Rational defense of Christianity?

[watchamadoodle]

Are you by any chance looking for facts or are you looking for meaning and purpose?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I do look for meaning and purpose. Facts are useful too.

The facts, if there are any, serve as only anecdotal back story to the plot.

I'm not sure what you mean here either. I agree that the details are uncertain on how Judaism and Christianity evolved.

I believe the Bible is inerrant.

I looked up a definition of inerrancy on wikipedia (my bolds):

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

It takes a lot of imaginative justification to claim that the Bible is inerrant. There are a lot of bad teachings and factual discrepancies - even in the gospels IMO.

The Bible is part of the language of expression of the subject that all other religions are part of. They are all evidence vouched for. How are you dismissing them? On what grounds?

I'm not sure what you mean (especially the part in bold). I don't dismiss the Bible or Christianity. Even as a human creation, Christianity has some good ideas (and some bad ideas too). Buddhism and Hinduism also have some good ideas.

I do dismiss Christianity's claim to be the only religion or even the best religion. I don't see any evidence to support that claim.

---

How are you dismissing them? On what grounds?

I imagine on the logical grounds that the fictional book was written by fallible men and that there is zero evidence to support that those men were even remotely divinely inspired by a deity.

Yep.

[Esquilax]

It takes some breathtaking lack of awareness and honesty to say that, echoing a sentence that was literally inches away from the proof that love is not entirely human.

I did not say love is entirely human, that remained from someone's post.

Oh! Okay: I guess use quote tags next time?

[watchamadoodle]

There was a forum member on here who made a valiant stab at a reasonable defence of Christianity, Arcanus I think.
He was obviously a fearsomely intelligent man who used his brains to justify his beliefs to himself.
Even he was less than convincing, but no one since has come closer to a proper justification for their delusions.

That's interesting. Most Christians seem to rely on willful ignorance - even if they know the facts intellectually. They compartmentalize. I've seen a few that seem to have ways of reconciling reality with their beliefs, but I haven't been able to understand their ideas.

---

I was shocked by His love, when He whispered in my heart one stormy night. I felt things that I first tried to stop. I misunderstood when it says that God is Holy. I thought that it was sitting pretty in church, with a tie and shoes. Suddenly I realized what a miracle God did when he created me, and loved me so indescribably. It was an amazing experience when I felt God's spirit whisper to me, so that I even felt it physically.

This brings-up psychology. Many Christians have an experience like this and think it is strong subjective evidence, because they do not know enough about psychology.

I agree that these types of experiences can be enlightening and transforming, but they cannot justify believing in the nonsense of Christian theology IMO.

You shouldn't necessarily dismiss these experiences as worthless. Maybe your higher aspirations in your psyche are trying to transform your life. Or maybe there is some higher power that communicates through religious concepts.

[Spooky]

[

What was the thought process causing you to "believe in what you could not see"? That's a really shaky starting point.

I think that we can agree on one thing and that is that life is a mystery. Who can really explain the process involved in how a child is born, and come up with an answer. I am not talking about the scientific explanation, we all know about conception, nine months. This is a mystery to me, that in a world filled with so much evil, such love can exist that it creates life. Passion and love are gifts from God. It was a brilliant idea that no man or woman could have possibly conceived such an idea. It was born out of God's loving heart. How is life at all possible? That is my starting point. But it would end there unless this same God whispered in my heart, and made it personal

Love has nothing to do with life. A quick conversation with my drug dealing douchebag of a father would make that obvious. My mother was a green teenage girl. A rapist can still impregnate a woman. And so on ad nauseum.

Wow. Just wow.

---

I think that we can agree on one thing and that is that life is a mystery. Who can really explain the process involved in how a child is born, and come up with an answer. I am not talking about the scientific explanation, we all know about conception, nine months. This is a mystery to me, that in a world filled with so much evil, such love can exist that it creates life. Passion and love are gifts from God. It was a brilliant idea that no man or woman could have possibly conceived such an idea.

Yeah, love is entirely human.





And I guess, compassion is also entirely human.

Excellent point.

[dyresand]

It takes some breathtaking lack of awareness and honesty to say that, echoing a sentence that was literally inches away from the proof that love is not entirely human.

I did not say love is entirely human, that remained from someone's post.

did you not type this then?
I think that we can agree on one thing and that is that life is a mystery. Who can really explain the process involved in how a child is born, and come up with an answer. I am not talking about the scientific explanation, we all know about conception, nine months. This is a mystery to me, that in a world filled with so much evil, such love can exist that it creates life. Passion and love are gifts from God. It was a brilliant idea that no man or woman could have possibly conceived such an idea.
^not really hard to miss now is it.

Life isn't a mystery were just the cause of an effect.

[fr0d0]

Are you by any chance looking for facts or are you looking for meaning and purpose?

I'm not sure what you are asking. I do look for meaning and purpose. Facts are useful too.

'Facts' as in scientific information ie information revealing the mechanics of creation is NOT the subject of the bible. If you're looking for those facts you are looking in the wrong place. No reasonable person would make this mistake, but I feel it's necessary to point it out.

Science moves on. Nothing much stays the same (to scientific understanding). Our understanding evolves and improves constantly. This is the amazing thing about science. We would be foolish to declare ourselves at the pinnacle of all understanding. Ever. In just a few years we could have very different ideas.

What would a scientific revelation prove (hard scientific fact written in religious texts, beyond what the technology of the time was capable of) in theological terms? That belief in God cannot be doubted? To me, that would be contradictory. Belief has to be a choice. If you don't choose to believe, then you cannot believe.

The facts, if there are any, serve as only anecdotal back story to the plot.

I'm not sure what you mean here either. I agree that the details are uncertain on how Judaism and Christianity evolved.

I refer to the above. The flawed creation subplot alive at the time of authorship are irrelevant to the point being made. All we need do is read it back in context of those flawed models.

I believe the Bible is inerrant.

I looked up a definition of inerrancy on wikipedia (my bolds):

Biblical inerrancy, as formulated in the "Chicago Statement on Biblical Inerrancy", is the doctrine that the Bible "is without error or fault in all its teaching"; or, at least, that "Scripture in the original manuscripts does not affirm anything that is contrary to fact".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biblical_inerrancy

It takes a lot of imaginative justification to claim that the Bible is inerrant. There are a lot of bad teachings and factual discrepancies - even in the gospels IMO.

From my serious study I have found no discrepancies yet. I will continue looking of course.

The Bible is part of the language of expression of the subject that all other religions are part of. They are all evidence vouched for. How are you dismissing them? On what grounds?

I'm not sure what you mean (especially the part in bold). I don't dismiss the Bible or Christianity. Even as a human creation, Christianity has some good ideas (and some bad ideas too). Buddhism and Hinduism also have some good ideas.

I do dismiss Christianity's claim to be the only religion or even the best religion. I don't see any evidence to support that claim.

In my opinion, all expressions of religious endeavor are relevant to study of the subject. As a Christian, I think I'd be missing a massive resource relevant to my study if I didn't consider everything. That doesn't have to change my personal interpretation. In my view, Christianity is the currently ultimate evolutionary step of all of that endeavor. If I should learn any different, then I'll have to change my beliefs to suit.

I respect hugely a lot of religious expression. I certainly don't dismiss any lightly. The development of Judaism owes a lot to the preceding beliefs that had evolved up until it's conception. I believe that the Jews made the perfect connection of those ideas in coming up with it's own faith, and later those ideas were perfected in Christianity. Perfected as in restored the original concepts that were misrepresented through the old testament.

I imagine on the logical grounds that the fictional book was written by fallible men and that there is zero evidence to support that those men were even remotely divinely inspired by a deity.

Yep.

Absolutely those men were fallible. But we're not talking about the men but what they wrote. 'Divinely inspired' is a virtue posthumously awarded by generations unable to find fault with the statements.

[Foxaèr]

'Divinely inspired' is a virtue posthumously awarded by generations unable to find fault with the statements.

They must have been first grade level readers with barely any reading comprehension or critical thinking skills.

[fr0d0]

'Divinely inspired' is a virtue posthumously awarded by generations unable to find fault with the statements.

They must have been first grade level readers with barely any reading comprehension or critical thinking skills.

Please produce a theological statement that you've found fault with.

[Foxaèr]

Please produce a theological statement that you've found fault with.

All of them.

[fr0d0]

You have nothing. I see.