It's Just Too Good to be True

  • Thread starter Thread starter Delphinus
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
D

Delphinus

Guest
How would you respond to the objection that the idea of the Judeo-Christian God is just too good to accept? This the concept of a God this loving and this…intimate (Eucharist) with each of us is more likely the result of a collective “wishful thinking” across cultures and thousands of years of social evolution, rather than the fact it’s ACTUALLY true?

Having trouble coming up with a response to that one. oO
 
I think more primitive religions tend to show humanity’s baser self-interest in religion. The Greek and Norse gods (just two examples) behaved in ways similar to the nobility and didn’t really make people feel too uncomfortable. You could appeal to them for boons and favors and some of the things that are sinful to the Abrahamic God are brushed aside.

Early Christians were accused of cannibalism. The Eucharist was not well-received, to put it lightly.

Plus there was no process of social evolution. Christians since the 1st century believed in the Eucharist. It’s actually gone in the opposite direction to where most Christians in the world don’t believe in such a thing, thereby God is kept at a further and “safer” distance.
 
Last edited:
What about the miracles associated with the Eucharist? And if we are gonna just like collectively make it up—that’s what we make up? Wouldn’t it be easier to make up that there aren’t any rules at all?

Bokbok
 
Why should one necessarily be any truer than the other? But life is a mystery in the end, far too complex to be summed up with some naive, fanciful speculation or armchair pyscho-analysis reducing a certain human concept to being “more likely the result of a collective “wishful thinking” across cultures and thousands of years of social evolution”.

With such openness to wild claims based on what evolution might “purpose” for humans, how do they know that their own concept now, of rejecting the concept of intimate relationship with God, isn’t simply the latest in “wishful thinking” across cultures and thousands of years of social evolution".
 
Last edited:
Too good to be true isn’t a philosophical argument. It could apply in a probability analysis in Bayes’ Theorem, where you’d need to know “what’s the chance that someone would make this up from scratch regardless if it was true or not” as one of your variables. But if someone was trying to prove God wasn’t real, then it’d be a fallacy to say he was too good to be true. There’s no reason why an all powerful being shouldn’t also be all loving
 
  1. Wishful thinking doesn’t generally continue to exist in substantially the same form for 2000 years.
  2. Saints are sent into this world to show the continuing love and presence of God, which many have done through mystical experiences during life and miracles after death (and sometimes during life as well).
If I were to get some dumb idea about “wishful thinking” or experiences at death just being a side effect of brain death, all I need to do is think of Padre Pio or Fatima or miracles of St. Therese, Bl. Solanus Casey, and other saints…maybe remind myself that the extremely intelligent and erudite Ven. Fulton Sheen was totally on board with the entire God and Eucharist concept, and think of other very admirable saints and even some admirable Protestants who believed in the loving God, and how they lived their lives…any small doubt that has crept in is immediately gone.

This is why God sends us saints, for the strengthening of faith in the contemporary era. They come into the world to give witness to the truth.
 
Guest1 said:
Do they not believe in a historical Jesus?
Click to expand...
In my experience, the vast majority of non-believers do not believe in a “historical Jesus”. They insist he is a total fiction and are not even convinced of his existence by atheist historians posting evidence, e.g. “I’m an atheist, but I have a PhD in history and study ancient cultures in the Middle East, and there is definite historical proof that a man named Jesus did exist in and around Jerusalem 2000 years ago.”

It’s really sad that their insistence on denying Jesus causes them to even doubt reliable logical sources.
 
Last edited:
Chicken_Pigeon said:
Wouldn’t it be easier to make up that there aren’t any rules at all?
Click to expand...
This is a very good point. People tend to be a little lazy, and we like our comforts and food and all sorts of other indulgences. A religion which suited everyone might contain very few rules at all, if any.

The reason why our religion exists is not through serendipity but due to Christ instigating it. God incarnate! People listened to Jesus, followed Jesus and did as He instructed and …things happened! And the saints have shown us that things still happen when you ask God for His help. This is fact not fiction.

It is too good, too amazing and too True!

How fortunate we are to be the children of God.
 
Last edited:
Delphinus said:
How would you respond to the objection that the idea of the Judeo-Christian God is just too good to accept?
Click to expand...
Lots of things are too good to be true yet they are.
The pattern you purport to see in re these matters failing in life is purely one of perspective not objective reality?

Air is totally free and available on earth. Thats too good to be true isnt it. I am sure you could discover many more examples if you made an effort to remove the blinkers of your enslaved mind.

If that is creation…why not the creator who made it.
 
Last edited:
Tis_Bearself said:
Wishful thinking doesn’t generally continue to exist in substantially the same form for 2000 years.
Click to expand...
I disagree. Memes, ideas, systems of belief live die and persist well or poorly over time in much the same way as species of life.
Diseases are substantially the same as they were 1000s of years ago. The common cold is remarbably longlived and thriving because it keeps evolving its peripheral interfacing molecular structure as human antibodies do likewise.
Evolve or die.

The major religions are clearly structured in such an adaptable way that they can reinvent themselves (without being seen to substantially change) to the advantage of many changing cultures and personality types and bring sufficient peace and harmony to be desired by new generations.
Buddhism and Judaism are far older than Christianity.

It doesnt seem to matter whether the actual content is wishful thinking or not. If it works in this life then it works.
To some extent humans seem to need a common goal that is never fully achievable in this life…it is the meaning this provides to mundane or chaotic personal lives that is key.

Is something wishful thinking if it provides us great benefits in this life (even if the ultimate wishes themzelves cannot, in this life, ever be conclusively proven either way).
 
Last edited:
I don’t find your argument convincing at all - the common cold is particularly irrelevant to fear of death or whatever - so let’s agree to disagree.

Have a nice day.
 
Disagreement but without any counter rationale. No surprises there ☺️.
 
Last edited:
Delphinus said:
How would you respond to the objection that the idea of the Judeo-Christian God is just too good to accept?
Click to expand...
Actually, we have several threads going right now on the theme that God is mean.

Just for myself (and I didn’t arrive at this by a straight line of thinking, more bringing bits of things I already knew and believed),
Because the Bible says so…
Because I believe the Christian claim is the strongest of all the religions (from my reading of apologetics)…
Because I believe in God/that God exists…

🙂
 
In my experience, the people who make this type of claim do so because they feel that the belief in Christianity has no benefits in this life. The benefits promised are mostly for the afterlife, and they cannot get over that. They want instant gratification.
 
Last edited:
Thats fair enough.
But isnt it also fair enough that grand beliefs with grand promises (that cannot ever be verified in this life) requiring grand commitment…should also provide equally grand grounds for the reasonableness of joining. While Jesus (allegedly) had miracles and a resurrection evidenced to his committed followers in their own lifetime…what is there to equally offer todays converts?

To be honest for me the usual argument re “survival” of the Catholic Church over 2000 years has never worked for me. Other corrupt or irrelevent or dubious large institutions and cults have survived longer.
I can only put it down to the inexplicable workings of the HS…which causes our hearts to resonate when we see a home for our souls despite the apparant filth that others might perceive. Much prayer and honest self knowledge seems to be key.
 
Last edited:
Sophie111 said:
I can only put it down to the inexplicable workings of the HS
Click to expand...
I agree. We cannot ‘convert’ anyone, only the Holy Spirit can move someone to the truth. And faith is a gift for those who are open to it.
 
I just had to share a memory with you . This goth kid on the Ricki Lake show said ‘Christians are vampires because they drink the blood of Christ ‘ and me and mother were like … you literally can’t argue with it
 
Tis_Bearself said:
In my experience, the vast majority of non-believers do not believe in a “historical Jesus”. They insist he is a total fiction and are not even convinced of his existence by atheist historians
Click to expand...
I’m going to have to disagree with you on this. Most non-believers would likely say we can’t say with any certainty that there was a historical Jesus. Then as far as when non-believers speculate on the matter there is a fair mix of people who say there likely was a historical Jesus, that there wasn’t a historical Jesus, or that around 50/50 there was or wasn’t a historical Jesus.

There’s speculation that the story of Heracles derived from an actual figure in history, so whether there was or wasn’t a historical Jesus means little.

At least from the many non-believers that I interact with I certainly wouldn’t say a “vast majority” are mythicists.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top