Thank you for the response, we agree on some things, for sure. My response to mainly the
bolded part of your quote:
- If Person A claims something about reality that Persons B through Z can't verify in any observable way, then Person A can lay claim to whatever he wants...should Persons B through Z then believe anything Person A claims?
- Person A (or more accurately Persons A) from the Bible made dozens (hundreds?) of claims about "the nature of reality" that over the years have turned out to be inarguably false, once Persons B through Z advanced their powers of observation enough to easily show that the claim was never correct. So how does one decide which claims are true and which are false? This is critical because some of the claims in the Bible have entire religions depending on them.
- How should one go about deciding to believe the authors of the Christian Bible versus the authors of the many other "religious texts" that have been written over the millennia? If there's no other discernment applied other than "I read it in an ancient book and I believe it to be true despite there being a lack of observable evidence", then there's a smorgasbord of ancient books that fit.
- The religions that sprung from these various books are usually not compatible--the Bible for example is very clear and explicit that being a non-believer in the Christian God for example will earn you a one-way ticket to fiery damnation. But other religions have different "conditions", and a Christian is not going to meet all of those "conditions", and so therefore a Christian will go to that god's version of Hell? The common worldwide response is "well my god happens to be the one true god", but that's kind of like how 90% of drivers say they're an above average driver--it's impossible in aggregate!
- IMO one of the most concerning aspects of the Bible is that there were many other stories written as many as hundreds of years prior to Jesus that also described someone who was said to have been conceived "divinely" and/or born of a virgin birth, who performed miracles such as raising someone from the dead back to life or walking on water, who even died and then rose back to life himself, etc. This is first concerning because it makes the Bible's account look like merely a repeat of prior ancient stories and myths. Second it's concerning because it takes me back to my prior points--since there were many different stories of Jesus-like figures throughout ancient history, which should I believe, or should I believe any of them in the absence of any corroborating observable evidence??
There's a lot here. My response, I should be clear, is mine. I can't speak for all Christians, nor do I want to try. Some Christians adopt views that I, as a Christian, find extremely problematic (such as a literalist reading of Genesis).
The first point I want to make is that I am not one who believes that an individual can be argued into (any) faith. That's precisely why it's called faith - there comes a point where one has to bridge a gap and accept, "I can't explain every detail, but I believe." Now, I recognize that that answer can be taken as a cop-out, and I don't mean it as such. I'm not saying that faith should be logically inconsistent or irrational - my approach is that faith needs to be as consistent and rational as possible.
However, it would be a mistake to think that it can be entirely either. After all, if God (or Allah or YWHW or any other name given to a higher power by any religion) is completely within human ability to comprehend, then God is not worthy of worship. Faith and mystery interact in all religions, whether they admit it or not.
As far as your numbered responses:
1-2. No one should be
forced to accept the claims of any religion. Period. The test of the validity of any claim to reality is dependent on several factors. For my theological tradition (Methodism - the school of thought founded by John Wesley), we approach the test of validity through four lenses. Scripture - this is the most important and foundational question - is it consistent with the overall message of the story of God's people; Reason - does it make sense within the framework of a Christian worldview; Experience - does it fit with my experience and the experience of others; and Tradition - how does it approach what the Church (big "C," meaning the whole of Christian faith over the centuries) has always lived and taught. That's how we approach it from within the system.
When discussing with someone who approaches faith from the outside, we have to define our foundational assumptions, which form the basis for our worldview. In a nutshell, those foundational assumptions are defined in the Nicene Creed. I usually boil them down to: There is a God who created (however we understand creation); God is love; God's love ultimately wins. Now, I cannot conclusively prove the existence of God (any more than one could conclusively
disprove the existence of God). If one is not willing to grant the existence (or at least the possibility of the existence) of God, then all reality claims between that individual and a Christian become moot. And that's okay - again, no one should be forced to accept the claims of any religion.
3. The way the books of the Bible were "chosen" relied on several lines of thought. The closer to the time of Jesus a book was written, the more likely it was to be included. If a book was written by someone famous in the church - like a disciple or someone like Paul - it was more likely to be included. The most important test, though, was extent of use. That is, if a book was widely used by churches throughout the known world (Roman Empire), it was more likely to be included. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John were all written in or right at the end of the first century, and were widely known and used in the early church, so they were included as "orthodox." The Gospel of Thomas and the Gospel of Judas and others were not widely used and were written much later. It's not a perfect system by any means, but it goes deeper than "if it's old, it's true."
4. It's not as clear as you might think. Christian theologians have argued for centuries that God will ultimately "save" everyone, and there are some Scripture verses that seem to take that approach. It's too much to try to get into in detail in this post, but the idea of universalism is present in both Christian theology and Jewish theology.
5. You are right that there are other stories of "Jesus"-like figures that predate the Bible. However, there is something to be said for the fact that the stories of Jesus have endured for 2000 years and retained their power and influence. Others have not. The enduring impact of these stories speaks to a long tradition of credibility. I also find compelling the argument that the early Christians - Peter, Paul, etc. - who died because of their faith in Jesus would not have endured what they endured if they had known the stories of Jesus were definitely false.
These are not perfect answers - I don't know that perfect answers exist to your questions. I hope that maybe I was able to provide a little food for thought. Thanks for challenging me to think through some of these things again.
