I should be a Christian.

[gumboot]

The OP says it all, really. Some of the threads here recently got me thinking, and this was furthered last night when I watched a couple of video clips that seemed to be some sort of Atheist TV show where religious people were calling in and trying to tell the hosts they were going to burn in Hell.

It has struck me, that I seem far more capable of making a case for Christianity than many Christians do. I suspect, if I wanted, I could keep the religion alive. I don't want to, of course. I hate and despise all religion. But in many of these debates and in particular listening to the caller last night, I knew I had very clear and straight forward answers I could have offered the Atheist where the religious person is left flapping in the breeze, rendered speechless with no answer.

But there's nothing amazing or special about me. If it's so obvious to me, why haven't very many Christians realised this? I suppose this is a question for Christians.

Many Christians use rhetoric declaring there's a war against their religion, that the faith is under threat, and so forth. I think the statistics on religious adherence certainly offer truth to this. Whether intentional or not, Christianity is on the back foot in virtually every single western country. Indeed your total eradication in the western world is not beyond possibility.

Presuming that this is a war for your survival, and accepting that you are competing with science, which is not going away and will only become more compelling to humanity, why have you chosen the route you do?

There are incredibly easy ways around the problems science poses to religion. Only a strict literalist interpretation puts you in competition, and this need not be the case. So why do it?

There are multiple points in Christianity's history where the popular faith has stopped, decided that the establishment had it wrong, and totally redirected the faith.

Indeed, today there seems to be more variations of Christianity than days in the year.

Science is here to stay. Whether you think science has it right or not is irrelevant; many, many people believe it and so if you put yourself in direct competition with it you're going to be in trouble. A smart strategist would try to align their religion with science, wouldn't they?

Thoughts?

[KingMerv00]

There are incredibly easy ways around the problems science poses to religion. Only a strict literalist interpretation puts you in competition, and this need not be the case. So why do it?


If I were going to be Christian, I'd probably have to be a literalist. I find the alternative to be wishy-washy and milquetoast.

[Dinwar]

Dr. Steve Dutch has a good explination of this on his website (just google it; it's under the "Irrationality, Paranormal, Pseudoscience" tab, and that whole section is well worth reading). The gist is that religion tends to not be into the whole self-examination thing, and certainly not nearly to the level science is. Christianity (Catholicism? I always confuse the two) has Councils, which happen once every few hundred years. Vatican II, the Councile of Niccia, and a handful of others. Protestants split over differences, and handle theological issues by basically bifercating. Muslims have their own methods of dealing with thorny problems, and I don't know much about it. But pretty much no religion really delves into self-examination and strict criticism the way science does. Therefore, religious people often have simply never considered what are, to a scientifically trained mind, basic questions. And when you never consider a question it's very difficult to come up with an answer on the spot.

Also, most more "sophisticated" theologians DO allign themselves with science to a large extent (they have the God of the Gaps issue, but at least that one has SOME justification). The issue is that you don't get theologians calling in to TV shows/radio shows. You get the rank-and-file, who sit back and let theologians do theology. There's certainly nothing wrong with doing so; we all do it. I let electricians and electrical engineers deal with electricity, while I deal with fossils. The problem is the arrogance that drives them to call in to discuss issues they haven't considered. I don't tell my doctor how to treat a compound fracture, and I don't expect him to tell me how to dig up an Equus. Christians, and the religious in general, seem to lack that filter.

[Dr. Keith]

If I were going to be Christian, I'd probably have to be a literalist. I find the alternative to be wishy-washy and milquetoast.

I see your point and I would have to be either a literalist or the uber-liberal type that is so wishy-washy that you may as well call me an agnostic deist with a cross fetish.

"I am certain" or "I am certain that we can't be certain." Anything in-between is too fraught with inconsistency.

Although, I give the Catholics credit for understanding this far better than most other Christians. They don't solve it, but they seem to grasp it better.

[gumboot]

If I were going to be Christian, I'd probably have to be a literalist. I find the alternative to be wishy-washy and milquetoast.


See I don't understand this. It feels to me like a bit of a false choice fallacy. Christianity has a long history of (and indeed was founded on) rejecting existing religious dogma.

Christianity is supposed to be an act of faith. By its very nature it's supposed to be "wishy-washy".

[gumboot]

Dr. Steve Dutch has a good explination of this on his website (just google it; it's under the "Irrationality, Paranormal, Pseudoscience" tab, and that whole section is well worth reading). The gist is that religion tends to not be into the whole self-examination thing, and certainly not nearly to the level science is. Christianity (Catholicism? I always confuse the two) has Councils, which happen once every few hundred years. Vatican II, the Councile of Niccia, and a handful of others. Protestants split over differences, and handle theological issues by basically bifercating. Muslims have their own methods of dealing with thorny problems, and I don't know much about it. But pretty much no religion really delves into self-examination and strict criticism the way science does. Therefore, religious people often have simply never considered what are, to a scientifically trained mind, basic questions. And when you never consider a question it's very difficult to come up with an answer on the spot.


My admittedly limited exposure to Judaism seems to indicate that religion may be the exception. Most Jewish people I've seen discussing their religion, or indeed that I've discussed religion with, seem quite knowledgeable of these questions and seem to have already investigated them for themselves. There even seemed to be a feeling that questioning Judaism was a crucial part of belonging to the religion. It has always struck me as a remarkable contrast to other religions.

Now, maybe I've only been exposed to a select few remarkable Jewish people, I don't know. Like I say, that's only based on my exposure which I freely admit is quite limited.

[fromdownunder]

See I don't understand this. It feels to me like a bit of a false choice fallacy. Christianity has a long history of (and indeed was founded on) rejecting existing religious dogma.

Christianity is supposed to be an act of faith. By its very nature it's supposed to be "wishy-washy".

I don't think so. The faith of Christianity is based entirely on the Bible - there isn't anything else. But most Christians throw out much of the Old Testament because they claim Paul's New Covenand replaced the Old Testament, while retaining the Old Testament (at least the bits they like).

Which is not Christianity, but Paulianity and for another thread.

But the Old Testament is needed, for without it, the New Testament makes no sense at all. The OT is needed for context at a minimum. Even Paul's "New Covenant" was a quotemine from the Old Testament, and Revelation is virtually a re-write of Isaiah.

Thus, if I were a Christian, I would be stuck with both. Which would be a shame, because I would then have to pick and choose which parts of the OT I accept (stoning my kids to death, making my wife drink poison if I thought she had commited adultery, missing out on shellfish and bacon, wearing clothes of mixed xloth, not being able to take an elevator between dusk Friday and dusk Saturday) - you get the drift.

So, if I then get to pick and choose specifically what I do or do not like in the Bible, or about the various forms of Christianity. End of the game. it's no longer the Bible, and Christianity that I accept but just beliefs that happen to be in the Bible which fit into my moral focus, and can be shoehorned into some sort of belief system.

ETA - Logocally, being a Christian DOES mean diving into the deep end, and accepting all of what is said in the Bible, no matter what sort of mantal gymnastics one would have to go through to accept it all.

Norm

[Slimething]

If I were going to be Christian, I'd probably have to be a literalist. I find the alternative to be wishy-washy and milquetoast.

I have no idea how you'd do that. The book is so vague that you'd probably spend most of your time trying to figure out what the literal option was.

[Joey McGee]

I've thought the same thing but about New Age. I know enough about epigenetics and m-theory for at least a couple of books and a lecture tour. I'd blow Deepak out of the water.

[Dinwar]

I don't think so. The faith of Christianity is based entirely on the Bible - there isn't anything else.That's not actually true. Christianity (well, at least some of it) recognizes three sources of information on religion: the Bible (divinely inspired word of God), divine revelation (not so big anymore), and tradition (not clear as to why). It's the "divine revelation' and "tradition" part that tell Christians which parts of the Bible to believe.

Up until Vaitican II individual Christians weren't encouraged to make up their own minds. They were supposed to accept what the theologians say. Which makes a certain amount of sense--we don't expect people to do medicine by themselves, after all. It's the whole "this is all based on bronze-age myths that have been horribly butchered in multiple translations and weren't true to begin with" part that you run into trouble with.

[Slimething]

That's not actually true. Christianity (well, at least some of it) recognizes three sources of information on religion: the Bible (divinely inspired word of God), divine revelation (not so big anymore), and tradition (not clear as to why). It's the "divine revelation' and "tradition" part that tell Christians which parts of the Bible to believe.

Up until Vaitican II individual Christians weren't encouraged to make up their own minds. They were supposed to accept what the theologians say. Which makes a certain amount of sense--we don't expect people to do medicine by themselves, after all. It's the whole "this is all based on bronze-age myths that have been horribly butchered in multiple translations and weren't true to begin with" part that you run into trouble with.

Are you talking catholics? Many christians don't consider them catholics because of their reliance on tradition while ignoring the bible.

[Björn Toulouse]

If I were going to be Christian, I'd probably have to be a literalist. I find the alternative to be wishy-washy and milquetoast.


Rev. 3:15-16 (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Revelation+3%3A15-16&version=KJV)


I know thy works, that thou art neither cold nor hot: I would thou wert cold or hot.

So then because thou art lukewarm, and neither cold nor hot, I will spue thee out of my mouth.



Spue?

Ewww!

[MattusMaximus]

I'm an atheist, but I've been told by an acquaintance of mine - who happens to be a Catholic priest - that I'm a far better Christian than most people who attend his church :)

[gumboot]

Thus, if I were a Christian, I would be stuck with both. Which would be a shame, because I would then have to pick and choose which parts of the OT I accept (stoning my kids to death, making my wife drink poison if I thought she had commited adultery, missing out on shellfish and bacon, wearing clothes of mixed xloth, not being able to take an elevator between dusk Friday and dusk Saturday) - you get the drift.



But you aren't stuck with it. The old laws laid out in the OT are part of the First Covenant. The New Covenant through Jesus totally negates the First Covenant.

This is exactly what I mean about how Christians are making a dumb decision by trying to give all of the Bible equal literal meaning. It's clearly not intended that way, to begin with, and newer parts clearly negate older parts, yet so many try to reconcile it all, as if not doing so somehow destroys their religion. It just doesn't make sense.

[Dinwar]

Slimething: I always confuse those two. You'd think 8 years of Catholic school would fix that.

[MG1962]

I'm an atheist, but I've been told by an acquaintance of mine - who happens to be a Catholic priest - that I'm a far better Christian than most people who attend his church :)

Well as a Catholic I am a big believer in walking the walk over talking the talk. From your friends comments it would appear you have the walking bit down pat

[MattusMaximus]

Well as a Catholic I am a big believer in walking the walk over talking the talk. From your friends comments it would appear you have the walking bit down pat

Wow... thanks :)

[stilicho]

....

Indeed, today there seems to be more variations of Christianity than days in the year.

Science is here to stay. Whether you think science has it right or not is irrelevant; many, many people believe it and so if you put yourself in direct competition with it you're going to be in trouble. A smart strategist would try to align their religion with science, wouldn't they?

Thoughts?

That's precisely what Aquinas and others in his time attempted to do. I think they did the best job they could with what they had to work with.

Considering that some of the scientific thought of the time was shown to be incorrect isn't the fault of the Aquinas and his contemporaries. Neither is it their fault that the established church decried 219 "execrable errors" in the late thirteenth century.

(Source: http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi1406.htm - cf. Jean Gimpel, The Medieval Machine )

Religion has adapted since its inception. Some might argue that quasi-religious faith-based systems, such as veganism, are poised to replace traditional religion. We only call some religious systems traditional because they've been around for a while. But when you consider the short history of religions such as Christianity and Islam, there's no reason to suppose that they won't, within another couple millenia, be thought of in the same way we perceive animism, shamanism, or Babylonian hero-myths.

[fromdownunder]

But you aren't stuck with it. The old laws laid out in the OT are part of the First Covenant. The New Covenant through Jesus totally negates the First Covenant.



Did Jesus dispose of the Old Covenant? Quote me Chapter and verse where Jesus said was reported to say this,

I can quote Chapter and verse where Paul was reported as to saying this, but Jesus never said it. Actually he said the excact opposite to this at least once (if correctly reported), and I can quote Chapter and verse for this as well.

Norm

[Dinwar]

I can't give you chapter and verse, but at one point the in the Bible Jesus' decipels pick wheat on the Sabbath and eat it (not sure if they cook it or not; never payed much attention to that part). Anyway, some people demand that they be punished for working on the Sabbath, and Jesus basically says that that rule no longer applies ("It's not what goes into a man that makes him unclean, but what he does"; this is often interpreted as him saying that kosher laws don't apply, and has been argued to be saying that not working on the Sabbath didn't apply any more). So in at least one case he did specifically say "This rule, which applied to the Jews thanks to the old Covenent, no longer applies".

[MG1962]

Did Jesus dispose of the Old Covenant? Quote me Chapter and verse where Jesus said was reported to say this,

I can quote Chapter and verse where Paul was reported as to saying this, but Jesus never said it. Actually he said the excact opposite to this at least once (if correctly reported), and I can quote Chapter and verse for this as well.

Norm

And this is where being a literalist puts one in a corner. Even the Bible speaks of an early schism between Paul and Peter. Supporters of Paul see events through their eyes, Peter's supporters do the same thing. Neither group is lying, both see things as an ultimate truth.

Those who come after are left with a conundrum.

And then we have the question - Do we follow Jesus as a proof of concept, or do we destroy ourselves trying to prove 'our' version is more right than the next person

[Rage Virus]

So in at least one case he did specifically say "This rule, which applied to the Jews thanks to the old Covenent, no longer applies". Read it again. Jesus argument is that the rules apply the same as they did in the old days, as they did for David:

25 And he said unto them, Have ye never read what David did, when he had need, and was an hungred, he, and they that were with him?

26 How he went into the house of God in the days of Abiathar the high priest, and did eat the shewbread, which is not lawful to eat but for the priests, and gave also to them which were with him? 27 And he said unto them, The sabbath was made for man, and not man for the sabbath: 28 Therefore the Son of man is Lord also of the sabbath.

The point is not that the rules have been abolished, but that they apply the same as they did in the old days - only even back then, human necessity sometimes had to override the letter of the law.

[Gawdzilla]

I've studied the Pearl Harbor attack for over four decades now. I was told by one of the "names" in the field that I would be a serious problem for debunkers if I ever went over to the dark side.

[Dr. Keith]

Are you talking catholics? Many christians don't consider them catholics because of their reliance on tradition while ignoring the bible.

Which is funny because the much derided catholic traditions predate a canonized bible. There were generations of Catholics before the bible was conceived as a solitary work. Were those early believers not Christians either?

I think the reliance on tradition over scripture is part of what has given the rcc relative flexibility to deal with societal change over hundreds of years.

[iknownothing]

But you aren't stuck with it. The old laws laid out in the OT are part of the First Covenant. The New Covenant through Jesus totally negates the First Covenant.

This is exactly what I mean about how Christians are making a dumb decision by trying to give all of the Bible equal literal meaning. It's clearly not intended that way, to begin with, and newer parts clearly negate older parts, yet so many try to reconcile it all, as if not doing so somehow destroys their religion. It just doesn't make sense.

I'm not looking up the quote, but Jesus said he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

The point is not that the rules have been abolished, but that they apply the same as they did in the old days - only even back then, human necessity sometimes had to override the letter of the law.

Yeah. Jesus definitely does not act as if the old laws don't matter. And the gospels put so much effort into depicting Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, that they clearly believed the OT was very important.

At most, he was tempering how you interpret and apply the law. He never said to stop observing the Sabbath -- just made an allowance for emergencies.

[Resume]

And this is where being a literalist puts one in a corner. Even the Bible speaks of an early schism between Paul and Peter. Supporters of Paul see events through their eyes, Peter's supporters do the same thing. Neither group is lying, both see things as an ultimate truth.

Those who come after are left with a conundrum.

And then we have the question - Do we follow Jesus as a proof of concept, or do we destroy ourselves trying to prove 'our' version is more right than the next person

Or do we just call the whole thing off?

[Darth Rotor]

I don't think so. The faith of Christianity is based entirely on the Bible - there isn't anything else.

Nope. I think you completely misunderstand Christianity, if that is your assessment. You also misunderstand one of the larger sects of Christianity, known as the Roman Catholic Church.

Sola Scriptura is one way to approach the faith. There are others.

Before there was "The Bible" (which I presume you mean to be both New and Old Testaments combined) there was the sect/cult that grew from Judaism in the Holy Land that was focused on Jesus as Son of God and Savior/Messiah.

The non trivial work put into figuring out which writings were to be canon -- an effort that I think remains alive today when you consider that most Protestant and RCC books have different collections of Scripture -- by itself argues against your assertion.

Cheers.

[HansMustermann]

It has struck me, that I seem far more capable of making a case for Christianity than many Christians do. I suspect, if I wanted, I could keep the religion alive. I don't want to, of course. I hate and despise all religion. But in many of these debates and in particular listening to the caller last night, I knew I had very clear and straight forward answers I could have offered the Atheist where the religious person is left flapping in the breeze, rendered speechless with no answer.

Well, it's not that hard to make a better case, since most of them have at best a vague idea of what the book even says.

Plus, as I keep saying, my impression is that a lot of those people never really argued in front of anyone who actually puts up a fight. Most people have only been exposed to (A) other people who want to fit in the same group, and would say any stupidity it takes to fit, or (B) people who want to be non-confrontational. (See the conformism experiment where people even answered blatantly wrong about a line's length, to match what a group of perfect strangers answered.)

Most RL "debates" are of the form:

X regurgitates some hare-brained non-sequitur about how their group's belief is right.
Y and Z nod.
Y takes the time to regurgitate a similar non-sequitur.
X and Z nod.

Repeat ad nauseam. Logic or facts don't even start to enter the equation. All that matters is saying the things the other want to hear. (The difference between group member and non-confrontational is that the non-confrontational one may still think "geesh, that's stupid".)

It can be about religion, or about the latest boy bad single, or about astrology, or about race, or really whatever. If the rest of the group expects you to speak in tongues, or proclaim the Backstreet Boys to be the greatest band ever, or chest-thump about "supporting the troops", you do it, or at least nod convincingly when the others do it. That's how conformism works. That's how groupthink works.

Anyway, most people never had to deal with anything else. So of course you'd have an advantage over them, and so would anyone who has every actually had to make a logically coherent argument to people he/she expects to find holes in it. You could equally probably make a better case for Shintoism than most Japanese do, or for Eminem than most of his fans, or for that matter for most companies policies than half the board of brown-nosers. Just because they never learned how to do it well, and never had to.

[Visual Purple]

I don't think so. The faith of Christianity is based entirely on the Bible - there isn't anything else.

There have been several good replies to this already, but I do think it is interesting how much the Protestant, even fundamentalist view seems to have come to dominate the outside perception of Christianity. The first branches of Christianity--not just the Roman Catholic Church, but the Orthodox and Coptic churches--gave tradition standing at least equal with scripture. The Reformation made scripture central for Protestants, but even then literalism was not typical. Fundamentalism, with its emphasis on literalism, is more of a 19th and 20th Century development. If you read Karen Armstrong's "The Battle for God," she argues that fundamentalism--Christian, but also Jewish and Islamic--is a kind of perverse modernism. It thus sort of makes sense that that would be the version of religion that other modernists would engage with, but, as already noted, it's not the original form.

[mikeyx]

I've studied the Pearl Harbor attack for over four decades now. I was told by one of the "names" in the field that I would be a serious problem for debunkers if I ever went over to the dark side.

Who gave you permission to post here in this thread?

[MG1962]

Or do we just call the whole thing off?

And why not - a reasonable number of athiests have come into the world exactly that way

[Dinwar]

The point is not that the rules have been abolished, but that they apply the same as they did in the old days - only even back then, human necessity sometimes had to override the letter of the law. Fair enough. Though the "Tradition" part is, like Dr. Keith said, a "Get Out of Jail Free" card for the RCC.

If the rest of the group expects you to speak in tongues, or proclaim the Backstreet Boys to be the greatest band ever, or chest-thump about "supporting the troops", you do it, or at least nod convincingly when the others do it. That's how conformism works. That's how groupthink works.You know, I never quite thought of Enya as leading to my atheism before (try living in a college dorm, listening to Enya, and having a Y chromosome--things can get rather....intense...).

[gumboot]

Did Jesus dispose of the Old Covenant? Quote me Chapter and verse where Jesus said was reported to say this,

According to Hebrews, God himself said it.

In speaking of a new covenant, he [God] makes the first one obsolete. And what is becoming obsolete and growing old is ready to vanish away.

Hebrews 8:13

[gumboot]

I'm not looking up the quote, but Jesus said he came not to destroy the law but to fulfill it.

Yeah. Jesus definitely does not act as if the old laws don't matter. And the gospels put so much effort into depicting Jesus as the fulfillment of OT prophecy, that they clearly believed the OT was very important.

At most, he was tempering how you interpret and apply the law. He never said to stop observing the Sabbath -- just made an allowance for emergencies.


But God himself, in the OT, says he will make a New Covenant. I think that's what Jesus is referring to. God never really claimed the First Covenant was the end of the matter. He said one day there would be a new one.

And just because Jesus creates a new Covenant doesn't mean none of the old laws apply at all; some are encoded into the new Covenant. Most specifically, what changed was how you cleanse yourself after committing sin. Much of Leviticus and so forth is not so much about what you should and shouldn't do, but what the punishment should be, and how you become pure again. The New Covenant replaces every punishment and every method of cleansing with a single process.

[stilicho]

Well, it's not that hard to make a better case, since most of them have at best a vague idea of what the book even says.

....

You could equally probably make a better case for Shintoism than most Japanese do, or for Eminem than most of his fans, or for that matter for most companies policies than half the board of brown-nosers. Just because they never learned how to do it well, and never had to.

Probably the best example is the concept of nationality or citizenship. You are essentially your nationality utterly by accident. But few people think about this beyond acknowledging the various symbols and icons erected for a modern version of god-worship and devotion.

More of those who become nationalised and accept citizenship in another country find that they generally know more about the laws, traditions, history, and institutions than they who are born in that country. It's because immigrants have to pass a series of exams to become a citizen.

The challenge to atheists is similar to that posed to anarchists and that is to provide a workable and fulfilling alternative.