The Case for Christianity

[steve_bank]

My understanding, from the Bible, is that you don't have to believe in God in order to get into heaven. God exists, whether you believe it or not. And if you believe that our universe is governed by rules, and that we should live morally, you believe in God, whether you know it or not. And if you live that way, you will go to heaven, whether you want to or not.

Got it so you're just another arrogant piece of shit who assumes they know other peoples' beliefs are without asking them.

Yeah, that is kinda what it looks like to me.

@Brunswick1954 is yet another Internet pundit who thinks that they know more about God and the Bible than the Pope and Billy Graham put together.

Weird. I don't get that at all. I could sit and have a beer with Brunswick.

Claiming that if we have morality we believe in god is literally on the same level of bad faith as William Lane Craig. I could not "have a beer" with someone so dishonest. That's not someone who is friendly, either. A friendly person would not assert I need god in order to have morality.

Of course, he does seem to mean a literal God, but as I said, for me, that’s just silly, and not intentionally insulting.

Again, don't give a single shit if it's intentional or not. There are people who have been through religious abuse and many of them are rather tired of being told how worthless they are because they don't have god in their life. I haven't been through religious abuse myself though, just regular old abuse. However, I can empathize with them.

They say sometimes a laxative can improve a cranky disposition.

 

[WAB]

And also there's no real way I can "prove" I am moral, philosophically speaking. But neither is there a way to prove I am "immoral" either.

I think you've already proven that you are a moral person many times over, GM.

 

[bilby]

So far, I've based my arguments on the Bible

You say that like it's a good thing.

But it's not. It is like trying to defend the claim that your favorite football team is the best team ever, by basing your arguments on your favourite articles from their fan magazine.

Sure, the Bible supports Christianity. Nobody ever thought otherwise.

But why should we agree with either Christians or their Bible? If we accept that Christianity is somehow the "right" set of beliefs, because the Bible says so; And we trust the Bible because, as Christians, we believe it to be trustworthy, then we cannot fail to make a case for Christianity - but that case will only be even slightly convincing to those who are already convinced.



You aren't talking to a bunch of other Christians here. So you need to base your arguments on things that your audience believes, not just on things you believe.

Otherwise, you're not making a case; You're just preaching.

 

[pood]

If we take in our hand any volume; of divinity or school metaphysics, for instance; let us ask, Does it contain any abstract reasoning concerning quantity or number? No. Does it contain any experimental reasoning, concerning matter of fact and existence? No. Commit it then to the flames: for it can contain nothing but sophistry and illusion.

David Hume

 

[pood]

@Brunswick1954, to meet the standard of evidence here, among those with an evidence-based epistemology, you have more or less to conform to the standards outlined centuries ago by Hume, quoted above.

Talk of logos (a Greek word adapted by New Testament writers) and imploring us to read the bible (I have read all of it, and many others here have as well) will mean less than nothing to us. Indeed, in invoking logos, one is tempted to believe that the New Testament writers adapted the myth of Jesus from the myth of Dionysius.

I’d bet that everything you do in daily life is based on evidence, not faith. You don’t cross the street without looking both ways on faith that God will see you safely to the other side. You look both ways.

You don’t visit the supermarket without evidence that you can afford to pay for what you want to buy. You check your wallet.

So look both ways and check your wallet here. If you have empirical evidence for the truth of the Jesus myth, present it.

The problem, of course, is that you have no such evidence.

Thus your time here is destined to be an exercise in futility.

 

[Elixir]

If you have empirical evidence for the truth of the Jesus myth, present it.

The problem, of course, is that you have no such evidence.

Y’know, that wouldn’t be a problem for me if there was demonstrable utility in believing in the myth. The glassy-eyed enraptured expression adopted by the garden variety b’liever doesn’t inspire confidence in that utility.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Thus your time here is destined to be an exercise in futility.

Especially since "here" is a freethinker's hangout. Believers' motives for posting here can be murky. The analogy would be a circumstance where I would attempt to deconvert a believer. Aint gonna happen; waste of effort. I might recommend a book or two, but after that, it's every man for himself.

 

[steve_bank]

Trying to get Christians to respond to logic and reason is like trying to get a life long heroin addict to suddenly go cold turkey.

Or trying to take away a favorite toy from a kid. A lot of kicking and screaming.

Or trying to get one of your shoes back from a dog with its jaws camped down tight ion the sho.e

 

[ideologyhunter]

Not that I'm in suspense, but where/when is this case for Christianity going to appear? Or is it the mystery that passeth all understanding, that you have to envision through faith? (If that's the case, the Mormons' fictions are more entertaining.)

 

[GenesisNemesis]

And also there's no real way I can "prove" I am moral, philosophically speaking. But neither is there a way to prove I am "immoral" either.

I think you've already proven that you are a moral person many times over, GM.

But I am a very grouchy person.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

 Asides

Anyway, what is the case for Christianity? Certainly nothing in the OP presented it.

This is why I see nothing of importance to respond to in the thread.
No connection whatsoever between "The Case for Christianity" and the opinions in the OP. I honestly agree with most of the OP, but it isn't relevant to any particular religion. Much less one as fundamentally irrational as Christianity.
Tom

Ummm. So far, I've based my arguments on the Bible, no?

That'd be circular.

My understanding, from the Bible, is that you don't have to believe in God in order to get into heaven. God exists, whether you believe it or not. And if you believe that our universe is governed by rules, and that we should live morally, you believe in God, whether you know it or not. And if you live that way, you will go to heaven, whether you want to or not.

I find your reasoning to be confusing, and more than that, out of step with 20 centuries of Christian orthodoxy.

Yes. It's a somewhat more radical view of Christianity than what you may be used to. I thought perhaps readers of this ChatGroup might both appreciate and enjoy it

Having said that, I'm not alone in my theological perspective. More and more Christian thinkers are taking this more inclusive view. For example:

The Church of England’s Response to Religious Pluralism - Anglicanism.org

Canon Dr. Anne Davison

anglicanism.org

Contradicting the church
I'm in good company here. Jesus broke many of the rules of Judaism during his time and his biggest quarrels were with the Pharisees, the Sadducees, the scribes and other religious leaders.

You can't be in Jesus' company, he was Jewish.

Self determination
Jesus taught by parables, many of which are meant to demonstrate the self-evident nature of right and wrong. Some, like the Prodigal Son and the The Parable of the Workers in the Vineyard, portrayed a different level of "morality" which goes against what we would normally expect.

It seems to me that Jesus challenges us to think for ourselves, and over time, Christianity has changed much to accommodate new discoveries and understanding.

Jesus barely taught at all. There are how many teachings in the New Testament? The holy book of a person that is barely even about what he said and did.

Also, Christianity has needed to be dragged while yelling and screaming into the 21st Century.

I invite readers of this post to do the same. Read the Bible carefully and consider what is reasonable and worthy of a God that is above all gods. You may find, like I do, that the Bible may be far less narrow than is normally understood. But I'm getting ahead of myself. For now, I only ask that you read with an open mind.

I just feel lucky that the only person to actually understand the Bible "the right way" managed to find this web board and share their wisdom.

 

[pood]

\

I just feel lucky that the only person to actually understand the Bible "the right way" managed to find this web board and share their wisdom.

He was not the only one who understands the bible “the right way” and found his way here. Don’t forget DLH, whose “right way” to understand the bible is completely different from Brunswick’s “right way.”

 

[Don2 (Don1 Revised)]

Please don't say his name two more times.

 

[Brunswick1954]

LOL. Maybe, it will help if I set out the big picture and then go into where I think a new perspective is needed.

The Overall Narrative
Essentially, according to the Bible, God created the universe. Humans are His final creation and was created in His image. In the Garden, Adam and Eve ate from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil, and was banished from the Garden. Whilst human prospered and grew in number, they were very wicked and corrupt and God tried several ways to teach them to live better. Even though we knew the difference between Good and Evil, we often chose the path of Evil.

Although there were several attempts to lead us to the path of Good, they were not successful and the final solution was to send His Son, Jesus, to fulfil God's commandments and save the world.

However, instead of listening to him, we crucified him and hung him up like a murderer. Jesus then rose after the third day and rallied his followers to spread the word, i.e. that he died and rose from the dead. As a result, Christianity grew and became the dominant religion in the world.

The world is not yet the paradise it's supposed to be and many Christians are waiting from his second coming.

Close enough?

The narrative has several paradoxes which challenge the reader and its followers. Amongst them:
1. Although the Bible is taken to be sacred and the Word of God, it contains many contradictions and seems to be somewhat arbitrary.
2. It is not presented as coming directly from God. Although the content is deemed to be directly from God, every book had a human author and acknowledged as such.
3. It is freely translated into various languages and it's original version is more or less "lost" and very few Christians read the "original" Bible in its original language.

The Moral Imperative
Besides the narrative of Jesus as saviour, the main concern in the Bible is the notion of Good and Evil. Although we are supposed to know what is Good and Evil since Adam and Eve both ate the fruit, it is not clearly defined until much later, in the times of Moses, where God inscribed the Ten Commandments and gave the Jews a whole set of laws to follow.

That didn't work very well and the Jewish nation fell into disarray and waited for the coming of their Saviour. Jesus came and summed up the Law into one single commandment, Love God and Love One Another.

 

[pood]

I guess you haven’t been reading the posts citing the need for evidence to support these ridiculous and false claims, right?

 

[pood]

Although there were several attempts to lead us to the path of Good, they were not successful and the final solution was to send His Son, Jesus, to fulfil God's commandments and save the world.

Funny how God, who is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, tries approaches that end in failure.

 

[WAB]

Although there were several attempts to lead us to the path of Good, they were not successful and the final solution was to send His Son, Jesus, to fulfil God's commandments and save the world.

Funny how God, who is supposed to be omniscient and omnipotent, tries approaches that end in failure.

Yeah, and made it even easier for us to do everything we were supposed to do by throwing the devil and meddling demons into the mix.

 

[pood]

@Brunswick1954, where you planning to answer points made to you in various posts, or are you just going to preach now?

 

[Brunswick1954]

@Brunswick1954, where you planning to answer points made to you in various posts, or are you just going to preach now?

 Caveats
Good call, pood. I'll do what I can but I can't promise satisfaction. There are a few caveats behind this thread:

• I don't think I can, nor plan to, convert anyone. Least of all condemn anyone.
• The purpose of this thread is to share my thoughts or perceptions and see where it takes me.
• I don't see this thread as a pulpit in that sense. I'm not trying to "preach" but looking for useful feedback.
• The views here are my views, and I don’t claim that they're "correct" and everyone else is wrong. If anything, I'm looking to refine my thinking rather than change yours.
• The views are built upon other people's views, all of them far more qualified and erudite than I am. I will indicate who they are where relevant.
• The views contradict some prevalent Christian doctrines. Indeed, it's been suggested that I've been led astray by Satan by some Christian groups, so be warned.
• I don't see this platform as a place where I can submit well-founded arguments. Rather, I see it as cocktail conversations between "free-thinkers" and that we are happy to agree to disagree.

In short, I am essentially thinking aloud. @No Robots encouraged me and allowed me to start this thread even though I just joined this group. I thought he/she/they approved of what I was doing but perhaps all it was is they knew it might generate a lively discussion. I don't mind that at all. Disagreements are all good. I don't even mind a disparaging remark or two. If it gets too unruly, I suppose the moderators can shut it down.

You do realise that there are many points raised in this thread and I can't possibly address them all, even assuming that I have an answer in the first place, .

 

[pood]

@Brunswick1954, where you planning to answer points made to you in various posts, or are you just going to preach now?

 Caveats
Good call, pood. I'll do what I can but I can't promise satisfaction. There are a few caveats behind this thread:

• I don't think I can, nor plan to, convert anyone. Least of all condemn anyone.
• The purpose of this thread is to share my thoughts or perceptions and see where it takes me.
• I don't see this thread as a pulpit in that sense. I'm not trying to "preach" but looking for useful feedback.
• The views here are my views, and I don’t claim that they're "correct" and everyone else is wrong. If anything, I'm looking to refine my thinking rather than change yours.
• The views are built upon other people's views, all of them far more qualified and erudite than I am. I will indicate who they are where relevant.
• The views contradict some prevalent Christian doctrines. Indeed, it's been suggested that I've been led astray by Satan by some Christian groups, so be warned.
• I don't see this platform as a place where I can submit well-founded arguments. Rather, I see it as cocktail conversations between "free-thinkers" and that we are happy to agree to disagree.

In short, I am essentially thinking aloud. @No Robots encouraged me and allowed me to start this thread even though I just joined this group. I thought he/she/they approved of what I was doing but perhaps all it was is they knew it might generate a lively discussion. I don't mind that at all. Disagreements are all good. I don't even mind a disparaging remark or two. If it gets too unruly, I suppose the moderators can shut it down.

You do realise that there are many points raised in this thread and I can't possibly address them all, even assuming that I have an answer in the first place, .

Well, you haven’t answered any yet, so there is that.

As for the rest, I can only say again you’re addressing a board of skeptics with an evidence-based epistemology. Yours is a faith-based epistemology.

In our eyes, this requires you to present empirical evidence not only that Christianity his true, but even more, that your version of it is true, and not other versions. These two together are an insurmountable hurdle, so I really can’t see what you hope to do here.

If you want “useful feedback,” it’s always going to be the same — where is your evidence?

If you simply want to trot out your ideas without engaging directly with your interlocutors, that is just preaching, even if you say it’s not. If you don’t engage on our terms, people will simply drift away.