Merged (edited) General thoughts about Christianity and the bible

[Reformed Offlian]

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.

I actually agree with the thread title. I would simply add: "...and that's a *good* thing."

The purpose of faith is to encourage people to believe stuff without evidence. I can't think of many virtuous reasons for wanting that.

As one Youtuber I used to follow liked to say: "People who don't want you to think are never your friends."

 

[Beelzebuddy]

God is anything but shy, he's quite happy to provide proof of his existence in the bible, so he could do it today. Indeed the Christian faith is based on god revealing himself to Paul.

For all the crap Doubting Thomas gets, Thomas's doubt was welcomed.

Sure, it was the Galilean version of "Atheist Professor is STUNNED by This Student's Question!" but, yknow, the concept of evidence was at least a thing.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

OK, so I don't need faith.

Remind me what the point of this particular thread is?

The last half dozen haven't gone the way the script was supposed to?

 

[JayUtah]

If a god doesn't literally need faith, why should a god be so concerned with it?

What raises the red flag with me is that the God people describe to me evidently doesn't need my faith, but the people describing God to me need me to have faith in them as spokespeople.

Paul got a bye: God appeared to him, gave proof of his divine power, and gave Paul a good blinding to help him remember. But all the rest of the people just had to have faith in Paul that all that really happened to him the way he said. And then Paul got to be in charge. When blind faith is postured as a desirable end condition instead of a means to something else, I get leery. When that faith is directed at an idea that results in some people exercising power over others, I get extra leery.

I don't want that kind of faith. It seems destructive, useless to the god it's supposedly meant to serve, and it looks a lot like an earthly power grab.

 

[The Great Zaganza]

it's not an impasse if you can make do without one but not the other.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

I don't have any impasse. Things which are incompatible with reality are not real. Where is the problem?

That saw cuts both ways.

Evolution is a theory.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

We had a whole discussion about whether that would be proper eyewitness testimony.

Life or death court cases are decided by eye witness testimony.

 

[JayUtah]

it's not an impasse if you can make do without one but not the other.

People are at an impasse when neither side will budge. But whether that impasse is a result of the people or the problem depends on the nature of the problem. If the problem is inherently intractable, then the impasse is situational. If the problem has a solution that one side simply does not entertain, that's your impasse.

 

[JayUtah]

Life or death court cases are decided by eye witness testimony.

Asked and answered. You don't know what eyewitness testimony is or how courts work.

 

[Rusty Tyler]

If a god doesn't literally need faith, why should a god be so concerned with it?

God desires a personal relationship with us. This requires faith on our part.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

That saw cuts both ways.

Evolution is a theory.

You've already proved you don't understand what a theory means in a scientific context, your understanding of evolution is laughable and that you can't differentiate between the fact of evolution (that species change over time) and the Theory of Evolution (our understanding of the process by which that happens).

 

[JayUtah]

That saw cuts both ways.

No, it doesn't.

Evolution is a theory.

Evolution is a theory in science. The definition of a theory in science is a proposition that has been shown by evidence developed via the scientific method to have reliable predictive power under the stated conditions. That's in stark contrast to the colloquial meaning of theory, which is what science would more properly call a hypothesis.

 

[sinnikal]

That saw cuts both ways.

Evolution is a theory.

Your understanding of the scientific meaning of the word 'theory' is faulty. At best. Equivocation is not a good strategy.

 

[P.J. Denyer]

I'd also note that the "Benefits" of faith are being touted without any evidence of what they are, if they exist, if they're unique to any particular god or whether they are the result of the god itself (in which case they would themselves be evidence for god and hence defeat the purpose of faith according to the thread title) or just of the belief, such as tribal loyalty or placibo effects.

 

[JayUtah]

God desires a personal relationship with us. This requires faith on our part.

Non sequitur.

 

[Reformed Offlian]

What raises the red flag with me is that the God people describe to me evidently doesn't need my faith, but the people describing God to me need me to have faith in them as spokespeople.

Paul got a bye: God appeared to him, gave proof of his divine power, and gave Paul a good blinding to help him remember. But all the rest of the people just had to have faith in Paul that all that really happened to him the way he said. When blind faith is postured as a desirable end condition instead of a means to something else, I get leery. When that faith is directed at an idea that results in some people exercising power over others, I get extra leery.

I don't want that kind of faith. It seems destructive, useless to the god it's supposedly meant to serve, and it looks a lot like an earthly power grab.

That was one of my pivotal realizations, too. The demands of faith and compliance without evidence make little sense originating from a sublime, perfect, loving, all-powerful being; they *do* make perfect sense coming from a mortal priesthood eager for tithes and social control.

God's motives may be inscrutable, but humans are pretty obvious sometimes.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

God desires a personal relationship with us. This requires faith on our part.

Yes, well, if god wants to have such a personal and intimate relationship with me, he better buy me dinner and take me to a movie first. I might even put on some nice nylons and a short dress for that

Now seriously, I can't think of any personal relationship I've ever had that required me to have faith that the other person even existed at all. I mean, even people who talk to ghosts at least see those ghosts. A relationship where the other person give no answer ever is like talking to an imaginary wall, and thus not particularly personal.

Plus, again, the same could be said about any other god, or indeed about my imaginary cat. Sure, she wants to have a very personal relationship with me. Doesn't mean she is real.

 

[Olmstead]

Rusty, does your relationship with God come with any benefits that can't be dismissed as purely imaginary?

 

[Gawdzilla Sama]

Another one is "suffer".
"Suffer the little children to come unto me.", Jesus said.

"Permit..." or "Require..." in that usage.

 

[SpuriusMaximus]

Unrelated, a god that stays hidden and watches me all the time, to see if I even touch myself in the shower, strikes me as more of a stalker than anything else. And sure, most stalkers think they have some special relationship and connection to their victim, but that still doesn't make it something for the victim to want.