The case for Christianity

[mcq72]

it just seems as though an atheist worldview can give more eloquent/logical answers to the questions that plague humanity.

For sure one can be swayed by eloquent and seemingly logical answers. For sure we all think our pied piper is genuine.

We have been gifted with personhood, of emotion and mind and spirit. We have become disconnected from our Source however, and are the only creatures who curse what is below him and what is above him.

Atheism has a poor answer to the guilt and illogicalness of our views and wicked actions. Everyone knows, “Houston, we have a problem.” Hence the pied pipers come. Like the wonders of nature they first tantalize and mesmerize before the ensnarement of their victims (the cobra, venus fly trap?)

“There is a way that seems right to every man, but the ways are of death.”

Smooth talk and clever weighing of things is not the gospel. As some have already suggested the preaching of the cross of Jesus Christ is not eloquent or unproblematic. Yet God chose that by the foolishness of such preaching that man be saved, His power being thus manifested."

 

[mcq72]

the concept of faith is inherently illogical because it essentially means believing in something despite a lack of evidence… In fact here’s the definition, “strong belief in God or in the doctrines of a religion, based on spiritual apprehension rather than proof.”.

Faith is not without it’s evidences. Even your definition used the word " “apprehend”. One can apprehend understanding, even evidences.

“Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen.”

So both science and religion have evidences and things hoped for. Both use faith. Both are subject to “seek and ye shall find” or you will find what you seek, and both are prejudicially problematic (on the theory side). Both have substantive evidences and knowledge.

I don’t think I am particularly biased though. I made this thread to hear a wider variety of opinions in fact. Also I think both world-views are believable, I just have a hard time deciding which is more believable.

Well, I am very, very biased and narrow minded now. Open mindedness is like being jack of all trades and master of none?

Actually a Christian is one who has died to himself, as Christ did on the cross, but reborn into a new man, even in Christ, to have His mind. One has to take the great gift of life, of personhood, even what one has concocted in their hearts and minds and flush it away. Like climbing a mountain with your gifted logical and rational mind . Upon reaching the precipice we must throw all our thoughts and desires down to their death, as unwanted. (our Mount Taygetus, where myth has it that Spartans tossed their unwanted weak or sickly babies not fit for their warrior mission).

Seems counterintuitive requiring faith. Seems like impossible. Yet it is necesary due to the impossibility of saving ourselves, of being spiritually enlightened by ourselves. It is the only way to receive the gift of faith. And faith is a gift from God, freely given. Without faith it is impossible to see God and please Him.

So, like the Bonnie Raitt song says, Give It Up, the struggle for self justification, to be something we are not by birth (holy and spiritually alive).

The default is to be blind to the revelation of Jesus Christ. He must draw you to His goodness and love, and grant you the desire of your heart, to finally settle the matter and “change”, to accept His way.

Prayers and blessings on you to that end.

 

[rosejmj]

I think it depends on the atheist/non religious person. I have known people who left religion d find that they have found more meaning in life because of the freedom that comes with it and their outlook on life. It’s really about perspective. If all I think about is how I’m going to die and cease to exist and how nothing matters, then yes that’s a bit sad. If I think about how my life is made up of infinite moments and there is so much I can try to do and I can choose to live a happy and full life and do good for those around me… I’ve created so much more meaning for my life and even to direct my actions.

 

[rosejmj]

I have found that Mere Christianity does not thoroughly address most issues and objections to Christianity that may come up for someone. I know that I was trying to find answers and wanted to know the truth and I found that there were few good arguments to my objections. I need more than just Jesus was either God, a liar, or a lunatic. First you’d have to try to convince me that the Jesus depicted in the gospels is the real Jesus etc. It is overly simplified in my opinion and provides arguments that may sound logical but also has holes and does not have evidence to back it up

 

[rosejmj]

Even within that, how do we know there is only one god? How do we know the qualities and attributes of god(s)? You also cannot prove the existence of god or that God created the world. Obviously there either is or is not god(s), but if it cannot be proven, then how can someone assume that they know when they cannot? Isn’t that presumptuous? Is it not better to at least be honest with oneself and recognize that you cannot know, although you may lean one way and think it best to live as if god does or does not exist or to paint a certain perception of god in your head?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

You also cannot prove the existence of god or that God created the world.

I have faith and trust that God created the universe and life, there is no final proof. Profound events have happened in my life.

Do you have faith and trust that the universe happened by natural causes?

 

[rosejmj]

While faith may not go against reason, the whole purpose of faith is to believe something for which there is no proof or sometimes even evidence and something that goes beyond human reason. No one is going to reason to the Trinity and the Trinity cannot be proven. You have no way of knowing in this life if God is one being in 3 divine persons. You were just taught that and have faith that it is true.

 

[rosejmj]

No, I do not know if the world was created by God or by natural causes. I have a guess that makes more sense to me, but I just accept that I do not know. In my opinion, it seems more plausible that there is some divine being behind the creation of the world, but that is just what resonates more with me

 

[Neithan]

I’m not quite sure how to articulate this, but after quite a bit of deliberation, it just seems as though an atheist worldview can give more eloquent/logical answers to the questions that plague humanity. Additionally , all the inconvenient little holes in Christianity begin to add up it seems. For example, numerous inconsistencies throughout The Bible, God’s seemingly immoral actions, and other things such as the olivet discourse’s prophecies being unfulfilled, or even the underwhelming “miracle” of liquefying the blood of St. Januarius. Also, the concept of faith is inherently illogical because it essentially means believing in something despite a lack of evidence. I’m not saying that there is no answers to the aforementioned questions/points, but that it creates quite the hurdle for logically believing Christianity. So I suppose I wanted to hear why you guys believe your worldview to be the most intuitive/logical worldview.

Where Christianity has some answers, atheism does not; but I don’t think metaphysical ignorance (in the literal sense as mere lack of information) is more eloquent or logical, only truncated, and where the ultimate questions are concerned, brutal.

Perhaps you’re thinking of materialism or naturalism? I can see how the strict uniformity of those systems may seem eloquent, which is why many minds adhere to them, and they do have a logical consistency to them, but they have severe shortcomings as attempted explanations for everything.

 

[po18guy]

There would be few atheists (of sound mind) in this world if they would stop making cartoon characters out of the Creator and view Him as the first cause - a pure spirit. But, no, they are envious of those who believe more than they do; who are happier than they are; who experience true peace - even in times of war.

Without God, there could be no atheists.

 

[Mike_from_NJ]

Where Christianity has some answers, atheism does not; but I don’t think metaphysical ignorance (in the literal sense as mere lack of information) is more eloquent or logical, only truncated, and where the ultimate questions are concerned, brutal.

Obviously we will disagree on this, but atheists don’t see what Christians say as answers so much as unsubstantiated claims. Christianity claims to know how the universe came to be, but that is answer only in so much that 4 and 5 are both answers to “What is 2+2?” We don’t know whether what Christians give as answers as right or wrong.

And that’s an important phrase. There’s something pure about saying “I don’t know” on some things that Christianity claims it has answers on. Assuredness of an answer does not necessarily make it a right answer.

There would be few atheists (of sound mind) in this world if they would stop making cartoon characters out of the Creator and view Him as the first cause - a pure spirit.

I would say that how atheists describe your god isn’t from whole cloth. It derives from Scripture. When atheists describe God as a moral monster, it comes from many passages that make him out as such. When atheists point out God make unfulfilled prophecies (the OP gave a great example of the prophecy in the Olivet Discourse) it’s due to the words written and presented as prophecy.

Now this is my opinion, but I would suspect at least some other atheists would agree, that when scriptural backing is given to explain our take on God far too often the response is some variation of “Oh, that doesn’t count.”

But, no, they are envious of those who believe more than they do; who are happier than they are; who experience true peace - even in times of war.

I would be interested if you could confirm that a sizeable percentage of atheists are envious of believers, are not as happy or peaceful as believers. Also let’s pick any belief that both Christians and atheists do not think is true. Is it possible for someone to use a belief that is not true to be both peaceful and happy? Surely it is. Now that isn’t to say that Christianity is not true, but only to say that even if your claim to happiness and peacefulness over atheists were true it would not be evidence of its factuality.

Without God, there could be no atheists.

I could claim that there would be no Christians if not for me. Such a claim is just as provable and just as falsifiable as the claim you made.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Without God, there could be no atheists.

Yes. With God all good things are possible.
Without God, there is no hope.

 

[mcq72]

Isn’t that presumptuous?

If it is a faith matter presumption is moot.

Both sides of this discussion are in faith realm. One can presume to know and one can presume inability to know.

You have no way of knowing in this life if God is one being in 3 divine persons. You were just taught that and have faith that it is true.

And you were taught there is no way of knowing. Agree we are taught, for faith comes by hearing. We just differ on whom we hear from.

In my opinion, it seems more plausible that there is some divine being behind the creation of the world, but that is just what resonates more with me

Now I like this …permit me to say it is biblically founded…that although our default is spiritual blindness, our physical eyes can see a divine reflection in creation. But even this can be muted if we so desire, but I pray you hold on yo at least that beginning point

 

[mcq72]

I would say that how atheists describe your god isn’t from whole cloth. It derives from Scripture. When atheists describe God as a moral monster, it comes from many passages that make him out as such. When atheists point out God make unfulfilled prophecies (the OP gave a great example of the prophecy in the Olivet Discourse) it’s due to the words written and presented as prophecy.

when scriptural backing is given to explain our take on God far too often the response is some variation of “Oh, that doesn’t count.”

Fair point, and I suppose someone pointing out a misconstruction of a text could be seen as " that doesn’t count".

I think the saying that “a little bit of knowledge is a dangerous thing” can come into play. One can certainly read any text from any book and come away with the right understanding as well as the wrong one.

We read with prejudices. Where we sit is where we stand. What melts wax hardens clay. It’s in the eyes of the beholder. The only problem is there are absolute truths and not eveyone can be right.

I think we could agree with biblical text that acknowledges and encourages “rightly dividing the word” unto life, and not to “twist the scriptures unto to our own malady”. Indeed it counts both ways, when we are right and when we are wrong.

 

[po18guy]

The observation is not mine. It is that of a man more witty and intelligent when asleep than you and I combined when awake.

Gilbert Keith Chesterton.

Do you realize how utterly nonsensical it appears to deny the truth of that sentence? Apparently not?

 

[Eric_Hyom]

it seems more plausible that there is some divine being behind the creation of the world,

Creation is history, there cannot be a maybe god. If God exists fully and totally, then there is the need to search for him.

 

[0Scarlett_nidiyilii]

No one book “explains it all”.

But I have found it to be a good jumping off point.

If it doesn’t work for your, that’s fine, there are other books and materials out there.

 

[Neithan]

Obviously we will disagree on this, but atheists don’t see what Christians say as answers so much as unsubstantiated claims.

That Jesus of Nazareth was crucified and rose from the dead is as substantiated a historical claim as you can get: atheists can only reject it because of some cognitive bias that outright denies the possibility of such a thing happening.

Christianity claims to know how the universe came to be, but that is answer only in so much that 4 and 5 are both answers to “What is 2+2?” We don’t know whether what Christians give as answers as right or wrong.

We certainly know that 2+2 does not equal 5. And we don’t have to read 1984 to learn that. Christianity offers all the same answers we can logically and naturally know; that’s why it developed the western methods of knowledge that atheists also believe in. Modern atheists are merely “sola scientia” about things now.

And that’s an important phrase. There’s something pure about saying “I don’t know” on some things that Christianity claims it has answers on. Assuredness of an answer does not necessarily make it a right answer.

It is good and pure to be honest, yes. If you don’t know, then don’t pretend to know. And much of Christianity is not within our ability to know without faith. There is suprarational truth. It’s when denial becomes obstinate that there is something else than pure reasoning at work.

 

[mcq72]

Christianity offers all the same answers we can logically and naturally know; that’s why it developed the western methods of knowledge that atheists also believe

Yes and no.

I have cited on this thread that the “knowledge” or Christian understanding is not our default. It is not natural. It is a gift from above. Even you rightly go on to say ,

“And much of Christianity is not within our ability to know without faith. There is suprarational truth.”

I will agree as to having an aspect of methodology regarding the absoluteness of truth, and an aspiring to wisdom there upon. Not sure it began as “western”, but more a gift originating in the Jewish faith, the forefather of our faith.

 

[Dan_Defender]

Modern atheists are merely “sola scientia” about things now.

But even then, science doesn’t have all the answers. Take dark matter and dark energy, they are ‘mysteries’. So they are betting on unknowns. Atheism is inconsistent with the scientific method.