Two Comments:

1. Thanks to Dan for helping me edit this piece.

2. I found Judaism's views on the afterlife very interesting. I always thought Heaven and Hell were the only options but I guess more are available depending on who you talk to.

Dan - I think The Gospel of Peter was next from our Gnostic Gospels study list. I'll get started...

For some reason, you only included the "gulp!" bit for atheists, but omitted it for all of the other positions. Was there a reason for that?

Also, from a perspective of logic (i.e. consistency) none of the other positions are any less logical (i.e. christianity isn't any more logical). In fact, without comparing each of the goodness-know-how many christian sects, one could indeed claim that christianity is the least logical...

Thanks for the feedback to my previous questions.

My point was that the "gulp!" should be applied to all positions that do not accept the christian concept of god, which, in your list, should include (at least) buddhism, judaism, islam and hinduism. Christian theology, by definition, excludes the potential for, say, the buddhist's chance of reincarnation, and would therefore be damned to hell in the same fashion as other unbelievers.

I had a look at the "evidence" you provided (which only consisted of arguments, most of which have been refuted at some point - I can't even believe Kreeft lists Pascal's Wager as a legitimate argument!) but saw nothing there that would count as "evidence" enough for a sceptical person who has not been exposed to christian ideas to accept it as such.

The next part of your post is a rehash of Pascal's Wager, albeit taking the worst case scenario of each to be benign to christians, when there is no evidence that this is the case, either. I would, however, take your claim that Islam is false as a modification of Lewis' 3L argument, which obviously ignores the other possibilities.

You also fail to address any other religious claim (even if it's historical).

The claim that the bible is reliable is dubious at best. I have two objections: A) we do not have access to original manuscripts to verify, and B) current translations (even the "best" of them) contain inconsistencies and conflicts. It does beg the question as to why, if perfect records exist, are all bibles not updated to conform to them?

As for the "historical" Jesus, unless one has a preconceived notion that Jesus must have existed at all, we have no evidence to support this, aside from the claims of those who use the above broken scripture, or the apocryphal claims of "perfect" scripture.

To be honest, I'm rather puzzled as to why this table exists in the first place. If you are as sure as you are in the idea that christianity is true, then the considerations of other faith traditions are moot to sceptics, and bona fide evidence to support your claim should be offered.

Thanks for taking the time to answer my previous questions though, I found it quite interesting.

Bluematt, our site is intended for Christians. Of course, we love it when anyone stops by, especially to leave comments. Most people hit and run :)

"Thanks for the feedback to my previous questions.

My point was that the "gulp!" should be applied to all positions that do not accept the christian concept of god, which, in your list, should include (at least) buddhism, judaism, islam and hinduism. Christian theology, by definition, excludes the potential for, say, the buddhist's chance of reincarnation, and would therefore be damned to hell in the same fashion as other unbelievers."

Agreed.

"I had a look at the "evidence" you provided (which only consisted of arguments, most of which have been refuted at some point - I can't even believe Kreeft lists Pascal's Wager as a legitimate argument!) but saw nothing there that would count as "evidence" enough for a sceptical person who has not been exposed to christian ideas to accept it as such."

Let’s begin by defining terms. An “argument” can in fact be presented as “evidence”. According to the American Heritage Dictionary, Argument is, among other things, A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now.

Also, Kreeft’s arguments present evidence as part of the argumentation. For example, #19 states that belief in God is common to almost all people in every ear. This may not be backed up by citations (one could argue it is so obvious it doesn’t have to be), but it is evidence nonetheless.

Kreeft in fact clearly states that Pascal’s Wager is not an argument in the seventh paragraph: “Not all the arguments are equally demonstrative. One (Pascal's Wager) is not an argument for God at all, but an argument for faith in God as a "wager."”

In addition, you seem to regard exposure to Christian ideas as something one catches unintentionally. Every person begins life without being “exposed” to “Christian ideas”, and one can say the same about every other item on Edgar’s list, including atheism.


"The next part of your post is a rehash of Pascal's Wager, albeit taking the worst case scenario of each to be benign to christians, when there is no evidence that this is the case, either. I would, however, take your claim that Islam is false as a modification of Lewis' 3L argument, which obviously ignores the other possibilities."

I’m not certain which part you are referring to here. I don’t see any part of the post that is a rehash of Pascal’s Wager.

What other possibilites exist outside of Lewis's 3 Ls?

"You also fail to address any other religious claim (even if it's historical)."

This is so broad it doesn’t advance the discussion. One could say the same about every single thing ever written or spoken. There is always SOMETHING left unaddressed. Specifics would make this assertion meaningful.

"The claim that the bible is reliable is dubious at best. I have two objections: A) we do not have access to original manuscripts to verify, and B) current translations (even the "best" of them) contain inconsistencies and conflicts. It does beg the question as to why, if perfect records exist, are all bibles not updated to conform to them?"

A) Why do we need access to original manuscripts to verify anything? B) There may be inconsistencies and conflicts among the various translations. However, specifics are vital, and I don’t see any.

I don’t see any question-begging here. You may have used the term incorrectly to mean “bring up the question”. Remember that Christians claim infallibility of the original manuscripts, not the subsequent copies. We don’t know if those perfect records exist anymore. Translations of anything are subject to some interpretation. Assuming we had the autographs, we would still be “translating” them into our language, time period, location and culture.

"As for the "historical" Jesus, unless one has a preconceived notion that Jesus must have existed at all, we have no evidence to support this, aside from the claims of those who use the above broken scripture, or the apocryphal claims of "perfect" scripture."

This is simply false. Evidence for Jesus of Nazareth exists in many places outside of Scripture. Although, why one would exclude Scripture as evidence is beyond me. Do we have better sources than eyewitness accounts? Is there a videotape somewhere I don’t know about?

http://www.westarkchurchofchrist.org/library/extrabiblical.htm


"To be honest, I'm rather puzzled as to why this table exists in the first place. If you are as sure as you are in the idea that christianity is true, then the considerations of other faith traditions are moot to sceptics, and bona fide evidence to support your claim should be offered."

The table exists to give a comparative study about how other religions view the afterlife. It's the first sentence.

"Thanks for taking the time to answer my previous questions though, I found it quite interesting."

Thanks for stopping by. We don't claim anything we write to be perfect, but we try to do our best.

I think the reference to Acts 20:7 must be a mistake.
As I understand it the ultimate statement of the
Christian position is John 3:16 (the little Bible).
There I found what I was seeking.

Hi Glyn,

Thanks a lot. yes. the reference to Acts 20:7 was wrong. It is really Acts 16:29-32 where Paul says: Believe in the Lord Jesus...

God bless you.