Divine Jesus
Editor’s note: An unpublished draft post, conceptually similar to this, was the reason why three of our authors decided to suddenly leave Political Cartel and start What’s Left Now. I deleted the original draft before I heard any criticism because I anticipated being misunderstood, but I still think this is a topic worth discussing. Also, I just want to set the record straight.
Christianity, summed up in a single word, is love. It is a religion of principles more than it is a religion of doctrine, tradition, history, hierarchy, or anything else. Good Christians everywhere admit that everything else – every belief and practice – is subservient to the principle of love. The specific examples and commands found in the New Testament canon are sometimes wrong, inapplicable, incomplete, impossible to understand, or out of date. But the principle of love transcends time and culture and gives Christianity its value as a religion.
Jesus’ message was first and foremost one of principles. He spoke in parables and analogies to show people a better way of living, but he de-emphasized and even openly attacked the rigid belief structures that had become so prevalent in Jewish society. Don’t take my word for it. He said the greatest command is to “love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind,” and the second is to “love your neighbor as yourself” (Matt 22:37-39). Jesus spoke extremely sparingly about what specific beliefs and doctrines were important.
To be clear: I am not arguing that Jesus was not divine. Please understand that. I am not an atheist. I have no interest in arguing that position. However, I do want to make the following observations:
- Christianity is a valuable and viable religion whether Jesus was the divine son of God or not. Its principles, especially love, are timeless and good.
- The focus on specific beliefs, namely the divinity of Jesus, has been one of the tragic errors of the entire history of Christianity. For thousands of years, Christians have argued, fought, and died over beliefs like these while completely ignoring the beautiful driving principles behind Christianity. It is an absolute tragedy that doctrinal disputes have led to so much evil for so many hundreds of years.
- The focus on defending doctrine, such as the divinity of Jesus, distracts from the purposes of Christianity and the teachings that Jesus himself spread. Christianity’s purposes should be about living better lives and making the world a better place. Jesus’ message was about shining the light in dark places and helping those who need it. The focus was never meant to be and should never be on doctrine.
Christianity could survive and thrive if Jesus were not divine. It would still contain invaluable truth about morality and a better way of life. It would still contain values and principles that are timeless and beneficial to all of humanity. Furthermore, tying an entire belief structure to a single historical fact that could be true or false makes its foundation unnecessarily precarious and weak.
Religion of any kind is a human construct designed to help us understand the deeper truths about the universe. I believe that there is no substitute for religion in understanding certain aspects of the universe. It provides meaning and direction to millions and brings out the best in humanity. Christianity is a beautiful and good religion, but I do not believe that the most fundamental aspect of it is a strict adherence to the divinity of Christ doctrine.
12 Now if Christ is proclaimed as raised from the dead, how can some of you say there is no resurrection of the dead? 13If there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ has not been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our proclamation has been in vain and your faith has been in vain. 15We are even found to be misrepresenting God, because we testified of God that he raised Christ—whom he did not raise if it is true that the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised. 17If Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile and you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have died* in Christ have perished. 19If for this life only we have hoped in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied. 1 Cor. 15:12-19
I may have had a few too many to intelligently discuss the grand questions of the universe, but a few things here seem a bit incoherent to me. If it isn’t all mandated from somewhere on high, why identify with something that you obviously seem to see as flawed in many ways. Either jesus was divine or he was a narcissistic charlatan who nevetheless may have had some good ideas.
I also disagree that Christianity would be viable (or anywhere near as widespread as it is now) if people did not believe in a divine Jesus. Fear of death seems to me to be the primary motivator behind most religious belief, and the promise of being “saved” seems central to most Christians I know. I’m sure people would find another way to avoid coming to grips with their own mortality if Christianity didn’t exist, but it at least seems like the major selling point.
I guess my point is that without the divinity aspect it seems like just a philosophy you could choose to pattern your life around while retaining the freedom to tailor it to your personal social preferences. This is especially perplexing for me when it collides with people who claim to believe in moral and political rights/absolutes that are extrabiblical (not accusing anyone of anything, but I assume you have some).
My take is that religion, philosophy, and the like are all ultimately rooted in opinions, ideologies, and perceptions, all of which are shaped by our materialist environment. Our hold on temporal and ethereal “truths” are like watches. None goes just alike, but each person trusts his own.
On topic though, I agree mainly with you Kolby. Christianity without a Jesus that was perceived as divine is just another good philosophy. I’ve generally agreed with the theological notion that the cornerstone of Christianity is the divinity of Jesus–his God essence. Without this divinity he isn’t much more than a wise fellow.
This notion obviously discomforts people, even the most “liberal” of Christians. The Political Cartel exodus is a good point-in-case. For some people, the notion that religion is a social construct is too much.
I left because I heard David was a Ron Paul supporter who was voting for John McCain…Was I misinformed?
David, thanks for posting this. I feel this rewrite is much more articulate in getting your point across without offending those who disagree.
While I disagree with you about how much the divinity of Jesus matters, I do agree completely that love is more important than any specific doctrine. Jesus did, in fact, speak out quite a bit against legalism.
So they really left because they didn’t want to be associated with a site that would publish a theological shoulder shrug like this?
The fact that we can’t even agree as Christians on what is actually central to our faith and what is not is proof enough that Christianity today is in need of a reformation.
Check out http://www.myabsurdreligion.com
jkkuwitzky: I cannot speak for Andrew and Stephanie, but this was part of the reason I left. In retrospect, I should have spoken with David and Steve before I left the blog to avoid confusion.
Had I spoken with David and learned that he had changed his mind about posting the original version of this, I probably would not have left Political Cartel.
For the record, the current “theological shoulder shrug” that we are commenting on is not quite the same as the original. I believed the original would have caused quite an uproar on campus and further hurt the uphill climb of liberals publicly voicing our opinions on campus.
I respect David Manes and his opinions, and this is not meant to be any sort of “us against them” type of thing.
Did Jennifer just try to sell us a book?
Yeah, miscommunication is inevitable when you don’t even speak. It’s amazing what can be done through the conduit of dialogue.
Did you by chance try sign language? That could have been the cause of miscommunication.
Man I want to see this “original version” really bad now. It sounds totally awesome.
Steve, I believe I quite frankly said I did not communicate at all.
It wasn’t so much that it was “bad,” but rather instead of the disclaimers David put in this one as to his not being an atheist, his disclaimer was something to the effect that he was not going to say which side he was taking as to not hinder the discussion. The “original version,” in all fairness, was not complete and could have very easily been taken out of context as it was not known what would have been said in the second half of the post.
What obligation does David have to anyone other than himself? People can take anything they want out of context.
“Steve, I believe I quite frankly said I did not communicate at all. ”
Yeah, I know. That’s what I said. The sign language part was a crude joke. Sorry.
I know Stephanie O’Brian quite well and she would not leave Political Cartel over this article ergo, you must have done something so incriminating to make her leave something that she adores. Political Cartel was the primary outlet for the writing that she did, in fact, happen to love. Now David, could you please tell us what you must have done to provoke three of your authors to leave? I would like a direct answer.
High school never ends.
Steve, you are right, high school never ends. That is a sad fact of life.
And although I think it is really stupid that I must defend my reason for leaving, I am going to take a shot at it.
My reasons for leaving the Cartel are rather complex. They differ a bit from Chris and Andrew’s for a lot of reasons–most of which are personal and I will not share with the entire world.
Another reason though–the main one–is because of this post in its original form. David has done a great job of making it more understandable to the average reader, but before this, it was a lot more offensive in my opinion. I enjoy being a liberal at Harding and I enjoy being a well-known person on this campus. I do believe, however, that a lot of my reputation as being a Christian Liberal would have been tarnished by sheer associated with the Cartel after the original Divine Jesus was posted. People already question me enough on my faith and beliefs due to my views on abortion and homosexual marriage… the last thing I need was for people to think that I doubt Jesus’ divinity.
I did think about coming to David with my concerns. But for a lot of reasons, that would not have worked out very well. Also, I do not believe it is (or should be) my place to tell an author what not to right. I am a strong advocate for freedom of speech and therefore the LAST thing I was going to do was to tell David not to post an article that happened to make me uncomfortable.
Therefore, for that reason–couple with the ones I am not willing to submit to the world–I found it best to leave Political Cartel.
Andrew and Chris had reasons of their own. The three of us are friends and we do enjoy blogging so we figured it would be okay to start our own. If this upsets a lot of people, I apologize. If it does not make sense to you–fine.
Personally, I look forward to having two liberal-minded blogs for Harding students. I think it is a great opportunity for conversation as well as for the school’s bloggers.
I’m perfectly fine with anyone who wants to leave organizations they are dissatisfied with. It’s the whole sneaky, ninja, gossip crap that always gets me.
I’m glad I’m graduating in December. I hope Graduate school will be better, but I know I’m probably kidding myself. High school never ends. Never.
Nonetheless, let’s end this nonsense and move on. The notion that the structure thought-up for dissenting opinion and intelligent discussion has been the cause of high school-like drama makes me piss blood.
It’s all good. Everyone move along.
Oh i don’t know about all of this resignation talk, I never did that.
I was kicked off.
So what ever happened to Katie Cross and Tyler Jones? They seemed to have vanished.
>>Christianity could survive and thrive if Jesus were not divine. It would still contain invaluable truth about morality and a better way of life.
I don’t believe this is true. If Jesus were not divine, no one would have any reason to follow him. He can’t have been “just a good man.”
In Mere Christianity CS Lewis says, “A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic–on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg–or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God; or else a madman or something worse.”
He’s not just some dood offering Enlightenment or Helpful Hints for Living a Happy LIfe. You can’t just accept some of him, it’s all or nothing.
I think that no matter what happens when someone makes a post like this, people are going to nitpick because it’s such a controversial and liberal perspective, regardless of whether or not the author actually supports it. However, I think people are still missing the gist of the post, which was to emphasize that we as Christians are getting caught up in the “little” things, instead of recognizing love as the central theme of Christianity. I don’t think the point is whether or not Jesus is divine; it’s whether or not we are truly respecting and following the guidelines he set for us.
I agree with Heather.
sneaky, ninja, gossip crap?
did i miss something, you know, in the bible when Jesus must have said “oh, don’t worry about this whole resurrection/ascension into heaven guys- its just a minor detail”
Jesus’ divinity is the apex of christianity, not a nitpicked detail.
I did not say the subject itself was not relevant, just that it wasn’t the point of this post to argue about the validity of Jesus’ divinity. If that were the case, I would agree with you, Andrew, and I’m sure David would, too. No one is arguing that Jesus isn’t divine, kind of like no one LIKES abortion. Jesus’ doctrine is the apex of Christianity, and regardless of whether he is divine or not (which, let’s be real, he is, mmk?), we should be focusing on what he said and demonstrated throughout his ministry instead of arguing. Think about it this way instead: even IF Jesus was not divine, and we got to heaven, would we still be happy with the lives we led based on the Christian principles we maintained in our lives?
Manes and Denny, one day, probably very soon, you’ll be out of that place and regaling people with stories about this and other similar things. The post was harmless and uncontroversial, but you’re in upside-down land right now. Hang in there.
If jesus wasn’t divine there wouldn’t be a heaven to get to heather.
>>I did not say the subject itself was not relevant, just that it wasn’t the point of this post to argue about the validity of Jesus’ divinity. If that were the case, I would agree with you, Andrew, and I’m sure David would, too. No one is arguing that Jesus isn’t divine, kind of like no one LIKES abortion.
And I did say IF Jesus wasn’t divine.
As in, a theoretical situation.
The point is that if we leave off Jesus’ divinity and just focus on his teachings (like Confucius), the basic truths of Christianity would still lead us to live good lives.
“The point is that if we leave off Jesus’ divinity and just focus on his teachings (like Confucius), the basic truths of Christianity would still lead us to live good lives.”
So now you’re equating Confucius to Jesus? wow.
What exactly is the difference?
I don’t think you’re ever going to understand, and my comments became irrelevant to your arguments a few posts ago, so I’m just going to end this now. Have a nice day. :)
People may have said this already, but i don’t care. Im going to say it anyway.
David, about your first point. “Christianity is a valuable and viable religion whether Jesus was the divine Son of God or not. It’s principles, especially love, are timeless and good”
False.
Christianity isn’t valuable or viable if Jesus was not the Son of God. That’s it. We are living our lives pointlessly if Jesus was not the Son of God. We wouldn’t have grace because Jesus, who died, wasn’t the Son of God and couldn’t have conquered death to save us. It cannot be viable in any way, shape or form. I don’t know how you can’t see that. Totally and absolutely ludicrous. Mind blowing ignorance.
Second, “Christianity could survive and thrive if Jesus were not divine.”
Again, false. How can we go out and preach the Gospel to the entire world, about something that is untrue and totally against the bible, and on top of that, expect them to believe and adhere to what the Bible says. We cant. Being nice could thrive, not in me of course because I’m rude and obnoxious, but in other people.
Lastly, “Christianity, summed up in a single word, is love.”
In my opinion, incorrect again also. Christianity cannot be summed up into one word. Maybe, MAYBE, in a sentence. That would be the great commission. That is our calling from God and that is what we need to be doing. That is Christianity, not love. I understand where you’re coming from on that, and God loves every one of us, but that isn’t the whole message of it. He actually shows that we need strict adherence to Him and His word, or there are consequences. And bad ones too. I know that may be hard for you to see, that there can be consequences and if mistakes are made, they do actually come with consequences, but it is true. Just read your bible. But get a bible from the bookstore, the one you’re reading is obviously written in a different language or it’s probably not even a Bible.
“Christianity is a beautiful and good religion, but I do not believe that the most fundamental aspect of it is a strict adherence to the divinity of Christ doctrine.”
Really? Seriously? I can’t believe that you wrote that. Jesus came to earth as God’s son, and his mission was to preach the good news, fulfill prophecies, and then to die on a cross for our Sins. What He came and died for, in excruciating pain and suffering was all for us. How, then, can you sit there and type that we don’t need to study and adhere to Jesus’ preaching and teaching. You’ll probably want to say something along the lines of ‘i didn’t say that we had to ignore the bible, but the meaning of Jesus’ divinity isn’t that important to our lives or Christianity and it doesn’t need to be our focus.’
Correct? Bollocks.
We need to firmly establish the basics of our faith e.g Is there a God? Did He send His son? Did His Son conquer death? And so on, before we can even grow deeper in our faith. His death is everything and His divinity shouldn’t be questioned. He was. He died. He defeated Death. Did you notice in there how I didn’t even ask the most simple of questions, Is Jesus His Son? Because its should be a no-brainer.
Now get some good quality posts on here, rather than this load of crap.
Comparing Confucius to Jesus is not putting the two of them on the same level–it’s simply saying that both of them had brilliant ideas that made people’s lives better. Why does religion have to be mutually exclusive? Every religion has good teachings that everyone can benefit from.
If you don’t mind me bringing C.S. Lewis back into the conversation (I love this man so much. So, so, so, so, much), there is a beautiful scene in which those who have followed Aslan during their stay in Narnia have reached heaven and found a follower of Tash sitting under a tree. Confused, because the man did not believe in Aslan, they ask him how he got there. He tells his story of how he followed Tash and despised Aslan all his days, but had striven to live a good and moral life. He says this about his meeting with Aslan after his death:
Michael, if you don’t like what’s being written on here, you don’t have to read it. Seriously. I mean, you’re fun to argue with and all, but not if you’re going to just come in here and say things like, “Now get some good quality posts on here, rather than this load of crap.” There’s a difference between intellectual conversation and debate and bashing people for the fun of it.
The main draw of Christianity is not the divinity of Christ. There are a multitude of religions out there, each claiming that their Gods are divine and offer punishment and rewards. Not all of those relgions have shared the widespread success that Christianity has though. Is it because our story was more convincing than their stories, or is it because the morals and the way of life taught by Jesus reveal a truth more powerful than any religous docterine or belief?
Really Becca? You don’t think my whole post was about Intellectual conversation. I write that much, and my one small point of bashing someone personally is picked upon. And the reason i come on here, when i don’t like what is being written, is so i can argue.
And The other religions, miniman, aren’t Christianity. We are, or at least i am, a believer in Christianity. Christianity is about God and Him sending His Son to die. That is what all our beliefs are based off of. And the way of life issues. It doesn’t matter how well we act or how good we think we are. Without believing in God and His Son’s death and Resurrection, being baptized in His name, we aren’t saved.
All that to say, yes, His divinity is the main part of Christianity.
I hope that wasn’t too personal.
I never said the rest of your post wasn’t intellectual, just that that last sentence was very unnecessary and showed how you really felt about all this. Even with the intellectual content of your post the whole thing is given a condescending tone with phrases like “I can’t believe you wrote that!” because how dare people have their own opinions! It’s unthinkable!
Sorry, but your demeaning attitude basically turned me off anything you had to say. Be nice, bb!
Oh well. You’ll live.
Hmm, this seems to be leading to the standard “faith vs deeds” argument that we’ve all had 8 billion times.
The standard conclusion to this argument is that both are essential to salvation, as a compassionate person, this doesn’t satisfy me. What about the many who are born and die without ever having the chance to hear the word of God? What about those people who live good lives and do great, amazing, rightous things; but not in the name of God? Are they to be treated the same as the most vile, evil people who walk this earth? I don’t believe that God is cruel, so I cannot believe that faith is essential to salvation.
I’ve read that passage from the Narnia book as well, and I thought it was very moving.
It doesn’t matter how well we act or how good we think we are?
Oh REALLY now?
So, you’re saying that as long as I think Jesus is the son of God, that he came to die for my sins, and I get baptized based on that belief, that’s all I need? I can just go around doing whatever I want the rest of the time, because, you know, I’ve got the “main point” down?
I think you’re right about some things, Michael. But as has been stated before, this isn’t about whether or not Jesus is the son of God; we all believe that. It’s whether or not if we looked at it abstractly, just his teachings, if they would still be meaningful and good. I’m not suggesting that anyone should become a Christian if they don’t believe in the divinity of Jesus; you’re right, that wouldn’t make sense. It’s just that we shouldn’t be so focused on that issue that we forget about the truth and power in its other principles, like love.
Michael you are honestly such an un-likeable person.
I’m still trying to figure out how Michael and Torchwood come from the same country…
I didnt say that. I said it doesnt matter how good those actions are, without baptism we cant be saved. I did think on expanding my point in case of that misunderstanding, and i should have. We need to make sure our actions and words and life, are all in the likeness of Jesus, well as much as they can be. But we do need the baptism, because without that the deeds dont mean a thing. Thats what i meant. Im sorry for the confusion.
And LJ. Will i ever meet you? probably not..It doesnt matter. Sorry for my strong convictions, opinions and morals.
Miniman, i would love to have a conversation with you about the whole ‘who goes to hell thing’. I wont be rude and obnoxious about it. I promise. That is something that i find alot of interest in.
And i dont remember exactly where in the bible it says this, but it says something along the lines of “If someone never heres the word of God and knows nothing about His grace, then they will be treated like a child, with innocence”. I’ll find out where it says that and repost it as soon as i do.
hears*
Jesus was more than a social revolutionary or a community organizer. He was the Son of God and had to be for Christianity to be valuable. To suggest otherwise is ignorant and stupid. Some of you on this blog try to think so deep you drown in your own lack of intellect. Salvation from sins is only possible if a sacrifice is made in our place….Jesus Christ is that sacrifice because He is the Son of God. I continue to be amazed by you people.
So if it were somehow proven (however one might prove such a thing) to your satisfaction that Christianity was all a hoax you would immediately abandon the teachings and moral principles that you currently try to pattern your life around?
it would be pertinent to. why waste your time on morals that have no foundation?
Why does morality need a divine foundation?
what other purpose would it serve?
As a method of organizing a civil society and respecting the rights and dignity of others? Just because it might lack the threat of eternal retribution doesn’t mean non-religious morality doesn’t serve a similar (if not identical) purpose.
Wow David, I would love to hear you defend this position on Judgement day. (you believe in that, right?)
But if there is no eternal foundation why should I care about the rights and dignity of others?
That’s weak Andrew.
So you wouldn’t be an asshole.
LOLOLOLOLLLLLLL YES.
David, I agree with you, it is a topic worth talking about. Yet, if you really were interested in setting the record straight,as you noted above, I would think that you would post your original article. I wonder if Jesus (divine as He was, is and shall ever be) ever changed any of His teachings for fear of being misunderstood.
“But if there is no eternal foundation why should I care about the rights and dignity of others?”
Is this guy serious?
please excuse my distaste in use of sarcasm.
The divinity of Jesus is necessary for Christianity to do what it claims to do; however, I agree with David that many of the teachings of Jesus would still be good teachings if he were not God.
I agree also Mr. Berry. But still, one of his main points “Christianity is a valuable and viable religion whether Jesus was the divine son of God or not” is still absolutely incredible to read. I’ve read it numerous times and still cannot get my head around it.
Somehow, i missed this other point. I do not know how i missed it. “Furthermore, tying an entire belief structure to a single historical fact that could be true or false makes its foundation unnecessarily precarious and weak”
Wow. I don’t even know where to go from there. And for all you Michael Walker fans out there, i don’t usually have a problem expressing myself. You just never cease to amaze me, David. That is our one fact that makes our religion what it is.
Hey, just read this post, I’m new to the PC but I’m really enjoying what I’ve read so far. I completely agree with the statements made about the doctrine/love situation. In fact there’s about 250 people who agree with the entire post in a little church called Riverside in Gassville AR. We acually broke away from the traditional Church of Christ for that very reason, that love was put on the back burner behind the doctrinal curtain. We’ve had a lot of Harding professiors acually come speak to us, (Willingham, Thompson, Swindle-Who sings with our worship leader in a group called first day) which has given me a little bit of hope that Harding may be finding a touch of liberlisim. Anyway, just saying hi, didn’t mean to interupt the discussion.
If there were no heaven and no hell, Christian principles would still be a benificial way to live. But the purpose is salvation and if Jesus was not devine that would not be possible.
I guess that’s the difference. People who care more about the here and now and people who care more about eternity. People who care more about saving the souls of others and people who care more about making life on this earth better.
Even with the salvation question, I believe Love is still the root of Christianity. Are you saving people’s souls because you love them, or because God told you too? If you’re doing it for the latter reason, because you’re following the Great Commission but don’t actually care about the people your spreading Christ to, I think you’re doing it for all the wrong reasons. It’s not what you do, but why you do it that defines who you are. I believe motive is much more important to morality than action.
David, you are right that Christianity is based on the principle of love, but in a broad sense, so are all the other world religions. Most have some version of “The Golden Rule.” Many have messiahs and/or themes of regicide. Many have wise prophets. Read Joseph Campbell. But unlike the teachers Mohammed, Baha’u’llah, Buddha, Krishna, Moses or Paul, none are the Savior. None are Jesus Christ – the true Messiah. This is the difference. Christians believe that Jesus is the Christ. It appears you’re courting a humanist philosophy. That’s fine, and I’m sure the Unitarians will embrace you with open arms, if you so chose to adopt the belief that Jesus wasn’t divine. Yet, I wonder if your post was motivated more by criticism of believers’ actions than belief in a divine Jesus. Christians sometimes do not act with love, or even act morally or ethically, but blame them for their behavior, not their faith. If Christ was not divine and Christianity’s survival was based solely on the merits of its followers, it would’ve long ago been resigned to obscurity. You’ve heard Gandhi’s critique of Christianity, “Oh, I don’t reject your Christ. I love your Christ. It’s just that so many of you Christians are so unlike your Christ.” Thank God for His mercy in sending us the Great Physician – “It is not the healthy who need a doctor, but the sick.”
You guys need to stop writing interesting stuff on the weekend. I primarily read at work when I’ve got time (it makes no sense, but it’s my life) so I’m more or less absent on the weekends.
I really like this post, David. I completely agree with you in that, stepping back and viewing Christianity on the same plane of other religions, is equally valid to an outsider with or without the divinity of Christ.
Personally, I believe that Jesus is divine; but if he weren’t, it wouldn’t negate the Christian message of love and caring for the people around it.
If Christ weren’t divine, I believe that I would still want to follow most of his teachings. Luckily, I have faith i Jesus’ divinity so that doesn’t force me to make that decision.
I agree that this is a relative shoulder shrug. It’s edgy for a student at HU for sure, but the utility of Christianity as a social and moral system (absent the divinity of Christ/God) is not a new idea.
My question would be, assuming no divinity for Christ, or even no God, do Christians still believe that Christianity provides the best MORAL system for living one’s life or do we believe that there would be a superior moral system out there? I think most Christians would say yes but may not be able to articulate why.
If there is a superior system then what would it be? I’m sure that relativists would say that we should gather concepts of what’s bad and good from as many different philosophies and cultures as we can find.
It’s an interesting Gedanken experiment at the very least.
*I meant most Christians would say that Christianity is still a superior system. Didn’t read correctly when I went back over it. :0
I appreciate the references above to what C.S. Lewis said on the subject. Ironically, I was in Lewis’ house in Oxford on Tuesday. It may not have the same effect as staying in a Holiday Inn Express, but . . .
I would have to disagree with your conclusions about the value of Christianity absent the divinity of Jesus. I also believe Paul would disagree as he said that if Christ had not risen from the dead (and, by implication, divine) then Christians should be “pitied more than all men.” Not only that, he said his preaching would be “useless” which would seem to me to indicate the Christian message would not have a lot of value in his opinion. (And, I know others have mentioned this above as well.)
However, I want to get back to Lewis. Adria has brought up the famous “trilemma” quote of his. However, there is more that was not quoted and I would like to quote that because it shows the force with which Lewis made his argument and the depth of his feeling about his argument. Right after he says that Jesus was either Lord, liar, or lunatic, he says, “But let us not come with any patronising nonsense about His being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.” And, he prefaced that trilemma argument by saying, “I am trying here to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say.”
David said, “Religion of any kind is a human construct designed to help us understand the deeper truths about the universe.” However, IF the Bible is true, then what you have stated is NOT true about the Christian religion because the claim of its scripture is one of divine revelation. That is what it claims for itself. (That’s not to say there are not human constructs in its practice, worship, etc. And, other religions claim this as well.) Therefore, I would argue that if one believes scripture to be a revelation from the creator, then one cannot say “religion of any kind” is a human construct. I do not believe you can have it both ways. However, if one does not believe the scriptures to be a divine revelation, then it is easy to see how one can say that. It is all in the assumptions and presuppositions.
At the risk of rambling, let me mention one other thing. Someone commenting above asked about whether morality needs the divine. Once again, Lewis wrestled with this same question in his journey from atheism to belief. He says the following regarding this:
“My argument against God was that the universe seemed so cruel and unjust. But how had I got this idea of just and unjust? A man does not call a line crooked unless he has some idea of a straight line. What was I comparing this universe with when I called it unjust? If the whole show was bad and senseless from A to Z, so to speak, why did I, who was supposed to be part of the show, find myself in such violent reaction against it? A man feels wet when he falls into water, because man is not a water animal: a fish would not feel wet. Of course I could have given up my idea of justice by saying it was nothing but a private idea of my own. But if I did that, then my argument against God collapsed too — for the argument depended on saying that the world was really unjust, not simply that it did not happen to please my fancies. Thus in the very act of trying to prove that God did not exist — in other words, that the whole of reality was senseless — I found I was forced to assume that only one part of reality — namely my idea of justice — was full of sense. Consequently atheism turns out to be too simple. If the whole universe has no meaning, we should never have found out that it has no meaning; just as, if there were no light in the universe and therefore no creatures with eyes, we should never know it was dark. Dark would be a word without meaning.”