hello

[kuronin]

Here's my understanding of Christianity. Please correct any misconceptions.

Why do Christians believe the above? Because of a historical document where eyewitnesses claim an omniscient being had told them these things shall come to pass. Three questions. What gives us confidence in the veracity of the: 1) text? 2) witnesses? 3) the omniscient being himself?

How do we know the being who claimed to be omniscient wasn't lying (or honestly mistaken) about his powers? Well, imagine the highest good while keeping in mind that existence is better than non-existence. Or, construct a complex philosophical scheme and you'll find that certain things don't quite match up unless you interpolate a supreme being called God. Now, the being in the document happens to be that same God, the greatest possible good. Am I the only one who sees a flaw in this kind of reasoning, or have I missed something vital here?

PS. Like faith, say? Is Christian faith essentially the conviction that the God who spoke to Abraham commanding him to sacrifice his first-born as a test of faith and sent his own son to shed his blood for humanity instead of simply forgiving mankind for Adam's original sin, is the same being as the Platonic God, the greatest possible good?

PPS. An honest mistake isn't as unlikely as you might think. A while back, a messianic Jew came to the RDF and claimed he'd seen visions of God telling him that Los Angeles will be destroyed a month later, while he'll be spirited away to Israel to act as John the Baptist for Jesus' second coming. He kept posting that way for a whole month, exuding rationality and sincerity. A month later, he simply left. Just imagine if someone like that had left a religious testament...

 

[kuronin]

^He obviously mistook a product of his own troubled mind for the voice of God.

If you think I'm spouting nonsense, then by all means, tell me why you think it's rubbish. That's the reason I'm here.

 

[bybee]

Curious

Curious

Here's my understanding of Christianity. Please correct any misconceptions.

Why do Christians believe the above? Because of a historical document where eyewitnesses claim an omniscient being had told them these things shall come to pass. Three questions. What gives us confidence in the veracity of the: 1) text? 2) witnesses? 3) the omniscient being himself?

How do we know the being who claimed to be omniscient wasn't lying (or honestly mistaken) about his powers? Well, imagine the highest good while keeping in mind that existence is better than non-existence. Or, construct a complex philosophical scheme and you'll find that certain things don't quite match up unless you interpolate a supreme being called God. Now, the being in the document happens to be that same God, the greatest possible good. Am I the only one who sees a flaw in this kind of reasoning, or have I missed something vital here?

PS. Like faith, say? Is Christian faith essentially the conviction that the God who spoke to Abraham commanding him to sacrifice his first-born as a test of faith and sent his own son to shed his blood for humanity instead of simply forgiving mankind for Adam's original sin, is the same being as the Platonic God, the greatest possible good?

PPS. An honest mistake isn't as unlikely as you might think. A while back, a messianic Jew came to the RDF and claimed he'd seen visions of God telling him that Los Angeles will be destroyed a month later, while he'll be spirited away to Israel to act as John the Baptist for Jesus' second coming. He kept posting that way for a whole month, exuding rationality and sincerity. A month later, he simply left. Just imagine if someone like that had left a religious testament...

Your use of the pronoun "We" presumes agreement with your line of questioning and/or your stated beliefs.
I would suggest that you would have more credibility if you spoke in the first person.
Do not presume to speak for me.
One response that I would make to you, "honest mistakes" do occur. But credible assessments of "things as they are" also occur.
Your first op stated that you were "a friendly neighborhood Buddhist". Then you proceeded in typical Uriah Heepish fashion to be quite unfriendly! Pardon me but your biases are showing! bybee

 

[kuronin]

is that all you got?

BTW, I don't understand what you mean by "all I got". Do you think my purpose is to attack your faith or something? I'm here to perfect my understanding of Christianity, and maybe, in so doing, help other newbies with theirs.

On the other hand, if you're genuinely interested in the subject of Christian superstition for it's own sake, here's a compendium of folk magic practiced by Germans and the Dutch: http://www.sacred-texts.com/ame/pow/index.htm

These aren't distinctively Christian, they're probably a heritage from pagan times. Superstitious practices were very much alive in pre-modern Christian states, just like in heathen nations. These charlatans seem to have been persecuted only when they were believed to be malicious witches or warlocks.

 

[kuronin]

Your use of the pronoun "We" presumes agreement with your line of questioning and/or your stated beliefs.

No it doesn't, I'm pursuing a line of rational inquiry that I supposed we can all follow.

I would suggest that you would have more credibility if you spoke in the first person.

Credibility for what?

Do not presume to speak for me.

I speak for logic, not you or me.

One response that I would make to you, "honest mistakes" do occur. But credible assessments of "things as they are" also occur.

My point is, how do the existence of the gospels make the foundation of Christian faith rational, then? Are they supposed to?

Your first op stated that you were "a friendly neighborhood Buddhist". Then you proceeded in typical Uriah Heepish fashion to be quite unfriendly! Pardon me but your biases are showing! bybee

Pardon me, but you're just projecting your insecurities onto me. I'm not a native English speaker, I only know English from books and the internet. All I've done is clearly speak out what was in my mind and why I'm not a Christian. How will I notice my mistakes without voicing my doubts?

I suppose it would've been better to remain silent if all of you feel this way.

 

[bybee]

I apologize

I apologize

No it doesn't, I'm pursuing a line of rational inquiry that I supposed we can all follow.


Credibility for what?


I speak for logic, not you or me.


My point is, how do the existence of the gospels make the foundation of Christian faith rational, then? Are they supposed to?


Pardon me, but you're just projecting your insecurities onto me. I'm not a native English speaker, I only know English from books and the internet. All I've done is clearly speak out what was in my mind and why I'm not a Christian. How will I notice my mistakes without voicing my doubts?

I suppose it would've been better to remain silent if all of you feel this way.

If English is not your native language, then, I apologize for taking you to task. You speak well and I admire your ability to communicate.
I do not quarrel with your questioning. I take issue with your apparently rhetorical questioning which is actually loaded with anti-christian bias.
Perhaps if you were to extol the virtues of Buddhism you might be surprised by the responses you would receive here? peace, bybee

 

[kuronin]

If English is not your native language, then, I apologize for taking you to task. You speak well and I admire your ability to communicate.

All the credit does to the Jesuit Fathers.

I do not quarrel with your questioning. I take issue with your apparently rhetorical questioning which is actually loaded with anti-christian bias.

For example? I don't know, I've tried my best to socialize. I even mentioned a Christian book I like and my favorite Christian theologian. So far, what I got in return was "is that all you got?", "Are you naturally that illogical, or did you come to it after much thought?" and "your biases are showing".

Perhaps if you were to extol the virtues of Buddhism you might be surprised by the responses you would receive here? peace, bybee

Really? Won't I be banned for preaching?

 

[bybee]

Well

Well

All the credit does to the Jesuit Fathers.


For example? I don't know, I've tried my best to socialize. I even mentioned a Christian book I like and my favorite Christian theologian. So far, what I got in return was "is that all you got?", "Are you naturally that illogical, or did you come to it after much thought?" and "your biases are showing".


Really? Won't I be banned for preaching?

I don't think so, but that is up to the admins. If you scroll through the existing threads you will see that most of the posters are quite passionate about their beliefs. That is one of the virtues of this web site.
The responses you have received are, in spirit, mirror images of your own statements. So, I suggest, reread your statements as though you were a Christian and see how they would affect you.
Most of us here will engage in a sincere effort to exchange ideas.
I wish you well and I shall be a bit more careful of you in future. peace, bybee

 

[Town Heretic]

I'm your friendly neighborhood Buddhist.

Having read over the rest and returned, what would an unfriendly Buddhist sound like?

I've been to a catholic school for 12 years.

That's quite a trip. lain:

Christianity has never struck me as particularly truthful or moral enough to consider conversion, no offense,

Well, really, who in their right mind would take offense at being told the central truth of their existence smacks of dishonesty and immorality...lain: Just the unreasonable sort. And by unreasonable sort I mean, of course, literate.

but I'm not blind to it's incredible historical and cultural significance.

Significance is one of those words that can suggest a due in no other manner evidenced, so you'll understand if, in context, I hold my polite applause on point.

I have read many books on Christianity for my own edification, the best one being CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters.

Have you read M. Scott Peck? He was a Buddhist prior to converting to Christianity. He wrote The Road Less Traveled in a sort of transitional state, though many people assumed (wrongly) that he had converted prior to it. You might find it interesting. People of the Lie is a post conversion book of merit and an interesting study of evil and made serious ripples in the field of psychology. In fact, his contributions in a number of books led to his recognition in 1992 by American Psychiatric Association.

I liked that book better than the bible or any other work by Lewis.

Lewis didn't actually write the Bible, but I take your meaning. oly:

I think TOL could be good for you.

 

[kuronin]

You misunderstand me. I was kinda hoping that a theology expert will swoop down to expose the rhetoric and refute the fallacies in these arguments, which sound like good judgment to me in my ignorance. I'm not asking you to get around the role of faith using reason, but I'd really like someone to address the charge that Christian faith is inherently irrational. That's the reason I'm here.

 

[kuronin]

This place is called theologyonline.com after all. I came here for an sound discussion of Christian theology.

I confess the "friendly" part was involves a bit of wishful thinking. I can be highly abrasive when it comes to religion in any form. I have been banned from only one place in my life, a Buddhist forum. I'm so used to criticizing that faith from every angle, whether I fully understand those aspects or not, I'm not sure I could say good things about it if I tried.

Did any of you read the play I recommended? I think it's awesome in the original Bengali, but I'm not very confident about this translation.

 

[kuronin]

Well, really, who in their right mind would take offense at being told the central truth of their existence smacks of dishonesty and immorality...lain: Just the unreasonable sort. And by unreasonable sort I mean, of course, literate.

I go on to explain myself. Sort of.

Have you read M. Scott Peck?

Nope, but I'm open to all ideas. Thanks for the recommendation.

PS. Oh wait, yes, I've heard a lot about him from Buddhist sources. Mostly about how the recontextualization into a Christian framework was unnecessary to accommodate his increase in understanding or something like that.

 

[bybee]

Not me!

Not me!

You want me to hand you a list? Anyway, witchcraft is a fairly ridiculous superstition IMO, what with all those Harry Potter haters out there.

Not me! I love Harry Potter. I'm taking one of my granddaughters and her friend to the Harry Potter theme park in June. Can't wait! peace, bybee

 

[zippy2006]

I'm your friendly neighborhood Buddhist. I've been to a catholic school for 12 years. Christianity has never struck me as particularly truthful or moral enough to consider conversion, no offense, but I'm not blind to it's incredible historical and cultural significance. I have read many books on Christianity for my own edification, the best one being CS Lewis' Screwtape Letters. I liked that book better than the bible or any other work by Lewis. (the worst book I have ever read in my life is Lewis' The Last Battle; I once created a scale of readability keeping TLB at absolute zero)

Hello :wave2:

I really like Grits respnse here! I was also involved with Buddhism for quite awhile, and felt the same way you explain yourself on the first page . Hope to see you around

:e4e:

 

[Town Heretic]

I go on to explain myself. Sort of.

Fair enough. Just playing the ball where it lies.

Nope, but I'm open to all ideas. Thanks for the recommendation.

Both excellent books.

PS. Oh wait, yes, I've heard a lot about him from Buddhist sources. Mostly about how the recontextualization into a Christian framework was unnecessary to accommodate his increase in understanding or something like that.

Peck would differ, though he retained a great and abiding respect for his former discipline. Merton was another Christian writer/thinker who had an interesting relationship with Buddhism toward the end of his tragically truncated life. You might like him, if you haven't bumped into any of his work.

...I'd really like someone to address the charge that Christian faith is inherently irrational. That's the reason I'm here.

Then you're in luck. There are any number of honest and well equipped theologians around here. And there are a few laymen, like me, who aren't half bad at critical thinking push comes to shove. My faith was not arrived at as an exercise in reason but it is at every point reasonable and defensible.

Question away. You might even consider starting a thread with one question. Examine and invite response and then start the next once you've had sufficiently informed objection or answer. Just a thought.

:e4e:

 

[John Ladder]

Nope, but I'm open to all ideas.

Hello Kuronin,

Most ideas are rubbish, eh? Surely you don't think one is:

When Jesus came with Clear Signs, he said: 'Now I have come to you with Wisdom, and in order to make clear to you some of the points on which you dispute. Therefore, fear God and obey me. God, He is my Lord and your Lord, so worship Him -- this is a Straight Way.'

-- Qu'ran Sura 43:63ff
​

Why don't you tell us what--in particular--it is about Jesus that causes you to reject Him.

JL

 

[Internet Ministry]

Hi, why do you not believe in God? Why do you call yourself a Buddhist when You can't prove God does not exist either? Why do you like the taste of Pepsi? Why do you not like the taste of Pepsi? Who cares? Believers cannot prove the existence of God any more than Science can prove God doesn't exist or can prove the big bang theory or any other theories of how mankind was created. That's why it's called a "theory" because theories cannot be proven either unless/until they are proven.
So perhaps a better question is: why bother exploring why people in God if you have made up your mind that God doesn't exist? You can't even prove why You exist nor can you prove the theory of Buddhism. Therefore You don't have a clue about neither God nor Buddhism.

But perhaps you’re exploring this forum because you're not truly an Buddhist either and so you're naturally trying to find out which "theory" is best for You to believe? If so, then you shouldn't be asking this forum. If you want to know if God exists, then you have to ask God. That's the way it works and you're in luck too because your options are simple. It's either True or False that God exists. Which means:
1. False; if God doesn't exist, then you will die an Buddhist.
2. True; if God does exist, then you will die an Buddhist and then be resurrected and suffer God's wrath for eternity.

Your choice. . . . tick . . . tick . . . tick . . .