Subject:
|
Re: Why not Both?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Fri, 26 Jan 2001 16:03:24 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
381 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Jon Kozan writes:
> I believe, given my time limits, it's far easier to adopt Tim's methodology -
> cite a concise preexisting answer.
>
> Why is Christianity supreme? - Why is it different?
> http://www.christiananswers.net/q-eden/edn-r003.html
Ok, I'll stab at it then. Too bad I can't republish it here thanks to the
copyright, but I'll try to summarize as best possible.
Statement: Christianity is unique
Rebuttal: No quarrel yet. It is unique. But so is Buddhism. Uniqueness does
not imply correctness.
S: Its claim of necessity is grounded on strong evidence pointing towards
its truth and finality.
R: I'll qualify two things here:
1. Some of the evidence's existence is questionable. Some is not.
2. The evidence may or may not suggest Christianity. Individual judgement is
the KEY to interpreting evidence. If we interpret the evidence, we are
subject to error.
S: Uniqueness point 1 - The Christian God is the only God shown to be
'truly' divine. All other religions set their basis of God on the physical
world, with Gods only as 'personifications' of nature. Therefore this God,
being the only 'creator-god' is obviously the one to have created the universe.
R: Three points:
1. The Christian God is NOT the ONLY God presented in religion to have
created the universe.
2. Even if the Christian God WERE the only God presented in such a way, I
could start a new religion right here and now that defines God in the same
way, and could VERY DEFINITELY *NOT* be the Christian God.
3. This argument presumes the existence of the divine. To put it bluntly,
it's saying that the Christian God is the only explanation for the universe,
and He's quite clearly not.
S: Uniqueness point 2 - Christianity is the only religion to base itself
upon the actions of true history-- that of the life of Jesus. Other
religions base themselves solely on teachings of their founders.
R: Sigh.
1. Christianity is NOT the only religion to base itself upon the actions of
a specific person. I can think of two right off the bat. Islam and Buddhism.
2. Even if it WERE the only one, being based on the life of a person does
not make it valid. If I based a new religion on MY actions, I'm pretty sure
Christians wouldn't go flocking to it.
3. Christianity isn't solely based on Jesus. It's also got its roots in
Judiasm (sp?). The Old Testament in no way validates the existence of
physical history.
S: Uniqueness point 3 - Jesus was the only 'person' (founder of a religion)
to overcome death. All other religion's founders are dead.
R: I think I'll just skip the 'rebuttal' line as I seem to have many points
against each of these reasons.
1. Christianity is NOT the only religion to claim that its founder lives on.
The Dali Llama anyone? I'm quite sure there are others.
2. Jesus has shown no evidence, except in his memory, of his continued life.
I.E. you can't prove that he didn't die.
3. Even if he WAS still alive or DID overcome death, does that have any
bearing on the truth of the religion? If I started a new religion, aren't I
still alive? And up until I die couldn't I say that obviously I'm right
because I'm still alive? And couldn't I also say that I shall live on, even
if you don't see me? Is Elvis dead?
S: Uniqueness point 4 - Christianity is the only religion wherein salvation
is not based in whole or in part upon an individual's actions. Salvation
according to the Bible is based on (at least in part-- it does not expressly
say this completely encapsulates the requirements of salvation) a moral and
ethical standard comparibly perfect with God, with which one must act in
accordance with in order to attain salvation. Other religions in whole or in
part dictate that salvation is found through physical acts. Further, no
"man" would create a system to which no man could adhere (implying that some
other religions' codes are impossible, and that Christianity's is possible)
1. I guess I have to say this every time: Christianity is NOT the only
religion which does not depend in part or in whole on actions for salvation.
Again, I'll quickly throw out Buddhism.
2. And yet again, even if it WERE, doing so in no way validates the
religion. I could invent my own religion wherein salvation were dependant on
something other than actions, and no doubt Christians wouldn't come running.
3. The moral code in the Bible being 'perfect' assumes a knowledge of what
perfect is. You can delay the argument by saying that "God is perfect", but
then you're presuming to know that God is perfect. Basically, humans are
incapable of judging what "perfect" is.
4. That last sentence they thrown in is great:
4a: I think they're implying that other religions have standards to which
one could not adhere, and then they're saying that no "man" would create
such a system. Who did, then? But that's a minor issue.
4b: Even if there is a system which is unattainable for humans vs. one that
IS attainable for humans, how does that validate the ethical 'perfectness'
described?
4c: Again, there ARE other religions out there which are attainable by
people. Are they valid?
4d: Even if there AREN'T any other religions that have unattainable
standards, what if there WERE? Would THEY be valid?
S: Uniqueness point 5 - Jesus was the only 'person' to ever adhere to this
perfect system, thus demonstrating that he was "the God-Man". Therefore, in
death for the sins of all humans, he alone has the ability to offer true
forgiveness and perfectness to any other person.
R: Wow, I didn't need the 'there ARE others' and 'what if there were'
arguments for this one. And actually, this isn't so much a unique quality of
Christianity so much as a conclusion from the other points above. So really,
the rebuttals above, and those that I would offer elsewhere would apply
here. As is, this statement's really not all that bad. It just founds itself
on the unfounded. The only thing I will dispute in this last point is:
what's to say that such a "God-Man" is the only source of salvation? How
does this one person's perfect adherence make him the ONLY source for
salvation? I don't see real validation here.
S: (done with the uniqueness points) - No other religion is like
Christianity. Jesus is both the universe's creator and it's only source for
redemption. Followed by a Biblical quote to the same effect.
R: Again, uniqueness does not imply correctness. And further, this is just
another conclusion built upon already rebutted conclusions and assumptions.
Hence, I can't really attack this statement in particular-- I can only
attack its roots, which I have already done to some extent.
Did I interpret the article well enough? Counter rebuttals?
DaveE
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Why not Both?
|
| (...) I believe, given my time limits, it's far easier to adopt Tim's methodology - cite a concise preexisting answer. Why is Christianity supreme? - Why is it different? (URL) (23 years ago, 25-Jan-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
88 Messages in This Thread:
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
