Choosing a faith

That sounds a lot like making up the God you want and never mind the reality.

It has grown up, like the belief in Santa Claus has grown up and the need for a security blanket has grown up.

In Phat-world, only Evangelicals are "real Christians" - and not necessarily all evangelicals, either. It's like Faith-math, where there are "millions-and-millions" of Christians in the world, when it's convenient to have a majority - but on actual individual issues, the only "real Christians" are the other five people in the same pew with her.

But all too often believers DO disregard reality. Phat, for example, says that believers don't "need" evidence.Not "needing" evidence is just an excuse for denying evidence.

When did I ever say that? They made up a God that YOU don't want. ​
When did I ever say that? The God of the Bible is most likely closer to reality than the God that YOU made up - but it still isn't very close to reality. But you're NOT respectful of reality.

That isn't the same situation as the politician. There may be universal agreement about what the politician said but there is no universal agreement about whether or not it was true or made sense. With "God" there is nothing resembling universal agreement about what He said - nor even universal agreement that He said anything.

What about people who ask for spare change?

Nothing wrong with that. There are biological reasons to avoid incest. I don't see how that applies to a pantheon. Ever hear of David, the adulterer and one of God's best buddies? Ever hear of Solomon, with his 700 wives and 300 cocubines? That's somewhere in the neighborhood of adultery, isn't it? Ever hear of Abraham? (Genesis 22) Nothing wrong with that. *shrug* Other than consent, what's the problem? (And we don't ask for consent when we eat the animals either.) I'd be interested in seeing how that probability is calculated. Of course it is.And it's also morally wrong for Him to let his buddies go scot free for the same behavior. Nothing hypocritical about it. "Sinners" is a concept made up by an arbitrary and hypocritical God. But the "chosen ones" were neither innocent nor pure. That's practically the theme of the whole Bible. Yes. Thank you for shooting yourself in the foot so we don't have to do it. So make some. Go ahead and tell us how Hitler had to punish the Jews for polluting Aryan society. Consider the corollary question: Would you be justified in destroying every man, woman and child in that city? See Abraham (Genesis 22).You've done a fine job of showing what idiots your apologists are.

And you can't know Jesus by rejecting everything the Bible says about Him.

quote:

---

Rule 4. Points should be supported with evidence and reasoned argumentation. Address rebuttals through the introduction of additional evidence or by enlarging upon the argument. Do not repeat previous points without further elaboration. Avoid bare assertions.

---

That doesn't let faith topics off the hook. You need reasoned arguments, not just loud proclamations. Don't say proof.

Not much. Go ahead and give some examples of things the Bible says about Jesus that you don't reject. You reject the idea that you have to DO anything to be "saved". You reject the idea that you should trust Him instead of your retirement plan. Isn't that pretty much His whole schtick?

Edited by ringo, : More style. Still a little bit of substance.

I don't like the term "intelligence" as applied to gods. To me, intelligence implies an ability to learn. Why would a god have to learn?

It's interesting how believers create gods that can't/won't/don't do the things that aren't convenient in their particulsr belief system. Omnipotence, omniscience, etc. are all highly limited. The invented gods are a lot like their inventers.

And baldness is not a hair color.

You and GDR postulate a puny god who can't do this and can't understand that. We humans create things that are deliberately stronger than us and smarter than us. That's not an "explanation". It's an excuse for bad behavior. Every murderer on Death Row has an excuse. "I had no choice. Supper wasn't on the table. I had to kill her." You really don't think before you post, do you? If you had four feet, they'd all be in your mouth.If God "knew" that humans were incurable, there wouldn't have been any point in sending Jesus to "save" them, would there? So you contradict yourself. If David knew enough to repent, why not the newborns in Canaan? Stop trying to predict what I "would" argue.