The Case for Christianity

[pood]

On love, from the aforementioned Krishnamurti:

Sorrow and love cannot go together, but in the Christian world they have idealised suffering, put it on a cross and worshipped it, implying that you can never escape from suffering except through that one particular door, and this is the whole structure of an exploiting religious society.

If you still want to find out, you will see that fear is not love, dependence is not love, jealousy is not love, possessiveness and domination are not love, responsibility and duty are not love, self-pity is not love, the agony of not being loved is not love, love is not the opposite of hate any more than humility is the opposite of vanity. If you can eliminate all these, not by forcing them but by washing them away as the rain washes the dust of many days from a leaf, then perhaps you will come upon this strange flower which man always hungers after.

 

[Michael S. Pearl]

On love, from the aforementioned Krishnamurti:

Sorrow and love cannot go together, but in the Christian world they have idealised suffering, put it on a cross and worshipped it, implying that you can never escape from suffering except through that one particular door, and this is the whole structure of an exploiting religious society.

If you still want to find out, you will see that fear is not love, dependence is not love, jealousy is not love, possessiveness and domination are not love, responsibility and duty are not love, self-pity is not love, the agony of not being loved is not love, love is not the opposite of hate any more than humility is the opposite of vanity. If you can eliminate all these, not by forcing them but by washing them away as the rain washes the dust of many days from a leaf, then perhaps you will come upon this strange flower which man always hungers after.

I am not so sure that sorrow and love cannot go together, but the bulk of the passage is interestingly constructive. First of all, resorting to apophasis is common and apparently largely necessary when describing indeterminate matters such as love. Most of Paul's description in 1 Corinthians 13: 4-7 is similarly apophatic when he says, "Love ... does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres." Where Paul's remarks are not apophatic, they are nonetheless not particularly specific or detailed - but, given love as an indeterminate matter always needing creativity so as to be made manifest afresh, there are not to be precise directions for how this is to be done.

The two Krishnamurti comments which I especially like and which are well worth emphasizing are: 1) the noting that responsibility and duty are not love; responsibility and duty are impositions and impersonal whereas love is chosen and always personal, and 2) the idea that, if you rid yourself of what love is not, then perhaps - just perhaps - you will be able to realize both that love always has to be created and then how to make love manifest in accord with differing encountered contexts.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

Ahh, and don't forget the wee liddle children singing songs about Jesus.They learn the songs before reading a page of the bible.

..Jesus Loves Me: A well-known Christian nursery rhyme that teaches children about God's love.

This Little Light of Mine: A song that encourages children to share their faith.

Brainwashing at at early age. Get ‘em while they’re young and you may have ‘em for life.

Haven't you atheists got any 'brain washing' songs of your own, besides the conventional?

No, lol. Name one. The cartoonishly evil conception you have of atheists is quite ridiculous.

 

[WAB]

On love, from the aforementioned Krishnamurti:

Sorrow and love cannot go together, but in the Christian world they have idealised suffering, put it on a cross and worshipped it, implying that you can never escape from suffering except through that one particular door, and this is the whole structure of an exploiting religious society.

If you still want to find out, you will see that fear is not love, dependence is not love, jealousy is not love, possessiveness and domination are not love, responsibility and duty are not love, self-pity is not love, the agony of not being loved is not love, love is not the opposite of hate any more than humility is the opposite of vanity. If you can eliminate all these, not by forcing them but by washing them away as the rain washes the dust of many days from a leaf, then perhaps you will come upon this strange flower which man always hungers after.

Respectfully, this sounds mostly like tripe. Sorrow and love cannot go together? That's as silly as anything written in the Bible.

 

[ideologyhunter]

Haven't you atheists got any 'brain washing' songs of your own, besides the conventional?

Time to come clean, infidels, because L. could easily google this stuff anyway. Yes, we do have an unofficial (I stress the unofficial) anthem, One Pair of Cloven Footprints in the Sand. Penn Jillette does a moving sung/spoken version on The Last Temptation of Christ soundtrack. They played it at my initiation, as I received my endowments. My ceremony was held on Xmas morning, as a lark, so we all sang Dawkins Around the Christmas Tree. At nearly every atheist daycare (which means every daycare everywhere), the little ones sing Someone's in the Kitchen with Darwin and Let's All Be Monkeys Again (The Hoot 'n' Chatter Song).
But forget the brainwashing songs. If you really want to identify an atheist, we get a miniature pentagram tattoo, usually behind the left ear. George F. Will has one. Katharine Hepburn had one. Joel Osteen has one. I actually have one behind the ear and one in a personal location, but I'm not telling.
If you're going to make a BFD about it, go ahead. Some day this whole country will be pentagrammed. Even you, Marjorie Taylor Greene.

 

[pood]

On love, from the aforementioned Krishnamurti:

Sorrow and love cannot go together, but in the Christian world they have idealised suffering, put it on a cross and worshipped it, implying that you can never escape from suffering except through that one particular door, and this is the whole structure of an exploiting religious society.

If you still want to find out, you will see that fear is not love, dependence is not love, jealousy is not love, possessiveness and domination are not love, responsibility and duty are not love, self-pity is not love, the agony of not being loved is not love, love is not the opposite of hate any more than humility is the opposite of vanity. If you can eliminate all these, not by forcing them but by washing them away as the rain washes the dust of many days from a leaf, then perhaps you will come upon this strange flower which man always hungers after.

Respectfully, this sounds mostly like tripe. Sorrow and love cannot go together? That's as silly as anything written in the Bible.

See what @Michael S. Pearl wrote about Paul. I think his and Krishnamurti’s views are quite similar, and perhaps they would even echo the views of Jesus on this matter.

At some point Krishnamurti’s compares love to a flower — it does nothing, it just is, and as a result, it spreads over the world..

 

[bilby]

At some point Krishnamurti’s compares love to a flower — it does nothing

Tell that to a plant.

Or to a honeybee.

Flowers do lots of things.

 

[WAB]

On love, from the aforementioned Krishnamurti:

Sorrow and love cannot go together, but in the Christian world they have idealised suffering, put it on a cross and worshipped it, implying that you can never escape from suffering except through that one particular door, and this is the whole structure of an exploiting religious society.

If you still want to find out, you will see that fear is not love, dependence is not love, jealousy is not love, possessiveness and domination are not love, responsibility and duty are not love, self-pity is not love, the agony of not being loved is not love, love is not the opposite of hate any more than humility is the opposite of vanity. If you can eliminate all these, not by forcing them but by washing them away as the rain washes the dust of many days from a leaf, then perhaps you will come upon this strange flower which man always hungers after.

Respectfully, this sounds mostly like tripe. Sorrow and love cannot go together? That's as silly as anything written in the Bible.

See what @Michael S. Pearl wrote about Paul. I think his and Krishnamurti’s views are quite similar, and perhaps they would even echo the views of Jesus on this matter.

At some point Krishnamurti’s compares love to a flower — it does nothing, it just is, and as a result, it spreads over the world..

Apologies for not getting it, but to my mind, far from doing nothing love is perhaps the most compelling and galvanizing emotion we have. I also tend to think responsibility and duty is tied up in love, as in the compulsion to care for and protect one's children and loved ones.

W.H. Auden famously said "poetry makes nothing happen"; I don't think I could say the same for love.

 

[pood]

At some point Krishnamurti’s compares love to a flower — it does nothing

Tell that to a plant.

Or to a honeybee.

Flowers do lots of things.

It’s a metaphor. Flowers do nothing in the sense that they do not try to spread beauty, but they do.

 

[bilby]

At some point Krishnamurti’s compares love to a flower — it does nothing

Tell that to a plant.

Or to a honeybee.

Flowers do lots of things.

It’s a metaphor. Flowers do nothing in the sense that they do not try to spread beauty, but they do.

I beg to differ. What you described was at best a simile (see bold).

Flowers do, of course, try to spread beauty. Those honeybees ain't gonna care for no plain Jane flowers. And the point of the exercise is more flowers.

 

[pood]

At some point Krishnamurti’s compares love to a flower — it does nothing

Tell that to a plant.

Or to a honeybee.

Flowers do lots of things.

It’s a metaphor. Flowers do nothing in the sense that they do not try to spread beauty, but they do.

I beg to differ. What you described was at best a simile (see bold).

Flowers do, of course, try to spread beauty. Those honeybees ain't gonna care for no plain Jane flowers. And the point of the exercise is more flowers.

Quite right, a simile. As opposed to a smilie.

But to they TRY to spread beauty, or do they just … do that?

 

[GenesisNemesis]

On love, from the aforementioned Krishnamurti:

Sorrow and love cannot go together, but in the Christian world they have idealised suffering, put it on a cross and worshipped it, implying that you can never escape from suffering except through that one particular door, and this is the whole structure of an exploiting religious society.

If you still want to find out, you will see that fear is not love, dependence is not love, jealousy is not love, possessiveness and domination are not love, responsibility and duty are not love, self-pity is not love, the agony of not being loved is not love, love is not the opposite of hate any more than humility is the opposite of vanity. If you can eliminate all these, not by forcing them but by washing them away as the rain washes the dust of many days from a leaf, then perhaps you will come upon this strange flower which man always hungers after.

Respectfully, this sounds mostly like tripe. Sorrow and love cannot go together? That's as silly as anything written in the Bible.

That part is suspect but the rest about love seems legit to me.

 

[bilby]

At some point Krishnamurti’s compares love to a flower — it does nothing

Tell that to a plant.

Or to a honeybee.

Flowers do lots of things.

It’s a metaphor. Flowers do nothing in the sense that they do not try to spread beauty, but they do.

I beg to differ. What you described was at best a simile (see bold).

Flowers do, of course, try to spread beauty. Those honeybees ain't gonna care for no plain Jane flowers. And the point of the exercise is more flowers.

Quite right, a simile. As opposed to a smilie.

But to they TRY to spread beauty, or do they just … do that?

Yes.

 

[DBT]

It may be that desire or need is conflated with love, that we feel that we love someone because we desire or need them for our own happiness, which gives rise to feelings of jealousy or resentment when the relationship is threatened.

 

[pood]

It may be that desire or need is conflated with love, that we feel that we love someone because we desire or need them for our own happiness, which gives rise to feelings of jealousy or resentment when the relationship is threatened.

Yes, Krishanamurti stresses that very point.

I’d recommend his writings. I linked one of his books. There is something there.

 

[pood]

Years ago, I attended a Krishnamurti talk in San Francisco.

At the end of it, we stood and applauded.

Krishnamurti sprang from his chair, gestured angrily at us, and said: “You are not applauding for me. You are applauding for yourselves.”

Follow: You are not worshiping God.

You are worshiping yourselves.

 

[Brunswick1954]

Thank you, everyone, for this exciting and heated discussion. I apologise for not responding to you individually but you will appreciate that it's very hard to give everyone the attention you deserve. NHC is very helpful in terms of progressing my "case", so it's easier for me to just focus on replying to him. But you guys deserve a response as well.

1. It's just my interpretation.
Of course, it is. It has to be. Especially since Christianity is divided into so many groups and denominations that it's impossible to present a common view. However, I'm presenting what I believe to be the core tenets (see below). This interpretation can be found in authors like C.S. Lewis, G.K. Chesterton and Philip Yancey. But it's still my perspective, my interpretation. That's unavoidable.

2. My approach: Science vs Existential Truth
I have claimed that my approach is scientific, and by this, I mean approaching the topic, i.e. the Bible and Christianity, with an open mind, weighing the facts in front of us and coming to what I believe are reasonable conclusions. I have since clarified that this is about existential truth, not a scientific one.

3. Condemnation of non-believers.
I believe that there's evidence in the Bible that God treats us all equally, not through the religions we follow, but as people. And reaches out to help us when we need it. Whether you believe in Him or not. I will try to explain what I mean when we get there. I don’t think being a Christian must necessarily mean that all other people are condemned to hell.

4. Who or what is God?
That's a tough one. But I will explain it as best I can when we get there.

5. The Resurrection
The historical evidence is all we got. I don't intend to prove that it's true. Personally, it makes no difference to me. I believe in God because of Jesus and I believe in Jesus because, reading about him in the Bible, "I was lost and now I'm found".

6. The Problem of Suffering
As many of you have pointed out, the question, “How can a God, who claims to be loving and just, allow suffering in this world? Especially to the innocent?” is a central question. This is another difficult question that needs careful unpacking. I will try my best to do so in a later post.

7. Other Biblical issues
There are several other Biblical and Christianity-related issues that you have brought up. They need to be addressed as well. Some of them have been resolved amongst yourselves, as you all have different viewpoints and do help one another refine your thinking.

8. Core Christian Tenets
Again, according to me (so sorry):
1. That God exists and He is amongst us, loving and guiding us.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and we can know all we need to know through the Bible.
3. The Bible carries the truth as faithfully as the authors of the Bible see it. It may not conform to our understanding of reality but we shouldn’t dismiss it just because of that.
4. While morality is our guide (our moral compass), the higher truth lies in grace, our ability to forgive and love one another, just as God, through Jesus, has forgiven our sins and love us, and will continue to do so.
5. Christian faith provides, to me, the ideal framework for life. It is liberating whilst other philosophical and religious frameworks are more limiting. Again, for me, and I appreciate that others may not feel the same way.

I wish I had been taught this when I was young. But I appreciate that I might have rebelled then and needed to have this space of 50 years of agnosticism to get to where I am today. I also appreciate that readers’ experiences with Christianity may not have been as supportive as it should have been. I didn’t start this post to condemn anyone nor to convert anyone into, nor convince them about, into Christianity. I don't think that's at all necessary.

I appreciate all the feedback I’ve been given. It has helped me to refine my thoughts and better understand what I believe or don’t believe. But you will appreciate that any one of these questions, and I have already summarized 21 pages of discourse into 8 key points, require a long discussion in themselves. On top of all that, I can submit at best, one post a day. I think we are doing fabulously, and I really appreciate the discourse in the background. Thank you all for contributing and being patient with me.

PS: Heaven and Hell:
Does heaven exist, and in contrast, hell? Is there purgatory? Will there be a Second Coming? How the hell would I know? I'm just a poor simple-minded man trying to figure out the meaning of my life, LOL.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

5. The Resurrection
The historical evidence is all we got. I don't intend to prove that it's true. Personally, it makes no difference to me. I believe in God because of Jesus and I believe in Jesus because, reading about him in the Bible, "I was lost and now I'm found".

Yes, this is the evangelical creed when they are cornered. We've seen this hundreds of times from people who can't prove what they say they can prove. They fall back to 'well, I've got my faith and that is all that matters'. Remember, you came here to impress us / preach to us, not the other way around.

6. The Problem of Suffering
As many of you have pointed out, the question, “How can a God, who claims to be loving and just, allow suffering in this world? Especially to the innocent?” is a central question. This is another difficult question that needs careful unpacking. I will try my best to do so in a later post.

The Tanakh already addressed it. Have you even read the Tanakh? Even the LOLCat Bible gets it!

an Joseph sed "dont be fraid I iz liek ceiling cat. cuz u wer bad but ceiling cat maed it gud an kittehs got saved. dunt werry I give u cheezburgrz" an he gaev em cheezburgrz

It is one of the most important ontological statements in the Bible and you think it hasn't been addressed.

8. Core Christian Tenets
Again, according to me (so sorry):
1. That God exists and He is amongst us, loving and guiding us.
2. Jesus Christ is the Son of God and we can know all we need to know through the Bible.
3. The Bible carries the truth as faithfully as the authors of the Bible see it. It may not conform to our understanding of reality but we shouldn’t dismiss it just because of that.
4. While morality is our guide (our moral compass), the higher truth lies in grace, our ability to forgive and love one another, just as God, through Jesus, has forgiven our sins and love us, and will continue to do so.
5. Christian faith provides, to me, the ideal framework for life. It is liberating whilst other philosophical and religious frameworks are more limiting. Again, for me, and I appreciate that others may not feel the same way.

We are aware of what the general New Testament vibe is. You were supposed to be making a case for it, not merely telling us Christianity exists.

I wish I had been taught this when I was young. But I appreciate that I might have rebelled then and needed to have this space of 50 years of agnosticism to get to where I am today. I also appreciate that readers’ experiences with Christianity may not have been as supportive as it should have been.

This is a manipulative trap. Atheists must be atheists because they had a bad brush with Christianity and it is emotional to them. Atheists don't just not believe in Yahweh, but in all the gods. It simply isn't possible for an Atheist to have had poor supportive relationships with all worldly religions. We simply don't have that amount of time.

But you will appreciate that any one of these questions, and I have already summarized 21 pages of discourse into 8 key points, require a long discussion in themselves. On top of all that, I can submit at best, one post a day. I think we are doing fabulously, and I really appreciate the discourse in the background. Thank you all for contributing and being patient with me.

I'd suggest instead of putting forth a "case for Christianity" you stick your head back into the Tanakh, New Testament, some commentaries, dabble in the history and get a more competent understanding of the stuff you are trying to lecture us about.

 

[steve_bank]

Based on my extensive study of the bible I scientifically believe the center of our galaxy is made of dense cream cheese.

The bible also says that the universes is surrounded by a giant bagel. Both bagel and cream cheese are kosher of course, although there is debate among theological experts in biblical study as to whether they are indeed kosher.

After all why would god create bagel and cream cheese that is not kosher? It boggles the Chisrtian mind.

Heated debate? Can't speak for everybody but I doubt anyone here is getting 'heated'. More like astonishment and bewilderment at at the ignorance of 'biblical' experts'.

 

[ideologyhunter]

It's all broth. Nothing here to chew.