Truth in Christianity

[river]

“ Originally Posted by Kennyc
There is no truth in Christianity, it is all based on myth and fabrication.

true

Here is a man who who knows every thing he is 2000 years old

more about , at least 6000 yrs ago really

[Captain Kremmen]

6,000 years?
Please don't tell.

[Jan Ardena]

Fraggle Rocker,

The example I've posted on this forum many times, although the number of years keeps increasing: My wife has been unwaveringly tolerant, loving and loyal to me for 34 years (now exactly half of my life). Based upon this empirical evidence, it is rational of me to have faith that she will continue to do so. This faith does not have the weight of a scientific theory: true beyond a reasonable doubt; but it has enough support for me to sensibly regard it as a constant in my life and make plans on the assumption that it will continue.

You've presented absolutely no evidence that you wife is loyal to you.
For all we know you could be lying, or delusional.
Can you prove to us that you are married?
And were you to scan us your marriage docs, how could you prove to us that they are genuine?

Note: I'm not saying this is the case, just that you don't have any evidence to convince us at this time.

Religious beliefs, on the other hand, are not based on empirical evidence.

Niether is the notion of a loyal spouse or partner.

They are based on trust in the people who taught them the beliefs,

And what is it that would make me believe that your wife has been loyal to you all these years?
Should I believe you?

This makes religious belief an irrational faith.

There are many different types of religious belief, not to mention that they are individual to each and every person. Yes, they can be the result of ''irrational faith'', but they can be the result of rational faith as well. It depends on the person.

Faith can be supported by reason, or it can be revealed by reason to be balderdash.

This is my point, sort of.


jan.

[Dywyddyr]

Well done on missing the point completely.

There are many different types of religious belief, not to mention that they are individual to each and every person. Yes, they can be the result of ''irrational faith'', but they can be the result of rational faith as well.

Please give an example of "rational faith" in a religious belief.

[markl323]

Can you prove to us that you are married?
And were you to scan us your marriage docs, how could you prove to us that they are genuine?

Note: I'm not saying this is the case, just that you don't have any evidence to convince us at this time.

[Jan Ardena]

Please give an example of "rational faith" in a religious belief.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XgoVj19phY

jan.

[spidergoat]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4XgoVj19phY

jan.

He says that one can consider the words of Jesus as a philosopher might. Well no shit, even I can do that. He is full of irrational faith- that you need to study the bible to preserve a relationship for instance. I couldn't listen to the rest, he's all over the place.

[Aqueous Id]

The closest thing I can think of similar to "rational faith" would be believing the religion without denying reality, evidence, history and the sum of human knowledge that tries to make sense of it.

Now you just need a religion that fits that schema and you're good to go.

[chimpkin]

Harvestdoing:

Christianity is not a metaphor it is meant to be a solution to a very complex dilema. That dilema is mankind's continual disobedience to natural law, moral law and even personal conscience. More simply stated, we all disobey what we know to be wrong even if our consciences vary as to what we personally believe is wrong. We also all disobey the laws of our country. And finally the more one attempts to live a life of complete obedience to a standard the more they fail at it. This disobedience is what is called sin. The word sin comes from a Greek word meaning "to miss the mark" (as in target practice). The true nature of mankind is we ALL at some point fall short and miss the mark of whatever standard we would use to measure ourselves......
......
......What Christianity teaches is a reality that God who created all things (our manufacturer - so to speak) assumed liability for His creation and took on human flesh and paid the full penalty for our sin - died the death we deserved and was raised from the dead as proof the payment for our disobedience/crimes was accepted and for all who are willing to accept it and place their names so to speak on the class action suit are able to benefit from what Jesus has done.

When you describe the message of Christianity in such a way, I want to run down the road screaming. What you just described is totally preposterous. No modern, rational, thinking person could ever believe such tripe.

Such a vengeful explanation of the purpose and work of Christ leaves me feeling cold (and a bit nauseous).

Um...Harvest didn't say anything I would not recognize as a tenet of Christianity.
The reason I rejected Christianity in the end because I realized its' tenets meant God was condemning us for being exactly as he made us. If you then don't ask me to accept He loves me and cares about me...then this is ok.
But if He loved humans, He would have either made us better or accepted us as He made us, right? But instead, He seems prone to a malignant whimsy that has nothing in common with love...unless your idea of a loving parent is someone who occasionally murders a child or two for minor infractions.

Jehovah as an evil figure works much better. Fear the Lord.

[chimpkin]

The closest thing I can think of similar to "rational faith" would be believing the religion without denying reality, evidence, history and the sum of human knowledge that tries to make sense of it.

I just don't think that faith can be rational.
I think it's some sort of irrational emotional need a majority of us are wired for.
I think trying to reconcile religion and rationality does not work.

[Jan Ardena]

The closest thing I can think of similar to "rational faith" would be believing the religion without denying reality, evidence, history and the sum of human knowledge that tries to make sense of it.

Now you just need a religion that fits that schema and you're good to go.

Claiming to know what reality IS, is in my opinion, irrational.


jan.

[Gandalf]

Christianity is not a metaphor it is meant to be a solution to a very complex dilema. That dilema is mankind's continual disobedience to natural law, moral law and even personal conscience. More simply stated, we all disobey what we know to be wrong even if our consciences vary as to what we personally believe is wrong. We also all disobey the laws of our country. And finally the more one attempts to live a life of complete obedience to a standard the more they fail at it. This disobedience is what is called sin. The word sin comes from a Greek word meaning "to miss the mark" (as in target practice). The true nature of mankind is we ALL at some point fall short and miss the mark of whatever standard we would use to measure ourselves......
......
......What Christianity teaches is a reality that God who created all things (our manufacturer - so to speak) assumed liability for His creation and took on human flesh and paid the full penalty for our sin - died the death we deserved and was raised from the dead as proof the payment for our disobedience/crimes was accepted and for all who are willing to accept it and place their names so to speak on the class action suit are able to benefit from what Jesus has done.

When you describe the message of Christianity in such a way, I want to run down the road screaming. What you just described is totally preposterous. No modern, rational, thinking person could ever believe such tripe.

Such a vengeful explanation of the purpose and work of Christ leaves me feeling cold (and a bit nauseous).

Um...Harvest didn't say anything I would not recognize as a tenet of Christianity.

Sadly, you're right, Chimpkin. However, not ever faction of Christianity holds to what Harvestdoing's interpretation of it is. Many liberal theologians and clergy are trying to re-frame the message. We seek to hold on to the belief of the loving God we intuitively believe in and throw out the aggressive and violent messages that got mixed in.

The end result is that we get called heretics by the Fundies for bastardizing the true faith, and derided by the atheists for trying to go to bat for a religion that they see utterly corrupt and false. Yet I still do, because I believe there is great value in the messages of love Christianity has to offer, despite the terrible baggage the label "Christian" brings with it into the world. I think that any spirituality (sectarian or secular) that promotes good will among people has equal value to the message of Christianity I seek to promote and should be respected as well.

[Fraggle Rocker]

You've presented absolutely no evidence that you wife is loyal to you.

That's because my purpose here is not to convince you to share my faith. It is merely to explain to you the difference between a rational faith, which is based on evidence, and an irrational faith (such as religion or the expectation of winning a large jackpot in the lottery), which is based entirely on hope.

For all we know you could be lying, or delusional.

I have established a good reputation for being truthful on SciForums, so it is rational for the members to have faith that I will continue to be so. As for being delusional, that is a rare disorder, so once again it is rational to assume that a person you meet at random does not have it. Bear in mind that my assertions are not extraordinary, so your invocation of the Rule of Laplace is out of order. No one needs to provide extraordinary evidence to support the thesis that his marriage is not dysfunctional. That assertion is simply not in the same category as the woo-woo that religionists throw at us, which violates natural laws right and left and, if it were true, would require rewriting the entire canon of science, if not simply discarding it and replacing all the scientists with witch doctors. Oh yeah, and for which there is not even one shred of ordinary evidence, much less extraordinary evidence.

Can you prove to us that you are married? And were you to scan us your marriage docs, how could you prove to us that they are genuine?

You are falling back on the same trick that religionists often use when backed into a corner: disingenuous argument. The standard of proof in science is beyond a reasonable doubt. The people who attended our wedding are still alive. If you'd like to fly to Los Angeles at your own expense they'd be happy to vouch for it. Our records are on file in the Los Angeles County Hall of Records. I'm not sure they'd pull them out for you, but your attorney could get his hands on them in ten minutes, and (although I'm not certain of this) his fee might be cheaper than a plane ticket to L.A.

Note: I'm not saying this is the case, just that you don't have any evidence to convince us at this time.

More of the same disingenuity. You carefully sidestep the key issue here: There is an enormous qualitative difference between a man making the unremarkable assertion that he is married, indeed even that he is happily married, and a man claiming that supernatural events have taken place that violate all the laws of nature, including the literally unbelievable assertion that a man came back to life after being thoroughly dead for days.

The standard of proof must be proportional to the ordinariness or extraordinariness of the claim. We stand to lose very little by believing that a single man is happily married. If he's carefully crafted a set of false records, then about the worst that will happen is that he'll pay income tax at the joint rate and we'll lose a little money in the public treasury, and perhaps the government will have to wait twelve seconds before they can afford to start their next war.

But we stand to lose our entire relationship to the universe--our entire notion of reality!-- if we believe the preposterous comic-book crap that the Bible spews at us. Everything we have painstakingly learned over the past five centuries about the laws of nature, about molecules and atoms and quarks and leptons, about the climate, the environment, sources of energy... all of that becomes meaningless and useless if there's a haughty giant hiding in the sky with a wand that can turn it all into flowers or coal dust at a whim.

And what is it that would make me believe that your wife has been loyal to you all these years? Should I believe you?

You continue to pursue this disingenuous argument as a foil to distract us from the point of the discussion. This is about me. My faith in my wife's trust and affection is the faith that is rational, because I have satisfactory evidence of it. I'm not asking anyone else to have faith in her. Faith is not necessarily transferable! I've known her for almost 40 years. You barely know me and you don't know her at all. You have no evidence on which to base faith in her, and very little for me. You know that you can trust my knowledge of linguistics--largely because allowing yourself to be deceived about such arcana wouldn't make much of a difference in your life--and that's about all.

I don't expect you to adopt my faith in my wife until you've made her acquaintance and have spent at least a few years getting to know her well. But somehow religionists make it their bloody mission to convince the rest of us that we should adopt their faith. At least you can see how my faith came about, even if you might question some of the details about how she and I resolved past arguments and whether she has truly been as supportive as I imagine her to be. But I can't see where your faith comes from. There are no observations in your past upon which it is based. Everything you claim to base your faith on is invisible, things many of you freely admit just pop up inside your head and therefore can't possibly be demonstrated to another person.

There are many different types of religious belief, not to mention that they are individual to each and every person. Yes, they can be the result of ''irrational faith'', but they can be the result of rational faith as well. It depends on the person.

I have yet to encounter a single religious person whose faith is rational. I'd be interested to hear more about this.

[Jan Ardena]

Fraggle Rocker,

That's because my purpose here is not to convince you to share my faith.

Agreed.
And many feel it is not their purpose to convince others of their faith in God.

It is merely to explain to you the difference between a rational faith, which is based on evidence, and an irrational faith (such as religion or the expectation of winning a large jackpot in the lottery), which is based entirely on hope.

My point was, that your evidence is purely subjective, albeit truthful. IOW there is nothing that your wife can do to show her loyalty, than somebody who pretend rather well, to have loyalty. It is based entirely on your perception. There are people who base their faith on evidence that is no less
valid than yours.

I have established a good reputation for being truthful on SciForums, so it is rational for the members to have faith that I will continue to be so.

I'm not doubting that at all, I have no reason to disbelieve you on the matter of your marriage.

As for being delusional, that is a rare disorder, so once again it is rational to assume that a person you meet at random does not have it. Bear in mind that my assertions are not extraordinary, so your invocation of the Rule of Laplace is out of order.

Surely it would depend on circumstances how you assume a person to be.
The most we can assume from meeting a random person, is their outward appearance and actions.
As for what is and isn't extraordinary, that is a matter for each individual.
I read somewhere that people do think it extraordinary to faithfully and loyaly stay with one partner, for less than the amount of years you have.
Who's to say, the ideal of loyalty and faithfullness, may well become a thing of the past in generations to come.

The idea of believing in God, is not extraordinary to some.

No one needs to provide extraordinary evidence to support the thesis that his marriage is not dysfunctional. That assertion is simply not in the same category as the woo-woo that religionists throw at us, which violates natural laws right and left and, if it were true, would require rewriting the entire canon of science, if not simply discarding it and replacing all the scientists with witch doctors.

You're quite right, we don't need to provide evidence of happy marriage, but my point is, we can't.
If some went around gloating on how successful his marriage is, and how shitty everyone elses was, then evidence of his claim may well be requested by some. I'm quite sure that's not what you're doing, so please don't take it personally.
If a religionist acts in the same way, ie, saying everybody gonna rot in hell except him and his mates, then yes, evidence of his claim should be forthcoming. But not all believers in God are like that. So your rant is really aimed at individuals/groups/organistions who make direct claims.

You are falling back on the same trick that religionists often use when backed into a corner: disingenuous argument.

I haven't claimed anything, as I said, I have no reason to disbelieve you.
I'm just making a point with regards to faith. The actual ''faith'' relies on trust and belief, as there is no way of KNOWING. We make use of what we do know, allowing ourselves to have faith or not in any situation where there is no actual knowledge.

There is an enormous qualitative difference between a man making the unremarkable assertion that he is married, indeed even that he is happily married, and a man claiming that supernatural events have taken place that violate all the laws of nature, including the literally unbelievable assertion that a man came back to life after being thoroughly dead for days.

Alot of people have ''faith'' that God can work miracles because he is the ultimate controller of the universe. You have faith in your wife love, and loyalty. In a few years we'll all be dead.
The first two are belief in the unknown, and last one is a fact.

The standard of proof must be proportional to the ordinariness or extraordinariness of the claim. We stand to lose very little by believing that a single man is happily married. If he's carefully crafted a set of false records, then about the worst that will happen is that he'll pay income tax at the joint rate and we'll lose a little money in the public treasury, and perhaps the government will have to wait twelve seconds before they can afford to start their next war.

We stand very little to lose if a single man believes in God.

But we stand to lose our entire relationship to the universe--our entire notion of reality!-- if we believe the preposterous comic-book crap that the Bible spews at us.

Now you're venting at the Bible.
That's not what my response was based on (at least particularly), despite the thread title. You mentioned ''religious belief'', which is what attracted my attention.


There are many different types of religious belief, not to mention that they are individual to each and every person.

I think i'll leave it there because I get you're upset, which wasn't my intention. So apologies if that is the case.

jan.

[Aqueous Id]

When a believer professes the existence of Christ, he is using a divine model. When a logician argues against it, he is using evidence and the rational model. I also like the cultural anthropologist's model, like this one which appeals to my sense of reality and my tendency to believe that the evidence has not been fabricated, but drawn from relics of history:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature...&v=ljRKhZ81aqY

[Jan Ardena]

Aqueous Id,

When a believer professes the existence of Christ, he is using a divine model. When a logician argues against it, he is using evidence and the rational model. I also like the cultural anthropologist's model, like this one which appeals to my sense of reality and my tendency to believe that the evidence has not been fabricated, but drawn from relics of history:

Yours and ''The Atheist Empire of Liverpool''.

Try these links out for size and get a sense of a bigger picture.

http://thedevineevidence.com/pagan_copycat_horus.html
http://www.philvaz.com/apologetics/HORUS.htm

jan.

[Aqueous Id]

Claiming to know what reality IS, is in my opinion, irrational.


jan.

HI, jan.

I didn't mean the totality of reality. I was referring that the part that's accessible to us, now that we know the earth is round, not flat like a fundamentalist would have to believe. That there was no Noah. No flood, no decimation of all species at once. No Adam, just evolution. No Eden, the rivers don't meet anywhere. No heaven, no hell, no fire, no devil, they were imported from Persia. And so on.

In short, the laws of nature haven't been suspended, then magically erased all traces of what happened just to fool us. That's flat crazy.

There's a sense of reality that is accessible to us by looking over the shoulders over the millions of experts who are confirming reality in millions of ways every day.

That's all I was driving at. It really doesn't have much to do with atheism as much as it has to do with reason, common sense, and of course evidence - that huge elephant in every fundamentalist's room that just keeps being ignored.

[TheBgzzs]

this is in responce to harvestdoing i dont mean to Offend u so i will say this why would our creator need to Clothed his self in flesh as jesus an say i am the son of god when he him self is the truth! jesus never said he was god we all understand god cannot lie, why would he need to. so now why would god say he was jesus when he is the creator of all mankind, would that not be a lie? i think men lie, not god. christanity is not the truth

[Shadow1]

False topic, everyone sees the truth in the relegion that that person follows.
So I have my relegion, and you have your relegion, I say my relegion is the truth, and you say your relegion is the truth, we both have to respect out choices and opinions.
End of story.
Because this topic will lead to nowhere, and it certinly have no use.

What I say is my opinion and not the absolute truth, no one have the truth.
Get over it, live your life, be good, and worship your god (or don't if you are atheist), everyone is responsible for himself.

[Sock puppet path]

this is in responce to harvestdoing i dont mean to Offend u so i will say this why would our creator need to Clothed his self in flesh as jesus an say i am the son of god when he him self is the truth! jesus never said he was god we all understand god cannot lie, why would he need to. so now why would god say he was jesus when he is the creator of all mankind, would that not be a lie? i think men lie, not god. christanity is not the truth

Exactly right, I agree, Hinduism IS THE TRUTH!