Why are you Christian?

pinksoir

I was reading some of excelsior's posts over at A&A, and he made a very interesting point that many atheists make

"apparently arrogant blanket assertions which arise from your confidence in a philosophical movement, the Enlightenment"

This made me recall my days in university studying philosophy and in particular the period of studying enlightenment thinkers, and how they did away with metaphysics in favour of that which can be known, that which is indeed measurable. Of course, the enlightenment thinkers held reason as paramount. It replaced rigid theological ethics with a more liberal deism and pantheism and in many ways did the groundwork for the emergence of atheism.

I am just wondering really, why the people in this forum believe in God, or are indeed convinced that god exists. I understand excelsior's point (at least I think that I do) that while the Enlightenment thinkers, in casting off the study of metaphysics, paved the way for the materialist empiricist worldview that is now popular in the West, metaphysics and the supernatural should not be seen as redundent.

So my first question still stands, why are you convinced that God exists? But I would also like to know why you think that Christianity is correct and other religions are wrong. Naturally all the religions can't be true. They could all be wrong of course, but indeed one alone could be correct. So what convinces you of Christianity's truth?

I look forward to your responses.

Cheers,
Karl.

philologos

Your post assume that Christianity isn't based on reason. I for one believe it is perfectly reasonable to think that this world was created by a divine being.

pinksoir

I assumed nothing of the sort. I was merely asking what convinces you of God's existence. I understand that you think it entirely reasonable to believe that the world was created by a divine being, but I was asking through what reasoning someone arrives at that conclusion. Does something supplimentary to reason, that people who subscribe to enlightenment thinking neglect, play a part in the belief.

Indeed, enlightenment thinking does not assume that God does not exist but rather accepts that the questions of His existence cannot be answered positively or negatively, so concentrates the pursuit of knowledge towards that which can be known; empiricism.

It seems that you misunderstood my intent. I did not intend to imply that Christianity is unreasonable, in fact I believe that Christians, not to mention the followers of every religion, do rationalise their beliefs. But at the root of every argument there must be an assumed premise from which to base the logical argument upon. For Christians this premise must be that 'God exists'. But what I want to know is, what is it that convinces you of the truth of that statement? What is it that convinces you of Gods existence?

And then as a follow on question, what is it that convinces you that Christianity is true whereas all the other religions are false?

pinksoir

I haven't been around recently as I have moved house and have had no internet, but I was really looking forward to some replies to my post. I didn't mean it as a 'hit and run', as it were...

Any thoughts? 119 views and no replies...

BrianCalgary

Pretty well would need a book to write the answer to that question.

1) Observance of the natural world around me. There is no way that it all happened by random chance.

2) personal experience. I have spoken to and been spoken to by God.

3) Since there is a God, then which one: The one that reached to me out of love and offerd me the chance to know Him and to have a relationship with Him.

Probably not many responses because it is hard to do the topic justice in such a short space.

MooseJam

BrianCalgary wrote:

2) personal experience. I have spoken to and been spoken to by God.

How do you know it was God and not perhaps some malevolent spirit or daemon, I would imagine conversing with unknown entities to be inherently risky and should not be undertaken.

PDN

MooseJam wrote:

I would imagine conversing with unknown entities to be inherently risky and should not be undertaken.

That must make it quite awkward when using the telephone.

MooseJam

PDN wrote:

That must make it quite awkward when using the telephone.

The telephone is of this world and 80 years of use has found it to be free from Daemons and quite safe, mystically talking to someone is not of this world and is where the Daemons lurk

pinksoir

BrianCalgary wrote:

Pretty well would need a book to write the answer to that question.

1) Observance of the natural world around me. There is no way that it all happened by random chance.

2) personal experience. I have spoken to and been spoken to by God.

3) Since there is a God, then which one: The one that reached to me out of love and offerd me the chance to know Him and to have a relationship with Him.

Probably not many responses because it is hard to do the topic justice in such a short space.

Well I studied philosophy of religion in University and a lot of the course consisted of the (very) numerous arguments for the existence of God, so you are quite right in saying that perhaps there is too much to the topic to do it justice in such a short space. But then again perhaps not.

Firstly, the natural world did not come about by random chance. I'm pretty sure that the theory of evolution by natural selection has been explained to you over and over again and that it is anything BUT random.

I'm quite interested by your second reason though... Did He speak to you aloud? Did you have a conversation with Him? What about all the other people of different faiths that have also spoken to and been spoken to by their own God? Surely your experience isn't an isolated case.

PDN

MooseJam wrote:

The telephone is of this world and 80 years of use has found it to be free from Daemons and quite safe, mystically talking to someone is not of this world and is where the Daemons lurk

But the person on the other end of the phone is an unknown entity.

BrianCalgary

pinksoir wrote:

Well I studied philosophy of religion in University and a lot of the course consisted of the (very) numerous arguments for the existence of God, so you are quite right in saying that perhaps there is too much to the topic to do it justice in such a short space. But then again perhaps not.

Firstly, the natural world did not come about by random chance. I'm pretty sure that the theory of evolution by natural selection has been explained to you over and over again and that it is anything BUT random. .

If there is no intelligence behind it; it is random.

pinksoir wrote:

I'm quite interested by your second reason though... Did He speak to you aloud? Did you have a conversation with Him? What about all the other people of different faiths that have also spoken to and been spoken to by their own God? Surely your experience isn't an isolated case.

It is necessary to discern what the little voice tells you. God speaks to me in a little voice, my wife on the other hand has had audible conversations with God.

If I was to make the claim that God wanted me to leave my wife and marry tehe 20 year old blonde and move into overseas ministry, my discernment flag would fly high, as God would not ask me to destroy a marriage, it would be inconsistent with His teaching.

If the little voice asked me to be a suicide bomber in order to kill the heathens in order to gain Heaven; not of God as God has spoken against killing and has offered Jesus up as the way to Heaven.

The Bible tells us to discern what is being told us by prophets and spirits by testing the message against the word of God. If the message is consistent with teh word then the source is God, if it isn't cosistent then the source is Satan.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

But the person on the other end of the phone is an unknown entity.

In the very broadest sense, that's true. However, we have our own experiences of being at one end of the telephone, of confirming what has been said telephonically with people after the fact, and with watching others who we know talking on the telephone. All of these would tend to suggest that when you think you're talking to X on the phone, you really are.

On the other hand, I would say that only one of those is strictly true of 'talking with God'. Certainly, the number of us who have experience of answering prayers would be limited.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MooseJam

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is necessary to discern what the little voice tells you. God speaks to me in a little voice, my wife on the other hand has had audible conversations with God.

Just curious but what accent did God have when speaking with your wife ?

Scofflaw

MooseJam wrote:

Just curious but what accent did God have when speaking with your wife ?

Oh, thanks. Now I have tea up my nose.

spluttering,
Scofflaw

Dr Pepper

BrianCalgary wrote:

It is necessary to discern what the little voice tells you. God speaks to me in a little voice, my wife on the other hand has had audible conversations with God.

If I was to make the claim that God wanted me to leave my wife and marry tehe 20 year old blonde and move into overseas ministry, my discernment flag would fly high, as God would not ask me to destroy a marriage, it would be inconsistent with His teaching.

If the little voice asked me to be a suicide bomber in order to kill the heathens in order to gain Heaven; not of God as God has spoken against killing and has offered Jesus up as the way to Heaven.

The Bible tells us to discern what is being told us by prophets and spirits by testing the message against the word of God. If the message is consistent with teh word then the source is God, if it isn't cosistent then the source is Satan.

It seems you are using 'The Word of God' to verify that something or someone is 'The Word of God'.

Ever consider any problems with this 'reasoning'?

MooseJam

Scofflaw wrote:

Oh, thanks. Now I have tea up my nose.

spluttering,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Dr Pepper wrote:

It seems you are using 'The Word of God' to verify that something or someone is 'The Word of God'.

Ever consider any problems with this 'reasoning'?

That, for example, your small voice might be you, and that it is also you interpreting the Bible. It is apparently perfectly possible to interpret the Bible to condone killing, after all, however much you might disagree with such an interpretation.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Galvasean

PDN wrote:

But the person on the other end of the phone is an unknown entity.

I suppose there is always a chance that the aliens are on the other end of the phone pretending to be our relatives/friends. :eek:

Canis Lupus

BrianCalgary wrote:

If there is no intelligence behind it; it is random.



It is necessary to discern what the little voice tells you. God speaks to me in a little voice, my wife on the other hand has had audible conversations with God.

If I was to make the claim that God wanted me to leave my wife and marry tehe 20 year old blonde and move into overseas ministry, my discernment flag would fly high, as God would not ask me to destroy a marriage, it would be inconsistent with His teaching.

If the little voice asked me to be a suicide bomber in order to kill the heathens in order to gain Heaven; not of God as God has spoken against killing and has offered Jesus up as the way to Heaven.

The Bible tells us to discern what is being told us by prophets and spirits by testing the message against the word of God. If the message is consistent with teh word then the source is God, if it isn't cosistent then the source is Satan.

Just jumping in here cos I saw it on the front page... But coupla things.

Didn't god get some lad in the bible to kill his son? God moves in mysterious ways, he is lord etc etc so if he said break up with your wife you'd happily disobey him because it suited you rather than the entire he has a plan bit...

Finally, when I hear people talking to voices in their heads I tend to think they should be mentally assessed cos lets face it, if you heard a friend was suffering from voices in the head you'd think schizophrenia (sp?). Just because you think it's god doesn't mean it's normal...

TX123

science proves god does nopt exist. watch the TV show "atom" or get the book and you will understand

Canis Lupus

TX123 wrote:

science proves god does nopt exist. watch the TV show "atom" or get the book and you will understand

Well if it was on tv it must be true.

PDN

Galvasean wrote:

I suppose there is always a chance that the aliens are on the other end of the phone pretending to be our relatives/friends. :eek:

No, my reference to the telephone was simply due to the fact that you have no way of knowing whether the person on the other end of the line is who they say they are. You, Galvasean, as a fellow Arsenal supporter, will remember how Jose Antonio Reyes was the victim of a prank call where he thought he was talking to Emilio Butragueno (Real Madrid's sporting director) rather than a Spanish radio station.

So, you may take a few precautions, but generally we tend to assume that the unknown entity on the other end of the phone is, in fact, who we think it is. So, my point was that Moosejam would be hypocritical to blithly speak to unknown entities on the phone while criticising Brian Calgary for speaking to God in prayer.

Scofflaw

PDN wrote:

No, my reference to the telephone was simply due to the fact that you have no way of knowing whether the person on the other end of the line is who they say they are. You, Galvasean, as a fellow Arsenal supporter, will remember how Jose Antonio Reyes was the victim of a prank call where he thought he was talking to Emilio Butragueno (Real Madrid's sporting director) rather than a Spanish radio station.

So, you may take a few precautions, but generally we tend to assume that the unknown entity on the other end of the phone is, in fact, who we think it is. So, my point was that Moosejam would be hypocritical to blithly speak to unknown entities on the phone while criticising Brian Calgary for speaking to God in prayer.

I might support that argument if Moosejam lived his life according to what the people on the other end of the phone told him.

I'd definitely support it if Moosejam not only lived his life according to the advice of people on the other end of the phone, but also claimed that there was no way to physically meet these people, and that you could only check their identities by "listening with your heart", or checking their instructions against Nostradamus.

In fact, there's a decent chance I would seek to have Moosejam entered into some kind of therapy, under those circumstances, but I believe you have what is commonly called a 'grandfather exemption' to this approach.

cordially,
scofflaw

BrianCalgary

I think what I find interesting is those who have never spoken with God and have no idea on what a relationship with Him looks like jump to the ridicule and whitecoat conclusion.

When I pray I know that God is present. When I hear His voice, whether an audible voice, which I have never heard, I tend to get a feeling of utter and total peace followed by a great idea that always seems to work well, I know that it is of God.


To Canis Lupus, No God did not get any one to kill his own son. He asked Abraham to take Isaac up a mountain in order to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham followed the instruction sthen God stopped form doing it.

interestinguser

To Canis Lupus, No God did not get any one to kill his own son. He asked Abraham to take Isaac up a mountain in order to sacrifice Isaac. Abraham followed the instruction sthen God stopped form doing it.

I wonder if that an example of child abuse on the part of Abraham, God or indeed both?

PDN

Dr Pepper wrote:

It seems you are using 'The Word of God' to verify that something or someone is 'The Word of God'.

Ever consider any problems with this 'reasoning'?

Actually there is not necessarily anything wrong with the reasoning, nor is there any reason to place the word 'reasoning' in inverted commas. Imagine this scenario. A friend of yours is traveling overseas on a dangerous assignment (Bourne Identity kind of stuff). You want to ensure that, if you have to telephone him, that you will be really speaking to him and not to an impersonator. So you meet with him face to face before he travels, and he tells you a code phrase that he will use on the phone to verify his identity. This is perfectly reasonable. You will use his word (delivered face to face) to verify that what you here on the phone is really his word. This works, of course, because the first method of hearing his words (face to face) is more easily verified than the second (phone call).

So with Christians the Bible is believed to be the Word of God in an authoritative sense. They also believe God can speak in other ways (through prophecy, in prayer, through the advice of others etc.) but that such avenues of communication are more open to distortion and so to be misunderstood or misheard. It makes perfect sense, therefore to use the authoritative written Word of God to test anything else that purports to be a word from God.

PDN

Canis Lupus wrote:

Finally, when I hear people talking to voices in their heads I tend to think they should be mentally assessed cos lets face it, if you heard a friend was suffering from voices in the head you'd think schizophrenia (sp?). Just because you think it's god doesn't mean it's normal...

Ah, the old idea that if someone believes something different from yourself then they must, by definition, be insane. Leaving aside the incredible arrogance of such a position, it has already been tried. The Soviets used to lock people in psychiatric wards because they prayed and were therefore diagnosed as insane. Such intolerance failed to ensure the survival of their pathetic atheistic regime.

Finally, I would be reluctant to take advice on mental health from any poster who lists their location as "Bunny Land".

mossieh

PDN wrote:

Ah, the old idea that if someone believes something different from yourself then they must, by definition, be insane. Leaving aside the incredible arrogance of such a position, it has already been tried. The Soviets used to lock people in psychiatric wards because they prayed and were therefore diagnosed as insane. Such intolerance failed to ensure the survival of their pathetic atheistic regime.

Finally, I would be reluctant to take advice on mental health from any poster who lists their location as "Bunny Land".

Lots of people pray. Not a lot of people claim to hear an audible voice responding. Hearing a distinct voice in your head, other than your own would be a fairly clear warning sign, usually, that all was not well.

Have you ever heard god speak to you PDN? I mean actually speak, in English (or any other language)?

PDN

mossieh wrote:

Lots of people pray. Not a lot of people claim to hear an audible voice responding. Hearing a distinct voice in your head, other than your own would be a fairly clear warning sign, usually, that all was not well.

Have you ever heard god speak to you PDN? I mean actually speak, in English (or any other language)?

No, I have never heard God speak to me in an audible way.

I have, like Brian, sensed overwhelmingly the presence of God and have immediately been convinced that God wants me to take a particular action, but no audible voice. I know plenty of people who claim to have heard God speak to them audibly, and most of them were, in my opinion, both honest and sane (a few were fruitcakes).

I seem to remember a quote from John Wesley along the lines that God usually spoke to him by putting good reasons in his mind as to why he should do something! The quote may be apocryphal as I can't find any source for it, but it would be consistent with what is known as the Wesleyan Quadrilateral, that Scripture should be interpreted in the light of tradition, reason and experience.

Canis Lupus

PDN wrote:

Finally, I would be reluctant to take advice on mental health from any poster who lists their location as "Bunny Land".

Hey, if you can have a all powerful god that communicates to you then I can at least have a land filled with bunnies. In fact, prove my land of bunnies doesn't exist.

djpbarry

PDN wrote:

Imagine this scenario. A friend of yours is traveling overseas on a dangerous assignment (Bourne Identity kind of stuff). You want to ensure that, if you have to telephone him, that you will be really speaking to him and not to an impersonator. So you meet with him face to face before he travels, and he tells you a code phrase that he will use on the phone to verify his identity. This is perfectly reasonable. You will use his word (delivered face to face) to verify that what you here on the phone is really his word. This works, of course, because the first method of hearing his words (face to face) is more easily verified than the second (phone call).

So with Christians the Bible is believed to be the Word of God in an authoritative sense. They also believe God can speak in other ways (through prophecy, in prayer, through the advice of others etc.) but that such avenues of communication are more open to distortion and so to be misunderstood or misheard. It makes perfect sense, therefore to use the authoritative written Word of God to test anything else that purports to be a word from God.

Your analogy doesn’t make sense. Reading something in a book is not the same as someone telling you the same thing to your face – you are assuming here that God wrote the book, which he did not. Men did. Even if you argue that these men wrote these words because God told them to, that is still far removed from God telling you something straight to your face. So no, you cannot use The Bible “to test anything else that purports to be a word from God”.
Is it possible for a Christian to debate the existence of God without referring to The Bible?

BrianCalgary

djpbarry wrote:

Your analogy doesn’t make sense. Reading something in a book is not the same as someone telling you the same thing to your face – you are assuming here that God wrote the book, which he did not. Men did. Even if you argue that these men wrote these words because God told them to, that is still far removed from God telling you something straight to your face. So no, you cannot use The Bible “to test anything else that purports to be a word from God”.
Is it possible for a Christian to debate the existence of God without referring to The Bible?

No because that is how God reveals Himself throughout history.

Is it possible to learn about math without using numbers?

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

No because that is how God reveals Himself throughout history.

Ahh, history. Now if only everything written in history books were actually true!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agent J

Depends on the branch of maths...

Algebraic and Calculus usually don't have numbers at all

Brian Calgary wrote:

No because that is how God reveals Himself throughout history.

That right there is a big problem of mine with the bible.

Does history stop when the bible ends? Or does God stop revealling himself when the bible ends?

Agent J

TX123 wrote:

science proves god does nopt exist. watch the TV show "atom" or get the book and you will understand

Bit of an assumption there.

Which god doesnt exist by the way?

archdukefranz

BrianCalgary wrote:

Pretty well would need a book to write the answer to that question.

1) Observance of the natural world around me. There is no way that it all happened by random chance.

Explain what random chance is?

BrianCalgary wrote:

2) personal experience. I have spoken to and been spoken to by God.

"I know God exists cause I talked to him this morning"

BrianCalgary wrote:

3) Since there is a God, then which one: The one that reached to me out of love and offerd me the chance to know Him and to have a relationship with Him.

Are you saying there are others that didn't reach out to you?

archdukefranz

Jakkass wrote:

Your post assume that Christianity isn't based on reason. I for one believe it is perfectly reasonable to think that this world was created by a divine being.

Based on reason and reasonable are not the same thing.

One is probable/fact, the other is possible

archdukefranz

pinksoir wrote:

So my first question still stands, why are you convinced that God exists? But I would also like to know why you think that Christianity is correct and other religions are wrong. Naturally all the religions can't be true. They could all be wrong of course, but indeed one alone could be correct. So what convinces you of Christianity's truth?

Nah each belief could be a valid way of speaking to whatever God it refers to.

The Bible is written to people who believe in multiple Gods and it says have no other Gods before Adonai... not there is no God but Adonai (like the Koran does) but that you are not to pay attention to any other God..

Kinda odd don't you think

BrianCalgary

archdukefranz wrote:

Explain what random chance is??

We'll leave that to the creation thread.

archdukefranz wrote:

"I know God exists cause I talked to him this morning"?:D

So'd I.

archdukefranz wrote:

Are you saying there are others that didn't reach out to you?

Not like Christ did. No other god has ever reached out to me like God did, through His act of becoming man.

Agent J

BrianCalgary wrote:

Not like Christ did. No other god has ever reached out to me like God did, through His act of becoming man.

Em. There are legends and stories accross recorded history of Gods/Goddesses taking human form and going from one to the other.

That event happened(And i am willing to accept it did happen) 2000 years ago.

How is that a personal event for you?

I am not saying its wrong or looking to dig at you about. I'm just trying to understand that position

BrianCalgary

Agent J wrote:

Em. There are legends and stories accross recorded history of Gods/Goddesses taking human form and going from one to the other.

Legends and stories, sum it up.

Agent J wrote:

That event happened(And i am willing to accept it did happen) 2000 years ago.

Good, because historical evidence shows that Jesus did live, performed miracles, did die on teh Christ and His body is still missing, although His tomb was heavily guarded.

Agent J wrote:

How is that a personal event for you?

God made a deal with man through Abraham. In that account animals were cut in half and Abraham walked between them.

The significance of this act was that a contract was being made, each had their responsibilities under it. The walking through blood was the way the people of that time signed the deal.

If either broke the deal he gave his blood to redeem himself.

Man broke the deal with God. God redeemed man by shedding the blood. Which was unheard of.

It woudl be like you and I making a deal, you break teh deal and I willingly pay all the debt incurred by both parties for breaking it, although I'm the inured party.

So by Christs act I am redeemed although I am the one breaking the deal.

So I benefit personally by Christs act.

Agent J wrote:

I am not saying its wrong or looking to dig at you about. I'm just trying to understand that position

I appreciate that. As a result your questions are a joy to answer.:)

Excelsior

It would be my personal opinion that moderation should be stronger on this forum. The OP asked Christians to share their reasons for committing to their faith. We have 2 or 3 people offer their responses and pages of sceptics harassing them without any apparent desire to communicate anything beyond "You're all idiots".

Its a really good question Pinky. I thought about it alot when you first posted and then fled from the Christianity forum for a while to escape the inanity.

There are so many angles I could take. My short answer is to quote CS Lewis. I believe in Christianity as I believe in the sun. Not because I can see the sun but because by it, I can see everything else.

Or let me put it less briefly. I am a bibliophile. I love books. I adore stories. I am never happier than when I am in the cinema, (the cathedral of the masses) watching a great plot unfold. I was sitting on a bench in Greystones about 2 years ago wondering why I love books and movies so much. I figured it came down to the fact that I adore stories.

Why do I like stories? I've travelled a little bit. I've read a lot. There isn't a human community, no matter how small or how big, how advanced or primitive, that doesn't adore stories. In fact, they all tell their own stories as collectives and each individual in the collective is busy crafting a story for themselves.

Then I thought about what the Bible is. Lots of people expect the Bible to be a book of Truth with a capital T, propositional truth, scientific proof, that sort of thing. Its like they expect to open the Bible up and find an army general in its pages ready to command them to do this, do that and do it fast. I think alot of the posters on this forum deride Christian beliefs because they misunderstand the Bible.

Instead, when I open the Bible I hear a quiet voice saying, "Once upon a time..." It seems to me that the best possible explanation for this deep urge inside me to appreciate the stories that Paul Simon crafts, that George Orwell wrote, that Steven Spielberg films is found in this strange story-telling, story-weaving God. In his book, his confession to humanity, he begins with a poem and moves on to a plot involving a nation of slaves. Then he finally comes in person to bring that plot to its conclusion and he tells people what he is about by... telling stories.

Thus, I have Jesus being asked why he is here, what is this Kingdom he is talking of. He looks at his questioner and says, "There was once a man who planted a seed. He waited. He doesn't know how, he doesn't know why, but that seed blossoms into a beautiful plant. That is what the Kingdom is like".

So one of the reasons I am a Christian is that it offers for me a primal and fundamental explanation for the deepest drives I have. I am made in the image of God. Flowing out of that comes the story....

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Then I thought about what the Bible is. Lots of people expect the Bible to be a book of Truth with a capital T, propositional truth, scientific proof, that sort of thing. Its like they expect to open the Bible up and find an army general in its pages ready to command them to do this, do that and do it fast. I think alot of the posters on this forum deride Christian beliefs because they misunderstand the Bible.

At the risk of being one of your derisive sceptics, I don't think that's quite fair. A lot of the most vocal Christians view the Bible exactly as you describe above - as if it were "a book of Truth with a capital T, propositional truth, scientific proof, that sort of thing".

Our mistake, generally, is to act as if all Christians viewed the Bible that way - but perhaps we can be partly excused by the frequency with which Scripture is quoted at us as articles of Truth, which makes the mistake rather easier. Catholics, and moderate Christians, rarely come after atheists with hell-fire in their eyes, whereas the Scripturalists do have rather a tendency to.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Agent J

BrianCalgary wrote:

Legends and stories, sum it up.

It could be argued that the bible and certainly the old testament is the same.

BrianCalgary wrote:

...

So by Christs act I am redeemed although I am the one breaking the deal.

So I benefit personally by Christs act.

Ok. That gives me a nice context i hadn't considered before.Thanks.

However, i still have a personal issue with that line of thinking.

In order for you to be redeemed then you must have done something wrong.

But in context you have done nothing as far as i can see. Well at least when you were born

I do not see how you personally can be held responable for the acts of your forefathers. I cannot sign an agreement with yout that makes my son/grandson etc liable to you or your kin.

djpbarry

BrianCalgary wrote:

No because that is how God reveals Himself throughout history.

Is it possible to learn about math without using numbers?

I’m sorry Brian, but I do not consider The Bible to be an accurate historical record and I do not know of any historian who does (I stand to be corrected on that).

BrianCalgary wrote:

Good, because historical evidence shows that Jesus did live, performed miracles, did die on teh Christ and His body is still missing, although His tomb was heavily guarded.

Although historical evidence shows that Jesus did live (I don’t think anyone in this thread doubts that fact), it certainly does not show that he performed miracles! Well, that depends on your interpretation of the word “miracle”, I suppose.

Excelsior wrote:

We have 2 or 3 people offer their responses and pages of sceptics harassing them without any apparent desire to communicate anything beyond "You're all idiots"

That is very unfair. No one is calling names, we are merely trying to understand.

Excelsior wrote:

Lots of people expect the Bible to be a book of Truth with a capital T, propositional truth, scientific proof, that sort of thing.

Yes, you’re right. They’re called Christian fundamentalists.

The original question in this thread was:

pinksoir wrote:

why are you convinced that God exists?

The main response so far seems to be “because the Bible says so”. Now, to me, The Bible is just a book (albeit an interesting one) and I’m going to take it with a pinch of salt.

Excelsior

Scofflaw wrote:

At the risk of being one of your derisive sceptics

When you mock me, I usually deserve it.

Scofflaw wrote:

Our mistake, generally, is to act as if all Christians viewed the Bible that way

I think I can say "Amen!" to that. There are certainly irrational expressions of Christianity, embarrassing expressions even. Even us Catholics (in the broad universal sense, not limited to Rome) often have irrational moments and there I really appreciate the critique you offer. But the explanation I have offered Pinky for my faith is I think, fully rational. Generally, I have thought-through and considered my faith to a far-reaching degree. So too has PDN and BC and back in the day Manach and JustHalf and Neuro and lots of Christians here.

Anyway, I'm slipping into the trap of engaging in irrelevant discussion. One of the reasons I am a Christian is my curiosity about "story" and "plot".

Excelsior

Mods! This latest exchange is a classic passive digression.

Sapien

What just happened?

Asiaprod

Sapien wrote:

What just happened?

The mods just woke up, me included.

Sapien

Asiaprod wrote:

The mods just woke up, me included.

Hmm. After a peremptory prodding from our back-seat moderator.

Digression persecuted with religious zeal. How boring.

Asiaprod

Sapien wrote:

Hmm. After a peremptory prodding from our back-seat moderator.

Digression persecuted with religious zeal. How boring.

Oh, shame on you, back-seat prodding.