India and Christianity

Sorry, Fragile I confused your avatar for Garion's

Easy to confuse this for this:

Good job I wasn't chronicling the events of 2000 years ago! I'd be describing Jesus as a white-man with an American accent!

Reed Lover:

The answer you are waiting for will have to wait a bit more (How do you keep a fool in suspense?  I'll tell you tomorrow...)

Meanwhile, you say: "It is a common misconception that the Apostles witnessed everything. The Gospels describe quite vividly how most of them hid in fear of their lives when Jesus was arrested."

Obviously, the apostles did not witness much of what occurred once Jesus was arrested (until He was seen publicly again), since they were not privy to meetings of the Sanhedrin.  But that is mutually exclusive of whether the apostles "witnessed everything" prior to His arrest, and once He was publicly seen again.  Thus, Fragile's point is essentially correct: they witnessed the overwhelming majority of Jesus' life and ministry.  In this regard, your comment is unnecessarily dismissive, to say nothing of incorrect.

You also state: "I am constantly puzzled when Christian believers will not discuss their faith. One could almost accuse you of failing in one of your central duties as a Christian.  Christianity is meant to be evangelical - Maani would probably back me in this - so discussing it, and debating it with a non-believer such as I should be part of your duties."

Well, you are partly correct.  But you are confusing "sharing the Word" via evangelizing, with debating and getting into long-winded, "legalistic" discussions.

Yes, Christians are called to "preach the Gospel" to anyone who will listen.  But they are also admonished not to engage in debate: "But avoid foolish disputes, geneologies, contentions, and strivings about the law, for they are unprofitable and useless.  Reject a divisive man after the first and second admonition." (Titus 3:9-10).  Indeed, as you well know, the disciples were told by Jesus that if someone did not want to hear the Gospel, they should "shake the dust off their feet" and move on - not getting into "disputes" about it.  As an aside, I hold myself guilty in this regard, not so much in failing to "reject" you, but in engaging in this discussion beyond the point at which it might serve the purpose of simply "evangelizing," or at least not "devolving" into a "dispute" or "contention."

Having gone over this entire thread today, I must also admit that, like Fragile, I am at a loss as to exactly where you stand.  On the one hand, you claim many years of "instruction" in the Bible (which I do not question).  Yet on the other, it seems that all you got out of that instruction is that the New Testament was the product of politico-spiritual "maneuvering," and, indeed, that you question the entire "authenticity" and value of the Judeo-Christian Scriptures.  In this regard, how can you, on the one hand, claim that the Scriptures are, essentially, "bogus," yet on the other hand start a response with "The Gospels describe quite vividly...?"  Again, it demands asking: Exactly what do you believe?

If, as you have stated numerous times, you believe that the Scriptures are (at least largely) bogus, then we are "debating" at cross purposes.  Someone observing a similar online discussion in another venue said it best: "If one is discussing dogs (for the sake of argument), it is not helpful to reply with a polemic about cats."  Since you clearly do not believe in the Scriptures - and are more than willing to "throw out the baby, his mother, etc." with the bathwater - and I obviously believe in them, then you are arguing dogs and I am arguing cats.  Nothing can come of it but continued "he said, she said" (OK, "he said, he said"), with you supporting your position with historical "facts" about the Scriptures, and me supporting my position by quoting the very Scriptures you believe are largely bogus.

This brings up two additional points.

First, from my perspective as a Christian who believes in the Scriptures, the Scripture that best describes how I feel about the situation at this point - given my comments in the immediately preceding paragraph - is: "Now we have received, not the spirit of the world, but the Spirit who is from God, that we might know the things that have been freely given to us by God.  These things we also speak, not in words which man's wisdom teaches but which the Holy Spirit teaches, comparing spiritual things with spiritual.  But the natural man [i.e., non-believer] does not receive the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, because they are spiritually discerned."  (1 Cor. 13-14).

That is, you are arguing the "wisdom of the world" - historical "facts," "legalism," etc.  I am arguing the "wisdom of the Spirit" which, to you, as a non-believer, is "foolishness."  In this regard, we both believe our positions to be "correct."  It seems that, as the saying goes, "East is East and West is West, and never the twain shall meet."

Second, on a more "observational" note, in re-reading the entire thread I noticed something.  Gdub posted a comment having to do with the recent earthquake/tsunami incident that affected India (among other places), and how Christianity seemed to be being "used" in a way with which he did not agree.  I then responded with three comments, the first two of which were "factually innocuous" (that India was not the only country affected, and that Christianity is tied as the second largest faith in India).

It was my third comment - bringing up "blaming God," and the existence of Satan - that "stirred up the pot."  And although I accept that, by posting it on a public site (and not by PM), I "opened the floodgates," what actually occurred was that you immediately fell upon me like a vulture on carrion.  And from that point on, you were the (primary) "attacker," putting me in a position of "defending the faith" (which, as you see, I am always happy to do...)

What surprises me, though, is the palpable "vehemence" of your posts.  It is almost as if my faith, and my defense of Christianity, is personally offensive to you.  Indeed, you seem (pardon the pun) "hellbent" on dismissing, even negating, "faith," and particularly Christianity.  In this regard, your approach is one of anger and condescension: the latter in the form of the very type of "presumption" you accuse me of at various points re your knowledge and background.  And although you have not resorted to "personal attack" as such, my very belief in my faith now makes me "unsophisticated," "unlearned" and even "crass."  The strongest word I have ever used in a discussion of this sort is "misguided" - which I accept could be seen as "condescending," but certainly does not rise to the level of "crass."

Tell me: Where is all this incredible anger and vehemence coming from?  Why does my faith offend you so?  Why do you feel the need to "bludgeon" me with "history," as if history has never been proven wrong?

Note that, despite all of the above, I am neither upset nor "cowed" by your approach.  Nor am I  attempting to "get out from under" the discussion, or unanswered questions.  Rather, I am both sad and curious about the near-hatred underlying your side of the discussion.

You may want to take some time to think about this, rather than posting immediately.  In fact, I urge you to do so: to re-read the entire thread as I did, focusing on the "way you speak" - your approach, "attitude," choice of words, and what I can only call "lack of patience."

In the meantime, as others have noted, we could all use a respite right now.  It need only be temporary, as I am more than happy to continue the discussion (though, as stated, it does seem to be "apples and oranges" - or "dogs and cats").  Perhaps we should continue it on a separate thread in this category.  I leave that up to you.

Peace.

Maani:

I only doubt that Scripture was, in effect, written by God. The obvious errors and inconsistencies pose interesting questions about the infallibility of God.You seem either to dodge this claim or misunderstand the relevance. If you rationalise my argument you will see that I offer man-made solutions for these errors, a generous position to take. You, however, seem to be unsure as to whether God is infallible or not.

What you describe as my arguing "legality" about Scripture is actually an attempt by me to clarify the contradictions of your argument.When one is discussing a perfect being one is entitled to expect perfection.If His word is incontravertible why do we need 4 Gospels? Why do these Gospels differ? This is not a flippant remark, just a question that needs answering.

Reed Lover wrote: Pixel Pirate wrote: Velvetclown wrote: It went to hell  And so should this moronic thread! Pixie, what is maronic about this discussion? Please explain.

Because,as I have said before,discussing religion with someone who actually IS religious is as productive as teaching an elephant to play guitar.

Pixel:

While it may be true that Christians (and other people of faith) adhere to "dogma," consider two things.

First, the dogma that a particular faith-based person espouses can vary radically depending on what one is taught or understands about one's faith, and especially how well one knows the Scriptures.  For example, the dogma adhered to by the so-called "Christian Right" is very different - indeed, sometimes diametrically opposed - to the dogma adhered to by a "centrist" Christian, or a "primitive" Christian such as myself.  Yes, it is ultimately still "dogma," but, as one hip minister once said to me: "You can teach an old dogma new tricks."  (Or, as the 60s slogan goes: "My karma ran over my dogma.")

Second, and perhaps more importantly, you fail to realize that your worldview - and that of other atheists, agnostics, etc. - is also based on "dogma," though of a different kind.  If I am dogmatic about my faith and its underlying texts and principles, athetists/agnostics are just as dogmatic about their lack of belief.  In this regard, to say that "I as an atheist/agnostic am willing to concede that I might be wrong - that it's possible there is a god," but that "There's no way that any religious person will ever concede that HE might be wrong and that there is no god" is both incorrect and a cop-out.  It is incorrect because, after all, how many people of faith have "fallen away" and even rejected that faith later?  We are talking hundreds of thousands, even millions of people.  True, a person who is currently faith-based is highly unlikely to "concede" that there is no God.  But it is absolutely clear that being faith-based at a particular moment in time does not mean that one will be faith-based for life.

It is also a cop-out because you are setting up an impossibly circular, and ultimately fallacious, argument.  After all, faith is just that: faith.  The Scriptural definition of "faith" is "The substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen."  Thus, to a non-believer whose "dogma" is grounded in rationalism, "faith" is prima facie "irrational," and not based on (empirical) evidence - i.e., evidence of things seen.

People of faith "believe" because they have witnessed and/or been the beneficiaries of God's grace, mercy and power.  What rationalists call "coincidence," believers call "providence."  As noted, the "evidence" of God's grace, mercy and power are prima facie "unseen" in the rationalist sense, and are thus not open to empirical quantification (yes, I know: "how convenient"...).  It is simply a matter of perspective: you, as a rationalist, are no more likely to change your perspective than a believer is to change theirs.  To claim that you "could" - because you are a rationalist - while they "can't" (because they are "dogmatic" about their faith) would seem extremely disingenuous.

Reed Lover:

First, there is nothing wrong with your debating skills; they are clearly as sharp as a tack.  If anything, there may be something wrong (a term I use loosely) in your approach.  However, given, as you note, the "passion" involved in matters of faith, perhaps that is understandable (to say nothing of forgivable...).

You say, "The obvious errors and inconsistencies pose interesting questions about the infallibility of God.  You seem either to dodge this claim or misunderstand the relevance. If you rationalise my argument you will see that I offer man-made solutions for these errors, a generous position to take. You, however, seem to be unsure as to whether God is infallible or not."

First, I am not dodging the question.  I am simply claiming not to have all the answers - but that, despite all your rational, worldly "arguments," I believe that God knew (and knows) what He was doing in the "dictation" of the Scriptures.  In this regard, I'm not sure that God would agree with you that positing rational, worldly arguments is a "generous" thing to do; rather, I think He would be both amused and saddened that you felt the need to resort to worldly positions to argue for His infallibility and perfection.

Similarly, you ask "If His word is incontravertible, why do we need 4 Gospels? Why do these Gospels differ? This is not a flippant remark, just a question that needs answering."  At the risk of sounding flip myself (to say nothing of dogmatic...), it only needs answering if one is lacking in faith.  However, assuming those questions do need answering, again I beleve that God would not want you to be looking for those answers in the "temporal" world, via rationalism, empiricism and human history.  Again, I do not claim to have the answers to those questions, even from Scripture.  But I have faith that God knew and knows what He is doing, and that there are answers to those questions - though we, as humans, may not be able to discern them despite all of our knowledge and "wisdom."

Finally, I want to thank you - sincerely - for your comment that, "I actually believe there have been productive outcomes to this discussion.  Most of them have little to do with the subject matter and much to do with the individuals involved.  Whatever we may feel about Maani's Faith, very few individuals of a religious nature would have continued this debate for this long. Even if I feel there is a degree of "clouding the issue with dogma" by Maani , he has never resorted to the "that's what I believe and it is personal to me" dodge that so frustrates most debate on this subject."

I, too, believe that, despite the occasional spasms of "intense passion" (), this discussion has been productive, and for the reasons you state.  Because no matter which side of the issue others who have posted may be on, they - and others who may be following this without posting - cannot help but be "enlightened" in one way or another by a serious, thoughtful, reasoned discussion/debate, especially on such a "thorny" issue.  And I am humbled that you would go out of your way to support me with the statement made in the last sentence of that post.

James:

Bravo on a beautiful statement.  It should be required reading for anyone and everyone who intends to engage in any discussion or debate about "faith."

Peace to all.

And we just keep going around in circles,don't we.... I could write a thesis or 50 with arguments against religion,and immodestly enough,most of them would be intelligent and reasonable but it would all be in vain since the human race is a species that's actually stupid enough to think that truth is a subjective issue. I'm ashamed to belong to such a species. Bertand Russell once had a discussion with Wittgenstein about this. Wittgenstein,a waste of a good intellect if ever there was one,claimed that there was no such thing as empirical truth. Russell then asked him: Is there a rhinoceros in this room? Wittgenstein refused to answer because the only answer he could possible give would be: No,there isn't. Which would prove that his notion that there is no empirical truth was complete nonsense,which of course it is.

I'm too old for this type of thing and my new year resolution is broken already so I'll just say this: Don't forget where all,and I do mean ALL,religious notions stem from. Simply the fact that the human animal is the only one on this planet that is aware of it's mortality. As opposed to every other living thing on this planet,humans know they are going to die. And they don't like it. They REALLY don't like it.In fact, it terrifies them. You can dress religion up in all manner of metaphysical arguement but if you work your way backwards to it's origin you'll find mankind's fear of death. Man is a simple being and simple beings are easily fathomed out. No one can understand anything about religion until they have a thorough understanding of human psychology. If you know what makes the human animal tick,especially it's fears,then and only then,will you understand religion. Without fear,there would be no religion. Know this and you know everything there is to know about religion. It keeps the fear from the door,that's it's function. It tells you soothing lies that this life is not the end. If cows had suddenly aquired the intelligence and consciensness of man,I can guarantee two things:1. After five minutes they would have started a religion (and naturally the cow god would have looked like a cow!) and 2. That religion would immediately have set to work to assauge the cows newfound fear of death.

Complicated beings require complicated explanations as to what makes them tick,simple beings do not. Man is simple. About all he knows is this: He wants food and sex and he's afraid of death. Man is astonishingly advanced technologically and astonishingly primitive philosophically. Once again: I'm ashamed to belong to such a species and I agree with Monty Python: I hope there's intelligent life somewhere in space because there's bugger all down here on earth.