Is Christian revelation authentic?
Brian Holtz
addresses the question of how he concludes that Christianity is the
one authentic revelation. His reasoning seems full of holes.
> I would expect [true revelation] not to be hidden away in some
> corner of history/geography. [..] If [revelation] STAYED there
> forever I would be suspicious that it might be some parochial,
> nationalistic culture-cult or something. I would test this [..]
> to see if each of the religions could show me 'believers'
> from most cultures, most nations, most backgrounds
So if in the first century CE you were a reader of the epistles of
Paul, you might have rejected Christianity, but now that is has caused
crusades and televangelism and other forms of idiocy around the world,
it is somehow more believable?
> I would expect the revelation from this god to have occurred early
> in history
But you would simultaneously not expect it to be unambiguous, or
distinguishable from primitive myths, or able to entertain later and
ongoing scientific examination?
> If the 'founder' of a religion could not show SOME kind of
> continuity back to earliest records, I would be suspicious.
So any connection with the rampant myths of the unimaginative ancients
(like those who wrote the OT) is actually a *plus* for you, and not a
minus?
> the fact that this religion ["the worship of Chemosh"] 'passed away'
> in history, indicates to me that it is not a 'universal'
> religion. This is assuming, of course, that Chemosh was NOT the real
> god and that he 'gave up on us' for reasons of his own
That assumption seems unjustified. Maybe this Chemosh *was* the real
god and "gave up on us" just as your god did at the time of Noah,
except maybe Chemosh is not so obviously wicked as to kill us all, and
instead has simply left us to our own devices.
> I have made a HUGE assumption in my 'requirement' that a religion be
> 'quasi-universal'. Some smaller groups will hit me with "you are
> simply not one of the Elect"
Why do you assume that there must *be* anyone "elected" (as opposed to
revealed to)? Why could it not be the case that the gods are not so
insecure as to require extravagant worship, and not so wicked as to
allow eternal torment be a default fate from which we require
salvation?
> Spot revelations count SO MUCH LESS THAN a pattern of revelations
If revelations tend to be so suspect, how can you assume that they are
not *all* suspect?
> evidences that might be advanced [..] fall into several [re-ordered]
categories:
> 1. it changed X's life, therefore was a revelation
> 3. the message has been accepted by vast multitudes
> 4. the message has been accepted by the elite ('the wise')
> 9. the message (from whatever means) has shown characteristics
> indicative of a divine source (e.g. ethical loftiness?,
> non-eradicatibility in history, inscrutability?, applicability to
> all cultures)
> 10. the message has been responsible for vast amounts of human good
> over the ages (e.g. social concerns, liberation from fear)
For obvious reasons, these criteria are essentially worthless in
deciding if a message is divine (despite the self-vouching of
criterion 9).
> 6. X said so, and X was otherwise totally credible
> 8. message came through impersonal means (e.g. Ouija board, throwing
> bones, entrails-examination) and the message fulfilled some of the
> other criteria [..]
As admitted in 8, these are not even standalone criteria. (Nobody is
so credible as to be able to vouch for divinity, so the message in 6
would have to satisfy some other criteria.)
> 7. X said so, and Y said the same thing--in different settings,
> times, etc.--without collusion
This would only matter if there were no non-divine explanation for the
coincidence, which reduces this criterion to something like 2.
> 2. the message was something X COULD NOT HAVE KNOWN, and it was true
Confirmed prophecy is indeed a valid criterion. Unfortunately, no
prophecy in the Bible has both a) been documented as having been
made before the predicted event and b) had its fulfillment
documented independently of the Bible itself.
> 5. the events surrounding the disclosure to X were highly abnormal
> (e.g. signs of possession, glowing face, in a new language)
Confirmed miracles are indeed a valid criterion. Unfortunately,
Christianity can boast of no miracles confirmed by objectively
compelling evidence (or else the percentage of non-Christians would be
about as low as the percentage of flat-earthers!).
--
Brian...@sun.com
Knowledge is dangerous. Take a risk: http://humanknowledge.net