Does Christianity make sense?

[EricK]

In another thread on this forum, the claim was made that Christianity was nonsense, and in response a Christian denied that this was the case. So presumably that Christian (and others) believe that Christianity makes sense.

So this thread is a request to Christians to explain Christian beliefs to me in a way which makes sense. It is not a thread intended to bash Christians or Christianity - so please can I ask others not to derail this thread into an attack on Christianity (or on anyone or anything else for that matter!). In this thread I am not interested in why one might hope that Christianity is true; I am not even interested in whether Christian beliefs are true. I simply want it explained to me in a way that makes sense.

To give you an idea of what I mean, here are a few of the things which make no sense to me:

• There is an omniscient God who creates humanity, gives him some rules to live by, and then arbitrarily changes them later (i.e. Old Testament v. New Testament)
  
• There is an omnipotent God who can only achieve his desired end of saving humanity from sin by having his own son tortured to death and bringing him back to life.
  
• There is an omnipresent God who reveals himself to one tribe in one part of the world instead of to the whole world at once. While in other parts of the world there are other tribes who believe that their god(s) have revealed themselves to them. However these tribes are all mistaken.
  
• There is a loving God who nevertheless banishes some people to eternal torment
  
• The Word of God is written so ambiguously that thousands of sects have arisen each interpreting it in different ways
  

This is by no means a complete list, just a few, what you might call, "plot holes" in the Christian story. So don't feel you are confined to this list. Indeed, some of them are just my understanding of mainstream Christianity, so they might not even be a part of your belief system. So I shall simply repeat my request: Please explain your Christian beliefs to me in a way which makes sense.

[TreacleSponge]

I'm not a Christian, but when I was I would have replied along the lines of "My explanation for my beliefs is that I believe that the Christian God exists".

The existence of "plot holes" wasn't an insurmountable challenge to my beliefs, even though I can see how they are very confusing if you've never had faith. Essentially, there's lots of things everyone of us can't explain about things we all know for certain are true (how do clouds stay up when they are made of things heavier than air?), being unable to explain something to others doesn't make it less true for you.

Anyway, it's not my job to speak for others, so I'll stop there.

[oneofthesun]

Of course it doesn't make sense - It's a religion. You're supposed to take it on faith.

[P is for...]

i'm going to regret even setting foot in this thread, i just know it...

er, EricK... Christian theologians have been pondering some of those points for the better part of the past 2000 years. the works written on the subjects can, and do, fill libraries. some of the arguments that have been developed are intricate, beautiful, and, yes, satisfyingly logical, whether or not you ultimately buy them.

and you want a succinct statement of faith on the internet?

Christianity does possess a logic; but it is an internal, reflective logic, more akin to symbolism or poetry than to mathematics or science. if you try to reduce a poem down to its meter and rhyme, you're going to lose something essential. you're going to lose the heart of what that poem is, what it means, and instead have a very poor and uninteresting jumble of rhythm and similar sounds that means very little, if anything at all.

the thing is--i do think Christianity is nonsense, at least in the way the world means it, and i would never, ever try to defend it to anyone as making sense in the way you're phrasing your question. but i think it's beautiful, meaningful, profound nonsense. at its heart is the law of paradox: the notion that two seemingly contradictory truths can exist harmoniously. that's fundamentally nonsense--how can two things that sound diametrically opposed (for example, infinite love and infinite suffering) coexist without cancelling one another out? and yet, they can, and my entire reckoning of my existence hinges on that understanding.

personally, i am of the opinion that anyone who says Christianity makes sense in any empirically proveable way is misguided, if not an outright fool. that isn't to say points aren't defensible in some ways; theologians like St Thomas Aquinas spent their lives composing just such elegant defenses. but the sum total of Christianity is best understand not as a puzzle to be solved, but as a poem to savour. if you want a better version of my understanding of Christianity than i could ever give myself, read G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy. you may not end up agreeing with him, or me. but you might end up understanding how someone might be able to believe in this exquisite nonsense without sacrificing their intelligence.

[Sally]

Oneof's and P's posts are each perfect in themselves.

[michaeld]

I'm not a Christian but here goes.

[*]There is an omniscient God who creates humanity, gives him some rules to live by, and then arbitrarily changes them later (i.e. Old Testament v. New Testament)

Mosaic Covenant and New Covenant are better terms to use here.

I'm not sure I see the problem here. Can you spell it out for me?

[*]There is an omnipotent God who can only achieve his desired end of saving humanity from sin by having his own son tortured to death and bringing him back to life.

There are many different theories about the role of the crucifixion and resurrection within Christianity. Penal substitutionary atonement, the model you're referring to, is only one such.

[*]There is an omnipresent God who reveals himself to one tribe in one part of the world instead of to the whole world at once. While in other parts of the world there are other tribes who believe that their god(s) have revealed themselves to them. However these tribes are all mistaken.

Pass.

[*]There is a loving God who nevertheless banishes some people to eternal torment

Again, not a universal Christian belief. There are many, many annihilationist - and even universalist - Christians, even relatively mainstream ones.

Also: while "God is love" is biblical, there is no clear statement in the bible that God loves everyone - the closest probably being John 3:16. There is a section of Christianity that holds that God only loves the elect and he hates the reprobate. This section is the only one who, in my view, has a coherent account of the eternal conscious torment doctrine.

[*]The Word of God is written so ambiguously that thousands of sects have arisen each interpreting it in different ways

Again, pass.

[Sally]

[*]There is an omniscient God who creates humanity, gives him some rules to live by, and then arbitrarily changes them later (i.e. Old Testament v. New Testament)

Sinced this isn't a solely Christian item (and it's Torah/Tanakh, not Old Testament), I'll mention that the early Christians changed the rules and the God. Original Jewish God said treat other humans decently. Christian version of God said save yourself by believing in Jesus as Christ.

*leaves thread while being yelled at by Christians*

[Gatto]

Christianity does possess a logic; but it is an internal, reflective logic, more akin to symbolism or poetry than to mathematics or science. if you try to reduce a poem down to its meter and rhyme, you're going to lose something essential. you're going to lose the heart of what that poem is, what it means, and instead have a very poor and uninteresting jumble of rhythm and similar sounds that means very little, if anything at all.

To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and 2) How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness. A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great.

[Keilah]

[*]There is an omniscient God who creates humanity, gives him some rules to live by, and then arbitrarily changes them later (i.e. Old Testament v. New Testament)

I don't see the changes to the Law as arbitrary. While God led His people to the Promised Land, He gave them hundreds of laws to follow (read Leviticus and Deuteronomy). The idea behind the laws was that since God is holy, his chosen people should too, and the laws were meant to teach the Israelites how how to worship God and walk with Him. If you follow the history of God's people through the Old Testament, you see them repeatedly break those laws (worship other gods, take native women as wives, etc.) The New Testament is meant to be a new agreement between God and His children. Most of the laws from the OT are thrown out because, as the Israelites showed, people couldn't follow every last law.

[*]There is an omnipotent God who can only achieve his desired end of saving humanity from sin by having his own son tortured to death and bringing him back to life.

Again, the idea behind the laws of the OT was to give a way for people to live a holy life and to justify man before God. But as explained previously, humans couldn't keep them. Thus there was the idea of sacrificial animals. When you sinned, you went to the local priest, give him a certain animal, and the animal would take your sins for you. Now imagine having to do this every time you lied, every time you broke one single law. The sacrifice the Jesus made was that He took every sin ever committed by you and everyone else and suffered the punishment for them. He is the ultimate sacrificial lamb. By doing this, you no longer need to sacrifice an animal every time you sin. One sacrifice for every sin you make.

[*]There is a loving God who nevertheless banishes some people to eternal torment

God gives everyone the chance to turn to Him. Again, Jesus' death was to act as an atonement on man's behalf for his sins. If someone accepts God into their life, and that Jesus was His son and did what the Bible said He did, then they are a right with God. Those that go to hell are those people who don't or won't accept God or His son, for one reason or another.

[*]The Word of God is written so ambiguously that thousands of sects have arisen each interpreting it in different ways

Remember, the Bible as we know it now, has wasn't written down until long after the the events happened. Eventually, it was written down in Greek, and then eventually translated into Latin. If you speak another language, you know that things get lost when translating from one language to another. Now add to that, the fact that before anything was written down, everything in the Bible was recorded orally...the chances of human error getting in is pretty much guaranteed.

[michaeld]

Remember, the Bible as we know it now, has wasn't written down until long after the the events happened. Eventually, it was written down in Greek, and then eventually translated into Latin. If you speak another language, you know that things get lost when translating from one language to another.

The Christian Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek - depending on which part you are talking about. The best modern translations do not rely on the early Latin translations.

[Keilah]

Remember, the Bible as we know it now, has wasn't written down until long after the the events happened. Eventually, it was written down in Greek, and then eventually translated into Latin. If you speak another language, you know that things get lost when translating from one language to another.

The Christian Bible was originally written in Hebrew, Aramaic and Koine Greek - depending on which part you are talking about. The best modern translations do not rely on the early Latin translations.

Thanks for the clarification, but my point still stands. The Bible has gone through numerous translations, so things are bound to get lost or mistranslated.

[Sally]

God gives everyone the chance to turn to Him. Again, Jesus' death was to act as an atonement on man's behalf for his sins. If someone accepts God into their life, and that Jesus was His son and did what the Bible said He did, then they are a right with God. Those that go to hell are those people who don't or won't accept God or His son, for one reason or another.

Luckily hell doesn't exist.

[P is for...]

Christianity does possess a logic; but it is an internal, reflective logic, more akin to symbolism or poetry than to mathematics or science. if you try to reduce a poem down to its meter and rhyme, you're going to lose something essential. you're going to lose the heart of what that poem is, what it means, and instead have a very poor and uninteresting jumble of rhythm and similar sounds that means very little, if anything at all.

To fully understand poetry, we must first be fluent with its meter, rhyme and figures of speech, then ask two questions: 1) How artfully has the objective of the poem been rendered and 2) How important is that objective? Question 1 rates the poem's perfection; question 2 rates its importance. And once these questions have been answered, determining the poem's greatness becomes a relatively simple matter. If the poem's score for perfection is plotted on the horizontal of a graph and its importance is plotted on the vertical, then calculating the total area of the poem yields the measure of its greatness. A sonnet by Byron might score high on the vertical but only average on the horizontal. A Shakespearean sonnet, on the other hand, would score high both horizontally and vertically, yielding a massive total area, thereby revealing the poem to be truly great.

thank you, Gatto. my point exactly.

[Shiloh Black]

[*]There is an omniscient God who creates humanity, gives him some rules to live by, and then arbitrarily changes them later (i.e. Old Testament v. New Testament)

You may have to be a little more specific, but I believe you are referring to the Levitical laws? You must keep in mind that these were given specifically for the Israelite people. Many were for the sake of setting the Israelites apart from other nations (i.e. not wearing clothing of mixed materials), while others were for the purification of sins -- since Jesus had not yet gone to the cross, the only way sins could be cleansed was through ritual sacrifices that had to be repeated again and again.

Also, the laws aren't really altered in the new testament, though laws meant specifically for the Jewish people during their wanderings are omitted, and the punishments that accompany these, which were in proportion to the need to stamp out corruption in order to maintain national unity are also abandoned -- punishment comes beneath the government proper, instead of being handled by religion -- render unto ceasar what is ceasar's. The core principles of God's law are, however, kept -- these are basically what can be found in the ten commandments, though arguments have been put forward that the law of "keeping the sabbath holy" is downplayed by Jesus's teaching, as it falls under the area of law specific to the Jews. I'll leave that one up to biblical scholars. The rest -- to avoid violence, sexual immortality, lying, stealing, envy, etc., are all plainly intact.

[*]There is an omnipotent God who can only achieve his desired end of saving humanity from sin by having his own son tortured to death and bringing him back to life.

Because, as mentioned earlier, in the old testament, the only way to absolved sins was through the shedding of blood. When the high priest lay his hand on the head of the bull, he was essentially transferring his own sins (and those of the people) onto the bull -- the sacrifical animal would in turn take the punishment for sin, which is death, in the place of whomever the sacrifice was for. Jesus was essentially the ultimate, once-for all sacrifice: on him weren't just laid the sins of a set number of people in a set time frame, but the sins over every believer throughout all time.

[*]There is an omnipresent God who reveals himself to one tribe in one part of the world instead of to the whole world at once. While in other parts of the world there are other tribes who believe that their god(s) have revealed themselves to them. However these tribes are all mistaken.

There is reference in the bible to non-Israelites who were followers of God. Job would be one of them. Israel, however, was chosen as "set apart" specifically for God. It was from this line that Jesus came from, who embodied earlier prophesy concerning the salvation of not only Israel, but the world as a whole. Why Israel, or any culture, was chosen in specific we may never know, but yet again there is the sense that God wanted one particular nation for himself that stood out from the rest (there are instances in the old testament where the gods of foreign countries are tested against the Israelites's God, and in these the Israelite God prevails. I personally believe that to other countries it would have been a greater testament to God's power than if He had simply revealed himself in equal measure to all peoples).

[*]There is a loving God who nevertheless banishes some people to eternal torment

As mentioned earlier, there are some who believe that there is no such thing as hell, but this comes into contradiction with the biblical doctrine of salvation, so I will attempt to explain this in a way that is in keeping with the latter. To begin, though God may be loving, he is none the less a God of justice. Sin, according to the bible, is personally offensive to God. The best way I know how explain this is to give an example... say one man kills a child abuser, and another kills a president or a king who is considered popular or kind. Who is less likely to receive mercy, and more likely to face a greater penalty? In the same way, offending a supreme and perfect God is far worse a crime than offending any human... you cannot really compare the too. The bible makes it clear that God doesn't sit around hoping people will go to hell. On the contrary, he loves the world so much he sent his only son. Justice, however, is justice -- and if someone has rejected the judge's offer of pardon, free of any earthly cost, he cannot expect to be let off without punishment.

[*]The Word of God is written so ambiguously that thousands of sects have arisen each interpreting it in different ways

Most sects of Christianity carry the same core beliefs, but with differences in the finer interpretations, which unfortunately due to social differences have been emphasized far too greatly by culture and by these sects themselves. Also thrown into the mix are ceremonial traditions that do not have origin in the practices of the new-testament churches, but rather have been based of human installation and on later teachings by men -- good though the intentions of many of these may be, they are not the word of God. More recently, deeper divisions in the church have arisen with a movement by many church leaders away from the bible as its core source of doctrine, and by systematic rejection of biblical truths in place of those that are more appealing to the emotions and personal beliefs of people.

That's just scratching the surface... a whole library could be written on the topics you've mentioned. If you're still curious, feel free to send me a PM -- I'm always willing to answer questions concerning biblical doctrine :)

[EricK]

Thanks, everyone, for your answers. Please keep them coming.

However, things still don't make sense to me. But then I'm not sure we are using "makes sense" in quite the same way. To me a story makes sense when the characters behave in ways which are consistent with their motives and personality. So for example, when I talk about it not making sense that God changied the rules half way through the game, I mean that an omniscient character would know that the original plan wouldn't work so ought to have had the whole Jesus stuff from the very beginning. Similarly it is OK to have a character who is primarily a God of Justice who just has to punish sin and reward good behaviour, but then it makes no sense for that to be the same character who created everything in the first place and made humans with the propensity to sin.

Similarly, the explanations provided for why the bible is so hard to interpret make sense if it is purely the work of man. But it doesn't make sense if the bible represents the thoughts of an omnipotent being who cares what people believe and how they behave.

[Sally]

The term "salvation" is understood quite differently by Jews and Christians. When Christians read that word in what they call the Old Testament, because they've been taught it means salvation from original sin by belief in Jesus, they don't understand that the original meaning of salvation was being restored to the love of God after you've done something you shouldn't have. In THIS life, without any meaning of going to tell if you weren't "saved".

Also, various books in the Hebrew Bible (and in the New Testament, for that matter) were written at different points in history. Deuteronomy is probably the most recent book of the Torah (the five books of Moses) and is quite different in tone from the other books. It may or may not have been written by several different authors, but of the other 4 books, various sections were almost certainly written by many different authors. The Hebrew words for "god" are different in different sections, denoting different authors, because the Hebrew term for God changed over time (meaning many hundreds of years).

The books of the New Testament, on the other hand, were all written over a period of no more than 100 years. Thus, if you're used to the New Testament, you're apt to look at the Torah without a proper sense of historicity and length of time over which it was composed. The Torah is also a story of the evolution of a people's idea of God, whereas the New Testament is the story of Jesus -- one man during a certain period of time. They're very different and they can't be compared.

[Keilah]

So for example, when I talk about it not making sense that God changied the rules half way through the game, I mean that an omniscient character would know that the original plan wouldn't work so ought to have had the whole Jesus stuff from the very beginning.

If Jesus died in the beginning, then what would have been the point of his sacrifice? Jesus' death was to take the sin of the whole world, since no one could completely follow the Law. The Laws show that we need a savior, since the Laws were meant to make us acceptable to God and Holy like Him, but we can't follow them.

Similarly it is OK to have a character who is primarily a God of Justice who just has to punish sin and reward good behaviour, but then it makes no sense for that to be the same character who created everything in the first place and made humans with the propensity to sin.

Sin only came into the picture when man ate from the tree. Until then, Adam and Eve didn't have the propensity to sin, since they didn't know about the concept of sin or disobeying God. Also, as for the punishing thing: God wants to punish us about as much as a dad wants to spank a naughty, disobedient child. No decent father wants to punish their child, but sometimes it is necessary.

[Ace of Swords]

Well, I'm multifaith, being as I am both Mormon and Pagan. The Mormon version of Christianity makes a lot more sense than Catholicism or other forms of Christianity, in my opinion, which, since I've tried most of them out, may actual hold some water.

Now, I don't go proselytizing, but I will say this much, we see God as a literal father who loves us all very much. We believe that the fall of Adam and Eve was necessary. And we believe we are here to learn and grow... sort of like school. To me, that makes a lot of sense. It might not to you, and that's okay. I don't like to shove either my Mormon beliefs or my Pagan beliefs down anyone's throat.

[The7thSage]

It can make sense. I think the notion of some cosmic creator creating everything makes sense to me. The idea of good and evil existing makes sense to me. The idea of a sacrifice to atone for my screw ups coupled with a way to live a virtuous life, in theory, because of that makes sense to me. I leave a lot of other aspects of the Bible open to interpretation. Some really narrow interpretations don't make a lot of sense to me. But I think people should, by faith, figure out what they believe outside of the essentials with the Gospel and basic right and wrong, at least. Because there is room for a lot of interpretation, having a lot of sects doesn't surprise me.

[Sally]

If Jesus died in the beginning, then what would have been the point of his sacrifice? Jesus' death was to take the sin of the whole world, since no one could completely follow the Law. The Laws show that we need a savior, since the Laws were meant to make us acceptable to God and Holy like Him, but we can't follow them.

I've never been able to understand why Christians need to explain Christianity as a follow-on--or a correction of--Judaism. They are two separate and very different religions.

So--can Christianity be explained simply as itself, with no reference to any other religion? (Like Buddhism is explained, or the Hindu religion is explained, or most other religions.) Does it make any sense just in and of itself? Or do you always need to say it's "better than" or "what God really meant when he started XXX religion"?

[Killjoy Danni]

Re: Christianity

All I'm gonna say is that I don't like the idea of a god that takes attendance, or banishes people to eternal torment

[Preskom]

I guess you could say I'm a very smooth Christian...I'm totally against the church but find the ideology very plausible.

Here's what I think (And I souldn't be far off the mark since I aways got excellence marks in my religion classes)

• There is an omniscient God who creates humanity, gives him some rules to live by, and then arbitrarily changes them later (i.e. Old Testament v. New Testament)
  No, nobody said those books where written by God,they where written by the church. The original testament was probably written shortly after Jesus's death by his 'friends'. Anyways, the testament is not a guidebook, it's a story.
  
• There is an omnipotent God who can only achieve his desired end of saving humanity from sin by having his own son tortured to death and bringing him back to life.
  Well, I don't think God has any power over the material world, and humanity has freewill. Since the 10 commendments wheren't exactly working to put humanity on the right path, maybe God wanted to make an example and provide a new, simpler message; 'love each other'.
  
• There is an omnipresent God who reveals himself to one tribe in one part of the world instead of to the whole world at once. While in other parts of the world there are other tribes who believe that their god(s) have revealed themselves to them. However these tribes are all mistaken.
  Well, If you take into consideration that our whole world is God's creation, surely he can manifest itself in many forms. What differs is only the human's perception. So basicly everyone is right, feeling or beliving in any god/gods/energy or whaterver they whan to call it into their hearts, but also everyone is wrong in their interpretation, yes even catholichism.
  
• There is a loving God who nevertheless banishes some people to eternal torment
  No, God doesn't banish people, he only wants to save them. That's why it is said that when you die, it you admit your sins before God, he will forgive you. That is basic human nature. Someone who IS in torment...like alcoolism for example... you cannot help him unless he admits to himself he is wrong.
  
• The Word of God is written so ambiguously that thousands of sects have arisen each interpreting it in different ways
  Talked about it a bit above. But yeah, people from the church are talking like the testament is the word of God, it is not, it's a story. There are other religions that claim their 'holy' book was written by 'omnipresent being', in that case it should be up to one's personal interpretation, not some 'priest' or 'spiritual leader' to tell them what to think.
  

Has you asked, this is MY interpretation. If you have other questions about my pov, ask away ^^

[Sally]

[*]There is an omniscient God who creates humanity, gives him some rules to live by, and then arbitrarily changes them later (i.e. Old Testament v. New Testament)

No, nobody said those books where written by God,they where written by the church. The original testament was probably written shortly after Jesus's death by his 'friends'. Anyways, the testament is not a guidebook, it's a story.

Many fundamentalist Christians do say those books were written by God.

The "original testament" was not written after Jesus's death by Christians, but by Jews many centuries before he lived. It had nothing to do with him. It was indeed a guidebook for Jews, not Christians. The Christian book is a story about Jesus.

[Professor T. Pollution]

I'm religion'd out for the moment. (Yes, I know any Yadas reading this will be shocked)

All I can say right now is that I don't think that the type of sense that you are looking for exists in religion as a totality, unless you twist and scrutinize and interpret every bit of it to try desperately to fit it together into something approaching coherence. I think that if you are looking for a logical, rational explanation of the Bible within a context other than history and past(/present) human ignorance, you will not find it because it does not exist. There are too many versions (which is, amusingly, part of why it makes no sense), too many contradictory beliefs, too many differing practices, etc, to ever unite Christianity sensibly. People on here will probably disagree or take offense to that, and that's fine, but can we not do the "OMG you offended/insulted me/my faith how dare you?!" thing? Please? It's happened to me too many times recently — not on AVEN, granted, but still, let's not go there.

So yeah. Christians, or anyone else on here who thinks they can bend Christianity as a whole into a sensible shape, go for it. Have fun. I think you're probably wasting your time.

[Preskom]

[*]There is an omniscient God who creates humanity, gives him some rules to live by, and then arbitrarily changes them later (i.e. Old Testament v. New Testament)

No, nobody said those books where written by God,they where written by the church. The original testament was probably written shortly after Jesus's death by his 'friends'. Anyways, the testament is not a guidebook, it's a story.

Many fundamentalist Christians do say those books were written by God.

The "original testament" was not written after Jesus's death by Christians, but by Jews many centuries before he lived. It had nothing to do with him. It was indeed a guidebook for Jews, not Christians. The Christian book is a story about Jesus.

Yeah, sorry about that, my bad. In my school people said the testament was the old bible and the new testament was the small, resume book for the students....bad habit.

So basicly there is this book about Moise and the 10 comandments that Jews use, and the story of Jesus that only catholics put on on top. right?

I saw your post about how you don't get why christians say they are a follow up of judaism...

Let me tell you, it's not only them, Jews say it too. The only difference being 'Jesus on top of it' and yeah, jews belive in Jesus too.. well, they think he was only a great man, not the son of God at all.

They are 2 very different religions, with very different perpectives of a 'God'...but nontheless, you can't deny their beliefs are based on the same 'events' in history.

That said, yeah, it's true, christianity does not stand by itself, at all, it's a mix of everything that happenend and happends in the world, because it's in constant evolution. Not saying it's better, maybe another religion had the exact, good interpretation of what 'god' really is and wants. Fact is, the church made many mistakes in the past and is now apoligising. Christianity is all about fogiving humanity's and oneself's mistakes... problem is, many 'fundamentalists', 'extremists' just cannot admit they MIGHT be wrong.

[Keilah]

I've never been able to understand why Christians need to explain Christianity as a follow-on--or a correction of--Judaism. They are two separate and very different religions.

So--can Christianity be explained simply as itself, with no reference to any other religion? (Like Buddhism is explained, or the Hindu religion is explained, or most other religions.) Does it make any sense just in and of itself?

I think that you need to keep in mind that you can't really explain Christianity without referring, at some point, to Judaism. Unlike Buddhism or Hinduism, which formed on their own, Christianity had its roots in Judaism, and still shares some common threads with Judaism. Jesus was Jewish, which I think many Christians forget or ignore. He celebrated the Jewish holidays and was a Rabbi. It wasn't until after his death that his followers began to refer to themselves as Christians (Acts 11:26). Christianity and Judaism are two separate and distinct religions now, but in the beginning, Christianity was just another breakaway sect of Judaism.

[GirlInside]

To the OP: I think it really doesn't matter whether or not it makes sense. It's part of our cultural tradition, and the more of our tradition we lose, the more we lose of ourselves.

[Inevitable]

To the OP: I think it really doesn't matter whether or not it makes sense. It's part of our cultural tradition, and the more of our tradition we lose, the more we lose of ourselves.

Correction: The more different to your history you are.

Tradition's a funny thing; sometimes it's a good idea and still works today, other times it could use an upgrade and the rest of the time it's pointless and backwards.

Sometimes there are good reasons to continue doing what we've always done, but simply because it's what we've always done is not one of them.

[Grenada]

If you could reason with the religious there'd be no religious people.

[Sally]

I've never been able to understand why Christians need to explain Christianity as a follow-on--or a correction of--Judaism. They are two separate and very different religions.

So--can Christianity be explained simply as itself, with no reference to any other religion? (Like Buddhism is explained, or the Hindu religion is explained, or most other religions.) Does it make any sense just in and of itself?

I think that you need to keep in mind that you can't really explain Christianity without referring, at some point, to Judaism. Unlike Buddhism or Hinduism, which formed on their own, Christianity had its roots in Judaism, and still shares some common threads with Judaism. Jesus was Jewish, which I think many Christians forget or ignore. He celebrated the Jewish holidays and was a Rabbi. It wasn't until after his death that his followers began to refer to themselves as Christians (Acts 11:26). Christianity and Judaism are two separate and distinct religions now, but in the beginning, Christianity was just another breakaway sect of Judaism.

Christianity has been an entirely different religion for more than 1,900 years and bears no resemblance to Judaism, despite Christians using the Jewish prophets and the 10 commandments. I think you need to trust Jews when they say that, because we know our religion.

So my question remains: Can Christianity, which arose more than 1,900 years ago, explain itself as a religion without reference to another religion? I really am curious whether anyone can answer that.