Jump to content

Have You Heard This Argument Yet?


Freedom from Guilt
 Share

Recommended Posts

It seems like every time I go to church these days, I hear "apologetics". In the music, in the sermon, in the bulletins, in the prayers, it's all I hear. "We are right...this is why we are right....aren't you so glad we are right....only smart people realize the truth.....aren't you so glad you realized the truth.

 

Anyway, Sunday's sermon was no disappointment to me. I was in town with my mother and went to church with her. I've been considering the idea of going to a local methodist church (for my families sake - especially as a stepping stone to get my children away from rabid fundamentalism). My mother's church is methodist and I went with an open mind. The sermon was just a full on apologetics treatise. I've never heard this argument, and i was was wondering if other's have and what you think of it.

 

He said, "Buddha would have never claimed to be the son of Brahma, Mohammad would have never claimed to be Allah or the Son of Allah, Confucius would have never claimed to be the Son of Heaven....sooooooooo because Jesus claimed to be God's son and had authority to forgive sin, that makes him unique and, of course, the ONLY way to salvation. He brought up C.S. Lewis and I was wondering if this was one of his arguments.

 

I don't believe him or agree with him, I was just wondering what other's make of this argument. Is Jesus really that unique? Doesn't it seem incredible that that Yahweh was so terrifying and awful but that his human form was so loving and forgiving? It makes him (sky daddy) out to be quite a head case.

 

Snarky comments regarding this apologetics gem are appreciated. :)

 

freedom

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't have any snarky comments or a long list of names, but I do know that there have been numerous saviors born of virgins and sons of Gods. Wasn't Mithras one?

 

So are you doing church to save your marriage?

 

I am sorry that you are having to deal with this.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be mistaken, but I think Buddha was a Prince in India. So I believe that would make him part of the Brahma Class.

 

So his arguement falls apart at the start. As to the rest, they never claimed it because they were well aware they were human. Despite the legends that have sprung up around them.

 

Jesus on the other hand, seemed to get caught up in his own propoganda. However, the diciples after him and the gospel of Mark in particular exanded the story and made a case for him being the Messiah. Paul then took that and ran with it completely fubaring the whole teaching into something else, at the exclusion of those who didn't agree with him. Then the catholic church said these are the only true gospels and the rest is forgotten except by scholars.

 

This reminds me of a point I made to Pastor Brother-in-law. That Jesus, if he exsisted, was a human male of his time and culture. So all thoughts and teachings would be rooted in that. I was trying to get him to see the fallacy in appling early iron age mid-east thinking to computer age western life, but I failed misearably.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

according to traditions and beliefs, the preacher was right that those guys never claimed to be god or son of god for that matter.

 

the bible stated that jesus claimed to be the son of god, and using cs lewis argument i think on either he is a mad man or he's telling the truth choices, so the choice must be chosen that jesus is not mad thus he is who he claim he is...... similar to pascal's wager stuff,,,, full of crap....

 

heard that analogy and used that analogy when was a christian. cant be bother to refute that kind of shallow argument anymore......

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually, we don't know what Jesus claimed, or even if he actually existed. If he did exist, he and his friends must have all been illiterate because no one recorded what he said contemporaneously. All we have to go on are the words of the anonymous gospel writers 40+ years later who so twisted OT "prophecies" and out-right lied that we can't trust anything they said.

 

Anyway, if there was a Jesus who actually said he was the son of god, so what? I have a nut-case neighbor who claims to be General Douglas MacArthur reincarnated, but ain't nobody saluting him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Many years ago I have read a Xtian book with the same argument. The book was about why YHWH is the real God, as opposed to Allah, Brahma etc. And I remember one of the book's central arguments was this. And I also remember that even as a Xtian I found this a pretty weak and unconvincing argument and I thought this wasn't gonna convince people of other faiths or atheists. Just because Jesus said (if he said that at all or if he existed at all) that he was the son of God, does that make it a fact? He might have been delusional, he might have lied consciously etc. (Though I personally think the Jesus how Xtians imagine him today and how he is portrayed in the Bible, likely didn't even exist.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's an argument that I've heard thrown around constantly. This argument assumes so much that you can attack it a million and one ways. The argument assumes:

 

1. That we're a "lost" species.

2. That we need to be saved.

3. That their God is real.

4. That their God is capable saving.

5. That no other god is.

6. That Jesus existed.

7. The sources that give Christ's life are accurate.

8. That Jesus was who he said he was.

9. That Jesus can be verified from outside sources as the Messiah.

 

I usually never get past step one. All of these are taken at face value when they put this argument (and many others) forward, so it can be dismantled very easily because they have no evidence. We all know the burden of proof is on them to prove these things. Besides, even if they were to reach the end of the very long list of proofs...would it be really that sensible to follow the man who says claims that his dad is the immoral asshat of the Old Testament? Is that really a bragging point?

 

I agree with the statement that Pratt made. At least all of these other guys listed didn't make "son of God" claims...but there were many that did as well. Your preacher set up a false-choice kind of situation.

 

It's a loaded question about a subject that's equally loaded (and by loaded, I mean bs)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest Valk0010

Claiming to be something totally unique doesn't make it true, being the first to claim that your abducted by aliens, would be unique at the time but doesn't make it true.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well I don't have any snarky comments or a long list of names, but I do know that there have been numerous saviors born of virgins and sons of Gods. Wasn't Mithras one?

 

So are you doing church to save your marriage?

 

I am sorry that you are having to deal with this.

 

 

Foolish Girl- I am trying to go to church occasionally. I posted the first time I went and it was horrible. The second time, I was able to get past the anger/emotional side of it and I did fine. I am toying with the idea of trying to get the family to move churches. I'd like the kids to at least take ONE step away from the backasswardness that is fundamentalism. I can't say it's the best option or that I will even do it... I'm just exploring the possibility. My visit to my mom's church did not help though.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be mistaken, but I think Buddha was a Prince in India. So I believe that would make him part of the Brahma Class.

 

Kshatriya (warrior class), Brahmins were the priestly caste. ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He said, "Buddha would have never claimed to be the son of Brahma, Mohammad would have never claimed to be Allah or the Son of Allah, Confucius would have never claimed to be the Son of Heaven....sooooooooo because Jesus claimed to be God's son and had authority to forgive sin, that makes him unique and, of course, the ONLY way to salvation. He brought up C.S. Lewis and I was wondering if this was one of his arguments.

 

They don't know what Brahama is, or anything about Hinduism or what Buddha Shakamuni taught. I see only ignorance in trying to make such a comparison.

 

There was never a sin problem until Christians invented it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Charles Manson claimed to be Jesus Christ.

 

This claim makes Charles Manson unique.

 

Therefore, Charles Manson must be Jesus Christ.

 

Doesn't quite follow, does it? :lmao:

 

Just about all ancient mythology is unique to itself - but that certainly doesn't make it factual....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can't add much to the comments that have been made above. They all raise excellent points.

 

This reminds me of what I was mulling over during my afternoon walk at the park.

 

It seems like religion thrives on a method of social control I , as a layman, call Assent through assertion assault.

 

You just keep making assertions and affirming those assertions over and over with the larger group responding as if something profound is being said until all doubters, by reluctance to stand apart and be shunned or punished by the group , affirm the assertions. Questions stop being asked. Critical thoughts are left unexpressed and the hearer goes along and gets along so as to "keep peace in the family."

 

Of course the affect on the young is the most profound. Many or most hear fallacious arguments and don't have the facilities or resources to question those in authority. If there is a doubt about what the preacher or Sunday school teacher says then, by default, the youngster doubts himself. How could my teachers and parents be wrong?

 

The argument outlined in the OP proves nothing. It only asserts that people should be smart and believe in Jesus. And the individual has to have the sense of self-confidence and possess the critical thinking skills to stand apart from the larger congregation and declare "bullshit!"

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Jesus also claimed the mustard seed is the smallest seed. It's not.

 

He claimed it grows into a tree. It doesn't; it grows into a bush.

There's no such thing as a mustard tree.

 

It's said he brought salvation to humanity. But he did not. For an explanation go to

http://www.feedbooks.com/userbook/18855/disproving-jesus

and read about the first 10 pages.

 

Paul and the early Christians believed he'd return soon.

Why did he let them believe a lie if he was God?

Why didn't he tell them the truth.

 

etc. etc. etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I could be mistaken, but I think Buddha was a Prince in India. So I believe that would make him part of the Brahma Class.

 

Kshatriya (warrior class), Brahmins were the priestly caste. ;)

 

 

Therefore, I am living proof that when you open your mouth, or post, your brain is on parade. In all its wisdom and ignorance. :bow:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He brought up C.S. Lewis and I was wondering if this was one of his arguments.

 

 

C.S. Lewis had this agument he called the "trilemma". Is Jesus Lord, Liar, or Lunatic. We, of course, are supposed to see that "Lord" is the correct answer, because who wants to call Jesus a liar or a lunatic? Naturally, Lewis conveniently leaves out the most likely explanation: Jesus was misquoted or made up altogether. I don't remember reading a "Book of Jesus". All his words are second-hand or even more remote.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Actually I'm God, I'm even more powerful than the Christian God. I can create and destroy his existence in my mind, and in others minds as well. I can pray and answer myself as god, I used to do that all the time and didn't even realize it. So in that sense I'm the REAL god. That doesn't mean I should be worshiped, it just means I was gullible at one point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were studying about some symptoms of schizophrenia at school, and one of them was they might have "delusions of grandeur." Maybe Jesus was schizophrenic :V

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It seems like every time I go to church these days, I hear "apologetics". In the music, in the sermon, in the bulletins, in the prayers, it's all I hear. "We are right...this is why we are right....aren't you so glad we are right....only smart people realize the truth.....aren't you so glad you realized the truth.

 

Squint your eyes some and you might see them. :wicked:

sleep1.jpg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

It seems like religion thrives on a method of social control I , as a layman, call Assent through assertion assault.

 

You just keep making assertions and affirming those assertions over and over with the larger group responding as if something profound is being said until all doubters, by reluctance to stand apart and be shunned or punished by the group , affirm the assertions. Questions stop being asked. Critical thoughts are left unexpressed and the hearer goes along and gets along so as to "keep peace in the family."

 

This is the bit I could never tolerate. Assertions were made that were clearly fabrications, but everyone would jump all over the pastor who made them like he was christmas. Every fibre of my being screamed "this is a lie, and as a christian I should not touch it". When I commented, no one knew what I was talking about. Social acceptance was more important than the truth. What a shitty, dishonest way to live.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.