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

For me it's almost the opposite of what you pose. There is no fear of being wrong or looking stupid. I know of quite a few people who profess a belief in God because they are afraid not to, it's easier not to buck the trend. I find no reason to think the Christian God of the Bible represents Truth. I'm perfectly fulfilled knowing that I do not know Truth and therefore I have no need to put faith in Bible. As you know, I enjoy reading the Bible. It's a fascinating story, but there is no evidence, other than circular evidence, that it is not simply a fabulous yarn. You've stated you believe the Christian Bible to be the divine word of God. You have no reason to question that, I have no reason to accept it.

Do you see how many times you used 'they' and 'them' in that response, Momma? There you go being separate again

Momma, I'm sure you are a nice person, but you spend entirely too much time obsessing on this religious crap. Too much religion will cause a person to go insane.

Back off a little. Take a walk. Smell some flowers.

And dismiss God.

For a while anyway. You need to clear your head.

Brandon9000 Wrote:

Quote:

Indeed, believing that what you want to be true is true, without a shred of evidence of its truth, is.....well, I don't have to say it. An intelligent adult determines what is true by observation and reason, and does not allow his judegement to be tainted by his wishes or his fears. Things in this universe are not true just because you want them to be, or false because you want them to be false. Your way of determining truth is certainly inferior to mine, because any laboratory test will instantly show that it leads to false conclusions.

So if one determines what is true in this case differently than you, this would make one less intelligent (irrational, any word you want here) than you? What if on every other thing in life there was complete agreement with you? Would one still be less intelligent than you?

Quote:

You said a post or two ago that you believe in him now because of past evidence. Yet other times, you said that you believe without evidence. I would like to know which of your contradictory statements is the true one. If you do have evidence in your own life that a Supreme Being exists, perhaps you would share it.

Actually, I first believed on faith alone. Over the years that faith has been reinforced by evidence of God in my life.

I noticed that too, JB. She treats us like lepers.

Momma Angel, why do so many Christians fear death?

I will patiently await your answer.

Chai Tea,

I understand what you are saying about the Bible changing. Let me ask you this, do you think it's possible that the words may have changed but the message is still the same and we are just not getting it right?

This is a very interesting concept, sozobe. But why do you suppose they came up with something that cannot be proven? To my mind, I would think they might make some person the Godhead or something and pass it down. Something that through time would not be questioned as much as the Bible and God are. But, given the primitive times and such they probably didn't think it would ever get this far? Your thoughts?

Actually, according to the dictionary definition of the word, it is irrational. This is one reason people lose patience when talking about this stuff with you, just so you know. You can't make up definitions of words and expect people to take you seriously.

Adj. 1. irrational - not consistent with or using reason; "irrational fears"; "irrational animals"

You believe in god. Fine, but just don't tell us it's rational when it is definitely NOT. Why won't you accept the fact that it is an irrational belief? If you did, you'd earn at least a little bit more respect for being intellectually honest about your ideas, I think.

Or, at the very least, if you still believe your faith is rational, then provide some specific reasons why you have come to the conclusion that god exists.

On the contrary, I think it's much easier to sustain some invisible, omnipotent being with mysterious ways than to sustain the illusion of one person holding the ultimate power. It makes sense to have people who are emissaries -- popes, for example -- but not necessarily people who are the god, themselves.

I don't think anyone who started any religion was necessarily looking towards 2006, no. I don't think proof had anything to do with it at the time; I think they were seeking a rational explanation for what they observed in every day life, and trying to gain a measure of control, as I mentioned before.

I think religions started and mutated for a variety of reasons, and stuck around for a variety of reasons -- including whether particularly vicious and succcessful conquering peoples adhered to a given religion.

Gus, do you really think Christians fear death? Or do you think Christians fear death and thus the belief in God?

sozobe Wrote:

Quote:

On the contrary, I think it's much easier to sustain some invisible, omnipotent being with mysterious ways than to sustain the illusion of one person holding the ultimate power. It makes sense to have people who are emissaries -- popes, for example -- but not necessarily people who are the god, themselves.

Ok, that makes sense on one hand and on the other begs a question from me. Why would they make up something supernatural? Wouldn't it be easier to accept something natural instead? Just look at all those that want evidence now.[/b]

If they had actually made up someone real do you think people would still want evidence?

I don't think anyone who started any religion was necessarily looking towards 2006, no. I don't think proof had anything to do with it at the time; I think they were seeking a rational explanation for what they observed in every day life, and trying to gain a measure of control, as I mentioned before.

Rational? You used rational?! Sorry sozobe, I couldn't let that pass. :wink:[/b]

[/b]Why do you think this might have been rational to them and not irrational? Do you think maybe because it was of all the different gods out there at the time? So maybe they just tried to outdo the others in defining him?[/b]

anything is possible. however, I don't think it could go over such a long period of time without the message getting changed.

Note phoenix translations from hebrew to another language....young woman translates to virgin for instance..

When the words change, chances are high the message does too.

Again, using the example of Man making changes to suit their own agenda, they could and I think would purposely change the message.

I am saying if they believe in their God so strongly they should have no fear of death.