In last Friday’s (May 13) edition of the Nexus, opinion columnist Cameron Moody made some strong claims against Christianity, which I feel compelled to address in the interest of presenting the other side of the argument.
“The church system has hindered the progress of human rights and scientific advancement.” Actually, some of the greatest advocates for human rights have been Christians. Evangelical William Wilberforce worked to ban the slave trade in Britain. German pastor Dietrich Bonhoeffer, horrified by the Holocaust, fought in the resistance against Nazism. And, of course, Baptist preacher Martin Luther King, Jr. led the Black Civil Rights Movement. Deep commitment to Jesus’ ethics fueled these men’s activism.
Regarding science, three pivotal scientists shared a common faith. Copernicus: Christian. Galileo: Christian. Isaac Newton: Christian. Belief in a ‘Creator God’ did not hamper their scientific curiosity, but spurred them on to observe the universe so as to discover the beauties of creation. Have wayward adherents gone against human progress? Surely, but that is the case for all belief systems, atheism included (ever heard of Stalin and Mao?), and should not be used as an indictment against the faith itself. That Christianity has its hypocrites actually lends to its support because one of its central tenets is that all humans are inherently flawed, even those seeking righteousness.
“[Its] text … must be either evil or misleading.” I assume some of the actions of God in the Old Testament are in view here. Historical context is crucial when considering His seemingly bizarre stipulations. The culture and society back then were radically different from our own. The Ancient Near East was a harsh, violent and unforgiving world. Had God demanded Israel adhere to His perfect ethics — those presented in the Sermon on the Mount — they would have rejected His law outright, as it would have been too radical of a departure from the social norms of that time and place. Therefore, a God met them halfway so that Israel’s institutions were far more humane than the people’s around them, yet still well-short of God’s supreme standard. Their conquest of Canaan was legitimate in that it administered divinely sanctioned justice on a morally evil people whose misdeeds had to be punished.
Some may think the Bible misleads people into believing in a nonexistent supernatural. If we suppose this is true, what is the harm? Does not hope — that there is something beyond this nuts-and-bolts life — count for something, if only to further happiness? As I have shown, such faith need not inhibit ethical and scientific progress if the teachings are truly followed. Even if the miracles are hogwash, those moral teachings are timeless so long as they call on us to treat one another better than ourselves.
“[Adherents] follow something without any concrete evidence.” Being a historical religion, Christianity depends on the factuality of recorded historic events. No credible historian disputes the fact that Jesus was a real person. Furthermore, virtually all agree that He died by crucifixion. His disciples believed that He rose and appeared to them, vehemently anti-Christian Paul converted to the faith due to a reported encounter with the resurrected Jesus and he and the disciples died for believing this. That His tomb was actually empty, and the disciples didn’t just concoct the story, is strongly supported by several key facts. Women — not considered credible eyewitnesses at the time — were reported as the first to see Him resurrected. A group of devastated followers, having just seen their beloved leader killed, would not have had the motivation or the audacity to make up a lie and go on to die for what they knew to be false.
Finally, writing to the Corinthians a mere twenty-some years after these events, Paul included a proto-creed analyzed by scholars to have originated only a decade after Jesus (too soon after for legend to have developed), which affirmed the truth of the resurrection and cited the testimony of hundreds of living eyewitnesses in the Jerusalem area. A number of named individuals were on hand to back up Paul’s claim by attesting to what they actually saw. This was not a matter of whether the body may have been stolen. Hundreds actually saw Christ in the flesh after His death, went around Jerusalem proclaiming this and suffered because of it. No chance all of them were hallucinating! An actual resurrection — by which Jesus validated His claim to be God — is the best historical explanation based on this evidence, thus substantiating the faith that we Christians hold to.
Daniel Phillips is a second-year geography major.
Funny that you should use Galileo as an example, seeing as he was imprisoned for heresy.
Regarding Christianity as a “historical religion”: There is no contemporary evidence of the life of Jesus, the earliest writings are from decades after his supposed death. None of these writings are first-hand accounts. This is especially remarkable considering the many public miracles he is alleged to have performed. How he managed to elude even a brief note in any writing from his time is perhaps the greatest miracle of all.
Galileo’s conviction of heresy was based on his theory of a heliocentric universe, a theory which has since been proven correct. Unfortunately this was not the accepted point of view of the church at that time. His disagreements with the church were in no way theological. Recently, the catholic church has made an effort to apologize for this injustice by renouncing Galileo’s sentence of heresy. In this we see support for Phillips’ argument that the mistakes of the church undergird the principle of flawed humanity, as well as proof that Christianity in no way inhibits the scientific process. In regards… Read more »
Galileo was cited by the original author as an example of how Christianity is not at odds with scientific progress. Galileo was given a life sentence by the church for pursuing science. I can’t see how the church eventually coming around over a century later is, as you put it: “proof that Christianity in no way inhibits the scientific process”. Regarding the historicity of the events in the bible: Even if we accept the basic historicity of Jesus as a person, there is no evidence outside the bible of anything miraculous. How is it that these public miracles were only… Read more »
As for your point that compares Christian’s belief in the miracles of Jesus to a Branch Davidian’s belief in a miracle of his leader you get to the rub of the issue:
Faith. Either you have it or you don’t. Praise God that I do, and I pray that UCSB will come to know the peace and glory of the Lord too.
I was merely using the Branch Davidians as an example of a sect/cult contemporary to us with a size (and level of persecution!) similar to the early church. So the comparison is to a 1st century Christian, not a present day Christian. The assertion is that when considering historical evidence, even a couple decades or a biased source can make a pretty big difference in the credibility of the account. The leap of faith that you or any modern Christian makes is believing the story of this biased source (e.g. a Davidian or 1st century Christian), which is significantly different… Read more »
You provide a perfect example of how religion makes people immoral. You wrote: “Their conquest of Canaan was legitimate in that it administered divinely sanctioned justice on a morally evil people whose misdeeds had to be punished.” Oh, right. So now you tell us that genocide is OK. All those Canaanite women who had no say in how their nation acted, you’re telling us they deserved to die. And the children, well, I suppose you’re saying they were just part of a massive evil society, so you’re telling us they deserved to die too. Glad to see that Christianity has… Read more »
The main problem with this argument is that it starts with the incorrect assumption that any of us is innocent and deserving of anything. Romans 3:23 states that we have all sinned and fallen short of the glory of God. If we are truly honest with ourselves then we have to admit that this is true. The Canaanite women and children were no more guilty than you or I. No less either. Now we like to believe that there is a sliding scale for sin and that as long as the good outweighs the bad, we are in the clear.… Read more »
hmm, very interesting. So really there is no difference between me and hitler. After all, I masturbate at night and Hitler only committed genocide. Its good to know that as long as I refuse to believe in Christ, I will be condemned to hell, but so long as Hitler accepted Jesus Christ as his savior, he will be forgiven and ascend to heaven!
It’s not just acceptance, but repentance. Can’t get in if you’re not sorry.
By your logic, if Hitler simply says sorry for all those atrocities he committed, he will ascend to heaven.
I guess heaven is really hell in disguise then.
Nik, you fail.
Comparing oneself to anyone can be a slippery slope. Sure, compared to Hitler anybody is good – perhaps even a mobster or a school shooter. But compared to Gandhi or Jesus, Joe Blow doesn’t measure up to be quite as moral. So saying, “I’m better than Hitler,” is really nothing but a cop out. Also, it’s not quite as simple as praying, “Jesus forgive my sins,” and receiving a ticket to Heaven. No matter what one believes, their beliefs reflect in their life. If one truly believes that Jesus is the Son of God, then their life will reflect that… Read more »
whilethe sites we link to below are completely unrelated to ours, we think they are worth a read, so have a look