Figuring Out Religion

[Greg]

Piggy-backing Mountaineer's thoughts:

Why are we all here on this particular thread (both the participants and those non-participants who are just reading)?

It is seeming the overall theme has gone from Figuring out Religion to a more precise question of: "Why is Christianity correct?, explain with objective evidence".

To the agnostics (and to a lesser extent the atheists), do you want to believe in Christianity in the idea of a loving Jesus that saves us from ourselves and we can spend eternal happiness with him, but just can't get around the errors/ambiguity you find?

I myself have issues with the above on errors/ambiguity, that's why I'm trying to learn from this forum and getting a better understanding of why I believe what I believe. I do really appreciate the comments that are on this forum, it is very insightful and is helping me with my own journey.

Even if I can't prove God/Christianity, I still love God/Jesus, and want to have a relationship with my creator (whoever that is) both in this life, and ideally in the next life as well to always be with him. While on Earth, I am a sinner and will consistently fail, but I'm going through my life to 1.) continually better myself, 2.) to love others, even if it is difficult to do, 3.) leave the world better than when I found it when I pass away from this world.

[moda0306]

Objective - existing outside the mind - based on fact - not based on feelings.  Opposite would be subjective.

Nature of evidence - eye witness accounts.

I believe I have said this repeatedly but I'm not going to go back through all this thread to find it.  Feel free though.  I'm really suspecting there is a lot of denial going on when subjects are addressed but not agreed with (i.e. not liking the answer and conveniently "forgetting" - on both sides of the discussion 

... Mountaineer

1) "Eye-witness accounts" are often HUGELY subjective, or just outright lies.  Sure, they COULD be true, but eye-witness accounts as evidence, by-definition, are NOT objective evidence.

2) The only thing that I personally saw that qualified as anything close to "objective" was when Desert linked to William Lane Craig giving a lecture on the historical evidence of Christ's resurrection.  Perhaps I am uniquely dense here, but it seems after 130-some pages of debate, you have yet to get one person to that was skeptical to concede that there's a lot of "objective" evidence for Christianity being correct, much less all the other baggage you put around your beliefs with what appear to be NO objective sources by claiming the Bible is the 100% true word of God.

You've posted links and sent me stuff.  None of it was very convincing.

3) So if anyone is in denial, perhaps it is you.  I definitely think someone is in denial.  You've posted links that leave a lot to be desired and then consider your point made.


So much of this goes to this simple fact... even if there is a God and even if Christ is the Son of God, it still begs a TON of questions about how true the Bible is, and how true any aspect of SUBJECTIVE (as they are taught by MEN, not God) religious doctrine is.  It's these questions you go in logical circles of not answering, and that is usually a pretty solid symptom of denial.

Actually, I think that apologetics has a close to zero chance of "converting" anyone - I'd say the same about internet discussions.  However, at the same time, I would say that God can use anything he chooses to open eyes.  It is not up to me to try to convice you of anything at all, and forgive me if that is how you perceive my comments.  I'm only attempting to tell you what God has done for all of mankind, casting seeds if you will.  It is God's work to water those seeds and nurture them if he wishes to do so.  Basically, the thrust of my message is to tell you about John 3, and the promises of Jesus, and to try to answer questions.  I think God is big enough not to need my help and if my answers fail in their intent, I know I'm forgiven because I know the TRUTH (and yes, I know that term can be very offensive and appear to be supremely arrogant to many).  I do  not measure my success by what anyone says on this forum, just as I do not measure the success of Christianity by how many butts are in a church pew on Sunday morning.  Those are man's measure - not God's. 

So, what is your next question?  Or your next opinion?

I have a question for us to ponder but it might turn the thread in a slightly different direction.  For those who do not like Christianity as a worldview, what worldview is more appealing to you and why do you believe that?  Worldview being the best explanation of what you see happening in the world and why it is happening, why we are here, where did we come from, where are we going, our place in the world, etc.

... Mountaineer

Mountainner,

To your bolded statement above, there are some big inconsistencies I have to point out that perhaps you can clarify.

1) You say that "apologetics have close to zero chance of converting anyone."  Well you JUST said before that there is a lot of OBJECTIVE evidence of Christianity being correct (at least), if not actually reinforcing a whole bunch of specifics that people seem to disagree about even within Christianity.

It seems that you are either stating a) ALL non-Christians (even those who desperately WANT to find meaning but can't through apologetics) are SO biased that they are simply incapable of acknowledging sound objective evidence.

This seems pretty odd, as you've said that "your faith is based on objective evidence."  Forget for a second that that statement doesn't really make sense (if you have objective evidence, you don't need faith)... but you're saying that YOUR positions are colored by the objective evidence of apologetics. Why wouldn't it work on the rest of us?

2) You're also saying God can use things he chooses to open or eyes.  This reminds me of your position that God presents himself to us... not vice versa... so all this lamenting about people damning themselves... it's actually God damning them by not making himself more apparent to them.  What about the vast swaths of humanity who had since birth been told that God was something other than what he was.  There was NO way for them to know the God of Abraham, nor of Jesus.  Should some Chinese kid hive hiked West until he found people willing to teach him about the REAL God? 

Is your argument REALLY that the little Chinese kid sent HIMSELF to hell?

[Pointedstick]

To the agnostics (and to a lesser extent the atheists), do you want to believe in Christianity in the idea of a loving Jesus that saves us from ourselves and we can spend eternal happiness with him, but just can't get around the errors/ambiguity you find?

Strictly speaking, I don't want to believe anything. I have a very strong drive to discover the truth, and then believe that because I have determined that it is true. If I later discover that I was wrong and that it is false, or that it became false later, or whatever, I will abandon it, and I have done this many times in my own life on a variety of subjects. The idea of sticking to a belief system that did not make sense to me or could be poked full of unexplainable holes is a foreign concept to me. I would be happy to believe in Christianity if its precepts could be proven true, but it seems that is impossible. Since Christianity holds no emotional appeal for me, and since there is no peer pressure in my life pushing me towards it, I don't particularly see any reason to believe in it.

I am primarily participating in this thread to try to understand others. To me, Christianity is a huge ball of contradictions wrapped up in brutal or unappealing stories. I am trying to understand what attracts people to it, basically. So far, I'm pretty much only seeing see family/peer pressure and professed supernatural experiences.

[Greg]

To the agnostics (and to a lesser extent the atheists), do you want to believe in Christianity in the idea of a loving Jesus that saves us from ourselves and we can spend eternal happiness with him, but just can't get around the errors/ambiguity you find?

Strictly speaking, I don't want to believe anything. I have a very strong drive to discover the truth, and then believe that because I have determined that it is true. If I later discover that I was wrong and that it is false, or that it became false later, or whatever, I will abandon it, and I have done this many times in my own life on a variety of subjects. The idea of sticking to a belief system that did not make sense to me or could be poked full of unexplainable holes is a foreign concept to me. I would be happy to believe in Christianity if its precepts could be proven true, but it seems that is impossible. Since Christianity holds no emotional appeal for me, and since there is no peer pressure in my life pushing me towards it, I don't particularly see any reason to believe in it.

I am primarily participating in this thread to try to understand others. To me, Christianity is a huge ball of contradictions wrapped up in brutal or unappealing stories. I am trying to understand what attracts people to it, basically. So far, I'm pretty much only seeing see family/peer pressure and professed supernatural experiences.

Can humans ever create something the is absolutely factual and absolutely clear? There has been a lot of touching of the Bible from when it was created to what we are reading now. Different versions, different translations, etc. Over-time, it can become perverted or changed, even if it is through good intentions or unintentional. It's one of the reasons why I like reading the Bible more as life lessons rather than always as factual stories and that I look at overall themes of Jesus. He was a perfect guy who told others that he wants a relationship with them. If you want to have a relationship with him, he'll invite you to his house to be friends in the next life. I like that.

[Mountaineer]

1) "Eye-witness accounts" are often HUGELY subjective, or just outright lies.  Sure, they COULD be true, but eye-witness accounts as evidence, by-definition, are NOT objective evidence.

2) The only thing that I personally saw that qualified as anything close to "objective" was when Desert linked to William Lane Craig giving a lecture on the historical evidence of Christ's resurrection.  Perhaps I am uniquely dense here, but it seems after 130-some pages of debate, you have yet to get one person to that was skeptical to concede that there's a lot of "objective" evidence for Christianity being correct, much less all the other baggage you put around your beliefs with what appear to be NO objective sources by claiming the Bible is the 100% true word of God.

You've posted links and sent me stuff.  None of it was very convincing.

3) So if anyone is in denial, perhaps it is you.  I definitely think someone is in denial.  You've posted links that leave a lot to be desired and then consider your point made.


So much of this goes to this simple fact... even if there is a God and even if Christ is the Son of God, it still begs a TON of questions about how true the Bible is, and how true any aspect of SUBJECTIVE (as they are taught by MEN, not God) religious doctrine is.  It's these questions you go in logical circles of not answering, and that is usually a pretty solid symptom of denial.

Actually, I think that apologetics has a close to zero chance of "converting" anyone - I'd say the same about internet discussions.  However, at the same time, I would say that God can use anything he chooses to open eyes.  It is not up to me to try to convice you of anything at all, and forgive me if that is how you perceive my comments.  I'm only attempting to tell you what God has done for all of mankind, casting seeds if you will.  It is God's work to water those seeds and nurture them if he wishes to do so.  Basically, the thrust of my message is to tell you about John 3, and the promises of Jesus, and to try to answer questions.  I think God is big enough not to need my help and if my answers fail in their intent, I know I'm forgiven because I know the TRUTH (and yes, I know that term can be very offensive and appear to be supremely arrogant to many).  I do  not measure my success by what anyone says on this forum, just as I do not measure the success of Christianity by how many butts are in a church pew on Sunday morning.  Those are man's measure - not God's. 

So, what is your next question?  Or your next opinion?

I have a question for us to ponder but it might turn the thread in a slightly different direction.  For those who do not like Christianity as a worldview, what worldview is more appealing to you and why do you believe that?  Worldview being the best explanation of what you see happening in the world and why it is happening, why we are here, where did we come from, where are we going, our place in the world, etc.

... Mountaineer

Mountainner,

To your bolded statement above, there are some big inconsistencies I have to point out that perhaps you can clarify.

1) You say that "apologetics have close to zero chance of converting anyone."  Well you JUST said before that there is a lot of OBJECTIVE evidence of Christianity being correct (at least), if not actually reinforcing a whole bunch of specifics that people seem to disagree about even within Christianity.

It seems that you are either stating a) ALL non-Christians (even those who desperately WANT to find meaning but can't through apologetics) are SO biased that they are simply incapable of acknowledging sound objective evidence.

This seems pretty odd, as you've said that "your faith is based on objective evidence."  Forget for a second that that statement doesn't really make sense (if you have objective evidence, you don't need faith)... but you're saying that YOUR positions are colored by the objective evidence of apologetics. Why wouldn't it work on the rest of us?

2) You're also saying God can use things he chooses to open or eyes.  This reminds me of your position that God presents himself to us... not vice versa... so all this lamenting about people damning themselves... it's actually God damning them by not making himself more apparent to them.  What about the vast swaths of humanity who had since birth been told that God was something other than what he was.  There was NO way for them to know the God of Abraham, nor of Jesus.  Should some Chinese kid hive hiked West until he found people willing to teach him about the REAL God? 

Is your argument REALLY that the little Chinese kid sent HIMSELF to hell?

The fundamental unanswerable question is:  Why are some saved and not others? 

The Lutheran response is to say that is trying to understand the hidden side of God, that which for reasons unknown to us he has chosen not to reveal.  It is first on my list of questions to ask God when I'm on the other side. 

Now, about that little Chinese kid - say you are Chinese and have a little Chinese kid.  Has God made him a believer in ways we humans cannot understand?  I sure don't know.  Say you become so distraught due to sin that you decide to kill yourself in a car wreck.  The kid is sleeping peacefully in the car when you do the deed.  Is the kid better or worse off?  Did you kill him or did God?  Is life better in "heaven" with God or with an insane dad?  My answer is that everything we do that is really screwed up is because of sin - it manifests itself in a bajillion different ways, but the end result is the same - we all die a physical death.  It is what happens afterwards that is truly important.

Objective eye witness evidence:  Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from one to 500.  Google "12 groups saw Jesus resurrected" at www3.telus.net if you like.  Many of those were still alive when 1 Cor was written - could have been easily disputed.  And FWIW, this is another item I've previously addressed (I think). 

... Mountaineer

[screwtape]

Objective eye witness evidence:  Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from one to 500.  Google "12 groups saw Jesus resurrected" at www3.telus.net if you like.  Many of those were still alive when 1 Cor was written - could have been easily disputed. 

Just how would it have been possible to dispute Paul's claim that Jesus was seen by 500 eyewitnesses?

[moda0306]

Mountaineer,

If that evidence is so objective and robust, why shouldn't we be convinced by it?  And if we shouldn't be, why call our doubt "denial?"  This is very inconsistent... please clarify

If your faith was "based on objective evidence," then why call it faith?  To the degree that your "faith" goes beyond "objective evidence," then you are in fact taking a leap, are you not?

You seem to be running in circles here... which is perhaps most precisely evident when you state that your "faith is based on objective evidence." 

[Mountaineer]

Objective eye witness evidence:  Jesus appeared 12 times to different group sizes ranging from one to 500.  Google "12 groups saw Jesus resurrected" at www3.telus.net if you like.  Many of those were still alive when 1 Cor was written - could have been easily disputed. 

Just how would it have been possible to dispute Paul's claim that Jesus was seen by 500 eyewitnesses?

I think moda can best answer that question.

... Mountaineer

[Mountaineer]

Mountaineer,

If that evidence is so objective and robust, why shouldn't we be convinced by it?  And if we shouldn't be, why call our doubt "denial?"  This is very inconsistent... please clarify

If your faith was "based on objective evidence," then why call it faith?  To the degree that your "faith" goes beyond "objective evidence," then you are in fact taking a leap, are you not?

You seem to be running in circles here... which is perhaps most precisely evident when you state that your "faith is based on objective evidence."

Sola gracia, sola fide, sola Scriptura.

And we are back to what I said is the fundamental question.  Or, why do you belive billions have been duped and you have it right?

... Mountaineer

[screwtape]

Background: Mechanical Engineering, Robotics, Control Systems, CAD Modeling, Machining, Wearable Exoskeletons, Applied Physiology, Drawing (Pencil/Charcoal), Drums, Guitar/Bass, Piano, Flute

You have a very impressive scientific resume in your signature and I know from some of Mountaineers post that he probably does too. As for me, I have only a high school diploma along with a career in computer programming that taught me something about applied logic along the way.

So I have to wonder why the two of you don't ever address any of the scientific issues involved with your Biblical beliefs.

A case in point is the issue I have just raised about earthquakes. Science says that they are caused by volcanic activity and shifting tectonic plates, a process that has been going on in the earth for billions of years. The creation story says that death entered into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve and if you follow the Biblical timeline this was fairly recent. So how do you solve that dilemma or do you think it is not an intellectual exercise worthy of your time? Just believe the Word of God. End of Story?

[Mountaineer]

Background: Mechanical Engineering, Robotics, Control Systems, CAD Modeling, Machining, Wearable Exoskeletons, Applied Physiology, Drawing (Pencil/Charcoal), Drums, Guitar/Bass, Piano, Flute

You have a very impressive scientific resume in your signature and I know from some of Mountaineers post that he probably does too. As for me, I have only a high school diploma along with a career in computer programming that taught me something about applied logic along the way.

So I have to wonder why the two of you don't ever address any of the scientific issues involved with your Biblical beliefs.

A case in point is the issue I have just raised about earthquakes. Science says that they are caused by volcanic activity and shifting tectonic plates, a process that has been going on in the earth for billions of years. The creation story says that death entered into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve and if you follow the Biblical timeline this was fairly recent. So how do you solve that dilemma or do you think it is not an intellectual exercise worthy of your time? Just believe the Word of God. End of Story?

If everything was subject to corruption at the "fall", then all the methods we use to "prove" anything are subject to error.  So, whether the earth is several thousand years old or several million or something else does not really matter to me - what really matters to me is "is there a God" and if so, what is the religion that makes the most sense?  Based on all my investigation, and/or where God has led me, Christianity has it nailed!  (pun intended).  All other explanations require far more faith to belive than Christianity and I just don't have that much faith in man - the world is full of observations on how screwed up we are and the horrible ways in which we are capable of treating each other and lying to each other - just turn on the news and watch for 30 seconds. 

... Mountaineer

[screwtape]

Background: Mechanical Engineering, Robotics, Control Systems, CAD Modeling, Machining, Wearable Exoskeletons, Applied Physiology, Drawing (Pencil/Charcoal), Drums, Guitar/Bass, Piano, Flute

You have a very impressive scientific resume in your signature and I know from some of Mountaineers post that he probably does too. As for me, I have only a high school diploma along with a career in computer programming that taught me something about applied logic along the way.

So I have to wonder why the two of you don't ever address any of the scientific issues involved with your Biblical beliefs.

A case in point is the issue I have just raised about earthquakes. Science says that they are caused by volcanic activity and shifting tectonic plates, a process that has been going on in the earth for billions of years. The creation story says that death entered into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve and if you follow the Biblical timeline this was fairly recent. So how do you solve that dilemma or do you think it is not an intellectual exercise worthy of your time? Just believe the Word of God. End of Story?

If everything was subject to corruption at the "fall", then all the methods we use to "prove" anything are subject to error.  So, whether the earth is several thousand years old or several million or something else does not really matter to me - what really matters to me is "is there a God" and if so, what is the religion that makes the most sense?  Based on all my investigation, and/or where God has led me, Christianity has it nailed!  (pun intended).  All other explanations require far more faith to belive than Christianity and I just don't have that much faith in man - the world is full of observations on how screwed up we are and the horrible ways in which we are capable of treating each other and lying to each other - just turn on the news and watch for 30 seconds. 

... Mountaineer

I don't see where it takes a lot of faith to believe the scientific claims about what causes earthquakes. Sounds entirely plausible to me. Especially when weighed against the belief that they are part of God's punishment for humans disobeying God's commandments. I can well understand this belief in primitive cultures. Not so much in ours.

[Mountaineer]

You have a very impressive scientific resume in your signature and I know from some of Mountaineers post that he probably does too. As for me, I have only a high school diploma along with a career in computer programming that taught me something about applied logic along the way.

So I have to wonder why the two of you don't ever address any of the scientific issues involved with your Biblical beliefs.

A case in point is the issue I have just raised about earthquakes. Science says that they are caused by volcanic activity and shifting tectonic plates, a process that has been going on in the earth for billions of years. The creation story says that death entered into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve and if you follow the Biblical timeline this was fairly recent. So how do you solve that dilemma or do you think it is not an intellectual exercise worthy of your time? Just believe the Word of God. End of Story?

If everything was subject to corruption at the "fall", then all the methods we use to "prove" anything are subject to error.  So, whether the earth is several thousand years old or several million or something else does not really matter to me - what really matters to me is "is there a God" and if so, what is the religion that makes the most sense?  Based on all my investigation, and/or where God has led me, Christianity has it nailed!  (pun intended).  All other explanations require far more faith to belive than Christianity and I just don't have that much faith in man - the world is full of observations on how screwed up we are and the horrible ways in which we are capable of treating each other and lying to each other - just turn on the news and watch for 30 seconds. 

... Mountaineer

I don't see where it takes a lot of faith to believe the scientific claims about what causes earthquakes. Sounds entirely plausible to me. Especially when weighed against the belief that they are part of God's punishment for humans disobeying God's commandments. I can well understand this belief in primitive cultures. Not so much in ours.

Sorry. I was not clear. I meant making science  into a god - i.e. depending on it to answer questions which are outside the boundaries of things provable using the scientific method. More or less. Science use for the right purposes is an incredible gift.  Science put a roof over my head, food on the table, and sheltered me and my family for decades.  So called pseudo-science is what irks me when people use it to mean real science - (sorry moda, I'm not taking the time to define all this now, but feel free to go for it    My intent should be clear enough.).

...Mountaineer

[screwtape]

Sorry. I was not clear. I meant making science a god - i.e. depending on it to answer questions which are outside the boundaries of things provable using the scientific method. More or less.
...Mountaineer

No problem. Apparently I wasn't clear either. I don't think I was making science into a god. I just thought the explanation scientists had for earthquakes was more plausible then the Christian one that you are making.

[Greg]

You have a very impressive scientific resume in your signature and I know from some of Mountaineers post that he probably does too. As for me, I have only a high school diploma along with a career in computer programming that taught me something about applied logic along the way.

So I have to wonder why the two of you don't ever address any of the scientific issues involved with your Biblical beliefs.

A case in point is the issue I have just raised about earthquakes. Science says that they are caused by volcanic activity and shifting tectonic plates, a process that has been going on in the earth for billions of years. The creation story says that death entered into the world through the disobedience of Adam and Eve and if you follow the Biblical timeline this was fairly recent. So how do you solve that dilemma or do you think it is not an intellectual exercise worthy of your time? Just believe the Word of God. End of Story?

If everything was subject to corruption at the "fall", then all the methods we use to "prove" anything are subject to error.  So, whether the earth is several thousand years old or several million or something else does not really matter to me - what really matters to me is "is there a God" and if so, what is the religion that makes the most sense?  Based on all my investigation, and/or where God has led me, Christianity has it nailed!  (pun intended).  All other explanations require far more faith to belive than Christianity and I just don't have that much faith in man - the world is full of observations on how screwed up we are and the horrible ways in which we are capable of treating each other and lying to each other - just turn on the news and watch for 30 seconds. 

... Mountaineer

I don't see where it takes a lot of faith to believe the scientific claims about what causes earthquakes. Sounds entirely plausible to me. Especially when weighed against the belief that they are part of God's punishment for humans disobeying God's commandments. I can well understand this belief in primitive cultures. Not so much in ours.

For me I don't necessarily see earthquakes as a sin, nor do I see most natural events as a sin (hurricanes, typhoons, rain, fire, lightning, etc.). From a historical perspective, Pangaea, the super-continent ended up splitting up eventually into the continents we have now. I would have to think that this would have to occur with earthquakes, etc.

Biologos.com has a lot of interesting items on its site of trying to rectify science and religion.

Perhaps when Adam and Eve came around, they lived in a garden which from a micro-environment was perfect. 72�F and sunny with just a bit of rain every once and a while. Maybe all of the other stuff still happened around this micro-environment.

This being said, this is all just a thought of what might have happened since we don't have any text to support this thought.

What I do consider a sin is how humans perhaps respond to weather-related things. A hurricane hits a city and people loot the stores after they get busted in. Weather is just doing what it naturally does. Same as that an Eagle eats its prey. It's not a sin, it's what it was meant to do. Humans have a bit more responsibility though to choose to do right versus wrong.

[Mountaineer]

Sorry. I was not clear. I meant making science a god - i.e. depending on it to answer questions which are outside the boundaries of things provable using the scientific method. More or less.
...Mountaineer

No problem. Apparently I wasn't clear either. I don't think I was making a science into a god. I just thought the explanation scientists had for earthquakes was more plausible then the Christian one that you are making.

I largely agree with you.  The question is "why" do the tectonic plates shift, why does the earth "have" to have earthquakes, hurricanes, tornados, etc.  The Scriptural case is not in my mind really intended to be a case at all.  From Scriptures, it just says all creation is cursed and that all creation groans in anticipation of the new earth (post Last Day).  Groaning is not specified.  Lots of stuff in between is not talked about as it is not necessary for Salvation of men/earth/creatures.

... Mountaineer

[MediumTex]

Everything from disease, infidelity, murder, rape, war,, earthquakes,  and mocking humans is a result of SIN. 

You really think earthquakes are the result of people mocking God?  Sometimes I wonder if you really aren't just trolling us with some of your beliefs.

Earthquakes are obviously the result of sin.

Wasn't it just this week that that chick got naked on that volcano in Malaysia and it caused an earthquake?

[MachineGhost]

Why are we all here on this particular thread (both the participants and those non-participants who are just reading)?

It is seeming the overall theme has gone from Figuring out Religion to a more precise question of: "Why is Christianity correct?, explain with objective evidence".

Yeah, I'm wondering why we're all ganging up on Christians in this thread like sharks to chum.  There's those other 44 religions you know.  Try as I might, no one seems to bite!  Maybe the thread should be renamed "Figuring Out Christianity"?

To the agnostics (and to a lesser extent the atheists), do you want to believe in Christianity in the idea of a loving Jesus that saves us from ourselves and we can spend eternal happiness with him, but just can't get around the errors/ambiguity you find?

You do realize what you're doing, right?  You're continuing to presuppose in the truthfulness of a particular religion, then you're trying to find the evidence after the fact to back up what you feel.  That's not how logic and reason works.

Personally speaking, I don't buy into the Christian narrative because I have found my own evidence that reality just does not work that way and neither does the afterlife.  It's a seductive story, sure: the Son of God coming to save mankind and then suffering for their sins...  and then brutally tortured and executed -- it has to be, to be emotionally convincing and hit you right in the gut!  There's no doubt as the competitive winner of many such "whack job religions" of the time, Jesus' ministry changed the world; it was an epic transformation that turned us from barbarians into the larval form of civilized.  But, all the corrupt church doctrines?  Sorry, I'm just not wired in whatever way to be a believer in that authoritarian nonsense.  As an curious intellectual, I do not make decisions regarding which over-arching theories to adopt into my belief framework based on emotional appeals or such flimsy evidence.  The errors/ambiguity are incidental.  You don't need to know all the exact minor details to know if something passes the B.S. meter or not.

Even if I can't prove God/Christianity, I still love God/Jesus, and want to have a relationship with my creator (whoever that is) both in this life, and ideally in the next life as well to always be with him. While on Earth, I am a sinner and will consistently fail, but I'm going through my life to 1.) continually better myself, 2.) to love others, even if it is difficult to do, 3.) leave the world better than when I found it when I pass away from this world.

I really doubt any of us here wants to "break you up" over what you believe.  Dropping (or replacing) an over-arching theory from your belief framework is not a painless process to go through.

But I can tell from your message that you have certain needs.... and you want a religion to fulfill them.  The only part I disagree with is the concept of being a sinner.  It is a guilt trip and will give you no end of psychological damage if you believe in it too deeply.  It is not a positive or optimistic outlook towards life.  It's better to act in terms of good from a position of personal empowerment, rather than debasement.  We're not all at the level of Mother Theresa.

[Mountaineer]

Everything from disease, infidelity, murder, rape, war,, earthquakes,  and mocking humans is a result of SIN. 

You really think earthquakes are the result of people mocking God?  Sometimes I wonder if you really aren't just trolling us with some of your beliefs.

Earthquakes are obviously the result of sin.

Wasn't it just this week that that chick got naked on that volcano in Malaysia and it caused an earthquake?

Oh man, MT.  Don't you realize at all that the theme of that  show is  restrained temptation, not  viewer anticipation of a gigantic, earth shaking eruption? 

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

I am primarily participating in this thread to try to understand others. To me, Christianity is a huge ball of contradictions wrapped up in brutal or unappealing stories. I am trying to understand what attracts people to it, basically. So far, I'm pretty much only seeing see family/peer pressure and professed supernatural experiences.

I misremembered.  Mountaineer DID NOT have any paranormal experiences for his Revelation.  Unusual to be sure, but we'll let him explain himself.

[Mountaineer]

Why are we all here on this particular thread (both the participants and those non-participants who are just reading)?

It is seeming the overall theme has gone from Figuring out Religion to a more precise question of: "Why is Christianity correct?, explain with objective evidence".

Yeah, I'm wondering why we're all ganging up on Christians in this thread like sharks to chum.  There's those other 44 religions you know.  Try as I might, no one seems to bite!  Maybe the thread should be renamed "Figuring Out Christianity"?

To the agnostics (and to a lesser extent the atheists), do you want to believe in Christianity in the idea of a loving Jesus that saves us from ourselves and we can spend eternal happiness with him, but just can't get around the errors/ambiguity you find?

You do realize what you're doing, right?  You're continuing to presuppose in the truthfulness of a particular religion, then you're trying to find the evidence after the fact to back up what you feel.  That's not how logic and reason works.

Personally speaking, I don't buy into the Christian narrative because I have found my own evidence that reality just does not work that way and neither does the afterlife.  It's a seductive story, sure: the Son of God coming to save mankind and then suffering for their sins...  and then brutally tortured and executed -- it has to be, to be emotionally convincing and hit you right in the gut!  There's no doubt as the competitive winner of many such "whack job religions" of the time, Jesus' ministry changed the world; it was an epic transformation that turned us from barbarians into the larval form of civilized.  But, all the corrupt church doctrines?  Sorry, I'm just not wired in whatever way to be a believer in that authoritarian nonsense.  As an curious intellectual, I do not make decisions regarding which over-arching theories to adopt into my belief framework based on emotional appeals or such flimsy evidence.  The errors/ambiguity are incidental.  You don't need to know all the exact minor details to know if something passes the B.S. meter or not.

Even if I can't prove God/Christianity, I still love God/Jesus, and want to have a relationship with my creator (whoever that is) both in this life, and ideally in the next life as well to always be with him. While on Earth, I am a sinner and will consistently fail, but I'm going through my life to 1.) continually better myself, 2.) to love others, even if it is difficult to do, 3.) leave the world better than when I found it when I pass away from this world.

I really doubt any of us here wants to "break you up" over what you believe.  Dropping (or replacing) an over-arching theory from your belief framework is not a painless process to go through.

But I can tell from your message that you have certain needs.... and you want a religion to fulfill them.  The only part I disagree with is the concept of being a sinner.  It is a guilt trip and will give you no end of psychological damage if you believe in it too deeply.  It is not a positive or optimistic outlook towards life.  It's better to act in terms of good from a position of personal empowerment, rather than debasement.  We're not all at the level of Mother Theresa.

MG, I think I sort of get where you are coming from.  I would pose if one thinks there is no sin or sinner, then there is no need for a Savior.  Thus the worldview of eat, drink and make merry because that is all there is and do good only when it is to ones personal benefit.  It is a religion of self.  And, if you really believe that, hey, it is a worldview.  Am I even close?

... Mountaineer

[MachineGhost]

You seem to be running in circles here... which is perhaps most precisely evident when you state that your "faith is based on objective evidence."

If he provided "objective evidence" that wasn't actually from the Holy Bible or other religious texts (i.e. fairy tales), it may not be tautological.

[Mountaineer]

There are a few more than 44 religions: 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of ... traditions

... Mountaineer (a.k.a. Chum) 

[MachineGhost]

And we are back to what I said is the fundamental question.  Or, why do you belive billions have been duped and you have it right?

Bandwagon effect The tendency to do (or believe) things because many other people do (or believe) the same. Related to groupthink and herd behavior.

P.S.  That list Greg posted showed 1.2 billion or so atheists/agnostics.  Why are they all duped and you have it right?

[Mountaineer]

You seem to be running in circles here... which is perhaps most precisely evident when you state that your "faith is based on objective evidence."

If he provided "objective evidence" that wasn't actually from the Holy Bible or other religious texts (i.e. fairy tales), it may not be tautological.

Proof:  no.  Evidence: yes.  Credible to those with closed minds:  I doubt it.

http://www.leaderu.com/everystudent/eas ... josh2.html

... Mountaineer