Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[SpuriusMaximus]

Well, obviously science can't disprove religion, any more than I can disprove the existence of a billionaire who left me everything in his will. Just in both cases I won't plan my life around it being true

 

[Darat]

Doubting Thomas was a skeptic.
Jesus applauded those who believed having not "seen". (scripture below)

The Bible says that creation makes plain the evidence of a creator God. (so men are without excuse)
Skeptics renounce the Bible. How many other ancient texts do they discount?

Is it fair to reject God on the basis of evidence?

John 20:29 NIV
Then Jesus told him, “Because you have seen me, you have believed;
blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

Hebrews 11:6 NIV
And without faith it is impossible to please God,
because anyone who comes to him must believe that he exists
and that he rewards those who earnestly seek him.

Yet in the bible god gets frustrated with people who don't want a sign from him.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Well, the only problem with that is that the same argument can be applied to any other god, and they can't all be true at the same time. I mean, you could say the same about Ra. (And we've seen in Stargate that he wasn't a real god) Or about Ptah crafting the world.

Hell, it can be used to argue that an abused spouse should have faith in their abuser.

Wait...
Do those other gods require faith?

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

TBF, Thomas did want an actual sign that it's true.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Don't use science to disprove the existence of God, don't use God to question science.

But aren't they incompatible?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

What actually is the purpose of faith?

That's a great question. Thanks.

Things unbelievable are presented that require faith to benefit from.

Those who believe receive the benefits, those who do not believe do not receive the benefits.

Ultimately, everyone will believe. IMHO

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Wait...
Do those other gods require faith?

Probably more than our God does. You had to believe enough to do large rituals and festivals and sacrifices to appease them, or you'd all suffer. I mean, failing to brown nose Osiris could cause a fail flood of the Nile and you'll have a famine next year. Or you had to feed human hearts to Huitzilopochtli or the whole world would end.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Well, obviously science can't disprove religion, any more than I can disprove the existence of a billionaire who left me everything in his will. Just in both cases I won't plan my life around it being true

What did you lose?/ What did you gain?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Yet in the bible god gets frustrated with people who don't want a sign from him.

Tell me more? Example?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

TBF, Thomas did want an actual sign that it's true.

Agree.
Was he applauded or criticized for that?

We call him Doubting Thomas.

 

[Jack by the hedge]

But aren't they incompatible?

How could they be?

Science is observing how the world really is. What could be incompatible with observed reality?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Probably more than our God does. You had to believe enough to do large rituals and festivals and sacrifices to appease them, or you'd all suffer. I mean, failing to brown nose Osiris could cause a fail flood of the Nile and you'll have a famine next year. Or you had to feed human hearts to Huitzilopochtli or the whole world would end.

Does that really require faith, or is it fear-based activity based on fear?

 

[Rusty Tyler]

How could they be?

Science is observing how the world really is. What could be incompatible with observed reality?

The POV. The assumptions.

"There is no God, therefore..."

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

That's a great question. Thanks.

Things unbelievable are presented that require faith to benefit from.

Those who believe receive the benefits, those who do not believe do not receive the benefits.

Ultimately, everyone will believe. IMHO

Old gods, including the OT God, tended to be more of a communal thing than the modern idea of a God that cares about you. It's not like you'd get to reap the benefits, and your neighbour didn't. Everyone would suffer.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

Why do I need a god?

I've been managing tolerably well for a few decades without one.

Evidence about how the world/universe/that class of thing works? Yup, I need that and it has been very useful indeed.

 

[sinnikal]

That's a great question. Thanks.

Things unbelievable are presented that require faith to benefit from.

Those who believe receive the benefits, those who do not believe do not receive the benefits.

Ultimately, everyone will believe. IMHO

That's a completely meaningless answer.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

To be fair, if you read the whole thing, it's pretty clear what he meant. I mean, he even goes, "But whoso shall offend one of these little ones which believe in me, it were better for him that a millstone were hanged about his neck, and that he were drowned in the depth of the sea." Which was used to justify literally doing that to anyone teaching the old pagan stuff in the Byzantine empire. But, anyway, Mat goes on for two chapters about it. It takes some effort to misunderstand it based on one word

I agree, but the word "suffer" is pretty awkward.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

The POV. The assumptions.

"There is no God, therefore..."

Science makes no such assumption. It's just that there is no evidence that requires God to explain, so there is no reason to bother about that.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

Old gods, including the OT God, tended to be more of a communal thing than the modern idea of a God that cares about you. It's not like you'd get to reap the benefits, and your neighbour didn't. Everyone would suffer.

The biblical god is God the Father.
Not so much communal as familial.

 

[Carrot Flower King]

The POV. The assumptions.

"There is no God, therefore..."

And that is your religionista assumption about the thinking of non-religionists: most of us don't think about gods unless involved in this class of discussion, as the notion of a god, any god, is just irrelevant and unnecessary.

We don't need to do the "therefore" bit.

Why do you lot insist that we must use the same thinking patterns as you but substituting "not god" for "god"? It just doesn't work like that.