I'm interested in truth & what it means for individuals & humanity. This re-vamped blog is dedicated to truth and honest questions about faith in Jesus Christ. It is an effort to engage in authentic dialogue among Christians, Atheists and all points in between. Posts that do not honor legitimate discussion may be removed at my discretion. That doesn't mean that you can't disagree, but it DOES mean that you can't be a jerk. Welcome to the discussion.
What I have tried to do below is to summarize what I believe to be your [CL's] main arguments [for Christianity] as succinctly as I can, and then to respond to each. I have tried very hard not to interleave related comments as separate resonsesto the many permutations of what I think are sub-arguments and re-statements of the same central point. I have also bitten my tounge and intentionally not commented on matters that I think are peripheral and not germane to the debate over whether god exists, such as whether the people on talk.origins were nasty to you or whether my lowercase spelling of the word "god" is sufficiently respectful of your beliefs. I hope you will respect my position that while I may have marginally enough time and energy to respond to the central argument, I really do NOT have any interest in delving into side issues over punctuation and so forth.
If I have missed any of your key theses in the below, please state them for me as directly as you can, and I will comment on them as well.
As far as your other comments... "EL" is fine, and I am happy with the previous [faith discussion/ commentary] post.
1. Protestant Christianity is more likely to be the correct religion than Bhuddism, Hinduism, et al., because it has a superior written historical tradition and a more compelling narrative of personal sacrifice of its savior.
I think your first contention here is in error. I’ve already noted some of the numerous historical inaccuracies and problems with biblical text, as well as the fact that several of the Bible’s important stories, including Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, and most importantly Jesus’ life and death, seem suspiciously plagiaristic of earlier religions. (It will take some digging but if you’re interested in seeing that list of other religions whose fatherly gods gave their semi-mortal offspring’s life to save humanity, I’ll dig it up for you, as I think you might find it enlightening.)
Then there’s the problem of the 1700 or so years after Jesus’ death in which the church was almost completely unlike the church you believe in today, and in addition to craven practices such as selling indulgences and making exceptions to scriptural doctrine for well-connected friends, also generally encouraged all manner of wars, crusades, bloody internecine political warfare, and of course numerous political revisions to its text. My favorite episode is the whole Anglican business with Henry VIII, but of course your own flavor of Protestantism owes most of its dogma to Martin Luther, not Jesus Christ. Just lately we’ve seen a major doctrinal revision unfolding before our eyes as various churches revise their teachings to keep pace with the political moment, and more and more denominations who formerly condemned homosexuality as an abomination open their arms to homosexual members and even clergymen. But even if we set all that aside, even on the terms you have set, your religion is not the best bet. While you may claim superiority to Bhuddism, let’s say, due to the presence of a more recent and verifiable written tradition and personification of an individual divine prophet, Mormonism beats you on all counts. While it seems perhaps only 10% likely that there ever was a man who lived and who inspired the Bhudda myth around his own autobiography, and there are many indications that Jesus may have lived but also quite a few historical inaccuracies and other problems with those records, such that I would give him 2 out of 3 odds of actually having lived, I think it is about 99.9% certain that Joseph Smith lived, and what’s more that he gave his life in service of his beliefs, and that the entire history of his church has played out in the full glare of hundreds if not thousands of newspaper articles, court records, and so on. So even by the questionable standard you have set, your beliefs don’t come in first place. You’re in at least third, behind both Mormonism and also Islam (whose prophet is also more recent and whose existences is more verifiable.)
As you tried to express it above, your basic understanding of my position is close, but it's off in a few key ways. Let me try to express my faith in a way that connects with what you intend to aim for here:
Christianity (Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) is more likely to be an accurate understanding of reality than what is offered by the counter claims of Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, atheism and Islam etc. because it is grounded in real history (which rules out things like Egyptian mythology, Hinduism, Buddhism etc.), it has a more compelling and better supported foundation for that history (which rules out Mormonism, Judaism and Islam), and it does not require any a-priori denials of evidence (which rules out atheism and agnosticism and their ilk). I can clarify and support these things if you would like, but one step at a time.
Before we get too far I need you to clarify something in your second post above. You said that there was a “problem” in the 1700 years or so after Jesus’ resurrection that caused the church to be drastically different than the one I believe in today. I should point out that I believe things ABOUT the church, but I believe IN Jesus. But that is a secondary issue at the moment. What I need you to clarify is what you think happened in the 1700’s that caused this alleged and radical shift in ecclesiology. Please explain.
Please keep in mind that comments which do not honor the spirit of legitimate dialogue may be removed at any time and without notification. You are free to disagree passionately, but not inappropriately. -CL
What I have tried to do below is to summarize what I believe to be your [CL's] main arguments [for Christianity] as succinctly as I can, and then to respond to each. I have tried very hard not to interleave related comments as separate resonsesto the many permutations of what I think are sub-arguments and re-statements of the same central point. I have also bitten my tounge and intentionally not commented on matters that I think are peripheral and not germane to the debate over whether god exists, such as whether the people on talk.origins were nasty to you or whether my lowercase spelling of the word "god" is sufficiently respectful of your beliefs. I hope you will respect my position that while I may have marginally enough time and energy to respond to the central argument, I really do NOT have any interest in delving into side issues over punctuation and so forth.
ReplyDeleteIf I have missed any of your key theses in the below, please state them for me as directly as you can, and I will comment on them as well.
As far as your other comments... "EL" is fine, and I am happy with the previous [faith discussion/ commentary] post.
1. Protestant Christianity is more likely to be the correct religion than Bhuddism, Hinduism, et al., because it has a superior written historical tradition and a more compelling narrative of personal sacrifice of its savior.
I think your first contention here is in error. I’ve already noted some of the numerous historical inaccuracies and problems with biblical text, as well as the fact that several of the Bible’s important stories, including Adam and Eve, Noah and the Flood, and most importantly Jesus’ life and death, seem suspiciously plagiaristic of earlier religions. (It will take some digging but if you’re interested in seeing that list of other religions whose fatherly gods gave their semi-mortal offspring’s life to save humanity, I’ll dig it up for you, as I think you might find it enlightening.)
ReplyDeleteThen there’s the problem of the 1700 or so years after Jesus’ death in which the church was almost completely unlike the church you believe in today, and in addition to craven practices such as selling indulgences and making exceptions to scriptural doctrine for well-connected friends, also generally encouraged all manner of wars, crusades, bloody internecine political warfare, and of course numerous political revisions to its text. My favorite episode is the whole Anglican business with Henry VIII, but of course your own flavor of Protestantism owes most of its dogma to Martin Luther, not Jesus Christ. Just lately we’ve seen a major doctrinal revision unfolding before our eyes as various churches revise their teachings to keep pace with the political moment, and more and more denominations who formerly condemned homosexuality as an abomination open their arms to homosexual members and even clergymen. But even if we set all that aside, even on the terms you have set, your religion is not the best bet. While you may claim superiority to Bhuddism, let’s say, due to the presence of a more recent and verifiable written tradition and personification of an individual divine prophet, Mormonism beats you on all counts. While it seems perhaps only 10% likely that there ever was a man who lived and who inspired the Bhudda myth around his own autobiography, and there are many indications that Jesus may have lived but also quite a few historical inaccuracies and other problems with those records, such that I would give him 2 out of 3 odds of actually having lived, I think it is about 99.9% certain that Joseph Smith lived, and what’s more that he gave his life in service of his beliefs, and that the entire history of his church has played out in the full glare of hundreds if not thousands of newspaper articles, court records, and so on. So even by the questionable standard you have set, your beliefs don’t come in first place. You’re in at least third, behind both Mormonism and also Islam (whose prophet is also more recent and whose existences is more verifiable.)
EL,
ReplyDeleteAs you tried to express it above, your basic understanding of my position is close, but it's off in a few key ways. Let me try to express my faith in a way that connects with what you intend to aim for here:
Christianity (Protestant, Catholic and Eastern Orthodox) is more likely to be an accurate understanding of reality than what is offered by the counter claims of Buddhism, Hinduism, Mormonism, atheism and Islam etc. because it is grounded in real history (which rules out things like Egyptian mythology, Hinduism, Buddhism etc.), it has a more compelling and better supported foundation for that history (which rules out Mormonism, Judaism and Islam), and it does not require any a-priori denials of evidence (which rules out atheism and agnosticism and their ilk). I can clarify and support these things if you would like, but one step at a time.
Before we get too far I need you to clarify something in your second post above. You said that there was a “problem” in the 1700 years or so after Jesus’ resurrection that caused the church to be drastically different than the one I believe in today. I should point out that I believe things ABOUT the church, but I believe IN Jesus. But that is a secondary issue at the moment. What I need you to clarify is what you think happened in the 1700’s that caused this alleged and radical shift in ecclesiology. Please explain.
Thanks,
-CL