Exactly Why Don't You Believe In the God of the Bible?

Again, if we are talking about ancient religions, the original ones that mutated and became modern religions, I don't think evidence came into it at all, in the sense we are talking about now. Their evidence was: we made excellent offerings to the rain god last year and we got lots of rain, but this year there wasn't enough rain so we must have done something wrong.

Momma Angel, sweetheart, what on earth does that sentence mean? "If they had actually made up someone real"????

You missed a key word -- SEEKING. They were going with what resources they had. We have rather more resources now as we SEEK a rational explanation for why it rains -- and these rational explanations are about dewpoints and humidity and cold fronts, not offerings to the rain god.

Ok. I hope you live a long and prosperous life and have minimal fears.

Not sure what you're asking. Solution to what, exactly?

Momma Angel, why do so many Christians fear death?

I will patiently await your answer.

Brandon, no answer for me?

Really I respect things you have to say. I'm really curious.

Something I've wondered about a long time.

Chai Tea wrote:

Brandon, no answer for me?

Really I respect things you have to say. I'm really curious.

Something I've wondered about a long time.

A hundred times a day, you believe things because you see evidence that they're true. This is no different. Show me anything of any sort which cannot be explained easily except by the existence of God.

William of Occam (or Ockham, if you prefer) was nobody's lord. It is ironic that entia non sunt multiplicanda is such an effective argument against the logical necessity for a deity and a creation--given that he was a monastic scholar of the Franciscan order.

What is more remarkable is that he did not end up in jail. His near contemporary Roger Bacon, who was much less radical theologically did, for working through the potential uses of that statement.. The underlying implications of MM's question and their consequences have been ignored on this thread. People have been jailed ,exiled, tortured and killed for answering that question the wrong way.

I had to go back and read that a few times myself! What I mean is, wouldn't it have been better, easier, more acceptable to "use (?)" an actual person instead of creating a supernatural reason? I was taught that Christ came in the flesh because that is what man would accept; someone that actually was in the flesh and could understand us (i.e., how we think, feel, etc.) So, I would have thought it would be more "rational" ( Very Happy ) to use (?) an actual person as this Godhead they are making up.[/b]

I sure did! I was so danged excited that you used rational with belief that I lost focus! So, the more man progresses the more man stops looking outside himself for answers?[/b]

Sorry, I just realized I didn't answer this. The solution to the problem of what is the real message. How do we get back to the real message? Do you think there is any way to get to it?[/b]

Brandon9000 wrote:

Chai Tea wrote:

Brandon, no answer for me?

Really I respect things you have to say. I'm really curious.

Something I've wondered about a long time.

A hundred times a day, you believe things because you see evidence that they're true. This is no different. Show me anything of any sort which cannot be explained easily except by the existence of God.

Such as.....?

I'm looking for a specific example Brandon.

You said before that (paraphrasing) if someone showed you evidence of Gods existance, and you didn't accept it, that someone would say you are just refusing anything, and you would consider that a copout.

What would you consider specifically something that couldn't be attributed to anything but the existance of God. I think not offering some example is likewise a copout.

There's an atheist program on public access here, and every single time I watch it, that very same thing comes up....

The hosts of the show keep saying that if someone produced evidence, then they could take that into consideration.

Being a concrete person, I'd need to know what specifically you would consider as evidence? Otherwise, it's all a crapshoot.

I'm afraid I am kind of lost. Who is MM? What question and consequences have been ignored on this thread?

Again, I think it's much easier to maintain the idea of an infallible, omnipotent, invisible god than a human one. Even Jesus had the father and the holy ghost behind him -- it's not just Jesus.

Not at all! Brandon is a great example of someone looking outside himself for answers -- it's just that he's far more likely to look at meteorological indicators of whether it is going to rain rather than look at how good of an offering was made to the rain god. We have far more resources for explaining the world these days.

How is this a problem? For whom is a problem?

To me, this is again religiocentric. The position that there is a message out there that should be sought is the essential religious position -- it is what religion IS, pretty much.

The problems that interest me are scientific -- what is dark matter? Can global warming be stopped, and if not, how catastrophic will it actually be? Etc., etc. Morality interests me too, but again in a more specific, measurable, individual way.

I'm sorry I meant MA, (Momma Angel) and to repeat, your question has a long, sorry, sordid history behind it.

Acquiunk Wrote:

Quote:

I'm sorry I meant MA, (Momma Angel) and to repeat, your question has a long, sorry, sordid history behind it.

It's okay Acquiunk. That's what I have been gathering from some posters. It seems the history of Christianity has a lot to do with how they feel about God in the Bible. My question then becomes but aren't these things done by man and not God?
[/color]

This is why I wonder if some chose religions that are based more on the actual human figures in them. I hope I'm making sense, sozobe. It's hard to talk about some of this stuff when not in person. Well, for me it is. The written word is a bit difficult at times. [/b]

To me, that is still looking to man because man is the one that came up with the meteorological indicators (tests, etc.). As long as we want any kind of evidence we are looking for an answer from man IMO. It is scientific fact that water freezes at 32 degress, right? Well, who decided what 32 degrees was? Man did. Now, that doesn't make it wrong, but, it is man's answer. Yes, science is great evidence of many things. But, who set up the standards for science? Man.[/b]

I still didn't explain that well enough. Ok, let's just take the posters here on A2K for an example. We have all kinds; atheists, agnostics, apatheists, Buddhists, Muslims, Christians, etc. There is so much division, whether we all like to admit it or not, there just is. Some of the things I have been learning through this thread are helping me to see how I have been enabling that "we" and "they" mentality. This is what I mean, sozobe. How do we calm these waters?[/b]

It seems most that are atheists at the very least agree that Christ's teachings were very valuable and something we should all try to live by. So, is there a way to bridge this gap (for those that want it bridged)? [/b]

Sure, there will always be those that just stay away from the issue altogether and there will always be the extremists on the other end of the spectrum. I just feel that there must be a way for all of us to co-exist, not only on A2K, but in reality as well. I realize it may seem unrealistic to some, maybe even many, but if we can look to ourselves for all the answers to these other things, why aren't we looking at ourselves for this answer? [/b]