Posted on 12/04/2013 3:17:41 PM PST by servo1969
A sixty-seven year old proud atheist friend of mine recently interjected the sweeping statement “all religion is irrational” into one of our conversations. I replied, not with a direct rebuttal but, instead, with the unexpected question, “who is Jesus Christ?” He replied, “I don’t know.” If I were to ask some of you why I pulled that question out of left field you might also reply with a bewildered “I don’t know.” So keep reading. Please.
If you have never really pondered the question “who is Jesus Christ?” then you simply cannot consider yourself to be a committed intellectual – at least not yet. Let me say that in a different way: if you have never given serious thought to the true identity of the most important individual ever to walk the face of the earth then you are either a) suffering from severe intellectual hernia, or b) possessed of an intellect impaired by a fear of knowing the true answer to the question.
Let me begin by defending the assertion that Jesus Christ was the most important individual ever to walk the face of the earth. 1) We divide time using the date of Jesus’ birth. 2) More books have been written about Jesus than anyone else in recorded history. Case closed. Now we can move on to the issue of fear and intellectual curiosity.
The options we are given for understanding the identity of Jesus are so limited that no one who is truly intelligent can be behaving rationally if he just avoids the question altogether. Take, for example, my friend who has lived 2/3 of a century on this planet without so much as attempting to work through the options. I don’t want you to be one of those irrational people so let’s get to work.
When addressing the question of Jesus’ identity, there are only four available options. Anyone who has ever read C.S. Lewis or Josh McDowell knows that Jesus was either: 1) A legend, 2) a lunatic, 3) a liar, or 4) the Lord.
The idea that Jesus was merely a legend, as opposed to someone who actually lived, is simply not an option we can take seriously (at least not for long). Independent historical accounts, by that I mean accounts written by non-Christians, are enough to put this option to rest. Jesus is cited by 42 sources within 150 years of his life, and nine of those sources are non-Christian. By contrast, the Roman Emperor Tiberius is only mentioned by 10 sources. If you believe Tiberius existed, how can you not believe in a man who is cited by four times as many people and has had an immeasurably greater impact on history? You can believe that if you wish. But then you risk forfeiting any claim to be considered rational.
Nor is it rational to consider Jesus to have been a lunatic. Perhaps you could maintain that belief if you’ve never read the Bible. But how can a person claim to be educated if he’s never read the Bible?
World Magazine editor Marvin Olasky once entertained the notion that Jesus was a mere lunatic. But, then, in the early 1970s, as an atheist and a communist graduate student, he examined the words of Jesus for the first time. He was traveling to Russia on a ship and wanted to brush up on his Russian. But all he had with him to read (that just happened to be written in Russian) was a copy of the New Testament. And so he read. And he was transformed.
Marvin recognized immediately that the words of Jesus represent a profound level of moral understanding that rises above anything else that has ever been written. Read for yourself the words of Jesus. Then read the words of Charles Manson. Try to convince me that they are one in the same – merely two lunatics who mistakenly thought they were the Messiah. You have a right to that opinion. But you don’t have a right to be considered rational if you cannot detect a glaring difference between the teachings of Christ and Manson.
So, now only two options remain. And this is where the real trouble begins. If we call Jesus a liar (who falsely claimed to be God) then we cannot also call him a great moral teacher. One cannot be both. But many look at the final option of calling him Lord and panic. To go there means to accept belief in the supernatural. And surely that couldn’t be rational. Or could it?
Science has taught us a lot since the Bible was written. For one thing, we know that the universe had a beginning. It is expanding, it is finite, and it was not always here. Put simply, Carl Sagan was wrong. In fact, he was dead wrong. The cosmos is not all that is or was or that ever will be. It had a beginning. It is irrational to dismiss the obvious implications of this: that the universe was caused by a supernatural force existing outside of space and time.
People have to let go of the idea that the natural world is all there is because that is not where the science leads us. It instead leads us away from the philosophical commitment to only considering naturalistic explanations for the things we observe in the physical universe. This also leads us to one very important question: if a supernatural force was great enough to create the universe could the force or being not also reenter creation? And another related question: is the force or being responsible for creating life not also able to conquer death?
Arguably, the resurrection is a pretty small accomplishment in comparison with the creation of the universe. But that doesn’t mean it happened. The evidence must be judged on its own merits. I recommend that serious intellectuals start here.
Of course, you could just keep avoiding the question while judging others to be irrational. But there’s no avoiding the plank in your own eye.
Nope; Indiana.
And it was NOT passed, but did take up some serious discussion time - much like same-sex marriage is doing today.
“The majority will REALIZE their fate and accept His offer of Salvation!”
Are you serious? Has that been your experience? The majority of those you tell about Jesus accept his offer? And they become devout and committed Christians? Wow.
Have you ever read Jesus parable about the sower and the seed? I realize it’s just a parable but he described a scenario in which only one fourth of the people who heard the gospel accepted it. I obviously don’t have any figures, but I seriously doubt that one quarter of all the people who have lived on this planet since Jesus told that parable have accepted his offer, at least beyond some perfunctory way. Those who didn’t are doomed (assuming the Bible is true).
plus 0r minus roundoff error.
(Darned mistaken monks are EVERYWHERE!)
They had their hands too full of irrational people.
Evolution is based on life already existing.
How life first began is outside of the classic theory of evolution. It is an interesting subject, but is just outside evolution, like the study of LED design would be outside evolution.
There are common areas of study in evolution and how life began. Biochemistry, is for example an important consideration for both.
Rather like ladders. It is one thing go determine if you can go from one rung to another. It is another thing to determine if you can get on the first run of the ladder at all.
Of course part of the reason why life on earth has a hard time starting up multiple times is because of all the life that exists on earth now. Any accumulation of chemicals that approached life would be quickly recognized as food. Of course before life began that wasn’t a limitation.
Glad I could help you with that.
Thus: Global Warming - it's MAN's fault.
Oh, and Calvinasauruses; too!
I predict that in a hundred years my children will rule the earth.
See opinions are fun aren’t they!
If you select one dividing point, all one dimensional ordered sets can be divided into at most two subsets.
What, you want me to divide the world of 10 thousand things into 10 thousand things, and then treat them with the rules of philosophy? What good would that be?
Well, global warming may be the sun’s fault. The sun is much bigger than the earth, or so I believe.
Not that global warming of a few degrees would be a bad thing. Imagine, all that land in Antarctica, Canada, and Siberia turned into productive farm land. Food prices would drop, and wood, a most common building material would be more available, so we could all live better.
I believe your analogy is a bit flawed. Someone offering you alcohol, which can be harmful to your health, is not akin to someone offering the Gospel.
A better analogy would be you and metmom are on a sinking ship in the middle of the Pacific and she offers to pull you in a life boat, and you refuse.
I didn’t mention aliens. I mentioned a guy who made a mistake.
You live in a country that allows people to rip children from mother's wombs.
Are you a decent person?
Alcohol can be life saving. It can also be life threatening depending on the dose.
I hold that the Gospel is similar.
Neither.
I know the game.
Your acceptance of debunkness shows you have an agenda.
Want to expose it?
God did not *create a system*. God is not punishing people for not accepting His gift.
He told Adam and Eve specifically, that if they sinned, they would die. It’s a natural consequence of their disobedience.
The punishment is for the sin we commit. God is holy and sin cannot endure in His presence.
The gift gives us the option of avoiding that. That’s where the love kicks in. Yes, God is love. but God is also just and sin needs to be punished. Would God be just if He didn’t punish wrong doing?
If the bible is NOT true; then it seems the field is wide open for exploitation.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.