posted
Many non-christian religions and pervasive atheism only survive as a high percentage of population in states where the government persecutes the other faiths or lack of the approved faith or any faith at all. Christianity thrives in free nations and even exists in the most Christian hostile places. The Iranian people are much more pro western than their leaders make them out to be. If suddenly the middle east, North Korea and China were free, billions around the world would defect from their state imposed belief systems and a large portion of those would become Christians,...freely.
How many first edition books can you find from even two hundred years ago? Recently in Hatrack someone was so excited to find such a rare find, although the book exists in high numbers later on. The original letters of Paul or Pilate would be amazing but their content was so important that it was copied thousands of times. The witnesses told their stories and their stories written down and told to others. First editions are hard to find, and in this case, it wasn't an edition, it was only one original. They found an original "copy" of the Declaration of Independence and is expected to sell for 500k.
quote:How many first edition books can you find from even two hundred years ago?
Does that mean that you aren't aware of any other corroborating reports of the Resurrection? Because, frankly, neither am I.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
First editions? KoM hasn't been talking about first editions, he's been talking about any editions of works written contemporaneously, with reports. They don't exist. And we have quite a few editions of works that significantly predate or are contemporaneous with that period, so it isn't hard at all to imagine a text surviving since then through copying; lots did.
Could you list any of these "other texts of the day" that recorded the existence of Jesus contemporaneously with his life? No need for a first edition, or even a direct copy. I'll take a reference to another text, in a text not unreasonably post-dating the original, as acceptable. Just one, since you were so comfortable saying they existed.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the question here is why do Christians believe in the resurrection, it should be noted that most Christians take the Gospel as written in the Bible to be fairly accurate factual accounts of history. I'm sure many assume that other texts existed at one point and have been lost, but I don't think many take those other texts to be an important cornerstone of the logic behind their beliefs.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Tres: of course, none of the gospels in the Bible is contemporaneous with the time. They all post date it by at least thirty of forty years (and some decades more), and it doesn't seem like any were written by someone who saw the events first hand; so, they at best tell us what certain groups of people believed happen according to what they heard from others. But anyways, that isn't the question at the moment. The question I'm interested in is why he is asserting there are contemporaneous texts. KoM seems to be investigating his belief (not any general Christian belief) in the resurrection, since he's asserted he does in part because there are firsthand accounts of it. We're waiting for any of those to be produced.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Many non-christian religions and pervasive atheism only survive as a high percentage of population in states where the government persecutes the other faiths or lack of the approved faith or any faith at all. Christianity thrives in free nations and even exists in the most Christian hostile places. The Iranian people are much more pro western than their leaders make them out to be. If suddenly the middle east, North Korea and China were free, billions around the world would defect from their state imposed belief systems and a large portion of those would become Christians,...freely.
How many first edition books can you find from even two hundred years ago? Recently in Hatrack someone was so excited to find such a rare find, although the book exists in high numbers later on. The original letters of Paul or Pilate would be amazing but their content was so important that it was copied thousands of times. The witnesses told their stories and their stories written down and told to others. First editions are hard to find, and in this case, it wasn't an edition, it was only one original. They found an original "copy" of the Declaration of Independence and is expected to sell for 500k.
Japan is a free nation and Christians only make up a tiny tiny tiny percent.
So ya good job being wrong yet again.
IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, when you talk about the divinity of Jesus Christ, what, exactly, do you mean? Do you think that you and I mean the same thing by that?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, some of the nations with the largest populations of Muslims (India, Indonesia) have governmentally-respected freedom of religion.
Posts: 15770 | Registered: Dec 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
Specifically on China, it would be reasonably expected to go much the way of Hong Kong or Taiwan given more religious freedom.
However, both Taiwan and Hong Kong have exceedingly small Christian populations which are outnumbered greatly by both local religion traditions and the non-religious.
In the case of Hong Kong during the British colonial days, this is despite very compelling forces pushing the Chinese middle class to convert as a way of assimilating into the British upper class and the establishment of well-funded religious schools by foreigners with the aim of conversion.
These days with the wane of colonial influences and the continuing decline of American (and European) influence in the word, these factors are shrinking. Specifically, IIRC, Hong Kong is measured by Gallup as being even less religious than Japan or France.
So I expect that we've actually seen the upper bounds of how Christianity will perform, which isn't all that impressive.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:So I expect that we've actually seen the upper bounds of how Christianity will perform, which isn't all that impressive.
Color me surprised, I'd be interested in what your bar of impressiveness would be. In a world of over 6 billion people, over 1 billion describe themselves as Christians. If we take the sheer number of people who know about Jesus even if they don't necessarily believe in his divinity the number grows even greater.
Were we to take historical figures throughout history and detail how many people know of them, I'd say Jesus is in strong contention for the number one spot.
And the man was born 2009 years ago.
But again, I'd be interested in seeing what you think would be impressive.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
Uuum I fail to see how thats relevent to what Mucus said.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Blayne Bradley: Uuum I fail to see how thats relevent to what Mucus said.
Mucus said we have likely seen the high water mark for how Christianity will perform as a religion. I am suggesting that to say it is unimpressive is to in a sense setting the bar so high that nothing can reasonably reach it, thus making the word impressive somewhat useless.
Are you succeeding now?
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by fugu13: I think he meant the upper bounds of how it will perform in China.
Edit to add: (And my benchmark, like Mal's original assertion if China suddenly adopted a hands-off policy in regards to religion, is conversion rather than simple knowledge of Jesus' existence)
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: The atheists are the rarity in the human condition and to answer the questions about the religious human condition we should focus the lens on the oddity of the atheist and what sets them apart.
What's wrong with you? I mean, really, what's wrong with you?
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
fugu13/Blayne: Ah yes, I see it now. I made a mistake.
But in regards to China, Christianity has had in the past very significant inroads (Taiping Rebellion). Even if only 3% of the Chinese people convert upon being offered the right to choose, that's still another 30 million or so people added to Christianity's rolls.
Further, the people of mainland China in some significant ways are unlike the people in Hong Kong or Taiwan. These difference in some cases make me more likely to agree with Mucus, but there are some other factors at work.
I think the largest obstacle to Christian integration in China is that it is largely perceived as a Western believe system, whereas Buddhism and Taoism are seen as Eastern. I think Buddhism and Taoism managed to pass a threshold where suddenly that was no longer an issue as so many Chinese had adopted it that there was a flood of conversion. If Christianity sustains enough converts that people in China see Christianity as assimilated into the greater Chinese culture, I think you will see much larger conversion numbers.
It's much harder to convert 1-5% of a population than it is to convert 20-35% of the population.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: KoM, when you talk about the divinity of Jesus Christ, what, exactly, do you mean? Do you think that you and I mean the same thing by that?
No, I don't. I do not think that you assign any meaning to the phrase at all, in the sense that people who actually believe things, as opposed to believing in belief, think of meaning. And before you ask, no, I don't classify you as a Christian. I was, however, talking to malanthrop, and I suspect he and I assign meanings which are at least close enough to communicate about.
If you want to have a discussion not based on "choosing to believe" things, I suggest this working definition: "Jesus of Nazareth was crucified until his heart stopped; brain and other biochemical activity ceased for a period of three days; brain and heart activity then resumed." This is a definition of the resurrection rather than the divinity, but I'll accept the one as very strong evidence of the other, even without having a formal specification of divinity.
quote:Why do I have faith in Jesus? I believe the eyewitness testimony that has been written down.
quote:Christianity spreads of its own accord, even under threat of death and persecution.
quote:if I lived in Iran I would probably be a Muslim and not be satisfied.
So, summarising, you have three main reasons for your belief; first, that the biblical accounts are true; second, that Christianity is expanding without state intervention; third, that Moslems and presumably other kinds of theists have a 'hunger' which would be satisfied if they were Christians. Is that a fair rephrasing?
These reasons are, as you must well know, utterly unconvincing to anyone not already a Christian; but I won't attack them just at the moment. Instead I'll repeat my previous question. Suppose you were shown that the Gospels are matched by equally well-attested accounts of miracles in other traditions. Would this undermine the first pillar of your belief? Then suppose you were shown that Christianity was in fact retreating, or that its expansion required force, or that all things equal it is atheism that expands of its own accord. Would your faith be weakened? And third, if I were able to attach a satisfaction-O-meter to the heads of Christians, Moslems, and atheists, and show no statistically significant difference, would you conclude differently?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
KoM, I must say I am sort of amused by your defining Christianity as whateve is narrow and specific (and possibly silly) enough that you can disprove it.
New motto: If KoM can't pick it apart, it ain't religion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by malanthrop: Many non-christian religions and pervasive atheism only survive as a high percentage of population in states where the government persecutes the other faiths or lack of the approved faith or any faith at all. Christianity thrives in free nations and even exists in the most Christian hostile places.
It has been pointed out to you by KoM and by me so many times as to become a chorus to any such discussion. The fact that Christianity is widespread or spreads among many different peoples is not affirmative evidence of anything useful. If you would only stop and investigate your own statement, and what it actually signifies, you would realize that you could replace Christianity with "capitalism." Recently I listened to a story on NPR about enclaves of capitalism in North Korea- it fits your statement perfectly.
And yet, I hope you do not worship capitalism, or Michael Jackson, or the internet, cocaine, or one of the million things one could insert into such an ad hominem argument in order to justify what they believe in, without actually justifying what they believe in. In fact, athiesm fits your statement perfectly, and it is just as true.
Posts: 9912 | Registered: Nov 2005
| IP: Logged |
KoM, I must say I am sort of amused by your defining Christianity as whateve is narrow and specific (and possibly silly) enough that you can disprove it.
New motto: If KoM can't pick it apart, it ain't religion.
I didn't say you aren't religious, I said you aren't a Christian. What you've got is not Christianity, it's a code of ethics cherry-picked from the Western tradition to suit your intuition, plus a set of meaningless phrases boiling down to "Jesus was a good guy" and "Love is a good thing". This is a religion of sorts, but Christianity it ain't.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Yeah. I can't really see why I should value your opinion on whether or not I am a Christian more than that of my priest's opinion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I didn't say you should. I give you my opinion free gratis, even though it is worth its weight in gold; but having gotten the gift, you may do what you like with it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But in regards to China, Christianity has had in the past very significant inroads (Taiping Rebellion).
Let us not forget what we're actually talking about though. Mal's assertion is that Christianity is the truth and that a Muslim living in Iran would not be satisfied without it, that there is a hunger for Christianity that Islam does not fulfill.
While you and I may classify Taiping theology as Christianity, I doubt that if the rebellion has succeeded that Christianity as a whole would claim the Taiping as their own. In particular, I doubt Mal would claim it as his own just like he does not claim Islam.
Second, the Taiping were so successful due to reasons that are unlikely to repeat again today. In particular, a central tenant of their belief system was that with the help of God, they were going to drive out of China both the foreign devils and the Manchu regime that was collaborating with them. This anti-foreigner impulse has been largely co-opted by the CCP. In addition, at the time China was largely technologically inferior to the West. The world over, we've seen that cultures will often rapidly adopt the culture and religion of technologically or economically superior nations. This too is largely over.
quote: I think the largest obstacle to Christian integration in China is that it is largely perceived as a Western believe system, whereas Buddhism and Taoism are seen as Eastern.
In this I agree, but the problem is not merely numbers but the fact that this is, well, true.
Taoism is founded in China, Buddhism in India but with a very ancient tradition in China, incorporated seamlessly into mythology and culture. Additionally, Christianity relies upon its association with the West for its appeal. Even in Canada, it is largely sold to Chinese immigrants as being the reason behind the West's development.
Without this link, Christianity just becomes another religion with nothing to recommend it over the likes of a Falun Gong which is better adapted to Chinese tradition and culture.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't really see why I should value your opinion on whether or not I am a Christian more than that of my priest's opinion.
Salient to this conversation, however, is the fact that you almost certainly wouldn't value your priest's opinion, either. Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Ah...well, thanks then.
You are welcome. As a matter of curiosity, am I correct in my guess that you do not believe the resurrection happened as defined above?
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Not that anyone else's impression should matter, but I also find it difficult to label kmbboots as "christian." (to the extent that labels are meaningful and useful to me). And obviously, I would say it nicer than KoM, but still.
I am an Orthodox Jew, so maybe I am biased, but I think orthodoxy is important part of religion.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I can't really see why I should value your opinion on whether or not I am a Christian more than that of my priest's opinion.
Salient to this conversation, however, is the fact that you almost certainly wouldn't value your priest's opinion, either.
Not true! I think my priest - actually there are a couple that I would consider "mine" - are brilliant and of course I value their opinions. Several spiritual advisors as well along with various co-religionists.
Armoth, I don't expect you to adhere to the precepts of my religion. If I claimed to be an Orthodox Jew, you might have a point. I have no problem with orthodoxy being a part of your religion.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
So if a priest said you weren't a Christian, or particularly a Catholic, you'd believe him?
I ask this because our local Bishop is actually on the verge of making just such pronouncements; he's got a hair trigger on the Excommunication Ray.
Posts: 37449 | Registered: May 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Depends on the priest and the particular arguments he made. I would also consider the opinion of a consensus of priests (heh, good luck with that).
ETA: Tom, IIRC correctly, your bishop would excommunicate more than half of the Catholics in the US.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I don't think Orthodoxy is particular to Judaism. I think that it means that you follow the precepts of your religion as opposed to allowing moral intuition to guide what you think you should follow and what you think you shouldn't.
Most religions are about submitting to a higher authority. Judaism certainly believes it. Islam literally means submission. I feel like it is an essential part of every religion.
If you have religion submit to YOUR will, then haven't you just created your own religion?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, what do you mean by "higher authority"? If you mean a particular person or group of people, how is that higher? If you mean submitting to God's will, that is different but how do you know that I don't - as much as I can?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
Mucus: You are right that sects like Fa Lun Gong lend themselves better to Chinese sensibilities. But the Chinese still appreciate old ideas. Like you said if the ideas fit neatly into their preexisting mythos it's much easier. But currently Mainland China is as close to a blank slate religiously as it has ever been or perhaps could be. If they reject Christianity it won't be because the community is Buddhist and they don't want to rock the boat. Instead, it will be because they don't much agree with the ideas. Even if the Mainland Chinese didn't convert en masse, I could easily see groups like Yi Guan Dao springing up all over China. While they are not strictly speaking Christian, they have no foibles with kidnapping the ideas Jesus uttered, slapping a seal of approval on the ones they like, and saying he was a sage.
Posts: 14316 | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think that every person when they adhere to a particular faith needs to figure out what they think God wants from them. If you subscribe to a particular religion, that means that they have convinced you that their system of knowledge reflects God's will. If they have not convinced you, then you are not a follower of that faith.
If you think parts of their philosophy is God's will, then you believe in your own religion.
(No judgments made, this is all for labeling purposes)
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Armoth, it is fine that you think that is true for your religion. It is demonstrably not true for mine. Many people who dissented with a particular teaching of the Church at the time were later considered heroes of the Church - even saints. That is how our religion grows and gets better.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:They have no foibles with kidnapping the ideas Jesus uttered, slapping a seal of approval on the ones they like, and saying he was a sage.
Total side issue: 'Foibles' doesn't have the meaning you appear to be assigning it here; possibly you are thinking of 'scruples'. A foible is a small eccentricity, like making your own rose water for shaving, or being polite to Christians. A scruple is an ethical qualm, like wondering whether it's quite the done thing to shoot people for believing nonsense.
But to address your substantive point, recall that the original context was mal's assertion that Christian converts are evidence of the truth of Christianity, and in particular of Jesus' divinity. This requires, I think mal would agree, that they believe at a minimum in resurrection and eternal life. You can chop a lot of stuff out of Christianity but if you don't believe that Jesus rose from the dead, I don't see how you can call yourself Christian. The un-original code of ethics that Jesus proposed doesn't have any bearing on this.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
If the anti-gay folks who protest at funerals get described as Christians in newspaper articles, despite their profoundly un-Christ-like behavior, then Christianty has to be an extremely broad umbrella... Certainly I'd think its broad enough to include kmbboots.
Posts: 8120 | Registered: Jul 2000
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Armoth, it is fine that you think that is true for your religion. It is demonstrably not true for mine. Many people who dissented with a particular teaching of the Church at the time were later considered heroes of the Church - even saints. That is how our religion grows and gets better.
Although I am not that familiar with Catholic hagiography, I suspect that there were not many saints who denied the resurrection. Again, am I correct in thinking you don't believe in it? And if so, have you discussed this with your priest, or are you making assumptions on what he would say? There are liberal and conservative strains within Catholicism, obviously, but it does not follow that one can deny that Jesus rose from the dead and still reasonably call oneself a Catholic. Words have meanings, although I don't know why I'm telling you this since I know you don't believe it. Have you read the Nicene creed lately? To the best of my knowledge, Catholics are still required to affirm it.
Posts: 10645 | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote:Can you give an example of something that would falsify your religious faith?
For example, my "faith" in the value of the dollar would be falsified by, e.g., a massive increase in prices, or merchants refusing to accept dollars etc etc.
If I died and found myself reincarnated as a conscious rock, I'd conclude many of my religious beliefs must be way off. Or, more simply, if I came to the conclusion that the most basic moral values taught by my religion were false (like "love thy neighbor"), I'd have to reject the religion.
Sorry to come back to this - I realize the conversation has probably moved on - but I haven't had access.
Anyway, can you suggest a scenario whereby you might come to such a conclusion?
Posts: 644 | Registered: Sep 2008
| IP: Logged |
posted
KoM, you are making some assumptions based on some things I have not written. And some wrong assumptions based on things I have written. I believe that I have written that my faith would not be fundamentally altered should definitive proof against the resurrection come to light. That is not the same a not believing in the resurrection, now.
Of course, the resurrection is so much more complicated idea than you are making it. But that is way more theological discussion than I am interested in having with you.
Thanks, Trespoax.
ETA: Also, KoM - there are a lot of saints. Some of them were pretty out there. Not much would surprise me.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by BlackBlade: But the Chinese still appreciate old ideas.
Well, old Chinese ideas. Christianity from their viewpoint is like neither old OR Chinese.
quote:I could easily see groups like Yi Guan Dao springing up all over China. While they are not strictly speaking Christian, they have no foibles with kidnapping the ideas Jesus uttered, slapping a seal of approval on the ones they like, and saying he was a sage.
Well, yeah.
Even in the West you will have your new agers and your hippies which will try almost anything. Even your Richard Gere and Steven Seagals. Chinese folk religion is if anything even more accommodating in this regard.
But this is neither impressive from my benchmark, nor does it seem to fulfill Mal's benchmark that Christianity is the "meat and potatoes" to the other religions "rice and beans" or "tofu."
If the latter was true, you would expect something a whole lot more compelling.
Posts: 7593 | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by kmbboots: Armoth, it is fine that you think that is true for your religion. It is demonstrably not true for mine. Many people who dissented with a particular teaching of the Church at the time were later considered heroes of the Church - even saints. That is how our religion grows and gets better.
Does Christianity put forth a set of beliefs that all Christians believe? All Catholics, at least, believe? Do they claim to represent God's will? Or do they have suggested beliefs? Or are there some that you must believe and some that are merely suggested?
If I believe a lot of things in common with Christianity, would you consider me a Christian?
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
What things? Is Christ central to your understanding of God? Do you try to follow the teachings of Christ?
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
No. But I believe in the 10 commandments. In the love of God. Charity, etc.
Posts: 1604 | Registered: Mar 2003
| IP: Logged |
Blayne Bradley
unregistered
posted
I am pretty sure your only a Christian if you believe Jesus died for your sins and came back later and was "saved" thats pretty much the crux of it. If you dont believe that then my currently catholic friend who is as open minded and mellow as you can believe would laugh and say your not a 'real' christian.
IP: Logged |
quote:Originally posted by Armoth: No. But I believe in the 10 commandments. In the love of God. Charity, etc.
Okay. So do a lot of religions. Why would you want to be considered Christian? It isn't particularly descriptive of what you seem to believe.
Posts: 11187 | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
