Is Christianity Irrational?

fishin
Fishin, thanks - i agree with nearly everything you said. I had already decided to remove the bit about Abraham and Isaac as i think it is a poor way of illustrating the example.

Frank - i was not attempting to show contempt for your comments by stating that i disagreed with most of what you have said - merely stating a fact. I am sorry this has caused such offence.

I thankyou for the link, but in all truth in contained nothing that i had not already anticipated. The only area that i think i need to cover more extensively is the widespread and [in my opinion erroneous] argument that The Trinity can rationally be seen as 'three persons' in one being or essence. I will either add my argument against this to the debate, or simply wait for the question and answer session.

If there is anything else you would like to add, then feel free - but i apologise in if i appear too aggressive with my responses.

Thankyou again to everyone for their comments.

all religions were meant for was to guide you to the all encompassing sprit. Gaia, Kebela

all beliefs are wrong including this one.

cav, c.i., joe nation (well done!) and Frank.

It always ends up with who can communicate with whom, and if the communicators can write something comprehensible to the listeners.

I heard a bit on NPR today about the Catholic Church and what it is dealing with today, and what it is dealing out to its congregations. Fascinating. Mostly because the first two interlocutors were intelligent and articulate, and not out to win points for some viewpoint they were stuck into. The discussion was enlightening. One of the interviewees was Peter Steinfels who writes a religion column for the NYTimes; the other man, a priest, was a professor from Notre Dame (which might put one off with the consideration of his probably bent) who was unusual in his quiet and calm, liberal but consideredly so, view of today's church.

I was interested to hear both men affirm that the 1968 (?) reaffirmation of the church's ban on artificial contraception was a major misstep by the institutional church. I have always known this, but to hear it said so bluntly was surprising to me, especially to hear it from the professor at Notre Dame.

There was much interesting talk about the difference between the US Catholic attitude toward "freedom" which is not the same as would be seen as freedom in other less individualistic countries, who see freedom in a more communal sense.

I'm not really an expert on Christian theology so it wasn't innately obvious, CI.

spleen, Christianity may be irrational, but not for the 3 reasons you posted.

1. A trinity wherein God has three distinct aspects is no less rational than an atom composed of neutrons, protons, and electrons.

2. Although we cannot perfectly understand quantum physics with its nonsensical rules, the universe operates just fine, heedless of our ignorance of its underlying logic.

3. It is no harder to believe that Jesus is both God and man than it is to believe that photons are simultaneously both waves and particles.


What is really illogical about Christianity is the notion that God needed to sacrifice one of his selves to himself in order to forgive us for behaving exactly as he knew we would, given the imperfect brains, bodies and souls with which he endowed us.

I think his statement about the age of the earth is one. So is what Terry said, the petulant nature of this g-d doesn't follow through logically. Also, men have the same number of ribs as women. And wouldn't the population be horiffically inbred if all life came from Adam and Eve? Is is reasonable to believe in a diety who can ressurect people from the dead and turn water into wine? Once one accepts that not all of the bible is true, one has to ask oneself what parts of the bible are true. There have been many wars and sect divisions over this.

Isn't it interesting that these people label -themselves- sheep?

For logical reasons, you may want to check out the lengthy "Atheism has the same logical flaws as religion" thread. As everyone knows, I'm quite vocal about being an agnostic - not denying the concept of g-d. However, I actively deny the existance of dieties said to impact earth, and that includes Jesus. Because they reportedly had interactions with the material earth and did things historically, if those historical claims and material interactions are incorrect, I can disprove the diety (at least in theory where the records are too old or incomplete to know) even by using observations about the earth and the nature of material things, one can disprove individual dieties. G-d, without label or much definition, if remaining wholly immaterial, is as impossible to prove or disprove as an always unhearable unseeable unsmellable untasteable untouchable (even with specialized instruments) pink elephant. The moment that pink elephant impacts/is said to impact somthing in the physical (material) world, it can theoretically be proven or disproven (imagine all possible evidence could be gathered, cameras everywhere and super technology and what have you).

All those miracles happened before we had cameras and recorders. Bah, hum bug.

Terry, one of the devout could postulate that god sacrificing a part of himself is not far off from donating a kidney. Let the Christian Scientists debate that one for a while...

That might actually work; after all, we were created in his 'image.'

Or hers c.i.

or the cybernetic non-gendered octopuses', who looks startlingly like a human when it's tentacles are hidden.

That would be 'octopi' Portal, but all octopus references are cool by me, especially if it's a new recipe.

cav, yes, but it is rather pointless to donate a kidney to yourself.

Unless of course you are completely selfish, and omnipotent....

Then you would be donating a kidney for the purpose of having donated a kidney. Very God-like, IMHO.

rufio, yes, that was the point behind the reference. Now choosing to simply rent a kidney to someone, and then take it back if they couldn't pay is very human.

I wouldn't say that Christianity is rational or irrational. I will say, however, the the Holy Bible is the only book based over a period of over 2000 years, with 44 chapters, written by more authors, with the most prophesies and NO discrepancies.

Christianity and a relationship with Jesus Christ cannot be explained, only experienced. Jesus taught that faith was the absolute most important thing in a person's life. "Faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God". I also believe that Satan is alive and well...and he would be the one who would cause doubt.

There are hundreds of discrepancies.

You want me to start listing them?

Personally, I think the code of Hammurabi is more clear and concise than the Bible, but each to their own. I have tons of faith, and a good heart, and even morality, all without organized religion. Imagine that....