object relationship (or else everything is a meaningless unity in which there is no diversity). If there is no subject/object relationship, we are left with a vast emptiness and void of non-personality as ultimate reality. In such a view of God there is no foundation for knowledge, love, or morality.

But since humans have personality, and we are separate from other objects, then there is such a thing as subject/object relationship, and therefore God (assuming He exists because we're discussing his attributes) is personal. And since we know there is such a thing as knowledge, love, and morality, then God must necessarily be personal. That's why the Bible gives God characteristics that humans also have in common with Him. It's necessary.

> Also you say he plays by his own rules but I'm not sure if I agree. His doings like leading crusades, flooding the world, and making a bet with Satan (Book of Job) would send any human to hell, but we give him a pass for being almighty.

God didn't lead the Crusades. That was a human undertaking.

The Flood was a just judgment on people who were corrupt beyond repair. I don't have a problem with a judge condemning wrong.

God didn't make a bet with Satan (book of Job). The book of Job is a legal case brought against God. The satan (the challenger) is the prosecutor in the courtroom, and Job (and thus all humanity) is the "evidence." It's not a bet.

> Why? How do you say what a true religion should be like?

Because reason tells us that for a religion to be actually authentically true, it must encompass and engage all of our beings (physical, mental, emotional, and spiritual) and not just split us into pieces. We are human beings, not test dummies or car parts.

A religion that doesn't make sense out of history is one that doesn't engage real life. How can that be true?

A religion that doesn't make sense out of science doesn't correspond to reality. How can that be true?

If God is really there, the implications are huge. He has to be personal, as we are. He has to reveal Himself. He has to engage real life and correspond to reality. If there really is a God, then we can't just make Him whatever we want Him to be. If He corresponds to reality, then He corresponds to reality, and there are many certain inevitable and necessary components to His being.

[Got Game]

The subject/object is a really good take. I still feel like the reasons for religion encompassing mind/body/soul are slightly opinionated. Not saying that I completely disagree with you, but it still seems to come down to individual opinions on the meaning of life and God and what not, you feel? Your elaboration was very insightful though, I'll be thinking about these concepts for a while now.