I've decided to take a little break from political posts this week in honor of the celebration of Holy Week or Passion Week or whatever you call the week before the Easter celebration.
Easter celebrates something that is the defining moment of all religions, the resurrection of Christ. If the resurrection is false, then Christianity is false and all other religions have a possibility of being true. However, if the resurrection is true and did happen, then Christianity is true and all other religions are false, especially Islam, which directly attacks the resurrection.
Over the next couple of days, I'll present some points that will hopefully lead to a good discussion in the comment threads. One thing I'll try my best to do is present my side from provable facts and historical records and not say, "the Bible says it therefore it is true." While I absolutely do believe everything in the Bible is accurate and true, I feel that as Christians we too many times neglect science and history because of a false assumption that to use those disciplines is not "religious." At one time in history, people looked to the Church for the latest and greatest new discoveries and intellectual training, but we have given up that role by going to the other extreme of taking everything on faith and faith alone.
To clarify, I'm not in anyway downing faith, because ultimately the final decision to accept Christ or not will be by faith, but we also don't have to completely forfeit all scientific and historical discussions purely because we have our faith. Look forward to hopefully a couple of good discussions.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
13 comments:
I look forward to the posts.
"Easter celebrates something that is the defining moment of all religions, the resurrection of Christ."
I think for the first time ever, you've managed to actually offend me.
So I'm inclined to provide clash right up front before you even begin your args...
Please remember that Christianity is not the only major set of religion.
There are other religions too (and life philosophies), that don't see Christ's resurrection or existence as significant in religious terms at all, but merely recognize him as a good man that lived, taught hope and love, and then, died as he lived, a good man and nothing more.
I do applaud you for your decision to present your coming arguments with proven facts instead of a book and the teachings of only one religion. I hope that if you decide to include religious argument in your future posts on this topic that you will remember to research and at least offer up what opposing views may exist in the world since in religious discussions we all know that the only proper way to lead such a discussion is through thorough preparation and open-mindedness.
You'll have to excuse me, however, if I refrain from participating in a good portion of the threads because I have this feeling that responding to put downs on my particular beliefs could not lead anywhere good, in this life or the next.
Speechie...you know my intent is never to offend but to bring about thinking and debate...hopefully I'll accomplish that.
As far as your first salvo...as I will say in the post I hopefully got to today, unfortunately we can't both be right in this case. If a religion denies the resurrection of Christ and the resurrection can be proven true, then that religion is false.
If the resurrection is proven as false, then Christianity is false b/c that is the foundation of Christian belief that Christ rose from the dead and in doing so conquered sin, death and satan's authority on earth.
I have no intention of putting down any faiths only debating points that support what I believe can be proven as the truth scientifically and historically and hoping for some debate on the facts laid out.
As far as offering up opposing arguments, the only religion I could do any justice to in that would be Islam. That is why I hope this will stir debate and allow others to refute the facts presented based on what their religion believes. However, same standard of proof using science or history as opposed to my religion says this so I believe it is requested.
Fair?
Agreeable terms.
looking forward to this, Tiger...
although I don't believe that you'll be able to prove scientifically the resurrection of Christ.
I am a believer, and I agree that most of Christianity has a lot of support from archaeology (sp?).
We have a good historical argument as well.
I must remind speechie of what Bono said when he used CS Lewis' argument with regards to the deity of Christ...
[Assayas: Christ has his rank among the world's great thinkers. But Son of God, isn't that farfetched?
Bono: No, it's not farfetched to me. Look, the secular response to the Christ story always goes like this: he was a great prophet, obviously a very interesting guy, had a lot to say along the lines of other great prophets, be they Elijah, Muhammad, Buddha, or Confucius. But actually Christ doesn't allow you that. He doesn't let you off that hook. Christ says: No. I'm not saying I'm a teacher, don't call me teacher. I'm not saying I'm a prophet. I'm saying: "I'm the Messiah." I'm saying: "I am God incarnate." And people say: No, no, please, just be a prophet. A prophet, we can take. You're a bit eccentric. We've had John the Baptist eating locusts and wild honey, we can handle that. But don't mention the "M" word! Because, you know, we're gonna have to crucify you. And he goes: No, no. I know you're expecting me to come back with an army, and set you free from these creeps, but actually I am the Messiah. At this point, everyone starts staring at their shoes, and says: Oh, my God, he's gonna keep saying this. So what you're left with is: either Christ was who He said He was—the Messiah—or a complete nutcase. I mean, we're talking nutcase on the level of Charles Manson. This man was like some of the people we've been talking about earlier. This man was strapping himself to a bomb, and had "King of the Jews" on his head, and, as they were putting him up on the Cross, was going: OK, martyrdom, here we go. Bring on the pain! I can take it. I'm not joking here. The idea that the entire course of civilization for over half of the globe could have its fate changed and turned upside-down by a nutcase, for me, that's farfetched …
… [I]f only we could be a bit more like Him, the world would be transformed. …When I look at the Cross of Christ, what I see up there is all my s--- and everybody else's. So I ask myself a question a lot of people have asked: Who is this man? And was He who He said He was, or was He just a religious nut? And there it is, and that's the question. And no one can talk you into it or out of it.
]
Joe...that is exactly right...He left no room for just a good man by His very words He was either who He said He was or He was a madman. C.S. Lewis is definitely one of my favorite authors.
Joe...forgot...not saying I will use science in this particular argument, but there are many Biblical truths that can be discussed scientifically. You are right in that this will mostly be a historical arguement.
I don't want to cause a complete and full-out war here...so I want to be extremely brief.
I never said Jesus wasn't a messiah. He was in fact a messiah to the Jews at a time of imminent destruction. He was in fact a messiah to the people of the world, giving them something to believe in that they had not previously had and something to hold onto. He was a messiah in that he put himself between man and harm's way to give them the opportunity to become free.
But I let the frogs--who were facing an imminent and tragic death that they could not prevent themselves and thus put myself in harm's way by pretty much failing out of biology--out of the science lab in the 9th grade...so technically...
You see where I am going.
Additionally, according to the Bible, we are ALL God's sons and daughters...so he couldn't possibly have been lying about that either.
So there's really no point in anyone trying to make Jesus sound like a crazed lunatic or a stir-fried schizo, now is there?
Besides, that's not my style.
Considering the climate of the times, I think Christians should be excited that most religions even concede that Jesus existed at all and wasn't just a figment of some totally faded and guilt-ridden soldier's imagination.
speechie,
i assume that we come from two diametrically opposed world views, however, i think that we should be able to argue/debate in civil fashion...
don't worry, i am not a jihadist muslim, you won't start an all-out war here, by stating your beliefs / thoughts
what i was saying is that if Jesus was/is not, in fact, deity, then he was a liar or a madman.
According to 1 John 3, we are not all children of God... However, I believe that we all have the opportunity to be adopted as sons or daughters of God...
and I believe that Josephus and Tacitus are examples of non-christian historians writing of the existence of Jesus Christ. Thus, we need not be excited that non-believers concede Christ's existence. We need to pray that they see Him for who He is...
and by the way, I realize that the ragin Cajun Tiger is mostly blogging from the conservative side of politics, and the nature of this blog post should not be political. It is important to note that folks like Tony Campolo, Jim Wallis, & Bono certainly do not see the world through the same political lense as Cajun Tiger, however, taking them at their word, they are his eternal brothers in Christ...
this is far more important than politics...
Speechie...the freedom Christ came for and taught about was far more than just freedom from captivity or a science lab. It was freedom from the penalty of sin, which is eternal separation from God. We are all creations of God but after the sin of Adam, we were no longer sons and daughters, until Christ's death and resurrection reopened that possibility if His sacrifice is accepted.
Now...we are getting very theological here which wasn't the plan just yet. Let's table this discussion for now and move to the other posts of the debate shall we?
Religion is bunk!
lenin...whew...you blow me away with the depth of your facts and debating skills.
Post a Comment