Christianity and The Truth

[Neil_LA]

Please accept my heartfelt greetings.

I am Hindu, but I have some questions about Christianity.

If Christianity is the “true faith” then why has it spent so much time and effort over the years defending itself for “heresies” and divergent views?

It seems to me that if it is the true faith, it would be self-evident and would not need humans to defend it. God Himself would defend it.

To me it seems that Christians of all different sects are always very defensive about their faith and need to prove to the world that it is the “true faith” and need to convert “unbelievers” even though so-called “unbelievers” might indeed have a vital spirituality and are actually happy with it.

Why do Christians assume that the Bible is the only valid scripture and other scriptures revealed by God thoughout the ages have no intrinsic value?

Maybe I’m just ignorant. I admit that I haven’t been to university or had any formal “higher” education other than my own studies.

Please forgive my lack of understanding.

I have brought these questions up previously and started a rather contentious debate. Its is my intention to try to understand and be respectful

 

[inJESUS]

Please accept my heartfelt greetings.

Hello Neil and peace be with you.

If Christianity is the “true faith” then why has it spent so much time and effort over the years defending itself for “heresies” and divergent views?

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Welcome Neil

Christianity is partly predicated on laws of reason (the other part is Revelation from the Divine)–and one of the primary principles of reason, of logic is the principle of non contradiction

---

In other words, two or more mutually exclusive positions cannot be both “true” (valid) at the same time.

Either position “A” is correct and mutualy exclusive poistion “B” is wrong, or poition “A” is wrong and position “B” correct or both positions are wrong—but both “A” and “B” cannot be correct at the same time.

 

[Neil_LA]

Hi and Thank You

Well…I guess that the Law of Non-contradiction is one of the things where we diverge our views.

If God created the Laws, then He is perfectly free to diverge from His laws at any time He wishes.

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa was once discussing a simmilar question with one of his disciples.

The story goes something like this: (This is my understanding of the incident - the actual story is available from the “Sri Sri Ramakrishna Lilaprasanga” by Swami Saradananda available in traslation as “Ramakrishna the Great Master” from the Ramakrishna Math Chennai)

Ramakrishna said that God is free to do whatever He pleases and the devotee asked for him (Ramakrishna) to prove this.

Ramakrishna asked if one could have a red rose bloom on the same branch of a white rose bush as a white rose.

The devotee said that this was impossible (remember this was the 19th century)

Ramakrishna then prayed to God and the next morning found a red rose and a white rose blooming together.

God is infinitely free and is not bound by any laws

 

[VociMike]

Please accept my heartfelt greetings.

I am Hindu, but I have some questions about Christianity.

Hello and welcome!

If Christianity is the “true faith” then why has it spent so much time and effort over the years defending itself for “heresies” and divergent views?

Because we are all fallen prideful creatures, who chafe at authority (the teaching authority of the Church) and would rather place our own abilities above the divine guidance which God has assured his Church.

It also makes sense that if the Church is really what she claims (a divine organism), then Satan would devote considerable effort to disrupting and fragmenting her.

It seems to me that if it is the true faith, it would be self-evident and would not need humans to defend it. God Himself would defend it.

It’s really a matter of both/and, rather than either/or. BTW, you’ll find that quite often Catholicism will say “both/and” when the rest of the world (Christian as well as non-Christian) is insisting “either/or”.

God does defend his Church, preventing it from ever teaching doctrinal error, and preventing it from being overrun by Satan. But at the same time, God invites his children, us, to share in every good work with him. A few examples are bringing new life into the world, bringing people to faith, and taking care of the needs of the less fortunate. Thus God invites us also to defend the truth against falsehood.

To me it seems that Christians of all different sects are always very defensive about their faith and need to prove to the world that it is the “true faith” and need to convert “unbelievers” even though so-called “unbelievers” might indeed have a vital spirituality and are actually happy with it.

You’re painting with too broad a brush here, perhaps. There is a strain of Protestant Christianity which is indeed very agressive in seeking converts, but that is not all Christianity. OTOH, if one believes one has the fullness of truth and one has been charged with preaching that fullness of truth to all nations, then you would expect Christians to be evangelists (spreading the good news).

Why do Christians assume that the Bible is the only valid scripture and other scriptures revealed by God thoughout the ages have no intrinsic value?

We don’t consider it an assumption. We consider it a divine revelation (or rather, one component of a divine revelation), given to humanity through God’s link with us, his Church. But even so, Catholicism certainly does not deny that God’s truths have appeared, in incomplete or distorted forms, throughout human history. This is because God has written his law into every human heart, and thus every human knows him, although not clearly. The full clarity of our knowledge and understanding of God is found only in his Church and in the divine revelation which God has given that Church, and which revelation God guards against corruption.

Maybe I’m just ignorant. I admit that I haven’t been to university or had any formal “higher” education other than my own studies.

Please forgive my lack of understanding.

Your humility and sincerity do you credit. We should all be so frank in admitting our limitations, since we certainly all have them.

I have brought these questions up previously and started a rather contentious debate. Its is my intention to try to understand and be respectful

I certainly hope all the Christians here will answer in the same fashion.

Just one reminder, you must always differentiate between what the Catholic Church teaches, and what others who have determined (falsely, according to Catholic teaching) that they can fully understand the bible on their own, teach. It is in the latter large and diverse group that you may find many of the teachings you associate with Christianity, including many which the Church rejects outright.

 

[Neil_LA]

We don’t consider it an assumption. We consider it a divine revelation (or rather, one component of a divine revelation), given to humanity through God’s link with us, his Church. But even so, Catholicism certainly does not deny that God’s truths have appeared, in incomplete or distorted forms, throughout human history. This is because God has written his law into every human heart, and thus every human knows him, although not clearly. The full clarity of our knowledge and understanding of God is found only in his Church and in the divine revelation which God has given that Church, and which revelation God guards against corruption.

Thank you for your kind words in your post. I am most grateful.

I don’t want to sound disrespectful, but I guess this is where my main issue with all branches of Christianity lies.

It seems to me rather arrogant to say that all other religious traditons are incomplete or distorted.

This might have been a justified view in the past where the technology to investigate what other religions actually say and teach wasn’t available, but I believe that in today’s day and age it is an offence to say that other traditions are incomplete or distorted.

My experience shows me that the explainations of the actual activities of creation and the life-span of the universe is much more detailed and clear (at least to me) in the Vedic scriptures (the ones I’ve read - in traslation) than in the Bible.

Anyway…Please forgive me if I don’t continue this conversation in real time, I am at work and need to focus. I will check back this evening.

May God bless all humanity and may all of God’s devotees live in harmony and peace!

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Thank you for your kind words in your post. I am most grateful.

I don’t want to sound disrespectful, but I guess this is where my main issue with all branches of Christianity lies.

It seems to me rather arrogant to say that all other religious traditons are incomplete or distorted.

This might have been a justified view in the past where the technology to investigate what other religions actually say and teach wasn’t available, but I believe that in today’s day and age it is an offence to say that other traditions are incomplete or distorted.

My experience shows me that the explainations of the actual activities of creation and the life-span of the universe is much more detailed and clear (at least to me) in the Vedic scriptures (the ones I’ve read - in traslation) than in the Bible.

Anyway…Please forgive me if I don’t continue this conversation in real time, I am at work and need to focus. I will check back this evening.

May God bless all humanity and may all of God’s devotees live in harmony and peace!

Is it arrogant to say that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West or that apple trees bear apples? No, it’s simply based on the fruit of what we see. It’s the same with Divine revelation. It is either an apple or an orange. It cannot be both in the same sense and at the same time. Rather, it would be foolish to say that oranges come from apple trees, don’t you think? It would be equally foolish to know what has been revealed is true, but to deny it. Hopefully that makes sense. It’s not arrogance to call something what it is.

Peace…

MW

 

[VociMike]

Thank you for your kind words in your post. I am most grateful.

I don’t want to sound disrespectful, but I guess this is where my main issue with all branches of Christianity lies.

It seems to me rather arrogant to say that all other religious traditons are incomplete or distorted.

It would be arrogant unless it is actually true, in which case it could not be arrogant.

If the Christian God actually exists, and if he founded the Catholic Church and gave it his full and final revelation to guard and teach until the end of time, then it would not be arrogant, only true. Just as claiming 1+1=2 and not 3 is not arrogant, only true.

This might have been a justified view in the past where the technology to investigate what other religions actually say and teach wasn’t available, but I believe that in today’s day and age it is an offence to say that other traditions are incomplete or distorted.

It is not an offense if it is true. If God actually united with his creation and became Incarnate (became fully man while remaining fully God), and did those things and taught those things that the Catholic Church claims, then what can be the offense? In fact, there is a verse in scripture where Christ says “to him whom more is given, from him more is expected”. Thus rather than arrogance, we Christians should be chastened that those who have not received the fullness of God’s revelation have nonetheless often followed their understanding of God more faithfully and fervently than a good many Christians have done.

My experience shows me that the explainations of the actual activities of creation and the life-span of the universe is much more detailed and clear (at least to me) in the Vedic scriptures (the ones I’ve read - in traslation) than in the Bible.

The Church does not claim to teach science, but she does claim that God does not contradict himself, and the truths which God has embedded in the physical world cannot contradict the truths which are contained in the faith. Thus the Church welcomes all true science as yet another aspect of God’s revelation to humanity, and one that all may share equally.

Once again, there are many Protestants, and some Catholics, who insist that the creation story in the bible is literal even where it clearly contradicts the creation story as pieced together by science. Some will even say that God put dinosaur bones in the earth to test our faith, as in “who are you going to believe, me or your lying eyes?” Such a rigid and unreasonable attitude can only serve to drive thinking people away from the faith.

I hope this thread doesn’t devolve into an “evolution” thread. I’ll just repeat that the Church has no fear of true science, or any truth, and that rather, she welcomes all truth as a part of God’s revelation, just as she welcomes all beauty and all goodness as a part of that revelation.

 

[Neil_LA]

Is it arrogant to say that the sun rises in the East and sets in the West or that apple trees bear apples? No, it’s simply based on the fruit of what we see. It’s the same with Divine revelation. It is either an apple or an orange. It cannot be both in the same sense and at the same time. Rather, it would be foolish to say that oranges come from apple trees, don’t you think? It would be equally foolish to know what has been revealed is true, but to deny it. Hopefully that makes sense. It’s not arrogance to call something what it is.

Peace…

MW

Yes…but I believe that God can make an apple appear on an orange tree if he so desires…see my post above about Sri Ramakrishna…

Who says that the Divine Revelation that came to the Rishis of yore is any less of true Divine Revelation than what came to the Hebrew prophets?

What make you believe their witness (Hebrew prophets) is more reliable than that of the rishis?

The more I investigate the issue and the more I speak with Christian (of any sect) the more I am convinced that the witness of the rishis is much more reliable and dependeble than that of either the Old or New Testament.

Maybe the Christian desire to go to India to preach, and the desire of Hindu gurus to come to preach in the west is part of God’s plan.

I’m sorry if this offends. I admit that I was born Christian and after investigation I do find that the Vedic system is more reliable in my eyes. Not speaking Sanskrit or other Indic language, I admit that my information might be limited. As also since I’ve never been to India. I do believe that true Vedic culture has and contiues to be transmitted to the west. And with modern communications we can investigate and find the truth.

Also, why do Christians assume that God can only be “father?”

God has revealed Herself as “Mother” throughout the ages.

 

[Neil_LA]

It would be arrogant unless it is actually true, in which case it could not be arrogant.

It is not an offense if it is true. If God actually united with his creation and became Incarnate (became fully man while remaining fully God), and did those things and taught those things that the Catholic Church claims, then what can be the offense? In fact, there is a verse in scripture where Christ says “to him whom more is given, from him more is expected”. Thus rather than arrogance, we Christians should be chastened that those who have not received the fullness of God’s revelation have nonetheless often followed their understanding of God more faithfully and fervently than a good many Christians have done.

The Church does not claim to teach science, but she does claim that God does not contradict himself, and the truths which God has embedded in the physical world cannot contradict the truths which are contained in the faith. Thus the Church welcomes all true science as yet another aspect of God’s revelation to humanity, and one that all may share equally.
.

Again I guess it comes down to if you believe that the Bible (and the Church if you’re Catholic) is the “only” truth or not and other views can’t possibly be true.

Saying that other only contain “partial” truths is tantamount to saying that they are untrue, because it seems to me that that to say something is incomplete is to say that it can’t be valid at all.

I am willing to drop the discussion, because I am of the feeling that we are both intrenched in our views and can’t really see the other side.

I really can’t see what you are trying to show me.

I just do not accept that the Bible and the Catholic Church has the fulness of truth.

If that was the case, I would be able to totally accept the Catholic faith and not feel the need to find sprituality any place else.

My experience of being Catholic has been that it always leaves me feeling incomplete and I find that completeness in Hinduism.

Sorry…

 

[inJESUS]

Hi and Thank You

Well…I guess that the Law of Non-contradiction is one of the things where we diverge our views.

 

[cheese_sdc]

Please accept my heartfelt greetings.

I am Hindu, but I have some questions about Christianity.

If Christianity is the “true faith” then why has it spent so much time and effort over the years defending itself for “heresies” and divergent views?

Great question! A priest once told me that it seemed to be pretty crazy for people to “defend God”. God is God, and She doesn’t need us to fight for Her.

(Or Him. Who knows? )

 

[Neil_LA]

the Old Testament and the New Testament have a topical study. There is an old law and a new law. An old covenant and a new covenant. In this regard, there are changes yes. But to say that God changes His mind and gives opposite teachings and different books totally alien to the Plan He is showing to all humans, is unacceptable

 

[VociMike]

Again I guess it comes down to if you believe that the Bible (and the Church if you’re Catholic) is the “only” truth or not and other views can’t possibly be true.

Not the only truth, but the fullness of truth.

Saying that other only contain “partial” truths is tantamount to saying that they are untrue, because it seems to me that that to say something is incomplete is to say that it can’t be valid at all.

Not really. Newton’s physics of gravitation was “almost” true, but Einstein’s physics is more true. That doesn’t mean Newton was wrong, just that he was incomplete. And when we end up combining Einstein with quantum mechanics we will find where Einstein was also incomplete.

I am willing to drop the discussion, because I am of the feeling that we are both intrenched in our views and can’t really see the other side.

I really can’t see what you are trying to show me.

I just do not accept that the Bible and the Catholic Church has the fulness of truth.

Then of course what the Church teaches will not seem correct to you. So your real goal should be to determine if the Church is what she claims to be. If she is then if you seek truth you must join her. If she is not then she is a deceiver and you should avoid her and even speak out against her.

If that was the case, I would be able to totally accept the Catholic faith and not feel the need to find sprituality any place else.

My experience of being Catholic has been that it always leaves me feeling incomplete and I find that completeness in Hinduism.

If you were a Catholic in the post Vatican II upheavals, you may very well have missed out on the fullness of Catholic teaching and only gotten “Catholic Lite”. That is a a sad but true fact for countless millions - yet another manifestation of our fallen and sinful nature.

Sorry…

Nothing to be sorry about. Civil and respectful discussion is never a bad thing.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Hi and Thank You

Well…I guess that the Law of Non-contradiction is one of the things where we diverge our views.

If God created the Laws, then He is perfectly free to diverge from His laws at any time He wishes.

Sri Ramakrishna Paramahansa was once discussing a simmilar question with one of his disciples.

The story goes something like this: (This is my understanding of the incident - the actual story is available from the “Sri Sri Ramakrishna Lilaprasanga” by Swami Saradananda available in traslation as “Ramakrishna the Great Master” from the Ramakrishna Math Chennai)

Ramakrishna said that God is free to do whatever He pleases and the devotee asked for him (Ramakrishna) to prove this.

Ramakrishna asked if one could have a red rose bloom on the same branch of a white rose bush as a white rose.

The devotee said that this was impossible (remember this was the 19th century)

Ramakrishna then prayed to God and the next morning found a red rose and a white rose blooming together.

God is infinitely free and is not bound by any laws

Yes, it is the great divergence of Western and Eastern religions and philosophies–and while the East seems more inclusive, it actually does fallback on a dogmatic assetrion it cannot backup with either reason or example.

the late Mortimer Adler, a philospher who was an atheist eventually turned Christian, noted that Eastern philosphy and religion have “logic tight compartments” --much like an ocean ship has water tight compartments to prevent total flooding–as Eastern scientist will be quite rigorous in applying absolute concepts of truth (including non-contradiction) to his science–but when it comes to religion “God can do anything”

God contradicting himself is not freedom–it is essentially a nullification of action.

God either is a distinct uncreated being, personal and utterly different in essence from the creation–or “God” is part and parcel of creation, individulaity an illusion (pantheism, monism). To say he is both is to say nothing

 

[Neil_LA]

Then of course what the Church teaches will not seem correct to you. So your real goal should be to determine if the Church is what she claims to be. If she is then if you seek truth you must join her. If she is not then she is a deceiver and you should avoid her and even speak out against her.
.

Yes…I just don’t believe that the Church is what she claims to be.

I don’t know why I came here. I just thought I would try one more time to see if I could understand it.

I guess the Church is a deciever.

 

[VociMike]

Yes…I just don’t believe that the Church is what she claims to be.

I don’t know why I came here. I just thought I would try one more time to see if I could understand it.

I guess the Church is a deciever.

You left out the step where you first openly and sincerely investigate her claims.

 

[Neil_LA]

Yes, it is the great divergence of Western and Eastern religions and philosophies–and while the East seems more inclusive, it actually does fallback on a dogmatic assetrion it cannot backup with either reason or example.

the late Mortimer Adler, a philospher who was an atheist eventually turned Christian, noted that Eastern philosphy and religion have “logic tight compartments” --much like an ocean ship has water tight compartments to prevent total flooding–as Eastern scientist will be quite rigorous in applying absolute concepts of truth (including non-contradiction) to his science–but when it comes to religion “God can do anything”

God contradicting himself is not freedom–it is essentially a nullification of action.

God either is a distinct uncreated being, personal and utterly different in essence from the creation–or “God” is part and parcel of creation, individulaity an illusion (pantheism, monism). To say he is both is to say nothing

Could you please explain what you are trying to say in a more simple way so that someone with my limited intellect can understand?

Thank you (no disrespect or sarcasm intended)

 

[ralphinal]

It seems to me that if it is the true faith, it would be self-evident and would not need humans to defend it. God Himself would defend it.

I would like to discuss this and only this line. Why wold God not defend His own religion? From a Catholic perspective

Why are we here? To love God, Know God, and Serve God in this world so that we may do the same in the next.

God wills the salvation of all men.

God created man in His image and Likeness: we have an immortal soul, the ability to judge right and wrong, a capacity to Love, and the ability to put othre’s needs above our own. He also gave us the gift of Free will.

Now, I can choose whatever path i want in this life. I can choose to accept Him or not. I have that power over my own life. If God showed His power by correct heresies Hiimself, or struck down those who teach falsely, then where does that leave free will? Is it a free choice if I can clearly see God at all times? Moses did not have free will with respect to beleiving in God: he had seen and spoken to him. Faith was easier for Moses

 

[Mystic_Warrior]

Yes…but I believe that God can make an apple appear on an orange tree if he so desires…see my post above about Sri Ramakrishna…

God would have to have a pretty good reason to do so. God allows His creation to fulfill its purpose through the natural laws He created. Jesus Himself performed miracles and so does our Father. That has nothing to do with what is true and what is not.

Who says that the Divine Revelation that came to the Rishis of yore is any less of true Divine Revelation than what came to the Hebrew prophets?

Because that revelation contradicts the revelation that was proven through the Hebrew prophets.

What make you believe their witness (Hebrew prophets) is more reliable than that of the rishis?

Because their prophecies came true and because they all pointed to God the Father as He revealed Himself.

The more I investigate the issue and the more I speak with Christian (of any sect) the more I am convinced that the witness of the rishis is much more reliable and dependeble than that of either the Old or New Testament.

Examples?

Maybe the Christian desire to go to India to preach, and the desire of Hindu gurus to come to preach in the west is part of God’s plan.

Why would God want to create confusion?

I’m sorry if this offends. I admit that I was born Christian and after investigation I do find that the Vedic system is more reliable in my eyes. Not speaking Sanskrit or other Indic language, I admit that my information might be limited. As also since I’ve never been to India. I do believe that true Vedic culture has and contiues to be transmitted to the west. And with modern communications we can investigate and find the truth.

It doesn’t offend me. I was a Buddhist for years because I left my Christian heritage. Then some things began to happen that verified the Christian God and the words of our Scripture. The Buddhist texts did not.

Also, why do Christians assume that God can only be “father?”

God has revealed Herself as “Mother” throughout the ages.

Because our Holy Scriptures, prophets of old and new have revealed God as a “he” and not a “she”

Peace…

MW