Do Christians think it is possible to reject their logic/arguments at face value?

[sayak83]

I was able to get to this a little sooner than I expected. Yay.



1) First, let me say that I may have misread you when I first replied to this; I thought you were asking if I could make a case for the rational plausibility of why we would need a mechanism of reconciliation between God and man--I can do that. However, in reading it now, I wonder if maybe you were asking if I could make a case for the rational plausibility of the mechanism itself, as in how exactly the sacrifice of Jesus allows us to bridge the gap back into God's presence, to put aside our selfish human nature and take on the divine nature--I can't do that. I really don't understand (yet) how the sacrifice of a man with divine nature allowed men with human nature to share in the divine nature, or even how the blood sacrifice of animals temporarily allowed priests to enter into the presence of God, but that's what we are told.

Hebrews 9 gives us about as much information on the mechanism of redemption through blood sacrifice as we are going to get, but even that is a little unsatisfying to a person of my skepticism and curiosity. But just as I can accept the general principles of quantum mechanics without fully understanding all of the "mechanics" involved, I can understand that Jesus' sacrifice removed the barrier between man and God that only a blood sacrifice could previously bridge. This chapter in Hebrews talks about the construction of the temple, with an outer area in which anyone could go, but an inner area to which only the priests could go, and only with a blood offering to cleanse themselves. At the moment of Jesus' death, the veil that separated the inner area from the outer area was torn completely in two (Matthew 27:51), signifying that any man could now enter into the inner area of the temple, into the presence of God; the Holy of Holies was no longer accessible only to priests cleansed by sacrifice. But WHY and HOW the blood sacrifices allowed priests to enter into the presence of God, or WHY and HOW the sacrifice of Jesus allowed everyone else to enter into the presence of God, I can't tell you.

Thank you for your honesty. Thumbs up.
What would you say to a monotheistic omni concept of God that does not have blood sacrifice as a means of reconciliation? For example, Sikhism Sikhism - Wikipedia. The centrality of blood sacrifice as means of connecting to God seems incongruent with the nature of the omni-God, at least to me. It's one of the main thrusts of the spiritual reform movement that led to modern Vedantic Hinduism as well as Buddhism and Jainism at around 600 BCE from older sacrificial Vedic Hinduism. So when I encounter its centrality in Christian theology.. it's creates a bad-taste.

But now, if you want a rational argument for why there NEEDS to be a mechanism of redemption in the first place, I can do that. I'm going to assume that I don't need to go back to the basic axioms of an omni-God's existence in order to demonstrate that if such a God exists, then the Bible is a legitimate source of spiritual truth about that God--after all, you're already quoting Gita yourself, so holy texts must be considered fair game as resource material.

Could be but need not be. An omni God does not necessarily have to reveal anything in an overt form. This the claim of any book as a revelation needs to be tested. It should be worthy of a revelation by an omni-God.

Ok, so if the Bible can be accepted as a legitimate source of truth about God, then the tales of Adam and Eve and the Garden of Eden must mean SOMEthing, and likely something pretty important, to start off the whole book with them. We already know that they are not a literal account of the origin of man--we know that there were not two original people named Adam and Eve, created on the sixth day of the existence of the universe, and we know that there was not a physical place called the Garden of Eden that mankind got kicked out of. So what is the significance of this myth?

One rational interpretation is that it sets the stage for the rest of the book by explaining allegorically how man is fundamentally separated from God by his human nature of selfish self-centered self-interest; wanting to be his own god. Wanting to be God Himself is also what got Satan thrown out of heaven in the first place, and that is the temptation Satan provides to A&E; that if they eat the forbidden fruit, then they will become like gods themselves (Genesis 3:4). And that's what causes separation from God to this day--wanting to be our own gods, praying "MY will be done" instead of "THY will be done," and believing we are in control, having free will. I've always been amazed how many Christians will pay lip service to the idea that "God is in control of everything!" but then turn around in vanity and say, "Except ME! I have free will!" Aren't you special.

With no free will idea, Could Satan or Adam had the capacity to do otherwise? Why do all humans have the subjective experience of having the freedom to choose and decide between alternatives if such a thing does not exist.
Also your description still looks historical rather than an allegory. If the story is an allegory where Adam and Eve represents all human individuals, man and woman, then moral knowledge seems to be an inevitable cognitive ability that all human beings come to possess by 3-4 years old. One feels no stricture from God of the kind, one ought not to know about good and evil.... in fact it would be psychopathic to not know good from evil. So the allegory is very unclear. After all, it's not a tree of self obsession we are eating from. Also, what is wrong with wearing clothes? Could you explicate your commentary on the story in a bit greater detail? Maybe in another thread. It's a stumbling block.

Some might then consider human nature a design flaw, and question why God made humans with a selfish nature that was incompatible with spending eternity in the presence of God, but I don't see it as a flaw any more than starting out as a caterpillar is a design flaw for butterflies. While we are living in this physical world, we need a nature that is compatible with it--a nature that gives us the best chance of survival--a nature that is concerned with the well-being of the self. But that human nature of selfishness is at odds with the divine nature of love (hate is not the opposite of love; selfishness is), and it is, by necessary design, a mortal nature--humans, like all other creatures, die.

Why make a physical world then if it's nature is opposed to God's nature?

More will follow after I go through 1.

Good post. Appreciated.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

"Always be ready to give a logical defense to anyone who asks you to account for the hope that is in you, but do it courteously and respectfully." --1 Peter 3:15b (Amplified Bible)

To someone who is seeking the rewards of faith, I can logically take them through the major themes of the Bible and point them in the direction to learn for themselves.

 

[Axe Elf]

To someone who is seeking the rewards of faith, I can logically take them through the major themes of the Bible and point them in the direction to learn for themselves.

So which is it? Does reason fail EVERY time in "true matters of faith" (in which case the author of 1 Peter 3:15 is asking the impossible), or does reason only fail when people aren't willing to reason the same way that you do (which I suspect can be shown to be the case in relatively short order)?

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So which is it? Does reason fail EVERY time in "true matters of faith" (in which case the author of 1 Peter 3:15 is asking the impossible), or does reason only fail when people aren't willing to reason the same way that you do (which I suspect can be shown to be the case in relatively short order)?

Reason only points to faith.

 

[Axe Elf]

So which is it? Does reason fail EVERY time in "true matters of faith" (in which case the author of 1 Peter 3:15 is asking the impossible), or does reason only fail when people aren't willing to reason the same way that you do (which I suspect can be shown to be the case in relatively short order)?

Reason only points to faith.

So reason can only fail when someone's faith is different.

I knew it wouldn't take long.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So reason can only fail when someone's faith is different.

I knew it wouldn't take long.

Yes, it didn't take you long at all to jump to a wrong conclusion.

 

[Buddha Dharma]

That's true, but also kind of a trivial observation.

I don't think it seems so trivial from an orthodox Christian perspective, which I am not arguing for, but am familiar with enough.

The orthodox Christian perspective paints the fall like something God absolutely did not want to happen. Yet given his claimed attributes, I don't think they realize how problematic that comes off sounding to a critical unbeliever. I don't know- maybe they do realize it.

Every problem that goes along with creating a physical universe was a problem that God created for Him to solve.

How does that go with an omnipotent creator though? Understand that I'm trying to get a grip for your views by asking you, and not question you to death

Your views do appear rather unorthodox, so I see that I cannot judge you by the same rule I do many Christians, or even use the same arguments.

One of those problems was how to create man in a way that he would be compatible with a physical universe for the limited time he would spend in it, and then be able to become compatible with a spiritual eternity in the presence of God.

Some ask why not just make humans perfect from the get go?

I don't think it's obvious at all that God could have done ANYTHING different in creating the universe in general or man specifically that would make Creation any better, and in fact if the omni-God exists, we know that we already live in the best of all possible universes.

Perhaps it will be helpful if you define omnipotent as you understand it. If you mean having all possible power, rather than some incoherent notion of limitless power- this is at least something I can work with.

The Greeks called Zeus omnipotent, but I'm not sure what they meant by it.

God doesn't "curse" us or handicap us in any way, to take anything away from our human nature, but He can add His divine nature to it.

That is a radically different view to most of your fellow Christians.

Perhaps the way you understand it doesn't seem possible to you, but there is no logical basis for declaring it impossible.

Actually, it is impossible because the terms don't harmonize. Meaning we're describing a process not possible, given how we use language to describe actual things in as far as we know them. A god has a nature, does he/she not? The human nature is something different to this, as I surmise. Of course, my own understanding is probably colored by my polytheistic theology.

I think it's possible for god nature and human nature to become joined as a hybrid. That's what we'd expect from two fundamentally different material natures. What we don't observe is the possibility of mixing two differing natures or elements and having both remain the same in a single container. That's what the Christian theory of hypostatic union typically posits.

I would say that a better analogy is that Jesus, like all men, was made of both dirt AND water, but He was made with purified water, and everyone else was made with tap water.

See the above for some thoughts.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

That is a radically different view to most of your fellow Christians.
.

I hold the same view and can show you this through Paul's teachings. That few Christians see it in that perspective is not surprising. The flock only see what their Pastor learned in seminary. Heretics are excorcised.

 

[Axe Elf]

I don't think it seems so trivial from an orthodox Christian perspective, which I am not arguing for, but am familiar with enough.

The observation I was characterizing as "trivial" is the observation that God created the problem of man's nature for Him to solve. I pointed out that EVERY problem that goes along with creating a universe was created by God for Him to solve, so it's not really saying anything special about the problem of man's separation from God by human nature.

For instance, in creating a universe, God created the problem of how to keep a number of planets in orbit around a sun so that they could be supplied with light energy. He therefore created gravity to solve that problem. God created the problem of how to get creatures to respond to their environment, so He created a central nervous system that could detect changes in energies in the environment. And so on. Every problem there is, He created it so that He could solve it. There's nothing special about solving the problem of human nature.

The orthodox Christian perspective paints the fall like something God absolutely did not want to happen. Yet given his claimed attributes, I don't think they realize how problematic that comes off sounding to a critical unbeliever. I don't know- maybe they do realize it.

No, I think you are largely correct. The average Xian hears bits and pieces from sermons and creates an amalgam of them in their heads, but they generally don't realize how the concepts relate and interconnect. So until someone actually points out to them that an omniscient God would have known that mankind was going to "fall," they haven't really thought about the implications of that. And I think that skeptics exploit the fact that most Xians haven't really thought through their beliefs to make them seem like nonsense, when really, it's just the understanding of them that is lacking.

Enter me. You say my beliefs are "unconventional" and "unorthodox," but I don't think that's so much true of my beliefs as it is true of my understanding of Xian beliefs and my ability to explain them rationally. In general, I believe the things that Xians believe--but I understand them in ways that are rational--and yes, I understand that THAT is unusual, but I also see it as a good thing, especially if I can help others to understand Xian concepts rationally, instead of throwing them in the dustbin of nonsense.

How does that go with an omnipotent creator though? Understand that I'm trying to get a grip for your views by asking you, and not question you to death

I don't mind answering questions, so long as they seem sincere, as yours do. That's what I'm here for, after all--to share my understanding with others, and possibly gain further understanding from any weaknesses exposed in my positions or beliefs, or maybe through the process of discussion to even resolve some things that have remained mysterious to me up until now.

So you were asking how creating problems to be solved goes with an omnipotent creator. I may not be understanding the question, because I don't see the conflict. An omniscient creator would understand the problems that would arise in the creation of a universe, and know how to resolve them; an omnipotent creator would have the power to create the problems along with their resolutions.

Some ask why not just make humans perfect from the get go?

I would say that He did. Humans are made in exactly the way they need to be made in order to survive and thrive in a physical universe. Even further, each individual human is created exactly the way they need to be made in order to fulfill their role in the universe.

"The Lord has made everything [to accommodate itself and contribute] to its own end and His own purpose--even the wicked [are fitted for their role] for the day of calamity and evil." --Proverbs 16:4 (Amplified Bible)

But a being that is perfect for surviving and thriving in a physical universe is not the same being that is perfect for existing for eternity in the direct presence of God. So God had to create a mechanism for exchanging one's human nature for divine nature--to resolve the necessary separation between God and man, to overcome the mortal limits of physical existence--and He did so.

Perhaps it will be helpful if you define omnipotent as you understand it. If you mean having all possible power, rather than some incoherent notion of limitless power- this is at least something I can work with.

I'm going to go with a coherent notion of limitless power; in other words, the literal definition--"all (omni) powerful (potent)." God can do anything that can be done with power, as He has access to and command over all power. The limitation, of course, is not on God's power, but on the things that can be done with power--as some things simply cannot be done with any amount of power (such as making a one-sided coin, drawing a three-sided square, or introducing me to a married bachelor). So being omnipotent doesn't mean that God can do anything whatsoever (and I think it is there that most people fall into a trap); it means that God can do anything that can be done with power.

That is a radically different view to most of your fellow Christians.

No, I really don't know of any Xian doctrine that advises that God "cursed" humanity. Some of the more simple-minded interpretations of a literal Adam and Eve may include the belief that humanity was literally thrown out of the perfect Garden of Eden, but they don't think of it as a frivolous curse by God, but rather the natural consequence of the choice to disobey God--humanity cursed itself, so to speak (or at least Adam and Eve cursed humanity). God just came to the rescue in the form of Jesus. I think of the "curse" as more a natural consequence of our human nature, rather than the consequences of a literal choice by the first man and woman, but I don't really know of ANY interpretation in which mankind was just an innocent victim of God's "curse."

Actually, it is impossible because the terms don't harmonize. Meaning we're describing a process not possible, given how we use language to describe actual things in as far as we know them. A god has a nature, does he/she not? The human nature is something different to this, as I surmise. Of course, my own understanding is probably colored by my polytheistic theology.

I think it's possible for god nature and human nature to become joined as a hybrid. That's what we'd expect from two fundamentally different material natures. What we don't observe is the possibility of mixing two differing natures or elements and having both remain the same in a single container. That's what the Christian theory of hypostatic union typically posits.

Sorry, but I still don't understand what you see as being so self-contradictory here. The terms don't harmonize? Maybe rhyming words would be better? What empirical or rational evidence can you offer to show that it is not possible for a physical body to retain divine nature upon incarnation instead of taking on human nature? If it is possible that one can have human nature alone, and, as you suggest, that one can have a hybrid of human and divine natures (which I'm not sure is even true, but you introduced it), then why would it NOT be possible for one to have divine nature alone? As far as we know, it's only happened that one time, but there still doesn't seem to be anything about the concept itself that is logically inconsistent.

 

[Axe Elf]

Yes, it didn't take you long at all to jump to a wrong conclusion.

Maybe if you answered my question, I wouldn't have to.

I'll offer it one more time.

You have said, "Reasoning fails every time in true matters of faith," and "To someone who is seeking the rewards of faith, I can logically take them through the major themes of the Bible and point them in the direction to learn for themselves."

What is "seeking the rewards of faith" that it invalidates your initial claim? It basically sounds like you're saying that if one is willing to have faith in the same things that you do in the same way that you do, then your reasoning will seem logical; otherwise it will fail.

So which is it--does reason fail EVERY time in matters of faith, or does reason only fail when people aren't "seeking the rewards of faith" (and what does that even mean)?

 

[sayak83]

(...Continued from above)

3) On the non-exclusivity of the Biblical message, I started with Jesus' words from John 10:16...

"And I have other sheep [beside these] that are not of this fold. I must bring and impel those also; and they will listen to My voice and heed My call, and so there will be [they will become] one flock under one Shepherd."

...and interpreted it to mean that people of other religions could be saved by virtue of Jesus' sacrifice as well.

There is also a passage in Acts 17 where Paul is in Athens and observes one altar, among all of the Greek idols and altars, with an inscription upon it to the "unknown god" (v. 23), and Paul is like (and I'm paraphrasing several verses here), "Ah, I see you are already worshipping Him, so let me tell you about this God that you do not know yet."

So to me, that's basically suggesting that God accepts worship from other religions, even if they don't have the same name for Him--and if you were to ask the God of the Bible which religion is most true and correct, He would most likely say...

"Religion that God our Father accepts as pure and faultless is this: to look after orphans and widows in their distress and to keep oneself from being polluted by the world." --James 1:27 (NIV)

No denominations, no religious figures or founders, no religion in the usual sense at all--just taking care of each other. If that's your religion, God accepts it as pure and faultless.

And while there's the notion in Christianity that you can't get to heaven without acknowledging that Jesus Christ is your Lord and Savior, there's also an awful lot of talk about being judged by what you have done in there as well. I think perhaps the concept that Jesus' sacrifice was indeed the mechanism by which any and all who CAN be saved ARE saved became conflated with the idea that salvation is anything other than the sole choice of God, and that what you DO is a better reflection of your salvation status than what you BELIEVE.

This is reflected in stories about good fruit from good trees in Matthew 7 and the parable of the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25, as well as the account of final judgment in Revelation 20.

"A good tree cannot bear bad fruit, and a bad tree cannot bear good fruit. Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire. Thus, by their fruit you will recognize them." --Matthew 7:18-20 (NIV)

You shall know God's people by their fruits--not by what they believe, but by what they do. It continues...

"Not everyone who says to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter the kingdom of heaven, but only the one who does the will of my Father who is in heaven. Many will say to me on that day, ‘Lord, Lord, did we not prophesy in your name and in your name drive out demons and in your name perform many miracles?’ Then I will tell them plainly, ‘I never knew you. Away from me, you evildoers!’" --Matthew 7:21-23 (NIV)

So it's not enough to believe in God or even to call Jesus "Lord." Salvation may have only been made possible by Jesus' sacrifice, and there may indeed be no other way into the presence of God--but just believing that is not enough to be saved. You are saved by loving God and loving each other, which fulfills the entire Law (Matthew 22:34-40), but you were only able to be saved in the first place because Jesus provided a bridge back to God (whether you realize that this is why you are able to be in God's presence or not).

Moving on to the sheep and the goats in Matthew 25:31-45 (NIV)...

“When the Son of Man comes in his glory, and all the angels with him, he will sit on his glorious throne. All the nations will be gathered before him, and he will separate the people one from another as a shepherd separates the sheep from the goats. He will put the sheep on his right and the goats on his left.

“Then the King will say to those on his right, ‘Come, you who are blessed by my Father; take your inheritance, the kingdom prepared for you since the creation of the world. For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.’

“Then the righteous will answer him, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry and feed you, or thirsty and give you something to drink? When did we see you a stranger and invite you in, or needing clothes and clothe you? When did we see you sick or in prison and go to visit you?’

“The King will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did for one of the least of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me.’

“Then he will say to those on his left, ‘Depart from me, you who are cursed, into the eternal fire prepared for the devil and his angels. For I was hungry and you gave me nothing to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me nothing to drink, I was a stranger and you did not invite me in, I needed clothes and you did not clothe me, I was sick and in prison and you did not look after me.’

“They also will answer, ‘Lord, when did we see you hungry or thirsty or a stranger or needing clothes or sick or in prison, and did not help you?’ “He will reply, ‘Truly I tell you, whatever you did not do for one of the least of these, you did not do for me.’"

So here we have all the nations being judged--not just the Christians, but everyone--on the basis of what they did and didn't DO. Not a single question about what they believed--even those who thought they were "believers" were judged by nothing other than whether or not their actions followed the pure and faultless religion of love.

And again in Revelation 20:12-13, the judgment of all the dead is said to be on the basis of their actions and intentions, not about their acknowledgment of Jesus or any other "religious" belief.

"I [also] saw the dead, great and small; they stood before the throne, and books were opened. Then another book was opened, which is [the Book] of Life. And the dead were judged (sentenced) by what they had done [their whole way of feeling and acting, their aims and endeavors] in accordance with what was recorded in the books. And the sea delivered up the dead who were in it, death and Hades (the state of death or disembodied existence) surrendered the dead in them, and all were tried and their cases determined by what they had done [according to their motives, aims, and works]." (Amplified Bible)

So I don't know what else you're looking for to suggest a universal sense of inclusion of other beliefs in the Bible, but I think there's plenty of room for that interpretation.

4) and 5) I think I've answered already.

I will accept non-exclusivity provisionally. You provided some good quotes.
However, I know that many Christians think differently from my experience in hosting multi-faith group discussions in college. So a debate thread on the topic will be good to have.

 

[Axe Elf]

I will accept non-exclusivity provisionally. You provided some good quotes.
However, I know that many Christians think differently from my experience in hosting multi-faith group discussions in college. So a debate thread on the topic will be good to have.

I appreciate that, and yes, I do know that many Christians (as well as members of other religions) think that theirs is the only path. I believe that is due in no small part to that selfish, self-centered human nature of ours, which often turns religion into "us against them" instead of everybody stumbling toward the Truth together. So I kind of recognize that as a necessary downside to religion, while striving to have a more loving understanding of it myself.

 

[sayak83]

I appreciate that, and yes, I do know that many Christians (as well as members of other religions) think that theirs is the only path. I believe that is due in no small part to that selfish, self-centered human nature of ours, which often turns religion into "us against them" instead of everybody stumbling toward the Truth together. So I kind of recognize that as a necessary downside to religion, while striving to have a more loving understanding of it myself.

Well it's not necessarily selfish. I was part of a Bible Study with a group of students who were first generation Christians heralding from countries where Christianity is a break from their family traditions (China, Japan, Korea, Sri Lanka, India, Niger etc.). I think they necessarily believe that Christianity is the only true path because of the emotional investment they have had in making such a life altering decision. I told them that what us right for some need not be right for others, but it was not something they could accept, really.
But I am of your view regarding those who hail from Christian majority countries. Their exclusivity hail from either ignorance or selfish bigotry.

 

[Axe Elf]

Well it's not necessarily selfish. I was part of a Bible Study with a group of students who were first generation Christians heralding from countries where Christianity is a break from their family traditions (China, Japan, Korea, Sri Lanka, India, Niger etc.). I think they necessarily believe that Christianity is the only true path because of the emotional investment they have had in making such a life altering decision.

They made an emotional investment because it cost them something to become a member of the club, but they still became a member of the club because they wanted to be a member of the "right" religion--the cool kids, the "in" crowd, the ones who will be saved. It still comes down to an issue of self-interest.

 

[sayak83]

They made an emotional investment because it cost them something to become a member of the club, but they still became a member of the club because they wanted to be a member of the "right" religion--the cool kids, the "in" crowd, the ones who will be saved. It still comes down to an issue of self-interest.

That is true. But is it not true for the apostles mentioned in the Bible as well?

 

[Axe Elf]

That is true. But is it not true for the apostles mentioned in the Bible as well?

Very possibly. I certainly don't think they were any more devoid of human nature than anyone else (well, except Jesus, of course).

 

[sandy whitelinger]

Maybe if you answered my question, I wouldn't have to.

I'll offer it one more time.

You have said, "Reasoning fails every time in true matters of faith," and "To someone who is seeking the rewards of faith, I can logically take them through the major themes of the Bible and point them in the direction to learn for themselves."

What is "seeking the rewards of faith" that it invalidates your initial claim? It basically sounds like you're saying that if one is willing to have faith in the same things that you do in the same way that you do, then your reasoning will seem logical; otherwise it will fail.

So which is it--does reason fail EVERY time in matters of faith, or does reason only fail when people aren't "seeking the rewards of faith" (and what does that even mean)?

Reason leads to the door of faith. After you take the red pill, Neo, the rules change.

 

[Axe Elf]

Reason leads to the door of faith. After you take the red pill, Neo, the rules change.

So again, you've said the same thing in different words. Reason works fine as long as you agree to my rules for reasoning (taking the red pill), but otherwise, it will fail every time in matters of faith. Just as I have suspected you were saying all along.

 

[sandy whitelinger]

So again, you've said the same thing in different words. Reason works fine as long as you agree to my rules for reasoning (taking the red pill), but otherwise, it will fail every time in matters of faith. Just as I have suspected you were saying all along.

You're confusing reason with faith.

 

[Axe Elf]

You're confusing reason with faith.

You're confusing your position with sense.