I think that there is no needed to defending or proving the truth of Christian

[WIP]

First, just a note to let you know that I will not debate.

I am not trying to put down Christianity in any way. Its just that you thought it was important to point something out I used to believe but no longer do. I do have much say about this and ideas to share in a civil discussion. Im in no way shape or form wanting to make accusations or point out percieved faults of other, as I have enough of my own to contend with. I am truely interested why you thought it was important.

I thought it was important to point this out in contrast with your statement that God is not Jesus.

True there is nothing we can do to appease God. Yet as scripture indicates he does encourage us to abide in His commandments and even though we may stumble at times. It is only by repentence and His great mercy that we live. But I dont believe that should relieve us of our responsibility to live according to our Kings commandments a.k.a Torah.

I don't recall suggesting that we ignore the law. I only said that relying on our ability to follow God's commandments is futile because by our own ability we are lost and without hope. Our salvation is centered on Christ and not on our ability to fulfill the law.

Thank God for Jesus for if we were left to rely on our own ability to fulfill the law we would be doomed before we started.

 

[Seeker]

I would like to suggest a fourth possibility; that God made himself known to the person regardless of family influence, external proof, or by reading scripture.

Yes, actually I would agree, in that a person can come to certain theological conclusions through reflection alone, in other words God making Himself known. There is even academic evidence that children are instinctively "born" believers (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/rel...re-born-believers-in-God-academic-claims.html).

But it is perfectly conceivable that a person can see the world around them and come to the conclusion that it must be created, and this Creator is All-Powerful and Mighty. If this Creator is All-Powerful, then there must be only one Creator, for if there was more than one then there would be chaos, disorder, and neither one could be "All-Powerful". To actually realise the WILL of this Creator, however, is something that requires scripture.

This summation is in essence the Abrahamic Creed, including the doctrine of having been given sacred scripture through the hands of God's messengers. Now, for the messenger or apostle to prove that they represent God is where proof is required. This has been done - from what I have read of scripture - through means of logic and miracles.

 

[celo]

First one mush show that the Bible isn't fiction.

To my knowledge, this has yet to be accomplished on an empirical, undisputed level. Otherwise, any rational person would be Christian, and it would be a core part of secular history, if it was clearly based on 100% fact. Now, whether you believe it to be an unquestionable fact I am in no way questioning. But that's my point.... Some people think [insert band] is the undisputed best band ever. Others disagree. Like that example, there still seems to be a level of subjectivity in coming to the conclusion that the Bible is 100% true. (There are major flaws in that analogy, I admit, but I stand by the overall point)

The significant difference is that Star Wars is known to be fiction and the NT records history as it was seen and experienced by real people.

According to some.....

There are four levels of proof in regards to the scripture:

1. The people who wrote it were real.

2. The people who wrote it told the truth, and the scripture represents an undoctored account.

3. The accounts, which may have been accurately described by real people, are actually divine. (Sorry, another bad analogy that only pertains to this point :o, but if you find a personal journal of a schizophrenic in a mental institution, his delusions would be real, and would have come from a real person....yet they are still in fact delusions.)

4. Assuming the last 3 points are true, was the divine inspiration truthful? In other words, was whatever divine entity that communicated with man being honest? For example, what if the devil claimed to be God and so man actually recorded the Devils words? I admit, this is a ridiculous notion. However, the fact that it is a possibility necessitates divine verification if one can describe the scripture as being 100% factual.

If any of the above points are not 100% verifiable, then one must have faith in their religion.

I have seen the belief that the Devil's trickery is responsible for many false beliefs. Even on this forum, I have heard that explanation. However, this raises a very important point. If other people are capable of being fooled by the Devil, then who is safe from being fooled? Again, this requires faith.

I would bet that roughly 4.8 billion people (non-Christians in the world) would disagree that all 4 of those criteria are satisfied.....why else would there be other religions?

My point here is that to state that Christianity is a fact, and not a faith, all four of those points need to be satisfied on an empirical level. Being that I can see no feasible way (pending a miracle, like I mentioned earlier) of conclusively proving points 3 and 4, Christianity, as well as every other religion/anti-religion, must be fundamentally based on faith.

I do not mean to come off as pessimistic. Rather, I actually admire that it is based on faith. If religion were based on facts, it would lose a lot of its value IMHO, and worshiping would be similar to designing and using an elevator. (Placing your life in the hands of known, proven laws.)

It's a good thing is it faith-based IMHO. Imagine being God. How much more would you appreciate the love of those who choose to love you without needing or having absolute proof? To me, that's one of the things that separates God from thinks like gravity and electromagnetism.

This is also why I am on this board. I am fascinated by religion. I am fascinated by structuring one's life around faith, rather than fact. Being raised Jewish (mom my was Christian back in the day) I am trying to broaden my understanding of religion. Obviously, Judaism did not work 100% for me. I figured if I wanted to be religious, I need to see what each religion is about, before deciding which makes the most sense for me (if it does).

That said, I hope I don't come off as a negative Nancy. I am really just projecting my thoughts, and looking for something that may change or broaden my perspective. This is why I am being so critical. I know what I believe. I am not here to exercise my rhetorical prowess. Rather, I am am testing my thoughts be reading your responses. In that sense, I must thank you all for replying and being open to non-Christians on your board.

Had I come here solely to change your minds and stand doggedly in my beliefs, then I would have cause to be shamed.
[EDIT: Of course all of you are entitled to this privilege on this board. This is, after all, a forum dedicated to Christianity ;) ]

Not at all. One must approach the Bible with an open mind, not having dismissed it as fiction before having thoroughly studied it and it's claims.

Couldn't agree more! I still don't dismiss it as fiction. There's an old saying, "a sure sign of a fool is one who dismisses something as impossible that lies beyond his or her expertise." In light of that, I am no expert in the divine.

I actually enjoy reading some parts of the Bible, and, despite not being sure of its absolute validity, do get value out of my readings. If anything, it is an ancient record of human history. That by itself is worthy of attention and mediation.

That said, I cannot neglect the other component of an open mind. That would be doubt and questioning.

But the Christian faith is based on fact, namely, that Jesus the Christ was a real person who was crucified, died and rose again that we might be reconciled to God, receive his forgiveness and be saved from death as well.

I believe this to be a communication error. Maybe a limitation of our language, even. May I replace "fact" with "events considered to have occurred?"

You said it yourself, no doubt the faith is based on events considered to have occurred. My point is there must be faith that the events did occur.

What makes science objective is the process of the scientific method. Anyone can make a scientific claim. To be considered science, this claim must be testable, and must pass the scrutiny of independent verification. Like I mentioned earlier, there is no way to independently verify all claims made by the scripture. There must be a level of faith then, as one is essentially taking the words of others who have died thousands of years ago to be correct.

Again, I must stress that I am not pointing out inaccuracy!! I am pointing out the impossibility of objectively determining said accuracy...hence, the faithrequired.

If one has faith, then one can believe everything to be factual. But this requires faith.

Let me ask you a question that will hopefully illustrate my point:

Without faith, how did you come to conclusion that the scripture is 100% accurate? Did you test it?

Point taken. However, there is a vast difference between torturing and simply claiming that someone is wrong, or most likely wrong, and showing why one is most likely right; or why one belief is better or preferable to another.

Agreed. Like I said, the Inquisition was not a comparable analogy. If anything, that had more to do with Spanish politics than Christianity. Some people will use anything in the name of power. It's a shame they hijacked a lovely faith and used it towards despicable ends. I have no doubt Jesus would have been (or is ) horrified by their actions.

This makes it seem as though you really do not understand the Bible or the claims of the Christian faith.


I'm not sure what you are asking here.

You're absolutely right. I cannot even being to claim understanding of either. That's why I asked! But to rephrase, is there a core concept in Christianity that mandates the active (vs. passive) spread of the religion?


I must stress again that I am not trying to convince you that I am right. I am offering another perspective that is, IMHO, equally valid on an objective level.

 

[wayseer]

To my knowledge, this has yet to be accomplished on an empirical, undisputed level.

Neither has anything else.

Otherwise, any rational person would be Christian, and it would be a core part of secular history, if it was clearly based on 100% fact.

Not so. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is not 100% proof.

Perhaps it is you who is dealing in fantasy.

There are four levels of proof in regards to the scripture:

1. The people who wrote it were real.

Are you suggesting that the biblical texts were written by non-humans?

2. The people who wrote it told the truth, and the scripture represents an undoctored account.

But everything is 'doctored' - including what you write.

3. The accounts, which may have been accurately described by real people, are actually divine.

How would you know the difference?

4. Assuming the last 3 points are true, was the divine inspiration truthful?

Is the general theory of relativity true?

Christianity, as well as every other religion/anti-religion, must be fundamentally based on faith.

... including science.

I am really just projecting my thoughts, and looking for something that may change or broaden my perspective.

If you are intent on 'protecting' something how can you possible 'broaden' anything? In order to 'broaden your perspective' you will need to leave you protective enclave.

What makes science objective is the process of the scientific method. Anyone can make a scientific claim. To be considered science, this claim must be testable, and must pass the scrutiny of independent verification. Like I mentioned earlier, there is no way to independently verify all claims made by the scripture.

The only person interested in 'verifying' anything is you.

Without faith, how did you come to conclusion that the scripture is 100% accurate?

Accurate? Accurate in what exactly?

You are seeking certainty. Even science will not propose that much.

 

[Seeker]

Neither has anything else.

Not so. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is not 100% proof.

Perhaps it is you who is dealing in fantasy.

Are you suggesting that the biblical texts were written by non-humans?

But everything is 'doctored' - including what you write.

How would you know the difference?

Is the general theory of relativity true?

... including science.

If you are intent on 'protecting' something how can you possible 'broaden' anything? In order to 'broaden your perspective' you will need to leave you protective enclave.

The only person interested in 'verifying' anything is you.

Accurate? Accurate in what exactly?

You are seeking certainty. Even science will not propose that much.

I think the point being made - which is a fair one in my opinion and worthy of thought - is how can one who is alien to Christianity and then introduced to it become convinced that it is the word of God (or even simply historically accurate).

As I understand it from scripture, the previous prophets performed miracles in order to show that they were sent from God, but obviously nowadays there are no prophets. So how does one know the Godly from the man-made? Does one just pick a religion to "have faith in" like throwing a dart on a dart-board? One answer that seems to recur throughout this thread is that yes it is just faith and you can't prove it - you have to be chosen by the Holy Spirit. I mean this raises 101 implications on free will which I don't want to get into but... Is that the answer? Can one not come to Christianity through rationalism?

 

[wayseer]

I think the point being made - which is a fair one in my opinion and worthy of thought - is how can one who is alien to Christianity and then introduced to it become convinced that it is the word of God (or even simply historically accurate).

As I said, the quest for certainty is unrealistic. We can accept different clocks telling us different times so why demand something that which we are not prepared to accept.

As I understand it from scripture, the previous prophets performed miracles in order to show that they were sent from God, but obviously nowadays there are no prophets. So how does one know the Godly from the man-made? Does one just pick a religion to "have faith in" like throwing a dart on a dart-board? One answer that seems to recur throughout this thread is that yes it is just faith and you can't prove it - you have to be chosen by the Holy Spirit. I mean this raises 101 implications on free will which I don't want to get into but... Is that the answer? Can one not come to Christianity through rationalism?

Yes. But as I have demonstrated, most of those who 'come' to Christianity demand of Christianity a higher order to 'proof' than that which they are otherwise quite satisfied - which is anything but rational.

 

[Seeker]

As I said, the quest for certainty is unrealistic. We can accept different clocks telling us different times so why demand something that which we are not prepared to accept.

Yes. But as I have demonstrated, most of those who 'come' to Christianity demand of Christianity a higher order to 'proof' than that which they are otherwise quite satisfied - which is anything but rational.

That may be sir, but at the moment no one is giving anything! Zilch. Nada. Nul. One can come to a monotheistic belief through pondering and reflection, but as for organised religion - the onus is on them to convince!

 

[wayseer]

... but as for organised religion - the onus is on them to convince!

Why? The biblical texts are there - anyone can read them. There are any number of theological schools around - anyone can generally attend them.

 

[chakham]

First, just a note to let you know that I will not debate.

I thought it was important to point this out in contrast with your statement that God is not Jesus.

Well. I do have my reasons, all which are found in the new testement. Cheif among them is nobody including Jesus ever identified himself as God. Another, a most remarkable story when he was in the garden of Gethsemenee. I read of two very distinct and separate wills involved. One Yeshua's who did not want to do what was before him "take this cup from me" The other Gods will "not my will but your will be done.

I don't recall suggesting that we ignore the law. I only said that relying on our ability to follow God's commandments is futile because by our own ability we are lost and without hope. Our salvation is centered on Christ and not on our ability to fulfill the law.

I see it somewhat differently then. Because the scripture I presented appears to indicate we are in fact capable and even encouraged to do so. That many dont I think really doesnt have anything to do with whether they are able to but more to do with whether they choose to. Also, as I read the Torah I am told my salvation lies with Yehovah and no one else. A mighty God who having never left His throne in the heavens was capabale of tremendous mercy and love for all mankind. When after the flood said He would never do it again no matter how evil men became. We are even reminded of that covennant when we see a rainbow. If that isnt grace from our loving Father then I dont know what is.

Thank God for Jesus for if we were left to rely on our own ability to fulfill the law we would be doomed before we started.

I thank God for his Wisdom and the encouragement to abide in it.


Peace

 

[celo]

Neither has anything else.

Not so. Even Einstein's theory of relativity is not 100% proof.

Perhaps it is you who is dealing in fantasy.

Correct. Maybe I was too liberal with the whole 100% right thing. General relativity, Kepler's laws, and Newton's laws may not be 100% right. However, they are good enough such that humans are capable using them with precise predictability, such as placing satellites in orbit. You do use a cell phone do you not? You do have GPS on your cell phone correct? To me, that's proof enough that the previously mentioned theories are close enough to 100% correct. How else could GPS or cell phones work?

Without factoring in special relativity, GPS systems would not work, and would loose their accuracy every hour, and would thus require constant calibration.

They synchronized atomic clocks one time. Left one on earth and put the other in a Space Shuttle (they repeated this with an airplane). As predicted, the clock placed in motion was actually ahead in time by the exact amount Einstein's theories predicted.

Imagine how precise the Voyager crafts needed to be. They needed to be launched at exactly the right time, with exactly enough thrust, with exactly the right vector to pull off multiple gravitational slingshots around multiple planets. Relevant theories needed to quite near 100% correct to achieve this.

This isn't the argument I was trying to make. I was responding to the OP, who asked if Christianity needed to be proved. I was trying to point out how this task is impossible (again, pending a miracle). In no way am I making the case that Christianity is wrong.

I apologize for the misinterpretation.

Are you suggesting that the biblical texts were written by non-humans?

Not suggesting anything. Just pointing out a level of proof needed if one desires to prove Christianity to a non-believer. You may believe in your heart that Christianity is correct. And I commend that. You sir, have faith. And I respect that.

But my point wasn't that they were possibly a different species. By real people, I meant those who lived a life on earth, and those who were fictitious.... not a different species! For example, James Bond is not a real person. This does not imply he is not human. Not sure where you got that idea from.

But everything is 'doctored' - including what you write.

......not sure I buy that argument. Don't forget the shades of gray. If anything, you seem to be supporting my case that religion is not something that should, or could, be proved.

How would you know the difference?

Exactly my point..... I wouldn't. Thus, it cannot be proved, and must be based on faith.

Is the general theory of relativity true?

That's a loaded question. It predicts macro phenomena involving gravitational fields and massive bodies close enough to be practically used in human technology and astronomy. One of the first verifications was the observation of gravitational lensing. During a full solar eclipse, stars whose line of sight passed close to the sun were actually curved by the sun's gravitational field to the degree predicted by general relativity.

However, general relativity is by no means complete, as it completely breaks down when applied to massive, yet TINY bodies. Normally, quantum mechanics is used on the micro level, however, how does one apply these theories to black holes? As of yet, I am pretty sure we cannot, as the two theories do not work together. This is one instance that prompted the search for a Grand Unifying Theory.

... including science.

Like I said, maybe not 100%. But pretty close. Close enough to yield predictable results.

If you are intent on 'protecting' something how can you possible 'broaden' anything? In order to 'broaden your perspective' you will need to leave you protective enclave.

Projecting, not protecting. Read my post again. I like to avoid personal attacks. But maybe you are the one projecting? (The psych def.) No offense intended. Just an observation.

The only person interested in 'verifying' anything is you.

I may have misunderstood, but my impression was that this was the OP's question? To which I have shared my perspective.

Accurate? Accurate in what exactly?

You are seeking certainty. Even science will not propose that much.

Again, I was far too liberal with the term "100%". Certainty, as used in human language, is a relative term.

Imagine a box with 1,000,000 balls. 1 is red, while 999,999 are blue. If asked to bet money on a random ball pulled from the box being blue, I would bet on it every time. I would even say that I am certain the ball pulled will be blue.

Despite my certainty, the actual probability is 1,000,000 to 1. Close enough to certainty for me.

 

[wayseer]

Cheif among them is nobody including Jesus ever identified himself as God.

Not quite. What about Paul?

 

[Free]

This thread is not about the Trinity or deity of Jesus. Please keep it on topic.

 

[wayseer]

To me, that's proof enough that the previously mentioned theories are close enough to 100% correct.

Thank you - which is basically what I said.

The point I was making is that we acknowledge that we can all operate in the world without 100% accuracy - and as you have pointed out, we do it rather well - but when it comes to the biblical we apply a different standard. For some reason the texts must be proved 100% accurate.

 

[Pizzaguy]

Thank you - which is basically what I said.

The point I was making is that we acknowledge that we can all operate in the world without 100% accuracy - and as you have pointed out, we do it rather well - but when it comes to the biblical we apply a different standard. For some reason the texts must be proved 100% accurate.

That exchange, which ended with this post, was a fun read! Thanks to both of you!

I once had a conversation with a young man who didn't see how I could believe in the Bible. But he trusted science with no problem, not seeing the difficulties that "Science" has had over the generations.

No human knowledge, in ANY context, is 100% - even in today's modern world (where, admittedly and ironically, the average person is more and more ignorant of science than ever before in human history), almost no science is "settled".

And yet, science is the "standard" to which religion is held.

 

[celo]

Thank you - which is basically what I said.

The point I was making is that we acknowledge that we can all operate in the world without 100% accuracy - and as you have pointed out, we do it rather well - but when it comes to the biblical we apply a different standard. For some reason the texts must be proved 100% accurate.

Good point. There definitely is a double standard in that regard. I suppose from my point of view, I look at it from a degree of certainty. To me, the certainty that I would require if I were to massively and permanently overhaul my entire way of life is pretty high. This degree differs based on costs and benefits. I am in the process of getting my private pilots license. The degree of certainty that I will kill myself is low enough that I have justified my decision.

The degree of certainty that I will go to Hell for not following Christianity is, for me, low enough that it is not worth the costs of converting/going to Church, ect.

The degree of certainty in physics, for me, is high enough that I wouldn't risk testing momentum, Kinetic energy, and Newton's laws by stepping in front of a moving bus.

I will add something that may clarify my position. Science, in my opinion, describes a process in terms of how. Religion, in my opinion, is more concerned with why. As such, these two fields do not relate, nor compete with each other. Even if science could answer everything about our universe, one would still wonder, OK, but what happened before? Where did it come from? Why is it here? These are questions science will never answer. Or if they do answer, the answers will only open the door to more questions.

One can precisely predict an individual event without an all encompassing, 100% correct theory. In this regard, science does not need to be absolute. What matters, is if it can accurately describe or predict only what it sets out to predict, and on a regular basis.

For example, consider Newtonian vs. Einsteinian laws of motion. Einstein's laws are more correct, but this is only relevant at speeds reaching a sizable fraction of the speed of light.

If I am on a train (scientists LOVE trains) moving at 20 meters per second, and shoot a rock from a slingshot facing in the forward direction of movement at 30 meters per second, it will be moving at 50 m/s relative to the ground.

V1 + V2 = combined V

Any radar gun will agree. Any device built to intercept said rock will agree, and work perfectly. But, they are all wrong!

As Einstein correctly formulated (so far):

combined V = (V1 + V2) / [1 + (V1 x V2 / c^2)]

Combined V = 49.999999999999999965


So when describing the rock, who is right? Does it even matter?

This is where religion becomes complicated. There is no approximation of likely hood of something happening based on religion (ex, going to hell). Either you go to hell or you don't. While unfair, I think this is where double standard comes from.

Like the rock example, one only needs a law that will correctly determine its velocity and location (close enough to be practical) for it to be "true" in the way we need science to be "true" (we can use these predictions to advance and develop technology.)

However, with religion, we are not using a language, such as mathematics, do describe its process such that we can act accordingly. There is no process that can be approximated. Does anyone know any statistic or probability of going to hell? This is something we cannot know, as of yet.

Therefore, being a binary system, religion must either be right or wrong, if one wishes to prove its existence. Whereas science need only be close enough to yield predictable results.

I don't think anyone would argue that there exists an equation in the universe that actively tells the rock where to be, and how applied energy will translate into motion. The universe just does that, and we don't know how. However, we know how to describe that process in a language developed by humans, and understood by humans (math) such that we know where the rock will be if we also know other relevant variables(energy, momentum, ect.). As such, it is easy to agree in science, without necessarily knowing why, as long as the predictions are accurate enough.

So while I can gauge a level of confidence with science, I literally have nothing to do so with religion.

This thought process is what prevents me from becoming religious:

"Why is that how it is?"
"Oh because my priest says that is how it is"
"why does he say that's how it is?"
"because other people before him have interpreted the scripture as such"
"why are their interpretations/translations right? Why is the scripture right"
"Oh because the priest says they are right, and scripture says it is right"
"?????"

If I find a book on the ground that has a few stories in it, and at the end, it says, "this book is true" I cannot tell people it is true because the book says it is true.......

 

[elijah23]

I think that there is no needed to defending or proving the truth of Christian
doctrine .We meet Jezus by the Heart,intellect is illusive and often
lead us to place that we dont want to be.
Intellect often lead us to priade.
One of most negated things by Jezus is pride.
To be Christians we need humility.

The fact that the Lord has solved every problem I've ever had over my fifty-nine years on earth is proof enough for me that he exists.

 

[Pizzaguy]

The fact that the Lord has solved every problem I've ever had over my fifty-nine years on earth is proof enough for me that he exists.

I guess you are fortunate enough to never have had a family member with M.S.

Good for you! :yes

 

[elijah23]

I guess you are fortunate enough to never have had a family member with M.S.

Good for you! :yes

The Lord can take care of us no matter what condition we are in.

 

[elijah23]

I guess you are fortunate enough to never have had a family member with M.S.

Good for you! :yes

You need to understand that there is nothing the Lord can’t do. The Lord can bring us contentment no matter what circumstances we find ourselves in, be it MS, cancer, or whatever. And the Lord does just that when we are obedient to him. Put another way, he shows us the path to contentment.

 

[Pizzaguy]

You need to understand that there is nothing the Lord can’t do. The Lord can bring us contentment no matter what circumstances we find ourselves in, be it MS, cancer, or whatever. And the Lord does just that when we are obedient to him. Put another way, he shows us the path to contentment.

I think I can be content in my sister's MS, if SHE can be content in it.

She can't.