Why Christianity

[Nullasalus]

Christians call this the Golden Rule, but it was around long before Jesus:

Curiously left off the list:

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” Leviticus 19:18.

Also left off the list - the particular spin Christ put on it, extending kinsman from ‘your neighbor’ and ‘people of your type’ to ‘everyone’.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

Nullasalus

You beat me to it.

And Leviticus beat Isocrates to it by 600 years.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

SteaknPotatoes

*So, why be moral?

Simply, because I am a part of a larger society, and it is in my interest (and the larger interest of society as a whole) that I should be seen as cooperative and trustworthy; also, I know that I will occasionally need help and would want someone to offer aid at that time; and experience tells me that there are others out there right now how could use my help, which I should freely offer when I can.
*
You have only answered the question why be moral. And your answer is not surprisingly any different than a Christian’s. You haven’t answered the question of what authority we have for the moral choices we make. With atheism each atheist, denying any absolute ground of moral authority, is free to select his own. This makes for rank relativism. Right and wrong are what I say are right and wrong. One man’s right can be his neighbor’s wrong. This is a recipe for moral madness and social chaos … much of which we are seeing today in our more and more poorly educated and mindless youth who have no solid base for the moral choices they are invited by a hedonistic world to make.

 

[CarlosG]

In the interest of both theists and atheists to at least know how high-class debaters argue this question, here is the transcript of a debate between William Lane Craig and Kai Neilson (hopefully linking sites is allowed on here, if not i apologize), argueably some of the best debaters on the planet right now:
leaderu.com/offices/billcraig/docs/craig-nielsen0.html

 

[Axion]

You have only answered the question why be moral. And your answer is not surprisingly any different than a Christian’s. You haven’t answered the question of what authority we have for the moral choices we make. With atheism each atheist, denying any absolute ground of moral authority, is free to select his own. This makes for rank relativism. Right and wrong are what I say are right and wrong. One man’s right can be his neighbor’s wrong. This is a recipe for moral madness and social chaos … much of which we are seeing today in our more and more poorly educated and mindless youth who have no solid base for the moral choices they are invited by a hedonistic world to make.

Indeed.

This is why Atheists, as soon as they come into power, lose all moral restraint and soon end in an orgy of killing that in two short centuries has exceeded that of religious conflicts hundreds of times over…

French Revolution… Hundreds of thousands slain
Russian revolution… Ten Million Slain
China… twenty million Slain
Cambodia… Two Million slain
North korea… One Million Slain,
etc.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

SYou haven’t answered the question of what authority we have for the moral choices we make.

There is no absolute authority for morality. Each society has it’s own concept of what is moral, and that can (and does) change over time.

A mere 400 years ago it was acceptable to kill those who did not hold the same religious ideas as the rest of the community. That is now regarded as immoral.

A mere 300 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to regard another human being as property. That is now regarded as immoral.

A mere 200 years ago it was acceptable to make treaties with indigenous people and subsequently ignore the same treaties when the opportunity arose. We now realize that was immoral.

A mere 100 years ago it was acceptable to deny women the opportunity to participate in the political system. We now consider that immoral.

Believing that morality is fluid, however, is not the same as having no morals at all. I wish those who toss about the “all atheists are murderers if they get half a chance” chestnut would remember that.

 

[SteakNPotatoes]

Curiously left off the list:

“Thou shalt not avenge, nor bear any grudge against the children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself: I am the LORD.” Leviticus 19:18.

Also left off the list - the particular spin Christ put on it, extending kinsman from ‘your neighbor’ and ‘people of your type’ to ‘everyone’.

Nothing nefarious intended. I merely wanted to highlight the fact that the Golden Rule is common to different cultures and religions. I figured everyone here was already aware of the Judeo-Christian tradition.

 

[rtconstant]

I think that you are going through and important stage in your life. I think we all go through it in stage or another. Overall this can be a positive thing. You are correct that you shouldn’t be following a belief system simply because you were raised in it. Any world view should be something that you own. You need to have your own reasons for being Christian.

In this sort of situation I think that your decision will probably end up being a personal one. We could discuss theology but theology requires at least some buy in before it can be truly effective. Even reason can fail you in this stage because without a ground work or standard by which to apply it. Like theology reason has its own assumptions.

I wouldn’t worry about this “sin” that you’ve mentioned right now. You’ll never come to a conclusion about whether or not it’s right or wrong if you don’t have a basis from which to judge it. Get your spiritual, mental and moral compass set then you’ll be able to more readily decide what is right and wrong.

You mentioned that you didn’t want to be Christian if the only reason that you are doing it is because that you’re afraid of Hell. I think that’s good. If you stay a Christian you should do so because you love God and the Faith not because you’re afraid.

From my own experience I stay a Christian because I love Christ. Like you I have my moments of doubt. What ultimately pulls me through though is that I have come to the conclusion that even if one could prove to me that all of Christianity is a lie I’d rather believe in a lie that has Christ in it than a truth with him absent.

Is that stand point rational? No, it isn’t rational at all. Yet, I’ve decided that my life as a Christian is one of meaning. Christ compels me to live a life that is much larger than my own. He gives me purpose in everything that I do throughout the day. In other words ultimately Christ gives my life meaning.

Now some will say that makes me ignorant or foolish and perhaps they’re right. Some might also say that it is unhealthy as I should be able to find meaning in myself. I can see from a certain point of view where that makes sense. Still I would rather believe that the center of my universe is larger than myself and instead embrace a Faith that encompasses all of humanity, the world and the universe. To me a life of sacrifice for my God and my fellow man is a life worth living. This life of service and enlightenment is embodied in Our Lord and so I’ll stand with him no matter what.

I don’t know if any of this is relevant too you but I appreciate your time. I’ll pray that the Lord will give you the answers and peace that you are looking for.

 

[CarlosG]

There is no absolute authority for morality. Each society has it’s own concept of what is moral, and that can (and does) change over time.

A mere 400 years ago it was acceptable to kill those who did not hold the same religious ideas as the rest of the community. That is now regarded as immoral.

A mere 300 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to regard another human being as property. That is now regarded as immoral.

A mere 200 years ago it was acceptable to make treaties with indigenous people and subsequently ignore the same treaties when the opportunity arose. We now realize that was immoral.

A mere 100 years ago it was acceptable to deny women the opportunity to participate in the political system. We now consider that immoral.

Believing that morality is fluid, however, is not the same as having no morals at all. I wish those who toss about the “all atheists are murderers if they get half a chance” chestnut would remember that.

Hi,
I dont think you want to go down this road because again as i pointed out before, anecdotal stories dont really do anything and I could just as easily point out that in science we had no idea (well, only a very vague idea) what gravity was before Newton, does it follow that gravity never existed? Or that numbers never existed till we made them up?

It could just as easily be said that those morals were discovered, although i think they were “discovered” when Jesus and gave us his teachings (here im at a loss to quote exact scripture due to my pathetic lack of biblical knowledge, I must work on this) and thus were revealed to us much earlier than you claim just not put into act/law.

Even taking into account your own list, there is a pattern, and its never down, its always up, applying rights that were always there and making them formal laws. This certainly doesn’t seem like fluidity to me, fluid flows back and forth. By that logic, its a possibility that murder will be legalized, or that rape will be applauded as a great and virtuous act some time in the future?

It comes down to the fact that if they are not grounded in God then we make them up and we dont make things that are right and wrong, we just make things.

 

[Alchemist]

You’ve all brought up interesting points, but no one has yet given me a reason to have faith in Christianity. I won’t be checking this thread as often anymore, but if anyone feels that they have come up with a reason please pm me.

 

[Gilbert_Keith]

SteakNPotatoes

There is no absolute authority for morality. Each society has it’s own concept of what is moral, and that can (and does) change over time.

A mere 400 years ago it was acceptable to kill those who did not hold the same religious ideas as the rest of the community. That is now regarded as immoral.

A mere 300 years ago it was perfectly acceptable to regard another human being as property. That is now regarded as immoral.

I’m afraid this line of reasoning, relativistic as it is, was predictable.

You are confused by the notion that the true moral law changes from one generation to the next. It does not. People may declare the law has been changed, but that doesn’t make it so.

The Ten Commandments of Moses are still in force. The two Great Commandments of Jesus are still in force. They have not been overturned by time or circumstances.

People who refuse to obey those laws do so at their own risk. Those people include Popes and Bishops who, having lost their moral moorings, may have promoted violence and wars against fellow Christians. They were frail humans, who should have known better.

Hitler, Stalin, and Mao, however, all three atheists, did not even have the benefit of a moral foundation they could violate, since, like good atheists, they acknowledged no fixed foundation at all. That is why the murderous cruelties reflected in the Crusades and the Inquisitions and the Wars of the Reformation look more like a warm-up act compared to the full scale holocausts of the 20th Century.

 

[Jessamy]

I mean, I believed in it back then but didn’t really understand it fully. In college I started learning more and more about it. But now I’m thinking that if I had been born in an areligious family then I wouldn’t even be dealing with these issues that I’m struggling with now. I’d have a less biased perspective on it and would feel less pressure to get meaning in my life through a religion.

This is not necessarily true. I’m a college student now, and I was raised in a family that pretty much ignored religion. Everything I know about it now I learned from sources outside my family. I don’t think it gives you a less biased view; I am very biased against the idea of God exisisting. I’ve been doing a lot of research, and my boyfriend is Catholic, so he has been helping me to explore other opinions.

You can say that in a different situation you might have a different view, but you can’t say that the other view would be necessarily more correct. All family backgrounds cause certain biases, and there is no way around thinking very hard and doing a lot of research to discover truth for yourself.

Maybe it’s true that you would never even search for meaning through religion if born in an areligious family, but I personally feel that the questions you must ask when exploring religion are valid ones, even if I’m not certain of the answers.

I know this isn’t the “reason” to believe in Christianity, or even religion in general, that you are looking for, but asking the opinions of others in a forum is not going to be good enough anyway. I am not convinced either so I don’t know what could do it for you, but I would suggest reading everything you can from athiest and Christian viewpoints. It doesn’t necessarily even have to be arguments for either side; just gauging differences in moral opinions is enough to start serious thinking about who is really correct.

I wish you the best; it’s always better to ask questions and learn for yourself than just to blindly follow what you are told.

 

[Liberian]

Alchemist,

I beg your pardon? I gave you a reason; you simply haven’t accepted it.

If you want further reasons, please check out the history of the Catholic Church (for anything that messed up to have lasted this long is nothing short of a miracle); the fact that the resurrection of Jesus is the best-documented event in history of more than a thousand years ago; the Shroud of Turin; and the miracle of the sun at Fatima. If you want more reasons, I can give them to you.

• Liberian

 

[Mijoy2]

Possibly one of the very best ways to answer the question: Why Christianity?

Is with the book *Mere Christianity *By C.S.Lewis

 

[CarlosG]

Alchemist,

I beg your pardon? I gave you a reason; you simply haven’t accepted it.

If you want further reasons, please check out the history of the Catholic Church (for anything that messed up to have lasted this long is nothing short of a miracle); the fact that the resurrection of Jesus is the best-documented event in history of more than a thousand years ago; the Shroud of Turin; and the miracle of the sun at Fatima. If you want more reasons, I can give them to you.

• Liberian

If this is the type of evidence you’re looking for then theres a HUGE boatload of the stuff out there. Check out books by some of the following authors:

• CS Lewis - Mere Christianity or the Abolition of Man is a good start but all of it is very good.
• GK Chesterton - The Everlasting Man
• Peter Kreeft - www.peterkreeft.com has some free audio downloads that are EXCELLENT, along with his huge library of written work
• Gary Habermas - Has alot of work that has been recommended to me and is one of the most prominent historians dealing with all things having to do with the true ressurection of Jesus Christ. He also played a big role in one of the centuries biggest atheists ( Antony Flew) becoming a theist. They have a book with their dialogue back and forth called “Ressurected?”
• JP Moreland - Scaling the Secular City gives a very good and thorough introduction to Christian apologetics. Also has a book with Gary Habermas about afterlife experiences that is supposed to be very good (havent read it yet but its on my amazon wish list).
• William Lane Craig - Literally world-class debater and writer, i posted one of his debates earlier in the thread, has a good book called “Philosophical Foundations for a Christian World View”
• St. Augustine - For me personally a tough read but well worth it, I started with “Confessions”, which I still havent finished
• St. Thomas Aquinas - Heh…well…leave this one for last Summa Theologica
• Thomas Merton - The Seven Storey Mountain
• Walker Percey - Lost in the Cosmos - great fiction!!

Theres also websites like www.tektonics.org that has alot of historical evidence for the faith, heres one of my favorites: tektonics.org/lp/nowayjose.html The guy who runs the site (JP Holding) is a frequent debater on some of the bigger sites like theologyweb.com

I feel like posting all this stuff is kinda like backing down from your challenge but quite honestly I cant say it any better than them.