Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

by Narkissos 61 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Narkissos

  Pole,

  I think Rochelle's post is an excellent example of how the inner logic of faith can lead a Christian to avoid apologetics, regardless of any anti-Christian criticism.

  Kierkegaard's stance is another. He was aware of early Bible criticism but dismissed it. He just held that both Christianity and existential truth belong to the realm of subjectivity (cf. for instance http://www.quodlibet.net/johnson-truth.shtml).

  Back to the NT, I agree there is much implicit and explicit apologetics in it, but I do think that at least some important currents were remarkably free from it, e.g. all the Gnostic-like stuff which appears especially in the Pauline and Johannine literature:

  For Jews demand signs and Greeks desire wisdom, but we proclaim Christ crucified, a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles, but to those who are the called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God and the wisdom of God.

  No one can come to me unless drawn by the Father who sent me.

  That this is hard to reconcile with the "demonstration by miracles etc." is another matter. And that it may also be an irrational form of active persuasion is still another.
• 

  Sunchild

  Pole,

  The Christian faith is nearly 2000 years old. If you consider the NT books then you'll find that most (if not all) early varieties of the Christian faith were fundamentally based on apologetics. Either implicitly or explicitly.

  Interesting. I can't speak for the original poster, but the examples you've posted are somewhat different from what I think of when I think of Christian apologetics. Miracles, prophecies, etc.... Even those had to be accepted on faith by people who weren't eyewitnesses to them, and I never saw anyone (especially not Jesus) arguing ad nauseum with unbelievers. The believers just presented the facts as they knew them and left the rest up to their audience.

  When I think of apologetics, I think of how I've seen people INSIST on the scientific merits of the Bible or some other non-issue, and subsequently argue said issue right into the ground well after it becomes obvious that neither side is listening to the other. I've never seen that accomplish anything productive. Entertaining, maybe, but not productive.

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  metatron

  To me, I can't prove that the miracles took place - or even if Bible history is anywhere near

  correct - but I firmly believe one thing:

  Judeo-Christianity has been injected into human culture by a vastly superior intelligence.

  Was it "God"? Beings from the future? ET's and aliens? I don't know.

  I DO know that other civilizations failed to progress - the Chinese should have been

  dominant. They had culture and law and paper money and gunpowder and rockets

  while Europe was primitive. Islamic culture discovered Algebra - and then did nothing with it

  as they fell into a sterile orthodoxy.

  Only the Christian world prevailed and got us to the point where we can dream of

  exploring the stars and curing disease and nearly becoming gods ourselves.

  Now that Western Christian culture got us here, other cultures are catching up

  - like China, and the Islamic nations. Looking at their stagnant past, I don't see human

  progress as inevitable - Far from it!

  The message of Christ provided the spark that moved history. We wouldn't be

  reading computer screens without it, like it or not.

  metatron
• 

  Sunchild

  Sabrina,

  Beautiful words and beautiful feelings. Thank you so much, Rochelle.

  Thank you kindly. Just doing my job.

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  Satanus

  Metetron

  Take a look at the people group into which jewdeo christianity was injected. Look at their travels, their movement as farmers as they displaced or absorbed the hunter gatherers across europe and england. I think that it will show that their nature had as much or more to do w it than their religion. This group seems to have the best balance of competition and cooperation, the best ability to absorb the useful and discard the not so useful. Perhaps it was that they used this religion because it served a useful purpose. There were many tribes involved, but the celts stand out as a large force in this.

  China, japan and india were also exposed to christianity, china heavily so. However the spark failed to start flames, so to speak. Why? Because the nature of those peoples did not take to it.

  S
• 

  Fleur

  Wow, Rochelle, I remember when you used to post about being a Pagan after JW...I didn't know that you'd become a Christian now. I'm curious, was there any particular thing that caused you to make that change? One event that converted you or was it something of a slow metamorphosis?

  This is a great quote, I am going to write this down and put it on my fridge:

  To defend anything is always to discredit it.

  Even though the author was referring to Christianity here, I believe that can be applied to anything you really truly believe in; even if it means disbelief in the god of the bible or of a higher power in any form.

  essie
• 

  Sunchild

  Hi, Fleur.

  I'm curious, was there any particular thing that caused you to make that change? One event that converted you or was it something of a slow metamorphosis?

  It was one event, actually. I wrote about it here:

  My Story

  My Christian testimony is in the first link. The second link is taken from an old Livejournal entry on how I ended up incorporating certain elements of Wicca and magic (with or without a "k") with my Christian practice. Unorthodox, perhaps, but it works for me.

  ~Rochelle.
• 

  Carmel

  Letting our works exceed our words is the perview of the "true Christian" as well as any "true believer"!

  Carmel

  "Let deeds, not words, testify to thy faith, if thou art a man of true learning."

  (Abdu'l-Baha, Memorials of the Faithful, p. 201)
• 

  gumby

  So, no, I don't think it's necessary to make a "rational" defense of what, 99% of the time, is a very personal experience. That makes about as much sense to me as defending the fact that you've fallen in love.

  Christianity wouldn't be "an experience" at all were it not for the bible because nobody would have a clue who jesus was to have an experince by him....( unless jesus told the person it was him during this experience)

  This has always been funny to me. I've heard ones on this forum claim the bible has no value in itself, is not infallable, and that there are obvious flaws. These ones claim it's the person of Jesus that's important and that reflecting his life is what a christian should strive for.......yet these same ones claim the bible and it's savior should not be scrutinized.

  Why would you honor the experience claim, yet not honor the examining and questioning of the book that reveals and names the experience giver?

  Gumby
• 

  Sunchild

  This has always been funny to me. I've heard ones on this forum claim the bible has no value in itself, is not infallable, and that there are obvious flaws. These ones claim it's the person of Jesus that's important and that reflecting his life is what a christian should strive for.......yet these same ones claim the bible and it's savior should not be scrutinized.

  Well, if you're looking for me to tell you that the Bible has no value, you're not going to get that from me. I think it IS a revelation of God, albeit one that was penned by human beings, and as such, it contains a wealth of spiritual treasures... as well as a bit of human dirt. *g* Prayer and the Holy Spirit help me figure out how different things apply in my life.

  Nor will I tell you not to scrutinize the Bible or Christ. I do the same -- in my own way, and through my own experience. Your experiences have been different from mine, so you've reached a different conclusion. And that's all right with me.

  Peace to you,

  ~Rochelle.