6600wood@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Joseph Wood) (06/02/91)
* This is a serious question so please don't flame me for it * For many years I have been a person who has wanted to find God but has been unable to reconcile the differences and difficulties in the various Christian denominations. Knowing my struggles, a very good friend of mine prayed for me for over a year. One day when talking with me things came to a head and we prayed together. For weeks after that time I was in a sort of daze. I read the bible constantly and tried to ask questions of my christian friends whenever possible. Unfortunately, my bliss did not last long. I have always been of a sort of logical bent. I am one of those people that goes to movies and immediately notices what is wrong or foolish in them. This unfortunately is my problem. After struggling with my thoughts for a while, I went to some friends of mine and asked them if God told them what to believe when they became Christians. I told them that while I felt that I had experieced God in my own manner, no one spoke to me. There response unfortunately was no. I could accept being unworth more than I could accept the alternative. Anyway, I asked them, If God hasnt told you what to believe, where did you get your particular beliefs and how do you justify them against all the other people who consider themselves Christians. Who is right? Is only one person on this planet right or is everyone right. If everyone is right, what exactly is included in everyone. Unfortunately, their answer was silence. Everyone interprets the bible differently. I would appreciate someone telling me why there are so many sects, so many bibles, and so many people thinking that they are right and everyone else is wrong. I really would like to understand. Thank you.
lindborg@cs.washington.edu (Jeff Lindborg) (06/03/91)
In article <Jun.2.01.34.55.1991.16398@athos.rutgers.edu> 6600wood@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Joseph Wood) writes: >For many years I have been a person who has wanted to find God >but has been unable to reconcile the differences and difficulties >in the various Christian denominations. >... >I have always been of a sort of logical bent. I am one of those >people that goes to movies and immediately notices what is wrong >or foolish in them. This unfortunately is my problem. You sound strikingly like me some years ago. Shortly after I left high school I started dealing with deep doubts I had about Christianity and the Bible. I struggled with them for years, convinced that something was wrong with me or that I could work them out with a little more prayer or maybe some help from my pastor. After a long struggle I finally came to the conclusion that the problem did not lie with me, but with the fictional religious system I was trying to rationalize. Ask yourself why God would create such a conflicting, ambiguous, murky Bible if your very salvation depended upon it. Answer: God did not create it, it was the work of humans just like all of the other thousands of religious texts that have claimed adherents over the centuries. When you notice flaws in the movies you watch, is it really a problem with you, or a problem with the production you are watching? I think you know the answer. >Everyone interprets the >bible differently. I would appreciate someone telling me why >there are so many sects, so many bibles, and so many people thinking >that they are right and everyone else is wrong. That would depend on who you talk to. Christians are inherently dogmatic. While most will immediately protest that, the fact of the matter is their religion (in its 'orthodox' form anyway... we see a lot of back-peddling and rationalization going on these days) depends on its adherents to believe that Christianity is the One true Way and that all others will "lead to destruction". Islam will feed you the same line as will many other dogmatic religions. If you talk to some Buddhists they might tell you there are many paths which lead to the same destination. Besides, in the Buddhists scheme of things you aren't damned to hell for all eternity if you screw up in your one allotted life time... you just have to go around again. Hinduism and many other eastern sects will tell you much the same thing. I encourage you to take a deep and honest look at Christianity... Don't hide from what you see... don't resist questioning. If the religion is really the "one true way" it should stand up to the most intense scrutiny you can give it. I, along with many others, found it did not. You might find it does, you might find it doesn't. Whatever you decide, you must be honest to YOURSELF first. You are the final judge of what is good and what is true and what works for you. I'll tell you, I never felt as good as the day I finally let go of my belief in the Christian god. It wasn't easy (its comforting to know that there is a nicely packaged way to obtain personal immortality, among other things...) but it can be done. I gained a new compassion and understanding of the people around me. I could accept them for who they were in a way I couldn't as a practicing Christian. Consider the possibility that there is no God or that if there is He/She/It/They defy human understanding and transcend the need or desire for human worship and adoration and feel no urge to send any of us to hell for eternity. Really open your mind and let yourself go. Jeff Lindborg "He who thinks but does not learn is in trouble. He who learns but does not think is lost." Confucius
MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (06/06/91)
Joseph,
That is a good question, although strictly speaking it should be
"Where is truth"? The question "What is truth?" is widely known
because Pontius Pilate said it to Jesus--although the context
indicates that he was asking, "Of what importance is truth?"
rather than seeking a philosophical definition of truth. The
definition is that truth is a correspondence between a statement
and the objective reality it purports to describe.
When many beliefs contradict each other they obviously can't all
be right. If God exists then atheists, who believe in the un-
provable doctrine that God does not exist, are mistaken, and if
God does not exist, then theists are mistaken. If Jesus was (and
is) God incarnate, then Jews, Muslims, and others who deny His
deity are mistaken. If he was not God incarnate, then Christians
are mistaken.
It is important to know which beliefs are correct. Not only is
the recognition of truth recognized as a value in our culture,
but it is a question of great practical importance. Many reli-
gions assert that there is a life after death and that the way we
will spend the next life is affected or determined by the way we
live this life. If this is true, it is essential to know it now,
while there is time to use the information.
The question is, which position is true? One can start by look-
ing at those religions that claim to be based on divine revela-
tion. Then one can see what evidence each offers to support the
claim.
I can't speak for any other group, but Catholic apologetics
starts with the Bible, especially the Gospels, and the rest of
the New Testament. Although the Church believes and teaches that
they are the inspired word of God, in apologetics we prescind
from inspiration and look at them just as ancient documents.
They tell of a man named Jesus who, among other things He taught,
claimed to be God. He identified Himself with the Lord God of
Israel. In various ways He showed that this claim was true.
These books also show that He founded a Church to teach in His
name and with His authority. This Church, as shown functioning
in the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of St. Paul, etc. is
essentially identical with the Catholic Church of today because
they are one and the same church at different stages of its
development. The official teachings of the Church are therefore
guaranteed true by God.
The preceding paragraph is, of course, just a bare bones outline
of the Catholic claim to teach with authority. Each point could
be discussed at length, and many books have been written about
them.
Incidentally, at the end of your posting you write of people who
think that they are right and everyone else is wrong. I believe
that I am right. If I didn't I would be trying to find out which
teaching is right. I am right, not through any merit of my own,
but entirely because of the grace of God. However, I would not
say that everyone else is wrong. I would prefer to say that
everyone else is right, but not completely. Others possess large
parts of God's truth, but with an admixture of error. This is
just a shift of emphasis from saying they are wrong, but I think
it is an important one. Also I want to mention that I am talking
entirely about the accuracy of beliefs. I am not claiming that I
am holier than all non-Catholics.
Marty Helgesen
Helgesenoracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu (Brian T. Coughlin) (06/10/91)
Re: Marty Helgesen In article <Jun.5.23.45.39.1991.1202@athos.rutgers.edu>, MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet writes: > It is important to know which beliefs are correct. Not only is > the recognition of truth recognized as a value in our culture, > but it is a question of great practical importance. Many reli- > gions assert that there is a life after death and that the way we > will spend the next life is affected or determined by the way we > live this life. If this is true, it is essential to know it now, > while there is time to use the information. Hi, Marty! The attempt to defend one's faith by means of logical argument is a noble cause, IMHO, but please be warned that there are some standard pitfalls to such practice. Ultimately, belief in any religion comes from FAITH, not from a logical deduction; thus, a logical defense of, say, Catholicism, shouldn't be expected to win over converts (though it's gratifying when it does)... it should be expected only to refute criticism leveled against the Church, and/or to satisfy one's one personal need to state one's self-perceived truths of the Church. In other words: don't expect apologism to be a vehicle through which converts will flow; you'd be certain to be disappointed, especially when talking to an audience which ranges from neutral to hostile where the Catholic Church is concerned. Having said that... I will, if you'll excuse the attempt, play the Devil's advocate for you, so that you can see some typical opposition that your arguments will bring; that way, you can revise your arguments in light of these objections, and make them more airtight with each such revision. (Besides, I *love* debates... :) ) (Note: please take all of my comments with a grain of salt; since this is a friendly mock-debate, I don't mean them seriously.) > The question is, which position is true? One can start by look- > ing at those religions that claim to be based on divine revela- > tion. Then one can see what evidence each offers to support the > claim. 1. You've made the assumption that at least ONE of the current religious beliefs is "true"; not only is this logically unwarranted (i.e. the existing religions might ALL be false, and a totally [as of yet] unknown God-concept might be the accurate one), but it's hard to say that a religion (a *very* complex set of beliefs) is "true" or "false"; it's quite easy for a faith to be correct in some of its assertions, and incorrect in others. 2. It has not been shown that religions *not* based on Divine Revelation would be false; there is, then, no reason to restrict one's search for a "true" religion to "revealed" faiths only. > I can't speak for any other group, but Catholic apologetics > starts with the Bible, especially the Gospels, and the rest of > the New Testament. Although the Church believes and teaches that > they are the inspired word of God, in apologetics we prescind > from inspiration and look at them just as ancient documents. Up to a point. To go *fully* into the view that they are merely ancient documents would place them in the same category as the Declaration of Independence and such, which would invalidate some of your points made below (since "ancient documents" have no authority to claim that Jesus's Divinity was true). > They tell of a man named Jesus who, among other things He taught, > claimed to be God. He identified Himself with the Lord God of > Israel. In various ways He showed that this claim was true. That is not strictly correct; rather, it should read: "In various ways He convinced some people of the time that this claim was true." > These books also show that He founded a Church to teach in His > name and with His authority. This Church, as shown functioning > in the Acts of the Apostles, the letters of St. Paul, etc. is > essentially identical with the Catholic Church of today because > they are one and the same church at different stages of its > development. The official teachings of the Church are therefore > guaranteed true by God. :) Whoops. I'm afraid that this doesn't work, logically. First of all, your reasoning for calling the Church of today "identical" to the Church of yesteryear is what's called a "circular argument". You've said, "Today's Church = Yesterday's Church" because "Yesterday's Church = Today's Church", which isn't effective, logically. Certainly, if x=y, then y=x (given that we're talking about the same "equals/equivalence" that we all know and love...), but you have to prove one in order to prove the other; at this point, you've proven neither of them. Secondly... even if your statement of "yesterday's Church = today's Church" *were* true, this would in no way prove that the Church teachings are God-guaranteed and infallible; it would prove only that those ancient teachings (which would have been proven to endure through the ages, as per your statement) were THOUGHT to be true by Jesus and His followers. Jesus did not *prove* that He was God, logically. (Side note: belief that Jesus is God is an article of FAITH, not one of logic; thus don't be too worried that Jesus's claim to divinity hasn't been logically "proven"... it doesn't *need* to be.) He proved (or, at least, convinced His friends and followers) that He could do some incredible things... and that's all. === "Devil's Advocate Mode" off === :) Again, don't be shaken in the slightest by the fact that logical arguments can be attacked and brought low; they aren't important, in the long run, where God is concerned. Belief in God, belief in Jesus, and belief in Catholicism (and other faiths) are all matters of faith, in which one accepts or denies them, HEEDLESS of logic. Just as one's doesn't need logic in the slightest when falling in love with another human, so one doesn't need logic to "fall in love" with God! After all... if all this could be logically proven, they wouldn't call it "faith"! ---- Take care! Sincerely, Brian Coughlin oracle@eleazar.dartmouth.edu
tblake@bingsuns.cc.binghamton.edu (Tom Blake) (06/10/91)
In article <Jun.2.01.34.55.1991.16398@athos.rutgers.edu>, 6600wood@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Joseph Wood) writes: |>* This is a serious question so please don't flame me for it * |> |>For many years I have been a person who has wanted to find God |>but has been unable to reconcile the differences and difficulties |>in the various Christian denominations. Knowing my struggles, a very |>good friend of mine prayed for me for over a year. One day when |>talking with me things came to a head and we prayed together. |>For weeks after that time I was in a sort of daze. I read the bible |>constantly and tried to ask questions of my christian friends |>whenever possible. Unfortunately, my bliss did not last long. |>I have always been of a sort of logical bent. I am one of those |>people that goes to movies and immediately notices what is wrong |>or foolish in them. This unfortunately is my problem. Hi Joe, Puzzling, isn't it!? I'm sort of a logical bent myself. As such, I have come at my faith with a logical approach. For a number of years I said "I believe more in the Judeo-Christian ethos than in the religion itself." (I'm not sure exactly where I stand on that one nowadays, my faith has grown quite a bit.) I found myself with a few basic truths: 1. I agreed with the teachings of Jesus as I understood them. 2. I believed that if everyone aimed to follow the teachings of Jesus that the world would be a better place to live in. 3. I believed that there was more to my being than my science teachers had taught me about. (I had simply had too many "unexplainable" experiences to ignore them.) One of the crucial points in my journey was just before I was to perform Godspell. I was going to be doing the lead role, and in the name of "character development", I pulled out my under-used Bible, and read the Gospels. I found I agreed still more with Jesus. I figured, either Jesus said the things he said, (and I agreed with Jesus), or the Gospel authors had put words in his mouth, and I agreed with the authors. From the Gospels I went on to Acts and Romans. I found I also agreed with what I took to be Paul's message of love and acceptance. To this day, these are the books I am most familiar with in the Bible. I added other basic truths: 4. The best way to promote any "philosophy" is through an organized effort. 5. There already exists an organization dedicated to the promotion of the "philosophy" (if you will) taught by Jesus. (The Church). 6. Therefore, if I was going to work to further this "philosophy" it was only logical that I do it through "The Church". Now, the problems arise, my understanding of the Gospels varies from that of other members of the church! I became involved in staffing retreats for a Roman Catholic youth ministry, "Teen Seminar". A lot of people were confused, I'm United Methodist, how could I staff a retreat for a Roman Catholic confirmation class? (The priest in charge put it like this, "We don't try to teach them to be good Catholics, we try to teach them to be good Christians!") I found a lot of misunderstandings between Roman Catholics and Protestants, (frankly, there are some teachings of the RCC which I simply cannot accept, I could not in good conscience join the RCC at this time), but even though we have our differences, I believe we are working for the same goals. I added more basic truths: 7. "The Church" wastes far too much effort fighting itself, this effort would be much better employed working for unity, not striving to prevent it. 8. "The Church" will probably never agree on doctrine, any unification of the church must happen in spite of doctrine, not because of it. But, if I disagree with my fellow Christians, who is right? We can't both be right, (can we?) Well, maybe. Romans 14:1-4 Welcome the person who is weak in faith, but do not argue with him about his personal opinions. 2 One person's faith allows him to eat anything, but the person who is weak in the faith eats only vegetables. 3 The person who will eat anything is not to despise the one who doesn't; while the one who eats only vegetables is not to pass judgement on the one who will eat anything; for God has accepted him. 4 Who are you to judge the servant of someone else? It is his own Master who will decide whether he succeeds or fails. And he will succeed, because the Lord is able to make him succeed. (TEV) Let's look at it this way, my fellow Christian is following a path to Jesus, just as I am. Our paths are different, if we fight against each other neither one of us will progress, but if we help each other to follow our individual paths, we can both progress further than we could on our own. And, just because I have been given this path to follow, I should not assume that it is the right path for my brother or sister, "One blind man cannot lead another one; if he does, both of them will fall into a ditch." (Luke 6:39 [TEV]) I too see inconsitancies, I see cases when it seems clear to me that "The Church" is at variance with the teachings of Jesus. For instance, I personally don't feel comfortable with the typical "Unison Prayer". These tend to be rather long, and use words which the participants would not use, and whose meanings they may even not be sure of. So, do I start "The Church of No Unison Prayers"? No, I simply don't recite the prayer if I feel uncomfortable. Do I tell others not to pray in unison? No, because many people feel that a unison prayer gives them the words to say what they wanted to say, but felt they couldn't express. For them *it is prayer*! For me it is not, and if I were to pretend to pray, then I would only be doing it to be heard by my fellow worshipers, so it would be wrong for me to do so. Doctrine can lead to division. If a church states that "This Church believes that all of our lives are predestined by God." A bunch of people may say, "well that's silly! We'll form a new church! This one doesn't believe that!" The key in my mind is not whether our beliefs are identical or not, but whether they are compatible or not. If you personally believe that you should "do unto others, before they do unto you", then I think we have a serious problem. We are working against each other. But if you feel for instance that you must worship on Saturday, rather than Sunday, that's fine. I won't try to get you to give up your Sabbath worship, if you invite me, I'll even join you, just don't try to tell me that my worship is invalid because I do it on the wrong day. Joe, don't bother looking for an airtight logical proof. You're not going to find it. What if God spoke to you, (aloud). What would it prove? (You might have imagined it.) In your great desire to believe in a God, you're mind may have provided you one. I believe God has spoken to you, and continues to speak to you. If you will be still, and quiet, you may hear him. God has never provided me with absolute logical proofs, but he has provided me with proofs. The key is, each one of these proofs requires a certain requisite faith, just as Geometry proofs all eventually boil down to certain unproven postulates. Okay Joe, I wasn't silent. I hope what I've said may have helped in some way. If it has, then give the glory to God. If it hasn't then I accept all blame. In either case, my employer had nothing to do with it. Tom Blake SUNY-Binghamton
ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu (elizabeth s tallant) (06/15/91)
> In article <Jun.2.01.34.55.1991.16398@athos.rutgers.edu> 6600wood@ucsbuxa.ucsb.edu (Joseph Wood) writes: > > >For many years I have been a person who has wanted to find God > >but has been unable to reconcile the differences and difficulties > >in the various Christian denominations. > >... > >I have always been of a sort of logical bent. I am one of those > >people that goes to movies and immediately notices what is wrong > >or foolish in them. This unfortunately is my problem. > HI Joseph, Welcome to the crowd! This brings to mind something my grandfather once told me. I was fussing about the new pastor and just was not sure if the guy was really on the level. My grandfather said, "You should go to church. When you go, listen to what the preacher says. If seems right to you, take it with you. If not, leave it there." I think that you will find few people who wholeheartedly agree with everything that their denomination teaches. For some, the disagreement is more intense than for others. So, why all this disagreement? WE are imperfect people trying to make imperfect attempts to reach God. Our denomination may be wrong, or we may be wrong, or both. Obviously, much is wrong because God does not want His body of believers to be divided. So, why does God tolerate all of this? Paul covers this question. He says that some believe in eating meat, others don't believe in eating meat, some feel special reverence for the Sabbath, and to others it is just like any other day. Yet, for all of these people, we are still acceptible to God because God has given us salvation through Jesus Christ. God has MADE US acceptible to Him. Whether or not we are wrong about things, as long as we don't get mixed up about salvation, we are all still Christians and members of the same Church in the Body of Christ. As for myself, I do attend church, but I don't agree with everything that it does/teaches. So, for me, the important part of my experience with God is through prayer and Bible reading in my own home. It is there where I develop most of beliefs. Using these beliefs, I have tried to find a denomination that I could best "tolerate." > Ask yourself why God would create such a conflicting, ambiguous, > murky Bible if your very salvation depended upon it. Answer: > God did not create it, it was the work of humans just like all of the > other thousands of religious texts that have claimed adherents over > the centuries. The Bible is the work of God. It even says that all scripture is God breathed. Further, God protects His works, and I certainly believe that He has protected the Bible for us. For those who don't believe in the Bible, it is because they don't want to listen to God. Their hearts are hard and they refuse to beleive. Those people are wearing spiritual blinders which blind them from truth. Until these spiritual blinders are removed, such people will not understand the secrets of God. > > >Everyone interprets the > >bible differently. I would appreciate someone telling me why > >there are so many sects, so many bibles, and so many people thinking > >that they are right and everyone else is wrong. Well, not everyone interprets the Bible differently. I was very surprised to find that Christians from literally half-way around the world interpret the Bible in the same way that I do. This helped me to realize that the bond between Christians is even stronger that I originally thought. As far as different Bibles, there is only one Bible, yet there are many translations. The Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Since few people read those languages, the Bible must be interpreted to other languages. In the 1600's, King James decreed that the Bible be interpreted from the most ancient texts avaible. That version, the King James Version, is really great. Yet, over a period of 400 years, the English language changed dramatically, and most folks today cannot understand all of the language that the King James Version uses. Thus, people set out to intrepret into more current English. The result was translations such as the New International Version (my personal favorite) the Revised Standard, the American Standard, and the Living Bible Paraphrase. Now, why do some people think that they are right and everyone else is wrong? Well, first, two people who contradict each other cannot both be right. God does not have a "right" for someone and "another right" for someone else. Yet, many people have hard hearts and they are spiritually blind. They may deliberately interpret the Bible to suit their own personal desires, irregardless of what God wants. Still, others may be just badly mistaken. Yet, amongst all this, someone there is truth - a right. To understand the Bible, we must first ask God to give us the understanding. This' invovles prayer. Then, we must read the Bible - not just a line here or there, but a comprehensive overview. Also, we must try our best to live in a way that please God, so that we do not create out own spiritual blinders. And if we mess up, we should ask for forgiveness and repent. Good luck Josheph. I hope that you find a church which fosters your spiritual growth. Please feel free to write for further private discussion Elizabeth ta00est@unccvax.uncc.edu
MNHCC@cunyvm.bitnet (06/17/91)
Hi, Brian,
I am aware of the limitations of apologetics. Faith is a
gift from God and depends entirely upon His grace. However, God
has chosen to use human beings as instruments of this grace.
Sometimes the human instrument just testifies to the effect on
his own life of believing in Jesus Christ. Other times the human
instrument presents logical arguments for the existence of God,
the deity of Jesus, etc. God uses both approaches as He sees
fit.
In this case I was replying to a specific question from
someone who had encountered differing religious beliefs and
wanted to know how to determine which is correct.
Your specific criticisms seem based on a failure to
recognize that I was, as I said at one point, giving a bare bones
outline of the apologetic arguments for the Catholic Church.
I did not assume that at least one existing claiming divine
revelation is true, although I believe that the Catholic Church
is true. I suggested _starting_ with those religions that claim
to be based on divine revelation. Obviously, if none of the
claimants can substantiate their claims one would have to look at
other religions, such as Buddhism, which, so far as I know, does
not claim revelation. It claims that the Buddha achieved en-
lightenment on his own. However, since divine revelation, if it
exists, would be the most reliable source of information about
God, it makes sense to start with the claims of revelation.
No, pointing out that the Gospels are ancient documents does
not mean that they are in the same category as other ancient
documents, such as the Declaration of Independence. The Gospels
are accounts of the life and teachings of Jesus of Nazareth
written by eyewitnesses or people who had spoken with eyewitness-
es. The Declaration of Independence is not an account of any-
thing. It is, as the name implies, a declaration. Historians
can learn things from the Declaration of Independence, just as
they can learn things from the Gospels, but the kinds of things
to be learned are different.
No, my wording was correct. The Gospels do not merely
report the effect Jesus had on people around Him. They report
His words and actions that illustrate and confirm His claim to be
God incarnate. This evidence has convinced people today. Spell-
ing out the evidence would mean elaborating at length on the bare
bones outline I presented.
No, my argument was not circular. Without expanding that
part of the my outline into a full argument, let me offer a
parallel. Some years ago in Brooklyn a baby was born. His
parents gave him the name Martin Helgesen. I and that baby are
essentially identical. We are one and the same person, at dif-
ferent stages of our development. I am bigger than I was then.
I have, over the years, learned things I did not know then. I
can do things I could not do then. Someone looking at a picture
of that baby and a picture of me taken this year might not recog-
nize that we are the same person. We look different in many
ways. However, a closer look might show some similarities. The
way to establish the identity for certain would be to trace the
history of my life and show the continuity between the Martin
Helgesen of then and the Martin Helgesen of now. The same kind
of thing can be done with the Catholic Church, but it takes
longer because we are dealing with centuries, not years.
Once it is established that the Catholic Church is the
Church Jesus founded, then the accuracy of her teachings is
guaranteed because He promised to be with His Church for all
days, until the end of the world, and, as St. Paul reminds us,
the Church of the living God is the pillar and foundation of
truth (1 Tim 3:15)
Your final statement, "After all... if all this could be
logically proven, they wouldn't call it 'faith'!" is also incor-
rect. As St. Thomas points out, there are teachings that the
learned can know by reason while the unlearned must accept them
by faith. There are, of course, truths such as the Trinity that
can be known only through faith, but that does not affect my
point.
Marty Helgesen