Christianity's Claim to Validity


#1

Does Christianity have any more claim to validity than any other religion? I mean surely we aren’t just playing lotto with faith, are we?

I mean if someone tells you that a man lived 2,000 years ago and performed miracles and was the son of God, surely you would want proof. Well take it on faith, says the Church. But should I also take it on faith that Fenrir lies underneath the world, with acid dripping on his face, and his wife holding a bowl over him, simply because someone told me?


#2

Because you joined today and have started several threads with similar questions, it seems that you are just trying to stir the pot before Easter. Forgive me if this is not the case. If you are truly seeking answers then please let us know.


#3

I have many questions, and thus seek many answers.


#4

forums.catholic.com/showthread.php?p=2078601#post2078601


#5

What is valid depends on many things.

I think it’s pretty clear that if you accpet any validity from the early Jewish texts of the Old Testament, they are confirmed and made valid by the New Testament.

As much as I think Islam is a false religion, it confirms or validates much of the Jewish and Christian texts. Since it perverts both in fundamental doctrine I reject Muhammed as a prophet of God, but think of him as more as a Joseph Smith type character who uses the truth for their own gains, not for Gods glory.

Even with the Islamic, Mormon, JW and other perversions to Christianity, the fact that over half the worlds population recognize Christ as a valid figure with respect to God is nothing to dismiss lightly. Excluding those faiths, over 1/3 of humans acknowledge Christ as what He said He was.

The nearest in size to the Christian faith is Islam at 1/6 the world population. Almost equal in size to Islam is grouped Agnostic/Atheist/Non-religious.

What else would validate it to your satisfaction?


#6

So because so many people believe it’s true, it’s right? (Edited by Moderator) Just because it’s popular, doesn’t mean it’s right.


#7

The question, you should notice, is what kind of proof will you accept? And bear in mind you will probably be asked to prove your own existence on the same grounds:

“God is dead” - Nietzsche

“Nietzsche is dead” - God.


#8

I suggest you focus on them and organize them. Answering some will answer others. This will allow you to figure out what is important and what is incidental. Then focus on the most important one or two.


#9

So because so many people believe it’s true, it’s right? Didn’t you pay attention in elementary school? Just because it’s popular, doesn’t mean it’s right.

I paid attention through most of my education to include elementary school. It is after elemntary school that taught me to use reason and judgement to validate or reject what I was being taught. Didn’t you pay attention then, or are you still stuck in grade school thinking?


#10

Then why would you accept something without being shown factual evidence as to the origins of the claims?


#11

Since you are a self-proclaimed atheist, we have to answer another question first: Why have faith in any religion at all, whether it be Christianity or some other religion? To begin to answer this question, we need to look at those things that most atheists accept on faith.

Here is a non-exhaustive list. The reliability of the senses. The laws of logic. The uniformity of nature. Universal laws. A certain moral code. Free will. Most atheists I have met haven’t made an attempt to explain why they have faith in these things. Some have through the discipline of philosophy. And while I even greatly respect some of these atheists and admire how they have reached their conclusions, there are many of us who have found those explanations wanting. Many of us believe that a theology is required to give an adequate explanation, and that philosophy points to the necessity of a theology in any case.

Not all theological systems are equal though. Some are internally inconsistent. Some are arbitrary. None completely explain every question. The point is that many of us are searchers looking for that system that gives the most explanatory power as to why things are the way they are in the world. Christians believe they have found that system, through reason and not mere faith like many atheists.


#12

Then why would you accept something without being shown factual evidence as to the origins of the claims?

I assume you do not accept Plato ever lived and said what he said since the only facts to his life are documents 1200 years after he supposedly existed.

There is more factual evidence for the life of Christ, written within living eyewitness memory than any first century figure. What first century documents dispute it?


#13

Oh I don’t doubt he existed. The question is of his divinity.

But couldn’t I make up my own religion that explains everything, and it would have the same validity of Christianity.

And I have come to the conclusion of Atheism through philosophy and logic, i.e trying to pray, and I do my part to better Humanity simply because I enjoy helping people, and I take pride in the fact that I do good because I enjoy it, and not out of fear of divine punishment.


#14

Okay. Since you are an atheist, by definition you believe that God doesn’t exist. Let’s see your philosophical method for coming to that determination.

As for logic, what causes you to believe that the laws of logic apply now or will apply in the future? What justification do you have for their universality?

People other than yourself take satisfaction and enjoyment in molesting children. They don’t fear divine punishment either (as if that’s what Christianity is all about anyway). Anything wrong with that? These are basic questions that demand an answer. Let’s hear how your atheistic worldview deals with them.


#15

I have come to this conclusion through logic, and since logic is universal, that means that you’re argument about the future or whatever it was is invalid.

And people other than myself who do so do not further humanity, and hurt others. Just because someone thinks something is good does not make it so. Obviously the majority rules on what is right or wrong, but you mustn’t forget minority rights.


#16

How can you prove he existed?


#17

The same way you prove anyone else existed, accounts from multiple sources, including Roman arrest records dating back to the time.


#18

No, the laws of logic are not self-justifying, which is what you are trying to say. If you disagree, then you need to demonstrate it. You presuppose that logic applies universally now and forever. Since those laws in themselves do not demand this, you believe it on faith. Just as I said.

And people other than myself who do so do not further humanity, and hurt others. Just because someone thinks something is good does not make it so. Obviously the majority rules on what is right or wrong, but you mustn’t forget minority rights.

Well aren’t we on our high horse here! Why is your system of morality so much better than the child molester? He disagrees with your system and thinks we should exploit the under-represented minority. Why are you right and he’s wrong?

It is obvious that you haven’t even begun to explore your own presuppositions. You hold them on faith. You hold to exactly the type of atheism that Christians reject, because Christianity demands reasonable explanations.


#19

Why do you accept those accounts as genuine and not, say, the Gospel accounts, or Paul’s numerous letters?


closed #20

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit www.catholic.com.