Ditto.
Thinking Exercise: Is Christianity Right?
- Thread starter LysanderShapiro
- Start date
Subjectively I will defend its true to any who will hear me, however by my personal experience, I subjectively argue its objectively true to me.
I really like the argument from personal experience as part of a composite along with the formal arguments. The logician may rush to discount it as unverifiable, but I would counter-
"Sure someone else's experience may not prove any thing to you...but, if God did exist and He were personal and His Spirit did work inside of individuals toward their sanctification then the phenomena of many individuals insisting on personal experiential proof is exactly what you should expect. If Christians were all logic but no testimony that would be far more suspicious than having many that insist on the validity of their own personal experience with God"
Great thread!
''Does God exist''
Well before we answer the question, we need to ensure that all grasp their own limiting factors. See pride hides / ignores / blinds us to our shortcomings. How can we fly if we have no wings? How can we think if we have no brain? How can we walk if we have no legs?
Let's first see what we have. We are temporal flesh and on an earth among a gazillion other planets. NONE of us had ANYTHING to do with making Pluto, yet Pluto exists and orbits just fine WITHOUT us....as does everything else in the universe and 'micro-verse'.
So lets not hide from facts. Fact is, the evidence points to a creator God. Fact is, the evidence points to us being a creation. A rather weak and dumb one at that...yet very special to a Creator as He chose to make us more intelligent then all on the earth / able to rule it.
Conclusion: We are simply incapable of grasping how God came into existence with our current brain capacity. But to ignore that that is where the evidence points is to not even use the little grey matter we do have.
''Does God exist''
Well before we answer the question, we need to ensure that all grasp their own limiting factors. See pride hides / ignores / blinds us to our shortcomings. How can we fly if we have no wings? How can we think if we have no brain? How can we walk if we have no legs?
Let's first see what we have. We are temporal flesh and on an earth among a gazillion other planets. NONE of us had ANYTHING to do with making Pluto, yet Pluto exists and orbits just fine WITHOUT us....as does everything else in the universe and 'micro-verse'.
So lets not hide from facts. Fact is, the evidence points to a creator God. Fact is, the evidence points to us being a creation. A rather weak and dumb one at that...yet very special to a Creator as He chose to make us more intelligent then all on the earth / able to rule it.
Conclusion: We are simply incapable of grasping how God came into existence with our current brain capacity. But to ignore that that is where the evidence points is to not even use the little grey matter we do have.
Last edited:
Regarding the title 'Is Christianity right?' I think of these questions:
1. What lead you to Christ?
2. Do you approve of what Christianity teaches? What does it teach that you disapprove of? Do you accept all scripture?
3. If you find Jesus, don't you need some proof / evidence that you found Him? That all can see.
4. What are the alternatives to Christianity? Anyone consider Islam, Hinduism, Judaism?
5. IQ>10 knows that helping orphans = good and spitting on them = evil. Surely all who desire good like this deserve to be in Heaven and not hell with the evil. Not just ''Christianity'' exclusive.
Indeed.
I didn't mean the question to be "Is Christianity Moral." What I meant was "Is Christianity the correct faith."
It is a strong point for strategy
It may not be a-priori knowledge that God exists, but it is assertoric knowledge that most of humanity insists that God exists. Thus to your point how does one justify so much insistence of God's existence from humanity?
However do you think that the atheist will logically charge cultural conditioning or family conditioning to be responsible?
My goal isn't to offer a proof that will drag my opponent to Christianity. That's the job of the holy spirit. But when I see someone that seeks to utterly dismiss Christianity as deranged or even evil (often for the sake of squelching the call of the Spirit in their own conscience), that I can combat. All that is required to do so is to "give an answer for the hope that is within you." My goal is to offer enough answers to where the average joe looking at things logically has to say "ok, I can see how someone could believe what you believe" at that point the defamation of the "idiocy of Christians" falls away and the honest opponent is forced to admit that his problem with my faith is not proof, it's personal antipathy. That said-
He will probably bring it up. But at their best, those serve as plausible alternatives, as there is no study or test case large enough to serve as any sort of objective proof that they are the root of religious experience. So we end at stalemate, both of us holding possible causes for the given effect. But this is ok, because our goal wasn't to use it as a formal proof but to add it to a preponderance of evidence showing that our cosmology, morality, suffering, and experience all fit as part of a plausible state of affairs should Christianity be true.
I agree with your wisdom and strategy for how the human condition will manifest to rational observance.
If a subjective stand-off is mutually respected in the ambit of what is "unprovable", then can the mutual respect from both sides then fall to persuasions of what is empirical, and rational when friendship is tangible. Can it then be reasonable for us to know the superior side of our relationship in the spirit which can be shared, versus no relationship in opposite, which then must seek limited scientific methods for explanation? Also to your point, we are to spread the seed of His word, and as it will be the Holy Spirit that brings man to repentance in due season.
Thus, is it possible that "friendship" and not hostile argument (I do not accuse you my friend), can be a Christians greatest ally for conversion when exchanging with an educated atheist? For it is my experience that many atheists are rational, kind and open for discussion, if I am willing to listen to them in exchange. However, I would also presuppose, it is but on rare occasion that the initial exchange will demonstrate a tangible instant conversion, even when kind friendship is palpable.
However also to your point, when atheism or any other kind secular or humanistic manoeuvres then swing to inflammatory and bitter marginalizations against the faith, can the Christian then simply remove the dust from ones own soles and move on to better ground in peace?
Good comments.
Regarding the ministry of friendship, and moving on after finding "hard soil":
Before I say anything else, I'll admit this only my personal take on friendship and evangelism and that it has taken shape primarily through painful failures in my own life.
Your instincts are great. I picture 3 battle grounds. The spirit, the emotions or conscience, and the intellect. You may occasionally find someone like the Ethiopian official in Acts, who seems spiritually and emotionally sympathetic and only has a few intellectual questions to clear up. Much more often I find people who wish to be perceived as having only intellectual hang-ups when in fact their primary issue is emotional. Someone who's sense of justice has been outraged at hypocrisy, someone who has felt like the church has been the primary source of guilt or depression in their lives, someone who is scared of the possibility that people they loved may have gone to hell, or someone who has been brought up with the church as the scapegoat explanation for suffering in the world. For these people intellectual issues are shield to protect emotional injury or satisfy a certain self-image (everyone would rather be thought of as an intellectual than a bigot). Having intellectual answers can help remove some stereotypes and point to where the real issues are.
On the emotional battleground, love is the weapon of choice and friendship, as you mention, can be a huge ministry. If their personal experience with you contradicts the emotional strawman (such as "all Christians are self-righteous hypocrites") personal friendship can sometimes win the day. But I offer two caveats:
1.) friendship is about deciding to love someone as a friend, not making yourself acceptable to them. If the tenor of your friendship is to come alongside your new atheist friend and find camaraderie in your frustrations with the modern church...you are on shaky ground. If you seek to fill the role of "the one cool Christian," then you risk being taken as an anomaly rather than a testimony. Put another way, Christ said "By this all people will know that you are my disciples, if you have love for one another." Love for your friend absent love for the Church is seldom effective. When you display love for your friend as well as baffling, faithful love for your brothers and sisters in the Faith, however broken they may be, then progress is often made on the emotional front as love can indeed cover a multitude of sins.
2.) Shaking the dust off your feet and moving on is vital for the traveling evangelist to maximize effectiveness and keep from getting spiritually or emotionally bogged down. But this is public proclamation. There is a high cost of "moving on" past a relationship with a friend or family member. Some types of love are implicitly understood to be unconditional...when it turns out there were conditions after all, everyone gets hurt. You also risk becoming one more example "hypocrisy" to stoke an unbeliever's fire. That is not to say there is never a time to move on, but that it should be done when covered in prayer and counsel. I would also say this should encourage people not to enter into "friendship evangelism" flippantly. Look for God's leading in making and maintaining friendships with unbelievers or you will find yourself having made implicit promises that you cannot keep.
Does that address most of the questions you posed or did I miss one?
I must say yes with precision, and admire your strategies that exude the love of Christ. I shall bear witness that some of my experiences with atheists in discussion have divulged spiritual injury by immature Christians in their lives, and then as a result soft-atheism or agnosticism then became recourse to marginalize the sources of their pain. Unfortunately many times in the confines of Christianity has the injury taken place, where love was not present by some.
Is it possible that you are a spiritual tactician, highly decisive with good strategy to war in the spirit, while advancing the love of Christ in the natural, then using good principles of friendship? Then also extrapolating the differentiating mindsets that would oppose the faith from a position of spiritual injury, either unaware, or with praxeological intentions to beset our simple goals of extending the love of Christ?
I must say yes with precision again, even though you do not need my small endorsement for it to be so.
Is it possible that the devils advocate, advocates for "correctness that cannot be proven correct in our carnal state of being?"
Before technology, if three people take a trip to the same distant city, and all three were to boast that they had the most efficient route, then would not the devils advocate then investigate from each one which had the fastest time, the least amount of injury, the most resources along the way, and the most success for a smooth efficient arrival? Then calculating the weather, the terrain, historical reports of thievery along the way, and even the value of the destination, as he would investigate all?
Thus the "reported route" is under investigation by the intelligent atheist, and "who" will he or she believe?
I would suggest that "experience shared" may compel the devils advocate to sway his thoughts just a little if the report is convincing, but admittedly "unprovable." Thus motives, demeanour, example, integrity, character, generosity, and love would all serve the "route ambassador" well. Can the Christian be "believed" and is not our reputation everything?
I would argue there is no a-priori knowledge for subjective society regarding the "correct" route or our faith (no carnal knowledgeable objective path - a-priori), so long as we are in these corporeal subjective bodies looking through the glass darkly; only able to detect the things with our five senses which can confirm in this realm what is naturally assertoric.
Yet with enthusiasm, I will agree with any of my Christian brothers or sisters that my "personal" relationship can be "objective to me", and that God is the "objective truth", which is a subjective claim in society.
When scripture tells us God is omniscient, all things are predestined according to his will, his plan, even our lives, how is it that we today are born sinners due to what God predestined in Eden?
How does a forgiving God not forgive the fault of the first born humans he created devoid of intellect? And then send himself to suffer torture so that he can change the rules related to sin and damnation that he created himself?
How does a forgiving God not forgive the fault of the first born humans he created devoid of intellect? And then send himself to suffer torture so that he can change the rules related to sin and damnation that he created himself?
Well, if no one else wants to bite, I'll jump in
Honest and important questions. The questions themselves (though honest and important) are deeply flawed. There is much that is taken for granted.
The incredulity expressed in the questions comes from taking attributes and actions of God and then attempting to empathize, that is by hypothetically hanging them a human consciousness. You end up talking about God as if He is some sort of rich and powerful guy down the street. "How can this guy hold other people responsible for a situation he set up!?" "He's just trying to take credit for saving people from a fate he fixed!" Those paraphrase may be more strongly worded but the essence is the same. Some attributes are ignored so that others may be weighed in a forum more comfortable to our own minds. A human forum. The first attribute that is subconsciously shoved aside so we can stand in judgement is God's holiness. He is the most original and different thing in existence. Everything that we know to exist can be put in two categories: created and Creator. He stands alone in His group. There is nothing like Him for us to form a true allegory. Perhaps (and I would not even go so far as that with confidence), perhaps the humanized God in those questions offends your conscience. But then a human consciousness acting as if it were God has always been considered insane or sinful at the least if not the very essence of the demonic.
So, before dealing with anything else allow me to plead Isaiah 55:8-9 actually I plead the whole book of Job
I don't think I can claim to defend God in absolute terms without committing the same mistake and failing to acknowledge the utter Holiness of His nature.What I can do, while openly admitting I do not believe any of us have the capacity for sufficient perspective to understand the whole nature of God in relation to our faith and salvation (even Paul was willing to appeal to mystery, how much more ourselves?), is offer a some rational critique and a hypothetical sate of affairs which may satisfy some of the incredulity in those questions. Again-it's a hypothetical state of affairs, I cannot claim a God's eye view. But, I think the hypothetical is still valuable in that if there is one hypothetical state of affairs that satisfies those questions we prove that there is no explicit contradiction between God's nature and the existence of sin and salvation (which is the heart of the questions asked).
And now for the anti-climax....I can't offer any more right now because I'm late for a date with my wife! yikes! I'm offfff. But I'll jump in again as I can if no one else takes it from here!
A well thought out response. Thanks.
I'll expand on your reference to Isaiah 55:8-9 by making the observation that its import would then first call into question the validity of everything we think we know about God and faith and scripture.
Thanks. I'll expand on your reference to Isaiah 55:8-9 by making the observation that its import would then first call into question the validity of everything we think we know about God and faith and scripture.
Well, if no one else wants to bite, I'll jump in
Honest and important questions. The questions themselves (though honest and important) are deeply flawed. There is much that is taken for granted.
The incredulity expressed in the questions comes from taking attributes and actions of God and then attempting to empathize, that is by hypothetically hanging them a human consciousness. You end up talking about God as if He is some sort of rich and powerful guy down the street. "How can this guy hold other people responsible for a situation he set up!?" "He's just trying to take credit for saving people from a fate he fixed!" Those paraphrase may be more strongly worded but the essence is the same. Some attributes are ignored so that others may be weighed in a forum more comfortable to our own minds. A human forum. The first attribute that is subconsciously shoved aside so we can stand in judgement is God's holiness. He is the most original and different thing in existence. Everything that we know to exist can be put in two categories: created and Creator. He stands alone in His group. There is nothing like Him for us to form a true allegory. Perhaps (and I would not even go so far as that with confidence), perhaps the humanized God in those questions offends your conscience. But then a human consciousness acting as if it were God has always been considered insane or sinful at the least if not the very essence of the demonic.
So, before dealing with anything else allow me to plead Isaiah 55:8-9 actually I plead the whole book of Job
What I can do, while openly admitting I do not believe any of us have the capacity for sufficient perspective to understand the whole nature of God in relation to our faith and salvation (even Paul was willing to appeal to mystery, how much more ourselves?), is offer a some rational critique and a hypothetical sate of affairs which may satisfy some of the incredulity in those questions. Again-it's a hypothetical state of affairs, I cannot claim a God's eye view. But, I think the hypothetical is still valuable in that if there is one hypothetical state of affairs that satisfies those questions we prove that there is no explicit contradiction between God's nature and the existence of sin and salvation (which is the heart of the questions asked).
And now for the anti-climax....I can't offer any more right now because I'm late for a date with my wife! yikes! I'm offfff. But I'll jump in again as I can if no one else takes it from here!
1. Prior to sin in Eden was nothing special. The devil was put there. Today its exactly the same.
2. He does forgive them. Jesus died for everyone. Forgiving all does not mean He over-rides their free will. People choose to not be with him.
All the evidence we see and read in scripture points to 'His will' = He wills to be impartial to the max!
Sin never equaled hell. Think about Abraham's bosom. All in Hades and Abraham's bosom were in death from sin.
If God put the devil with Adam, God will put the devil with every human. If God gave a creation IQ>50, God will let that creation choose if they want to live with Him or not.
God does desire to be friends with Nero and Lucy. They do not. God's will is to love them and honor their decision.
"The theologian considers sin mainly as an offence against God; the moral philosopher as contrary to reasonableness."
Thomas Aquinas
Thomas Aquinas
We are "predestined" to be conformed into the image of His Son. The Lord did not plan what every action man would take, as that was up to man to make his own choices. But the Lord, according to His "foreknowledge" knew every thought, word, decision, and action that we would make before we made them. Everything in this world is going according to how man makes his own choices, whether it be good or bad. Since the Lord is omniscient there is nothing he does not know before it takes place. There is no creature hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.
The Lord having this "foreknowledge" of knowing each and every person who would receive his Son as their saviour before he created the world, he was able to place these people in Christ before the world was ever created. This is what Satan had no knowledge of, for if he did, he would have never crucified the Lord of Glory.