Jump to content


Photo
- - - - -

Christianity's Founding Fathers Admit Similarities.


This topic has been archived. This means that you cannot reply to this topic.
41 replies to this topic

#1 KaseKlosed

KaseKlosed

    @CMackMost

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 05:17 PM

http://members.cox.n...religion/cr.htm


Christianity's Founding Fathers Admit Similarities

We have it on no higher authority than that of Christianity's founding fathers themselves that the Christian religion was very much like other older religions currently extant.

Other religions had their savior character, born of a miraculous nature, who performed miracles, cured sick people, and eventually died an untimely death, often by crucifixion.

So close did Christianity resemble these other religions that the Christian fathers resorted to the ludicrous explanation that the Devil himself had created these other near identical religions prior to the alleged time of Jesus to deceive the masses so they would reject the true religion of Christianity as being just a copycat of these already existing religions. Religious scholar Charles François Dupuis (1798) returns us to our sanity by eloquently stating the obvious: "There is not the slightest difficulty, without the intervention of the Devil, to perceive, that whenever two religions resemble each other so completely, the oldest must be the mother and the youngest the daughter."

Justin Martyr
Justin Martyr (A.D. 100-165) was the first and most distinguished apologist for the Christian religion.4 His first apology, The First Apology Of Justin, argues that Christianity should be accepted as any other religion because it is so similar to other preexisting religions. By arguing thus Justin inadvertently admits:

1. Other religions and beliefs already existed which were quite similar to Christianity.
2. Christianity was hated to such an extent that he had to write an apology for it demanding that it be accepted.

Here are the words of Justin Martyr, from his First Apology. Note how he repeatedly claims the reason other preexisting religions are so similar to Christianity is because demons made the previous religions:

CHAPTER XX -- HEATHEN ANALOGIES TO CHRISTIAN DOCTRINE.

And the Sibyl and Hystaspes said that there should be a dissolution by God of things corruptible. And the philosophers called Stoics teach that even God Himself shall be resolved into fire, and they say that the world is to be formed anew by this revolution; but we understand that God, the Creator of all things, is superior to the things that are to be changed. If, therefore, on some points we teach the same things as the poets and philosophers whom you honour, and on other points are fuller and more divine in our teaching, and if we alone afford proof of what we assert, why are we unjustly hated more than all others? For while we say that all things have been produced and arranged into a world by God, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of Plato; and while we say that there will be a burning up of all, we shall seem to utter the doctrine of the Stoics: and while we affirm that the souls of the wicked, being endowed with sensation even after death, are punished, and that those of the good being delivered from punishment spend a blessed existence, we shall seem to say the same things as the poets and philosophers; and while we maintain that men ought not to worship the works of their hands, we say the very things which have been said by the comic poet Menander, and other similar writers, for they have declared that the workman is greater than the work.

CHAPTER XXI -- ANALOGIES TO THE HISTORY OF CHRIST.

And when we say also that the Word, who is the first-birth of God, was produced without sexual union, and that He, Jesus Christ, our Teacher, was crucified and died, and rose again, and ascended into heaven, we propound nothing different from what you believe regarding those whom you esteem sons of Jupiter. For you know how many sons your esteemed writers ascribed to Jupiter: Mercury, the interpreting word and teacher of all; AEsculapius, who, though he was a great physician, was struck by a thunderbolt, and so ascended to heaven; and Bacchus too, after he had been torn limb from limb; and Hercules, when he had committed himself to the flames to escape his toils; and the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon, who, though sprung from mortals, rose to heaven on the horse Pegasus. For what shall I say of Ariadne, and those who, like her, have been declared to be set among the stars? And what of the emperors who die among yourselves, whom you deem worthy of deification, and in whose behalf you produce some one who swears he has seen the burning Caesar rise to heaven from the funeral pyre? And what kind of deeds are recorded of each of these reputed sons of Jupiter, it is needless to tell to those who already know. This only shall be said, that they are written for the advantage and encouragement of youthful scholars; for all reckon it an honourable thing to imitate the gods. But far be such a thought concerning the gods from every well-conditioned soul, as to believe that Jupiter himself, the governor and creator of all things, was both a parricide and the son of a parricide, and that being overcome by the love of base and shameful pleasures, he came in to Ganymede and those many women whom he had violated and that his sons did like actions. But, as we said above, wicked devils perpetrated these things. And we have learned that those only are deified who have lived near to God in holiness and virtue; and we believe that those who live wickedly and do not repent are punished in everlasting fire.

CHAPTER XXII -- ANALOGIES TO THE SONSHIP OF CHRIST.

Moreover, the Son of God called Jesus, even if only a man by ordinary generation, yet, on account of His wisdom, is worthy to be called the Son of God; for all writers call God the Father of men and gods. And if we assert that the Word of God was born of God in a peculiar manner, different from ordinary generation, let this, as said above, be no extraordinary thing to you, who say that Mercury is the angelic word of God. But if any one objects that He was crucified, in this also He is on a par with those reputed sons of Jupiter of yours, who suffered as we have now enumerated. For their sufferings at death are recorded to have been not all alike, but diverse; so that not even by the peculiarity of His sufferings does He seem to be inferior to them; but, on the contrary, as we promised in the preceding part of this discourse, we will now prove Him superior--or rather have already proved Him to be so--for the superior is revealed by His actions. And if we even affirm that He was born of a virgin, accept this in common with what you accept of Ferseus. And in that we say that He made whole the lame, the paralytic, and those born blind, we seem to say what is very similar to the deeds said to have been done by AEsculapius.

CHAPTER LIV -- ORIGIN OF HEATHEN MYTHOLOGY.

But those who hand down the myths which the poets have made, adduce no proof to the youths who learn them; and we proceed to demonstrate that they have been uttered by the influence of the wicked demons, to deceive and lead astray the human race. For having heard it proclaimed through the prophets that the Christ was to come, and that the ungodly among men were to be punished by fire, they put forward many to be called sons of Jupiter, under the impression that they would be able to produce in men the idea that the things which were said with regard to Christ were mere marvellous tales, like the things which were said by the poets. And these things were said both among the Greeks and among all nations where they [the demons] heard the prophets foretelling that Christ would specially be believed in; but that in hearing what was said by the prophets they did not accurately understand it, but imitated what was said of our Christ, like men who are in error, we will make plain. The prophet Moses, then, Was, as we have already said, older than all writers; and by him, as we have also said before, it was thus predicted: "There shall not fail a prince from Judah, nor a lawgiver from between his feet, until He come for whom it is reserved; and He shall be the desire of the Gentiles, binding His foal to the vine, washing His robe in the blood of the grape." The devils, accordingly, when they heard these prophetic words, said that Bacchus was the son of Jupiter, and gave out that he was the discoverer of the vine, and they number wine [or, the ass] among his mysteries; and they taught that, having been torn in pieces, he ascended into heaven. And because in the prophecy of Moses it had not been expressly intimated whether He who was to come was the Son of God, and whether He would, riding on the foal, remain on earth or ascend into heaven, and because the name of "foal" could mean either the foal of an ass or the foal of a horse, they, not knowing whether He who was foretold would bring the foal of an ass or of a horse as the sign of His coming, nor whether He was the Son of God, as we said above, or of man, gave out that Bellerophon, a man born of man, himself ascended to heaven on his horse Pegasus. And when they heard it said by the other prophet Isaiah, that He should be born of a virgin, and by His own means ascend into heaven, they pretended that Perseus was spoken of. And when they knew what was said, as has been cited above, in the prophecies written aforetime, "Strong as a giant to run his course," they said that Hercules was strong, and had journeyed over the whole earth. And when, again, they learned that it had been foretold that He should heal every sickness, and raise the dead, they produced Aesculapius.

#2 KaseKlosed

KaseKlosed

    @CMackMost

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,112 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 05:19 PM

CHAPTER LXVI -- OF THE EUCHARIST.

And this food is called among us Eukaristia [the Eucharist], of which no one is allowed to partake but the man who believes that the things which we teach are true, and who has been washed with the washing that is for the remission of sins, and unto regeneration, and who is so living as Christ has enjoined. For not as common bread and common drink do we receive these; but in like manner as Jesus Christ our Saviour, having been made flesh by the Word of God, had both flesh and blood for our salvation, so likewise have we been taught that the food which is blessed by the prayer of His word, and from which our blood and flesh by transmutation are nourished, is the flesh and blood of that Jesus who was made flesh. For the apostles, in the memoirs composed by them, which are called Gospels, have thus delivered unto us what was enjoined upon them; that Jesus took bread, and when He had given thanks, said, "This do ye in remembrance of Me, this is My body;" and that, after the same manner, having taken the cup and given thanks, He said, "This is My blood;" and gave it to them alone. Which the wicked devils have imitated in the mysteries of Mithras, commanding the same thing to be done. For, that bread and a cup of water are placed with certain incantations in the mystic rites of one who is being initiated, you either know or can learn.

—The above is from http://www.newadvent...athers/0126.htm
Notice the comparisons Justin has just made:

1. Christianity teaches the same things as the poets and philosophers. He cites Plato, Menander, Sibyl, Hystaspes, and Stoics.
2. Jesus is similar to: the sons of Jupiter: Mercury; Æsculapius; Bacchus; Hercules; the sons of Leda, and Dioscuri; and Perseus, son of Danae; and Bellerophon. They were all produced without sexual union. They all suffered an untimely death. They all ascended into heaven.
3. The Logos, or Word of God, an epithet of Jesus Christ, was also an epithet of Mercury. (John 1:1-4)

Note that Justin Martyr can offer no better explanation why Christianity is so similar to other preexisting religions other than declaring it to be the work of "wicked devils".

#3 stankowalski

stankowalski

    A Hard Walker

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,793 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 05:36 PM

Justin is a douche.

#4 Htar

Htar

    Senior Member

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 1,599 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 06:25 PM

Well, it's good to know that being good or bad has no ramifacation, and that living by rules is utterly futile since none of this matters at all.

#5 tattoorhino

tattoorhino

    Follower of Christ

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 06:49 PM

Can we beat a dead horse anymore? I dont have the time to trash all your info which I have done one more than on occassion, and I know your just putting the info out there for debate, but like I said none of this matters to me. Believe it, dont believe it, in the end I will have to answer for what I believe or I wont. If I have lived a life pleasing to Christ and there isnt one I have lost nothing. SO WHAT! Can we give it a rest already? Christians are dumb, religion is dumb, Jesus is Santa Clause, Jesus is the sungod, Jesus is a myth, blah, blah, blah. Do we need ten other threads trashing what some of hold near and dear to our hearts? I am begging you to give it a rest. Please? Can you go back to posting ten threads a day about how white people are racists and cops are out to kill all the blacks? Please, Please, Please.......PLEASE.
I dont bash anyone religious beliefs on here. I dont bash Jews, Muslims, Flying Spaghetti Monster, whatever, out of respect. Would it be tooooooo much to ask to leave mine alone for 5 minutes. I dont push my beliefs on anyone and I really am growing tired of defending it. You could tell me tommorrow with undeniable proof that none of this happened and I WOULD STILL BELIEVE IT. Can we drop it now?

#6 tattoorhino

tattoorhino

    Follower of Christ

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:10 PM

Here is a pretty good read if you want a different take on why some of us believe.

Im not asking anyone to believe this but I believe alot of it, its a good "Study" regardless


Is Believing in God a Psychological Crutch?

Taken from Is Believing in God Irrational? by Amy Orr-Ewing, a forthcoming title from InterVarsity Press. Copyright © 2008 by Amy Orr- Ewing. Used with permission of InterVarsity Press, PO Box 1400, Downers Grove, IL 60515. www.ivpress.com.

It was strange walking down a hospital corridor with a growing sense of foreboding, getting closer to the consultant’s office and wondering what he would say. I was fifteen years old and had the afternoon off school to receive the results from the operation I had undergone the week before. A mole on my leg had begun to turn dark, and my doctor had decided to remove it as a precaution. My mother and I entered the office together and sat down. The consultant leaned over the desk and said, “I’m afraid it’s cancer.”

Those words still echo in my head now as I write them; the shock, the fear, the bewildering emotions rushed through my body from head to toe. He went on to explain that it was, in fact, a borderline case of melanoma and that they would need to do a further operation to make absolutely sure that I was in the clear. But those stark words “it’s cancer” stayed with me. What was life all about? What was it for? Was there a purpose for my life? Was my life over?

Well, as you have probably guessed, I survived. My life was not yet over; it was to last more than fifteen years. Through the experience of the cancer, I encountered a God who is near us in suffering, a God who makes his presence known. I remember lying in my bed, shaking with fear and calling out to God, who then tangibly filled my bedroom and lifted the fear and blackness from my chest. As Psalm 30:1-3 says,

I will exalt you, O Lord,
for you lifted me out of the depths
and did not let my enemies gloat over me.
O Lord my God, I called to you for help
and you healed me.
O Lord, you brought me up from the grave;
you spared me from going down into the pit.

As life has gone on, friends have died suddenly, members of my community in London have been on the receiving end of horrific violence, and the questions of the human heart have kept on coming year after year as I have traveled and met people of different ages, backgrounds and nationalities.

I have found that many people have questions about Christian experience. These questions can be genuine objections to Christianity or things that trouble Christians in the back of their minds. During my journey of talking to the many people who have asked me all the questions in this book, I’ve discovered that finding answers is a real challenge because the questions do not just touch on intellectual ideas but are undergirded by emotional realities and the pain of life. The issues examined in this book have all emerged during conversations in the course of the last couple of years.

Is God real? Is it possible to know anything—let alone to know him? Why do bad things happen to people who worship this God? What about the spiritual experiences of other faiths? All these questions and more have come out of real-life situations, so whether you are an atheist or someone who wonders if there just might be something more to Christianity than you first thought, I hope that, as you read this book, at least some of the thoughts offered here will help you to see what the Christian faith has to say amid all the pain, confusion and complexity of life.

Your Relationship with God Is Just a Psychological Crutch!

Has anyone ever told you that your faith is a “crutch”? I remember getting into a black taxi outside a central London church. The cabbie took one look at my Bible and launched into his opinion of Christianity. He explained to me with pity and pathos that belief in God is a crutch for weak, pathetic people who don’t have the strength to take responsibility for their own lives.

When he finished his lengthy thesis, he looked at me in the mirror as if expecting my response. When I answered, “Thank you very much,” with just a hint of irony, he blustered on, likely hoping to increase the diminishing likelihood of a tip with, “Well, I’m just saying it for your own good. A girl like you doesn’t need religion!”

This idea that Christian faith is a psychological crutch for needy people is a pervasive one. At its root are a number of assumptions. The first is that God is merely a psychological projection. He doesn’t actually exist, not in any real sense; he exists only in the minds of his followers. In fact, the thinking goes, these minds have created him out of their own need. That could be a need for a father figure or a need to give significance to existence by believing in a God who created the world.

Where does this idea come from—this concept of God as a creation or projection of human minds that is propounded by so many? Its most famous proponent was the thinker Sigmund Freud (1856-1939). Freud was an Austrian neurologist and the founder of psychoanalysis, a movement that popularized the theory that unconscious motives control much human behavior. His theories and his treatment of patients were controversial in nineteenth-century Vienna and remain hotly debated today. His research was wide ranging and complex, but for our purposes we examine in particular his commitment to the notion of God as entirely a projection of the human mind.

God as Psychological Projection

Though a Jew, Freud was an atheist for most of his life. He went through a brief period of “wavering” on the issue of God in his university days—during which time he wrote to a friend, “The bad part of it, especially for me, lies in the fact that science of all things seems to demand the existence of a God”1—yet he emerged from his studies without religious conviction. Freud’s peers, and many authors of the time, were immersed in scientific materialism, and he remained a strident atheist. Another factor may have been the appalling anti-Semitism that swept through his native and culturally Roman Catholic Austria. In the light of his experiences of the weakness of Christianity at repelling such vitriol, one writer comments, “One can understand Freud’s motivation to discredit and destroy what he called the ‘religious Weltanschauung (worldview)’ and why he referred to religion as ‘the enemy.’ ”2

In arguing against the existence of God, Freud believed that an individual’s perspective on what God is like sprung from his or her experience of their own father. When people grow up and find themselves alone in the world they cannot go on looking to human parents for security but must find some other more ultimate source of security and end up positing a God to fill this role.

He argued that it is this human need to rise above the vulnerability and frailty of adult existence that leads to us positing the existence of some higher power or God: “When the growing individual finds that he is destined to remain a child for ever, that he can never do without protection against strange superior powers, he lends those powers the features belonging to the figure of his father.”3

From this perspective, God is merely a creation of the human mind, a projection emanating from human need and desire rather than a distinct reality or being that exists independently of the human mind. Freud’s notion of God acting as an idealized father figure for humans, providing a cushion from the harshness of the real world and a comforting friend in the midst of life’s troubles, reduces God to a human construct. Indeed, for Freud, God is made in humanity’s own image and is the “ultimate wish-fulfillment”; God does not actually exist but is merely the creation of humanity’s imagination and desire for a loving father figure.4

How might a Christian respond to this? Can God really be explained away so easily by one aspect of psychology? Of course, the most obvious point to make in response is that this argument about projection cuts both ways. After all, isn’t it equally possible to say that Freud and other atheists deny the existence of God out of a need to escape from a father figure, or to argue that the nonexistence of God springs from a deepseated desire for no father figure to exist?

Clearly this doesn’t prove that God is real, but it does help us see that Freud’s arguments cannot prove that God does not exist, while at the same time helping us tackle the question of projection. After all, dismissing God as a psychological projection while claiming neutrality in our own psyche is disingenuous at best and cannot be an adequate basis for rejecting God. This is rather like the mother who sees her child swearing and is so overcome with fury that she ends up swearing at her child while telling him off. When her child asks about this inconsistency, she replies, “Don’t do what I do, do what I say!” We may well cringe inwardly when we hear something like this in a supermarket or airplane, but trying to do away with God as if he were a psychological projection is actually rather similar. The protagonist is saying that you as a Christian are subject to psychological factors but I, the skeptic, am not.

#7 tattoorhino

tattoorhino

    Follower of Christ

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:11 PM

It also becomes quickly apparent that a Freudian belief in God as a human projection cannot provide us with an explanation for the Christian faith of converts who would rather not believe but find themselves compelled by evidence. I have known many people who have started out as strongly convinced nonbelievers but have found that when they looked at real evidence of God and began to read the Bible, they found themselves convinced—almost against their will—that it is actually true and real. It is then that a decision must be made: will I now respond to what I believe is true, or will I sweep it under the carpet? Alister McGrath writes,

Back in the 1960s, we were told that religion was fading
away, to be replaced by a secular world. For some of us
that sounded like a great thing. I was an atheist back
in the late 1960s, and remember looking forward to the
demise of religion with a certain grim pleasure. I had
grown up in Northern Ireland, and had known religious
tensions and violence at first hand. . . . The future was
bright and godless. . . . I started out as an atheist, who
went on to become a Christian. I had originally intended
to spend my life in scientific research, but found that my
discovery of Christianity led me to study its history and
ideas in greater depth. I gained my doctorate in molecular
biophysics while working in the Oxford laboratories
of Sir George Radda, but then gave up active scientific
research to study theology.5


In fact, we may go further than nullifying this argument that God is a projection of the mind by turning it on its head and suggesting that a desire for a God who can fulfill our needs and provide moral order exists precisely because human beings have been designed and created to desire them. The man floating on a raft at sea is unbearably thirsty, but he won’t just get a drink of water simply by being thirsty. But the very existence of his thirst does show that a way for his desire to be satisfied actually exists: fresh water. As C. S. Lewis put it, “Creatures are not born with desires unless satisfaction for those desires exists.”6

Lewis is an interesting case here because he was a contemporary of Freud and an atheist himself into his thirties. He famously described his unhappiness before turning to Christ as resulting from “an unsatisfied desire which is itself more desirable than any other satisfaction.”7 Lewis described this desire as “Joy,” and he spoke of finding it for himself when he surrendered to God: “To be united with that Life in the eternal Sonship of Christ is . . . the only thing worth a moment’s consideration.”8 He argued that the inborn longing one feels as a human being is a desire for a relationship with the Creator God and that the very presence of this desire within us suggests the existence of God.

While Freud believed that human desire could be fulfilled in the ordinary run of life, Lewis argued that “earthly pleasures were never meant to satisfy it but only to arouse it, to suggest the real thing. If that is so, I must take care . . . never to mistake them [earthly pleasures] for the something else of which they are only a kind of copy, or echo, or mirage.”9 For the Christian it is a relationship with God that brings humans this genuine fulfillment. The French mathematician Blaise Pascal put it beautifully:

There once was in man a true happiness, of which all that
now remains is the empty print and trace. This he tries
in vain to fill with everything around him, seeking in
things that are not there the help he cannot find in those
that are, though none can help, because the infinite abyss
can be filled only with an infinite and immutable object;
in other words, by God himself.10

St. Augustine famously said of God, “Thou movest us to delight in praising You; for You have formed us for Yourself, and our hearts are restless till they find rest in You.”11 And Woody Allen mused on this from the opposite perspective when he said as an atheist analyzing life, “More than any other time in history, mankind faces a crossroads. One path leads to despair and utter hopelessness. The other, to total extinction. Let us pray we have the wisdom to choose correctly.”12

And so we have seen that God cannot be dispensed with as if he were a mere psychological projection without atheism being equally treated as the same. But more than that, the desire for God, rather than undermining his existence, points to its reality. After all, if human beings are created by God in his image as the Bible teaches, shouldn’t we expect a divine fingerprint and the possibility of relationship between creature and Creator?

However, ultimately for the Christian the important question is not whether I have a psychological need for a father figure or a desire for a father figure not to exist. Rather, the question is about what actually exists: is God really there? The way to come to any conclusions about that is to investigate the evidence for his existence.13

So we have observed that the first assumption in the statement “Your relationship with God is just a psychological crutch!” is that God is merely a psychological projection. The second assumption that we encounter is that, because belief in God provides the faithful with a crutch, it is somehow suspect.

God as Talisman

The skeptic implies that since the believer finds protection from the cruelty and evil of the world, the idea of God is like a talisman, an irrational superstition. Freud makes the same point: “religious ideas have arisen from the same need
as have all other achievements of civilization: from the necessity of defending oneself against the crushingly superior force of nature.”14 Humans need to find comfort and meaning in the midst of the pain of life as well as a guide for how
to live, and they look to God for this. The religious believer views the evolution of morality within human societies as moral absolutes revealed and upheld by God. This belief in absolutes then provides an unreal but comforting refuge in
a dark world, so that the individual can feel safe in his or her own status before God and secure in the knowledge that evildoers will be punished.


Freud argues against what he sees as an unreal supernatural power who arbitrarily imposes moral standards on humans. For him, God exists only inside the human mind and has been imagined into existence at the whim of carnal desires. He writes, “We shall tell ourselves that it would be very nice if there were a God who created the world and was a benevolent Providence, and if there were a moral order in the universe and an after-life; but it is the very striking fact that all this is exactly as we are bound to wish it to be.”15 Later he states,

Since it is an awkward task to separate what God himself
has demanded from what can be traced to the authority
of an all-powerful parliament or a high judiciary, it would
be an undoubted advantage if we were to leave God out
altogether and honestly admit the purely human origin
of all the regulations and precepts of civilization.16

One writer comments: “Humans, now educated and enlightened by science, begin to grow out of their childlike belief in God and recognize morals as man-made rules put into place for their own benefit. . . . Freud believed that as education increased and scientific research continued, humans would slowly stop believing in God and begin to recognize that God was simply an expression of their wishes.”17 But if belief in God makes sense of the world and provides a positive moral framework that helps people to live constructively, that in itself is not a reason to disbelieve in him. Similarly, if relationship with God enables the believer to find healing, wholeness and comfort in the midst of their human suffering, we should not be surprised. After all, clearly, if God is real it will have a massive impact on life and on the experience of life.


Only for the Weak and Inferior

#8 tattoorhino

tattoorhino

    Follower of Christ

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:11 PM

The third assumption is that people who make use of this “crutch” of relationship with God, and find it practical, meaningful and effective, must be weak or inferior. This is a rather strange idea, since surely it makes sense to access real sources of support and relationship that are there for us. This reminds me of the story of a man who had been given a suitcase filled with money. He was told that if he could successfully give away this money, he would receive the same amount again for himself. The only condition was that each banknote had to go to a different person. So he thought to himself, This will be easy. I’m going to be rich! He ran out into the nearest shopping street, opened his suitcase and started shouting, “Roll up, roll up— free money—absolutely no catch. Come and take it.

Most people passed straight by, not even looking at him. A few slowed their pace but thought better of it. One woman stopped and asked, “What’s the catch? What are you going to try to get out of me?” “Absolutely nothing,” the man replied. “It really is free money. Please take it.” “No, I don’t think so,” she said, and walked off. A very small proportion of the shoppers on that day took the free money. They were so suspicious as to be convinced that no deal could really be that simple and easy. The money really was free, with no strings attached, and the logical thing to do was to accept it.

In the same way, if a God of love does exist, the rational thing to do is to accept his love, to come to know him. Entering into that kind of a relationship will have a positive effect, but that does not make the person weaker or somehow inferior to anyone else.

In contrast to the implication that those who need God are somehow inferior specimens of the human race is the Christian belief that there is an essential equality within humanity— all humans are precious beings who have been made in the image of God. At the same time, all humans are sinful and equally in need of God.

Freud did not really take issue with this idea of human fallibility; in fact, he believed in the reality of shame and guilt. Yet in his closed universe, with no ultimate authority, he struggled to deal with good and evil. As a consequence, he looked to the ideal of education as the solution. People must be taught that ethical behavior is in their own best interest, he stated; once they became well educated, they would naturally behave ethically. But can we really be sure that education in and of itself necessarily produces goodness? As one scholar notes, “Freud wrote this in 1927 before the Nazi rise in educated Germany.”18

Yet even before that—as far back as 1913—Freud confessed to a friend, “That psychoanalysis has not made the analysts themselves better, nobler, or of stronger character remains a disappointment to me.”19

The idea that Christianity is a crutch for weak people assumes that God is a human invention, that he is a psychological projection. We have seen that this argument cuts both ways as it could equally be argued that atheism is a psychological phenomenon and so it is nullified as a reasonable basis for rejecting God. The idea also assumes that belief in God provides people with a “crutch” and should be regarded with suspicion. Here we saw that something working ought not be a reason for rejecting it. On the contrary, if God does exist, we should surely expect his existence to have a real palpable impact on our lives.

As C. S. Lewis put it, “We may ignore, but we can nowhere evade, the presence of God. The world is crowded with Him.” 20 To enter into a relationship with God is a logical response if he actually exists and reveals himself to people. It is only if he is not real that we ought to be worried about the “crutch” he provides.

And finally, we saw that we do not necessarily need to be weaker than or inferior to others if we accept God’s offer of relationship and become Christians. In fact, it is the logical, reasonable response if God himself is real.

#9 tattoorhino

tattoorhino

    Follower of Christ

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 07:54 PM

I really just wanted to make a really long post and see if KK would read it and comment on different items in it. He usually doesnt read anything he post first so I know he wont read this. I do still love him anyway.

#10 pstall

pstall

    Gazebo Effect

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 20,967 posts

Posted 05 December 2008 - 10:36 PM

And what does this all have to do with the individual?
Smoke screens and searching for loopholes to avoid personal responsibilites.

But, if you don't believe, its a total waste of time.
There are myriad of things I DON'T believe in and I don't spend a NANO second on.

#11 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,056 posts

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:49 AM

just going to jump into this post randomly

In the same way, if a God of love does exist, the rational thing to do is to accept his love, to come to know him. Entering into that kind of a relationship will have a positive effect, but that does not make the person weaker or somehow inferior to anyone else.

no, it doesn't make sense. Simply because someone loves you doesn't mean you return the love, nor does every loving relationship necessarily have a positive effect.

In contrast to the implication that those who need God are somehow inferior specimens of the human race is the Christian belief that there is an essential equality within humanity— all humans are precious beings who have been made in the image of God. At the same time, all humans are sinful and equally in need of God.

at no point in the history of the christian or catholic church have they ever exhibited what the author describes as a "christian belief." and while I don't know your specific beliefs or the authors and don't pretend to, i do know that to this day people are being denied essential equality within humanity in the name of a christian god

Freud did not really take issue with this idea of human fallibility; in fact, he believed in the reality of shame and guilt. Yet in his closed universe, with no ultimate authority, he struggled to deal with good and evil. As a consequence, he looked to the ideal of education as the solution. People must be taught that ethical behavior is in their own best interest, he stated; once they became well educated, they would naturally behave ethically. But can we really be sure that education in and of itself necessarily produces goodness? As one scholar notes, “Freud wrote this in 1927 before the Nazi rise in educated Germany.”18

lol freud

We have seen that this argument cuts both ways as it could equally be argued that atheism is a psychological phenomenon and so it is nullified as a reasonable basis for rejecting God.

um, what?

is this really a christian apologist response to the idea that god was an evolutionary construct? "Yeah, well, atheism was a construct because you couldn't handle the idea of god! ha!" I'm sorry the contra positive doesn't really work in this case.

honestly the author's entire premise in asking whether or not belief in god is rational is flawed because she's approaching it as if a christian god exists.

and why do these kinds of articles constantly reference CS Lewis? No one takes him seriously that doesn't already slap their bible silly. These things are just incestuous hogwash.

#12 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,056 posts

Posted 06 December 2008 - 12:52 AM

oh yeah and the short answer for why christianity shares so much in common with old pagan roman religions and borrows from judaism is because it was well designed and they wanted to attract as many followers as possible. what better way than to incorporate almost every single thing they already do

#13 tattoorhino

tattoorhino

    Follower of Christ

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 06 December 2008 - 01:02 AM

Thanks for an honest reply. What do I believe? I believe Jesus Christ was the Son of God. I believe He died on the cross so that my sins could be cleansed and that I might have eternal life. I believe everyone is eligible for that same love and grace no matter skin color, sexual preference, criminal tendencies, ect, everyone. I believe Jesus taught us to love our God with all our hearts and to love our neighbor as ourself. I practice that because I believe thats what my Savior would want me to do. Will he love me less if I dont do it, NO. Will he love me more if I do it, NO. His love is constant and thats what I believe.
Do I agree with everything this author wrote? Not all but most. I really just wanted to give a different view than was presented and I didnt have alot of time to look for a really good response which I have done several times before the crash. And C.S. Lewis is as brilliant as Stephen Hawkins if thats all the atheist has to stand on. I have seen Ravi Zacharias eat him alive in several debates, so if its all about a peeing contest then there are several ways to look at it. The facts are none of us have total PROOF God exists or God doesnt, if you say you do then you are a liar. All Im trying to say and have always been trying to say is thats what I believe and you are free to believe what you want, I just dont find it fair or respectful to think believing in God makes you and idiot. Thats all. I dont tear done other religions and I dont tell atheists there idiots for believing in nothing, but the same shoe doesnt seem to fit the athiests and agnostics on this boards foot.

#14 tattoorhino

tattoorhino

    Follower of Christ

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 608 posts

Posted 06 December 2008 - 01:07 AM

Here are a few other things to chew on...

asked my friend, “Have you really thought about some of the evidences for God? Or, are you presupposing a purely naturalistic world, and closing your eyes to some of the possible evidence? If I propose some observational evidence, are you even open to examining it?”

My friend asked me to go on. So, here’s my attempt at some basic scientific observations that point to God:

Causation. God provides the best explanation for the existence of the universe and all that's in it. (The alternative theory is that "nothing" exploded and resulted in everything that we see.)
Order. God provides the best explanation for abstract notions such as numbers, mathematical formulae, chemical-based processes, and natural laws. (The alternative theory is that the chaotic first elements ordered themselves into complex information systems.)
Design. God provides the best explanation for the absolute complexity inherent in cosmological, stellar, planetary, chemical and biological systems. (The alternative theory is that random chance engineered apparent design.)
Encoded Instructions. God provides the best explanation for the digital DNA code contained in and controlling the functions of all life on earth. (The alternative theory is that complex code, such as binary code running computers, can pop into existence without any kind of programming, testing and debugging process.)
Irreducible Complexity. God provides the best explanation for fully functioning biological organisms, systems, and subsystems that couldn’t come about through gradual evolutionary process without totally ceasing to exist at lower, evolutionary levels. (The alternative theory is that biological systems took huge, unseen leaps from simple to complex without any guided process or forward-looking instructions.)
Duality. God provides the best explanation for the separate human functions of brain and conscience (matter and mind). (The alternative theory is monism -- only matter exists and the human brain only appears to have a separate subconscious ability.)
Morality. God provides the best explanation for the existence of love, emotion, altruism, and inherent moral/ethical values throughout the world. (The alternative theory is that unguided materialistic processes evolve higher human consciousness.)

Does God Exist – A Scientific Conclusion
When it comes to the question of “Does God Exist,” there are only two scientific worldviews -- Someone/Something did it, or it did itself. Whether it’s the beginning of the cosmos or the beginning of life, the beginning of mankind or the beginning of mind, either Someone/Something is responsible for everything we see or it’s responsible for itself.

“Does God Exist?” Is this really a question for science at all? Actually, it seems this is a matter of forensic science, since we can’t re-create the birth of the universe or the formation of first life in a laboratory. Therefore, we collect the observable evidence in our world and apply our forensic investigation skills to analyze its collective meaning. In the end, we all need to collect and examine the evidence for ourselves. Ultimately, whether couched as scientific inquiry or purely religious/moral/philosophical faith, it’s not a matter for the laboratory. It’s a personal, investigative decision for each and every one of us.

#15 Fiz

Fiz

    SENIOR HUDDLER

  • HUDDLER
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 11,056 posts

Posted 06 December 2008 - 01:16 AM

I believe everyone is eligible for that same love and grace no matter skin color, sexual preference, criminal tendencies, ect, everyone.

what about the millions of people who die never having been told about the christian idea of a god through no fault of their own? what about everyone that died before monotheistic judaism left the 100 square miles it originally inhabited?

I really just wanted to give a different view than was presented and I didnt have alot of time to look for a really good response which I have done several times before the crash.

but that's not a different response. it has nothing at all to do with the original article posted. The OP goes into the historical connections (im assuming. i just skimmed it but i've read quite a few books about that subject in the past) and your reply refuted none of it. it was basically just a bunch of twee little thoughts.

And C.S. Lewis is as brilliant as Stephen Hawkins if thats all the atheist has to stand on.

um somehow i don't think CS Lewis' abilities to rationalize god for people that are desperate for constant rationalization anyway really compares to astrophysics

I have seen Ravi Zacharias eat him alive in several debates, so if its all about a peeing contest then there are several ways to look at it.

eat who alive, Stephen Hawking? wow, that must be something.

The facts are none of us have total PROOF God exists or God doesnt, if you say you do then you are a liar.

i don't have proof that there isn't an invisible purple unicorn in my room right now. of course there's no evidence that he is in my room or does exist at all, but i don't have a light that stays on as long as previous mentioned invisible mythical creature isn't in my room. however, no one would ever claim that since i didn't have that light i didn't have any proof and therefore i'd be a bigot or presumptive to say there isn't one in here. see what im saying?

let me put it another way. you have no proof that muhammad didn't ascend into heaven on a firey horse. how do you know that he wasn't god's prophet? how can you say he wasn't?

i know christians and what no like to say "well you can't proof he DOESNT exist so haha!" but it really doesn't work like that. i can't provide proof against something that was designed to not need proof. i will say that if you consider yourself a christian, than the god you worshipped used to be directly doing a lot more things than he does now. one would think that figuring out what causes disease (viruses) would be proof against god since people used to belief the black plague was just the big guy punishing people, but things like that tend to get brushed under the rug.

I just dont find it fair or respectful to think believing in God makes you and idiot.


you're believing in something with absolutely no proof that makes no logical sense.

like i said, what would you think of me if i told you the purple unicorn was watching me?

think of it this way: you're just like me, except I believe in one less god than you do.


Shop at Amazon Contact Us: info@carolinahuddle.com