The Case for Christianity

[steve_bank]

God hates religion?

God hates

women
pork
gays
taking his name in vain
divorce
fornication
female menstruation(Leviticus)
believing in other gods

 

[pood]

God hates religion?

God hates

women
pork
gays
taking his name in vain
divorce
fornication
female menstruation(Leviticus)
believing in other gods

But Brunswick says none of that is true Christianity, I guess, from what she has written. So, now we are on to “Not true Scotsman.”

 

[Elixir]

Being a social adhesive doesn’t necessarily mean that it is a beneficial adhesive,

It used to have considerable utility when tribes were smaller. Especially way back when people were prey animals.

I, personally, have no need for this adhesive, but if others benefit from it, I don’t object.

Their benefit tends to cost the rest of us exorbitantly.

 

[pood]

I was also struck by the claim by @Brunswick1954 that almost any religion is better than no religion. Since religions have competing truth claims, the only reasonable way to read this is that she thinks that religions function as noble lies to make people feel better and society more malleable. Often it doesn’t even do that, of course, but if one believes in a literal resurrection, it can’t be the case that “any” religion is better than no religion. At this point I don’t really know what she believes.

 

[steve_bank]

I learned a lot when I first joined the fourm.

One of the basic Christian retorts is 'That is not true Chrtianity' and 'They are not true Christians'.

Yahweh as a universal god not limited to any one religion is one I have not heard before.

What we see with Brunswick is how religion and gods evolved in ancient times and today.

19th century Mormonism was a spin on Judaism and Chrtianity.

In Mormonism, the Book of Mormon describes a group of Israelites who migrated to the Americas around 600 BC, including descendants of Joseph, Ephraim, and Manasseh. This aligns with the belief that some of the lost tribes of Israel migrated to the Americas, though the Book of Mormon doesn't explicitly state they are the ten lost tribes. The Book of Mormon also mentions a division into Nephites and Lamanites, with the latter group being associated with the indigenous peoples of the Americas. While early Mormon teachings suggested a direct link between all Native Americans and these Israelite groups, modern interpretations acknowledge intermingling with existing populations.

Well, check tha tsort of. Christians believe Jesus brougt Yahweh from Jews to all humans.

 

[ideologyhunter]

This god that hates religion...is this the same god that gives specific directions for sacrificing bulls and rams as sin offerings, in the OT? God does the talking in Leviticus 4 and Exodus 29, in some of the most grotesque passages in the Bible. The priest is told in Lev. 4 to kill the bull, sprinkle its blood seven times 'before the veil', use more of the blood to paint the altar, and collect and pour the rest of the blood around the base of the altar. I know the Aztecs were bloodier, but this passage is in Basic Instructions Before Leaving Earth, according to a lot of Christians. Exodus 29 is even more stomach-churning. Here are instructions to Aaron and his sons (I think these are the same sons that God bumps off, in Lev. 10) on the triple sacrifice of a bull and two rams. Here, the bull's blood will be used to paint the altar and then the rest will be poured around the altar. With the blood of one of the rams, Aaron and his boys are to paint one of their ears, dab it on one thumb, and dab it on the big toe of the right foot of each dude. Pretty berserk, to the point that anyone would label it psychotic if it didn't come out of scripture....and I never saw this when I was a kid in the children's Bibles at the dentist's office. Exodus 29 also has one of those passages where God says the burnt offering will send a pleasing scent up to Him, so He has a nose (another iidb user added, 'and therefore boogers').
That sounds like very specific religious instructions. Altar rites. They probably inspired the invention of Spic 'n' Span.
Now, I don't know how Brunsy reads texts like these. In one post, she said the Bible is created by men and is not free of error. In that case, is one to ignore passages that seem objectionable to us, today? On what basis? How many God stories would have to be expunged, if one wanted a narrative which only served to advance a warm, loving affect? Where does one get the credentials to scissor out the weird and violent stuff in the Bible? Does it really suffice to say, "Not everything in the book is true"?

 

[Brunswick1954]

It's difficult to explain because God is impossible to define, so it's entirely possible you believe what I believe as well but we're expressing it in a different way.

This is nonsense. If God is impossible to define, then how can you be a Christian?

Defining God​

To begin, we must recognize the limitations of language. Meaning arises not from the words themselves but from a shared framework of experiences, concepts, or references between the speaker and listener. Without this common ground, misunderstanding is inevitable. For example, what modern science defines as “force” might be more easily understood by an ancient mind as “spirit”, reflecting their fundamentally different worldview.

With this in mind, it might be useful to begin our attempt to define God using John's definition:
John 1:1 NRSVUE
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The "Word" in this instance is logos, the root word of logic. This may be a good place to start since (a) it is Biblical, and (b) we generally subscribe to logic as a useful parameter.

The Greeks had three transcendentals: truth, goodness and beauty. The word transcendental is also useful in this context, as it implies a metaphysical, if not supernatural, reality. I'm not arguing that such a reality exists in the sense that I might argue that God exists. I'm just asking you to note the word. I'll be coming back to it.

Science is our bastion of truth. Indeed, the word is almost synonymous with truth. Even if we don't understand it, nor seen it with our own eyes, the fact that scientists believe it is often sufficient evidence for us.

Fundamentally, science is a human construct, our interpretation of the data we have based on our laws of logic. At the same time, science is the study of nature. Thus, science discovers laws of nature even though the mathematics behind it are our invention.

So, can we agree on these:
• the wonders of science are in fact the wonders of nature
• nature, as presented by science, is entirely logical (i.e mathematical) and yet paradoxical (e.g. glass is not just solid, but retains liquid properties, irrational numbers like pi and e are common in nature, energy can exist without mass)
• the laws of nature are complex but often reduces to elegant and simple formulae (which is often used as a measure of good science)
• despite so many years and so much effort to understand nature, it continues to elude us (we constantly feel like we're on earth looking at the stars far, far away)

When this last step occurs, there's a sense of transcendence. It's an exhilarating feeling but the opposite of the eureka feeling. Instead of feeling that you've solved a particularly difficult problem, you're amazed at how much lies before you. It's not just a sense of being overwhelmed by the vastness before you but also the sense that it's entirely logical but way beyond you. You are excited because you have the tools to explore this reality, and there's so much to discover and yet, it seems inexhaustible.

I'm not saying that this proves that God exists. I cannot prove that God exists because of the differences in our frameworks which I have pointed out above. This is just the first step towards defining God. I'm just establishing common ground. If we can agree on this, we can move on to the next step.

 

[steve_bank]

I wonder why they always resort to large font bold text.



MAYBE THEY FEEL POWERFUL PROCLAIMING GOD

 

[ideologyhunter]

Thanks. Now I have font size envy.

 

[pood]

At the moment, I will only make this comment. Science is not our bastion of truth. It is not almost synonymous with truth. Science is about making predictive, testable models of the world, whether of the external world or of our own mental world, since that is all we have direct access to. All science is constantly subject to revision. It’s not about truth. It is about models.

 

[bilby]

• nature, as presented by science, is entirely logical (i.e mathematical) and yet paradoxical (e.g. glass is not just solid, but retains liquid properties, irrational numbers like pi and e are common in nature, energy can exist without mass)

None of these are paradoxes. They are observations. They illustrate that reality does not conform to a naïve and superficial intuition formed by a bunch of fairly smart apes that evolved in a rather unusual niche. But that's not what a paradox is.

 

[pood]

Second comment: the modern “force” is not in any way equivalent with the ancient “spirit.” Force in the modern usage is clearly specified by Newton’s second law. The ancients had no access to this conceptual framework and there is no relation at all between “spirit” and “force.”

 

[pood]

Brunswick1954: “God is impossible to define,”

Brunswick1954: “Defining God”

 

[GenesisNemesis]

I love how moronic religionists claim atheists treat science like a religion, even after it's stated that science isn't the only tool that's used for understanding reality.

 

[DBT]

It's difficult to explain because God is impossible to define, so it's entirely possible you believe what I believe as well but we're expressing it in a different way.

This is nonsense. If God is impossible to define, then how can you be a Christian?

Defining God​

To begin, we must recognize the limitations of language. Meaning arises not from the words themselves but from a shared framework of experiences, concepts, or references between the speaker and listener. Without this common ground, misunderstanding is inevitable. For example, what modern science defines as “force” might be more easily understood by an ancient mind as “spirit”, reflecting their fundamentally different worldview.

With this in mind, it might be useful to begin our attempt to define God using John's definition:
John 1:1 NRSVUE
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

The "Word" in this instance is logos, the root word of logic. This may be a good place to start since (a) it is Biblical, and (b) we generally subscribe to logic as a useful parameter.

The Greeks had three transcendentals: truth, goodness and beauty. The word transcendental is also useful in this context, as it implies a metaphysical, if not supernatural, reality. I'm not arguing that such a reality exists in the sense that I might argue that God exists. I'm just asking you to note the word. I'll be coming back to it.

Science is our bastion of truth. Indeed, the word is almost synonymous with truth. Even if we don't understand it, nor seen it with our own eyes, the fact that scientists believe it is often sufficient evidence for us.

Fundamentally, science is a human construct, our interpretation of the data we have based on our laws of logic. At the same time, science is the study of nature. Thus, science discovers laws of nature even though the mathematics behind it are our invention.

So, can we agree on these:
• the wonders of science are in fact the wonders of nature
• nature, as presented by science, is entirely logical (i.e mathematical) and yet paradoxical (e.g. glass is not just solid, but retains liquid properties, irrational numbers like pi and e are common in nature, energy can exist without mass)
• the laws of nature are complex but often reduces to elegant and simple formulae (which is often used as a measure of good science)
• despite so many years and so much effort to understand nature, it continues to elude us (we constantly feel like we're on earth looking at the stars far, far away)

When this last step occurs, there's a sense of transcendence. It's an exhilarating feeling but the opposite of the eureka feeling. Instead of feeling that you've solved a particularly difficult problem, you're amazed at how much lies before you. It's not just a sense of being overwhelmed by the vastness before you but also the sense that it's entirely logical but way beyond you. You are excited because you have the tools to explore this reality, and there's so much to discover and yet, it seems inexhaustible.

I'm not saying that this proves that God exists. I cannot prove that God exists because of the differences in our frameworks which I have pointed out above. This is just the first step towards defining God. I'm just establishing common ground. If we can agree on this, we can move on to the next step.

The wonder of science lies in the sheer progress the method has made in our understanding the world around us, Moon landings, Mars, Titan, Venus, the scope and scale of the universe, etc.....which is in stark contrast to faith and religion.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Humanity, since 1796 and Edward Jenner: Diseases made preventable with vaccines: smallpox (eradicated!), chickenpox, COVID-19, diptheria, flu, hep A and B, HPV, measles, mumps, pertussis, polio, RSV, rubella, shingles, tetanus, et al.
Childhood leukemia in 1940s: survivors were rare. Survival rate today: around 90%.
Bible: Israelites told by prophets to boil water for drinking and cooking, when disease struck the community.
CORRECTION: Bible says nothing about boiling water, sorry. God doesn't know about germs or doesn't care. However, epilepsy is apparently caused by demon possession. And when Mom or sis has her period, have her sleep in the backyard for seven days, and for God's sake don't touch her!

 

[unapologetic]

To begin, we must recognize the limitations of language. Meaning arises not from the words themselves but from a shared framework of experiences, concepts, or references between the speaker and listener. Without this common ground, misunderstanding is inevitable. For example, what modern science defines as “force” might be more easily understood by an ancient mind as “spirit”, reflecting their fundamentally different worldview. ...

And so on.

Who/whatever Brunswick is, I'm now convinced she's using AI to wright her posts.
And I feel foolish for having answered this thread.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The Reality of The Spirit
Science claims that reality is something “out there”—concrete, measurable, objective. But what we actually experience is in fact, entirely constructed: a world filtered not just through our senses and constructed by our brains, but selectively shaped by our values, emotions, memories and choices. What we call "reality" is in its very essence a spiritual experience - it is lived, interpreted, and constructed by the conscious self. Consciousness itself is a spiritual experience which cannot be measured nor identified by science.

Almost none of that is true. Consciousness is a series of stimuli and reaction. We have evolved over a very long period of time, where sentient life is born with certain reactions to stimuli that help it survive long enough to reproduce.

That's why, despite all the advances we have made, people still seek religious truth and access to a higher spiritual domain. One that parallels our physical universe that contains our physical earthly home. Even a foolish belief is better than no belief.

This is troublesome for your "case for Christianity" because if most people seek religious truth and find comfort among all sorts of different religions, you are beginning the foundation for why religion is a placebo, not providing an account that religion has validity.

We need these timeless and universal spiritual truths: that goodness is real, that justice matters, that beauty is sacred. That we need to love one another, not just be polite and charitable. They are spiritual realities that point beyond the self - to natural law, to moral order, to the sacred, to God.

But none of this is true. We want it to be true, but that doesn't provide it any validity. Life isn't easy. People seek comforts to tell them that it is.

 

[James Brown]

Old quote: "You can be sure you've created God in your own image when he hates all the same people that you do."

New quote: "You can be sure you've created God in your own image when he hates all the same things that you do." Things like religion, hypocrisy, etc.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Confession​

Alright. Time to 'fess up. I'm an anthropologist and female. That might explain the tone of my posts, lol. I'm "scientific" enough to have developed some computer programs, including my own little AI app which helps me manage my computer related work. With so much material to keep on top of, AI can be a lot of help. And I can tweak it to suit my needs. I've also lectured at some of the top universities in the world, inc. Harvard, Cambridge and NUS (that's the National University of Singapore). But that's beside the point, no?

Beside the point? You seem to be using a sense of authority to back your "case" that you haven't made. If you've spoken at universities, you'd probably be pragmatic enough to know you have merely asserted that Christianity is true because Christianity says it is so.

Do my intellectual creds matter?

Well, you brought them up.

I do anthropology because I love studying into what makes us tick. And foreign societies and communities allow me to look at people and their behaviour perhaps more unbiasedly.

Which brings me to this thread. Why am I doing it? Like I said, I became a Christian in my 50s. And it was quite a revelation which I wanted to share with people who are able to give me critical feedback. It's not going as well as I had hoped, lol.

Well, you aren't taking the criticism to your posts very well, you've ignored most of the responses.

1.People like magic
Interestingly, both believers and non-believers are more interested in the magical aspects of Christianity than in its moral and personal framework. Why does it matter? Do you need God to appear before you and convince you personally?

2. The "Arrogance" of the Righteous
Many people who are doing well in their lives think it's them. They don't really appreciate how much is happenstance. Sadly, many people who are not doing well also blame themselves. It's not all their fault. We can make a difference to our own lives but our ability to do so is much less than we think.

3. Life without God
This is a very modern, Westernised outlook. Every culture that I know of have a sense of the metaphysical or the supernatural (BTW, these two words have different connotations), except the modern Western society. To the detriment of the young, I believe. Young people from Westernised developed countries are the most lost and adrift young people I've met. Almost any religion is better than no religion.

Having no religion is hardly a liability. It helps one not have to come up with useful lies to explain things. But having no religion doesn't mean not having a good understanding on philosophy or how the world works in general. Taoism, Buddhism, Confucianism all provide universal help to understand how the world works, how it can work, how you need to appreciate the general nature of nature and work with it, instead of against it.

Believing something is watching over you and they have rules you have to follow doesn't provide any real fulfillment. Indeed, religious people say they are happier than atheists. They aren't though.

Many Westerners think it's obvious. But it's not. Until Jesus made it central.

For an anthropologist, you don't seem to know much about worldly religions. Buddhism beat Jesus to the punch by hundreds of years, and in a much greater scope. The Eightfold Path smacks the New Testament's ass when it comes to moral guidelines.

Plus, Jesus wasn't just saying, be a good person. He was saying look after the disenfranchised. Our stance against slavery, racism, etc. came from that.

So did the stance for racism and slavery.

6. What does it matter?
In case you haven't noticed, we're in crisis, not just in terms of environmental crisis, but also in many aspects of our lives, and yet we're also closest to global peace than we've ever been. We need a way forward. We need an alternative to materialism.

We were in a crisis between 1914 and 1945. Right now we have an environmental issue that many people want to ignore. That will likely lead to a crisis in 50+ years. Many think God will save the Earth, some want God to end the Earth and bring about the end times.

7. Is Christianity the solution?
Not in its current form and maybe not even as a religion but as a universal basis for humanity and human rights. But as a personal religion, it also works for me. It's a lot less superstitious and more scientific than you think it is. There's no need to convert anyone to Christianity. We just need to accept its ideals. Which are self-evident enough for most people. We don't even have to succeed doing so. Love one another, that's good enough.

This is perhaps the worst argument for Christianity. As long as you are nice, that is all that matters and Christianity is right.