Historical and Religious Views of the Roots of Christianity

[Seven Words]

I'm not in the least closed minded. Show me objective proof of the spiritual claims of ANY faith, and I will become an adherent that very day. But there is none. Not for Christianity, not for Islam, not for Buddhism, not for Sikhism, not for Wicca, not for Asatru, not for Judaism, not for Zoroastrianism, not for Shintoism, not for ANY faith. This does not make them wrong, or false. It simply makes them unproven. I'm not demanding objective proof before believing...since there is no proof, I am looking for a faith that fulfills me (see my post in the "What do you believe" sticky thread). However, regardless of my beliefs, objective reality trumps everything.

[rdhopeca]

Rus,

My objections have not been of close mindedness. In fact, I even once went and read a short piece by Chesterton and responded with a version of his example with one of my own from my point of view...and while you said you would answer my version, I don't recall you ever doing so.

I've stated many times that I have neither the time (nor the inclination) to read up on your favorite authors list. You have always placed that as the impediment to any real debate, by claiming we must read those pieces before ever being even remotely capable of debating with you, because until we do, we are uninformed. That seems pretty closeminded to me, in fact.

[rusmeister]

Rus, the point that everyone's been making (and that you seem to be ignoring) is that we're not here to debate Chesterton, nor are we here to debate Lewis. We want to know what you think. If any of us want to know what Chesterton or Lewis thinks, we can read their books.

I've bowed out of this discussion since you continually refuse to engage me (or anyone else for that matter) in a discussion about your beliefs. I'm not anti-Christian, not by a long shot. But I find it befuddling that you who purports to be an ardent supporter of Christianity and a particular dogma that most Westerners are unfamiliar with, are completely unwilling to explain your beliefs. What's worse, when questioned about it, you get defensive about it.

For me, as a Catholic Christian, I'm happy to discuss my beliefs, because my beliefs give me comfort, solace, and joy. Why wouldn't I want to talk about it when asked?

Just sayin', I don't understand your attitude.

Hi, Cail.
The whole point is that those ARE my beliefs. Isn't it possible that two people in the universe could actually share the same beliefs? The thing that those of us who say that Christianity really IS the truth and not just a "POV" share is a belief in something bigger than us, that we didn't create, thatit is we who are the creations, and that there are some things on which we cannot simply 'have a personal opinion'. Those things are either true or not, and we claim them to be true, chief of which is that Jesus Christ not only existed, but that He rose from the dead - He is risen!

And ditto on the beliefs. Nowhere have I said that I don't want to talk about them. I have. The difference is that I do not claim them to be merely mine.

Therefore, what I share in common with Andy, Lina, Lewis, Chesterton, etc is something that can be expressed by any of us. If I quote something that Andy said, it is also what I say. Your claim that 'you are not here to debate Chesterton' shows the fundamental difference in our understandings. Any true view of the world must necessarily be enormously complex, and there is no way that any of us could possibly encapsulate it into posts. Outside reference is absolutely necessary.
I have just encapsulated an important idea, including my own words - that there is a special bias against Christianity among people raised in formerly Christian cultures, which if true, needs to be taken into account by anyone who claims not to have such a bias in examination of any thoughts or evidence presented, and that idea is, once again, ignored.

[rusmeister]

I'm not in the least closed minded. Show me objective proof of the spiritual claims of ANY faith, and I will become an adherent that very day. But there is none. Not for Christianity, not for Islam, not for Buddhism, not for Sikhism, not for Wicca, not for Asatru, not for Judaism, not for Zoroastrianism, not for Shintoism, not for ANY faith. This does not make them wrong, or false. It simply makes them unproven. I'm not demanding objective proof before believing...since there is no proof, I am looking for a faith that fulfills me (see my post in the "What do you believe" sticky thread). However, regardless of my beliefs, objective reality trumps everything.

Hi SW.
If there were objective proof, it would not BE faith at all.
The question is, "How do you define objective reality?" (I think of Lewis's Giant in "The Pilgrim's Regress" - wonder if anyone else has read that little gem?)

Objective reality, if it means anything at all, means one of two things in regard to faiths that claim universal truth. Either that none of those faiths really represent the complete truth about the universe, or that one of them really does. The one thing it cannot mean is they are all right. (Excluding ideas that do not claim to be such universal faiths here.) Thus, as universal ideas, it is certain that most must necessarily be false, even though it is obvious that most contain some truth, to greater or lesser degrees. At the same time, it is entirely possible that one of them really does correctly express the correct understanding of human nature, our relation to an objective Creator and our relation to Him.

There are two ways in which one can be closed-minded. One can have an unreasonable prejudice against something, and refuse to examine it on the basis of that unreason, or one can have thoroughly examined something (probably should stress 'thoroughly' here) and come to a reasonable conclusion that further reasoning does not deny.

The special bias against Christianity, primarily in the western world, is generally the source of the former.

[Fist and Faith]

here on this thread I see the bar for what would be considered acceptable evidence of Christ's existence and the veracity of what is reported about Him set much higher than for any other historical figure. We have no problem accepting Herodotus and take his reports seriously. We have no problem with religious figures of other traditions, such as Mohammed or Siddhartha (Gautama Buddha), and much less opposition is raised to what is generally accepted about their existence.

Nonsense. Rubbish, even. I doubt I'm the only one who will say I believe Jesus, Siddhartha, Krishna, and Mohammed all lived. And I would be surprised if anyone here believes we know the exact words of any of these guys' teachings. If I was going to guess whose words we have the most accurate record of, I'd guess the ones who are supposed to have actually written their own words down on paper (or whatever medium). But even then, translations being what they are, and the agendas of the various individuals and agencies...

Again, our science is useless if our guiding philosophy leads us to form all the wrong conclusions from the facts.

I absolutely guarantee that you will never believe any scientific finding that contradicts Chesterton.

[rusmeister]

Rus,

My objections have not been of close mindedness. In fact, I even once went and read a short piece by Chesterton and responded with a version of his example with one of my own from my point of view...and while you said you would answer my version, I don't recall you ever doing so.

I've stated many times that I have neither the time (nor the inclination) to read up on your favorite authors list. You have always placed that as the impediment to any real debate, by claiming we must read those pieces before ever being even remotely capable of debating with you, because until we do, we are uninformed. That seems pretty closeminded to me, in fact.

Hi Rob,
If I missed a response, I'm sorry. I certainly try to respond to all genuine questions or counters. You are right to be miffed if I blew you off on something like that.

But even when I do post something here, it gets the same experience - only a little more overtly.

In defense of 'required reading': The topics are huge, Rob, and I think a reasonable person would recognize that there is actually very little that can be communicated in posts like this - at any rate, if we were all forced to learn physics via posting, we wouldn't get much past 8th grade, and that with years of effort. Outside reference is essential if we are not to be limited to trying to build up arguments through those 8th grade (usually much less) understandings. That's one reason why defense of faith looks so primitive - you deny everything that cannot be posted. When you tack on the "you must personally write it" requirement, it becomes essentially impossible, especially in the face of the special bias against it.

[rusmeister]

here on this thread I see the bar for what would be considered acceptable evidence of Christ's existence and the veracity of what is reported about Him set much higher than for any other historical figure. We have no problem accepting Herodotus and take his reports seriously. We have no problem with religious figures of other traditions, such as Mohammed or Siddhartha (Gautama Buddha), and much less opposition is raised to what is generally accepted about their existence.

Nonsense. Rubbish, even. I doubt I'm the only one who will say I believe Jesus, Siddhartha, Krishna, and Mohammed all lived. And I would be surprised if anyone here believes we know the exact words of any of these guys' teachings. If I was going to guess whose words we have the most accurate record of, I'd guess the ones who are supposed to have actually written their own words down on paper (or whatever medium). But even then, translations being what they are, and the agendas of the various individuals and agencies...

Fist, I can grant that YOU, perhaps, do not set the bar so high on the existence of Christ. But you're not the only poster here. And you do seem to discount oral tradition nearly altogether. Even SRD, in "The Wounded Land", posited that oral tradition could pass on a great deal of accurate info, even over thousands of years. I do agree on the perils of trusting even the written word, generally speaking.

Again, our science is useless if our guiding philosophy leads us to form all the wrong conclusions from the facts.

I absolutely guarantee that you will never believe any scientific finding that contradicts Chesterton.

On the contrary, I myself contradict Chesterton in a few areas. But only in a very few. (The effectiveness of distributism and political activism, the Catholic Church as the true Church being biggies that come to mind.)

[rdhopeca]

here on this thread I see the bar for what would be considered acceptable evidence of Christ's existence and the veracity of what is reported about Him set much higher than for any other historical figure. We have no problem accepting Herodotus and take his reports seriously. We have no problem with religious figures of other traditions, such as Mohammed or Siddhartha (Gautama Buddha), and much less opposition is raised to what is generally accepted about their existence.

Nonsense. Rubbish, even. I doubt I'm the only one who will say I believe Jesus, Siddhartha, Krishna, and Mohammed all lived. And I would be surprised if anyone here believes we know the exact words of any of these guys' teachings. If I was going to guess whose words we have the most accurate record of, I'd guess the ones who are supposed to have actually written their own words down on paper (or whatever medium). But even then, translations being what they are, and the agendas of the various individuals and agencies...

Fist, I can grant that YOU, perhaps, do not set the bar so high on the existence of Christ. But you're not the only poster here. And you do seem to discount oral tradition nearly altogether. Even SRD, in "The Wounded Land", posited that oral tradition could pass on a great deal of accurate info, even over thousands of years. I do agree on the perils of trusting even the written word, generally speaking.

Again, our science is useless if our guiding philosophy leads us to form all the wrong conclusions from the facts.

I absolutely guarantee that you will never believe any scientific finding that contradicts Chesterton.

On the contrary, I myself contradict Chesterton in a few areas. But only in a very few. (The effectiveness of distributism and political activism, the Catholic Church as the true Church being biggies that come to mind.)

Now hold on a second. Let me get this straight. You have claimed I don't know how many times that your Orthodox Church is the one Truth. Yet Chesterton says it is the Catholic Church. And you put it on us to accept his absolute credibility when you disagree on this point?

That seems an absolutely tremendous point of contention to me, for you to disagree with him on...basically you are saying he is this incredible intellect, who also happens to be wrong about who God's true Church is.

Intriguing to say the least.

[rusmeister]

Nonsense. Rubbish, even. I doubt I'm the only one who will say I believe Jesus, Siddhartha, Krishna, and Mohammed all lived. And I would be surprised if anyone here believes we know the exact words of any of these guys' teachings. If I was going to guess whose words we have the most accurate record of, I'd guess the ones who are supposed to have actually written their own words down on paper (or whatever medium). But even then, translations being what they are, and the agendas of the various individuals and agencies...

Fist, I can grant that YOU, perhaps, do not set the bar so high on the existence of Christ. But you're not the only poster here. And you do seem to discount oral tradition nearly altogether. Even SRD, in "The Wounded Land", posited that oral tradition could pass on a great deal of accurate info, even over thousands of years. I do agree on the perils of trusting even the written word, generally speaking.

I absolutely guarantee that you will never believe any scientific finding that contradicts Chesterton.

On the contrary, I myself contradict Chesterton in a few areas. But only in a very few. (The effectiveness of distributism and political activism, the Catholic Church as the true Church being biggies that come to mind.)

Now hold on a second. Let me get this straight. You have claimed I don't know how many times that your Orthodox Church is the one Truth. Yet Chesterton says it is the Catholic Church. And you put it on us to accept his absolute credibility when you disagree on this point?

That seems an absolutely tremendous point of contention to me, for you to disagree with him on...basically you are saying he is this incredible intellect, who also happens to be wrong about who God's true Church is.

Intriguing to say the least.

It's not as tremendous as it may seem to you, Rob. It's really quite simple. The only thing I find amazing is how little he knew about the eastern Church - however, from the get-go he was surrounded by Catholics, Orthodoxy had only a tiny presence in England and it's not surprising that he got no exposure to it, and his only info on it from Catholics, whose basic policy on Orthodoxy has always been silence - the reason you folks know so little about it, btw. Considering his broad knowledge of other faiths, like Buddhism, Islam and protestant Christianity, and of history in general, I agree it is an anomaly. But if you remember that 1,000 years ago it was one Church, and that he did honor the historical Christian Church it's really not so shocking. To me, all it means is that he was off target by one degree on the question, and nearly every time he says "Catholic" you can safely insert "Orthodox". When he asserts papal authority, I just ignore it. On pretty much every other topic everything he says mostly lines up with Orthodoxy, so it's not such a big deal.

[CovenantJr]

We have no problem accepting Herodotus and take his reports seriously.

Are you sure? I can't think of many people who accept that huge cyclopes roam the fringes of the Mediterranean. As for believing in existence of Herodotus himself, at least he wrote his own texts. That makes it a lot easier. It's no guarantee, certainly (see the uncertainty surrounding Hugo Falcandus), but it helps.

[Fist and Faith]

Are you serioius??? Cyclopes is the plural form??? I had no idea!

(Hey, we need a cyclops smilie for that.)

[rdhopeca]

Fist, I can grant that YOU, perhaps, do not set the bar so high on the existence of Christ. But you're not the only poster here. And you do seem to discount oral tradition nearly altogether. Even SRD, in "The Wounded Land", posited that oral tradition could pass on a great deal of accurate info, even over thousands of years. I do agree on the perils of trusting even the written word, generally speaking.

On the contrary, I myself contradict Chesterton in a few areas. But only in a very few. (The effectiveness of distributism and political activism, the Catholic Church as the true Church being biggies that come to mind.)

Now hold on a second. Let me get this straight. You have claimed I don't know how many times that your Orthodox Church is the one Truth. Yet Chesterton says it is the Catholic Church. And you put it on us to accept his absolute credibility when you disagree on this point?

That seems an absolutely tremendous point of contention to me, for you to disagree with him on...basically you are saying he is this incredible intellect, who also happens to be wrong about who God's true Church is.

Intriguing to say the least.

It's not as tremendous as it may seem to you, Rob. It's really quite simple. The only thing I find amazing is how little he knew about the eastern Church - however, from the get-go he was surrounded by Catholics, Orthodoxy had only a tiny presence in England and it's not surprising that he got no exposure to it, and his only info on it from Catholics, whose basic policy on Orthodoxy has always been silence - the reason you folks know so little about it, btw. Considering his broad knowledge of other faiths, like Buddhism, Islam and protestant Christianity, and of history in general, I agree it is an anomaly. But if you remember that 1,000 years ago it was one Church, and that he did honor the historical Christian Church it's really not so shocking. To me, all it means is that he was off target by one degree on the question, and nearly every time he says "Catholic" you can safely insert "Orthodox". When he asserts papal authority, I just ignore it. On pretty much every other topic everything he says mostly lines up with Orthodoxy, so it's not such a big deal.

Certainly not for a great intellectual mind who is 100% correct on everything else, including all of the mysteries of the Almighty and of Man's place in the universe.

[Kinslaughterer]

Christianity has a special place among religion because it purports to identify real events that occured in the recent (for archaeologists) past. The West clearly dismisses Mohammed and Islam in general yet concludes that Jesus and Christianity are both true and fact (not necessarily the same thing)

As an anthropologist (yes, I'm both an anthropologist and an archaeologist as you are trained in the parent field of anthropology and the subfield of archaeology blah, blah, blah) I accept the relative trueness of religion for all believers in a given culture. Culture is the lens through which humanity preceives the world. However, anthropology is a social science and as a scientist any provable, observable fact is open to scrutiny. Jesus is no different.
I pose a question. If the historical/factual validity of Jesus could be proven false to you, would you still believe in the tenets of Christianity?

[Menolly]

I pose a question. If the historical/factual validity of Jesus could be proven false to you, would you still believe in the tenets of Christianity?

Which tenets would that be, kins?
Without JC, the whole concept of salvation flies out the window, yes?
But is not everything else ultimately derived on the TANACH instead?

*forgive the question; I honestly have never studied Chr-stian teachings*

[Kinslaughterer]

Many religions don't believe in the historical reality of their creation myths, parables, or religious texts yet seem to function and follow their religious tenets willout cause for concern or spiritual collapse.

Obviously, Judaism is the base for Christianity yet couldn't one believe and follow the ascribed information and ethics/morals of it without the physical reality?

[Menolly]

Obviously, I accept some without physical evidence.

I do accept as Truth the Exodus, wandering in the desert, etc., even though, as you mentioned before, there is no corresponding evidence of such occurring.
But much of what is written prior to Avram and Sarai I view with the opinion of legend and myth. That doesn't prevent me from learning the lessons taught of those stories though.

...and keep in mind, I am far from Torah Observant. You would obviously get a very different answer from, say, a chasid.

To quote what Hyperception just said to me in response to me reading this to him:

"The only good reason I ever hear for ethical behavior comes not from history or religion, but rather from socio-biology: The tribe that practices sophisticated ethics tends to out compete the one that does not. Because it takes the struggle for survival away from the individual and places it on the cultural level."

[Kinslaughterer]

The only good reason I ever hear for ethical behavior comes not from history or religion, but rather from socio-biology: The tribe that practices sophisticated ethics tends to out compete the one that does not. Because it takes the struggle for survival away from the individual and places it on the cultural level."

This is partially correct except the order is backwards. Survival is always placed on the cultural level. Culture functions to meet, at minimum, the biological needs of its members. Sophisticated ethics is fairly subjective. Genghis Khan has descendants that number in the tens of millions. I quite enjoy many aspects of Mongolia but I wouldn't say they display any excess of "sophisticated ethics" relative to other cultures.

[rusmeister]

I pose a question. If the historical/factual validity of Jesus could be proven false to you, would you still believe in the tenets of Christianity?

This is a fair question and worth answering (assuming by "tenets" it means "the Christian faith").
The answer is, no I would not.
Christianity (taken as a belief system), if true, is of absolute importance. if false, it is of no importance.
However, the odds of your being able to prove such a thing to me is vanishingly small - all of my life experience contradicts it, and it is something I experience, not merely as a historical fact to believe in, but as the thing that explains the universe - by which I mean every question which I have ever wanted to ask. It makes sense of everything.

[rusmeister]

We have no problem accepting Herodotus and take his reports seriously.

Are you sure? I can't think of many people who accept that huge cyclopes roam the fringes of the Mediterranean. As for believing in existence of Herodotus himself, at least he wrote his own texts. That makes it a lot easier. It's no guarantee, certainly (see the uncertainty surrounding Hugo Falcandus), but it helps.

This, to me, is evidence of the unusual bias against Christianity. Take a known historian, the greatest of antiquity, find an anomaly in his writings that we don't accept today, and summarily dismiss the example completely, because the example is used to support Christian claims. Throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Hyperception]

The only good reason I ever hear for ethical behavior comes not from history or religion, but rather from socio-biology: The tribe that practices sophisticated ethics tends to out compete the one that does not. Because it takes the struggle for survival away from the individual and places it on the cultural level."

This is partially correct except the order is backwards. Survival is always placed on the cultural level. Culture functions to meet, at minimum, the biological needs of its members. Sophisticated ethics is fairly subjective. Genghis Khan has descendants that number in the tens of millions. I quite enjoy many aspects of Mongolia but I wouldn't say they display any excess of "sophisticated ethics" relative to other cultures.

OK, I think. What I was trying to say is that the individual genetic material may not be preserved but the ideology and practice (such as, for example, some religious tenets) -is-. Thus the existence of Genghis Khan's DNA might be a better testament to male warlike domination and sexual predation than to the survival of the Golden Horde's ideology, but if you track where those descendants cluster and have prospered you should find fairly well-developed cooperative systems, along with complex ethical justifications for that cooperation. Now I am hardly a fan of sociobiology generally, so I should not presume to cite these principles, but it did seem reasonable to me when I read it. Of course I can't remember the work and author, so I'll just say it was E. O. Wilson in "Sociobiology."

More to your previous point, I imagine that Christians would not need to change beliefs or behavior in the face of substantive proof of Jesus' non-existence, or even that they could do so if they wanted to. After all, a significant degree of the religion is supposed to require faith before evidence. Thus looking for reasons to believe is not the surest path to salvation. Specifically, if one has no example of resurrection, that does not rule it out completely. Also, the immediate goal is not resurrection in person but forgiveness of sins. The doctrine of evil, sin, and forgiveness does not require a personal intercessor, although without one it would not be recognizable as Christianity in the way it is commonly understood. I cannot easily imagine a kind of "Turing test" that could distinguish one believer from another based on whether they believe in an historical and fully human Jesus without specifically asking the question. And the issue of whether such belief could spread as it has done without a 'real' founder is equally open in my view.

[Disclaimer: The Secretary Will Disavow Any Knowledge If you Are Killed Or Captured]