"I hope I never give up the standard of truth I advocate. To do anything
else would lead me to believing false things. And if Christianity is wrong,
I would jettison it in a moment."
Wrong in what way? I've thought about this alot, and I've come to the
conclusion that if someone could prove theologically that Jesus was not the
Son of God, or if someone could prove scientifically that Jesus did not
resurrect after death, I would not abandon Christianity; I would simply have
to find another reason for his death and resurrection. And the early church
fathers can provide a reason. Before Augustine imposed his non-Biblical
view of original sin onto Christianity, the consensus opinion was that man
did not have the spiritual strength to properly use the freedom of will God
gave us, and so man misused it and brought all the pain and sorrow of life
onto himself. Jesus lived the life God wants us to live; his example
demonstrates that we can live by God's ways if we dedicate ourselves to
doing so and refuse to give into our own petty desires. His resurrection
under those circumstances simply demonstrates the reward that awaits those
who follow God instead of themselves. If on the other hand the resurrection
was not true, the example of his life alone should be sufficient to convince
us of the sincerity of his message.
>
"Without a doubt, there are truths in all religions. But there can not be
TRUTH in all religions."
I don't believe in a single grand TRUTH, just in individual truths that are
correct within their own contexts. As such, I do not recognize this
problem.
"Truth can not be logically contradictory."
It can if different truths are true only in specific contexts. This is true
even in science. The law of the conservation of mass and energy is true in
classical physics, over large areas and great lengths of time, but it isn't
true in quantum mechanics, over infinitessimally tiny areas and
infinitessimally short periods of time.
A and not-A can not both be true simultaneously. The Koran says that Jesus
was not the son of God, the Bible says that he was. Judaism says Jesus is
not the Messiah, Christianity says he was. Somebody is wrong. It can't be
helped, but somebody is wrong.
The problem is you are trying to apply a methodology to theology that is
inappropriate. For example, rather than someone being wrong, it may simply
be that the concept of God expressed by both religions is so different that
Islam cannot conceive of the possibility of a human being born from God
whereas Christianity can. This does not, however, invalidate the importance
Jesus holds as a religious figure in both religions. As for the Messiah
question, that is based more on politics than on religion. And in political
questions you definately can have someone who is wrong.
You do realize, of course you have a non-traditional form of Christianity,
don't you?"
I don't agree. My mainstream church encouraged me to think in these terms.
Also, my study of Christian theology shows that people have been grappling
with these questions, and often coming up with the same answers I have, for
two thousand years. Compared to modern literalistic fundamentalism,
however, I admit my answers are different.
>
"If your view is true (that God works through all religions) and God never
changes, then He should make it clear whether Jesus is his son or not,
whether Jesus is the Messiah or not etc. For a God who doesn't change, he
has mangled his communication pretty badly."
My friend, you have just put your finger on the $64 trillion question.
Considering that God could clearly and unambiguously communicate to everyone
throughout space and time simultaneously exactly what His message is in a
way that can leave no doubt that it is true, why He doesn't do it is perhaps
one of the greatest mysteries of all time. My opinion is that, rather than
simply give us all the answers, He wants us to work for them, because often
you learn as much or more trying to find the answers as you do when you
finally get them. But this is just my opinion.
"If it is so objective, then why can one religion claim that Jesus is the
son of God and one claim that is heresy? OBJECTIVE knowledge usually means
that it has enough force for the vast majority of people to bow to its
force. If theology is so objective, why is there no power behind its
demonstrations?"
Because you are trying to force theology to use the rules of science and to
compare itself against physical reality. This renders theology impotent, so
naturally you consider theology to be worthless. However, if you keep in
mind that theology was developed to investigate spiritual reality and
science to investigate physical reality, then the objectivity of theology
should become more obvious. The one handicap that theology has that science
does not is that, because we cannot interact directly with the spiritual
universe like we can the physical universe, we cannot apply theological
hypotheses directly against the spiritual universe like we can apply
scientific hypotheses directly against the physical universe. That's why
theology uses a methodology that is less direct. But as long as we accept
that the spiritual universe is just as objective as the physical universe,
then then theological reality is also just as objective as scientific
reality.
"Which means that science is more objective than theology!"
No, it means that theology can make the same mistake as science and try to
explain physical reality using its own inappropriate methodology. Since
theology can no more explain physical reality than science can explain
spiritual reality, whenever there is a conflict between them, the resolution
should go to whichever discipline has the best method to resolve the
conflict.
"But in your system, theological reality isn't testable against anything,
yet you claim it is objective. it simply isn't."
No, that's your assessment of what I am saying based on your attempt to make
theology work according to the rules and methods of science. I never said
that theology isn't testable against anything. Theology must be tested
against the spiritual universe, either directly or indirectly, using its own
methods. Since theology has nothing to say about physical reality, to try
to force it to explain physical reality is as much a mistake as crreationist
attempts to use science to explain spiritual reality.
Kevin L. O'Brien