This is a blog to discuss philosophy, chess, politics,
C. S. Lewis, or whatever it is that I'm in the mood to discuss.
Wednesday, February 11, 2009
Christianity: Unique, or Uniquely wrong
Christianity makes a claim on behalf of its founder that is unprecedented and unique in the whole world. No one else says that the God of the Universe walked on earth to save us. Christianity is unique, and uniquely wrong if it's wrong.
All religions are "unique" in one way or another. Christianity's "uniqueness" is no indication that it had a divine origin. Having such features does NOT mean the religion in question is true. Nor do they even make it more likely to be true.
Vishnu's not the transcendent God of the Abrahamic tradition. Neither did Vishnu create the world ex nihilo.
SE: Christianity makes a claim on behalf of its founder that no other religion makes on behalf of its founder. Did I say that it follows that it is true? What I said was "uniquely wrong if it is wrong."
No, Victor, you did not, nor did I say that you did. However, I have heard this "uniqueness" used by many Christians as evidence of the truth of Christian beliefs.
Victor: I dunno about that. I'm no Hindu, but our friend Wikipedia tells us "the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of—and beyond—the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within."
That seems pretty transcendent to me!
In any event, your original claim was that "[n]o one else says that the God of the Universe walked on earth to save us." That's not true; millions and millions of Hindus think so, too -- they just call him Vishnu.
All sorts of belief systems are unique. I think the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is a wonderful way of navigating between the extremes of immanence and total transcendence. Its not the uniqueness, its the .. fittingness? elegance? But "unique" is the wrong word.
and the most important property is 'Truth" though i can appreciate the elegance also of belief systems I think are false (e.g the deterministic elegance of Spinoza)
7 comments:
All religions are "unique" in one way or another. Christianity's "uniqueness" is no indication that it had a divine origin. Having such features does NOT mean the religion in question is true. Nor do they even make it more likely to be true.
I think almighty Vishnu would like a word with you.
Vishnu's not the transcendent God of the Abrahamic tradition. Neither did Vishnu create the world ex nihilo.
SE: Christianity makes a claim on behalf of its founder that no other religion makes on behalf of its founder. Did I say that it follows that it is true? What I said was "uniquely wrong if it is wrong."
No, Victor, you did not, nor did I say that you did. However, I have heard this "uniqueness" used by many Christians as evidence of the truth of Christian beliefs.
Victor: I dunno about that. I'm no Hindu, but our friend Wikipedia tells us "the All-Pervading essence of all beings, the master of—and beyond—the past, present and future, the creator and destroyer of all existences, one who supports, sustains and governs the Universe and originates and develops all elements within."
That seems pretty transcendent to me!
In any event, your original claim was that "[n]o one else says that the God of the Universe walked on earth to save us." That's not true; millions and millions of Hindus think so, too -- they just call him Vishnu.
The notion of a "god-man" is a pagan, pre-Christian one. Whether or not Christianity developed it in some unique way or not doesn't change that.
And let's not forget Krishna, considered by many traditions to be the Supreme Being.
All sorts of belief systems are unique. I think the Christian doctrine of the incarnation is a wonderful way of navigating between the extremes of immanence and total transcendence. Its not the uniqueness, its the .. fittingness? elegance? But "unique" is the wrong word.
and the most important property is 'Truth" though i can appreciate the elegance also of belief systems I think are false (e.g the deterministic elegance of Spinoza)
Post a Comment