India and Christianity

I find this thread fascinating, not least due the fact that maani is actually posting about his beliefs- something which he has been almost completely unwilling to do before now. RL doesn't get the same praise in that respect (LOL), but he is proving yet again that he can carry on an intelligent and civil debate. People who can be bith articulate and passionate about their beliefs are far more interesting than those who refuse to discuss important topics, for whatever reason.

Please, gentlemen- keep up the chatter!

I have been very impressed by the gathered knowledge of both Manni and Reed.I do not know if Reed has all this stored in his head or whether he has taken it from books or sites.Manni being a Minister should certainly know what he is talking about.But no matter.I practise my faith and certainly believe in the Perousia (second coming of our Lord) but it is a subject I am not entirely comfortable about airing on line.For Christianity to have lasted 2000 Years and more surely should outline that the message of Christ the Teacher will last forever.The Apostles(Messengers) witnessed all that happened.I cannot begin to believe that a work of fantasy or exaggeration could have entered into the hearts and minds of so many and remained to this day.But again I suppose I am presupposing that everyone has faith.As the great man sang 'Soon oh soon the light'

Reed Lover:

I thank you for your private message.  However, I respond here, "in public," because it may be that an apology is owed, or at least a clarification.

At no point has anything I've said been offered in a sarcastic, demeaning, denigrating, disparaging or negative manner.  If anything I've said thus far has "come out" that way, please accept my apology.  My intention is simply to respond, and to be instructive within my understanding of my faith; not to "misjudge" your positions, but to simply respond to specific statements, comments or inferences.  Perhaps I should have used some emoticons to "lighten up" some of my comments.  Whatever the situation, please understand that it is never my intention to be demeaning or condescending: I dislike when people do it with me, so I avoid it like the plague.  Again, if anything came out that way, please forgive me.

That said, I think you are still way too willing to "throw out the baby with the bathwater."  Yes, the Scripture claims to be the "inerrant" Word of God.  But to say that, if even one word is wrong or incorrect or conflicts with something else, then all of it is "wrong" seems awfully extremist.

Most of us have been in high school or college, or their equivalent.  And we all studied from textbooks that claim to be filled with "facts."  If we find out, however, that something in the book is "wrong," we do not therefore assume that everything else in the book is wrong.

Why should it be different with the Scripture?  Yes, it is not the same as a temporal book full of facts, as it purports to be the inerrant Word of God.  Yet even if it were true (and I do not see it that way) that something within the Scriptures were wrong, why would that necessitate throwing the whole thing out?  Are not the basic precepts of Jesus' ministry, and other life principles, valuable and true?  Why do you seem so willing to reject it lock, stock and barrel simply because it is possible that internal conflicts exist?  And I say "possible" because, despite what you may think you know or believe, no one - not you, not me, not even someone much smarter or more Scripturally learned than one of us - truly knows and understands the Scripture well enough to know whether what seem to be inconsistencies truly are.

As to your comment about the "early spread of Christianity," don't you think it's just a tad presumptuous on your part to assume that "certain aspects of Jesus' life might have been exaggerated?"  You were not there (neither was I), so this is nothing more than speculation at best.  On the other hand, if the things that Jesus said, and the events of His life and resurrection, are true, then there would have been no reason for the apostles and disciples to exaggerate them.  And isn't it also demeaning to presume that people were somehow less "savvy" then than they are now?  That they somehow could not tell a "snake oil salesman" from the real thing?  After all, look how many people today - people you seem to feel are more "savvy" than those of Jesus' time - buy into "snake oil salesman" of all types.  Can you really claim that we are any more sophisticated now than they were then?  Based on what?

I want to posit something completely different, something I have rarely heard posited by anyone, either believer or non-believer.

To those who reject the Judeo-Christian construct, and particularly Christianity in general - the divinity of Jesus, the Scriptures, etc. - let me ask you this.  Do you really believe that the entire "scenario" - and everything that has transpired, from the establishment of Christianity, to changing the calendar to "time" things from His birth, and all the good works done in His name (from orphanages to hospitals to schools, etc.), and simply the way His name and life "permeate" global culture - were all the result of a "conspiracy" created by less than 25 individuals who knew Him?  Does that really make sense?  After all, even the Nicean Council did not occur until almost 400 years after His death and resurrection, so the "conspiracy" must have been in full swing way before that for it to "survive" even the first 400 years.  If you step back and really think about this, you will see how silly it sounds.

Are you suggesting that these 25 (or less) people sat around after Jesus' death and said, "Gee, let's claim that He rose from the dead, and that we saw Him, and that He fulfills all the Old Testament passages about the Messiah.  Let's go out and convince people of this, and start a religion around Him."  My first question would be: To what end?  What "vested interest" would they have in doing so?  My second question would be: How could such a small group create such a vast, super-detailed conspiracy, and keep that conspiracy going for so long - at least 200 to 300 years at a minimum before it was "officially" established via the compilation of the New Testament?  My third question would be: Given that the basic precepts of Jesus' ministry (love, peace, forgiveness, compassion, humility, patience, charity, selflessness, service) and most (if not all) of the other principles of Christianity are positive and worthwhile in and of themselves, why would they need to create a conspiracy to "sell" them?

No, even from a practical, "rational," logical, common sense standpoint - and even as something of a "conspiracy theorist" myself - I would find it hard to accept that Christianity is little more than a conspiracy cooked up by a few individuals 2,000 years ago.

Like Easy Livin, I am pleased that this discussion has remained mature and focused, and has not denigrated into personal attack or negativity.  In that regard, discussions like this are a good way to "sharpen" one's problem-solving and debate skills, by listening and learning from others, and by being "forced" to support one's position with more than just an opinion.

Finally, at the risk of sounding obvious, my comments are not an attempt to proselytize, though I can see how some people might see them that way.  As noted above, I am simply responding to various people through my own knowledge and understanding of my faith - which knowledge and understanding I do not claim is perfect, or even near so.

Peace.

Edited by maani

I have no intention of contibuting to this debate (it falls outwith my personal "boundaries"), but would like to congratulate the participants for the inteligent, informed, and thought provoking posts so far. RL, I find it hard to express my thoughts without sounding unintentionally patronising, but I have been genuinely impressed with your constructive input.

Can I suggest to others that this thread be allowed to continue to develop without frivolity. (VC, this is specifically NOT directed at you, you have expressed yourself here clearly, and succinctly and in the way you do best. A picture can indeed say a thousand words!)

maani wrote: Reed Lover: Of course Christianity "competes" with other people's faiths.  I never suggested otherwise.  What is critical is how our faith is "presented" in the "spiritual marketplace."  If it is presented in an aggressive, forceful manner - i.e., "ramming it down people's throats," sitting in judgment or condemnation if they refuse to hear or believe - then that is wrong.  However, if it is presented in a patient, loving, humble manner, free of judgment and condemnation, I see no reason why it should be seen as anything other than "a different choice."  Everything - material, spiritual, philosophical, etc. - is "sold" in a "marketplace" by "comparison" to other "products."  You buy the products you do because you believe they are better than the others, or more reliable, or whatever.  But you make your choices based on information about each of the different manufacturers' products.  "Spirituality" (i.e., faith) is no different.  I present my case for Christianity, a Muslim presents his case for Islam, an Indian presents his case for Buddhism, a Middle Easterner presents his case for Zoroastrianism, etc.  What a particular person ultimately "buys" (if anything) is going to be based on what they hear, what is offered, etc.  I see nothing "sinister" or "nefarious" in this.

I thought I made myself clear. I was discussing the early spread of Christianity, the level of sophistication at that time and why certain aspects of Christ's life might have been exaggerated. Your reply in the present tense and references to" ramming it down people's throats" shows that you missed my point or chose to miss it.
You have consistently misjudged my position in all this discussion.

 

Edited by Reed Lover

All the evidence points to that Jesus Christ was God
manifest in a carnal body, come to save man from
the limitations of the old covenant. To suffer the
lowest of all and to know all the answers, but to
endure for the sake of mankind. The model for TRUE
LOVE interests me!

Maani,

Whilst I thank you for your more detailed explanation of your beliefs you still do not say whether you believe in Adam & Eve or the Noah's Ark story.
I have made no reference to Evolution, I merely asked if you subscribed to Creationism as set down in the Bible.

What I find bizaare is that on the one hand you say Scripture is "God-given"-with the obvious conclusion that it should be infallible, and on the other hand you state that the Gospel writers were prey to failing memories and Chinese Whispers. I am damn certain that if Christ had failed to perform miracles or if he had managed to perform miracles, I would remember. Let's be honest, Christ returning to his home town would be a major event, and no doubt filled with trepidation for him and his followers. Like a home town performance, so to speak.

I also find it banal that you trot out the usual suspects (no pun intended) like Hoyle,Einstein and Hawking as if I am supposed to say "well that clinches it then." Far from it. These men, brilliant in their fields as they might have been ,could all make mistakes. Einstein threw his weight against Plate Techtonics,Hawking claimed that nothing could escape from a Black Hole (which last year he retracted), and Hoyle, one of the most notoriously obnoxious figures in the history of Science,believed that Man developed projecting noses to stop Cosmic Pathogens from getting into the nostrils.None of them were Theologists and it is unlikely that the structured nature of Higher Academic Learning would accomodate Physical Sciences and Theology.

"For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past" (Psalm 90:4), and "With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."  You say that the Six Day Creation Model is metaphorical? I dont doubt it at all-wonderful how God can breath metaphor into his subjects when the need arises whilst at other times his thoughts are entirely transparent. Those two statements are almost perfect examples of metaphor.Have you ever read any Love Poetry?To suggest these should be used as models for "God Time" is laughable to the point of ridiculousness.

I do not doubt that Jesus lived. There is enough written evidence from people like Josephus (who had no vested interest whatsoever) to make it more than likely. Jesus as God-wishful thinking at the most and if he wasnt God then the whole of The Scriptures are invalid.Unless God  spoke with "forked-tongue".

 

Edited by Reed Lover

Velvetclown:

Your question - "Why do you have to believe in anything more than yourself?" - and your question re "security" and "gratification" are moot unless one presupposes an afterlife.  If one does not believe in an afterlife, then those questions have no meaning.

Let me put it as simplistically as possible.  Christians believe in a "soul" (or spirit).  That "soul" inhabits our mortal bodies for approximately 90 years.  But it inhabits the "afterlife" for eternity.  Thus, we "focus" on our spirit's "eternal" life, not its "temporal" one.  However, our spirit is not our own: it was given to us by God.  Thus, its "future" is in God's hands, not ours.  That is why we believe in something more than ourselves: because we did not create ourselves, and we did not provide our own souls.  God did.  Seen from this perspective (whether one accepts it or not), your comments re "security" and "gratification" fit perfectly into place: the "security" of our eternal souls is in God's hands, and we are grateful for that.

Reed Lover:

Of course Christianity "competes" with other people's faiths.  I never suggested otherwise.  What is critical is how our faith is "presented" in the "spiritual marketplace."  If it is presented in an aggressive, forceful manner - i.e., "ramming it down people's throats," sitting in judgment or condemnation if they refuse to hear or believe - then that is wrong.  However, if it is presented in a patient, loving, humble manner, free of judgment and condemnation, I see no reason why it should be seen as anything other than "a different choice."  Everything - material, spiritual, philosophical, etc. - is "sold" in a "marketplace" by "comparison" to other "products."  You buy the products you do because you believe they are better than the others, or more reliable, or whatever.  But you make your choices based on information about each of the different manufacturers' products.  "Spirituality" (i.e., faith) is no different.  I present my case for Christianity, a Muslim presents his case for Islam, an Indian presents his case for Buddhism, a Middle Easterner presents his case for Zoroastrianism, etc.  What a particular person ultimately "buys" (if anything) is going to be based on what they hear, what is offered, etc.  I see nothing "sinister" or "nefarious" in this.

It is interesting that you say "To suggest God has a plan but we can not know it infers that we need not involve ourselves in spiritual matters."  Actually, Scripture says the opposite: that because God has plan, and that plan is more important than anything in the temporal world, we should only involve ourselves in "things of the spirit," and not involve ourselves in temporal matters.  "No one engaged in [spiritual] warfare entangles himself with the affairs of this [temporal] life, [so] that he may please him [i.e., Christ] who enlisted him as a soldier." (2 Tim. 2:4).  Jehovah's Witnesses take this passage literally: among other things, they do not vote, or engage in politics in any way, because they believe the "spiritual warfare" to be the only important thing.

You comment on "God's memory," noting that some of the things in the Gospels don't jibe.  Let me give you a hypothetical to explain this.  Let's say you spend three years with a few close friends.  You don't do everything together, but you do most things together.  Fast forward 20, 30 even 40 years.  You and your friends have not seen each other or spoken in years.  Someone comes to each of you and says, "Write down what happened during your three years together."

What will happen?  Simple.  There will be differences, because each of you will remember some things - even momentous things - slightly differently: what order things might have happened in, what exact words were said, etc.  However, the majority of each of your individual accounts - especially the things that left a strong impression - will overlap, often perfectly.  This is why over 65% of the Gospels of Matthew, Mark and Luke overlap, while displaying some differences in specific details.  That is, this is to be expected when one is recounting something that occurred decades before.  I do not see how this is strange in any way.

You say, "It amazes me that if you deny Christianity you somehow become an enemy."  I accept that you feel that way, and that you may even have been put in that situation.  However, any Christian who says that to you, or even infers it, is not a "good' Christian.  No Christian who knows anything about Jesus, His ministry or the Scriptures would ever say something like that, or make you feel that way about yourself.  Non-believers are not "enemies."  Indeed, a true Christian would express enormous compassion for you (even if that seems repugnant to you), not judgment or condemnation.  And even if they do perceive you as an "enemy," Jesus said, "Love your enemies, bless those who curse you, do good to those who hate you, pray for those who spitefully use you and persecute you."  Thus, there is no excuse whatsoever for a Christian to make any non-believer (or believer in another faith) feel like an "enemy."

Finally, re the "creationist" theory, there are two answers here.  First, it is common error to misread Genesis in an ultra-literalist fashion.  When it states that god created the world and everything in it "in six days," that is clearly metaphor.  How do we know?  Because the period of creation was not being measured in "sunrise to sunrise" terms.  Scripture states, "For a thousand years in your sight are like yesterday when it is past" (Psalm 90:4), and "With the Lord, one day is as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day."  Thus, even a hyper-literal interpretation of Genesis would give "creation" six thousand years instead of six days.  But there are other Scriptural passages that go further into how God reckons time as opposed to how man does, and make any attempt to interpret Genesis literally of questionable value.

Second, it is also common error to believe that Darwin (and his colleague, Charles Lyell, the founder of modern geology) was attempting to disprove the existence of God.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  What Darwin and Lyell set out to prove was that, once God "set things in motion," He did not "interfere" with the processes.

First, keep in mind that Darwin was not simply a Christian, but he also studied for the ministry.  And despite claims by the scientific community to the contrary, Darwin never gave up his belief in God.  In "the Origin of Species," he states the following in his conclusion:

"Authors of the highest eminence seem to be fully satisfied with the view that each species has been independently created.  To my mind it accords better with what we know of the laws impressed on matter by the Creator, that the production and extinction of the past and present inhabitants of the world should have been due to secondary causes...There is grandeur in this view of life...having been originally breathed into a few forms or into one..."

This is Darwin speaking, in the book that so many believe was written to disprove the existence of God.  It amazes me how many people cite Darwin, yet have never actually read the book.  Indeed, Darwin virtually undermines his entire theory by stating the following:

"If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down...To suppose that the eye could have been formed by natural selection seems, I freely confess, absurd in the highest degree."

Darwin was also wary of people using his hypotheses (remember, evolution is not a fact, but a theory, albeit one supported by much evidence).  He states this as follows: "I was a young man with unformed ideas.  I threw out queries, suggestions, wondering all the time over everything; and to my astonishment, the ideas took like wildfire.  People made a religion out of them!"

As for Lyell, he states the following in his seminal work, "Principles of Geology": "Whatever direction we pursue in our researches, whether in time or space, we discover everywhere the clear proofs of a Creative Intelligence, and of His foresight, wisdom and power."

I leave you with a few quotes about evolution and the existence of God, from some of the greatest minds in history, many of whom are often assumed to support evolution and non-believing viewpoints:

“This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful Being.”  Sir Isaac Newton

 

“In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”  Sir Isaac Newton

 

“Man will believe anything, as long as it’s not in the Bible.”  Napoleon

 

“A little science estranges men from God, but much science leads them back to Him.”  Louis Pasteur

 

“Evolution is unproved and unprovable.  We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation, and that is unthinkable.”  Sir Arthur Keith (wrote the foreward to the 100^th edition of “The Origin of Species”)

 

“The evolutionists seem to know everything about the missing link, except the fact that it is missing.”  G.K. Chesterton

 

“Everyone who is seriously interested in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that a spirit is manifest in the laws of the universe – a spirit vastly superior to man, and one in the face of which our modest powers must feel humble.”  Albert Einstein

 

“Either we see everything in life as a miracle, or we see nothing in life as a miracle.”  Albert Einstein

 

“The most beautiful emotion we can experience is the mystical.  It is the power of all true art and science.  He to whom this emotion is a stranger, who can no longer wonder and stand in rapt awe, is as good as dead.”  Albert Einstein

 

“Even though the realms of religion and science in themselves are clearly marked off from each other, nevertheless there exists between the two strong reciprocal relationships and dependencies.  Though religion may be that which determines the goal, it has, nevertheless, learned from science, in the broadest sense, what means will contribute to the attainment of the goals it has set up.  But science can only be created by those who are thoroughly imbued with the aspiration towards truth and understanding.  The source of this feeling, however, springs from the sphere of religion.  To this there also belongs the faith in the possibility that the regulations valid for the world of existence are rational, that is, comprehensible to reason.  I cannot conceive of a genuine scientist without that profound faith.  The situation may be expressed by an image: religion without science is blind; science without religion is lame.”  Albert Einstein

 

“In the view of such harmony in the cosmos which I, with my limited human mind, am able to recognize, there are yet people who say there is no God.  But what makes me really angry is that they quote me for support of such views…I want to know how God created this world.  I am not interested in this or that phenomenon, in the spectrum of this or that element.  I want to know His thoughts.  The rest are details.”  Albert Einstein

 

“In fact, evolution became in a sense a scientific religion: almost all scientists have accepted it and many are prepared to ‘bend’ their observations to fit in with it.”  H.S. Lipson, Professor of Physics, University of Manchester

 

“The chance that higher life forms might have emerged [via evolution] is comparable to the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junkyard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the materials therein…The likelihood of the formation of life from inanimate matter is one out of 10^40,000…It is big enough to bury Darwin and the whole theory of evolution.  There was no primeval soup, neither on this planet nor on any other, and if the beginnings of life were not random, they must therefore have been the product of purposeful intelligence.”  Sir Fred Hoyle

 

"The evolutionary trees that adorn our textbooks have data only at the tips (micro) and nodes of their branches; the rest is inference, however reasonable, not the evidence of fossils."  Stephen Jay Gould, Professor of Geology and Paleontology, Harvard University

 

“It would be very difficult to explain why the universe should have begun in just this way, except as the act of a God who intended to create beings like us.”  Stephen Hawking

 

“Scientists who go about teaching that evolution is a fact of life are great con-men, and the story they are telling may be the greatest hoax ever.  In explaining evolution, we do not have one iota of absolute fact.”  Dr. D.T. Tahmisian, U.S. Atomic Energy Commission

 

And a couple from the faith-based community:

 

“Darwin admitted that millions of ‘missing links’ - transitional life forms - would have to be discovered in the fossil record to prove the accuracy of his theory that all species had gradually evolved by chance mutation into new species.  Unfortunately for his theory, despite hundreds of millions spent on searching for fossils worldwide for more than a century, the scientists have failed to locate a single missing link out of the millions that must exist if their theory of evolution is to be vindicated.”  Grant Jeffery, Christian minister and author

 

“Dogs have puppies, not kittens.  Cats have kittens, not chickens.  Horses have foals, not calves. It doesn’t matter how many thousands of years pass, elephants don’t have giraffes, nor do monkeys have men…It is interesting to note that pig heart valves have been used as replacements for human heart valves.  Pig skin has even been grafted in humans to deal with severe burns.  In fact, pig tissues are the nearest in chemical composition to those of humans. Perhaps wishful evolutionists should spend more time around the pigsty.”  Ray Comfort, Christian minister and author

And what happened to my post?! It was there for a short while and then mysteriously disappeared! I'm not suggesting some censorship shenanigans but the question remains: Where did it go?