I Can Understand The Reasons To Believe In A Higher Power/energy. But Why Would It Specifically Be The Christian Bible God?

[Lyra]

I do believe that there is a god, in the very general sense of a higher-level energy behind the creation of the universe. I am very broad on what this "god" could be-- it could be that the universe itself is living, or that there is some kind of intelligent designer outside the scope of everything, etc. I have a very open mind, but I also don't think that any human religion is the correct answer or that humans could create a religious dogma that's a correct interpretation. However, I am open to the idea that this "god" could care about humanity and the earth and could be connected to through things like spirituality and nature and helping fellow man/animals. Basically, I am agnostic on my worst day and spiritual at my best.

 

So when people lay forward arguments for the existence of some type of Creator, I have no issue at this level. I've seen some very smart, logical arguments for this that make sense.

 

But how does one make the leap from believing in a Creator, to believing that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that Christianity is true?

 

The Bible was written by PEOPLE, thousands of years ago. It includes the condemnation of insignificant things like eating the wrong types of shellfish/meats, wearing the wrong fabrics, being gay, being "unclean" on your period, archaic tribal commandments that make sense for an ancient Iron Age culture but not to human morality as a whole, etc. But it also gives full allowance to things like slavery, rape, child marriage, and killing innocent children as part of war. These, to me, signify proof that it cannot be the "literal, inerrant, 100% divine word of God" like people say. And even if those evil things weren't in it, it's a far cry expecting people to believe that a book written thousands of years ago, by numerous authors, is ALL purely 100% God-inspired, yet no other writings have this credibility.

 

Aside from that, the foundation of Christianity itself doesn't make sense. Without looking at subtle differences between denominations, or spin-offs such as Mormons/JW/etc, the basic premise of Christianity goes like this:

"Humanity was corrupt and un-deserving of heaven from the get-go, and thus, they rightfully deserve to be tortured in neverending Hell for the rest of eternity. But because God loved us so much, he sent his Son/came to earth as a human so that he could live a perfect life and die for our sins, and his sacrifice paid the death that was required, so that now all humans have to do is believe truly that this happened and accept him as Lord, and they can go to heaven after death."

 

This brings several issues:

1 - Why did there need to be a sacrifice? If God didn't want his creation to go to hell, why not just destroy Hell, or make it a non-human place in the first place? Christians talk about how Hell was originally never meant for humans anyway and was meant for the Devil/demons instead, so why wouldn't God just have it as a place for them only?

 

2- Related to #1, the story makes it seem like there was some type of court/battle where a sacrifice was the only way to even the scales, so to speak, like the death of Aslan in Narnia. But why would an all-powerful Supreme God be required to be subject to something like this?

 

3- If we do accept that this happened, and that Jesus provided a path to salvation - why is belief in the seemingly impossible the litmus test/road to heaven? For example, the rule could have been that you're "saved" if you, for example, don't kill another person. This rule (no killing, except for self defense maybe), or something equally tangible, would at least make more sense in a practical way, if that makes sense. But for the requirement to be to simply BELIEVE that the resurrection happened/that Jesus is real, seems very arbitrary. For most, especially for people who were never raised in religion and who are smart/critical-thinking by nature, this seems like something on the same level of believing in unicorns or space aliens - there's no tangible proof against it, but also no way to prove it's true. And yet, a "Good" god judges people not on their overall life lived or how they treated others, but by whether or not they believed in something that's difficult to portray as realistically possible?

 

Please help me understand these issues. 

[florduh]

If one believes there must be some kind of original "creator" because we don't have a better answer, that's one thing. It does not imply the god portrayed in the Bible.

[quinntar]

I do believe that there is a god, in the very general sense of a higher-level energy behind the creation of the universe. I am very broad on what this "god" could be-- it could be that the universe itself is living, or that there is some kind of intelligent designer outside the scope of everything, etc. I have a very open mind, but I also don't think that any human religion is the correct answer or that humans could create a religious dogma that's a correct interpretation. However, I am open to the idea that this "god" could care about humanity and the earth and could be connected to through things like spirituality and nature and helping fellow man/animals. Basically, I am agnostic on my worst day and spiritual at my best.

 

So when people lay forward arguments for the existence of some type of Creator, I have no issue at this level. I've seen some very smart, logical arguments for this that make sense.

 

But how does one make the leap from believing in a Creator, to believing that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that Christianity is true?

 

The Bible was written by PEOPLE, thousands of years ago. It includes the condemnation of insignificant things like eating the wrong types of shellfish/meats, wearing the wrong fabrics, being gay, being "unclean" on your period, archaic tribal commandments that make sense for an ancient Iron Age culture but not to human morality as a whole, etc. But it also gives full allowance to things like slavery, rape, child marriage, and killing innocent children as part of war. These, to me, signify proof that it cannot be the "literal, inerrant, 100% divine word of God" like people say. And even if those evil things weren't in it, it's a far cry expecting people to believe that a book written thousands of years ago, by numerous authors, is ALL purely 100% God-inspired, yet no other writings have this credibility.

 

Aside from that, the foundation of Christianity itself doesn't make sense. Without looking at subtle differences between denominations, or spin-offs such as Mormons/JW/etc, the basic premise of Christianity goes like this:

"Humanity was corrupt and un-deserving of heaven from the get-go, and thus, they rightfully deserve to be tortured in neverending Hell for the rest of eternity. But because God loved us so much, he sent his Son/came to earth as a human so that he could live a perfect life and die for our sins, and his sacrifice paid the death that was required, so that now all humans have to do is believe truly that this happened and accept him as Lord, and they can go to heaven after death."

 

This brings several issues:

1 - Why did there need to be a sacrifice? If God didn't want his creation to go to hell, why not just destroy Hell, or make it a non-human place in the first place? Christians talk about how Hell was originally never meant for humans anyway and was meant for the Devil/demons instead, so why wouldn't God just have it as a place for them only?

 

2- Related to #1, the story makes it seem like there was some type of court/battle where a sacrifice was the only way to even the scales, so to speak, like the death of Aslan in Narnia. But why would an all-powerful Supreme God be required to be subject to something like this?

 

3- If we do accept that this happened, and that Jesus provided a path to salvation - why is belief in the seemingly impossible the litmus test/road to heaven? For example, the rule could have been that you're "saved" if you, for example, don't kill another person. This rule (no killing, except for self defense maybe), or something equally tangible, would at least make more sense in a practical way, if that makes sense. But for the requirement to be to simply BELIEVE that the resurrection happened/that Jesus is real, seems very arbitrary. For most, especially for people who were never raised in religion and who are smart/critical-thinking by nature, this seems like something on the same level of believing in unicorns or space aliens - there's no tangible proof against it, but also no way to prove it's true. And yet, a "Good" god judges people not on their overall life lived or how they treated others, but by whether or not they believed in something that's difficult to portray as realistically possible?

 

Please help me understand these issues.

Yeah well it is the character Jesus who has caused our current societal rift between good and evil, heaven and hell.

 

If you look closely at all the religions most of them have a polarized (Positive & negative) belief system.

 

Morpheus was right, these fucker's want to turn us into batteries.

[sdelsolray]

You believe in some sort of god, higher power, or creative force.  You have questions concerning the details of that belief.

 

Christianity is simply one theology that claims to know the details.

 

Analyze the claims as you see fit.

 

But before you do that, you may wish to explore why you believe as you do.  That should help.

[miamia]

I see the faith requirement part in particular as being pretty incriminating evidence that biblegod is in fact a man made conspiracy. When we look at humans, we consider those who demand someone else's good faith (where there is not a pressing, mutually beneficial need) or become angry at skepticism, to be unstable, illogical, manipulative, or otherwise untrustworthy. To a trustworthy, self sufficient individual, there is no pressing need to gain someone else's trust/faith. Faith, admiration and trust are merely a byproduct of your character/ behavior toward them. Not a life force to suck out of them as sustenance as is the case with ​narcissistic currency.

But faith and admiration aren't the only things that biblegod wants

Biblegod wants to be feared.

biblegod wants constant acknowledgement and respect. 

biblegod wants deeds, including murdering those who don't agree with him. 

Biblegod mirrors the narcissistic mind of the people who contrived him

[Lyra]

Florduh, I too am from St. Pete Florduh! What a coincidence.

 

i wanted to clarify that I am not a Christian - rather, I wondering what Christians would say in order to explain how/why they make the leap from general belief in a creator to the belief in Christianity/Biblegod.

 

I agree that Biblegod is a douche, and that his narcissistic characteristics are illustrative of the goat-herding tribal narcissists who created him.

[quinntar]

Florduh, I too am from St. Pete Florduh! What a coincidence.

 

i wanted to clarify that I am not a Christian - rather, I wondering what Christians would say in order to explain how/why they make the leap from general belief in a creator to the belief in Christianity/Biblegod.

 

I agree that Biblegod is a douche, and that his narcissistic characteristics are illustrative of the goat-herding tribal narcissists who created him.

I guess because it's all laid out in black and white. Basically it's a religion that attacks you with negatives to condition you with positives, making you think you're evil and deserve punishment so you'll be good.

 

 

I think it's like reversing the electrons in your brain or some shit, who knows.

 

I know, Jesus knows

 

Let me dial his number...

 

Pick up, pick up, pick up, pick up

 

Rang three times and went straight to his voice mail.

[Geezer]

I enjoyed your original post Lyra & your analysis of Xianity. I sometimes wonder about the possibility of there being "something" more too. May the force be with you!

[Lyra]

Thank you!

 

Also, my username comes from a fantasy series by Phillip Pullman (whose main heroine is named Lyra) where Lyra and her friends wage war against "The Authority" [i.e. God] and in the climax, the way they destroy him is by infiltrating Hell, destroying it, and letting all the souls go free.

 

I do have faith there's something above us. I work as a trauma counselor where I get to directly empower people, and I really do feel a connection to some type of higher consciousness while doing it, as though it's a "calling." I think the type of energy we create/output matters, and that we can consume different types of energy and be affected by it. But I also think that human dogma can in no way hold the answers, and that religion is stupid.

 

I do think that some people have been inspired by Christianity to do good, but that it's sadly outnumbered by the way Christianity has been used to manipulate, control, abuse, and oppress.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

42

[ironhorse]

I do believe that there is a god, in the very general sense of a higher-level energy behind the creation of the universe. I am very broad on what this "god" could be-- it could be that the universe itself is living, or that there is some kind of intelligent designer outside the scope of everything, etc. I have a very open mind, but I also don't think that any human religion is the correct answer or that humans could create a religious dogma that's a correct interpretation. However, I am open to the idea that this "god" could care about humanity and the earth and could be connected to through things like spirituality and nature and helping fellow man/animals. Basically, I am agnostic on my worst day and spiritual at my best.

 

So when people lay forward arguments for the existence of some type of Creator, I have no issue at this level. I've seen some very smart, logical arguments for this that make sense.

 

But how does one make the leap from believing in a Creator, to believing that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that Christianity is true?

 

The Bible was written by PEOPLE, thousands of years ago. It includes the condemnation of insignificant things like eating the wrong types of shellfish/meats, wearing the wrong fabrics, being gay, being "unclean" on your period, archaic tribal commandments that make sense for an ancient Iron Age culture but not to human morality as a whole, etc. But it also gives full allowance to things like slavery, rape, child marriage, and killing innocent children as part of war. These, to me, signify proof that it cannot be the "literal, inerrant, 100% divine word of God" like people say. And even if those evil things weren't in it, it's a far cry expecting people to believe that a book written thousands of years ago, by numerous authors, is ALL purely 100% God-inspired, yet no other writings have this credibility.

 

Aside from that, the foundation of Christianity itself doesn't make sense. Without looking at subtle differences between denominations, or spin-offs such as Mormons/JW/etc, the basic premise of Christianity goes like this:

"Humanity was corrupt and un-deserving of heaven from the get-go, and thus, they rightfully deserve to be tortured in neverending Hell for the rest of eternity. But because God loved us so much, he sent his Son/came to earth as a human so that he could live a perfect life and die for our sins, and his sacrifice paid the death that was required, so that now all humans have to do is believe truly that this happened and accept him as Lord, and they can go to heaven after death."

 

This brings several issues:

1 - Why did there need to be a sacrifice? If God didn't want his creation to go to hell, why not just destroy Hell, or make it a non-human place in the first place? Christians talk about how Hell was originally never meant for humans anyway and was meant for the Devil/demons instead, so why wouldn't God just have it as a place for them only?

 

2- Related to #1, the story makes it seem like there was some type of court/battle where a sacrifice was the only way to even the scales, so to speak, like the death of Aslan in Narnia. But why would an all-powerful Supreme God be required to be subject to something like this?

 

3- If we do accept that this happened, and that Jesus provided a path to salvation - why is belief in the seemingly impossible the litmus test/road to heaven? For example, the rule could have been that you're "saved" if you, for example, don't kill another person. This rule (no killing, except for self defense maybe), or something equally tangible, would at least make more sense in a practical way, if that makes sense. But for the requirement to be to simply BELIEVE that the resurrection happened/that Jesus is real, seems very arbitrary. For most, especially for people who were never raised in religion and who are smart/critical-thinking by nature, this seems like something on the same level of believing in unicorns or space aliens - there's no tangible proof against it, but also no way to prove it's true. And yet, a "Good" god judges people not on their overall life lived or how they treated others, but by whether or not they believed in something that's difficult to portray as realistically possible?

 

Please help me understand these issues. 

 

 

Lyra

There is a lot in your post. No problem with bringing up these issues. Trying to understanding things is positive. This helps in developing a final view of things. I will answer this question first and then try to answer others later on.

 

1 - Why did there need to be a sacrifice?

 

God’s reaction to sin is conditional, not emotional.

God is holy and perfect.

 

To set the imperfect right, the imperfection (sin) must be punished. It must be put away from God’s sight. It is like if our hand touches a hot iron, we automatically remove our hand. It is a conditional or you could say an automatic response.

 

To atone (to make amends) for these errors God demands a sacrifice.

The blood sacrifices as seen throughout the Old Testament were foreshadowing of the true, once-for-all-time sacrifice that Jesus (the visible image of the invisible God) made on the cross.

 

“He is the one who took God’s wrath against our sins upon himself and brought us into fellowship with God; and he is the forgiveness for our sins,[a] and not only ours but all the world’s.”

~1 John 2:2 (Living Bible)

[Guest Furball]

Yet, if god doesn't put the tree in the garden in the first place (or allow satan to enter the garden), we're not even in this mess at all. So once again we've come full circle right back to who is responsible for sin existing in the first place - GOD.

 

Hey michael, what would you think of a father who's kid stole a cookie from the cookie jar, then lied about stealing it, then was bound hand and foot by the father and punished by being thrown into a scalding hot oven alive?

 

You'd call that person a sadistic child murderer right?

 

So why does your imaginary god get off the hook?

 

I may not be perfect, but to be thrown in hell forever for simply being human is the most abominable anti-human, anti-love philosophy I have ever heard. 

 

The best thing about being an atheist...all the evidence supports my view and proves the christian one wrong. 

 

-peace

[bornagainathiest]

 

I do believe that there is a god, in the very general sense of a higher-level energy behind the creation of the universe. I am very broad on what this "god" could be-- it could be that the universe itself is living, or that there is some kind of intelligent designer outside the scope of everything, etc. I have a very open mind, but I also don't think that any human religion is the correct answer or that humans could create a religious dogma that's a correct interpretation. However, I am open to the idea that this "god" could care about humanity and the earth and could be connected to through things like spirituality and nature and helping fellow man/animals. Basically, I am agnostic on my worst day and spiritual at my best.

 

So when people lay forward arguments for the existence of some type of Creator, I have no issue at this level. I've seen some very smart, logical arguments for this that make sense.

 

But how does one make the leap from believing in a Creator, to believing that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that Christianity is true?

 

The Bible was written by PEOPLE, thousands of years ago. It includes the condemnation of insignificant things like eating the wrong types of shellfish/meats, wearing the wrong fabrics, being gay, being "unclean" on your period, archaic tribal commandments that make sense for an ancient Iron Age culture but not to human morality as a whole, etc. But it also gives full allowance to things like slavery, rape, child marriage, and killing innocent children as part of war. These, to me, signify proof that it cannot be the "literal, inerrant, 100% divine word of God" like people say. And even if those evil things weren't in it, it's a far cry expecting people to believe that a book written thousands of years ago, by numerous authors, is ALL purely 100% God-inspired, yet no other writings have this credibility.

 

Aside from that, the foundation of Christianity itself doesn't make sense. Without looking at subtle differences between denominations, or spin-offs such as Mormons/JW/etc, the basic premise of Christianity goes like this:

"Humanity was corrupt and un-deserving of heaven from the get-go, and thus, they rightfully deserve to be tortured in neverending Hell for the rest of eternity. But because God loved us so much, he sent his Son/came to earth as a human so that he could live a perfect life and die for our sins, and his sacrifice paid the death that was required, so that now all humans have to do is believe truly that this happened and accept him as Lord, and they can go to heaven after death."

 

This brings several issues:

1 - Why did there need to be a sacrifice? If God didn't want his creation to go to hell, why not just destroy Hell, or make it a non-human place in the first place? Christians talk about how Hell was originally never meant for humans anyway and was meant for the Devil/demons instead, so why wouldn't God just have it as a place for them only?

 

2- Related to #1, the story makes it seem like there was some type of court/battle where a sacrifice was the only way to even the scales, so to speak, like the death of Aslan in Narnia. But why would an all-powerful Supreme God be required to be subject to something like this?

 

3- If we do accept that this happened, and that Jesus provided a path to salvation - why is belief in the seemingly impossible the litmus test/road to heaven? For example, the rule could have been that you're "saved" if you, for example, don't kill another person. This rule (no killing, except for self defense maybe), or something equally tangible, would at least make more sense in a practical way, if that makes sense. But for the requirement to be to simply BELIEVE that the resurrection happened/that Jesus is real, seems very arbitrary. For most, especially for people who were never raised in religion and who are smart/critical-thinking by nature, this seems like something on the same level of believing in unicorns or space aliens - there's no tangible proof against it, but also no way to prove it's true. And yet, a "Good" god judges people not on their overall life lived or how they treated others, but by whether or not they believed in something that's difficult to portray as realistically possible?

 

Please help me understand these issues. 

 

 

Lyra

There is a lot in your post. No problem with bringing up these issues. Trying to understanding things is positive. This helps in developing a final view of things. I will answer this question first and then try to answer others later on.

 

1 - Why did there need to be a sacrifice?

 

God’s reaction to sin is conditional, not emotional.

God is holy and perfect.

 

To set the imperfect right, the imperfection (sin) must be punished. It must be put away from God’s sight. It is like if our hand touches a hot iron, we automatically remove our hand. It is a conditional or you could say an automatic response.

 

To atone (to make amends) for these errors God demands a sacrifice.

The blood sacrifices as seen throughout the Old Testament were foreshadowing of the true, once-for-all-time sacrifice that Jesus (the visible image of the invisible God) made on the cross.

 

“He is the one who took God’s wrath against our sins upon himself and brought us into fellowship with God; and he is the forgiveness for our sins,[a] and not only ours but all the world’s.”

~1 John 2:2 (Living Bible)

 

 

Ironhorse,

 

You've jumped into Lyra's post at the... 'helping her understand these issues' ...stage, without first dealing with the foundational question she asked before she listed her three issues.

 

This... But how does one make the leap from believing in a Creator, to believing that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that Christianity is true?

 

Asking her to accept that the identity of a Creator of the universe MUST be the God of the Christian Bible is avoiding that question.

 

First, you need to explain how that leap is made.

 

That is the order in which she has asked her questions and as we both know, a foundation must be laid before anything can be built upon it.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[midniterider]

The foundation is: Accepting what others have told you + reinforcing those ideas via other Christians, the bible and your imagination.

 

You could visit Noah's Ark in KY also for a warm fuzzy.

[quinntar]

Yet, if god doesn't put the tree in the garden in the first place (or allow satan to enter the garden), we're not even in this mess at all. So once again we've come full circle right back to who is responsible for sin existing in the first place - GOD.

 

Hey michael, what would you think of a father who's kid stole a cookie from the cookie jar, then lied about stealing it, then was bound hand and foot by the father and punished by being thrown into a scalding hot oven alive?

 

You'd call that person a sadistic child murderer right?

 

So why does your imaginary god get off the hook?

 

I may not be perfect, but to be thrown in hell forever for simply being human is the most abominable anti-human, anti-love philosophy I have ever heard.

 

The best thing about being an atheist...all the evidence supports my view and proves the christian one wrong.

 

-peace

Peace Furball.

[quinntar]

 

I do believe that there is a god, in the very general sense of a higher-level energy behind the creation of the universe. I am very broad on what this "god" could be-- it could be that the universe itself is living, or that there is some kind of intelligent designer outside the scope of everything, etc. I have a very open mind, but I also don't think that any human religion is the correct answer or that humans could create a religious dogma that's a correct interpretation. However, I am open to the idea that this "god" could care about humanity and the earth and could be connected to through things like spirituality and nature and helping fellow man/animals. Basically, I am agnostic on my worst day and spiritual at my best.

 

So when people lay forward arguments for the existence of some type of Creator, I have no issue at this level. I've seen some very smart, logical arguments for this that make sense.

 

But how does one make the leap from believing in a Creator, to believing that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that Christianity is true?

 

The Bible was written by PEOPLE, thousands of years ago. It includes the condemnation of insignificant things like eating the wrong types of shellfish/meats, wearing the wrong fabrics, being gay, being "unclean" on your period, archaic tribal commandments that make sense for an ancient Iron Age culture but not to human morality as a whole, etc. But it also gives full allowance to things like slavery, rape, child marriage, and killing innocent children as part of war. These, to me, signify proof that it cannot be the "literal, inerrant, 100% divine word of God" like people say. And even if those evil things weren't in it, it's a far cry expecting people to believe that a book written thousands of years ago, by numerous authors, is ALL purely 100% God-inspired, yet no other writings have this credibility.

 

Aside from that, the foundation of Christianity itself doesn't make sense. Without looking at subtle differences between denominations, or spin-offs such as Mormons/JW/etc, the basic premise of Christianity goes like this:

"Humanity was corrupt and un-deserving of heaven from the get-go, and thus, they rightfully deserve to be tortured in neverending Hell for the rest of eternity. But because God loved us so much, he sent his Son/came to earth as a human so that he could live a perfect life and die for our sins, and his sacrifice paid the death that was required, so that now all humans have to do is believe truly that this happened and accept him as Lord, and they can go to heaven after death."

 

This brings several issues:

1 - Why did there need to be a sacrifice? If God didn't want his creation to go to hell, why not just destroy Hell, or make it a non-human place in the first place? Christians talk about how Hell was originally never meant for humans anyway and was meant for the Devil/demons instead, so why wouldn't God just have it as a place for them only?

 

2- Related to #1, the story makes it seem like there was some type of court/battle where a sacrifice was the only way to even the scales, so to speak, like the death of Aslan in Narnia. But why would an all-powerful Supreme God be required to be subject to something like this?

 

3- If we do accept that this happened, and that Jesus provided a path to salvation - why is belief in the seemingly impossible the litmus test/road to heaven? For example, the rule could have been that you're "saved" if you, for example, don't kill another person. This rule (no killing, except for self defense maybe), or something equally tangible, would at least make more sense in a practical way, if that makes sense. But for the requirement to be to simply BELIEVE that the resurrection happened/that Jesus is real, seems very arbitrary. For most, especially for people who were never raised in religion and who are smart/critical-thinking by nature, this seems like something on the same level of believing in unicorns or space aliens - there's no tangible proof against it, but also no way to prove it's true. And yet, a "Good" god judges people not on their overall life lived or how they treated others, but by whether or not they believed in something that's difficult to portray as realistically possible?

 

Please help me understand these issues.

 

Lyra

There is a lot in your post. No problem with bringing up these issues. Trying to understanding things is positive. This helps in developing a final view of things. I will answer this question first and then try to answer others later on.

 

1 - Why did there need to be a sacrifice?

 

God’s reaction to sin is conditional, not emotional.

God is holy and perfect.

 

To set the imperfect right, the imperfection (sin) must be punished. It must be put away from God’s sight. It is like if our hand touches a hot iron, we automatically remove our hand. It is a conditional or you could say an automatic response.

 

To atone (to make amends) for these errors God demands a sacrifice.

The blood sacrifices as seen throughout the Old Testament were foreshadowing of the true, once-for-all-time sacrifice that Jesus (the visible image of the invisible God) made on the cross.

 

“He is the one who took God’s wrath against our sins upon himself and brought us into fellowship with God; and he is the forgiveness for our sins,[a] and not only ours but all the world’s.”

~1 John 2:2 (Living Bible)

Jesus failed and in the end cried out "Father father, why have you forsaken me!" God was pissed with him.

[Lyra]

I appreciate everyone's answers and intelligent discussion on this thread.

 

Ironhorse, I really do thank you for attempting to explain with a Christian perspective. I do have respect for people of faith who are willing to engage in rational debate with others. However, I must truthfully say that I've seen that argument before on many a Christian website, but the counter-arguments make more sense, for the exact reason that BornAgainAtheist pointed out. 

[bornagainathiest]

I appreciate everyone's answers and intelligent discussion on this thread.

 

Ironhorse, I really do thank you for attempting to explain with a Christian perspective. I do have respect for people of faith who are willing to engage in rational debate with others. However, I must truthfully say that I've seen that argument before on many a Christian website, but the counter-arguments make more sense, for the exact reason that BornAgainAtheist pointed out. 

 

Hello Lyra.  

 

I agree.

You've correctly identified that the kind of argument made by Ironhorse here has appeared elsewhere, many times over.  In a nutshell, he reversed what you've asked for and began with faith, not with objective evidence.  He then attributed (by faith) what he sees in the universe as the work of his particular God.  But you asked the opposite question.  What objective evidence is there in the universe that points specifically and only to his God?  Ironhorse has not addressed this.

 

Furthermore, the same kind of reverse-engineering he used in his faith-based argument can also be used by a Muslim, a Sikh, a Mormon or just about any other religious person.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[ironhorse]

I appreciate everyone's answers and intelligent discussion on this thread.

 

Ironhorse, I really do thank you for attempting to explain with a Christian perspective. I do have respect for people of faith who are willing to engage in rational debate with others. However, I must truthfully say that I've seen that argument before on many a Christian website, but the counter-arguments make more sense, for the exact reason that BornAgainAtheist pointed out. 

 

Thanks for your reply. 

 

The following is my reply to this question you asked.

 

But how does one make the leap from believing in a Creator, to believing that the Bible is the literal Word of God and that Christianity is true?

 

For me it is the stories and elements in the scriptures that point to the main message; God coming to dwell among us as a human and setting things right.

To me the Christian message is simple. Of all the religions and belief systems I have read about, it is the easiest to grasp and the most fascinating to study and apply to my life.

I believe the Bible is inspired by God because that is its claim and because Jesus spoke of the scriptures. He quoted the Old Testament 78 times. He referred to the Old Testament as “The Scriptures,” “the word of God,” and “the wisdom of God.”

As a believer in Christ I accept his view of the scriptures.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

"I believe the bible is true because it says it's true". Sorry Ironhorse; this is not a valid form of reasoning.

[ironhorse]

"I believe the bible is true because it says it's true". Sorry Ironhorse; this is not a valid form of reasoning.

 

If I believe in Christ, then to me it is a reason.

[bornagainathiest]

"I believe the bible is true because it says it's true". Sorry Ironhorse; this is not a valid form of reasoning.

 

That's correct, Prof.

 

And this emphasizes the point I made yesterday in another thread.  Ironhorse seems reasonable, but his thinking isn't.  What he's given Lyra isn't a valid form of reasoning - it's an unreasonable leap of faith.  Lyra says that she's seen some very smart and logical arguments made for the existence of a creator.  But Ironhorse hasn't provided a logical argument.  He's given her an evidence-free, logic-free personal statement of faith.  And as Hebrews 11 : 1 says, "Faith is confidence in what we hope for and assurance about what we do not see."  If Ironhorse agrees with this, then he CANNOT cite any evidence or give a logical argument for why he believes the identity of the creator is Jesus.  He simply receives this by faith, without evidence and without logic. Belief in things for which there is no evidence and for which no logical argument can be made is not valid reasoning.  

.

.

.

As you can see from his latest message.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Ironhorse,

 

Don't you believe in christ because of what the bible says about him?

 

And didn't you say you believed in the bible because of what christ said (in the bible) about the bible?

 

It's not a valid reason; it's a circle.

 

TRP

[bornagainathiest]

 

"I believe the bible is true because it says it's true". Sorry Ironhorse; this is not a valid form of reasoning.

 

If I believe in Christ, then to me it is a reason.

 

 

Belief in what you cannot see, in what you can give no evidence for and for which you can make no logical argument for is... reasonable?

 

Really, Ironhorse?

[bornagainathiest]

 

"I believe the bible is true because it says it's true". Sorry Ironhorse; this is not a valid form of reasoning.

 

If I believe in Christ, then to me it is a reason.

 

 

A Muslim or a Sikh or a Mormon can believe in their particular deity, making it a reason for them.

 

Why should we not believe them, Ironhorse?