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.
dang!
Them dumb JEWS should have seen this problem arising, and adjusted their Scriptures accordingly!
That’s all he’s got.
It has been suggested by others that maybe Buddha was saved. After all, as I said earlier Buddha did not start a religion that worshiped him, his followers did.
The question that remains to be asked is, did Buddha reject any worship of him during his life as Paul did?
Remember Paul and Barnabas both tore their cloths and begged the people not to worship them when he healed the lame man by telling him to get up and walk in Jesus name.
If I insult and call you a liar that's beyond the limits allowed in this forum. If someone implied or said the same about the site owner, he would be fully justified in banning you permanently. What do you think the consquences should be for an eternal insult? I am using the word eternal as referring to quality. On Judgment Day The Lord is going to ask many why they called Him a liar.
Whoever believes in the Son of God *has the testimony in himself. Whoever does not believe God *has made him a liar, *because he has not believed in the testimony that God has borne concerning his Son. ESV 1 John 5:10
Yet most Protestants think Mother Teresa and the Pope is going to burn for eternity, and justly so. And most Catholics think the same thing about Protestants.
Now, I realize you said that in frustration, but frankly that is pretty far from the truth. Yes, there are some that (IMHO mistakenly) believe that, but that you believe that most Prots and Catholics believe that about the other is troubling as that's simply not true. Your post points to a deeper problem of maybe not understanding what is central, and perhaps some bitterness that has come to you for your past attempts to minister (did I read that right, you were a minister of some kind?).
You might want to consider moving on to more important things, like God's grace, love and forgiveness, that you try to remember how wonderful God's love is for you, that you try to enter His rest rather than focus on things that are so fruitless. The central story is compelling and wonderful, don't just throw it away.
Now, from a prior post of yours I know you might think I'm just throwing you a bunch of trite phrases, but that's not my intent. Best of luck to you as you work this through.
The simple fact that you would post such vapid arguments that even a first year seminarian would be able to answer, plus the fact that won’t let go of them, tells me everything I need to know about the truth, or lack thereof, of your statement.
I would expect someone who claims to have been a chemist for 30 years to have even the faintest idea of what the periodic table is. Considering that salvation by grace is just THE foundation of the Christian faith, I would expect anyone who claims to have such experience to know the basis of what the faith IS.
That and your ad hominem argument and your attempt at appeal to experience fails.
Either you’re a poor liar or you were an awful pastor. I’m leaning towards poor liar.
I award you no points and may God have mercy on your soul.
My, my, aren’t you a vicious, pestiferous little worm. And a Christian to boot.
I noticed you haven’t put so much as a scratch on my “vapid” argument.
Why don’t you have the last word.
mm:OK, we've deduced that you think God isn't good enough.
Now, just what SHOULD He do for people who sin?
If you were God, how would you deal with it that's better?
Still waiting for a reply........
*Insert joke about the Black Knight and how it’s only a flesh wound.*
Just because you refuse to acknowledge that your arguments have failed to gain purchase doesn’t mean that you haven’t been thoroughly spanked many times earlier in the thread.
I could just copy and paste what my fine colleagues have already posted on this thread, but I know that you’ll just ignore it and repeat the same old tired talking point over and over. I figure it’s not worth the trouble.
At the moment, I’m just seeing how long I can goad you on in order to get you to make an even bigger fool out of yourself.
“Still waiting for a reply........”
It’s as though you and I are on different planets. We’re just talking past one another. But, I’ll give it one more try:
Anything would be better than torturing billions of people forever. Our human judicial system recognizes parole, time off for good behavior, no cruel and unusual punishments, etc.
I’ve studied the Bible enough to become convinced that the notion that it teaches less than eternal suffering is incorrect. In other words, ideas like the Jehovah’s Witness’ doctrine “like little dog Rover, dead all over” is not biblical.
That being the case, I’m forced to the conclusion (assuming the Bible is true) that God planned the creation of humanity knowing ahead of time that most of that humanity would lost and would therefore suffer forever.
I prefer to think of God as more benevolent than that. Somehow, that could have been avoided.
“I’m just seeing how long I can goad you on in order to get you to make an even bigger fool out of yourself.”
Yes, I’m sure that’s what Jesus would do.
Jesus did table flips and whipped people when they set up shop in the Temple, and called people really nasty names when they attempted to lure people away from the path of salvation.
Once again, you show your astounding ignorance, ‘pastor.’
My father used to tell me something that seems to apply here: “Don’t ever get into a pukin’ contest with a buzzard.”
Have a nice day.
I haven’t heard that saying before.
I HAVE heard ‘don’t get into an argument with an idiot; they drag you to their level and beat you with experience.’
Which is why I’ve opted not to argue with you. You haven’t shown yourself as honest or knowledgeable or even interested in a genuine conversation. So if you’re here to troll, have some trolling back.
*Goad goad goad*
*Goad goad goad*
What are you, 8 yrs. old?
Nyah nyah, I’m rubber and you’re glue.
You can’t expect me to see a challenge for an immaturity contest and NOT take you up on it, right?
That doesn’t answer the question of what YOU would do different.
How would you deal with sin? What would your penalty be?
What would you have them do for eternity?
I’m sure you are a very nice person, but as I said before, it’s like we are from 2 different planets.
Nevertheless, since you insist, here goes:
If we accept something like a biblical construct to reality, if I were God I would allow the saved to spend eternity in heaven, and consign the unsaved to extinction at death or shortly thereafter. No real hellfire. How about that? That’s what I call mercy.
But your question presumes a biblical construct, i.e., that sin and judgment and hell are realities that need a solution. I’m no longer convinced.
Besides, I’m not God so I don’t know. I anticipate that some will say if I don’t have an answer to the problem of hell or sin or whatever, I have no right to criticize. That’s nonsense. I can express an opinion about a movie, for example, without the knowledge to make a better one.
There seems little point to continuing this discussion.
Pilate had about lots of people put to death.
If the indifferent sources (who? I don’t know any) were recounting the christian assertions that doesn’t count as a separate source, just as a court reporter doesn’t count as a witness.
If we are created in G-d’s image, then if G-d can judge, then we can too, in the lesser matters before us.
That gives us the G-d given right to judge, even if G-d is our creator.
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.