Should the Christian faith be rationally defended? (page 5)

Narkissos

Outbutnotdown:

I think your post exemplifies two distinct aspects of what could be called (after Nietzsche) the nihilistic side of monotheism and especially Christianity.

(1) On the intellectual level, the negative conceptualisation and criticism of "polytheism", "idolatry" or "paganism" which is essential to the very constitution of monotheism is bound to backfire against "God" as the "supreme idol".

(2) On a more psychological level, the ambivalent and irrational appeal of paradox (strength through weakness, life through death etc.) is absolutely essential to Christianity: I think the famous misquote of Tertullian, credo quia absurdum (I believe because it is absurd), sums up the gist of most Christian (e.g. Kierkegaard's) anti-apologetic stance; and I feel there is more to it than mere escapism. Unfortunately it is an issue that few Christians are willing to delve into (I tried that earlier, cf. http://www.jehovahs-witness.com/6/63761/1.ashx).

Pole

Sunchild,

Actually, the above exchange illustrates my "different sports, different rules" analogy very well. What I meant by it was that believers and non-believers play by very different rules which are often incompatible. This makes it kind of pointless for Christians to try to "prove" their faith in an atheistic context (or vice versa) since each group tends to interpret the world in very different ways. I also think that Christian attempts to prove their faith in terms of science is often a betrayal of that faith because it tends to marginalize the value of spiritual experience, as if said experience is somehow not as good as what you see and touch. It's not less; it's just different.

Agreed. You have managed to demonstrate an alternative to apologetics, and it was interesting to hear your opinion.

Bur if you want to talk about Paul's letters, weren't they addressed to people who were already Christians? People for whom (with some exceptions) his words were accepted facts, not "proof" of some idea which was beyond their ken? If I remember right, what prompted some of those letters was a handful of people in the congregation who had introduced some rather... "interesting" teachings, and Paul was trying to keep order among the believers. It's not much different from when my pastor gives a sermon. There aren't a lot of people sitting in the pews who really need convincing.

Honestly I think that's a bit of a stretch in the case of this particular passage. Of course there could have been some who would remain Christian no matter what "facts" were presented to them. But I guess Narkissos is right when he says we shouldn't judge Chistianity by the characteristics of any single variety.

Pole

jgnat

It took me a couple days' deep thinking to decide to enter this fray. Narkissos, I do wish you had chosen another word other than "should". I have been exposed enough to WT programming to hate that word. Is it a worthwhile activity for a Christian to rationally defend their faith?

Why did I become a Christian in the first place? I had no scripted guidance to the Christian way. The Bible came later. I gave my life over to Christ because He rescued me from a terrible existence. I owe Him my life, so I dedicate my life in return to live for Him. Every time I fail to show compassion to those who cross my path, I fail that first covenant. When Jesus told his followers, "Go and tell others what you have seen and heard.", I take it that I, in turn, give my most powerful witness when I speak about what I, personally, have seen and heard, not what I have read in a book.

So, does a rational discussion of my faith lead others to Christ? Perhaps not as well. It is much harder to deny the power of Christ when I grieve along with a friend, when I help a small child find her mommy, when I grasp the hand of the homeless.

I do think it is worthwhile for a Christian to run through a rational exercise, even though it can rock our faith. There is far too much sloppy logic and shabby proofs bolstering the evangelical version of God and our world. Only by facing the nakedness of our beliefs, I think, do we become more "real" in what we believe.

AlanF, I do not consider you evil. Does that make me less than a complete Christian, then?

garybuss

If Judaism has merit, then how can Christianity have merit? and if Judaism has no merit then how can Christianity have merit?

No one has ever answered me that on a rational level.

LittleToe

Gary:It seems that Paul has already had a crack at that one, in Gal.3:24, 25 .

garybuss

Cute verse LT, what's it got to do with my two questions?

czarofmischief

Cute verse LT, what's it got to do with my two questions?

Are you being facetious?

CZAR

garybuss

Are you being facetious?
CZAR

Nope! Are you?

czarofmischief

Almost always - but guess I just don't understand your questions then.

CZAR

garybuss

Almost always - but guess I just don't understand your questions then.
CZAR

Lol My questions are academic to me. If the Hebrew Bible can believed, there is no way Jesus (if he even lived) could have been the Jewish Messiah. The whole question to me is . . . Could Jesus have been the Jewish Messiah? My answer to myself is no.

My scenario of accepting the Hebrew Bible is a l o n g reach for me. I have read it and analyzed it and I have researched the manners and customs as well as the Jewish festivals and their origins, early observations and modern observations. I have interviewed Jewish Rabbi's and I feel pretty well educated on the subject.

It's a question I ask every Christian apologist I can and I have never had one give me an objective answer. Their only answer is the Jewish people didn't know what they wrote. That's preposterous! If that's the case then the Christian writers need to be discredited by the same rules.

So a Christian apologist who can not defend Judaism is lost before she starts. Because without a credible Judaism there can be no credible Christianity. And with credible or with an incredible Judaism, there can be no credible Christianity.

Credible Judaism easily discredits Christianity. Incredible Judaism leaves no credible basis for Christianity. This seems very simple to me.

Should the Christian faith be rationally defended?

Share this