[Vision2020] Mere Christianity!
Paul Rumelhart
godshatter at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 30 19:18:50 PDT 2007
Keely, thanks for the response. I have a couple of comments.
I've always been curious about this subject. I completely understand,
for example, why you would have faith in your husbands sobriety and
fiscal responsibility. We live amongst other people, and have become
very good at reading those we know closely. Your knowledge helps your
faith here, but what I don't understand is where your knowledge comes
from in your religion. You say, for example, that if Jesus wasn't the
son of God then your sins would not be forgiven. However, this is the
prototypical "straw man" argument (not that you are intending to use
it). The whole concept of sins needing to be forgiven originates in the
same set of books that explained how they can be forgiven. Without
knowledge of the Bible, there is no problem that needs to be solved.
So, it must be faith that leads you to believe that sins must be
forgiven and not knowledge.
There is an incredible amount in Christianity (as with most religions)
that must be taken on faith. Faith that the world was created (though
not necessarily 6000 years ago). Faith that there exists a Creator who
is somehow outside of time and yet able to interact with the universe He
created. Faith that the miracles happened. Faith that the stories laid
out in the Bible are true and were inspired (if not penned directly) by
God. Faith that there is an afterlife. Faith that there is a Heaven,
and a Hell. Faith that the current set of books in the Bible were
chosen by God, and the others that were removed were made by Man. Faith
that the books are all-encompassing, i.e. there are not 25 God-inspired
books lost through the ages. Faith that nothing was altered, after the
fact.
Some of that can be found out, at least partially, through historical
research. Most of it cannot be found out barring a face-to-face meeting
with the Almighty. Even then, and maybe I'm the only one, I would
believe in His power but I wouldn't necessarily believe in his
truthfulness without at least some skepticism.
Not that I think that believing in a religion that requires faith is a
bad thing by any means. It's just that, from my perspective - I would
have to call it fundamentally faith-based and not fact-based. Science
is fact-based. Anything that assumes an answer and then tries to prove
it is faith-based. If it were truly fact-based, no "non-biblical
history that Jesus was resurrected" would be enough. Assuming it's true
and then requiring data that contradicts it to nullify it is, imho,
faith-based.
Also, aren't there passages in the Bible talking about how some things
have to be taken on faith? Something about not demanding to be shown
miracles?
Btw, you're right that I was using Harry Potter and Albus Dumbledore to
show that the Bible is self-authenticating. Albus Dumbledore is a
fictional character in the book, made up out of whole cloth.
Just to be clear, I have every respect for faith - even if I don't share
it. I also understand that you are not trying to say that your religion
is the only one that is based on facts. I just find it a bit amusing
that the one component of your religion that I would say sets it apart
from many others is that it requires faith. Pagan religions don't
require faith, for example. You can feel free to believe that Loki is
not real at your peril. I'm not schooled in world religions, but the
Abrahamic religions are the only ones that I'm aware of that place faith
on a pedestal.
Paul
keely emerinemix wrote:
> Good questions.
>
> Faith is developed -- expended? brought about? -- on the basis of
> some particular knowledge. I have faith, for example, that my husband
> won't drink up the rent money for August because I know his
> character: in nearly 23 years of marriage, he's not only never
> touched a drop of alcohol, but is a scrupulously honest man besides.
> Relevant to the claims of Christ, then, I have written testimony that
> there was a man, Jesus of Nazareth, and that he said some astonishing
> things. If he claimed to be God and predicted that he would die and
> rise again on the third day and, centuries later, was still dead and
> rotting in the ground, I might pick a few things from his teachings to
> emulate, but I would conclude that he wasn't God and that my sins are
> still not forgiven -- still charged to my account rather than imputed
> to his.
>
> There is a difference between there being "no non-biblical historical
> record that Jesus was resurrected" and there being a (non-biblical)
> "historical record that Jesus WAS NOT resurrected," and I believe --
> obviously -- that the biblical record is correct. Nothing else
> explains the willingness of 11 of the 12 first apostles to be
> martyred; it hardly seems logical they would willingly die for
> something they knew to be a lie, and yet they kept preaching the
> resurrected Christ, whom they had seen and touched, even at the
> certainty of martyrdom. If, however, there were no resurrection -- no
> raising Jesus from the dead, no raising those who believe from the
> dead -- then I would try to be as nice a person as I could be.
>
> Or not. It really wouldn't matter. Because to the Christian, our
> lives are beyond pitiful if there is no resurrection, and rather
> useless besides.
>
> I think your comment about Dumbledore from the Harry Potter books was
> meant to contend that the Bible is a self-authenticating book; i.e.,
> that it is what it says it is because it says it is. This is why I
> believe that trying to prove the essential historicity of the Bible by
> using texts that claim its essential historicity and efficacy for
> teaching, equipping, etc., is ineffective. But I do believe that it
> can be studied and analyzed in its historical, literary, and
> internally consistent context. For example, if there were undeniable
> proof that Mary gave birth to Jesus nine months after having sexual
> relations with Joseph, that would undermine the teaching of the virgin
> birth. If there were irrefutable proof that Jesus died in a chariot
> wreck, that would undermine the doctrine of the atonement on the
> cross. Likewise, if there were undeniable, irrefutable proof that
> Jesus simply swooned on the cross and then died a happy old man
> decades later, that would destroy the doctrine of the resurrection --
> rightly called the capstone in the arch of Christianity.
>
> Because I believe the evidence to be compelling, I then have faith in
> Christ -- whether that faith was "turned on" by God in the Calvinist
> sense, or whether I came to it on my own in the Arminian sense, I
> trust in Christ. Where I differ from Heirdoug is in contending that
> "all other faiths" are just based on hope and emotion. The scholar in
> me recoils at such a thought, and the communitarian in me is equally
> put off.
>
> (And I am kind of embarrassed to admit that I've never read a single
> chapter of the Harry Potter series -- not because I'm one of those
> evangelicals who thinks spells and wizards are icky in literature, but
> because I don't like fantasy as a genre. I can barely understand
> real-life happenings; fantasy and sci-fi are too much for my linear
> brain. It's a failing, to be sure, and one I particularly feel nowadays).
>
> Thanks for your comments, Paul.
>
> keely
>
>
>
> "And these women that you spit on as they try to change their worlds/
> Are immune to your consultations . . . they're quite aware of what
> they're going through"
> (With apologies to David Bowie)
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 28 Jul 2007 11:20:03 -0700
> From: godshatter at yahoo.com
> To: kjajmix1 at msn.com
> CC: thansen at moscow.com; heirdoug at netscape.net; joekc at adelphia.net;
> vision2020 at moscow.com
> Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mere Christianity!
>
> How do either of you reconcile your fact-based religion with
> faith? If there turns out to be no non-biblical historical record
> that Jesus was resurrected, does that mean that you would stop
> believing it? If faith is required, then how can it be
> fact-based? If faith is required, then why criticize others for a
> religion based on emotion and hope? How is faith different than
> emotion or hope? If faith has to be "rooted in fact", then
> doesn't it cease to be faith?
>
> The reason I suggest "non-biblical" historical records is that
> trying to use the books of the Bible to prove the existence of
> Jesus is a little like using the books of Harry Potter to prove
> the existence of Albus Dumbledore. An objective source that talks
> about the resurrection of Jesus would be helpful. I'm not a
> historian - for all I know there may be tens of thousands of such
> accounts, but what if they were shown to be forgeries or
> something? Would that affect the level of your belief?
>
> Does Doug Farris really know that much about "all other
> religions", anyway? Is there no historical basis for the prophets
> of Islam (peace be upon them), for example?
>
> Paul
>
> keely emerinemix wrote:
>
>
>
> I believe that Christianity is based on evidence of the
> existence, deity, death and resurrection of Jesus Christ, but
> I also believe that a defense of Christianity from Doug Farris
> is a little like a defense of sharpened math skills from
> former Enron CEO Ken Lay.
>
> keely
> (who is so techno-inept that it's taken her an hour to figure
> out how to log onto her computer while in Canada)
>
> "And these women that you spit on as they try to change their
> worlds/
> Are immune to your consultations . . . they're quite aware of
> what they're going through"
> (With apologies to David Bowie)
>
>
> > From: thansen at moscow.com <mailto:thansen at moscow.com>
> > To: heirdoug at netscape.net <mailto:heirdoug at netscape.net>;
> joekc at adelphia.net <mailto:joekc at adelphia.net>;
> vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Date: Fri, 27 Jul 2007 05:51:53 -0700
> > Subject: Re: [Vision2020] Mere Christianity!
> >
> > "As more and more heathens 'choose' to not have children the
> number of Godly
> > souls will increase. If the number of Christian births out
> number the number
> > of Islamic births the battle will be over in 3 or 4
> generations."
> >
> > - Doug "No-Clue" Farris (March 10, 2007)
> >
> > Kinda gives you that old-time Christian, warm, fuzzy
> feeling, doesn't it,
> > Joe?
> >
> > Please continue, No-Clue. We're listening.
> >
> > Tom "Born Again Pagan" Hansen
> > Moscow, Idaho
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> >
> > From: vision2020-bounces at moscow.com
> <mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com>
> [mailto:vision2020-bounces at moscow.com]
> > On Behalf Of heirdoug at netscape.net
> <mailto:heirdoug at netscape.net>
> > Sent: Thursday, July 26, 2007 11:39 PM
> > To: joekc at adelphia.net <mailto:joekc at adelphia.net>;
> vision2020 at moscow.com <mailto:vision2020 at moscow.com>
> > Subject: [Vision2020] Mere Christianity!
> >
> > Joe,
> >
> > Is this the sum total of your understanding. ..."something
> more than
> > mere religious beliefs; maybe they are based on facts rather
> than
> > emotion. "
> >
> > Do you think and/or believe that one who has mere religious
> beliefs is
> > fuctioning on emotion and not facts? Then you truly are
> mislead because
> > the Christian faith is based upon nothing but facts, ie
> Jesus died and
> > was buried and was raised from the dead on the third day.
> These are not
> > based upon feelings and emotion. These three things are
> based upon
> > facts. eye witness accounts of seeing Christ before during
> and after
> > his death. All of the other religions of the world are based
> upon
> > feelings and emotion but not Christianity.
> >
> > Doug!
> >
> ________________________________________________________________________
> > Check Out the new free AIM(R) Mail -- Unlimited storage and
> > industry-leading spam and email virus protection.
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
> >
> >
> >
> > =======================================================
> > List services made available by First Step Internet,
> > serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> > http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> > mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> > =======================================================
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions -
> all in one place! Find it!
> <http://maps.live.com/?wip=69&FORM=MGAC01>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> =======================================================
> List services made available by First Step Internet,
> serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994.
> http://www.fsr.net <http://www.fsr.net/>
> mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com
> =======================================================
>
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Local listings, incredible imagery, and driving directions - all in
> one place! Find it! <http://maps.live.com/?wip=69&FORM=MGAC01>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20070730/ccdc3ffa/attachment-0001.html
More information about the Vision2020
mailing list