Offshoot discussion of "what religion are you" thread

[Lief Erikson]

Once again, I really enjoyed thinking about your response post. I hope you see the transition I make in moving from arrogance to apologetics.

Here's the simplified version of what I'm trying to say:

Let's say there's a scientist who believes dinosaurs evolved into birds.

"That's arrogant!" said several other people. "How can you believe that's the only one truth!"

"I believe dinosaurs all drowned in a world wide flood!"

"I believe dinosaurs couldn't adapt to their changing environment, so they went extinct."

"I believe dinosaurs died by an astroid collision with the Earth!"

"I think you're all right," said another person.

"Hang on," said a somewhat smart one of them. "That doesn't make any sense. Dinosaurs couldn't have both all died in a world wide flood, and all died because of an astroid collision, and if either of those are true, they couldn't have died out because of changing environment."

"I believe it because of the fossils," the scientist answered them. "Because of this evidence, this evidence, and this evidence." (He gives the evidences- I don't know them all )



I'm demonstrating in this example that none of them are arrogant, but only one of them can be right. The one who thought they were all right is the most certain to be wrong, since he's got no logic whatsoever in his argument. The one who's evidence is strongest is the one to be believed. That person is not arrogant because he speaks out for what he believes.

[Lief Erikson]

Do you understand where I'm coming from, now?

[Hemel]

from HOBBIT:
Sorry, but in what way is Christianity extremely unique in what it teaches?

Well, like I say, I'm only a beginner in the field of religious studies, but my impression is that only Christianity has the concept of sin and the much much bigger thing of through Jesus being the forgivenness of sins and salvation. Okay, that might sound a little circular, in that Christianity defines sin and also brings the solution, but there, in the concept of Jesus and what he did is the uniqueness. I don't think (and please correct me if I am wrong) that any other religion has this.

from Leif Erison
I'm demonstrating in this example that none of them are arrogant, but only one of them can be right. The one who thought they were all right is the most certain to be wrong, since he's got no logic whatsoever in his argument. The one who's evidence is strongest is the one to be believed. That person is not arrogant because he speaks out for what he believes.

Yes, that is why I don't find Christians arrogant, merely speaking for what they happen to believe. But there is another point here. That is that the person who thinks that everyone is right could actually be right. I think we have to understand that always we can ever only have a partial view of things - we just don't know everything. We can only make sense according to what we know or think we know. Today's facts become yesterday's fallacies.

And, to follow Leif's example, with the person who thinks everyone's right .... well, there's no reason at all, as far as I know, why some dinosaurs couldn't have died from an asteroid collision, or in subsequent flooding - maybe from changing environment - and some dinosaurs remained to evolve. I believe there is evidence to support flood, asteroid collision, changing environment ... as well as evolution.

As I say, I believe Christianity is unique. But that doesn't mean that other ways don't see a truth also. It's just that Christianity doesn't necessarily see the other ways as 'the truth, or way to the truth.

I hope that makes sense

[GrayMouser]

Hemel, Lief: very well thought out and well-written posts; I think you sum it up pretty clearly.

Bravo to you both!

[Ruinel]

Originally posted by Lief Erikson
I don't believe these nonChristians all feel disillusioned and mistaken. Some of them do, but the majority of them probably feel comfortable in their religion and in their current life. They feel comfortable that way simply because they have not experienced what it is like to leave that state and live in Christ.

This is my point exactly! What you are saying is that those of us who do not worship your god/gods (if you want to count Jesus as a separate god), do so only because we have not experienced what it is like to 'live in Christ' (your words). We think we are living a contented and fulfilled life, but we are not... because we don't 'live in Christ'. The underlying message of your words here, is that Christianity is the true religion and the other religions are mistakes.

No one who is not repentant of their sins will go to heaven, and no one who does not receive God's forgiveness.

And what if they lived perfect lives, sinless in their own religion? Perhaps were even clergy in that religion? And yet, according to you and the other Christians, they would have to ask forgiveness for the sin of being on the wrong religion team. That just makes no sense at all.

To address your 'some people in heaven receive greater rewards than others' statement: so your god plays favorites with those that played for the right team and those that played for the wrong team? hmmm... that sounds quite petty and immature.

To address your 1=1 statement on Truth, here's the REAL TRUTH: you are wasting your time worshipping something that doesn't exist. You are correct, if there are so many religions around the world how can only one be correct. Therefore all are flawed. If all religions are flawed and do not represent the REAL TRUTH, it breaks down the foundation of each religion. Once that foundation breaks down... well, do I need to say more?

Your dinosaur analogy does not fit into religion. A religion requires your obedience and belief that all of what is doctrine for that religion is the unwavering Truth. Are you saying that you have doubts?

...Thus, apparently some people can come to heaven through Christ without knowing him personally.

Already the contradictions are coming out? hmmmm.

...The pedophile question...If you don't accept God's existence, then how can you accept any explanation for God's behavior in these areas? You've asked a question that involves doctrine, a question that assumes God exists. Thus, you must continue to allow that God exists for both question and answer to make sense.

Your god does not exist. The question was posed to the believers, I do not believe. You can not answer the question in a satisfactory way, because if you answer it so that it makes sense, then your god is a horrible, sadistic demon. If you do not answer it logically, then your belief system breaks down. You will not answer the pedophile question because of this.

. . . if you really wanted to know whether Jesus was Christ or not, you wouldn't have thrown away "The Case for Christ," would you have?... It's a case you cannot judge, or provide a verdict for. It's a jury providing their answer without watching the court case.

I threw it away because I already know what is the truth. Why beat a dead horse? .... no, it's like someone trying to present more of the same kind of evidence after the jury has presented its verdict, and the accused has been sentenced. You think that one day I just woke up and said... "yawn... you know, I think I won't believe in a god today..." and that was that? Give me more credit than that! It was a struggle for me to give up what I had been taught all my life to be the truth. But how could I deny it and keep on pretending what I knew to be a lie.

[Lizra]

I have to stop mid-read and say....I like your *real truth*! There it is! That's it! That's it! Yea!

About "The Case for Christ", wasn't this addressed earlier? That book is written by a church pastor, it was not impartial, and he certainly was NOT an eyewitness to the events, which is his whole approach. The "eyewitnesses" he talks about come from biblical inference, and since the bible is mythology....it just is another pretty story that tugs at the heart strings. *Jesus of Nazareth, a lovely man with wonderful ideas about love and equality before his time, nailed up like that and crucified, (like many people of that time) in such a heinous manner*, that is sad....but "son of god" (a mythical being) er...I don't think so!

[Rían]

Lizra, did you even see my response to your "The Case for Christ" comments? The book is about .... *drum roll* .... the "Case for Christ"! It is NOT misrepresented at all, the very TITLE says it's presenting a case for Christ! The author chooses to investigate the case for Christ because of the huge (and good!) personal change he saw happen in his wife after she became a Christian. He was already very familiar with the case AGAINST Christ; that's why he chose to look into the case FOR Christ and impartially evaluate it using the techniques he learned in investigative reporting. Perhaps he will write "The Case Against Christ" next, in the same format. But if you're at all interested in even looking into the case FOR Christ, it makes sense to read a book like this. If you're not interested in even looking into the evidence for Christ, then don't read the book.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
And what if they lived perfect lives, sinless in their own religion? Perhaps were even clergy in that religion? And yet, according to you and the other Christians, they would have to ask forgiveness for the sin of being on the wrong religion team. That just makes no sense at all.

You're right; that makes no sense at all; therefore, that's not the way God works. I don't EVER recall, in my almost 30 years of reading the Bible, coming across a sin of "being on the wrong religion team"

To address your 'some people in heaven receive greater rewards than others' statement: so your god plays favorites with those that played for the right team and those that played for the wrong team? hmmm... that sounds quite petty and immature.

Yeah, it does sound petty and immature; again, that's not the way God works, and that's not what Lief was saying, either.

To address your 1=1 statement on Truth, here's the REAL TRUTH: you are wasting your time worshipping something that doesn't exist.

Are you being arrogant, here, Ruinel? You're stating something to be the truth, just like Lief. Sounds like I can apply the "arrogant" label to you, then, by your own standards ; would you agree?

Already the contradictions are coming out? hmmmm.

Nope. Here's some links where I discussed the topic:
link 1, link 2, link 3, link 4, link 5
If you're interested, you can read them. If you're not interested, then .... don't. But if you don't, then you can't claim a contradiction anymore, either, because I'm showing how it's NOT a contradiction.

You can not answer the question in a satisfactory way, because if you answer it so that it makes sense, then your god is a horrible, sadistic demon. If you do not answer it logically, then your belief system breaks down. You will not answer the pedophile question because of this.

I doubt that that's why he's not answering. I know he's studying for SAT's and is quite busy. I also know that this is a complex and sensitive topic, and Lief is intelligent and knows that there are no simple, quick answers. The real world is tough and complex; it would be silly to have a simplistic, "sound-bite" religion as a solution. The answers are there in Christianity; but they are not all simple answers. Some take some deep thought. And that's proper, IMO. It's better to hold off until there's time to properly discuss it than to try to throw out a "sound-bite" answer. I've said that I will discuss it, and I intend to keep my word, because integrity is important to me. However, I also intend to wait until I can do the subject, and those interested in the subject, justice. If you're REALLY and truly interested in possible answers to that question, wouldn't you think it worth the wait? I'd love to sit down and discuss it with you, but I can't - so we'll just have to wait until we can talk about it on the thread.

My surgery should be around the end of August, and I hope to finish off the evolution thread first (or at least finish off my summary and get it posted). I don't like to have too many difficult topics going at once - I end up not being able to do justice to any.

[Rían]

Hey, Hemel, nice to meet you! Welcome to the thread

I originally started this thread as a place for intelligent, considerate discussion of a certain topic (omnipotence) in Christianity. When that topic was finished, we've discussed other topics in Christianity, such as the doctrine of hell. Anyone with polite, thoughtful comments to make (like you) is welcome to join in.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
You are correct, if there are so many religions around the world how can only one be correct. Therefore all are flawed. If all religions are flawed and do not represent the REAL TRUTH, it breaks down the foundation of each religion. Once that foundation breaks down... well, do I need to say more?

Ruinel, Lief did NOT say "if there are so many religions around the world how can only one be correct." He said that there is only one truth, and "all parts of all religions that don't conform to the one real truth are lies."

Originally posted by Lief
Not all religions can possibly be correct. The different religions go against each other in many different areas. We can't have "My truth," and "your truth," existing at the same time. There is only "The truth." There is only one way things are. 1=1, no other number does. So all parts of all religions that don't conform to the one real truth are lies.

It IS true that "Not all religions can possibly be correct", since many religions contain statements contradictory to other religions. That's just a simple application of logic. See, Lief's conclusion is based SOLELY on logic (1 - religions contain contradictory statements; 2 - therefore, not all religions can be true). Your statement of "if there are so many religions around the world how can only one be correct" is impossible to prove solely with logic. (It's certainly a valid OPINION to hold, but it can't be logically proven.)

Nice posts, Lief - I miss you! I hope the SAT studying is finished soon and you do well.

[Lizra]

Originally posted by RÃ*an
Lizra, did you even see my response to your "The Case for Christ" comments? The book is about .... *drum roll* .... the "Case for Christ"! It is NOT misrepresented at all, the very TITLE says it's presenting a case for Christ! The author chooses to investigate the case for Christ because of the huge (and good!) personal change he saw happen in his wife after she became a Christian. He was already very familiar with the case AGAINST Christ; that's why he chose to look into the case FOR Christ and impartially evaluate it using the techniques he learned in investigative reporting. Perhaps he will write "The Case Against Christ" next, in the same format. But if you're at all interested in even looking into the case FOR Christ, it makes sense to read a book like this. If you're not interested in even looking into the evidence for Christ, then don't read the book.

No, I didn't see your post on that! Be that as it may.....IMO "The Case for Christ" is a flawed "case". My complaints still ring true as far as his "impartial techniques". In the book, he represented himself as a skeptic, and an investigative reporter, and nowhere in the entire book did I read that he was actually a pastor of some huge church. So much for impartial.
I was interested....that's why I read it, and I was really irked when Master Mothra mentioned that Strobel was actually a pastor. I do have a problem with that. If a guy is a pastor of a church with 30,000 (according to MM) I would be suspcious of his reasons for publishing such a book. It's really just another sermon. Besides, the book's case is as I stated, based on second and third generation biblical reports. Other than the sympathy you feel for Jesus of Nazareth, the son of god bit is not proved at all, just something gleaned from the bible, which I veiw as a book of mythology.

[Rían]

Here's the link - Case for Christ discussion. And really, as I said in the linked post, if a person believes Christianity to be true, isn't it a natural and logical desire to want to be a pastor? He already is pastor of a big church; are you saying he wrote the book to get more people to go to his church? It's natural for a person that believes the theory of evolution to be true to write a book on the subject, isn't it? There's a lot of difficulties associated with really large churches, BTW - I imagine, if he were allowed to make a selfish choice, that he would prefer a smaller one.

It seems that the natural and logical reason he wrote the book was because he, personally, as an adult, studied the case for Christ, BECAUSE of a great change for the better he saw in his wife, and found the case to be a very good one, which he wanted to share. He was NOT a Christian when he started the research given in "The Case for Christ".

[Lizra]

How do you know he was not a christian when he started the book? Where does it say that? I looked at the intro again, and saw no mention of his church. I would think it would take a goodly amount of years to go from Atheist....to.... pastor of a huge, highly successful church! Don't people have to get college degrees and work up the ladder to become pastors? Or no?

[Rían]

I just got in from my errands - had a nice phone conversation on the way - I'm off to my daughter's ballet class in a few minutes, and I'll take the book with me and find the section.

[Ruinel]

I agree with Lizra. I think Strobel misrepresented himself. I think the book was written for two purposes and one of those purposes, to tap into the lucrative Christian book market. The other purpose, obviously, was to bring more people to his church. How much did he increase his weekly income (from the offerings of the congregation) with this bit of publicity?

I have serious doubts that he was anything but a Christian before he wrote the book, or even before he became a pastor of his church. If he was anything but a Christian, I want to see evidence of this.

Originally posted by RÃ*an
It IS true that "Not all religions can possibly be correct", since many religions contain statements contradictory to other religions. That's just a simple application of logic. See, Lief's conclusion is based SOLELY on logic (1 - religions contain contradictory statements; 2 - therefore, not all religions can be true). Your statement of "if there are so many religions around the world how can only one be correct" is impossible to prove solely with logic. (It's certainly a valid OPINION to hold, but it can't be logically proven.)

And equally, it can NOT be proven LOGICALLY that any of the many religions around the world hold the 'truth', though it is obvious through logic that they can not all be without flaws. It can not be proven logically that Christianity holds the 'truth', nor that it is the true religion of a god that does not exist. All religion is based on faith that what is believed is truth, without question, without proof. Can you prove that a god exists? It is not possible to prove that. You can only show examples of people following a doctrine and behaving a certain way. There is no evidence of a god that anyone can produce. That is why discussions about religion and gods do not ever have an end. Because you either believe or you do not believe.

[Lizra]

Oh my gosh! Did someone say "an end"! Yea! End it!

[Rían]

Lizra and Ruinel - here it is, in the Introduction -

For much of my life I was a skeptic. In fact, I considered myself an atheist. To me, there was far too much evidence that God was merely a product of wishful thinking, of ancient mythology, of primitive superstition. ...... But that's all I had ever really given the evidence: a cursory look. ...... It wasn't a phone call from an informant that prompted me to reexamine the case for Christ. It was my wife.

Leslie stunned me in the autumn of 1979 by announcing that she had become a Christian. I rolled my eyes and braced for the worst, feeling like the victim of a bait-and-switch scam. I had married one Leslie - the fun Leslie, the carefree Leslie, the risk-taking Leslie - and now I feared she was going to turn into some sort of sexually repressed prude who would trade our upwardly mobile lifestyle for all-night prayer vigils and volunteer work in grimy soup kitchens.

Instead I was pleasantly surprised - even fascinated - by the fundamental changes in her character, her integrity, and her personal confidence. Eventually I wanted to get to the bottom of what was prompting these subtle but significant shifts in my wife's attitudes, so I launched an all-out investigation into the facts surrounding the case for Christianity.

Setting aside my self-interest and prejudices as best I could, I read books, interviewed experts, asked questions, analyzed history, explored archaeology, studied ancient literature, and for the first time in my life picked apart the Bible verse by verse.
I plunged into the case with more vigor than with any story I had ever pursued. I applied the training I had received at Yale Law School as well as my experience as legal affairs editor of the Chicago Tribune. And over time the evidence of the world - of history, of science, of philosophy - began to point towards the unthinkable.

It was like the James Dixon case revisited.

Clearly set out for you - he started the investigation into the case for Christ as a non-Christian, based on the positive changes he saw in his wife's life after she became a Christian. He applied his training to the evidence that he researched.

Of course you could claim Strobel misrepresented himself *yawn* - really, you could say that about ANY book, couldn't you? And what's wrong with getting book sale profits if you're a writer? Well? And do you doubt the motives of a biologist that believes in evolution and works for an institution that promotes evolution as the correct theory and writes a book about it? My goodness! And pastors are typically paid fixed salaries, from what I know of the field - they don't get a "cut" from the weekly offerings. Salaries are budget items, at least in the churches I've been in.

And Lizra -

by Lizra
Don't people have to get college degrees and work up the ladder to become pastors? Or no?

Not necessarily. I think probably most get some type of degree, but it's not necessary. Also, I really doubt if he's the head pastor - he's probably just ONE of MANY pastors that would be in a church that size (and I'm not even sure he's a pastor! That's just what MasterMothra said). We have various pastors in our church, which is also large (about 3000) - some of them are in their early 20s.

[Rían]

Oh, and our pastor started our church about 7 years ago in someone's living room. He has a degree from Master's Seminary, IIRC. I imagine Willow Creek is somewhat like our church - I believe it's nondenominational. You're probably thinking of denominational churches.

[Rían]

Originally posted by Ruinel
And equally, it can NOT be proven LOGICALLY that any of the many religions around the world hold the 'truth', ....

Of course! Many things cannot be logically proven, so you evaluate using other means. Lief's point (and a point I've made several times, too), is that by logic, you can prove that not all religions can be true.

.... though it is obvious through logic that they can not all be without flaws.

OK, would you please run the logical proofs by me? because I see no way that you can "prove" this logically.

[Rían]

OK, from the homepage for Strobel's books -

Lee Strobel ia a former atheist and holds a Master of Studies in Law degree from Yale Law School. Before he became a Christian, he was an award-winning legal editor of the Chicago Tribune. Previously a teaching pastor at Willowcreek Community Church, he is currently a teaching pastor at Saddleback Valley Community Church in Orange County, CA, where he and his wife live. He is also currently a board member of the Willow Creek Association.

A teaching pastor at a church could be pretty much anyone, formal-education-wise(with good stuff to teach, of course! ), to the best of my understanding/experience, with proven character. He is NOT the head pastor. That's a big difference. He appears to not have any degrees in theological subjects (which is why he interviews people with degrees in theology), just the degree from Yale Law School. His point in the book is that he is using his training from Yale and the Tribune, where one needs to analyze the veracity of evidence, to examine the *drumroll again * Case for Christ.