Thought I should cross-post it into my journal...
In response to this post, I offered the following reply...
I like how C.S. Lewis put it. If you believe that Jesus was a real person and what the bible records about his teachings is more or less accurate, then you have three choices:
1) He was a liar.
2) He was insane.
3) He was divine.
He said he was "sent by the Father," that if "you have seen me, you have seen the Father," and "no one comes to the Father, except through me."
So, if you choose option 1--He was a liar, you have to wrestle with why would he have allowed the Pharisees to put him to death. You could reason that he somehow used trickery to create his miracles in order to gain a following, but if that was his motive, why did he follow the route he did when he knew darned well his death was at the end of it. The Bible records that the Pharisees gave him ample opportunities and warnings to be quiet. He didn't have to go to Jerusalem to die--indeed, he indicates that he knew that his journey to Jerusalem would have led to his death. So, if he was a liar, one has to question what his motive was. And, in choosing this option, you firmly state that he did not rise from the dead, which begs the question. Why then would the 11 remaining Apostles spread the word of a Christian religion? They lived in poverty and discarded any real power. Why would they do this if they had not seen their risen Lord?
Then, if you choose option 2--He was insane, that he believed he was divine but he truly was not, then how do you explain the miracles? If he truly believed he was sent from the Father, it doesn't seem reasonable that at the same time he would use trickery to mimic miracles. And, tradition holds that 10 of the original 12 apostles were martyred. They spent three years with Jesus. Don't you think after that time they would have realized he was a lunatic? But no, even after Jesus' death (and resurrection), they chose martyrdom rather than cast aside the teachings of Christ.
So, if you discard the first two options, you have option three: He was divine. That, he took on mortal flesh to save mankind from sin. That, by attaching ourselves to him, we can share in his sonship and become true sons and daughters of God, and spend eternity with Him.
...
As for the Constitution, no, it doesn't mention "God" or "Christianity," but it also doesn't mention any "separation of Church and State." What it says, in the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So, Congress can neither establish a national religion, nor can it pass any law restricting the exercise of one's religion. The First Amendment doesn't prohibit religion from affecting national law and politics, it prohibits national law and politics from affecting religion.
Finally, if you don't think this nation was founded on Christianity, may I kindly direct you to the Declaration of Independence which contains the words "God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge" and "Divine Providence." The whole reason why we felt that we needed to be free of those Brits was that God had given us certain rights, and the British were denying us of them.
I would suggest that the reason why you dislike religion is because there have been right scoundrels in positions of power who have caused their followers to suffer horribly. But, it's illogical to then discount religion because of these horrible people. It'd be like disbelieving Geometry and claiming it was false because your Geometry professor embezzled funds from the university. Truth is truth.
I apologize if I have overstepped my bounds. I remain, your friend,
Eric
I like how C.S. Lewis put it. If you believe that Jesus was a real person and what the bible records about his teachings is more or less accurate, then you have three choices:
1) He was a liar.
2) He was insane.
3) He was divine.
He said he was "sent by the Father," that if "you have seen me, you have seen the Father," and "no one comes to the Father, except through me."
So, if you choose option 1--He was a liar, you have to wrestle with why would he have allowed the Pharisees to put him to death. You could reason that he somehow used trickery to create his miracles in order to gain a following, but if that was his motive, why did he follow the route he did when he knew darned well his death was at the end of it. The Bible records that the Pharisees gave him ample opportunities and warnings to be quiet. He didn't have to go to Jerusalem to die--indeed, he indicates that he knew that his journey to Jerusalem would have led to his death. So, if he was a liar, one has to question what his motive was. And, in choosing this option, you firmly state that he did not rise from the dead, which begs the question. Why then would the 11 remaining Apostles spread the word of a Christian religion? They lived in poverty and discarded any real power. Why would they do this if they had not seen their risen Lord?
Then, if you choose option 2--He was insane, that he believed he was divine but he truly was not, then how do you explain the miracles? If he truly believed he was sent from the Father, it doesn't seem reasonable that at the same time he would use trickery to mimic miracles. And, tradition holds that 10 of the original 12 apostles were martyred. They spent three years with Jesus. Don't you think after that time they would have realized he was a lunatic? But no, even after Jesus' death (and resurrection), they chose martyrdom rather than cast aside the teachings of Christ.
So, if you discard the first two options, you have option three: He was divine. That, he took on mortal flesh to save mankind from sin. That, by attaching ourselves to him, we can share in his sonship and become true sons and daughters of God, and spend eternity with Him.
...
As for the Constitution, no, it doesn't mention "God" or "Christianity," but it also doesn't mention any "separation of Church and State." What it says, in the First Amendment is "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" So, Congress can neither establish a national religion, nor can it pass any law restricting the exercise of one's religion. The First Amendment doesn't prohibit religion from affecting national law and politics, it prohibits national law and politics from affecting religion.
Finally, if you don't think this nation was founded on Christianity, may I kindly direct you to the Declaration of Independence which contains the words "God," "Creator," "Supreme Judge" and "Divine Providence." The whole reason why we felt that we needed to be free of those Brits was that God had given us certain rights, and the British were denying us of them.
I would suggest that the reason why you dislike religion is because there have been right scoundrels in positions of power who have caused their followers to suffer horribly. But, it's illogical to then discount religion because of these horrible people. It'd be like disbelieving Geometry and claiming it was false because your Geometry professor embezzled funds from the university. Truth is truth.
I apologize if I have overstepped my bounds. I remain, your friend,
Eric