Why I question Christian beliefs

[JNdoum]

Whenever I see arguments such as this, I tend to think people are rather missing the point. I’m not sure if it is believed that Christians go to church to discuss the creation of the universe, but as far as that goes, I feel it is unnecessary (in a religious context) to really know or believe anything outside of the fact that God made the universe from nothing. Anything else you believe you may and in fact should leave to science, because our faith is not about how the world was made.

As an earlier poster said, we are Catholics and Christians not because of overwhelming and disciplined evidence for God, but because we believe in God and the relationship we have with Him in our lives and through the Church. We believe that we were created for love, and that we are to come to consummation in God, who is love.

To be frank, everything is incredible, from Mt. Everest to my younger sister’s farts. All of it is bizarre, incomprehensible, and irrational. One could throw doubt onto any means we use to define or understand anything. But that is pointless and has nothing to do with life, unless you plan to live your life locked in a lab thinking about how stuff works. I converted to Catholicism because I read the teachings and beliefs of the Catholic Church, and I saw the truth.

I could argue until I am blue in the face about why my religion is true and why there is a God etc. Even if I have the best crafted arguments, I do not think of these arguments in prayer, or when I attend Mass, or when I treat people according to my faith; I do this no more than you consider an apple’s chemical structure as you eat it.

My faith is verified in the comfort I receive in times of distress, and in the graces I receive from God, and in the strength I find to be patient, and in the joy I find in helping my family out by cleaning the toothpaste off the kitchen mirror or washing the dishes so that someone else doesn’t have to do it. My faith is verified when I can see a stranger and appreciate them as a child of God, and when I can see the beauty to be found in a face that is “ugly,” or “diseased,” or “deformed.”

It is true, I am not always absolutely wonderful. I snap at my siblings, and I take a joke too far, and I think ill of someone else. But once again, my faith is verified when I can pray for the humility to apologize, and can stop the mean thought and look for the Christ in the person I was internally maligning. Just like you can enjoy the flavour of your apple without considering the carbon chains to be found within it.

Scientific knowledge is good, and a blessing. Without it, we wouldn’t have modern medicine, or technology, or enough food to sustain the human population. But for heavens sake, science is not some cure-all magic pill in which we humans must find our meaning. Man desires God, naturally. You can see it through the ages. Since the very beginnings of time, an atheistic society never existed. Any that sprung up later quickly dissolved, or committed horrendous atrocities.

Sure, it is nice to be able to claim that you are an intelligent, rational being who doesn’t maintain any of the derogatory names atheists come up with for theism, and I’m sure that is very nice, and you are satisfied with it. Perhaps you may never come to believe in Christianity, which there is nothing I can do to remedy. Despite this, you can never claim that Christianity, has not been beneficial to society. I believe that point has been made countless times, and I need not even argue it.

In case the point of my long discourse is not clear, it is to simply say that the meaning of faith is not the scientific or systematic dissecting of the universe. Christians do not seek to explain what is here. Scientists do that, and do it fairly well, as long as they stay clear of trying to disprove theology (it truly is a pointless exercise to try to disprove theology with science). The point of faith is to recognise our human purpose, our relationship with our creator, and our call to holiness, our vocation of love. To try to attach some sort of time-proven evidence to love is rather foolish.

This being said, I’d like to state for clarity if nothing else that I am not scientific expert and any scientific references I make are intended to be as general and unassuming as possible, and I welcome any correction to the very vague statements I made here.

 

[Sair]

God help us if you are right and human morality is based on reciprocity. That seems like an excellent reason to adopt the principle of “might makes right.”

If my decision not to strike another person was based mostly the fear that he might strike me back, then I imagine my fear of striking him would be much less if I were much bigger than him, or had a big gang behind me, or was better armed. Is this really something you are proposing as a positive basis for respecting others? (a sort of cold-war/arms race mentality in our daily lives?)

Actually, you highlight well one of the problems with morality without God. In the absence of God human beings are simply the result of evolution, a random product of time plus matter plus chance. On this, it is hard to see that there is any basis for morality beyond, as you say, “I won’t hit you if you don’t hit me.”

Actually, in this instance it is you who are proposing a “might=right” morality, in that you are assuming that just because you can cope with repercussions, it’s okay to treat others in a manner that might lead them to wish you harm. The most fundamental principle of reciprocity is that the way you treat others is an announcement to the world that this is how you wish and expect to be treated in your turn.

If you mean, in the absence of the lex talionis, what motivation would people have to behave morally, then I would say that on Christianity people are made in the image and likeness of a loving and impartial God who sacrificed Himself to give them eternal life. This seems a good basis to provide human beings with a very high dignity and value, and hence it becomes important to respect others dignity and value.

Many Christians may not always live up to these principles, but that is not because the principles are bad, but because we are simply human and make mistakes likes everyone else.

So, what principle provides a basis for morality besides the lext talionis? That would be a recognition of the dignity of the human person.

This may mean that I do strike back in some cases. For instance, if a man attacks my sister, my recognition of her dignity means that I would be obligated to strike the man in return, but there would also be circumstances were it would be right to mortify my own (possible even justified) anger and hold my tongue or even fist because it would be better for the person who was hostile to me. This because I recognize his human dignity.

The fact that the ideals of Christianity cannot make people live up to them is a sign of failure. Imitation of Christ - the highest ideal of Christianity - ultimately involves the passive acceptance of abuse, even to the point of being tortured to death. This is hardly a recognition of human dignity. It is only rendered acceptable by belief in a supernatural deity who weilds a bigger stick than any earthly power. Might equals right, indeed.

And are you saying that in this context, it is fine to stand up for others, but not for onesself?

 

[lynnvinc]

Don’t you have to agree, however, that in its totality, the christian beliefs are bizarre? To slightly restate, don’t you concede, at least, in the abstract, that it defies your sense of what’s rational to accept a proposition that the cosmos was engineered by a Being with a definite plan for salvation because of some human “screw up” and this required the universe’s designer to assume human form, suffer and, then die–but, rise again. Don’t you allow that virgins giving birth to man/gods and wine really, underneath the molecular and atomic substances, really being blood of a specfic human from the first century only because of some arcane phrases, or any of dozens of doctrines of the faith—isn’t all of that a little bit of a reach? Kraus can’t possibly be more of a reach, can he?

Bart was traumatized by picking up the bible one day and seeing that it contradicts itself? I suppose–who knows. But, he makes sense when I read him regardless of what psychic damage he might have sustained.

Even if I throw up my hands and surrender to the concept that “I simply don’t know–but, alas, anything is possible”, why should one accept christianity’s contrived amalgam of non sequitur’s over any other? And, there are lots in this world, aren’t there? Should I accept this set of belief’s on something like Pascal’ wager? Afterall I was raised RC and hence my open defiance of these teachings likely doom me to roast in Hades, if your theology is right. I am actually proud to say that I would derive so much satisfaction with having maintained my intellectual honesty that I would actually accept the consequence, and, indeed, I would expect a just diety to acknowledge that I lived my life with the courage of my convictions.

I totally agree that Christian beliefs are extremely bizarre.

What’s also extremely bizarre is that the earth goes around the sun. We all know that the sun comes up in the east and sets in the west. In Calif where I grew up it was quite logical – the sun went into the ocean and snuffed itself out, then a new one arose in the east the next morning.

It’s also extremely bizzare that driving my car and using coal-burning electricity (which I did many years ago before switching to 100% wind electricity) – along with nearly everyone else’s similar behavior – causes the climate to change from invisible stuff the scientists call greenhouse gases, but I’ve never personally seen them.

And what’s even more bizarre than Christian beliefs, helio-centric beliefs, and the science of climate change is evolution – from slime to us. Let’s face it, humans could never ever have come up with that; they could only discover it. That stardust cruises our veins. Totally weird.

It’s possible that we will eventually figure out God and Christian beliefs in a way that makes more sense to us, just as we’ve been able to figure out much of (but probably not all) scientific facts and theories. Or not.

That’s where faith comes in. Those who have not figured out all the weird things re Christian beliefs but yet accept them on faith (the Christians) may someday be vindicated, if not in this material, empirical existence, then in the spiritual realm. There are miracles now and then that help our faith, but it is basically just blind faith…“the dark night of the soul,” meditation under the “cloud of unknowing.”

Perhaps good books for you to read to understand that Christian mysteries are totally weird and totally unknowable it The Cloud of Unknowing (see en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Cloud_of_Unknowing ) and Ascent of Mount Carmel by St. John of the Cross; he speaks of nada, nada, nada as the way:

Take care that you always choose not the easiest but the hardest; not the most agreeable but the most disagreeable; … not what consoles but what deprives you of consolation; … not attachment to things but detachment from them.

Desire nothing but to enter for Christ into absolute nakedness, emptiness, and poverty… If you want to possess all, you must desire nothing. If you want to become all, you must desire to be nothing. If you want to know all, you must desire to know nothing. For if you desire to possess anything, you cannot possess God as your only treasure.

Of course, as you can well guess, you don’t see a lot of statues of St. John of the Cross around in Catholic churches. How many “St. John of the Cross” churches are there – I’d wager maybe one or two in the Carmelite order. He’s the least favorate saint of Catholics. But he does give us the map to God, for anyone seriously interested in finding God and entering into union with God.

 

[danserr]

Actually, in this instance it is you who are proposing a “might=right” morality, in that you are assuming that just because you can cope with repercussions, it’s okay to treat others in a manner that might lead them to wish you harm. The most fundamental principle of reciprocity is that the way you treat others is an announcement to the world that this is how you wish and expect to be treated in your turn.

I may not have been clear enough because I think you misunderstand my point. I am not proposing a might makes right mentality. On the contrary, I am saying that your principles, carried to their logical conclusion, are inadequate because they could easily lead to a morality based on “might makes right.”

Here is what i mean. You attacked the principle of “turn the other cheek,” by claiming it would lead to moral chaos. Instead, you proposed the centrality of the principle of “reciprocity,” by which you meant that I must always strike back because a man will only respect me if he fears retaliation from harm.

At this point, I observed that if morality really is only based on the lex talionis, (what you call the principle of reciprocity), and I only do not strike another person for fear he may strike me back, then this could easily lead to a might makes right/cold-war mentality. For instance, suppose I am bigger than the man I would strike, suppose I have a strong gang, good weapons etc. Well, then there is no fear that he would strike me back, and hence, according to your principles, nothing to stop me from striking him. This is what I mean by claiming that the principle of reciprocity can easily lead to a might-makes-right morality.

With Christianity, however, I know that each person has irrevocable human dignity, that they were made in the image and likeness of an impartial and loving God. Well, even if I am stronger than another man, I know that I ought to respect him, having been made in the divine image. If your morality is based on the principle of reciprocity, you lose this basis.

you treat others is an announcement to the world that this is how you wish and expect to be treated in your turn

Now, if all you are saying is that we should do unto other as we would have them do unto us, then you are simply accepting one of Christianity’s main teachings (Luke 6:31).

This deep concern for others’ well-being means that there may be times when it is my duty to mortify my (perhaps justified) anger or even hurt out of concern even for the person who hurt me. This is the principle of love your enemies (in the same chapter of Luke), because even they are made in God’s image and intended by Him for eternal happiness.

And are you saying that in this context, it is fine to stand up for others, but not for onesself?

It would depend on the specific situation. There are times it is perfectly fine and a moral duty to stand up for oneself; there are times I might not strike back on another’s behalf. Love of others probably has to be our main concern (along with Love of God), and that will help us determine how to act in a particular situation.

The fact that the ideals of Christianity cannot make people live up to them is a sign of failure. Imitation of Christ - the highest ideal of Christianity - ultimately involves the passive acceptance of abuse, even to the point of being tortured to death. This is hardly a recognition of human dignity. It is only rendered acceptable by belief in a supernatural deity who weilds a bigger stick than any earthly power. Might equals right, indeed.

Nonsense, on multiple grounds. That people do not live up to high moral principles does not prove that the principles are flawed, but that people are. Or another way, that people do not live up to the ideals of Christianity is indeed a sign of failure, on behalf of the people. It proves nothing more than the existence of sin, which proves exactly what the Church has been saying for two thousand years.

Or as Chesterton put it “when the world goes wrong, it proves the Church is right… the Church is justified not because her children do not sin, but because they do…” (The Everlasting Man.

Your solution to failure to live up to high ideals seems to be to abandon the ideals; a better one might be to seek forgiveness and redemption.

Jesus suffered and died because he thought that there was something worth dying for-- the redemption of all mankind. When other Christians imitate Christ, for instance, Thomas More, they did so because following Christ’s example, they also thought there was something, or Someone, worth dying for. That because He died for them and loved them first.

Christians are not willing to follow God or suffer for Him simply because of His raw power. That is absurd. Their willingness to suffer for Him, if it is necessary, is a decision made from their love and trust in Him, not as a powerful dictator, but as a loving King who died for them first.

 

[tabycat]

“To one who has faith, no explanation is necessary. To one without faith, no explanation is possible.” St. Thomas Aquinas

“Do not preach; practice.” Sathya Sai

I was trying to rember who said your first quote. (sorry St. Thomas Aquinas!)

“Preach always. Use words If you have to” St. Francis

 

[Sair]

With Christianity, however, I know that each person has irrevocable human dignity, that they were made in the image and likeness of an impartial and loving God. Well, even if I am stronger than another man, I know that I ought to respect him, having been made in the divine image. If your morality is based on the principle of reciprocity, you lose this basis.

Now, if all you are saying is that we should do unto other as we would have them do unto us, then you are simply accepting one of Christianity’s main teachings (Luke 6:31).

Reciprocity has at its core an understanding that no-one is intrinsically worth more than another, certainly. And strength is relative to circumstances. Everyone has their weaknesses, so if one does not wish others to exploit one’s own, well, you know what you have to do. The greatest strength is often to be found in earning the trust and affection of those around you. As for doing unto others, that is a principle that was adopted, but not invented, by Christianity.

It would depend on the specific situation. There are times it is perfectly fine and a moral duty to stand up for oneself; there are times I might not strike back on another’s behalf. Love of others probably has to be our main concern (along with Love of God), and that will help us determine how to act in a particular situation.

In other words, one exercises judgement as to when circumstances require intervention and/or retaliation. This is usually a consideration of what will lead to the best outcome for the parties involved - if retaliation is likely to lead only to an escalation of hostilities, it’s obviously not going to be the best option, though there will almost always be those who want only to seek revenge for perceived wrongs. The point is that if people get away with treating others badly, they will consider it okay for them to continue doing so.

Nonsense, on multiple grounds. That people do not live up to high moral principles does not prove that the principles are flawed, but that people are. Or another way, that people do not live up to the ideals of Christianity is indeed a sign of failure, on behalf of the people. It proves nothing more than the existence of sin, which proves exactly what the Church has been saying for two thousand years.

Or it may simply prove that the ideals in question are framed in highly unrealistic terms, in terms that treat humans as if we are failures from the very beginning - as Hitchens put it on many an occasion during debate, according to Christian theology, we are created sick and commanded to be well. This is not a moral system finely attuned to human nature.

Christians are not willing to follow God or suffer for Him simply because of His raw power. That is absurd. Their willingness to suffer for Him, if it is necessary, is a decision made from their love and trust in Him, not as a powerful dictator, but as a loving King who died for them first.

But there is a very strong inclination to suppose, if one believes in the theistic concept of a personal god, that all earthly wrongs will be ‘fixed’, somehow, or compensated in the next world. That those who apparently get away with harming others will be punished, eventually. This is still retaliatory justice, but at one remove.

Even those who can’t be said to be imitating Christ have given their lives for ideals they believed to be worth dying for - Socrates, assuming he existed, cannot be claimed to have been a Christian, nor can Hypatia, nor can the leaders of the German Spartacist movement, nor can the self-immolating Buddhists protesting an unjust war.

And this doesn’t touch upon the reasons Christ is supposed to have died. In a purely human and historical context, Jesus (again, assuming he existed as a real individual) was a man who clearly had the courage of his convictions, who was executed because he was seen as a disruptive influence upon the Romanised society in which he lived. Dying for the sake of a cause or an ideal or to bring about a desired state of affairs is something we almost automatically respect, since it is perhaps the most complete sign of commitment to one’s object. But filter this through the lens of Christian theology and we arrive at the idea of vicarious atonement, a convoluted - and it has to be said, ethically dubious at best - notion that has humans, right from the beginning, being created with a fundamental weakness of constitution that allowed for the introduction of sin; then the species persisted in sin for thousands of years, until God finally decided that it was time for redemption - and what better way than to sacrifice himself to himself to appease his own wrath at his own flawed creation? A perfectly loving god who requires bloodshed before he can selectively exercise forgiveness. To tie this back to the OP’s recent comment about the weirdness of Christian theology, it doesn’t take much of a step to the side to perceive the extreme peculiarity of the centrepiece of Christian faith.

 

[sw85]

1. I fully appreciate the Thomistic arguments for the existence of a “god” so heavily relied upon by Christians. At the end of all of the discourse, however, it seems to me that you have presented a plausable argument for why there must be a starting point. That starting point, of course, Thomas calls god.

I don’t think this elegant set of arguments, however, by any means closes the book on the issue because, there may, in fact, not be any “starting point”. See for example Lawrence Krauss’ work and others similarly inclined who have postulated theories which exclude the traditional cause/effect premise upon which Thomistic proofs are based.

Krauss’ book is wretched and is being lambasted as both lousy philosophy and lousy science. For the lousy philosophy take, see Edward Feser here. For the lousy science take, see David Albert here. For a useful synthesis of the two stances, see an Ivy League-educated Catholic astrophysicist here: ht**tp://bonald.wordpress.com/in-defense-of-religion/finite-and-unlimited-being/8/).

It’s possible to start at 0 and count upwards toward infinity. It is not possible to start at 0 and count backwards toward negative infinity (or, rather, ever to reach negative-infinity in that case). You are literally saying a paint brush could paint a painting on its own, provided the handle is infinitely long. Sorry, but that’s silly.

1. Even if one allows for the presuasive power of Thomas’ arguments, how does one thme migrate to a biblical god which metes out punishment, ordains a code of conduct and otherwise behaves in the manner of the biblical god, demanding sacrafice and being placated by prayer and worship? Particularly when the N.T. is added to the mix? There are, afterall, many similar paridigmns throughout history. Pagan beliefs and the mystery cults, for example, were at least similar to the Christian description of the man/god and the concept of a redemptive death. (see for example, works of Kenneth Harl and Bart Ehrman)

You mean how do we wind up with a God who is concerned with human goodness and with justice? These are explicit conclusions from Aquinas’ arguments as well.

The fact that certain themes reappear constantly in human understanding is evidence that they correspond to reality in some real and objective way – that we are in fact wired to perceive these things as truth, regardless of vast differences in space, time, culture, language, etc.

1. A diety which inspires literature fraught with the ambiguity and mixed messages as the bible? The notion seems contrived to me, and, the premise upon which it is held in such high esteem (i.e. that God himself ordained it) seems more than bizarre to me.

Are you saying that there is no possible reason why God would elect not to forcefully reveal Himself to us – such that the obvious lack of any reason is sufficient to overpower even the obvious force of Aquinas’ arguments, so that we can safely disregard them?

If so you are in the odd position of trying to prove a universal negative. If not your objection’s irrelevant.

1. I most certainly agree, however, that it is good and condusive to civility to “turn the other cheek”, to respect one another, to do good works, to be kind and to honor and respect one’s vows and promises to one another, but, these teachings predate christianity by a thousand years and more. They are found in the Tao and among earlier cultures, and formulated by men–not gods.

This isn’t an interesting objection. The central teaching of Christianity is not “You need God to be a good person.” Part of the force of natural law is that you don’t need revelation to understand it, as Aquinas himself pointed out. The central teaching of Christianity is “You need God to become more like God.” Being a good person helps (indeed, it’s pretty much a necessity) but it’s not sufficient.

1. I also agree that a good deal of western society today is mired in an out of control and corrupt consumerism, a materialistic mode of existence that ultimately will doom our civilization if conditions continue to manifest. But, the antedote is not to turn more toward religion. Religion itself is to large extent a commercial enterprise, selling relics, bartering for ndulgences, televised solicitation, rife with its own corruption and decadence, always resorting to fanciful and magical thinking, constantly turning attention from substantive issues for self preservation, myoptic focus on abortion while ignorant of far larger problems created by having 7 billion of us on this planet. There is grinding poverty in parts of the world and in our own cities. Our climate is even in peril and we are all a step away from destruction. Yet, while we fought a needless war in Iraq, crime enguled our city streets and dysfunction and drug use spread like a virus. Instead of fashioning morality on ritualistic practices and religion, we need values which enhance the wellness of humanity. We need more education, attention to the well being of all of us, conservation of our resources. Better use of our resources. It is time we gave attention to real solutions and based decisions along rational lines and not on an antiquated set of mystical beliefs.

Selling relics and indulgences are simony, forbidden and condemned in the Catholic Church. Have you not read history books that cover history past 1550 or so?

You won’t get an argument from me that fundamentalist Protestants are poo, though, with their big stupid megachurches. In my own town, the Protestants do precisely squat to help the poor, beyond directing them to my parish. That’s not a problem of “religion in general” any more than Islamic fundamentalism is a problem of “religion in general.” Issues with particulars are not issues with universals, by definition.

The rest of your rant’s not really worth addressing. The world started sucking particularly dramatically about 100 years ago. What happened around that time? We got richer, for one thing. We also got less Christian. If more money + less Christ = more misery, the solution to the problem is not yet more money and even less Christ.

 

[lynnvinc]

…Or it may simply prove that the ideals in question are framed in highly unrealistic terms, in terms that treat humans as if we are failures from the very beginning - as Hitchens put it on many an occasion during debate, according to Christian theology, we are created sick and commanded to be well. This is not a moral system finely attuned to human nature.

I think our fallen nature explains a lot – like why we are creating hell on earth thru global warming, etc, AND denying it…sort of like Adam & Cain. I teach mythology and understand myths to be charters or explanations for how the world got to be the way it did. Seems to me we are far worse than sick – we’re bad to the bone. Even with Jesus’s teachings, and salvation thru the blood of Christ, etc., and every good intention on the part of the best of us, we keep slipping and stumbling, and are in constant need of God’s help and mercy.

I recommend to everyone a strong prayer life to help one keep getting back on track, and for help in many other ways, as well. Try it and see.

Even those who can’t be said to be imitating Christ have given their lives for ideals they believed to be worth dying for - Socrates, assuming he existed, cannot be claimed to have been a Christian, nor can Hypatia, nor can the leaders of the German Spartacist movement, nor can the self-immolating Buddhists protesting an unjust war.

And this doesn’t touch upon the reasons Christ is supposed to have died. In a purely human and historical context, Jesus (again, assuming he existed as a real individual) was a man who clearly had the courage of his convictions, who was executed because he was seen as a disruptive influence upon the Romanised society in which he lived. Dying for the sake of a cause or an ideal or to bring about a desired state of affairs is something we almost automatically respect, since it is perhaps the most complete sign of commitment to one’s object. But filter this through the lens of Christian theology and we arrive at the idea of vicarious atonement, a convoluted - and it has to be said, ethically dubious at best - notion that has humans, right from the beginning, being created with a fundamental weakness of constitution that allowed for the introduction of sin; then the species persisted in sin for thousands of years, until God finally decided that it was time for redemption - and what better way than to sacrifice himself to himself to appease his own wrath at his own flawed creation? A perfectly loving god who requires bloodshed before he can selectively exercise forgiveness. To tie this back to the OP’s recent comment about the weirdness of Christian theology, it doesn’t take much of a step to the side to perceive the extreme peculiarity of the centrepiece of Christian faith.

The issue isn’t so much Jesus giving his life for the sake of the world (which as you pointed out many have done and will continue to do), but that he resurrected.

Now you can either believe what a bunch of peasant Apostles said about what they witnessed, or not. That’s more the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from that belief. Whether or not there has been corruption in the Church or among Christians ever since is sort of immaterial.

I think if Christians actually & really believed in God and Jesus and his resurrection (faith–>hope–>love), then the world would be quite a different place.

As Gandhi said, if Christians would act according to the teachings of Christ, then the whole world would become Christian.

 

[Sair]

The issue isn’t so much Jesus giving his life for the sake of the world (which as you pointed out many have done and will continue to do), but that he resurrected.

Now you can either believe what a bunch of peasant Apostles said about what they witnessed, or not. That’s more the crux of the matter. Everything else flows from that belief. Whether or not there has been corruption in the Church or among Christians ever since is sort of immaterial.

St Paul, generally considered by scholars to be the earliest writer about Jesus, refers to ‘500 witnesses’ to the resurrection, but none of these is named nor ever seems to have come forward to give testimony.

The concept of a dying and rising god is hardly unique to Christianity. Osiris, Mithras, Baal, Shiva, Bacchus, Proserpina…there is a long list of pagan and polytheistic deities whose mythology involves dying and rising again, and this is easily squared with the common human desire for some form of immortality, with our deep-seated reluctance to reconcile ourselves with the prospect of personal annihilation. Considering that this was the market of ideas in which Christianity was trying to carve its niche, it’s hardly surprising that the dying/rising aspect was incorporated into the story of Jesus.

 

[tonyrey]

St Paul, generally considered by scholars to be the earliest writer about Jesus, refers to ‘500 witnesses’ to the resurrection, but none of these is named nor ever seems to have come forward to give testimony.

St Paul’s letters were for the benefit of **Christian **communities.

The concept of a dying and rising god is hardly unique to Christianity. Osiris, Mithras, Baal, Shiva, Bacchus, Proserpina…there is a long list of pagan and polytheistic deities whose mythology involves dying and rising again, and this is easily squared with the common human desire for some form of immortality, with our deep-seated reluctance to reconcile ourselves with the prospect of personal annihilation.

The truth of a belief is not verified or falsified by human desire. The widespread belief in resurrection reflects the deep-rooted intuition that materialism is false, the body has a spiritual aspect and life is not a purposeless accident terminated by death.

Considering that this was the market of ideas in which Christianity was trying to carve its niche, it’s hardly surprising that the dying/rising aspect was incorporated into the story of Jesus.

The followers of Jesus were not **competing **in “a market of ideas” - or “trying to carve a niche” - but **communicating **the facts they had witnessed or heard from eye-witnesses.

 

[Sair]

St Paul’s letters were for the benefit of **Christian **communities.

And isn’t it interesting that there’s no record of the original conversion/establishment of said Christian communities, including no independent mention of the “500 witnesses”? Not to mention the intimations of conflict between those who held that Christianity was a branch of Jewish faith, and those, like Paul, who held that Christianity was to be a universal faith, open to Jews and gentiles alike.

The truth of a belief is not verified or falsified by human desire. The widespread belief in resurrection reflects the deep-rooted intuition that materialism is false, the body has a spiritual aspect and life is not a purposeless accident terminated by death.

That or it reflects the widespread distaste for the fact that we are all going to die, the inability to accept that life is finite.

The followers of Jesus were not **competing **in “a market of ideas” - or “trying to carve a niche” - but **communicating **the facts they had witnessed or heard from eye-witnesses.

“Facts” can be a pretty fluid phenomenon, though, their interpretation and communication often affected by circumstances. And there were certainly plenty of competing religious ideas present in the Mediterranean world of the first century CE. A central tenet of Christianity is the imperative of spreading the “word”. Somehow, Christianity had to be made to appeal to those who were already steeped in pagan mythology.

 

[tonyrey]

St Paul’s letters were for the benefit of Christian communities.
And isn’t it interesting that there’s no record of the original conversion/establishment of said Christian communities, including no independent mention of the “500 witnesses”?Not to mention the intimations of conflict between those who held that Christianity was a branch of Jewish faith, and those, like Paul, who held that Christianity was to be a universal faith, open to Jews and gentiles alike.

In the Acts of the Apostles there is detailed evidence of the original conversion and establishment of Christian communities throughout Asia, together with the dispute between St Paul and the other apostles - notably with St Peter and the question of circumcision.

The truth of a belief is not verified or falsified by human desire. The widespread belief in resurrection reflects the deep-rooted intuition that materialism is false, the body has a spiritual aspect and life is not a purposeless accident terminated by death.

That or it reflects the widespread distaste for the fact that we are all going to die, the inability to accept that life is finite.

With equal facility it can be argued that there is widespread distaste for the belief that we are not going to die and the inability to accept that life is eternal, with the added motive it incurs the reality of unwelcome obligations and consequences - which are regarded as a needless burden and a formidable obstacle to the free expression of one’s desires and ambitions.

The followers of Jesus were not competing in “a market of ideas” - or “trying to carve a niche” - but communicating the facts they had witnessed or heard from eye-witnesses.

“Facts” can be a pretty fluid phenomenon, though, their interpretation and communication often affected by circumstances. And there were certainly plenty of competing religious ideas present in the Mediterranean world of the first century CE.

The fact that Christian beliefs triumphed in the midst of such competition - even sophisticated Romans and Greeks - is further evidence that the truth shines by its own light. To any unbiased person the teaching of Jesus enshrines the noblest moral principles known to the world and are the basis of modern civilisation.

A central tenet of Christianity is the imperative of spreading the “word”. Somehow, Christianity had to be made to appeal to those who were already steeped in pagan mythology.

Christianity doesn’t have to be “made to appeal” to anyone because the truth shines by its own light without the need for marketing devices or pressure salesmanship. The experience of missionaries I shared in Africa is that people with a tribal religion immediately recognise the truth and beauty of Christ’s message because they are not encumbered by the trappings and luxuries of urban life in the West. The poor are blessed because they have a sense of proportion and of the relative unimportance of material possessions in the face of the insecurity of life and the priority of spiritual values.

 

[danserr]

Reciprocity has at its core an understanding that no-one is intrinsically worth more than another, certainly. And strength is relative to circumstances. Everyone has their weaknesses, so if one does not wish others to exploit one’s own, well, you know what you have to do. The greatest strength is often to be found in earning the trust and affection of those around you. As for doing unto others, that is a principle that was adopted, but not invented, by Christianity.

You are still refusing to accept the implications of a moral life based primarily around what you call the “principle of reciprocity,” but others refer to as the lex talionis.

I have pointed out that this principle could easily lead to a might-makes-right mentality since I would only have to fear others if they are weaker than me. But if I am stronger, your principle provides no basis for concern for others.

The way you try to escape this is to claim that we are all weaker than others in some ways, but this is tremendously inadequate. First of all, it doesn’t even appear to be true. Second, this could easily provide motivation to simply be sufficiently powerful in weapon or number of friends to be able to compensate for this weakness. The fact is that a morality based primarily on “If you hit me, I will hit you,” is a weak basis for morality.

If Christianity is true, however, and moral principles begin with love of God and neighbor (who is made in God’s image), then it seems we have a good basis for moral behavior.

if retaliation is likely to lead only to an escalation of hostilities, it’s obviously not going to be the best option, though there will almost always be those who want only to seek revenge for perceived wrongs. The point is that if people get away with treating others badly, they will consider it okay for them to continue doing so.

I like how you point out the weakness of your approach yourself. Retaliation could easily in some circumstances lead to an increase in hostilities. If the other person is stronger than I am, then I have strong motivation not to retaliate. Again, hardly the basis of any morality worth the name.

If, however, my decision to retaliate or not is based on my belief that the other person is made in the image of God and that as such, I should try to love even my enemies, wishing for their temporal and eternal good, then there may be situations in which I mortify my (even justified) anger towards them because I care for their good as well as my own. This decision has to be informed, it will depend on the situation, it is a hard ideal, but I think we cannot escape the conclusion that it is in some circumstances the right thing to do.

I don’t want a man not to hit me because he is afraid I will hit him back. Is that the kind of world you would live in? I want a man not to hit me because he realizes that it is the wrong thing to do and that he should love his neighbor.

Look, I understand that this doesn’t make sense to a non-Christian. Christopher Hitchens ridicules the idea of loving one’s enemies. He says, “you love them… I’ll get on with killing them, destroying them, erasing them…” – C. Hitchens

Fine. I get that the idea of turn the other cheek and love of enemies is a tough ideal, both today and in Jesus’ time, but it still seems to me like an ideal worth trying for.

Or it may simply prove that the ideals in question are framed in highly unrealistic terms, in terms that treat humans as if we are failures from the very beginning - as Hitchens put it on many an occasion during debate, according to Christian theology, we are created sick and commanded to be well. This is not a moral system finely attuned to human nature.

Well, then you have to make that choice for yourself. For me, I would rather fail at living up to a high and holy law than succeed in following a mediocre one. Or put it this way, “better shoot for (moral) excellence and fail, than be content with mediocrity.”

Failing to live up to an ideal is not evidence the ideal is wrong, but that I am. Falling ill is not proof that health does not exist, but that I am sick. It would be very absurd for a sick person to insist that he is not really sick after all because health is difficult for him.

Hitchens is not far off. We are sick and commanded be well. But you have to clarify this. We were not sick in the beginning, man fell. And we are commanded to be well, but we are also given the means to be so (through repeatedly seeking forgiveness and faith in God).

You’re right in that this does force a choice on a person. If you don’t live up to a high standard of morality, you can do one of two things: either give up the standard and settle for mediocrity, or else seek forgiveness. I simply find the second choice preferable.

if one believes in the theistic concept of a personal god, that all earthly wrongs will be ‘fixed’, somehow, or compensated in the next world. That those who apparently get away with harming others will be punished, eventually. This is still retaliatory justice, but at one remove.

I never said that only Christians have decided there were ideals worth dying for, so I am not sure why you are defensive on that score. But I think you are confusing justice with revenge, especially since you so obviously confuse martyrdom and suicide (when you compare real martyrs to suicidal monks). Of course, a good man hopes for justice and rests more comfortably knowing that that wrongs of this world will be righted, why should he not? And yes, this may offer him greater comfort when he is forced to mortify his anger and turn the other cheek for love of his enemy. Why should it not. Either this will redound to the good of his enemy who may later be inspired to seek his forgiveness, or else it will redound to his future glory that he suffered from the hope of saving an enemy. Why should it not? Justice is not revenge any more than martyrdom is suicide or all sex fornication.

A perfectly loving god who requires bloodshed before he can selectively exercise forgiveness. To tie this back to the OP’s recent comment about the weirdness of Christian theology

Nonsense. It seems that your main understanding of the atonement comes from Christopher Hitchens, who was wholly ignorant on the subject. Frankly, to rely on Hitchens for atonement theology would be like me relying on a fundamentalist preacher for knowledge on modern physics.

I have answered the OP’s question about the atonement in an earlier post (post 16, point 4). I refer you to that.

 

[Marc_Anthony]

1. I fully appreciate the Thomistic arguments for the existence of a “god” so heavily relied upon by Christians. At the end of all of the discourse, however, it seems to me that you have presented a plausable argument for why there must be a starting point. That starting point, of course, Thomas calls god.

I don’t think this elegant set of arguments, however, by any means closes the book on the issue because, there may, in fact, not be any “starting point”. See for example Lawrence Krauss’ work and others similarly inclined who have postulated theories which exclude the traditional cause/effect premise upon which Thomistic proofs are based.

The One God

EXISTENCE: The existence (2) of God.
ESSENCE: We cannot know what God is, but only what He is not. So to study Him, we study what He has not – such as composition and motion. His simplicity (3) or lack of composition. His perfection: and because everything in so far as it is perfect is called good, we shall speak of His goodness (6) – and goodness in general (5) – as well as His perfection (4). His infinity (7) and omnipresence (8). His immutability (9), and His eternity (10) following on His immutability. His unity (11). How God is known by us (12). The names of God (13).
OPERATIONS (INTELLECT): God’s knowledge (14). The ideas (15), which exist in His knowledge. Truth (16) in God, for knowledge is of things that are true. Falsity (17) in God. The life of God (18), since to understand belongs to living beings.
OPERATIONS (WILL): God’s will (19). In our own wills we find both the passions (such as joy and love), and the habits of the moral virtues (such as justice and fortitude). Hence we shall first consider the love (20) of God, and secondly His justice and mercy (21).
OPERATIONS (INTELLECT AND WILL): Providence (22), in respect to all created things; for in the science of morals, after the moral virtues themselves, comes the consideration of prudence, to which providence belongs. Predestination (23) and the book of life (24).
POWER: The power of God (25), the principle of the divine operation as proceeding to the exterior effect. The divine beatitude (26)

newadvent.org/summa/1.htm

WHY on Earth does everybody assume that Aquinas doesn’t try to derive the qualities of the Prime Mover from his arguments? Of course he does!

You don’t need to agree with the conclusions but seriously, nobody seems to actually want to look up the Summa and point out that Aquinas DID, in fact, try and show why the Prime Mover has the qualities we attribute to the Christian God?

You don’t need to agree with him, but it’s unfair to say that Aquinas came up with the concept of the Prime Mover and stopped at that.

 

[LogisticsBranch]

Science builds models, and thus knowledge (from performative models) from available evidence. Scientifically speaking, no evidence, no models, and thus no knowledge.

I decided to take a break from another topic and decided to say “hi” Touchstone I wanted to share with you a few excerpts from NIH (National Institute of Health) Director Dr. Elias Zerhouni:
[snip]
Opportunities Abound
*There has never been a more exciting era in science, and the opportunities are enormous. Medicine is moving from the curative model of the last 5,000 years, in which symptoms are obvious, loss of function is clear, and intervention too late. We are now moving toward a more preemptive model, one that integrates quantitative techniques for greater understanding of the complexity of biological systems.

The one thing that has driven my own scientific life is marrying quantitative information with biological systems—creating measurable parameters that give insight into biology. Science is not a game of abstract insight divorced from the physical realities of measurement, nor is it just technologies in search of solutions. You cannot do science with bad technologies and bad methodologies.

Today, we realize there is much greater biological complexity than anybody thought possible 30 years ago. Back then, for example, researchers at the National Cancer Institute (NCI) looked for the magic bullet that would hit the one, two, or three molecular targets of cancer and cure it. That is not happening because of the complexity we’ve uncovered.

The goal now is to transform health and medicine through discovery.*

[snip]
No “One-Size-Fits-All” Scientist
In every scientific exploration, there is not a one-size-fits-all scientist. Some of us have a nose for discovery, and are the pioneers. Others explore lands already visited but uncover new discoveries through a team approach. Still others become the “early settlers.” They know the milestones, can sequence DNA, understand where the genes are going to be, and come to know that piece of a genome to an unprecedented level.
So there are different ways of advancing knowledge at different levels, and one is not more meritorious than the other. It would be a mistake to believe the only way to be “somebody” is by being a pioneer.

Leave a Little Bit of Chance … to Chance
*We need to leave a little bit of chance to chance. The best way to guarantee failure is to work very hard to assure success. You can’t know it all in advance; knowing everything is not good when it comes to generating new insights and making unique, new contributions.
In 1945, when asked by President Roosevelt to devise a way for American science to continue contributing to society as it had during the war, Vannevar Bush, the founder of modern American science, said, “We think it very important that circumstances be such that there be no such ceilings, other than ability itself, to intellectual ambition; that every boy and girl shall know that, if he shows that he has what it takes, the sky is the limit.”
To me, this is probably the best scientific policy ever put forward.

The greatest risk in science is to stop taking risks. When you take risks, you gain new perspectives.*
Don’t Fear Bad Ideas

*Over my career, I have found the best way to never have a good idea is to never have a bad one. Scientists will tell you how many bad ideas they’ve had that led them to one good one. It’s easy to discard bad ideas, not so easy to create good ones.
The greatest risk in science is to stop taking risks. When you take risks, you gain new perspectives. When I ask other scientists, they agree the greatest professional moment is to gain a totally new scientific insight, which no one else has had before, and the excitement of being able to share it with the rest of humanity.

This is the fundamental joy of science.* *
[snip]
nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/magazine/issues/fall07/articles/fall07pg2-3.html

If Christianity is true, however, and moral principles begin with love of God and neighbor (who is made in God’s image), then it seems we have a good basis for moral behavior.

You’ll have to go to previous topic I was on to find out part of my answer to you. Yes, Christianity exists and that is the truth. The Pope wrote something this year that was awesome. Basically, he implied we are meant to be kind and loving people which is what the image of God means. I’ll hunt for it later.*

 

[JDaniel]

1. I fully appreciate the Thomistic arguments for the existence of a “god” so heavily relied upon by Christians. At the end of all of the discourse, however, it seems to me that you have presented a plausable argument for why there must be a starting point. That starting point, of course, Thomas calls god.

WP:

It is inconceivable to me that people remain so stuck on their absurd beliefs that they refuse to admit their absurdity (or, absurdities). This is an example. So now, “starting point” replaces “reasoning being.” So now, any conflation of meaningless verbiage can somehow serve as acceptable rationale. “Starting point” is just that, “meaningless verbiage.” One cannot replace rational explanation with the irrational and expect to have anything anyone might be compelled to pay attention to. Not to mention that the phrase, “starting point,” will spawn numerous questions which it cannot avoid.

I don’t think this elegant set of arguments, however, by any means closes the book on the issue because, there may, in fact, not be any “starting point”. See for example Lawrence Krauss’ work and others similarly inclined who have postulated theories which exclude the traditional cause/effect premise upon which Thomistic proofs are based.

Lawrence Krauss fails. His primary failure is to not understand that “nothing” does not mean “something.” He postulates “something,” calls it “nothing,” then, from that “nothing,” which is actually “something,” a universe occurs. Only someone predisposed to ignore his gross mis-understanding of “nothingness” would jubilantly join him in his failure.

1. Even if one allows for the presuasive power of Thomas’ arguments, how does one thme migrate to a biblical god which metes out punishment, ordains a code of conduct and otherwise behaves in the manner of the biblical god, demanding sacrafice and being placated by prayer and worship? Particularly when the N.T. is added to the mix? There are, afterall, many similar paridigmns throughout history. Pagan beliefs and the mystery cults, for example, were at least similar to the Christian description of the man/god and the concept of a redemptive death. (see for example, works of Kenneth Harl and Bart Ehrman)

Now, we step away from science-philosophy and enter into the realm of “Bible study.” Of course, it can be seen that there has very little “study.”

1. A diety which inspires literature fraught with the ambiguity and mixed messages as the bible? The notion seems contrived to me, and, the premise upon which it is held in such high esteem (i.e. that God himself ordained it) seems more than bizarre to me.

Hmmm. No doubt conclusions from that now famous “study” alluded to above.

1. I also agree that a good deal of western society today is mired in an out of control and corrupt consumerism, a materialistic mode of existence that ultimately will doom our civilization if conditions continue to manifest. But, the antedote is not to turn more toward religion. Religion itself is to large extent a commercial enterprise, selling relics, bartering for ndulgences, televised solicitation, rife with its own corruption and decadence, always resorting to fanciful and magical thinking, constantly turning attention from substantive issues for self preservation, myoptic focus on abortion while ignorant of far larger problems created by having 7 billion of us on this planet. There is grinding poverty in parts of the world and in our own cities. Our climate is even in peril and we are all a step away from destruction. Yet, while we fought a needless war in Iraq, crime enguled our city streets and dysfunction and drug use spread like a virus. Instead of fashioning morality on ritualistic practices and religion, we need values which enhance the wellness of humanity. We need more education, attention to the well being of all of us, conservation of our resources. Better use of our resources. It is time we gave attention to real solutions and based decisions along rational lines and not on an antiquated set of mystical beliefs.

More inspiring rationale from years of study, I suppose? Instead of listing a plethora of your problems with Christianity in one thread, why not pick one, and make it its own thread? When it’s exhausted, go to the next. This will, I have no doubt, prevent confusion and, hopefully, the cross-contamination of arguments.

God bless,
jd

 

[cpayne]

Dear WillP:

I skimmed through a lot of the argument here, so I apologize if I’m repeating what someone else said. I just wanted to respond to your OP.

One problem immediately apparent is a misinterpretation of Thomas’s arguments. He does not argue for a “starting point” (in fact, he assumes for the sake of argument that the universe is eternal and thus has no starting point). What he does argue for is that the universe has a cause. Anything that is contingent or comes into existence or changes in existence (what Aquinas calls “motion”) has a cause for its arrival, change, or motion. Since an infinite regress of causation would result in “no universe being here” (for reasons Aquinas explains), and since the universe obviously is here, existing and changing, there has to be an Uncaused Cause which is itself non-contingent or necessary, does not come into existence, and does not change or move (an “Unmoved Mover”). So God is not the “starting point” of the universe way back whenever–God is the necessary Cause of the universe RIGHT NOW.

At any rate, this is what Aquinas refers to as God. God is not a “starting point” in this sense.

P.S. Denial of causation, I am more and more convinced, is unscientific. It is just a “scientific” way of saying, “I don’t know what caused this event. Maybe it’s uncaused.” But if it changes, moves, or comes into existence, appealing to noncausality is a cop-out, I think.

 

[cpayne]

I just saw that in his first paragraph, JDaniel above also focused in on the “starting point” phrase. As he says, it is problematic.

 

[Lion_of_Narnia]

Don’t you have to agree, however, that in its totality, the christian beliefs are bizarre?

One, that is a “begging the question” ad hominem. Two, I think you really should use less commas, more periods, and far less modifiers and adjectives. I always admired Carl Sagan’s lucid prose.

To slightly restate, don’t you concede, at least, in the abstract, that it defies your sense of what’s rational,

And a whole bunch more “begging the question”. And really, when certain atheist scientists assert multiple universes with NO evidence (and by the very theory these other universes cannot ever have any evidence or interaction with ours) or “quantum fluctuations” producing universes (again with NO evidence) I see a de facto faith system in a bizarre attempt to avoid cerain implication of physics that are uncomfortable with an atheist position

Bart was traumatized by picking up the bible one day and seeing that it contradicts itself? I suppose–who knows. But, he makes sense when I read him regardless of what psychic damage he might have sustained.

Professor Ehrmann came from a very literal and very brittle literalist evangelical-fundamentalist background. Such a poistion could not stand up to an honest critical examination. Bart’s protestant education also ruled out a Catholic understanding of what Scriptural inerancy actually is–as well as the far wider understanding of Sacred Tradition through the Early Church Fathers & liturgies. Bart’s christian belief was incomplete and vulnerable. However, he still approaches scriptural study as a protestant, rejecting the ECFs insight and context (except in typical “cherry picking” when an out-of-context quote suits his position)

… And, there are lots in this world, aren’t there? Should I accept this set of belief’s on something like Pascal’ wager? Afterall I was raised RC and hence my open defiance of these teachings likely doom me to roast in Hades, if your theology is right. I am actually proud to say that I would derive so much satisfaction with having maintained my intellectual honesty that I would actually accept the consequence, and, indeed, I would expect a just diety to acknowledge that I lived my life with the courage of my convictions.

I strongly suspect you have not actually read Pascal’s Pensees for your misunderstanding of “the method” is one I have heard time and time again from self-identified skeptics. I highly recomend Dr. Peter Kreeft’s Christianity for Modern Pagans: PASCAL’s Pensees Edited, Outlined, and Explained to get the “meat and potatos” of the Pensees. The “method” is NOT basic apologetics–it is clearly reserved for AFTER one has essentially but only intellectually accepted the beliefs of Catholic Christianity having validity over other truth claims–that such a world view best explains the world around us and the human condition.

As per the last part of your response, Bertand Russell said it better, but it’s the same spirit as Milton’s Satan. I really think you have to look hard at your emotional commitments, the “convieniences” of the atheist position as having dominance over your position as opposed to really critical “intellectual honesty”