The Resurrection

[aiki]

I don't think they are - at least some of them, anyway. This is most evident in circumstances that are painful, or tragic, or frightening. THe mature Christians I've seen walking through such circumstances with God do so with a stability, peace, and even joy, that dumbfounds onlookers.

I don't think there is a strong correlation between either. I have seen both Christians and non-Christians react negatively to painful circumstances. I have also seen Christians and non-Christians equally handle painful or tragic circumstances with poise and peace.

You'll notice that I was speaking of mature Christians, not the average Christian, who, I think, is very often not actually a Christian at all (at least, not in the biblical sense of the word). Really, I can't speak to what you've observed in regard to how Christians and non-Christians behave. Apparently, my observations and yours are rather different. I do see a very marked difference between the character of the mature Christians I know and those who are not Christian. Can I cite statistics that bear out my observations more generally? No. Can you do so in support of yours? I doubt it. It seems, then, that this is something of a moot point that I don't think can be objectively established one way or the other by comparing personal observations.

I went traveling to Cambodia and Laos this summer and one thing that struck me was the general lack of fear over death. They are surprisingly calm about death while here in the "Christendom" of the West we obsess about youth and avoid death at all costs.

"Christendom of the West"? Not any more. The North American culture is far more secular than Christian these days. It is, therefore, incorrect to suggest the general attitudes of modern western cultures reflect Christian values and doctrine. They don't. What fear of death, then, that you think you see in western culture is not necessarily connected in any way to "Christendom." I think you are working in too-broad generalities.

I would also suggest you be wary of confirmation bias when you only notice the Christians that are handling tragic situations with peace and calm because it confirms your hypothesis while neglecting to notice those Christians which handle such situations with fear and panic.

We all should be careful of confirmation bias.

Fellowship with God is a unique thing. It can be described in terms of other things, but in the end these only approximate what fellowship with Him is like. Fellowship with God is a joyful experience; it is marked by peace, and contentment, and love for God; it is characterized by a sense of fulfillment, and gratefulness, and a profound awareness of one's dependence upon God; it is a communion that provokes one toward greater and greater holiness. What about Buddhists, Hindus, Muslims and atheists which feel similar things by other means? I know a few atheists that respond quite spiritually to music and poetry and it empowers them to do good and love their neighbour more fully. If the ends are equal regardless of belief then what of the means? In other words, does the means justify the end?

First off, neither Buddhists nor atheists feel any communion with God. Their worldviews are directly opposed to the notion of a Creator-God like we find in the Bible.

Second, it seems to me impossible to make full comparisons between Christians and people of other faiths in their experience of God. At best, all you can go on are surface similarities or differences. I have found when questioning people who claim to have "spiritual experiences" that what they mean by "spiritual" ultimately is "deeply emotional." But this is only a part of a much greater, fuller experience the child of God has with their Maker. You see, then, that even the terms used to describe spiritual experience are tangled and inaccurate and frustrate meaningful comparisons.

How does being "cut off from fellowship" manifest itself? What can you point to that is concrete with which you can say, "That person is cut off from fellowship."?

How does being cut off from fellowship with a close friend or one's spouse manifest itself? What can you point to as concrete evidence of one's fellowship with one's friend or spouse being severed? Answer these questions and you'll have largely answered your own question above.

THe fact of the matter is that the Bible defines what is and isn't Christian. It tells us what to look for in one who claims to be a born-again child of God. When someone who says they are a Christian evidences none of the things the Bible tells me are standard characteristics of a believer, I have good cause to doubt their claim of membership in God's family. When I see a self-professed Christian who is as you describe (unhappy, immoral, and unfulfilled) I have reason to seriously suspect their claim to being Christian - and so do you. It is very likely that most of those who profess to be Christian and yet live unhappy, immoral, and unfulfilled lives are not truly Christian. This is not, by the way, an ad hoc shifting of the definition of who is and isn't a Christian (ala the "No True Scotsman Fallacy"), but an appeal to the 2000 year old standard set out in the Bible.

It seems, then, that your argument rests in part on the conduct of those "Christians" who, by their conduct, reveal that they are not, in fact, Christian. This puts something of crimp in your line of reasoning, I think...

This is what I mean by abstract. Its a "mean", but it doesn't correlate with any unique "end". For something to be concrete it should be able to be identified specifically.

I can see, given how you've been including without careful discernment any who make the claim to being Christian in your assessment of what it means to be a Christian, why you regard the claims of Christianity as "abstract." This is like trying to assess what it means to be a pro-football player by including those who merely toss a football around on the weekend in the assessment.

If you say there is a causative relationship between the abstract idea "fellowship with God" and some unique manifestation, then I do not see it. I don't see the causative relationship and I do not see the unique manifestation.

See above.

Does this verse imply that recognition or belief is required on the part of us in order for this to be true? Can a Buddhist have an experience which is objectively defined as "God" and yet label it as something else while the truth of this verse remains? In other words, can a Buddhist commune with God via Jesus Christ without recognizing he is doing so?

Your question assumes God is not interested in revealing Himself in a single, particular way to every person. If this is true, then any person of any other faith can experience God in a non-Christian way. The Bible, though, makes it very clear that God is not an amorphous entity with a shifting identity. If the Bible is true, then God is only as He is revealed to us in Scripture and the interactions of all humans with God must be predicated upon this revelation and no other.

THe strength of what I feel is not the litmus test of the reality of my faith. I believe as I do because I believe the Bible tells me the truth, not because I have some powerful sensations about it. People of other faiths have powerful emotional and sensory experiences, too. If strength of feeling was what decided the truth of a thing, we'd all be in terrible trouble! Ah! Here we go! So you don't define your faith based off experience, right? But isn't everything about you experiential? Even reading the Bible is a conscious experience which must be processed and interpreted by your mind. Your whole existence is founded purely on experience.

So you may have strong experiences with regard to the Bible, but this is still in itself an experience. So I guess we are in terrible trouble!

I'm afraid you've not carefully read what I wrote. Or, at least, you've only focused upon a part of what I wrote. As you've pointed out, all of life is a series of experiences. This is why I was specific about which experiences I was talking about:

"People of other faiths have powerful emotional and sensory experiences, too. If strength of feeling was what decided the truth of a thing, we'd all be in terrible trouble!"

Let me try to be clearer. I believe the Bible is true, not because I have some particular feeling about it (joy, peace, or contentment, etc.), but because the facts bear out its claims to being the Word of God. Also, the doctrine and theology of the Bible corresponds to reality better than any other religion I've considered. The wisdom and truth of the Bible I find to be practically useful, deeply insightful, and real as well. For these reasons, not for any emotionally-centered one, I believe the Bible is true. If I have had any experience with the Bible, it is an intellectual one first and then an emotional one. Reason and facts underpin my faith, not simply the experience of strong emotions, however moving.

Selah.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Belief in the resurrection isn’t necessary to work towards the Kingdom, but it is considered inevitable once the Kingdom is established. You don’t have to believe in the resurrection, or Jesus as the Christ, to do the work to bring about his return. People are sheeple and imitate those around them without understanding the behavior, so you can get people who are imitating Jesus without knowing what the goal is; they are just sheep imitating the sheep/people around them. It is helpful though for the goal of bringing about the resurrection of the dead to be clearly defined and believed, instead of a bunch of people imitating those who came before them trying to establish that kingdom.

So are you saying that the resurrection of the dead will occur when humanity has reached moral perfection? In another thread I started called "Perfection", there seemed to be a general consensus among the Christian responses that moral perfection is unattainable for mankind because we are flawed creatures with mistakes and biases and selfishness regardless of our creed.

People are not necessarily just "imitating" like sheep. Many people can form a moral judgment that is very Christ-like based on different value systems. The Golden Rule is a good example of a Christ-centered idea that pops up all over the place and seems to be intuitively "good" among nearly everyone regardless of culture. They are not wandering aimlessly imitating whoever comes along.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This is the heart of the issue.

The Chrisian faith is not a cause or an ideal.

Let us back up one step. Leftrightleftrightleft, why was the death of Jesus necessary?

According to Christianity, the death and resurrection of Jesus meant that sin was conquered and Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.

But there seems to be no manifestation of this change which is what this whole thread is about. Sin continues. Suffering continues. If you actually look at the world prior to ~33 AD when he died and after ~33 AD when he was resurrected, nothing changed. There is no manifestation of this change. The world continued as it had. If something changed, could you please point to it?

Even if you believe in him, nothing really changes! Can you point to some manifest change that occurs when someone believes? Do they stop sinning? Do they stop suffering? Are they suddenly fulfilled? There's no change! And even if there is change, it is never unique specifically to Jesus or Christianity. For example, perhaps they have some intense emotional experience or they find some new resolve or purpose or passion or they commit to quitting some addictive habits, etc; but none of this is unique to Jesus. People the world over have been making those changes for millennia with or without Jesus.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Non-Christians can work towards many of Jesus' ideals. That doesn't make them Christians. Christianity is not just about how we live, though that is certainly much of what Jesus talked about, and it's an essential part of Christianity. In addition, Christianity is about a particular method God set up to help us. That is the death and resurrection of Jesus. Paul says that we participate in this death and resurrection through a spiritual union with Christ, and experience a spiritual power which is referred to as new life.

I'm not talking about going to hell. Exactly where that line is drawn has been treated in other threads. Rather, I'm talking about taking advantage of everything Christ did for you. And also about the definition of the word Christian. Since the earliest confessions of Christianity seem to be "Jesus is risen," I'd think someone who doesn't accept some form of resurrection is not fully Christian.

What does that bolded part mean? In some practical way, how does this change manifest itself and how is that manifestation unique to Christianity?

-Perhaps you could say this new life changes people's attitudes; not unique to Christianity
-Perhaps you could say this new life leads to greater fulfillment; not unique to Christianity
-Perhaps you could say this new life leads to a self-described, more powerful experience of God; not unique to Christianity
-Perhaps you could say this new life leads to greater happiness or a decrease in addictive habits or an adoption of a higher moral standard or the development of greater self-discipline etc; none of these manifestations of this "new life" are unique to Christianity.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

You'll notice that I was speaking of mature Christians, not the average Christian, who, I think, is very often not actually a Christian at all (at least, not in the biblical sense of the word). Really, I can't speak to what you've observed in regard to how Christians and non-Christians behave. Apparently, my observations and yours are rather different. I do see a very marked difference between the character of the mature Christians I know and those who are not Christian. Can I cite statistics that bear out my observations more generally? No. Can you do so in support of yours? I doubt it. It seems, then, that this is something of a moot point that I don't think can be objectively established one way or the other by comparing personal observations.

A study on this would be most intriguing. When you say "mature" Christians, I'm assuming you mean those that are actively devoted to and passionate about their faith. And you're saying that these devoted and passionate people display a very marked difference in character when compared to the "average joe Christian". I would agree. The passionate, devoted Christians I know are the most loving and warm-hearted and selfless people. They are all so driven and passionate and exude fulfillment.

But the passionate, devoted Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists I know also show a very marked difference in character when compared to the "average joe Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist". The passionate and devoted people of this world, regardless of creed, seem to exude fulfillment and are always so warm-hearted. As a cliche example, I point to the Dalai Lama.

The dispassionate and unfulfilled people are obviously going to come across differently. But Christianity is not unique in this respect.

"Christendom of the West"? Not any more.

We all should be careful of confirmation bias.

Agreed. The West is far from the Christ-centered life that Jesus and Paul describe. Unfortunately

First off, neither Buddhists nor atheists feel any communion with God. Their worldviews are directly opposed to the notion of a Creator-God like we find in the Bible.

Second, it seems to me impossible to make full comparisons between Christians and people of other faiths in their experience of God. At best, all you can go on are surface similarities or differences. I have found when questioning people who claim to have "spiritual experiences" that what they mean by "spiritual" ultimately is "deeply emotional." But this is only a part of a much greater, fuller experience the child of God has with their Maker. You see, then, that even the terms used to describe spiritual experience are tangled and inaccurate and frustrate meaningful comparisons.

How do you know you can't compare them? What are you basing that on? Do you know what they're experiencing? How do you know that what they're experiencing is not infinitely more fulfilling and powerful than what you are?

Also, outside of "deeply emotional" experiences, how does this "fuller experience" with God manifest itself? Do you have examples of times in your life that show this "fuller experience" that non-Christians are incapable of having?

How does being cut off from fellowship with a close friend or one's spouse manifest itself? What can you point to as concrete evidence of one's fellowship with one's friend or spouse being severed? Answer these questions and you'll have largely answered your own question above.

This is frustrating. Non-Christians aren't all lost, unfulfilled and hopeless. They don't all walk around feeling like they've just lost their spouse or best friend. Some non-Christians are probably happier, more fulfilled, more at peace and more content than you are and ever will be. There's billions of them, its bound to happen. I can say the same of myself. There are probably some non-Christians and Christians that are happier, more fulfilled, more at peace and more content than I am or every will be.

THe fact of the matter is that the Bible defines what is and isn't Christian. It tells us what to look for in one who claims to be a born-again child of God. When someone who says they are a Christian evidences none of the things the Bible tells me are standard characteristics of a believer, I have good cause to doubt their claim of membership in God's family. When I see a self-professed Christian who is as you describe (unhappy, immoral, and unfulfilled) I have reason to seriously suspect their claim to being Christian - and so do you. It is very likely that most of those who profess to be Christian and yet live unhappy, immoral, and unfulfilled lives are not truly Christian.

What about the non-Christian who evidences many of the things in the Bible?
What about the non-Christian who is happy, moral and fulfilled?

I can see, given how you've been including without careful discernment any who make the claim to being Christian in your assessment of what it means to be a Christian, why you regard the claims of Christianity as "abstract." This is like trying to assess what it means to be a pro-football player by including those who merely toss a football around on the weekend in the assessment.

To continue with the football analogy. I agree, I do tend to try to assess "professional Christianity" based on the population at large which may be "amateur Christianity".

What I find you do is that you forget there are other teams. You've defined what a pro-football player is and then you only look at one team to find them. But other teams have lots of them yet you assume that all the other teams are amateur and suck.

So, if I assume that "Christianity" is defined as the cream of the crop of all Christians. I will find a whole bunch of Christians who are fulfilled, content, morally upright and passionate.

But I can do this with any religion. If I take the cream of the crop of all Buddhists, I will likely find a whole bunch of Buddhists that are fulfilled, content, morally upright and passionate.

And interestingly, the "cream of the crop" tends to align most with Jesus anyway. In other words, the ones that are most fulfilled, regardless of creed, tend to be the ones that align most with Jesus anyway.

Your question assumes God is not interested in revealing Himself in a single particular way to every person. If this is true, then any person of any other faith can experience God in a non-Christian way. The Bible, though, makes it very clear that God is not an amorphous entity with a shifting identity. If the Bible is true, then God is only as He is revealed to us in Scripture and the interactions of all humans with God must be predicated upon this revelation and no other.

Can a non-Christian experience God fully through Jesus Christ and yet label it something else?

Let me try to be clearer. I believe the Bible is true, not because I have some particular feeling about it (joy, peace, or contentment, etc.), but because the facts bear out its claims to being the Word of God. Also, the doctrine and theology of the Bible corresponds to reality better than any other religion I've considered. The wisdom and truth of the Bible I find to be practically useful, deeply insightful, and real as well. For these reasons, not for any emotionally-centered one, I believe the Bible is true. If I have had any experience with the Bible, it is an intellectual one first and then an emotional one. Reason and facts underpin my faith, not simply the experience of strong emotions, however moving.

I respect this very much. When I read the Bible it tends to frustrate me because I'll read a passage and then my mind will go haywire as I realize how many different ways that passage can be interpreted.

 

[dollarsbill]

How does the resurrection effect my life?

Because there will be a resurrection of life and a resurrection of damnation. We must choose.

John 5:29
And shall come forth; they that have done good, unto the resurrection of life; and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation.

 

[Nails74]

According to Christianity, the death and resurrection of Jesus meant that sin was conquered and Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice.

But there seems to be no manifestation of this change which is what this whole thread is about. Sin continues. Suffering continues. If you actually look at the world prior to ~33 AD when he died and after ~33 AD when he was resurrected, nothing changed. There is no manifestation of this change. The world continued as it had. If something changed, could you please point to it?

Even if you believe in him, nothing really changes! Can you point to some manifest change that occurs when someone believes? Do they stop sinning? Do they stop suffering? Are they suddenly fulfilled? There's no change! And even if there is change, it is never unique specifically to Jesus or Christianity. For example, perhaps they have some intense emotional experience or they find some new resolve or purpose or passion or they commit to quitting some addictive habits, etc; but none of this is unique to Jesus. People the world over have been making those changes for millennia with or without Jesus.

Your response illustrates that you do not understand Biblical Christianity.

God did not promise that there would be no sin after the resurrection. We can only look forward to that in Heaven. The change was the fulfillment of God's promises. For the Jews of the day, they (some of them) finally saw the long awaited Savior. Not in a physical sense, but a spiritual Savior.

She will give birth to a son, and you are to name Him Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.” [Matthew 1:21]

The change, once again, is not physical.

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [Ezekiel 36:26]

Jesus had to continually tell his disciples to get their minds off of earthly things and to think about spiritual things or they would miss the point.

If you are looking for health, wealth and/or prosperity from Christianity, you may very well be disappointed.

 

[ElijahW]

So are you saying that the resurrection of the dead will occur when humanity has reached moral perfection? In another thread I started called "Perfection", there seemed to be a general consensus among the Christian responses that moral perfection is unattainable for mankind because we are flawed creatures with mistakes and biases and selfishness regardless of our creed.

No perfection is nearly impossible to attain for a man but we can build the ideal society collectively, despite our individual stumbling.

I’m in agreement with Paul about the establishment of the kingdom that leads to eternal life and the resurrection of the dead. There is no requirement for the human individual to evolve to perfection in order to reach the kingdom or the resurrection.

[FONT=&quot]1 Cor 15:21 [/FONT]For as by a man came death, by a man has come also the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ shall all be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, then at his coming those who belong to Christ. Then comes the end, when he delivers the kingdom to God the Father after destroying every rule and every authority and power. For he must reign until he has put all his enemies under his feet. The last enemy to be destroyed is death.

​

It’s not about the perfect man, as much as it is about mankind looking to get free, by ridding itself of its earthly rulers.

[FONT=&quot]John 12:31 [/FONT]Now is the judgment of this world; now will the ruler of this world be cast out. And I, when I am lifted up from the earth, will draw all people to myself.
​

People are not necessarily just "imitating" like sheep. Many people can form a moral judgment that is very Christ-like based on different value systems. The Golden Rule is a good example of a Christ-centered idea that pops up all over the place and seems to be intuitively "good" among nearly everyone regardless of culture. They are not wandering aimlessly imitating whoever comes along.

You have a higher opinion of people and why they behave the way they do.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Your response illustrates that you do not understand Biblical Christianity.

God did not promise that there would be no sin after the resurrection. We can only look forward to that in Heaven. The change was the fulfillment of God's promises. For the Jews of the day, they (some of them) finally saw the long awaited Savior. Not in a physical sense, but a spiritual Savior.

She will give birth to a son, and you are to name Him Jesus, because He will save His people from their sins.” [Matthew 1:21]

The change, once again, is not physical.

I will give you a new heart and put a new spirit within you; I will remove your heart of stone and give you a heart of flesh. [Ezekiel 36:26]

Jesus had to continually tell his disciples to get their minds off of earthly things and to think about spiritual things or they would miss the point.

If you are looking for health, wealth and/or prosperity from Christianity, you may very well be disappointed.

If a change does not manifest itself in any way, shape or form, that is unique and causative, then it seems difficult to say that any change actually occurred.

Christians seem like non-Christians. Non-Christians seem like Christians. There are exceptional ones from each category. There are fulfilled ones from each category. There are depressed ones from each category.

Also, it is common to state that Jesus conquered sin. Link

If Jesus conquered sin and death then there must be some manifest way that this affects our lives that is unique and causative. If there isn't, then it is just a label; a place-holder phrase for an experience or abstract belief with no grounding or manifestation in reality.

 

[Nails74]

If a change does not manifest itself in any way, shape or form, that is unique and causative, then it seems difficult to say that any change actually occurred.

This is why Paul told us to examine ourselves.

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Examine yourselves. Or do you yourselves not recognize that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless you fail the test. [2 Corinthians 13:5]

Christians seem like non-Christians. Non-Christians seem like Christians. There are exceptional ones from each category. There are fulfilled ones from each category. There are depressed ones from each category.

From the outside, perhaps. Although unsaved as a teen, I was raised in a very moral home. You could have put me next to any youth group kid and not have noticed a difference.

Also, it is common to state that Jesus conquered sin.

Appeal to the majority is not valid. I would need a verse for this one.

If Jesus conquered sin and death then there must be some manifest way that this affects our lives that is unique and causative. If there isn't, then it is just a label; a place-holder phrase for an experience or abstract belief with no grounding or manifestation in reality.

This returns to your original question of "How does the resurrection affect my life?"

When you truly see the holiness of God and the depth of your sin and you understand what Christ did on the cross and that you did nothing to deserve it, you want nothing more than to devote your entire life, in gratitude and awe, to that perfect Savior.

I think I can sum this up in one word...Hope.

And who will harm you if you are deeply committed to what is good? But even if you should suffer for righteousness, you are blessed. Do not fear what they fear or be disturbed, but honor the Messiah as Lord in your hearts. Always be ready to give a defense to anyone who asks you for a reason for the hope that is in you. [1 Peter 3:13-15]

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

This is why Paul told us to examine ourselves.

Test yourselves to see if you are in the faith. Examine yourselves. Or do you yourselves not recognize that Jesus Christ is in you?—unless you fail the test. [2 Corinthians 13:5]

This is an excellent verse.

From the outside, perhaps. Although unsaved as a teen, I was raised in a very moral home. You could have put me next to any youth group kid and not have noticed a difference.

Exactly. No one could tell the difference. So it is entirely subjective and personal. It is a label with no objective manifestation.

Appeal to the majority is not valid. I would need a verse for this one.

1 Corinthians 15:55-57. It says Jesus defeated sin.

This returns to your original question of "How does the resurrection affect my life?"

When you truly see the holiness of God and the depth of your sin and you understand what Christ did on the cross and that you did nothing to deserve it, you want nothing more than to devote your entire life, in gratitude and awe, to that perfect Savior.

How does devoting your entire life to the perfect Saviour make your life any different in a manifest way?

I just don't see it. It seems just like a label. You label something as X and then claim that X is allowing you to be more fulfilled, passionate and morally upright. But I can replace X with anything so long as it has the same manifest result.

 

[Nails74]

1 Corinthians 15:55-57. It says Jesus defeated sin.

If you back up a bit, you will note that he is talking about our resurrection bodies.

When this corruptible is clothed with incorruptibility, and this mortal is clothed with immortality, then the saying that is written will take place: Death has been swallowed up in victory. Death, where is your victory? Death, where is your sting? Now the sting of death is sin, and the power of sin is the law. But thanks be to God, who gives us the victory through our Lord Jesus Christ! [1 Corinthians 15:54-57]

Quoting from the OT, Paul shows that when Jesus defeated death, he took the sting from it...namely the sting of sin. Paul speaks to the relationship of sin and death in Romans 5.

Therefore, just as sin entered the world through one man, and death through sin, in this way death spread to all men, because all sinned. In fact, sin was in the world before the law, but sin is not charged to a person’s account when there is no law. [Romans 5:12-13]

How does devoting your entire life to the perfect Saviour make your life any different in a manifest way?

Well, I certainly never shared the Gospel before I was saved.

I am sorry that I cannot offer any better explanation. I can only say that it was not my choice.

 

[aiki]

A study on this would be most intriguing. When you say "mature" Christians, I'm assuming you mean those that are actively devoted to and passionate about their faith. And you're saying that these devoted and passionate people display a very marked difference in character when compared to the "average joe Christian". I would agree. The passionate, devoted Christians I know are the most loving and warm-hearted and selfless people. They are all so driven and passionate and exude fulfillment.

But the passionate, devoted Buddhists, Hindus and Taoists I know also show a very marked difference in character when compared to the "average joe Buddhist, Hindu or Taoist". The passionate and devoted people of this world, regardless of creed, seem to exude fulfillment and are always so warm-hearted. As a cliche example, I point to the Dalai Lama.

The dispassionate and unfulfilled people are obviously going to come across differently. But Christianity is not unique in this respect.

I agree with you: Christianity is not unique among religions in the level of passion, devotion, and apparent fulfillment of its members. If this is the sole basis upon which to decide if one should be a Christian, then one is going to have a hard time doing so; for, as you've pointed out, some Buddhists, Hindus, and Daoists also seem as positively affected by their religious beliefs as any Christian. Of course, making an overall, broad assessment and comparison of the satisfaction and fulfillment of the average believer of each religion is impossible. It may be that Christians as a whole are generally more fulfilled, kind, and selfless than adherents to any other faith, but no one has ever done a poll or study showing this to be so. It might well be that this is not the case - no one knows.

What basis, then, is there upon which Christianity can commend itself to the individual person as the One True Faith? It seems to me that one must judge this ultimately by how well it explains, and conforms to, reality. This is what Truth does: it's a description/explanation of what is real. For example, is the world resting on the back of a giant elephant who in turn is standing upon the back of a colossal turtle who is swimming in a cosmic sea of milk? Or is the world "hanging upon nothing" in the vast reaches of space as the Bible declares? Is God a petty, lustful, capricious superman casting lightning bolts upon his enemies from Mt. Olympus? Or is He the transcendent, eternal, omnipotent Creator of time, space, matter and energy as the Bible reveals? Are the hearts of human beings naturally full of goodness, selflessness, purity and light? Or do the wars, genocides, murders, broken marriage vows and families, abused and starving children, and general cruelty enacted by the human race upon itself over history evidence of the Bible's declaration that the human heart is prone to great evil and darkness? As I search the Scripture I find it to be speaking the Truth on every count. It describes and explains reality with uncanny accuracy and deep perception. For this reason it may be regarded as superior to all other religions.

It is, then, not ultimately a matter of how I feel, or what quality of life my beliefs obtain for me, but whether or not what I believe corresponds well to reality, whether or not it is true. Feeling fulfilled is of little value if the reason for that feeling is based in falsehood. The insane often feel happy in their delusions, too, but we do not hold them up as examples to follow or envy them their delusions, however happy they might be.

My simply saying that Christianity corresponds better to reality than any other religion is not, by itself, proof positive of it's actually being so. Like me, you will have to judge for yourself if this is the case. Every person must. In the end, you may be persuaded that Hinduism is The Truth - but let it be because it fits best with reality and best explains it than because it merely makes you happier and feel more fulfilled.

How do you know you can't compare them? What are you basing that on? Do you know what they're experiencing? How do you know that what they're experiencing is not infinitely more fulfilling and powerful than what you are?

Well, I have asked. I have had a number of conversations with people who are not Christians and claim to have deep spiritual experiences. In each case, when the language is distilled down to its essence, "spiritual" has meant "emotional." This doesn't mean that this is what meant universally by such people, of course. I'd have to talk to millions of people to know that!

Also, outside of "deeply emotional" experiences, how does this "fuller experience" with God manifest itself? Do you have examples of times in your life that show this "fuller experience" that non-Christians are incapable of having?

Strangely (at least to the non-Christian), some of the deepest times I have had with God were not when I was most fulfilled or happy but when I was least so. God showed up in a much clearer and more powerful way when I was desperate, frightened and deeply sorrowful than when everything was peachy and I hadn't a care in the world. He met me with a sense of peace and stability in the midst of my fear and desperation that I cannot account for except by His divine intervention.

God also answers prayer. If there was ever anything I could point to as concrete evidence of God's hand in my life, answered prayer would be it. Over, and over, and over again He has answered specifically and often immediately the requests I have made of Him for material and spiritual resources for myself and others. And I am not alone. All of my Christian friends could pull out long lists of similarly answered prayer. THese responses by God to our requests of Him are an important part of experiencing Him.

I also experience God when I see Him working successfully to change me in spite of myself. He truly does accomplish for me what I cannot accomplish for myself within myself. Many's the time, I have looked back in surprise to see that I am no longer the person I was. The change has happened so subtly and profoundly that I was not aware of the change as it occurred! And often the changes have run quite contrary to my desires and goals. As is always the case, God is saving me from myself!

Anywhoo, I could go on and on...:o

Can non-Christians point to the same sorts of experiences? I don't know. It doesn't seem likely. In any case, as I explained above, a comparison of personal experience isn't really a good way to approach the question of whether or not one should believe what is true. There is much that is true of which I have no experience whatsoever.

This is frustrating. Non-Christians aren't all lost, unfulfilled and hopeless. They don't all walk around feeling like they've just lost their spouse or best friend. Some non-Christians are probably happier, more fulfilled, more at peace and more content than you are and ever will be.

You'll never know!

There's billions of them, its bound to happen. I can say the same of myself. There are probably some non-Christians and Christians that are happier, more fulfilled, more at peace and more content than I am or every will be.

This doesn't change the fact that they are cut off from God. This really isn't an issue of what I feel or experience but of what God's Word, the Bible says. If one doesn't believe it reveals The Truth, then one won't be concerned about being cut off from Him as the Bible says one can be. In any case, feelings don't necessarily validate truth, nor does the pleasantness of my existence prove what is true. I can feel like everyone is looking at me when in fact no one is. I can feel perfectly fine and be dying of cancer. Do you see what I mean?

What about the non-Christian who evidences many of the things in the Bible?
What about the non-Christian who is happy, moral and fulfilled?

As far as Scripture is concerned, the reason, the motive, for living this way makes all the difference. Living a happy, fulfilled, moral life is not an end in itself but merely an expression, or consequence (sometimes), of walking in a right relationship with God.

To continue with the football analogy. I agree, I do tend to try to assess "professional Christianity" based on the population at large which may be "amateur Christianity".

What I find you do is that you forget there are other teams. You've defined what a pro-football player is and then you only look at one team to find them. But other teams have lots of them yet you assume that all the other teams are amateur and suck.

I hope not! I had a very good Hindu friend who was my room mate while I was at university who was a wonderful person. I have a couple of atheist friends who are great fun to be with. I am a friend to a lesbian woman whose kindness and gentleness puts some Christians (and Muslims, Hindus, atheists, etc) to shame. No, I don't think everybody but Christians suck. Far from it!

So, if I assume that "Christianity" is defined as the cream of the crop of all Christians. I will find a whole bunch of Christians who are fulfilled, content, morally upright and passionate.

But I can do this with any religion. If I take the cream of the crop of all Buddhists, I will likely find a whole bunch of Buddhists that are fulfilled, content, morally upright and passionate.

Well, are you better able to judge the quality of Mozart's Requiem by the version played by the ninth graders at your local junior high school or by the London Philharmonic Orchestra? I think its probably a very good idea to judge the value and truth of a religion by those who best represent it. Therefore, if you want to judge Christianity by its very best representation, look at Christ.

Can a non-Christian experience God fully through Jesus Christ and yet label it something else?

Not according to the Bible. Really, I don't even know how to conceptualize what you've written here...How would such a thing be possible?

When I read the Bible it tends to frustrate me because I'll read a passage and then my mind will go haywire as I realize how many different ways that passage can be interpreted.

Good interpretation is simply saying in one's own words as accurately as possible what the writer has said. Usually immediate context sharply confines how one may interpret a verse. The broader context of all of Scripture provides a further means of understanding any one verse, as well. Usually, a verse has only one meaning but a wide area of application.

Selah.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

What basis, then, is there upon which Christianity can commend itself to the individual person as the One True Faith? It seems to me that one must judge this ultimately by how well it explains, and conforms to, reality. This is what Truth does: it's a description/explanation of what is real.

I very much agree that this is an excellent definition of truth. My friend and I were just talking about this (he is an agnostic/atheist) and he was complaining that Christians just believe "what feels safe" and use Jesus as a "crutch". It is wonderful to come online and see a Christian saying the opposite. In fact, my friend used almost the exact same words to describe truth: that which describes what is real. Why is it that both of you are attempting to use the same definition of truth yet you have come to such markedly different conclusions about truth and reality?

For example, is the world resting on the back of a giant elephant who in turn is standing upon the back of a colossal turtle who is swimming in a cosmic sea of milk? Or is the world "hanging upon nothing" in the vast reaches of space as the Bible declares?

Hmmm, I'm not sure taking other religious scriptures purely literally gets you very far. Were humans beings made from dust? Was the first women constructed out of the first man's rib? Did a talking snake tempt the first people into eating an apple? The Bible stories of the Old Testament sometimes come off sounding just as ridiculous if read literally as the elephant/turtle scenario. The literal words of the first book of the Bible do not conform to reality (aka evidence) with regards to evolution, Earth history, geology, etc.

If you take both the Hindu creation myths and the Christian creation myths literally, neither of them depict reality very well as evidenced by the scientific method, logic or mathematics. If you take both the Hindu creation myths and the Christian creation myths metaphorically then it can be seen that both contain something of cultural and/or spiritual value depending on the context.

Is God a petty, lustful, capricious superman casting lightning bolts upon his enemies from Mt. Olympus? Or is He the transcendent, eternal, omnipotent Creator of time, space, matter and energy as the Bible reveals?

Also, this is getting into awkward territory. If you start looking at the Old Testament in a certain way you'll find that God seems sometimes quite petty and throws some very serious tantrums. He destroys all of mankind because he thought they weren't good enough and he wanted to start over. He tells his people to slaughter others in battle. He gets jealous that people are worshipping other gods. Much of the Old Testament makes Yahweh out to be a markedly different God than that of the New Testament. The Old Testament's Yahweh appears to fit the description of most bronze age creator gods, akin to Sumerian gods or Greek gods. The New Testament's descriptions of God have clearly been influenced by Greek philosophy.

Are the hearts of human beings naturally full of goodness, selflessness, purity and light? Or do the wars, genocides, murders, broken marriage vows and families, abused and starving children, and general cruelty enacted by the human race upon itself over history evidence of the Bible's declaration that the human heart is prone to great evil and darkness?

To be honest, this is the most compelling truth I find in Christianity that I have not found in other religions. Other religions emphasize human goodness and abilities. But history seems to repeatedly show that humans are prone to selfishness, hate, lies, megalomania, etc. Even those with very loose moral codes general fail to live up to it either by committing things which they find to be wrong, or by not committing acts which they think they should have done.

As I search the Scripture I find it to be speaking the Truth on every count. It describes and explains reality with uncanny accuracy and deep perception. For this reason it may be regarded as superior to all other religions.

Does philosophy interest you? I have read some of the great works by some famous philosophers such as Aristotle, Marcus Aurelius, Descartes, Nietzsche, etc. I find that often it is the philosophers throughout the ages that have an "uncanny accuracy and deep perception" for describing reality, human behaviour, morality and truth. I agree that of all the religions I have studied, Christianity does an overall very good of describing what I think of as moral behaviour, human behaviour etc. But what do you think of philosophy as a mode or institution akin to religion to come to knowledge of the truth? Do you think philosophy and religion are common endeavours lending things to each other?

It is, then, not ultimately a matter of how I feel, or what quality of life my beliefs obtain for me, but whether or not what I believe corresponds well to reality, whether or not it is true. Feeling fulfilled is of little value if the reason for that feeling is based in falsehood. The insane often feel happy in their delusions, too, but we do not hold them up as examples to follow or envy them their delusions, however happy they might be.

Valid point. I have two problems with this:

1) My irrational, emotional experiences lead me to God, church, the divine, the Bible and all things Christian.
2) My rational, logical mind leads me to agnosticism because it seems to utterly logical to see that I am biased and my bias impedes me, and others, from glimpsing the truth based on inaccurate memories and sense impressions received by our finite consciousness.

So my feelings are the only dictates I receive that tell me, by some intuitive, illogical process, that God exists, that an objective reality exists and, most importantly, that it is knowable. I "feel" as though I've glimpsed some aspect of reality, truth, God, Jesus etc but I can not prove it by any logical process.

My simply saying that Christianity corresponds better to reality than any other religion is not, by itself, proof positive of it's actually being so. Like me, you will have to judge for yourself if this is the case. Every person must. In the end, you may be persuaded that Hinduism is The Truth - but let it be because it fits best with reality and best explains it than because it merely makes you happier and feel more fulfilled.

What if I make no choice in the end? Or what if I instead am persuaded to pursue some philosophical point of view such as Stoicism or Skepticism (in the Greek sense)? Is a philosophical point of view compatible with a religious point of view?

Well, I have asked. I have had a number of conversations with people who are not Christians and claim to have deep spiritual experiences. In each case, when the language is distilled down to its essence, "spiritual" has meant "emotional." This doesn't mean that this is what meant universally by such people, of course. I'd have to talk to millions of people to know that!

Strangely (at least to the non-Christian), some of the deepest times I have had with God were not when I was most fulfilled or happy but when I was least so. God showed up in a much clearer and more powerful way when I was desperate, frightened and deeply sorrowful than when everything was peachy and I hadn't a care in the world. He met me with a sense of peace and stability in the midst of my fear and desperation that I cannot account for except by His divine intervention.

I agree. It is often when I am at a low point in life that God lifts me up and makes me smile and cry the good cry. But, you're still describing an emotional experience here. Fulfillment does not equal happiness or bliss. A sense of fulfillment should permeate your whole existence no matter life's ups and downs. It is this sense of fulfillment that I often feel Christians use as one description of "God". As you say, he filled you with a "sense of peace and stability". It is still an emotional experience. The emotional experience does not have to be a positive one for it to be considered emotional.

God also answers prayer. If there was ever anything I could point to as concrete evidence of God's hand in my life, answered prayer would be it. Over, and over, and over again He has answered specifically and often immediately the requests I have made of Him for material and spiritual resources for myself and others. And I am not alone. All of my Christian friends could pull out long lists of similarly answered prayer. THese responses by God to our requests of Him are an important part of experiencing Him.

While on some intuitive, illogical level I have had some prayers answered, it seems clear that on a logical, rational level prayer is essentially just a probabilistic randomness that we, as pattern-seeking creatures, attribute to divine intervention. People generally pray for things that are more probable than improbable. For example, many people pray for people to have a safe journey by airplane and when they arrive alive and well they thank God for allowing them to make it there safe. But, probabilistically, the chances of dying on a commercial airline is around 1 in 500,000. People also tend to pray for more vague things that are unlikely to fail. For example, many people pray for good health. But good health is fairly vague and can apply to many situations; and even if they were to get a cold a few days after praying for good health, they wouldn't think God was failing them because "good health" is so broad that a cold could easily still be constituted as "overall good health".

And whenever someone tries to pray for something very specific or very improbable (like God healing amputees), the person is accused of "testing" God which, for inexplicable reasons, is forbidden.

I also experience God when I see Him working successfully to change me in spite of myself. He truly does accomplish for me what I cannot accomplish for myself within myself. Many's the time, I have looked back in surprise to see that I am no longer the person I was. The change has happened so subtly and profoundly that I was not aware of the change as it occurred! And often the changes have run quite contrary to my desires and goals. As is always the case, God is saving me from myself!

In this case, it would be very easy to call God a placebo. You think he's helping you, but in reality, you may just be self-improving. Self-improvement is a powerful thing and I think most people should constantly be striving to learn, grow and be better because there is always room for improvement. How do you know God is legitimately helping you? Is it a feeling?

This doesn't change the fact that they are cut off from God. This really isn't an issue of what I feel or experience but of what God's Word, the Bible says. If one doesn't believe it reveals The Truth, then one won't be concerned about being cut off from Him as the Bible says one can be. In any case, feelings don't necessarily validate truth, nor does the pleasantness of my existence prove what is true. I can feel like everyone is looking at me when in fact no one is. I can feel perfectly fine and be dying of cancer. Do you see what I mean?

I see that you mean that feelings and emotions don't govern everything. This is valid; people shouldn't be governed purely by subjective emotions.

I just don't see how truth can be found by any logical process. Any conception of truth I have is intuitive, illogical, and emotional. If I try to apply logic or reason to the pursuit of truth, I end up with subjectivism, agnosticism and/or existential nihilism.

As far as Scripture is concerned, the reason, the motive, for living this way makes all the difference. Living a happy, fulfilled, moral life is not an end in itself but merely an expression, or consequence (sometimes), of walking in a right relationship with God.

This is one thing that has ultimately baffled me recently about Christian thinking. My whole thread on the Resurrection is underlain with this idea that manifest results are more important than abstract motives. Especially if the abstract motives do not lead to the manifest results in a unique and causative way.

In other words, if you can have Motive A and Motive B both result in Lifestyle X then how does Motive A or Motive B have intrinsic, objective value?

Far from it!

Sorry for making assumptions. Good to know that you have a varied friendship. Probably leads to very interesting conversations

Well, are you better able to judge the quality of Mozart's Requiem by the version played by the ninth graders at your local junior high school or by the London Philharmonic Orchestra? I think its probably a very good idea to judge the value and truth of a religion by those who best represent it. Therefore, if you want to judge Christianity by its very best representation, look at Christ.

Touche. I will think on this some more.

 

[leftrightleftrightleft]

Not according to the Bible. Really, I don't even know how to conceptualize what you've written here...How would such a thing be possible?

For some backstory: I have this very post-modern view where I view language as a very limited abstraction of reality. In other words, words act as incomplete and inadequate place-holders to describe both the objective world "out there" as well as the subjective experiences "in here". Unfortunately, basically the only way to form any sort of bridge between "out there" and "in here" is via language. Any experience I have must be conveyed to you via words which are a limited abstraction of my "real" and "true" experience "in here".

So, for example, when Paul was on the road to Damascus and he has his intense meeting with Christ, he wrote this experience down using words (in another language mind you) to form a bridge between his experiences in his mind and to the audience "out there". But the words themselves are just abstractions of his "real" and "true" experiences.

So perhaps his description of his experience as "meeting Christ" is identical in experience to a tribesman in West Africa calling his experience "dancing with Odinani". They are simply using different words within a different cultural context to make the bridge from "in here" to "out there". But the "in here" (which is the "true" reality) is beyond words and identical.

Good interpretation is simply saying in one's own words as accurately as possible what the writer has said.

If you want to be as accurate as possible, why don't you just quote the writer directly for your "interpretation"? Why all the commentaries which scramble the "most accurate" interpretation which seems to be self-evidently the actual words on the scroll.

I'd say that there are three big problems with interpretation:
1) Translation: the scrolls were written in a different language which often doesn't directly translate to English very well
2) Cultural Barriers: often the cultural, historical context is poorly known or people make the mistake of "over-applying" a verse when it was really only meant for a specific audience for a specific culture at a specific time.
3) Reading Backwards: possibly the biggest problem is that people read history backwards. We have 2000 years more philosophy, doctrine and cultural evolution than Paul does, so when we read Paul's writing we are viewing it through a lens which has thousands of other lenses between us and Paul's true intentions or theological doctrine.

People get around these problems by saying, "Its inspired by God, therefore God has brought it to us in its current form for a reason and it is unchanging with time." They say that God worked through the people that chose the books to add to the canon and they say that God worked through the people that translated it. I feel that this is a cop-out and does an injustice to the complexity, historicity and cultural bias inherent in the text.