On religion (in particular Christianity), rationality, and this forum - are we allowed to discuss it?

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Ixthos, do you have any further questions you particularly want to engage with me on, as a Pagan polytheist?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

He's getting data points, Fuzzy. Data points.

[Riedquat]

The bowing part is a big problem for me. I genuinely fail to see why I should have to.

Because he's more powerful than me? Because he made me? Because he can torment me if I don't? These sound like descriptors of someone that we in a free society have been raised to rally against tbh.

It's not a problem in that there's no reason he has to be nice I suppose, but it is a problem if you expect people to view god in a positive light. Any deity that should be worshipped wouldn't demand worship. Usually the response to that seems to be along the lines of "But he's god, how can you possibly question that, you against the all-knowing all-powerful?" Which is just finding excuses to dodge the question.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I've always been under the impression that the idea is to not personify God, not personify him in order to contradict social ramifications of worldly events.

[Ixthos]

I apologise for the delay in posting this. I made the mistake of setting a day to have completed this right in the middle of engaging in a few other forums in intense conversation, and while having work due.

Here is a list of some evidence for Christianity. Please note this is not a complete list of the evidence for Christianity, only some points, and it doesn't cover any personal experiences or reasons which some Christians have for belief. The main purpose of this post is to address the notion that Christianity is irrational, or is based on blind faith and human designs. I repeat: this has the purpose of showing that Christianity isn't irrational.

Rationality does not, in and of itself, mean you are right, but it does mean you are thinking and have reasons for what you believe.. Logic is a powerful tool, but it does depend on the inputs. It is possible to use perfect logic but to come to the wrong conclusion if the data doesn't match reality. It is also, ironically, possible to use terrible logic and come to the right conclusion by chance. The key is to have the correct data and to apply logic correctly to it, and then the chance you are right becomes much greater.

Of course, what is the right data? Things that match our expectations? But if our expectations are wrong, we can reject things that actually are true. We know many things from everyday life, but those actual only apply to human scales and speeds, and aren't reflections of what and how reality is. Particles are both particles and waves. Speeds determine the sequence of events, and don't actually add together linearly, for light will always appear to travel at the same speed in a vacuum to all observers, even one chasing after it at an appreciable fraction of that speed to an observer. In mathematics we also see paradoxes of different sizes of infinity, that the number of integers is equal to the number of rationals and equal to the number of integer multiples of Tree(3). A line segment has the same number of real numbers as there are between zero and one, and there are more real numbers between zero and one than there are integers. We even are able to multiple and divide numbers by "infinity" and "zero" using Le'Hopital's rule and come to a real, finite or infinite number. All things we know to be true, yet are counter intuitive. And how many of these things, which many here likely know about already, have you tested and proven to yourself already - how many impossible things do you accept without having performed the experiments or studied the equations yourself?

My point is this - don't reject a data point out of hand simply because it is "impossible", rather look at how probable it is that it is reliable, and look at the number of data points supporting it. I am not saying "this is impossible, therefor it is true like these other impossible things", what I am saying is this - "don't reject something just because it is 'impossible', because there are other things which, if you did that, you would have to reject also, and these are things we know to be true. Rather, weigh this along with the other points of evidence".

With that said, here is some data. (Please read through to the end, as some of the data you might disagree with or reject outright could be near the top, while data you might find more compelling could be further in.)


Physics, and time

There is a lot of debate as to whether or not God is needed for the universe to begin. Most of these tend to leave the realm of science and enter into philosophy, which is certainly a useful field but not always helpful when discussing how things are. There also is a lot of debate when it comes to the evidence for certain discovered phonomena, etc. and whether or not that supports one thing or another. This isn't about that, but rather an examination of the logic of existence.

The universe has to have had a beginning, or else we face the same issue of eternity, only in reverse, as there would be events in the past infinitely far away in time that no finite amount of time passing could allow to reach us (i.e. the same reason we can't reach "day omega" from the present, as no finite amount of time passing would allow you to reach it, and from day omega to day omega^2, omega^(omega^(2*omega^4+5*omega)), etc.). Thus there is a beginning of the universe, and that beginning requires something that was either in an eternal dormant state to suddenly change, or for something that had not interacted with it before to then do so. Think of every event that has ever happened as a point, and the events that caused it to be another point with an arrow pointing from the first event to the event or events it caused, thus forming a directed graph or net. Eventually you either come to a point that has no arrows pointing to it, only from it, or the graph goes on forever. If it goes on forever then we face the logical issue mentioned above, and if it starts at a single point - and this point must be outside of the system - we then have to ask WHY did it start.

(This also ties to the Biblical account of Creation - More on that below.)

* Data point: There ultimately must be a beginning to the universe, and that beginning must be distinct from the universe itself, thus the logic we apply to the universe and the rules within the universe aren't much help in directly understanding its mechanics any more than Newtonian physics can describe what happens when you travel at relativistic speeds or are near a gravity well. That cause must account for the sudden change of a nothing into a something, or a something into a present beginning.
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Lwniobs9nmA (in particular the second argument)
* https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEgwp9z1978


Jewish survival and contributions to humanity

The Jewish people are unique and special in scripture, chosen by God to be a light to other nations and to be the means by which He intends to bring humanity back to Him. Though they often stumbled, God's promises to them remained, and are evidenced in their continued survival despite enourmous persecution. One argument could be this says Judaism is true, but see data within Judaism that afferms Jesus, this also counts towards Christianity. No other people have suffered as much as often yet retained their culture and identity, and no other people have had their nations reborn twice, and then go on to such strengths despite hostile surroundings.

* Data point: Despite their relatively small numbers, and near constant persecution, the Jewish people have not only survived, but retained their culture and been reborn as a nation twice, as was promised in scripture.
* Mark Twain - an atheist - on the Jews (note: this was written before Israel's refounding): https://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/ma ... and-israel
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persecution_of_Jews
* https://www.imdb.com/title/tt7441224/ (Against All Odds Israel Survives)

* Data point: In addition to survival, the Jewish people are, again despite their small number, one of the most promonent peoples on the planet, and have contributed much to science, technology, and philosophy.
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_J ... _laureates
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_I ... iscoveries


Prophesy in the Bible

Unlike prophesy in other religions - and unlike many modern so called prophets, though not all - the Bible makes predictions that are specific (i.e. "THIS will happen if you keep on doing this" / "x number of weeks (of years) after event y, z will happen", and at the most ambigeous "this will happen and then this will happen" / "this will be your end state.) There are several examples of this, including the irony that one city's name is only remembered because it is recorded in scripture, and the cities around the Galilee Jesus prophesied against "Woe to you, Chorazin, Bethsaida and Capernaum", with only Tiberius remaining, the only one He didn't pronounce a woe on.

* Data point: Biblical prophesy is unique from other types of prophesy in that it provides dates and conditions for the events, like the fall of Tyre, and there is archealogical evidence to support the presence of prophesies coming true. (see below)
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bible_prophecy
* https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Woes_to_t ... ant_cities

A special mention should also be made of Daniel, which contains prophesies about the empires that would rule the Middle East and Mediteranian, and which were accurately predicted and even named, though the use of symbiolism and also explination, the symbols explained in the prophesy themselves. This includes prophesying the coming of Alexander the Great (the goat who represents the king of Greece (Macedonia)), and the coming of Jesus based on the 70 weeks prophesy.

* Data point: A promonent example of Biblical prophesy is in the book of Daniel, which outlined events tying to major empires in the area - WHICH IT IDENTIFIED, such as Medo-Persia and Greece - including Alexander the Great, and those events are also tied to the coming to Jesus as predicted in the book, and which definitely can be dated to before Jesus and potentially even to before Alexander.
* https://watchjerusalem.co.il/797-can-we ... -of-daniel
* https://www.evidenceunseen.com/bible-di ... of-daniel/
* https://www.vision.org/daniel-critics-den-367
* http://www.jesuswalk.com/daniel/app3_ea ... daniel.htm
* http://www.spiritandtruth.org/teaching/ ... 34.htm?x=x
* https://evidenceforchristianity.org/wha ... epiphanes/


Historical Events in archaeology

Some like to dismiss the Bible's accounts on account of them often - but not always - including supernatural elements. Others, however, still see it as accurate, even if they are an atheist or agnostic themselves. It would take a long time tom go into all the details, and it is controversial, but look up David Rohl (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Rohl), an archaeologist who has shown how evidence supporting several Biblical events taking place, evidence supported by those who don't believe in his theories due to timeline issues, can be reconciled with the Biblical accounts.

* Data point: Archaeological evidence shows the events of the Exodus took place in the right sequence and look the right lengths of time between them as described in the Bible.
* https://patternsofevidence.com/
* https://i0.wp.com/nilescribes.org/wp-co ... .png?ssl=1 (graphic from the documentry)


Christianity's unique elements

This is arguably the most controversial statement here, but to summarise, the Biblical account of Creation is not inconsistant with the modern scientific understanding of how the universe came to be, and would match how one would expect scientifically illiterate individuals would describe the sequence as from an observers point of view (i.e. someone who isn't omniscient). The main opposition to this is people citing the use of the word "day", yom, in the text, but as Genesis 2:4 (and even the first day itself) show, the word day can refer to a period, rather than a twenty four hour cycle. The sequnece of events is highly logical when the structure is known, and is as follows:
* Stage one - Darkness gives way to light (confirmed event in modern science: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Decoupling_(cosmology)) (or, alternatively if this is just about the solar system, the sun ignites)
* Stage two - the material that becomes the earth separates from the material that forms the rest of the universe
* Stage three - the Earth cools and matter separates from the waters, and plants occure (this is the only part that doesn't exactely match modern science)
* Stage four - the stars and sun and moon either are formed, or become visible - if present beforehand their light could have been seen through a layer of cloud, which is suspected to have existed around the early Earth)
* Stage five - birds and fish are the first animal life (note that dinosaurs are related to birds, and modern science says the first life emerged from the seas)
* Stage six - land animals and people

Also note that the sixth day alone is unique in being described as "THE sixth day", where all others are the indefinite article "one day, two day, etc. - i.e. day one, day two".
(If you are interested, I can go into more detail on the relationship between Genesis 1 and 2.)

* Data point: The Creation Account in the Bible is much more straight forwards than other religion's accounts, and - if yom is accepted to be a period of time rather than a single day, as evidenced by its use in Genesis to describe multiple days in Genesis 2:4 - matches fairly closely the modern model of the universe. The Bible isn't meant to give scientific information, but to be accurate according to the understanding of those in the past who wouldn't know or need to know the full mechanics. It is accurate, but incomplete for understanding the full mechanics of the world because it isn't about providing information about the mechanics of the world.
* https://www.sentinelapologetics.org/sin ... tion-Model

This second point is less a data point for Christianity against atheism, and more about Christianity's unique elements related to other religions. Within Christinity there is a unique claim that no other religion possesses - namely, that your works don't save you, and nothing you can do can bring salvation; only God can reach down to pull you up, and no amount of effort on your part can allow you to climb, only God's grace can do that.
Now, uniqueness isn't in and of itself enough to say something is or isn't true, nor should something that is true be uniquely held by one group. Scripture notes that there are those who, never having heard of God's laws, still follow them and this is to their credit, while those who have heard and don't do are in a far worse state than those who didn't hear and didn't do.

* Data point: Christianity alone teaches that works cannot save, but that faith saves, thus emphasising internal self control rather than external praise seeking, and once saved you can do good, not that good deeds themselves save you.


Jesus, Yeshua HaMashiach

I've already mentioned this one earlier, but to reiterate, very few scholars say Jesus didn't exist, as there are many sources that date to around the time He was on Earth confirm He existed on Earth, and many of them are openly hostile towards Christianity, indicating the writers likely weren't trying to fabricate support for Him.

* Data point: Jesus, Yeshua, is confirmed to have existed by secular sources.
* https://coldcasechristianity.com/writin ... the-bible/

This next point is the idea that the weight you should give someone's words is based on how much they are willing to give up and put up with before they change their story, and the effect of multiple people all saying the same thing. If one person said "I believe aliens exist", and are willing to be thrown out of their house for it, that doesn't mean much. But if someone says "I saw an alien", and refuse to change their stance even when thrown into a psychiatric hospital, you can be sure they at least believe they saw an alien. And if ten people say they saw the same thing, or a hundred people, and are willing to suffer for that, one should be prepared to reexamine one's own beliefs.

Likewise with Christianity, there are records and traditions of the Apostles and other being martyred claiming to have seen and spoken to a Risen Jesus, and the epistles record individuals who were alive at the time and could be asked if what was claimed was true. Remember, there is a difference between saying "I believe this", and "I saw this". Anyone can die for what they believe in and it doesn't prove that what they believe is the case, only that they believed in it. But if someone dies claiming they saw something, despite pressure to say they didn't, that adds weight to the claim. And if several do it, several people say they saw something and are unwilling to deny it, even to death, that in turn makes it even more likely.
* Data point: The Apostals were martyred claiming to have seen Jesus's death and resurrection, and there is no record of the authorities trying to claim otherwise.
* https://coldcasechristianity.com/writin ... s-martyrs/
* https://coldcasechristianity.com/writin ... rs-repost/


For those interested, here are a few links to some apolgetics material:
* https://www.sentinelapologetics.org/
* https://coldcasechristianity.com/
* https://www.youtube.com/c/InspiringPhilosophy/videos
* https://www.youtube.com/c/rzimmedia/videos
* https://www.reddit.com/r/ChristianApologetics
* Unlocking the Bible, by David Pawson, which isn't so much apologetics but rather a guide to making sure when you read scripture you are doing so in context.
I don't agree with everything every one of them says, but they are interesting and potentially useful for those who want to understand and examine the evidence for Christianity.

Again, a reminder, this isn't supposed to be the be all and end all proof that Christianity is true. This is a small subset of the evidence, and poorly presented at that. This is to address the idea that Christianity doesn't have evidence, and to provide some information to those who are sincere in their commitment to examination and questioning. This is a series of data points to show what many Christians consider. This is to show that one can be rational and be a Christian, as indeed many atheists who became Christian have shown - Christianity doesn't require you to leave reason at the door, and indeed, as is written in scripture, "Let us reason together." So, let us reason together. I hope you all have a great week, and take care!


(Also, sorry if the formatting is a little off - hopefully it is readable, and I'll try to get back to any comments made while I was making this!

Ixthos, do you have any further questions you particularly want to engage with me on, as a Pagan polytheist?

yes, I would like to continue that discussion on your beliefs, just give me a day or two )

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

So this is basically a "not all Christians" thread?

Just kidding btw.

[Ixthos]

The bowing part is a big problem for me. I genuinely fail to see why I should have to.

Because he's more powerful than me? Because he made me? Because he can torment me if I don't? These sound like descriptors of someone that we in a free society have been raised to rally against tbh.

If I may reframe this slightly, in scenarios such as the ending of the Return of the King where everyone bows to Frodo and the others, if you where there would you bow? Or if you met with the Queen, would you follow protocol when interacting with her? Is there anyone you would bow to, and if so why, or if you would never bow why do you think others do?

Ixthos, do you have any further questions you particularly want to engage with me on, as a Pagan polytheist?

I'm ready to ask more questions if you like

In terms of deities interacting, do you believe the deities are separate beings from one another, each an individual rather than being facets of one another? Do you believe in the Fates, or the idea that some gods worship other gods?

The bowing part is a big problem for me. I genuinely fail to see why I should have to.

Because he's more powerful than me? Because he made me? Because he can torment me if I don't? These sound like descriptors of someone that we in a free society have been raised to rally against tbh.

It's not a problem in that there's no reason he has to be nice I suppose, but it is a problem if you expect people to view god in a positive light. Any deity that should be worshipped wouldn't demand worship. Usually the response to that seems to be along the lines of "But he's god, how can you possibly question that, you against the all-knowing all-powerful?" Which is just finding excuses to dodge the question.

If I can ask you the same question as I asked clearspira at the start of this post, in those scenarios would you bow, who would you bow to, or if not why do you think others bow? I think it is important we try to get on the same page to understand where our views differ.

So this is basically a "not all Christians" thread?

Just kidding btw.

Ahhh I was seriously about to ask what you meant

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Ahhh I was seriously about to ask what you meant

I'm curious, I guess, what exactly are you expecting out of this thread with respect to your recently disclosed report?

Was anyone here giving you the impression that those specific points were at odds with their understanding of things?

[Ixthos]

Ahhh I was seriously about to ask what you meant

I'm curious, I guess, what exactly are you expecting out of this thread with respect to your recently disclosed report?

Was anyone here giving you the impression that those specific points were at odds with their understanding of things?

My goal is to show that Christianity is a religion based on evidence, countering the notion that is doesn't have any. My goal is to show that Christianity is indeed rational rather than irrational, though also accepting that someone can be rational and come to a different conclusion to someone else who is rational.

The impression I gained was that many here thought Christianity is a religion which isn't based on evidence, that it was a religion of blind faith - I think that many in this forum hold or held that perspective - hopefully the data points post is the beginnings of a rebuttal to that.

[Fuzzy Necromancer]

Ixthos, do you have any further questions you particularly want to engage with me on, as a Pagan polytheist?

I'm ready to ask more questions if you like

In terms of deities interacting, do you believe the deities are separate beings from one another, each an individual rather than being facets of one another? Do you believe in the Fates, or the idea that some gods worship other gods?

I think that most deities are separate beings, so Hard Polytheism rather than Soft Polytheism, but I am open to the idea that some deities have different aspects. There's a lot of precedent for that in Hellenic Polytheism so I have to at least entertain the idea.

I'm also open to the idea that some gods worship other gods, or of their being entities orders of magnitude greater than the gods I follow. Mostly though, I haven't formed a strong opinion as it's not relevant to my personal practice and theology.