If not there, where? If not then, when?

[dgs49]

To Meade's point, we easily lose sight of how spectacularly successful has been the publication of Jesus' message, considering its humble origins. We have a relatively insignificant man at an unremarkable time in an infinitesimal little country, carrying a counter-cultural message that was whispered rather than shouted. Its early adherents were persecuted, prosecuted, and killed. And yet, here we are a relative heartbeat later in the scope of human history, and there are few places on the planet where that message is unknown.

The message has been distorted beyond belief, manipulated, used, and abused; it has been carried by all manner of scoundrels, phonies, and manipulators; it has survived countless scandals that continue through the present day.

And yet, the simple basics of it have withstood the test of time, both theologically and philosophically. We have to contend with a natural world that can kill or maim us at any moment, our basic human nature is to be selfish, greedy, and cruel (so don't expect anything good from your fellow man), but God loves us and wants us to be happy with him for eternity. He told us what to believe and how to live, told us what to expect in this life when we do so (not much), but promised eternal salvation if we do it.

Philosophically, we are to love one another - even our enemies - and treat everyone the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Name a better philosophy of life. There is none. And for those who point to Bhuddism, I suggest you go to countries where it prevails (e.g., Thailand), it's really pretty silly. Consider that Bhuddists are huge gamblers, making constant donations at shrines for good luck (at the gambling table).

For those who are looking for a Big Sign in the Sky, I say, grow up. If you can't be convinced of the existence, power, and goodness of God in nature and where you see it in others (rare as it is), then no Sign in the Sky would convince you either.

I can't think of any better time or place or manner for God to have announced his Plan.

[thestoat]

dgs, I do agree that the message has been very successful. But it was around a long time before Jesus. The fact that he nicked it and people now attribute it to him would be worthy of the finest in PR. But the message was not his.

[Gob]

Gob, that's not at all a fair or reasonable response and I think you know that. Place and time: what is your answer?

Now if your answer really is that he should have written it across the sky 6,000 years ago (and what is the "it" that should have been written?) which is very far from being the beginning of the world (I thought you knew that it was millions of years ago?)... well that's a bit silly isn't it? Full marks for facetiousness but zero for rationality.

If you don't want to talk sensibly about it, then OK. Game set and match to me and I'll take my prize in mints please

Meade

Sorry you took it that way Meade, but i was being serious.

If god wants us to choose to obey rules or not, to exercise this alleged free will that we have, then god should state the rules he wants us to follow (not screwing other men, eating ham, shape of our beards, when we should pray, etc etc) unambiguously for all people. Do do anything else is not worthy of a god.

[alice]

To Meade's point, we easily lose sight of how spectacularly successful has been the publication of Jesus' message, considering its humble origins. We have a relatively insignificant man at an unremarkable time in an infinitesimal little country, carrying a counter-cultural message that was whispered rather than shouted. Its early adherents were persecuted, prosecuted, and killed. And yet, here we are a relative heartbeat later in the scope of human history, and there are few places on the planet where that message is unknown.

That's a fair point as a description of the very beginnings..

But the beginnings of Christianity is no more spectacular that the beginnings and spread of other religions and other culturally important events. To highlight the rise of Christianity as being spectacular above all else is, of course, ignoring Indian, Aborigine, African tribal, the various Eastern philosophies, and any other 'non-Christian' belief, all of which would have had equally 'humble origins'.
And there are other, equally amazing incidents that have seemingly insignificant beginnings but in the end have enormous historical context, with or without a religious shaping.

Regarding the specific comment: Christianity did grow into a pretty big movement back in that far away time, and then the message began to be shouted, not whispered. And historically, that little country and the surrounding areas became a very important part of the early origins of our modern society - not just because of any religious significance.

The message has been distorted beyond belief, manipulated, used, and abused; it has been carried by all manner of scoundrels, phonies, and manipulators; it has survived countless scandals that continue through the present day.

But the distortions, manipulations, phonies etc usually, historically, came from within the church, and were part of the tool that pushed the spread of Christianity into the huge organisation we have today. In effect, Christianity survived, thrived and grew into its present format(s) because of those internal abuses and manipulators.

For example, included in the relative heartbeat brief summary of the rise of Christianity would have to be the 'other' persecutions - the time when masses were persecuted by the dominant nation of the day for not being christian. That helped the rise of Christianity to become a major doctrine. At that time Christianity was promoted for political, not genuine and sincere religious reasons, and the 'word of God' was rearranged and adapted to suit the political manipulations of the day. Even the important religious celebrations were rearranged so as to swallow other established traditions and bully the word of God onto people. The religious and political intertwining and corruption of that era was a huge step in not just shouting the religious message, but also forcing it, wanted or not, onto the masses.

And then to the last point: one of the reasons - and probably the primary reason - that there are few places on the planet that the message of Christianity is unknown is because of the extremely active and extremely 'passive aggressive' push of Christianity in relatively recent times. For example the missionaries who ventured into unknown territories to tame and educate the 'savages' for the whole purpose of converting them from whatever their established culture was, to Christianity. In that way Christianity pushed its way into cultures that it considered backward for not having the Christian religion, and brainwashed and bribed its way into many places on the planet, wiping out the languages and cultures of generations. Of course the message is going to be known, if it's forced onto people. That doesn't make the message right.

And yet, the simple basics of it have withstood the test of time, both theologically and philosophically. We have to contend with a natural world that can kill or maim us at any moment, our basic human nature is to be selfish, greedy, and cruel (so don't expect anything good from your fellow man), but God loves us and wants us to be happy with him for eternity. He told us what to believe and how to live, told us what to expect in this life when we do so (not much), but promised eternal salvation if we do it.

The natural world that can kill or maim us is like that because of God. Our basic human nature is like that because of God.
How can God love us and want us to be happy, but be so cruel at the same time?

Philosophically, we are to love one another - even our enemies - and treat everyone the way we would like to be treated ourselves. Name a better philosophy of life. There is none.

Love other as yourself etc etc is a basic concept behind most of the major philosophies and many religions, including some that predate Christianity. So while I agree there is no better philosophy in life, it isn't a selling point for Christianity.

And for those who point to Bhuddism, I suggest you go to countries where it prevails (e.g., Thailand), it's really pretty silly. Consider that Bhuddists are huge gamblers, making constant donations at shrines for good luck (at the gambling table).

Why is that any sillier than Christians donating their money to the church? Church money doesn't all go to the poor - it goes to the betterment of that particular branch of Christianity. As an example - an obvious example - the Catholic Church is very rich and powerful thanks to the money of its worshippers.
And most of those worshippers make their donations with the same logic as the people donating at the shrine for Buddha - personal good luck, personal salvation, personal betterment in the 'next life' etc etc.
So people worshipping and donating to other religions are no sillier than people worshipping their personal christian or other deity.

It's a very closed minded and arrogant attitude to put 'your' religion and belief above any others, no matter what you believe. If you truly believe that your basic Christian principle is to love others as yourself and treat them like you want to be treated, and you truly believe that you are a 'good Christian', then you wouldn't be so snide and dismissive of people just because they have differing beliefs and customs. You would be appreciating them for what they are and allowing everyone to live side by side in happy harmony.

For those who are looking for a Big Sign in the Sky, I say, grow up. If you can't be convinced of the existence, power, and goodness of God in nature and where you see it in others (rare as it is), then no Sign in the Sky would convince you either.

Again this dismisses other religions and cultures. If there is one God above all else, what would be the harm in him doing some big sign in the sky to show us all that he's there. The existence, power and 'goodness' (and horribleness) of nature can be equally explained by many other cultures, religions, beliefs, philosophies. And can also be explained scientifically.
The existence of the world and nature isn't proof of the Christian God, and again an attitude of Christian superior arrogance comes through in that statement..

I can't think of any better time or place or manner for God to have announced his Plan.

There hasn't been an announcement. Just a few vague hints, all open to speculative interpretation and all equally explained in other ways. If there was a definite announcement, people - generally - wouldn't have spent the last 2,000 years guessing and fighting and manipulating and abusing, all in the name of the word of God.

[Sorry this is so long, probably full of mistakes and probably long winded. I'm meant to be getting ready to catch my plane but keep getting drawn back to this debate ]

*edited for a few typos that were too awful to leave in *

[alice]

... Alice, is there some way, you could convince Guin to come back? [/i]

Much appreciated, loCAtek.

I don't know Guin, so wouldn't be able to convince her of much at all, I'm afraid.

[Andrew D]

God could reveal her/him/itself to each of us directly instead of leaving us to rely on a book cobbled together by people (and Christians can't even agree on what works belong in it) and a "tradition" that has about as variations as the cultures in which it has appeared.

[thestoat]

Big up for Alice!

[loCAtek]

Seems to me that there is a contradiction here. On one hand you say that when god intervenes we don't learn and "start worshipping cows", yet on the other hand you say that he does these things for us to learn. If we aren't learning his lessons then either he isn't a good teacher, which goes against the omni-thing, or we're crap students, which, since he created us, goes against the omni-thing.

If he wanted us to have that knowledge then he could just implant it in our heads. Save a lot of time

A good teacher doesn't make you memorize, or implant dogma; that's creating mindlessness. Mindfulness is knowing not in the fullness of your head, but fullness in your heart. Some call this love.

[thestoat]

So we're crap students, which, since he created us, goes against the omni thing.

[Sean]

Unless of course he made us crap students on purpose as part of some divine master plan...

After all, God is much like a dancing Englishman.

[thestoat]

By "dancing Englishman", do you mean "Morris Dancer"?

[loCAtek]

So we're crap students, which, since he created us, goes against the omni thing.

Speak for yourself, mate

[Sean]

By "dancing Englishman", do you mean "Morris Dancer"?

No, I mean he moves in mysterious ways...

[Gob]

[MajGenl.Meade]

There'll be the breaking of the ancient
western code
Your private life will suddenly explode
There'll be phantoms
There'll be fires on the road
and the white man dancing
You'll see a woman
hanging upside down
her features covered by her fallen gown
and all the lousy little poets
coming round
tryin' to sound like Charlie Manson
and the white man dancin'

[MajGenl.Meade]

Alice:

But the beginnings of Christianity is no more spectacular that the beginnings and spread of other religions and other culturally important events. To highlight the rise of Christianity as being spectacular above all else is, of course, ignoring Indian, Aborigine, African tribal, the various Eastern philosophies, and any other 'non-Christian' belief, all of which would have had equally 'humble origins'

It is not accurate to say that the beginnings of Christianity are “no more spectacular” than other religions. No other religion is based upon the identification of a verifiably existent in time human being as the Son of God, raised from the dead. If those claims are false, then Christianity is rubbish and should be discarded. If they are true, all other belief systems are rubbish and should be discarded.

Of course the message is going to be known, if it's forced onto people. That doesn't make the message right

And it doesn’t make it wrong either. It is anti-historical to make sweeping generalizations about the motives, means and methods of missionaries. Granting the existence of extremely un-Christian actions and beliefs of some, it was also missionaries who built hospitals, schools and (yes) the benefits of civilised social interactions to so many places and peoples. Much was wrong but much was right. The “noble savage” view is as wrong as the “ignorant savage” view. Cases: there is a perhaps a huge difference between the interaction of missionaries and the Zulu (which effectively ended the routine deaths of hundreds of thousands of Zulus and the peoples they continually conquered and drove out) and the interaction of missionaries and aborigines in Australia (about which I know little).

The natural world that can kill or maim us is like that because of God. Our basic human nature is like that because of God. How can God love us and want us to be happy, but be so cruel at the same time?

No, that is not so, other than the fact that there is a world and humans because of God. These things obtain because of man. Our basic human nature was to be rational, free humans in the “image” of God. This doesn’t mean physical image. It refers to free-agency and the ability to choose. Adam (and Eve) chose to sin against God and brought the knowledge of good and evil into the world. All things are tainted by their action; Adam’s descendants bore his likeness Gen. 4:3 (i.e. including the sin nature). That is how mankind can declare love for others but be so cruel at the same time.

This is not the best of all possible worlds but it is the best world possible that will lead to the perfection we seek. God has provided the way of salvation for all those who will choose to accept it. All people, even those who refuse to accept it, know what it is. It is clear and not at all confused or confusing.

I have yet to meet an atheist (or a Christian) who would want to recognize a God who constantly intervened in their own “nature” to force them to do what is right, to think what is right, to stop them from acting according to their own desires. I have yet to meet a rational person (Christian or other) who thinks that the laws of nature should be suspended by God arbitrarily to prevent earthquakes and tidal waves, to cause people who jump from tall buildings to float gently to the ground, or to change the world according to the liking of… well who? Me, you? Robert Mugabe?

Love other as yourself etc etc is a basic concept behind most of the major philosophies and many religions, including some that predate Christianity.

All other similar ideas (AFAIK) are expressed in the form of “Do to others as they do to you” (reward like with like). “Do not treat others as you would not wish to be treated” (this is not an injunction to take any positive action at all). “Do to others in order to get them to do to you” (manipulate a desired result).

Christ’s teaching is that we are to treat others as we wish they would treat us – whether they do treat us that way or not and even if they treat us badly. There is a right way, which is not dependent upon our own benefit.

Loving one's neighbour is not unique to Christ even in the Bible - he is quoting from Leviticus from almost 1,500 years earlier. It's probably worth noting that all religions reflect man's attempt to understand God in some way - given the Christian claim that God is the source of universal truth, law, morality and so on, it would not be surprising that elements of that truth appear in many places. It's like finding out that humans genetically are not dissimilar to earth worms - considering the source of both (God) that's not surprising either.

It's a very closed minded and arrogant attitude to put 'your' religion and belief above any others, no matter what you believe

If the religion and belief is correct, then all others are wrong. It is not arrogant to state the truth. It is arrogant however to fail to understand and respect that others have contrary beliefs; living side by side is critically important, just as you say. And it's possible to arrogantly state the truth. I have a problem with that sometimes because I love irony and sarcasm (very bad of me) and these often present as arrogance when they are meant to be er.... cutting? incisive? triumphant?

Again this dismisses other religions and cultures. If there is one God above all else, what would be the harm in him doing some big sign in the sky to show us all that he's there. The existence, power and 'goodness' (and horribleness) of nature can be equally explained by many other cultures, religions, beliefs, philosophies. And can also be explained scientifically. The existence of the world and nature isn't proof of the Christian God, and again an attitude of Christian superior arrogance comes through in that statement

One is hardly likely to claim as a Christian that the existence of the world (by which is meant all things) are NOT proof of God! Of course they are – of a theistic god at least. It is charming to think of God having to prove every few years that he exists by putting up some neon sign over the earth but he's already made it clear he's not going to do any such thing. It has a certain air of desperation and pleading don't you think?

I would like to see all these valid explanations of the world put forward by other cultures, religions, beliefs and philosophies. Perhaps you could describe one? Since they are all contradictory, they cannot all be correct – though I grante that logically all may be wrong. (Please no blind men and the elephant; that just proves that blind people are always wrong and have no sense of smell which is not much help to any discussion ).

There hasn't been an announcement. Just a few vague hints, all open to speculative interpretation and all equally explained in other ways. If there was a definite announcement, people - generally - wouldn't have spent the last 2,000 years guessing and fighting and manipulating and abusing, all in the name of the word of God

No I’m sorry but that’s simply not accurate. The announcement was made; it is not vague; it is not hints; it is not open to speculative interpretation; it is not equally explained in other ways. (You have a category confusion over “it” in there BTW). There are many definite announcements of all kinds which people fight over – especially the ones who do not accept the definite announcement. In that category there are unfortunately many who called themselves Christian.

Reverting to your earlier large message, I'd just like to point out that you missed my point in the very first quote. "working within the parameters" did not have reference to restrictions on God but to restricting the framework of the argument. GIVEN a premise that not all men will believe God (no matter what God does) AND THAT only those who believe will be saved THEN a logical conclusion is that not all will be saved. God's parameters are that all men could be saved if they choose to believe Him. He has room for all. However, he is not going to compel belief. Some are predstined by their very nature to reject Him. As Jesus said, a person could come back from the dead and people STILL will not believe. He was correct. Those who believe are saved; those who do not, are not. Whatever the true nature of the two conditions, the first is infinitely preferable to the last.

I appreciate your taking all the time and trouble to lay out your thoughts. There was no need to apologise for presenting them.

Meade

[Sean]

It is not accurate to say that the beginnings of Christianity are “no more spectacular” than other religions. No other religion is based upon the identification of a verifiably existent in time human being as the Son of God, raised from the dead.

That's interesting Meade. I know that most historians recognise that he probably did exist but I didn't realise that he had been verified.

If those claims are false, then Christianity is rubbish and should be discarded.

Really? You don't think he is worth listening to unless he rose from the dead? If he wasn't the son of God then his message of love is worthless and should be discarded?

If they are true, all other belief systems are rubbish and should be discarded.

Again really? Proof of Jesus being the son of a God would automatically prove that his dad was the ONLY God? I can't see how...

Genuine questions all... I am curious as to your thoughts on these as a Christian.

[MajGenl.Meade]

It is not accurate to say that the beginnings of Christianity are “no more spectacular” than other religions. No other religion is based upon the identification of a verifiably existent in time human being as the Son of God, raised from the dead.

That's interesting Meade. I know that most historians recognise that he probably did exist but I didn't realise that he had been verified.

If those claims are false, then Christianity is rubbish and should be discarded.

Really? You don't think he is worth listening to unless he rose from the dead? If he wasn't the son of God then his message of love is worthless and should be discarded?

If they are true, all other belief systems are rubbish and should be discarded.

Again really? Proof of Jesus being the son of a God would automatically prove that his dad was the ONLY God? I can't see how...

Genuine questions all... I am curious as to your thoughts on these as a Christian.

No worries. "Verifiably existent in time human being". Well I am very fond of history and I do believe that there is sufficient evidence that a person called Socrates existed (not just the football player or any Socrates but THE one); that Henry VIII did; that Josephus did; that Pilate did; and that Jesus of Nazareth did also.

Oh what did C S Lewis say....

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was and is the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us.

I recognize the limitations of the "trilemma". The form of the argument he put forward is syllogistic: (IF) a man who was merely a man and (IF HE) said the sort of things Jesus said (THEN) he would not be a great moral teacher etc. But Lewis was too intelligent a man not to know that there is a fourth possibility - that Jesus never said anything at all (or perhaps substanitally less than it is claimed that he said) but that would be ansxwer by a prior argument - first to establish the reliability of reportage of what he did say and then the trilemma follows.

Jesus claimed to be God and said he was the only way to salvation. He endorsed the Old Testament which includes the shema: The Lord our God, The Lord is One and the entire Bible recognises only one True God. (This by the way is not contradicted by the Trinity which posits that God is truly One in nature but three in Persons). So the statement stands; if these things are true, then all other belief systems are wrong.

All belief systems (including biblical Christianity) may logically be wrong but they cannot all logically be correct. And to claim that it is possible that all have some portions of the truth (which should then be sythesized into one) is to say the same thing - that would then be correct and all others wrong.

I hope that is responsive
Meade

[Gob]

A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell.

The interesting thing is, if you look at Jesus words with atheist eyes, and an understanding of psychology/psychiatry, he comes across as the perfect charismatic narcissistic personality disorder, with a little psychosis round the fringes.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Yeah if you look with extreme bias I'm sure one can make up anything one wishes. Judas did the same thing. So did the Pharisees. So did the Romans. Worked out real well too in the way of suppressing Jesus

Meade

Oh I'm sorry - for "extreme bias" read "atheism" and it's not really interesting at all. Just invective