3 ms·

1 Corinthians 15:13-19 (NIV) : “ If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching

by drdeca 2y ago

1 Corinthians 15:13-19 (NIV) : “ If there is no resurrection of the dead, then not even Christ has been raised. And if Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith. More than that, we are then found to be false witnesses about God, for we have testified about God that he raised Christ from the dead. But he did not raise him if in fact the dead are not raised. For if the dead are not raised, then Christ has not been raised either. And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are of all people most to be pitied.” —— There is only one kind of truth. “All truths are God’s truths.” If Christianity is not true, then it is false. If Christianity and Buddhism strictly contradict each-other, then at most one of them is true. Christianity is not meant to be a, what, psychological trick? It makes claims, and these claims should be believed if true and disbelieved if false.

_yb2s 2y ago
It's no trick, it's a spiritual path that can't be understood without following and practicing it- the path very much leads to something real that cannot be experienced or explained any other way. Everything Christianity teaches is true in the sense that I mean here. You are not understanding what I am saying and I do not personally know how to explain it more clearly[1], which, as I explained above, is why religions pragmatically also offer this view you hold as the official explanation to lay people, despite being obvious nonsense as an objective truth to anyone that thinks very hard about it. I posit almost all intelligent monastics and religious people are smart enough to tell the difference between objective truth and religious truth- but it is taboo to explain this to lay people as they will be confused and think it means the religion is "fake" or a "trick", however I don't feel the need to respect said taboo. Perhaps I will learn to respect it by trying to explain it to people unsuccessfully. [1] David Chapman may be able to: https://vividness.live/visionary-and-objective-truths https://vividness.live/visionary-and-objective-truths
- graemep 2y ago
  > I posit almost all intelligent monastics and religious people are smart enough to tell the difference between objective truth and religious truth- but it is taboo to explain this to lay people as they will be confused and think it means the religion is "fake" or a "trick", however I don't feel the need to respect said taboo. That is positing a conspiracy theory level of deception. At least as far as Christianity goes, the "intelligent monastics and religious people" write down their beliefs, and have done so for millennia, and they read each others writings. What you suggest might be possible with an oral tradition, but not with a written one. Christianity is very much concerned with objective truth, and one of the distinguishing characters of it (and some other religions too) is a belief that there is an objective truth.
  - _yb2s 2y ago
    It's no great conspiracy for a religion to have tiers of understanding and nuance reserved for people more intelligent and dedicated in practice- that is one key purpose of having a distinction between lay people and monastics. The mystique of this is openly part of the draw for people to sign up for it. There's no deception- it's something that (as this discussion shows) is very subtle and dangerous to the religions when misunderstood- but not dangerous when understood correctly. It is written down repeatedly in religious texts, in a subtle way with plausible deniability, but clear to those that can read between the lines. Writing in that way was the essential basic art of any intellectual until very recently, it is only now (sort of) safe to plainly state nuanced philosophical and religious concepts without facing persecution. Nietzsche argued you still should not do so even if you can. It's also both quite obvious and relatively unimportant on its own to people that would be capable of understanding nuance, and could be quite harmful to the faith and the stability of the religion of those not able to understand.
    - graemep 2y ago
      > It is written down repeatedly in religious texts, in a subtle way with plausible deniability, but clear to those that can read between the lines. Can you give me an example of what you mean? From Christianity, as its the religion I know most about.
bccdee 2y ago
> If Christianity is not true, then it is false. It might be better to think of it as a potentially useful fiction. Our culture is full of those. Morality doesn't exist in any objective sense, which means "murder is wrong" is not, strictly speaking, true. That doesn't mean it isn't useful for us to collectively treat it as if it's true. You might even argue that that's the nature of all shared truth.
- AnimalMuppet 2y ago
  The passage drdeca quoted explicitly denies you the space to treat Christianity as a "useful fiction". (I mean, lots of people do, but they have to ignore what it actually teaches in order to do so. You have to create a fictionalized version if you want a useful fiction, which I guess shouldn't surprise me...)
  - bccdee 2y ago
    > The passage drdeca quoted explicitly denies you the space to treat Christianity as a "useful fiction" Yeah, I'm disagreeing with that passage. > [I]f Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith Faith can be useful even when it does not reflect an objective truth. In fact, you might say that faith can only exist at all in the absence of objective truth. I don't need to have faith that a triangle has 3 sides, or that ice is cold. If we do take seriously the idea that Christianity must either be true or false, then it's obviously false: Most religions contradict each other, and none of them have any concrete evidence in their defence. The natural conclusion is that all religious beliefs are false. But then we have to interpret society as a place where most people believe obvious falsehoods, which is just not a useful lens. There is a huge difference between a falsehood like "triangles have 5 sides" and a falsehood like "Jesus was reborn." Nobody would believe the former, but many people believe the latter. We must distinguish useful fictions as a category beyond the dichotomy of simple truth or falsehood.

by drdeca 2y ago

_yb2s 2y ago

It's no trick, it's a spiritual path that can't be understood without following and practicing it- the path very much leads to something real that cannot be experienced or explained any other way. Everything Christianity teaches is true in the sense that I mean here. You are not understanding what I am saying and I do not personally know how to explain it more clearly[1], which, as I explained above, is why religions pragmatically also offer this view you hold as the official explanation to lay people, despite being obvious nonsense as an objective truth to anyone that thinks very hard about it. I posit almost all intelligent monastics and religious people are smart enough to tell the difference between objective truth and religious truth- but it is taboo to explain this to lay people as they will be confused and think it means the religion is "fake" or a "trick", however I don't feel the need to respect said taboo. Perhaps I will learn to respect it by trying to explain it to people unsuccessfully. [1] David Chapman may be able to: https://vividness.live/visionary-and-objective-truths https://vividness.live/visionary-and-objective-truths

graemep 2y ago
> I posit almost all intelligent monastics and religious people are smart enough to tell the difference between objective truth and religious truth- but it is taboo to explain this to lay people as they will be confused and think it means the religion is "fake" or a "trick", however I don't feel the need to respect said taboo. That is positing a conspiracy theory level of deception. At least as far as Christianity goes, the "intelligent monastics and religious people" write down their beliefs, and have done so for millennia, and they read each others writings. What you suggest might be possible with an oral tradition, but not with a written one. Christianity is very much concerned with objective truth, and one of the distinguishing characters of it (and some other religions too) is a belief that there is an objective truth.
- _yb2s 2y ago
  It's no great conspiracy for a religion to have tiers of understanding and nuance reserved for people more intelligent and dedicated in practice- that is one key purpose of having a distinction between lay people and monastics. The mystique of this is openly part of the draw for people to sign up for it. There's no deception- it's something that (as this discussion shows) is very subtle and dangerous to the religions when misunderstood- but not dangerous when understood correctly. It is written down repeatedly in religious texts, in a subtle way with plausible deniability, but clear to those that can read between the lines. Writing in that way was the essential basic art of any intellectual until very recently, it is only now (sort of) safe to plainly state nuanced philosophical and religious concepts without facing persecution. Nietzsche argued you still should not do so even if you can. It's also both quite obvious and relatively unimportant on its own to people that would be capable of understanding nuance, and could be quite harmful to the faith and the stability of the religion of those not able to understand.
  - graemep 2y ago
    > It is written down repeatedly in religious texts, in a subtle way with plausible deniability, but clear to those that can read between the lines. Can you give me an example of what you mean? From Christianity, as its the religion I know most about.

bccdee 2y ago

> If Christianity is not true, then it is false. It might be better to think of it as a potentially useful fiction. Our culture is full of those. Morality doesn't exist in any objective sense, which means "murder is wrong" is not, strictly speaking, true. That doesn't mean it isn't useful for us to collectively treat it as if it's true. You might even argue that that's the nature of all shared truth.

AnimalMuppet 2y ago
The passage drdeca quoted explicitly denies you the space to treat Christianity as a "useful fiction". (I mean, lots of people do, but they have to ignore what it actually teaches in order to do so. You have to create a fictionalized version if you want a useful fiction, which I guess shouldn't surprise me...)
- bccdee 2y ago
  > The passage drdeca quoted explicitly denies you the space to treat Christianity as a "useful fiction" Yeah, I'm disagreeing with that passage. > [I]f Christ has not been raised, our preaching is useless and so is your faith Faith can be useful even when it does not reflect an objective truth. In fact, you might say that faith can only exist at all in the absence of objective truth. I don't need to have faith that a triangle has 3 sides, or that ice is cold. If we do take seriously the idea that Christianity must either be true or false, then it's obviously false: Most religions contradict each other, and none of them have any concrete evidence in their defence. The natural conclusion is that all religious beliefs are false. But then we have to interpret society as a place where most people believe obvious falsehoods, which is just not a useful lens. There is a huge difference between a falsehood like "triangles have 5 sides" and a falsehood like "Jesus was reborn." Nobody would believe the former, but many people believe the latter. We must distinguish useful fictions as a category beyond the dichotomy of simple truth or falsehood.