Religion and Logic

I asked myself, many years ago, a series of questions.  The answer to each question led to the next question.  Since this is a structure where each answer leads to the next question, the series of questions would vary according to the answers determined by each individual.  I do not wish to imply each series is accurately answered regardless of the answer, for only one series is correct.  Yet I do not wish an argument with those who diverged from my series because another path is what they truly believe.  We can disagree, but we must do so with mutual respect.

Well, we cannot prove God exists, but we can see so much in creation that the preponderance of evidence makes the existence of God apparent.  Life itself is too complex to make sense of claiming it to be accidental.

Unless one answers yes, or even a maybe, there is no reason for that person to go on. 

Understand that I have come to the conclusion that God exists, and my background is in physics.  God is not in competition with science.  In fact, as a person of science I can state we cannot get past certain barriers through our knowledge of the universe without inserting creation.

There are many interactions between God and the Jewish people in the Old Testament.  If these lead you to believe the answer is yes, then you would go on.  Of course, you would have to accept the Old Testament. 

In order to answer yes there would need be an acceptance of the Trinity.  The answer to this question separates the Jewish people from Christians.

The ancient writings indicate the multiple persons of God, albeit these writings are not universally accepted.  The Resurrection is often taken as a deed only possible by God.  So, this brings us to whether Jesus rose on the first Easter.

There are numerous accounts of His being present on Earth after the Resurrection.  Of course, that requires acceptance of the accounts that were written down shortly after His death.

Did Jesus Christ start a religion?  It would appear, if you accept the New Testament, that he did.  Peter was appointed to lead his Church.  So, for Christians, accepting Jesus as forming Christianity should be easy. 

Would Jesus Christ have the authority to make changes to religion?  If you believe Jesus is Divine, He would have that authority.

Would God use a man to change that religion?  This gets to the Reformation, and it begs the question of authority.  To get to this point one has had to accept God forming the Jewish religion, and God altering the way He wants to be worshiped by directly intervening.  So, if God Himself intervened, would He then choose a man, or several men, to make further change.  I personally find that not viable as an argument, so I answered no.  I consider the fact that Martin Luther is the focus of so many religions, yet he recanted his actions on his deathbed.  If he did not support his own position, why should I?  As for Henry VIII of England, I found nothing viable in following a man who proclaimed himself a religious leader for self-serving purposes. 

I am certain not all readers would agree with me.  I point out my position, not as a challenge, but for clarity on how I got to the conclusion I find acceptable.

The Orthodox Religion split with Rome during a prolonged exit.  Going back to the initial break, it concerned who was the successor of Peter. 

The early Church proclaimed the Bishop of Rome as the legitimate successor of Peter.  So, there were two claimants, along with a French bishop, who all claimed the right of the papacy.  The French bishop gave up his claim, but the other two each claimed to be the true successor of Peter.

This was caused by the Roman Empire fracturing.  In the end of the Roman Empire there were co-emperors, one based in Rome and one in Constantinople.  They had staggered terms, and each reigned as a co-emperor.  When the barbarians finally had the Western Roman Empire is disarray, the Eastern Roman Empire held back troops, keeping them for its own protection, thereby allowing a collapse of part of the Western Empire.  Now came the question of what did the early Church consider the Bishop of Rome?  One bishop was Bishop of the City of Rome, the other was Bishop of the remaining seat of the Roman Empire.  So, which Rome determined the successor of Peter?  Was it the city or the country?

In hindsight, there no longer is any Roman Empire.  Yet the City of Rome remains.

Of course, it came down to more that who was Pope, there was a difference of opinion on a major religious idea that Jesus is both fully God and man fully.  This would be difficult for an early century person to determine, except through the teachings of his or her bishop.  Hence, people followed their bishop.  I believe this issue is now resolved, and the Orthodox Church no longer holds Jesus to not be fully man.  (I am not an authority on the Orthodox Church, so I may be in error here.)

Once one goes through a logical process, and has reason for each answer, then one approaches religion logically. 

For those who believe a man could change God’s religion, there would need to be additional questions to determine which man, and would have to justify the authority to do so. 

A logical approach need not preclude the ability to have an emotional approach.  The two are not mutually exclusive. 

This article contains links to affiliate programs and Adsense advertising.  These must use cookies to allow for proper crediting. As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.