Is Christianty elitist?

[Gumph]

This comes down, I suppose, to a personal perspective. However, I don't see God as just a superhuman, and I don't think that he has to conform to whatever social standards are in the ascendency in our own culture at any certain point in time, no.

Do you not find it difficult having a close relationship with an entity who has different or unknown moral and social standards?

 

[Gumph]

Aiki, your post is a really good summary of the core Christian views that have been presented to me over the last few months on this forum. Below I am going to try and express where a non-believer struggles with the point of view taken. I am not attempting to pass any judgement. It is off topic, but I reckon that's ok.

The question "Did Jesus exist?" has been thoroughly answered in the affirmative. Some fringe folk want to hold out that Jesus is not an actual figure in history, but this is no longer the general consensus of modern historians of Jesus' era.

This is most definitely in dispute. Most may agree that a man called Jesus lived. Whether he was supernatural or not is certainly not thoroughly answered.

Does Jesus exist today? Well, if he was God as he claimed to be, then it follows that he exists today.

Under dispute as per above

How do we know he is God? By his resurrection from the dead. Did he really rise from the dead? That is what the historical documents concerning Jesus' death, burial and resurrection indicate.

The historical documents indicating a missing body, but with no witness statements to this act happening before their eyes?

Can we trust those documents? I think so, yes. Why? Because I have no good reason not to.

How about, because they were made by fallible, biased, sinful, error prone men?

Purely as historical documents, the Gospels are as valid as any other historical document.

And how many other detailed, accurate historical documents are we are aware of that go back more than say 2000 years? What about the saying: "History is written by the victors"? History becomes less accurate with every year that is moves from the present.

And the writing of the Gospels was close enough to the events they relate that they could have easily been challenged as false by people who had been witnesses to the events they recounted.

I'm under the impression they were written a few generations after the events. How is that close enough for a witness to make a challenge? How do we know they weren't challenged by others? Did the crusades for example not come about because they were being challenged?

And what extra-biblical accounts of Jesus there are bear out the Gospel accounts rather than contradict them.

I will have to admit to my ignorance here, I am not aware of these other detailed accounts.

As for the fact that men wrote the Gospel accounts, well, men wrote all the historical documents from which we construct ancient history. Is our default position, then, to dismiss these ancient documents simply because men wrote them? Obviously not.

And are there not huge holes in ancient history? Whether we dismiss a document or not depends on how it influences us. We should most definitely look at any information given to us with our BS detectors on, otherwise we will fall victim to snake oil salesman, fortune tellers and every scam artist in the area. If a man says that George Washington existed, well then I will accept that with virtually no issue at all because whether it is true or not has no bearing on my life. If however a man tells me that the state will be repossessing my home because George Washington is still alive and has laid claim to the land, then I will want to investigate the matter most fully.

This means that the New Testament I read today maintains very high fidelity to the original manuscripts. And there is only one step of translation between my English Bible and the ancient Greek New Testament, so there is no legitimate concern about meaning being lost or confused through a multitude of translations.

This will not help if the originals are already tainted by man. In any event the concern remains. Many discussions over interpretations in the bible revolve around the English word chosen in the translation. Often there is not an exact equivalent word, so something close is used. This results in one interpretation, where as another close word would mean something a bit different. This does not seem ideal for a message from God.

In addition meaning does get lost due to the nature of the writing. Its full of symbolism, analogy and words that we no longer use. This makes exact understanding difficult to the lay person.

What reason do you have to trust the writers of the Gospel? What concrete reasons (not suspicions) do you have not to trust them? That they could have made a mistake or told a lie does not prove or guarantee that they did. It seems you've just assumed they're going to lie or be careless in their accounts of Jesus right out of the gate, but without any solid justification for doing so. Sounds like prejudice at work, not intellectual honesty.

I call it experience. Every single person I have ever met has made both mistakes and lied.

I will not invest my life savings with any institution without a thorough investigation involving 3rd party verification.
I will not just accept a car salesman's word when it comes to buying a new car.
I will not just accept the shop salesman's word when it comes to buying a new phone or computer.

Is that prejudice? Perhaps, but a highly recommended one IMO.

Every person has an innate and fundamental awareness of God that they "suppress in unrighteousness." No one is going to stand before God one day and say, "I had no idea you even existed!" That's just not gonna' wash. We all know God exists; we just don't like to admit it because we are sinful, self-centered creatures.

I couldn't disagree with you more. If I stand before him later today, I will in fact be furious with him for not revealing himself properly. I'd throw a tantrum that would impress a 3 year old.

Summary. My discussions are leading me to the following conclusion:

We all fall into two categories when we are told by another human (usually parent or a book) that there is a god.

1) Say they accept and are considered either gullible or aware depending on your view point.
2) Say they are not convinced and are considered either sceptical or sensible depending on your view point.

It really seems to come down on how much we are prepared to trust the human source.

 

[oi_antz]

Restrained desires causing problems could possibly include:

- A teenager bottles up his rage until the last straw breaks him and he goes on a shooting rampage.
- A religion teaches a husband to only use sex for procreation. The marriage dissolves as physical love is no longer being used to help the bond.
- A culture prevents two in love youngsters from getting married because that have different ethnicities.
- A culture of isolating teenage girls and boys from each other whilst growing up causes insecurities when they become adults.
- A law prevents a spouse from terminating the pain of their terminally ill partner.
- A gay couple restrains their love for each other due to society views, causing both much anguish.
- A boy studies medicine despite having a love for engineering, because that's what his Dad said he must do.
- A girl restrains herself from meeting the boy across the road because its not the done thing.

Ultimately I wonder why it is even necessary to restrain a desire if it has no negative impact on anyone else.

There is an overwhelming theme in these (except the first). There is as you say, opportunity for all those examples to be restrained in circumstances which they are not harmful desires. If that is the case, then we need to look at the ones who are restraining these people, seeing it is those people's desires that are becoming harmful.

The first one, I do not understand how you suggest that rage is not harmful. Could you explain that a bit?

 

[oi_antz]

How about, because they were made by sinful men?

What makes you believe this? The scriptures rather demonstrate that these were holy men.

 

[Job8]

If all could be among the elite, then elitism would not be so bad would it? God says that all can be among the elite.

 

[oi_antz]

If all could be among the elite, then elitism would not be so bad would it? God says that all can be among the elite.

Can you please show me where this has been written and by whom?

Edit: you might mean to say all are invited to, whereas Jesus has said many will try and not be able.

 

[Job8]

What makes you believe this? The scriptures rather demonstrate that these were holy men.

Scriptures demonstrate and also plainly state that these were holy men: For the prophecy came not in old time by the will of man: but holy men of God spake as they were moved by the Holy Ghost. (2 Pet 1:21).

 

[Job8]

Can you please show me where this has been written and by whom?

And the Spirit and the bride say, Come. And let him that heareth say, Come. And let him that is athirst come. And whosoever will, let him take the water of life freely.

All can have eternal life, therefore all can be among the elite. If some will not take the water of life which is offered freely, that is their choice.

 

[Joshua Bligh]

It seems to me that only some people are successful in finding or discovering God. Others fail in their search, are still looking, have given up looking, have found something else or never began in the first place. This latter group seems to far outnumber those who have been successful.

Is this not a cause for concern to Christians, that so many others fail?
Is it really necessary to make the search so difficult?

This has been one of my major concerns as well but I've chalked it up to an improper understanding of heavenly realities. The Bible does seem to indicate that there are those chosen to come out of the world. For there to be chosen means that there are also those who are 'unchosen', right? All I know is that god went to remarkable lengths to recover me from atheism, from prison, from the fear I harbored to bring me to Himself. It is hard for me to square some of the doctrine of the bible with my own understanding, but I trust Him. The bible is god's word, but it is sill written by man. Imperfect man. The Holy Spirit dwelling inside us is the final authority. Now, just to turn up the volume on him. That's the task, right?

 

[aiki]

This is most definitely in dispute. Most may agree that a man called Jesus lived. Whether he was supernatural or not is certainly not thoroughly answered.

Well, you see, I'm not trying to convince you I'm right, only give a reasoned defense of the Christian faith. You have a multitude of experiences and prejudices through which you will pass all that I write that make the prospect of convincing you next to impossible. But the standard for me isn't whether or not I can succeed in doing so but whether or not my reasons for my faith are justified and defensible according to objective standards of evidence and the principles and laws of logic.

I think the resurrection of Jesus clearly establishes that he was the God-man, Saviour and Messiah he claimed to be. The presence of debate on this point does not by itself mandate skepticism any more than debate on the best route to drive from Seattle to Miami mandates skepticism on the possibility of the making of the journey itself. Your doubt, or the doubt of others about the divinity of Christ, does not by itself logically necessitate that I be likewise doubtful. For my part, I think the question of Jesus' supernatural nature is thoroughly answered.

The historical documents indicating a missing body, but with no witness statements to this act happening before their eyes?

The documents also record a risen Christ appearing to individuals and large groups after his death and burial. An eyewitness to his actual moment of resurrection is, therefore, obviously unnecessary to establishing that he was, in fact, resurrected.

How about, because they were made by fallible, biased, sinful, error prone men?

Again, this is not by itself a guarantee that their testimony is mistaken. Do you automatically doubt the correctness of say, a road map, or a chemistry text, or an assembly or repair manual because fallible, sinful error-prone men made them? Is it your default setting to doubt and dismiss every source of information you encounter because error-prone humans are involved? I very much doubt it. It is telling, though, that this is your default setting when it comes to the eye-witness testimony of the Bible.

And how many other detailed, accurate historical documents are we are aware of that go back more than say 2000 years? What about the saying: "History is written by the victors"? History becomes less accurate with every year that is moves from the present.

So, what about the saying, "History is written by the victors"? Do you think this statement holds true for all of recorded human history? I hope not. It seems very obvious to me that this idea pertains only to history of a military (and perhaps political) nature. The Edmonton Eskimos, for example, were the victors in this year's Grey Cup contest. Did they get to re-write history or mandate what is written of their win for posterity? No, they didn't. In light of this I don't see how the "history is written by the victors" idea applies to the Bible or most of human history.

Can you explain to me how history becomes less accurate with each passing year? Historical events recede farther into the past with each passing year but this doesn't necessarily mean they alter or warp as a consequence. The facts of Napolean Bonaparte's life are exactly the same now as they were when I was eight (I'm nearly fifty now). They have not, as far as I can see, grown increasingly inaccurate as an effect of aging.

I'm under the impression they were written a few generations after the events. How is that close enough for a witness to make a challenge? How do we know they weren't challenged by others? Did the crusades for example not come about because they were being challenged?

What do you mean by a "few generations"?

The Crusades began largely in response to the encroachment of Muslim armies into Europe and their persecution of Christian pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem.

I will have to admit to my ignorance here, I am not aware of these other detailed accounts.

Who said anything about "detailed accounts"? I didn't. But there are ancient extra-biblical writers who mention Jesus and thus confirm his existence.

And are there not huge holes in ancient history? Whether we dismiss a document or not depends on how it influences us. We should most definitely look at any information given to us with our BS detectors on, otherwise we will fall victim to snake oil salesman, fortune tellers and every scam artist in the area.

Yes, and if any religious text has been subjected to such close and exhaustive scrutiny it is the Bible!

Many discussions over interpretations in the bible revolve around the English word chosen in the translation. Often there is not an exact equivalent word, so something close is used. This results in one interpretation, where as another close word would mean something a bit different. This does not seem ideal for a message from God.

Actually, the issue of correct translation of the Greek New Testament into English is not a matter of significant debate any longer. This has been the case for some time, I think. All of the Greek scholars I know who have written or spoken on the matter of language translation and the Bible are quite unanimous in their confidence in the correctness of most of the modern translations of the Bible.

In addition meaning does get lost due to the nature of the writing. Its full of symbolism, analogy and words that we no longer use. This makes exact understanding difficult to the lay person.

Not really. Good basic Bible hermeneutics go a very long way to a proper understanding of the Bible. If there is confusion among the laiety about the meaning of Scripture it is because the laiety has become increasing careless in its "study" of the Bible. Much of the Bible is quite unambiguous in its meaning, actually.

I call it experience. Every single person I have ever met has made both mistakes and lied.

Nonetheless, it is a non sequitur to say therefore that both mistakes and lies must necessarily be in the Gospel accounts.

I will not invest my life savings with any institution without a thorough investigation involving 3rd party verification.
I will not just accept a car salesman's word when it comes to buying a new car.
I will not just accept the shop salesman's word when it comes to buying a new phone or computer.

Is that prejudice? Perhaps, but a highly recommended one IMO.

I agree, but so far your criticisms of the Bible seem to arise from a pretty cursory knowledge of it. Nonetheless, you have already settled upon what sounds like some fairly confident opinions about it.

I couldn't disagree with you more. If I stand before him later today, I will in fact be furious with him for not revealing himself properly. I'd throw a tantrum that would impress a 3 year old.

Well, you may disagree with me all you wish but I believe what the apostle Paul has written. You really do have an innate knowledge of God's existence which you suppress in unrighteousness. And this unrighteousness is always ultimately at the heart of why people pretend God does not exist.

John 3:19-20
19 And this is the condemnation, that the light has come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil.
20 For everyone practicing evil hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his deeds should be exposed.

It really seems to come down on how much we are prepared to trust the human source.

For you, perhaps. But what it comes down to for me is whether or not God has "shown up" in my life. Is God just an idea, a concept to defend, or is He the Person He claims in His Word to be who will fellowship with all those who submit their lives to Him? As I said before, one cannot find God, one cannot enter into fellowship with Him, through the satisfaction of academic questions alone. God is not an academic question; He is our personal and holy Creator.

Selah.

 

[hedrick]

I don’t think we know how many are going to be saved. Someone asked Jesus that question. I understand his answer to be “make sure *you* go through the narrow gate,” which really deflects the question.

If God administers the heavenly equivalent of the SAT, then I agree that you’d expect the Bible to be a pretty clear study guide. But I don’t think he does.

In liberal Christianity, most of us think Christians are called by God to be Christ’s agents. Our privilege is that, not that we’re the only ones who escape hell. (Note that I’m not implying real universalism — the idea that *everyone* is saved.) We also think the Bible is complicated because it’s about getting to know God through seeing what he’s done and how he’s worked with his people in many circumstances. And that story is complicated. But what you need to get started as an effective representative of Christ seems pretty clear to me in the Gospels. As long as you look at it those terms, and not in terms of whether we can properly explain how three hypostases share one ousia.

It seems to me that we should start with the understanding that God communicated what he wanted to, and ask what the Bible is suited to communicate. In particular, just what was Jesus’ approach to teaching his disciples suited to develop?

The idea that the Church is intended to be a foretaste of the eventual universal Kingdom, and that its members are called to be Christ's ambassadors may be selective. So was the call of Israel. But it's selecting us to be servants, not for privilege. The call to servanthood is one of the clearest messages of the Gospels.