Board index ‹ Bible

[Primate]

I understand why you say Islam is a knock-off of Christianity, but how about Judaism? I don't think that there is reason enough to consider something a false religion for the lack of a down-to-earth model of God. Many religions have relationships with transcendent deities without a problem.

Unto your points:

1. Why must God be all of those things? Any theological system corresponds with reality as we know it, otherwise they would've been cast aside almost as soon as they didn't correspond with reality. Deism, pantheism, polytheism, it all works just as well. There is no one size shoe that fits God.

2. What do you mean unlike other religions? The problem of evil and suffering (how to overcome it, why it exists) is a fundamental building block of every religion. " . It 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." -- What religion does not portray humanity that way?

3. " To me this corresponds to reality, because if we have to earn our way, we are all in hopeless trouble. " -- Maybe, if God expected absolute perfection from us. But many religions believe we are meant to better ourselves, to have our good outweigh our bad - not necessarily to be completely sinless, but to not let sin be the ultimatum of our lives, which anyone who isn't completely pessimistic should believe any man is capable of if they have enough willpower.

4. There are many religions out there that have this trait. Hinduism doesn't expect you to be a scholar, Buddhism doesn't. Judaism has strict guidelines to converting to the religion but any other religion I can think of doesn't require scholarship at all. Anyone can be a monk/scholar of any religion if they want to dig deep enough into it, but you don't necessarily have to be.

5. Many religions have incarnation concept, in Hinduism there are handfuls of avatars that have came to Earth, I would say that's God interacting in history, at least as much as we can prove YHWH did.

6. The Bible isn't exactly a science textbook. There are many things that in fact go against science by the name of miracles. It has nothing to do with science. " Christianity teaches principles of cause and effect, beauty, regularity, predictability, beauty, purpose, design, and a world in which science is possible. " -- What do any of those things have to do with science?

7. "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." -- Doesn't every religion teach those things? "I think it addresses all of these (#s 1-7) with far greater satisfaction than other religions to such a great extent that I consider Christianity to be true. " -- Well, if you think so, that's great, but why do you feel it addresses those things better? What makes you more correct than a Hindu who thinks Hinduism addresses such things better?

[jimwalton]

> Judaism

Judaism is the glorious lead-up that points to Christianity. It's the prequel to the filling up that Jesus brings.

> Why must God be all of those things?

If God is the ideal and perfection of being, then He must be all those things. If any of them were absent, He could not be God, for something would be lacking.

> What do you mean unlike other religions? The problem of evil and suffering (how to overcome it, why it exists) is a fundamental building block of every religion

Hinduism, for instance, denies the reality of evil, which I find to be problematic in accepting Hinduism as true. Buddhism mostly finds evil as the defining element of existence, which I also find problematic.

> What religion does not portray humanity that way

Hinduism.

> But many religions believe we are meant to better ourselves, to have our good outweigh our bad

Yes, and I find this to be a problem—a defeater. I have no issue with us trying to better ourselves and to have our good outweigh the bad, but that means God has to have an arbitrary cut-off point where this person with 49 points doesn't get in, but the guy with 50 points does.

> There are many religions out there that have this trait

Hinduism and Buddhism are both philosophical religions. They appeal to the mind but not the emotions. Islam appeals to regimen and to power, not to relationships. Christianity is the only one that appeals to and involves the whole person.

> Many religions have incarnation concept

Not really. In Hinduism, the god Vishnu is said to have ten avatars, or incarnations. Some are non-human (a fish, a turtle, and a boar), while others are human beings, including Rama, Krishna, and Buddha.

Siddhartha Gautama was supposedly born to a virgin who was impregnated by a white elephant.

Mithras was not said to live as a man, despite his supposed incarnation.

Christianity is quite unique in its incarnation narrative.

> The Bible isn't exactly a science textbook.

Of course not. I didn't claim it was, but only that it makes sense out of science.

> There are many things that in fact go against science by the name of miracles. It has nothing to do with science.

The Bible has everything to do with science, and nothing that goes against it. Science tells us the universe has a beginning, so does the Bible. Science tells us the cosmos is orderly, regular, purposeful, and predictable, which we would expect from a personal, purposeful, intelligent source. Science tells us that informational data only comes from previous informational data, an idea that squares with theism. Etc.

As far as miracles, classical physics tells us how the world works assuming there is no outside force in action. It does not and cannot prove there is no outside force. Quantum mechanics is even more adjusted to the idea of miracles because of its mannerisms of indeterminism.

> What do any of those things have to do with science?

They have everything to do with science. Key components of the scientific method depend on order, regularity, predictability and reproducibility.

> Doesn't every religion teach those things?

No. Buddhism doesn't teach anything about hope, redemption or forgiveness. Hinduism doesn't teach meaning, fairness, renewal, or meaning. Islam doesn't teach forgiveness or fairness.

> why do you feel it addresses those things better?

Hopefully I've explained.

> What makes you more correct than a Hindu who thinks Hinduism addresses such things better?

I have a lot of logical problems with Hinduism. To me Hinduism is weighed in the balances and comes up lacking.

RELATIVITY. Hindus seem to believe in the relativity of truth. They can believe that there is one god, 330 million gods, or no god at all. Or they believe that we are gods or can be gods, or that god is in each of us, and each of us is a part of god. As a believer in objective truth, these can't all be true. They contradict each other, and it is inconsistent to me.

And yet Hindus seek after truth to discover ultimate reality. I sense a disconnect and a contradiction. The Upanishads, where mystical experience and intuition override reason and even cast doubt on the possibility of knowing ultimate truth, is inconsistent to me. Hinduism doesn't seem to be a commitment to propositional truth or to the world as an object of reason.

Ghandi said, "God is truth and truth is God." What does that mean? It doesn't say whether the existence of God is true or false.

NATURE AND CREATION. If the universe is not the creation of a personal God, but is rather a sort of unconscious emanation from the divine, then we have no legitimate subject-object relationships, no particularity, but only a blank unity. In such a view there can be no foundation for knowledge, love, morality, or ethics. 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.

EVIL. If Hinduism teaches that evil is an illusion that can be overcome by meditation, to me that is inconsistent with reality. I have found evil to be very, very real.

SUFFERING. Compassion motives me to do what I can to alleviate the sufferings of other people, but if suffering is paying back one's karma and we should just ignore the suffering in other people, to me that is callous and inhumane. And if all human suffering is deserved, are there no good people, truly spiritual people who escape it?

Hinduism sees life as basically painful and full of distress, and yet the supreme Brahman has no part of this insufferable universe. It seems cruel to me. It seems fundamentally anti-social. Its inherent caste system designates some people as outcasts because they were born into the wrong family. There is no vision where we show compassion to humanity, try to right wrongs, heal hurts, or even overcome injustices or inequalities. There is no apparent concern for humans as real persons.

AFTERLIFE. We are to seek the self (Atman) behind and within the body and the senses, but then we are supposed to dissolve all personality into the unimaginable abyss of Brahman. So I don't get it: are we to find ourselves or dissolve (full renunciation) ourselves?

MORALITY: It seems (and please correct me) that morality is to be found in denying oneself all forms of material, emotion, and even spiritual rewards and property. To me that is not morality. Morality, instead, is active goodness combined with passive restraint.

SPIRITUAL PROGRESS. One progresses in spiritual depth by good works, hoping to improve one's karma. To me the idea of earning one's way into God's favor is simply a losing proposition, especially if there are no good people on the earth, if evil isn't real, and if morality is denial of self.

PERSONALITY. Since humans are personal, it makes sense to me that we have a personal source, a personal Creator, not an impersonal Brahman of ultimate reality.

UNION WITH THE DIVINE. In Hinduism we are to seek union with the divine, but a Hindu can't tell me who are "we," who is the "divinity," who is the "self," or how real any of this is. Why union with the divine if I'm already part and parcel of the divine universe? My deluded self is supposed to cease to be deluded so that I emerge as the real self. At the same time the god ended up in embryonic form while I became full grown, so that I will give him the privilege of birth and lose my humanity to find my divinity. No wonder I'm confused. Union with the impersonal absolute defies language, reason, and existential realities. It doesn't satisfy any longing for relationship. It doesn't seem either philosophically or theologically coherent. But all the while I'm supposed to deify myself while diffusing myself.

SCRIPTURES: I'm supposed to move to the supreme truth that I am identical with God, but Hindus point to their Scriptures as truth. But Hindus can't claim that all ways true for the simple reason that other religions deny the eternal truth of the Vedas. Even some Hindus do.

In addition...

• I find the sexual playfulness of Krishna and his exploits with milkmaids to be problematic.
• I read that some respected Hindu philosophers and thinkers consider it to be one of the most contradictory system of life's purpose ever expounded.

REINCARNATION: From a Hindu perspective, attaining Nirvana is not often achieved by humans. Though it is the goal, few there be that find it. What that means, however, is that reincarnation for most people is an ENDLESS cycle of meaninglessness. Beings circle through an eternal chain of human being, animal, insect, cow—whatever—in search of the almost impossible to grasp golden ring of Nirvana. Each cycle is weighed according to “goodness” as to whether or not one advances upward in the line or downward, but how can one be a good cat or a good bug? And since they are told in life that life and even their station in life is determined by fate (karma), and it cannot be changed (and they shouldn’t try), their theology teaches them they are hopelessly caught in a meaningless string of determined life cycles that they cannot alter, from which they will likely never escape, and therefore, at core, life for most is ultimately meaningless.

I find Hinduism inconsistent and not true to life.

[Jarold]

> Anybody can say anything they want. And anyone can believe anything they want. The proof is in the evidence.

And there is insufficient evidence to justify belief that any of them are true, that's why acceptance is actually based on geography.

[jimwalton]

Obviously I disagree with you, since I find the evidence for the Bible compelling, but it does no good to speak in generalities. There is quite a bit of justification for regarding the Bible as true. What part of it would you like to discuss?

> why acceptance is actually based on geography.

I'm not convinced this is valid. Christianity is global and ubiquitous. It is the world's largest religion, on every continent and virtually every people group. It is expanding rapidly in places like China, Iran, and North Korea, where it is severely persecuted.

[Jarold]

And yet even within Christianity there are thousands of denominations that don't agree.

Do you believe jesus is a god because he rose from the dead, or do you believe he rose from the dead because he's a god?

[jimwalton]

> And yet even within Christianity there are thousands of denominations that don't agree.

Christianity is a wonderfully diverse body. We agree on the essentials and have tolerance and freedom on the negotiables. I find this to be a strength, not a weakness. We are thinking people, not robots or lemmings. There is plenty of berth in Christianity for a variety of positions and beliefs. A strength of Christianity is that it can flex to reflect the times and the culture. The Church in Africa can look very different from the Church in Asia, and that's OK as long as the core is intact, which it is. This is not a problem.

> Do you believe jesus is a god because he rose from the dead, or do you believe he rose from the dead because he's a god?

He rose from the dead because He's God. He was God before He came to Earth. He was God before He rose from the dead. His resurrection confirmed the truth of His teachings and the power of His life over death.

[Green Hornet]

Let's take a test case. Jesus takes Peter, who has an ongoing problem with belief, out for a walk on the Sea of Galilee. I see two interpretations for someone from a Jewish theological background writing that:

A) It's a metaphor for what you could accomplish if you had faith.

B) There are two humans in all of recorded history who have walked on water, and the three paragraphs in the Bible that give different events and quotations are all we need to be assured of that.

Does the latter particularly correspond with: Reality? Historical corroboration? The human condition? Logic?

[jimwalton]

The only reason to think of it as a metaphor is if what is written incompatible with reality. But science tells us that the viscosity of water is changeable in certain situations, for instance, creating a non-newtonian fluid capable of being walked on. Fluids in this case can exhibit time-dependent viscosity.

Matthew records the event as if it were a historical event. We have to look at the event to see if that's the author's intent and possible within the context.

First, we clearly have no material evidence; the water didn't retain footprints for 2000 years (if even for 2000ths of a second). We have to then look to assess whether Matthew has credibility as an author, which his historical and cultural narratives would lead us to believe that he is. Third, if Jesus is God (not yet proven in my paragraph here), then walking on the water is for Him no different than walking on land, and changing the viscosity of the water for Peter to walk on it for a brief time is neither out of the question theologically nor scientifically.

So, does looking at the event as literal historical correspond with reality? Possibly, since we know there are a variety of situations where the viscosity and surface tension of water can be modified to support the weight of a human being.

Does the event have historical corroboration? No. We have the report of an eyewitness (Matthew), and that's all we have to evaluate it. But if we assess Matthew's reliability as a historian, there is nothing in his Gospel that has ever been proved to be wrong or false.

Does the event speak to the human condition? Yes. Peter was both bold and fearful, trusting and doubting. Many people share this kind of ambivalence and insecurity in the midst of their attempts at trust.

Is the event logical? It's logical that if Jesus were God, He would want to show humans what they were capable of if endowed by God's power. It's logical that if Jesus were God, He would be able to alter the viscosity of the water surface. Is it logical that a personality like Peter would ask such an outrageous question? Yep.

All in all we have a possible if not plausible account. There's no way to prove it, but in cases like this we deal in probabilities, not certainties. Given that we can perceive Matthew as a reliable source, that we know the viscosity of water can change, that if Jesus were God this would be simple, the story has both plausibility and possible authenticity.

But it's not just on the basis of 3 paragraphs in the Bible. This story is part of a much larger context and framework. It doesn't stand alone. When we do a scientific experiment where gravity is a factor, we stand on the shoulders of Newton and Einstein; the experiment doesn't have to stand alone, as if that's all we need to be assured of that. We take it as a contextual part of a sum total of ALL we know.

[Washington]

> One of the things about 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. Zacharias says, "When relationship is swallowed up by rules, political power and enforcement become the means of containment." We've seen that to be true.

As far as regards the bolded sentence, your assertion that "...there is no certainty of heaven for the common person." Please find below a quotation from Imam Nawawi taken from Sharh Muslim in which he comments on narrations from the life of Muhammad:

"Rather it is inevitable that all of those who affirm the Oneness of Allah will enter Paradise, either initially or later on, after some of those who committed major sins and died whilst persisting in them have been punished. And it was said that he will not enter Paradise with the pious in the first group to enter."

The narrations are as follows:

"Whoever says Laa ilaaha ill-Allah and has in his heart goodness the weight of a grain of barley will be brought out of Hell, then whoever says Laa ilaaha ill-Allah and has in his heart goodness the weight of a grain of wheat will be brought out of Hell, then whoever says Laa ilaaha ill-Allah and has in his heart goodness the weight of an atom (or a small ant) will be brought out of Hell.” Bukhari 44, Muslim 193
​
“No one will enter Paradise in whose heart is an atom’s weight of arrogance and no one will enter Hell in whose heart is an atom’s weight of faith.” A man said: What if I like my clothes to look nice and my shoes to look nice? He said: “Verily Allah loves beauty; rather arrogance means rejecting the truth and looking down on people.” At-Tirmidhi (1999), Abu Dawood (4091), Ibn Majaah (59)
​
It is important to note that this is the way the religion is understood by the adherents.

[jimwalton]

Thanks for the correction. I'll make a note of that in my notes.

It still disturbs me, however, that: How can one ever tell whether one has an atom's weight of arrogance? If that will keep one out of Paradise, can one ever be sure one will enter? Someone may affirm the oneness of Allah, and have been punished for their sins, but if he or she still has an atom's weight of arrogance...? So (I'm genuinely curious), how does that work? Am I to assume that the time of punishment will inevitably purge the arrogance so that all may be admitted to Paradise? If so, the last quote is quite meaningless. If not, the first quote is disingenuous. I'm just wondering (really).