One Man's God...

[Naiya]

For whichever Christians still around in here.

 

Something lately has been making me think, and that's the question of why do you believe the Christian God and not another god or goddess? It's weird, because in other cultures and times, people believed that the gods and goddesses were real, but now all of a sudden we regard those things as silly myths and stories.

 

I'm assuming that a lot of answers might be something like "Well, I have a personal relationship with God" or "I have known God but never any other gods or goddesses so God must be the true God."

 

But what would you do if it didn't happen that way? What if you had no real communication or connection with God, and then all of a sudden some Greek goddess came into your life, say Athena? How would you feel if Athena suddenly communicated to you directly (not through prayer or "telepathy," normal communication you'd have with another person), giving advice giving warnings predictions, and healing you whenever you were sick or injured, and completely willing to prove her existence, like for example speaking in Greek and spelling it for you so you could translate it? And at the same time God showed no signs of existing? Then what?

 

The interesting thing about this is, it doesn't happen very often that a person changes from one god to another like that, but other people across the world have experiences with other gods and goddesses and spirits who are helpful to them.

[Astreja]

Ironically, Naiya, My first encounter with believing in a god was Athena. When I was twelve years old, I saw Athena as real, and a much more practical and sane god than the ones in the Bible.

[hereticzero]

I have often felt that god has told me to reject religion and the human concepts of what we believe she is. I still seek spiritual enlightenment since leaving xtianity. I can believe in a goddess of the world more than I can the christian concept of god. Some personal events in my life have led me towards that conclusion but I reject even the modern pagan view of the goddess. I feel drawn to druidism but not as a religion but as out of respect for nature and naturalism. I know this sounds kind of weird of my rants against organized beliefs--this is why I have always claimed a spiritual journey is private and not one that can be dictated by organized religion and further proof why I disbelieve the xtian version of god. I believe in animal oracles. A case in point was when i was going to visit my boss' home one morning and I saw three ravens perched over the door way of his home and I immediately thought of the three fates of mythology. The three ravens are supposed to be harbingers of death when seen in such a manner. I told my boss what I saw and that I believed death was coming to his family that morning. He laughed it off and we drove off to our job site. When we had gone perhaps ten minutes, his wife called and said his father suddenly dropped dead. My boss told me to never tell him 'that shit again.' Since then I try to keep such oracles to myself. Other events involve sparrows. At almost every major event in my life has been preceded by a visit by a sparrow (messengers of the spirit world). I've come to call them my spirit kin. This may sound weird to some of you but those who are of Celtic ancestry or Native Indian may understand. I had a real profound vision when my dad suffered a near fatal heart attack and stroke last year. I do believe there is more of a connection to our world than what we see with our eyes and hear with our ears. Sometimes I've had precognition of disasters that have come true, when people were about to die or if someone were pregnant. I've started keeping a private journal of my experiences. I do not believe in shamanism, which is a new age concept.

[Naiya]

Ironically, Naiya, My first encounter with believing in a god was Athena. When I was twelve years old, I saw Athena as real, and a much more practical and sane god than the ones in the Bible.

 

Really?

 

I had a dream about her too a long time ago, and she was much more reasonable than the Christian God and even gave useful advice for my current life issues. I'm still iffy about whether she was some kind of higher self or archetype or really a spirit but either way she's way ahead of God as far as ever bothering to offer substantial help or communication. That was what gave me the idea.

 

Maybe we should start a new (old) religion. "Would you like to have a personal relationship with the wise and practical Athena?"

[Naiya]

HecticZero:

 

I happen to be from an Irish family...I'm a little familiar with the things you described. In my family, we often get doves visiting when someone dies. In legend, every clan or family has their own spirit assigned to take away the souls who have recently died.

 

It is sad that pretty much everything from their pagan beliefs had been expunged by the church. The new age community, IMHO is a little too fluffy for my taste and refuses to ignore the destruction and death in nature. If you talk about those things you're automatically labeled dark, evil or bad and drama ensues. They can be just as bad as the Christians because they don't accept doubt or different views or anything. Everything that happens and everything in the universe is light and love and good. Chaos doesn't exist. Bad shit never happens just for no reason at all. Bleh.

 

IMO, the whole shaman fad is kind of frustrating too, because 1. You need to have a village or community to serve; 2. Generally, shamans are chosen by the spirits themselves, their parents or the previous shaman and did not usually choose the vocation; 3. Shamanism is a good word to describe the practice but it is an anthropological term--the only shamans are in Siberia because that is where the term originated. People just use it to describe similar medicine men/pagan priests. No real Native American shaman is likely to actually call himself a shaman unless he or she is using the word to cause less confusion among outsiders. So you're right--generally it's a pretty made up new age concept yeah.

[OpheliaGinger]

If I were to ever start worshiping a god/goddess, it would be something like Athena; she is wise and tough--you don't want to mess with the army she is backing. Athena is my role model, next to Boudicca and Elizabeth I (excluding Elizabeth's attempt to create a church that all could satisfied with).

 

This is just a thought I haven't read elsewhere, could it be that the pantheon of gods from all the various cultures could be all the same gods and goddesses?

 

But in order for me to worship a god/goddess, they would have to reveal themselves to me and at least two other friends (while we are together) so that I can be assured that we all saw the same thing and weren't hallucinating. Right now, I could use a little help from Venus, not for love but for my acne rosacea and weight.

[LNC]

For whichever Christians still around in here.

 

Something lately has been making me think, and that's the question of why do you believe the Christian God and not another god or goddess? It's weird, because in other cultures and times, people believed that the gods and goddesses were real, but now all of a sudden we regard those things as silly myths and stories.

 

I'm assuming that a lot of answers might be something like "Well, I have a personal relationship with God" or "I have known God but never any other gods or goddesses so God must be the true God."

 

But what would you do if it didn't happen that way? What if you had no real communication or connection with God, and then all of a sudden some Greek goddess came into your life, say Athena? How would you feel if Athena suddenly communicated to you directly (not through prayer or "telepathy," normal communication you'd have with another person), giving advice giving warnings predictions, and healing you whenever you were sick or injured, and completely willing to prove her existence, like for example speaking in Greek and spelling it for you so you could translate it? And at the same time God showed no signs of existing? Then what?

 

The interesting thing about this is, it doesn't happen very often that a person changes from one god to another like that, but other people across the world have experiences with other gods and goddesses and spirits who are helpful to them.

 

Hey, it has been a while since I have posted, I was sidetracked by a busy schedule, but let me jump in and reply to your question. First, I would say that all claims made by the various religions cannot be true as they are contradictory with each other. IOW, Islam claims that Jesus was not God and Jesus claimed he was; therefore, one must be wrong. If Jesus was right, as I believe he was, then by default, Islam is wrong. The same can be said of other religions that make contradictory claims, both may be wrong, but it is not possible that both could be right according to the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle.

 

I believe in the Christian God for a few reasons. First, the evidence for the Christian God (whom I believe to be the only God) seemed to me to be most convincing. That evidence is tied to Jesus; his life and claims of deity, his death, and his resurrection from the dead. Those three events and his claims that he was God and would die and rise again, along with the fact that he actually did die and rise again three days later was convincing to me.

 

Now, as for your scenario, those are always difficult to address as we could make up just about any circumstance in a hypothetical scenario and it wouldn't really have much bearing on reality since it is a hypothetical and not real. I will simply leave it at the fact that the claims of Christianity are more convincing and make the most sense of the world of any of the world religions that I have studied (and I have studied many of them).

 

LNC

[Skeptic]

First, I would say that all claims made by the various religions cannot be true as they are contradictory with each other. IOW, Islam claims that Jesus was not God and Jesus claimed he was; therefore, one must be wrong. If Jesus was right, as I believe he was, then by default, Islam is wrong. The same can be said of other religions that make contradictory claims, both may be wrong, but it is not possible that both could be right according to the laws of non-contradiction and excluded middle.

 

Well, how do you know that your religion is right and not Islam? You just said that you believe that these things are true, but do you have any evidence to back that up?

 

I believe in the Christian God for a few reasons. First, the evidence for the Christian God (whom I believe to be the only God) seemed to me to be most convincing. That evidence is tied to Jesus; his life and claims of deity, his death, and his resurrection from the dead. Those three events and his claims that he was God and would die and rise again, along with the fact that he actually did die and rise again three days later was convincing to me.

 

Again, where's the proof of this? Were you there? Have you seen the empty tomb with your own eyes? How do you know that he died and rose again, or that he even existed? Do you know something that I don't?

 

Now, as for your scenario, those are always difficult to address as we could make up just about any circumstance in a hypothetical scenario and it wouldn't really have much bearing on reality since it is a hypothetical and not real. I will simply leave it at the fact that the claims of Christianity are more convincing and make the most sense of the world of any of the world religions that I have studied (and I have studied many of them).

 

I'm glad that it makes sense to you. It never made sense to me. Actually, the concept of having different gods for different things, much like the Greek pantheon or the Roman gods, makes a lot more sense to me than having one deity that is made up of three persons run everything. Don't get me wrong, I'm still an atheist, but if I had to pick a religion or a set of deities to worship, it would be the Greek gods, not your god.

[Astreja]

Ironically, Naiya, My first encounter with believing in a god was Athena...

Really?

Oh, já. Fantastic role model for a science-geek tomboy coming through puberty.

 

I'm still iffy about whether she was some kind of higher self or archetype or really a spirit...

Currently I'm working on the assumption that it actually doesn't matter -- That it's our own brains that empower "the gods".

[Naiya]

LNC:

 

Thanks for your reply. Let my try to explain the point of the question.

 

Atheists ask theists all the time if they would stop believing in the face of concrete proof that God does not exist. Normally the response would be something like saying that God cannot reveal Himself and in doing so would be required to make nature point to His nonexistence or something like that, and so in the face of evidence one would still believe.

 

This is just a little twist on that--this is asking you if there were spiritual, emotional and scientific proof that someone else's God or Goddess were the true deity and religion. And on top of that, if such a deity came to you personally and helped you in your life. The question is, would you hang on to your own faith or would you be willing to change your beliefs if it were proven that some other religion was right all along?

 

Basically, this isn't me trying to do some sort of "gotcha" thing to Christians, it's just a musing and something I wanted people to think about. It's along the lines of "what would make you stop believing? What would that take?"

 

You might think those questions should always be "I'll never stop believing." But if you ever want to convince anyone that your religion might be more "right" than another person's, you should understand that YOU are already asking these questions of other people about their beliefs. If you are never able to think of any scenario which would make you change your beliefs, then if you do happen to be wrong, you are giving yourself zero chance of finding the truth just because you don't want to change your mind.

 

 

To be fair, Jesus' birth, life,and rebirth are not unique to his story. Many ancient gods and goddesses were born of virgins and/or union between god and human. Many others performed miracles. A few even came back from the dead. And yet there is almost no record of Jesus the person actually existing at all, just like any of the other mythical beings. Gilgamesh took a trip down to hell and back to save his best buddy, but it's only a story known from one piece of writing. He was 'two-thirds god, one-third man;' that's more god than Jesus (makes no logical sense but gods don't need to worry about silly things like biology). So basically in both cases you have mythical figures, not historical figures.

[Badger]

To be fair, Jesus' birth, life,and rebirth are not unique to his story. Many ancient gods and goddesses were born of virgins and/or union between god and human. Many others performed miracles. A few even came back from the dead. And yet there is almost no record of Jesus the person actually existing at all, just like any of the other mythical beings. Gilgamesh took a trip down to hell and back to save his best buddy, but it's only a story known from one piece of writing. He was 'two-thirds god, one-third man;' that's more god than Jesus (makes no logical sense but gods don't need to worry about silly things like biology). So basically in both cases you have mythical figures, not historical figures.

Let me say first that I openly admit I have some problems with (Christian) theism. I also grant there probably is no answer that you or other atheist/agnostic would consider as acceptable and reasonable, but since you seems to be sincere I will give a short response. The reason why I prefer Christianity to other religions, at the moment, is Jesus' resurrection. It must be said in the same breath however that my argument is not that because the Bible claims it happened and the Bible is the inerrant world of God so it is true. My way is rather different and I'm trying to be open for other conclusion as well. I must say I don't agree with some of your points you made; at least I would think they are questionable.

[Mriana]

Badger, in what way do you believe the resurrection happened? Allegorically/metaphorically, in that "Christ rose into the meaning of God", which is something like Spong states or in the Gnostic meaning of it or some other meaning? Or do you believe it really did happen literally? I can see how one could believe it in the metaphorical or allegorical sense, but literally in some fashion, I cannot comprehend.

[LNC]

Well, how do you know that your religion is right and not Islam? You just said that you believe that these things are true, but do you have any evidence to back that up?

 

First, I go by the historical evidence for Christian claims such as that Jesus lived, claimed to be God, died and was seen alive after his crucifixion as supporting his claims that he would do so. Then I look at the history and claims of Islam. First, the Qur'an claims that Jesus was not crucified, but that another took his place on the cross. That claim is without historical merit or justification and came six centuries after the actual event and the records of that event. Both the claim that Jesus was crucified and one that claims that he was not cannot both be true. The earlier claim has better attestation, therefore, the later claim is less reliable. Islam also has other historical problems within its writings that prove them to be less reliable as well. However, from a purely literary critical viewpoint, the Qur'an proves to be less reliable than the Bible for a number of reasons (history, one witness vs. many corroborating witnesses, etc.)

 

Again, where's the proof of this? Were you there? Have you seen the empty tomb with your own eyes? How do you know that he died and rose again, or that he even existed? Do you know something that I don't?

 

The proof is in the eyewitness accounts. We do not need to witness history directly to know that it happened. If that were true, then we would have to toss out all history which we did not directly witness. We would probably have to toss out all history as it is impossible to prove our memories actually happened either. If I know something that you don't it is not because the same info is not accessible to you. It is in the New Testament accounts.

 

 

I'm glad that it makes sense to you. It never made sense to me. Actually, the concept of having different gods for different things, much like the Greek pantheon or the Roman gods, makes a lot more sense to me than having one deity that is made up of three persons run everything. Don't get me wrong, I'm still an atheist, but if I had to pick a religion or a set of deities to worship, it would be the Greek gods, not your god.

 

The idea of a pantheon of gods seems to be less parsimonious than to assert one God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenvolent. I am not sure why having a pantheon would make more sense to you, maybe you can explain that to me.

[LNC]

LNC:

 

Thanks for your reply. Let my try to explain the point of the question.

 

No problem, I have enjoyed interacting with people on this site.

 

Atheists ask theists all the time if they would stop believing in the face of concrete proof that God does not exist. Normally the response would be something like saying that God cannot reveal Himself and in doing so would be required to make nature point to His nonexistence or something like that, and so in the face of evidence one would still believe.

 

This is just a little twist on that--this is asking you if there were spiritual, emotional and scientific proof that someone else's God or Goddess were the true deity and religion. And on top of that, if such a deity came to you personally and helped you in your life. The question is, would you hang on to your own faith or would you be willing to change your beliefs if it were proven that some other religion was right all along?

 

Basically, this isn't me trying to do some sort of "gotcha" thing to Christians, it's just a musing and something I wanted people to think about. It's along the lines of "what would make you stop believing? What would that take?"

 

You might think those questions should always be "I'll never stop believing." But if you ever want to convince anyone that your religion might be more "right" than another person's, you should understand that YOU are already asking these questions of other people about their beliefs. If you are never able to think of any scenario which would make you change your beliefs, then if you do happen to be wrong, you are giving yourself zero chance of finding the truth just because you don't want to change your mind.

 

Actually, I take a cumulative case approach to why I believe in the God of the Bible and in Jesus in particular. When I look at the cumulative case and evidence from the origin of the universe, the fine tuning of the universe, the existence of objective morality, the existence of the non-material world, including the mind, and the evidence for the life, death and resurrection of Jesus of Nazareth, I find it compelling. In addition to that I have also had personal experience of Jesus in my life. So, for another god to supplant Jesus and the God of the Bible as the true God would require evidence that would impeach the evidence that I already have as well as evidence that would prove that another claimant to deity is truly God. It would not only be based upon an encounter with some other spiritual being as that can be counterfeited (and has through history). I would also have to test the other claims as well. If evidence were shown to refute the resurrection (as the Apostle Paul says) then we (Christian believers) are most to be pitied and should abandon faith in Jesus. Also, if evidence that some other claimant to deity could be shown to be stronger than the God of the Bible, then that is whom we should be worshiping. However, it would have to be a cumulative case, not just one piece of evidence (i.e., personal encounter).

 

 

To be fair, Jesus' birth, life,and rebirth are not unique to his story. Many ancient gods and goddesses were born of virgins and/or union between god and human. Many others performed miracles. A few even came back from the dead. And yet there is almost no record of Jesus the person actually existing at all, just like any of the other mythical beings. Gilgamesh took a trip down to hell and back to save his best buddy, but it's only a story known from one piece of writing. He was 'two-thirds god, one-third man;' that's more god than Jesus (makes no logical sense but gods don't need to worry about silly things like biology). So basically in both cases you have mythical figures, not historical figures.

 

I believe that you have overstated your case here. First, you are dealing with mythological stories versus the historical account of the Bible. Second, to say that these mythological characters were born of virgins is not the case either, unless you consider someone born of a rock to be a virgin birth. These characters were usually the product of a human mother and mythological god who took human form. Many have claimed to have done miracles; however, the miracles recorded that Jesus performed are of a different kind that were understood by the witnesses to have been beyond anything ever seen. Again, you have to differentiate myth from historical accounts. Now, when you say that there is almost no history of Jesus, you are quite mistaken here. We have at least nine different witnesses who wrote 27 different accounts of his life. Quite the contrary, his life is better attested than most other figures from antiquity. Also, contrary to your claim, Jesus was 100% God and 100% man, not 50% of one and 50% of the other; his nature is indivisible. Your confusion is that you are conflating categories. We, like Jesus are not just the sum of our biology. Minds cannot be reduced (logically) to biology. Thoughts cannot be reduced (logically) to biology.

 

I would suggest that you read up a little more about the history of Jesus as the idea that Jesus was a mythical or legendary figure is not a credible hypothesis these days.

 

LNC

 

I'm not sure what connection you are making with Gilgamesh as I don't believe that Jesus went to hell. There are some who believe that, but not me.

[LNC]

Hi, LNC.

 

It's nice to see you again.

 

Good to talk to you again, Phanta.

 

Would you mind naming the witnesses, and referencing the accounts?

 

Sure, we have direct witnesses of Peter (as recorded by Mark), Matthew, Paul (of the resurrected Jesus), John, James and Jude (Jesus' brothers who saw the resurrected Jesus). Luke also records, as a historian, the accounts of other witnesses. The accounts would include the four Gospels, Paul's writings, Revelation, James, Jude and Acts. I treat these as historical accounts, which means that, in this regard, I open them to historical criticism rather than treating them, in this case, as inerrant or infallible.

 

Do you see any mythmaking at work at all in the Bible?

 

Phanta

 

Maybe you could define what you mean by myth-making as I want to be accurate with my response.

[Skankboy]

LNC - I can seem where you are coming from but I think your use of the law of non-contradiction is flawed. You are looking at these religions and interpreting their content and then saying your intrepreted content provides a solid one or the other answer. This is not really the case. There are various interpretations amongst the various religions and in those interpretations there is certainly room for more than "this or the other is true and nothing else is possible".

 

I personally could interpret the bible in such a way that it wouldn't be a stretch to make it line up with the info in islam.

 

IMOHO,

[par4dcourse]

Notice how many times LNC uses the word "believe" vs. how many times the word "is" or "fact" or any variation thereof.

Xians have to "believe" because they can't prove shit (or shineola.)

[Badger]

Badger, in what way do you believe the resurrection happened? Allegorically/metaphorically, in that "Christ rose into the meaning of God", which is something like Spong states or in the Gnostic meaning of it or some other meaning? Or do you believe it really did happen literally? I can see how one could believe it in the metaphorical or allegorical sense, but literally in some fashion, I cannot comprehend.

There has been discussion about this already on this board, so I will only explain what I mean. I'm not going to argue about this. I believe that the bodily resurrection of Jesus is more plausible and less ad hoc explanation for the historical facts we have than any other naturalistic hypothesis. These facts are (1) death by crucifixion and burial; (6) the empty tomb; (2) early belief in resurrection; (3) appearances experienced by disciples; (4) Paul’s appearance and change of heart: (5) James' (Jesus' brother) change of heart; (6) the origin of the disciples' belief in his resurrection; (7) several changes in Jewish doctrine and practise. The majority of scholars, non-Christian and Christian alike, agree on these minimal facts, or at least on most of them, and thus I assume there most likely is substance in them.

[Skeptic]

First, I go by the historical evidence for Christian claims such as that Jesus lived, claimed to be God, died and was seen alive after his crucifixion as supporting his claims that he would do so.

 

What historical evidence? There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever even existed, let alone was the son of god, was crucified, and rose from the dead.

 

The proof is in the eyewitness accounts. We do not need to witness history directly to know that it happened. If that were true, then we would have to toss out all history which we did not directly witness. We would probably have to toss out all history as it is impossible to prove our memories actually happened either. If I know something that you don't it is not because the same info is not accessible to you. It is in the New Testament accounts.

 

The people who wrote the New Testament accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection were not eyewitnesses. They were like three decades short of eyewitnesses.

 

The idea of a pantheon of gods seems to be less parsimonious than to assert one God who is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenvolent. I am not sure why having a pantheon would make more sense to you, maybe you can explain that to me.

 

It makes more sense to me for quite a few reasons. First of all, just from living in the world and observing how things are going, especially right now, it is plain to see that your god is not omnibenevolent. For example, why would an omnibenevolent god create hell? Why doesn't your supposedly omnibenevolent god answer the prayers of children who are being abused? It's things like that that really make me skeptical. Second of all, one omnipotent being (that is also three beings, don't leave that part out) ruling everything makes a lot less sense to me than many non-omnipotent beings, which are actually more human-like and flawed compared to the xian god, cooperatively ruling everything. With one being, that being is a lot more likely to fuck things up, both because there's no one to challenge him and because your god is seriously mentally unstable. If one of the Greek gods (or the Roman gods, by extension,) fucks something up, he/she is accountable to all the other gods. I also have a lot more respect for the Greek gods because of their flaws and because they don't pretend to be perfect and awesome, like the xian god does, when he is neither perfect nor awesome. Also, the Greek gods never screwed me over like your god has.

[Badger]

Here is interesting writing

 

So Just What Do Classical Historians Make of the New Testament Documents?

http://christiancadre.blogspot.com/2007/01...historians.html

[Ouroboros]

One man's belief, is another man's delusion.

[LNC]

LNC - I can seem where you are coming from but I think your use of the law of non-contradiction is flawed. You are looking at these religions and interpreting their content and then saying your intrepreted content provides a solid one or the other answer. This is not really the case. There are various interpretations amongst the various religions and in those interpretations there is certainly room for more than "this or the other is true and nothing else is possible".

 

I personally could interpret the bible in such a way that it wouldn't be a stretch to make it line up with the info in islam.

 

IMOHO,

 

I don't think you are correct here. I have friends with whom I meet regularly who are Muslim, Baha'i, Catholic, and a variety of other worldviews. When we meet we have real differences in our worldviews that are contradictory. My Muslim friend claims that Jesus didn't die on the cross or rise again, Christianity claims that Jesus did both. My Baha'i friends claim that Bahaula is a prophet whose prophesy supersedes that of Jesus and Muhammad, both my Muslim friend and I would say that claim contradicts the teaching Islam (her) and Christianity (me). These aren't mere interpretations of our beliefs, these are clearly taught in our documents (Qur'an and Bible).

 

Just because there are various interpretations doesn't mean that there is not a correct interpretation. You may be able to interpret the Bible or Qur'an to say what you want, yet it would not necessarily be what the authors intended to convey. In just the same way, I could interpret your note here to say that you agree with me completely and want to give your life to Jesus, but is that what you intended to convey? Would it be fair for me to interpret your message that way? I think you would answer no to both questions and rightly so. In the same way, we must seek to understand the writings of each worldview the way that the author intended it whenever possible, and I think it is possible for the core doctrines of Christianity, Islam, and most other worldviews.

 

Thanks for the thoughts.

 

LNC

[LNC]

I took witnesses to mean eye-witnesses. Would you mind clarifying how you mean the term?

 

Sure, I mean the same. The authors were either direct eyewitnesses or had access to the same.

 

Embellishment of Jesus for effect or the creation story as allegory. This flavor of thing.

 

I understand that you believe the death and resurrection of Jesus is a literal, historical happening. What about the patriarchs living lives hundreds of years long? The pillar of salt? The chatty snake?

 

Phanta

 

I don't see the genre of the Bible fitting within that category. Jesus was a historical person and the Gospel accounts are written in the style of historical accounts, rather than mythology or legend. Since the accounts were written both within the lifetimes of the eyewitnesses and adversaries, it would have been unlikely to get away with embellished accounts.

 

As for the length of days of the OT figures, I guess that we could say that genetically it is possible that they could have lived longer as they wouldn't have had the genetic weaknesses that we have developed over time. As for the pillar of salt, I could see Lot's wife getting hit with some hot erupted material from a volcano and her burning up to the appearance of a pillar of salt. As for chatty snakes, again, people have seen appearances of demonic activity in the forms of all kinds of creatures, so I am sure that this could also account for the chatty snake (makes him almost seem nice, even though he had disastrous effects.) Overall, I would say that I don't have a problem with the OT stories either, especially given other background information such as the origin of the universe requiring an immaterial, timeless explanation. If the one who originated the universe did that, why couldn't that same being make a person turn to salt or make an animal speak (for which there are other examples in the OT, see Balaam's donkey (Num. 22)).

[LNC]

What historical evidence? There is no historical evidence that Jesus ever even existed, let alone was the son of god, was crucified, and rose from the dead.

 

You may not accept them as such, but the Gospels and NT writings are considered historical accounts by historians. The fact that one does not accept them as such does not negate the fact that that is what they are. There is also other historical writing that references Jesus and early Christians, such as Josephus, Pliny the Younger, Tacitus and others.

 

The people who wrote the New Testament accounts of Jesus' death and resurrection were not eyewitnesses. They were like three decades short of eyewitnesses.

 

Really, can you provide evidence for that claim? I am not sure what you mean that they were "like three decades short of eyewitnesses." The Gospels were written between 25 and 60 or so years after Jesus lived. That would be within the lifetime of the eyewitnesses.

 

It makes more sense to me for quite a few reasons. First of all, just from living in the world and observing how things are going, especially right now, it is plain to see that your god is not omnibenevolent. For example, why would an omnibenevolent god create hell? Why doesn't your supposedly omnibenevolent god answer the prayers of children who are being abused? It's things like that that really make me skeptical.

 

I don't know what you mean when you say, "rom living in the world and observing how things are going, especially right now, it is plain to see that your god is not omnibenevolent." Maybe you misunderstand what it means that God is omnibenevolent. God has created people to be free agents, meaning that we can make real choices, for good or for ill. The fact that people choose for ill is not the fault of God, but the fault of people who make such choices. So, maybe your problem is really with people rather than with God. Second, God is also moral and just, meaning that he will not leave sin unpunished. I don't think any of us would want to live in a world that didn't have justice, it would break apart rather quickly. Let me ask you, if hell really existed [hypothetically] would you think that anyone [say a mass child murderer or abuser] would deserve to be there? How do you know that God doesn't answer prayers of children who are being abused? The problem is that if you believe that this life is all there is, then you may think that God is unjust [in fact, you would be right to say that there is no ultimate justice as many die without ever being punished for heinous crimes committed against others, including children]; however, if one, as I do, believes that this life is not all there is and that sin will be dealt with after this life such that real justice will be meeted out perfectly, then both the child abuser and the abused will get perfect justice and mercy as is due. However, with all that said, I don't know how this argues for a pantheon of gods as you claim.

 

Second of all, one omnipotent being (that is also three beings, don't leave that part out) ruling everything makes a lot less sense to me than many non-omnipotent beings, which are actually more human-like and flawed compared to the xian god, cooperatively ruling everything. With one being, that being is a lot more likely to fuck things up, both because there's no one to challenge him and because your god is seriously mentally unstable. If one of the Greek gods (or the Roman gods, by extension,) fucks something up, he/she is accountable to all the other gods. I also have a lot more respect for the Greek gods because of their flaws and because they don't pretend to be perfect and awesome, like the xian god does, when he is neither perfect nor awesome. Also, the Greek gods never screwed me over like your god has.

 

First, you confuse terms and concepts here, which is not unusual for people to do. To be more accurate, God is one in essence (being) and three in persons (minds, or centers of consciousness). But, you have not said why that makes less sense to you that this type of being would rule rather than a pantheon, you just stated as much. And, why would you want flawed human-like gods rather than a perfect being ruling over you? If you are worried about things being messed up, wouldn't it be more likely that the pantheon of flawed gods would mess it up than a perfect being? Who says that one god of the pantheon is accountable to any of the others? Where have you read that? Is one over all of them, or are they all equally accountable to the others? If one disagrees with the others, or say, 51% of them decide something, are the others obligated to go along? Do they work by parlimentary rule or democratic rule? If the God of the Bible is not perfect as you claim and claiming perfection would be an added flaw of his, shouldn't you, by your standards of having more respect for a flawed god, have more respect for the God of the Bible than for the pantheon who doesn't have this flaw?

 

A Greek god hasn't screwed anyone over since they are mythological creations. They may have let people down who, for some unknown reason, counted on them, but they don't exist by definition of mythology, so they cannot screw anyone over as such. I am curious, however, in what way do you feel screwed over by the God of the Bible?

[LNC]

One man's belief, is another man's delusion.

 

Do you really believe that?