If God manifested himself, how would you know that it was God?

[WoundedDeep]

I think you might mean well, but that I have seen religious people interrogate the non religous over their falling out of belief quite a few times.

Giving someone the third degree (generally seeking to blame them) because they couldn't maintain religious belief is very rude in my opinion.

It seems like religious people think that if someone stops believing it is because they don't want to believe, and that is far from the truth.

I can't speak for all, but if you look at my questions, they all aim at finding out the following:

1) Whether he had a correct understanding of biblical salvation in light of Scriptures
2) Whether he had a compelling reason to stop believing

It is for the very reason that Christianity has claims involving the salvation and damnation of souls that it is more pressing for one to really hold onto it unless it is proven without a doubt to be false. Yet, people will leave even if they cannot conclude that it is false, even though they know they face the risk of a claim being true that is enough to make them regret for eternity.

A person is willing to deny something, even at the risk of losing his life if that thing comes true. Is it ignorance? Or plain madness?

 

[variant]

I can't speak for all, but if you look at my questions, they all aim at finding out the following:

1) Whether he had a correct understanding of biblical salvation in light of Scriptures
2) Whether he had a compelling reason to stop believing

It is for the very reason that Christianity had claims involving the salvation and damnation of souls that it is more pressing for one to really hold onto it unless it is proven without a doubt to be false.

A person is willing to deny something, even at the risk of losing his life if that things comes true. Is it ignorance? Or plain madness?

So now we're on to Pascals Wager?

Some people take the position that there if there aren't good reasons to believe something is true they accept that it likely isn't.

The fear of possible after death consequences keep believers in line, but that is not a good reason to think certain things true, it's just fear.

 

[WoundedDeep]

So now we're on to Pascals Wager?

Some people take the position that there if there aren't good reasons to believe something is true they accept that it likely isn't.

The fear of possible after death consequences keep believers in line, but that is not a good reason to think certain things true, it's just fear.

No, I'm addressing the rationality of refusing to believe in something that if proven true, could have life changing consequences.

If Christianity makes bold claims about life and death, is it wiser to accept it until proven false? Or is it wiser to reject it based on some other criteria that might be wholly insufficient to invalidate it?

Will there be greater loss for those who believe, or for those who don't believe but later found out Christianity is true and they need to suffer an eternity as a result for a single choice? I believe it's the latter group.

I never said fear is a good reason, yet fear can in some ways save a person from danger.

 

[variant]

No, I'm addressing the rationality of refusing to believe in something that if proven true, could have life changing consequences.

"if"

If Christianity makes bold claims about life and death, is it wiser to accept it until proven false? Or is it wiser to reject it based on some other criteria that might be wholly insufficient to invalidate it?

I never said fear is a good reason, yet fear can in some ways save a person from danger.

Using fear to manipulate people is well known to be effective in swaying them to your cause. Religious seem to use this tool liberally.

The problem is that some people aren't afraid of the ideas because there is little to solidly base their validity on.

Also, I don't believe God is petty enough to be enraged at not thinking a particular religion is true because I think more highly of any possible God than to maliciously characterize it like Christianity has.

I suggest that if fear is the thing that keeps you in a religion then there isn't really a good reason for you to be in it.

 

[WoundedDeep]

"if"

Using fear to manipulate people is well known to be effective in swaying them to your cause. Religious seem to use this tool liberally.

The problem is that some people aren't afraid of the ideas because there is little to solidly base their validity on.

Also, I don't believe God is petty enough to be enraged at not thinking a particular religion is true because I think more highly of any possible than to maliciously characterize it like Christianity has.

No, I am not talking about how God thinks. I am talking on a human level to bring a new perspective.

How is fear manipulative if all it requires is a belief in a God who saves through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore a life that revolves around imitating Jesus as the Role Model of modest and righteous living? How is fear manipulative if it eventually leads to a deeper understanding of righteousness and the benefits that come along with pursuing it?

The foundation of Christianity is a belief and subsequent relationship with God, it is not a religion with meaningless and repetitive rites. Though the way of communication is different, relationship with God is founded on the same principles of respect, humility, sincerity etc just like a human relationship. How is fear manipulative if the outcome is but a relationship with a Divine being and subsequently eternal life?

So people would rather refuse to believe sorely on the basis of insufficient evidence and subject themselves to the likelihood of a terrifying consequence they could never imagine possible? That seems to me a rather dangerous pursuit, one I would not go after since the stakes on the other side is so much larger.

 

[variant]

No, I am not talking about how God thinks. I am talking on a human level to bring a new perspective.

We are speaking on the human level always.

The problem is that we have to propose a God that will only work with me if I believe things that I have a sincerely hard time believing are true.

(from the addition to my previous post edited on after you replied) I suggest that if fear is the thing that keeps you in a religion then there isn't really a good reason for you to be in it.

How is fear manipulative if all it requires is a belief in a God who saves through His Son Jesus Christ, and therefore a life that revolves around imitating Jesus as the Role Model of modest and righteous living? How is fear manipulative if it eventually leads to a deeper understanding of righteousness and the benefits that come along with pursuing it?

You will believe a or terrible thing b will happen.

Manipulation. Period.

The foundation of Christianity is a belief and subsequent relationship with God, it is not a religion with meaningless and repetitive rites. Though the way of communication is different, relationship with God is founded on the same principles of respect, humility, sincerity etc just like a human relationship. How is fear manipulative if the outcome is but a relationship with a Divine being and subsequently eternal life?

God will only reward you if you believe and act as we do.

Manipulation.

Christianity is selling a message, selling it with fear, and, whether I agree that it has good points to it in terms of morality isn't the issue.

The question is whether we have to accept this message as presented as true. And I don't see a compelling reason to do that.

 

[Jeremy E Walker]

We are speaking on the human level always.

The problem is that we have to propose a God that will only work with me if I believe things that I have a sincerely hard time believing are true.

(from the addition to my previous post edited on after you replied) I suggest that if fear is the thing that keeps you in a religion then there isn't really a good reason for you to be in it.

You will believe a or terrible thing b will happen.

Manipulation. Period.

God will only reward you if you believe and act as we do.

Manipulation.

Christianity is selling a message, selling it with fear, and, whether I agree that it has good points to it in terms of morality isn't the issue.

The question is whether we have to accept this message as presented as true. And I don't see a compelling reason to do that.

Actually my friend, Christianity sells you nothing. It offers a gift. Salvation....unless you think that renouncing your sins and turning from them is too high a price....

It offers restoration, justification, redemption, adoption, a royal priesthood and a government and economy of righteousness.

Surely such an honorable and moral man as yourself would find yourself at home in such a kingdom...no?

 

[WoundedDeep]

We are speaking on the human level always.

The problem is that we have to propose a God that will only work with me if I believe things that I have a sincerely hard time believing are true.

(from the addition to my previous post edited on after you replied) I suggest that if fear is the thing that keeps you in a religion then there isn't really a good reason for you to be in it.

I don't know what you are talking about. No, fear was not the reason for my continuous belief, but it can be used wisely to avoid a negative outcome. If a person does not fear pain, he will not avoid fire. The lack of fear could very well kill a person.

You will believe a or terrible thing b will happen.

Manipulation. Period.

God will only reward you if you believe and act as we do.

Manipulation.

I will not call something manipulative if the outcome is good. By your reasoning, every form of parenting or governance or law enforcement is manipulative in one way or another. That is absurd.

Christianity is selling a message, selling it with fear, and, whether I agree that it has good points to it in terms of morality isn't the issue.

The question is whether we have to accept this message as presented as true. And I don't see a compelling reason to do that.

Your very first statement is rude and is against the board rules if I'm not wrong. If that's how you want to discuss things, then I will not continue.

 

[variant]

Actually my friend, Christianity sells you nothing. It offers a gift. Salvation....unless you think that renouncing your sins and turning from them is too high a price...

Call it whatever you like Christianity is selling a world view.

Self control has never been much of an issue "belief" has. I'm naturally very skeptical.

Surely such an honorable and moral man as yourself would find yourself at home in such a kingdom...no?

Belief is actually more important than morality, as immoral people can repent but unbelievers can't necessarily force belief.

 

[variant]

I don't know what you are talking about. No, fear was not the reason for my continuous belief, but it can be used wisely to avoid a negative outcome. If a person does not fear pain, he will not avoid fire. The lack of fear could very well kill a person.

You just supposed that we should give Christianity credence unless wholly disproved because of the perceived grave consequences of it being true.

Obviously you are going to need more than that to sustain a belief.

I will not call something m1anipulative if the outcome is good. By your reasoning, every form of parenting or governance or law enforcement is manipulative in one way or another. That is absurd.

Well you believe that the outcome is good and thus you feel the manipulation justified.

Taking a position of authority is generally what religion does though so your metaphor of parenting, governance and law enforcement are apt.

The question is whether the position of authority is warranted.

Your very first statement is rude and is against the board rules if I'm not wrong. If that's how you want to discuss things, then I will not continue.

Given I've been on the board a while I am not aware of any rule I would be breaking there.

 

[WoundedDeep]

Well you believe that the outcome is good and thus you feel the manipulation justified.

Taking a position of authority is generally what religion does though so your metaphor of parenting, governance and law enforcement are apt.

The question is whether the position of authority is warranted.

The reason for authority is for the protection of the weak, punishment of the wicked and education of the masses. Christian faith is the authority of all Christians because it educates us on godly living, motivate us to help the weak and poor and tell us to avoid doing evil to our neighbors. There is nothing unwarranted therefore about it having authority.

Given I've been on the board a while I am not aware of any rule I would be breaking there.

Saying that Christianity is a selling endeavor, selling of fear, is not only a false statement, it borders on slander.

 

[variant]

The reason for authority is for the protection of the weak, punishment of the wicked and education of the masses. Christian faith is the authority of all Christians because it educates us on godly living, motivate us to help the weak and poor and tell us to avoid doing evil to our neighbors. There is nothing unwarranted therefore about it having authority.

It's unwarranted if not true. Basically Christianity is a blank check to reform all of society based upon ones interpretation of the scriptures.

This has lead to Good consequences and Bad consequences throughout the ages.

Saying that Christianity is a selling endeavor, selling of fear, is not only a false statement, it borders on slander.

I said selling based upon fear not that fear is what they are selling.

 

[Kylie]

Clearly, you don't know anything about the holocaust. How about you show me the records the Germans made about their concentration camps? (Assuming they exist) How about you show me that whatever records about the Holocaust was written at the very second the Jews were killed? If you can't, your reasoning is wrong.



Then you must be totally unaware that an autobiography about Hitler called Mein Kampf exists. Well, that's unfortunate. And even Hitler's own autobiography was not written by himself, but based on his oral account to someone close. Your statement shows you have no background knowledge at all.

Like I said, I'm not here to spoon feed information. For your sake, you should prove or disprove DSS texts that echo the NT yourself.

Clearly you are unaccustomed to a style of language known as SARCASM.

Since you cannot comprehend this concept, my discussion with you has ceased.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you said it doesn't matter whether a Christian repented or not - that is false in light of the Gospel. It does matter.

Maybe it matters to you. Maybe it matters to certain Christians. But it does not matter to the common everyday usage of the word "Christian". I am fully aware that Christian churches have their own criteria for determining whether someone is a Christian or not. But their criteria is for internal use; it does not dictate the common everyday usage of the word. In my previous example, Bill falls under the broad category of Christian, even if you disagree with him over the finer details of his theology.

You only said you repented in your last post, I was not aware of it until then. I am not looking to find fault, where did I ever say such a thing? Trying to determine the cause of something isn't finding fault. Why do you think I will waste time here trying to find out something of no concern to me?

You didn't explicitly state that you were looking to find fault, but the inquisitorial tone of your posts suggests that you are. I've had ample experience with these kinds of conversations. They always seem to end with the charge of "No True Christian" being made against me.

Since this is a forum and not a chat box, I don't think we can continue such forms of discussion here. Anyhow, if you care or are interested, drop me a PM and let me know why you don't believe anymore. Try to be specific if you decide to PM. I'm not forcing you to share, do it on your own accord if you want. God bless.

If you are interested, I've already summarised the story of my deconversion here.

I can't speak for all, but if you look at my questions, they all aim at finding out the following:

1) Whether he had a correct understanding of biblical salvation in light of Scriptures

The problem with (1) is that you are evaluating my former religious beliefs in light of your interpretation of what constitutes a "correct understanding." Your interpretation may have differed from my own. That doesn't mean I was not a Christian; it simply means that we would not have agreed on the finer points of doctrine.

2) Whether he had a compelling reason to stop believing

I realised that there was no good reason to continue believing the doctrines of Christianity.

It is for the very reason that Christianity has claims involving the salvation and damnation of souls that it is more pressing for one to really hold onto it unless it is proven without a doubt to be false. Yet, people will leave even if they cannot conclude that it is false, even though they know they face the risk of a claim being true that is enough to make them regret for eternity.

This argument could be used for any religion that claims you will be punished for not believing in its doctrines. It follows then that you are taking as a big a risk as I am because you are not a Muslim, for example.

A person is willing to deny something, even at the risk of losing his life if that thing comes true. Is it ignorance? Or plain madness?

Is plain madness the reason you reject other religions? No? So why assume that I must reject yours only out of ignorance or madness? Does it occur to you that I might reject your religion because, in my assessment, there is no good reason to assent to its claims?

 

[Kylie]

That would be you then.

Am I the one claiming supernatural actions? Am I the one supporting a book that makes claims contradicted by reality?

No.

Try again.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, I'm addressing the rationality of refusing to believe in something that if proven true, could have life changing consequences.

If Christianity makes bold claims about life and death, is it wiser to accept it until proven false? Or is it wiser to reject it based on some other criteria that might be wholly insufficient to invalidate it?



I never said fear is a good reason, yet fear can in some ways save a person from danger.

Replace the word "Christianity" with "Islam." Does it convince you to become a Muslim? "Will there be greater loss for those who believe, or for those who don't believe but later found out Islam is true and they need to suffer an eternity as a result for a single choice?"

Do you see why this line of reasoning is unconvincing?

 

[WoundedDeep]

Replace the word "Christianity" with "Islam." Does it convince you to become a Muslim? "Will there be greater loss for those who believe, or for those who don't believe but later found out Islam is true and they need to suffer an eternity as a result for a single choice?"

Do you see why this line of reasoning is unconvincing?

I have studied Islam and know full well that it encourages irrational hatred and murder. Do you know their Quran commands them to literally kill unbelievers (for no reason other than being unbelievers)? It isn't even about punishing sin, it is about murdering those who will not submit to their god called Allah. Anyone in their right mind will reject a religion with such doctrines based on the madness it propagates.

 

[Archaeopteryx]

I have studied Islam and know full well that it encourages irrational hatred and murder. Do you know their Quran commands them to kill unbelievers (for no reason other than being unbelievers)? Anyone in their right mind will reject a religion with such doctrines.

It doesn't matter how ridiculous the doctrines seem. If they are true, and if you fail to believe them, then you will suffer the eternal consequences for your non-belief in Islam. If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you when it is used to argue for Islam, then why expect it to convince us when you use it to argue for your own religion?

 

[WoundedDeep]

It doesn't matter how ridiculous the doctrines seem. If they are true, and if you fail to believe them, then you will suffer the eternal consequences for your non-belief in Islam. If this line of reasoning doesn't convince you when it is used to argue for Islam, then why expect it to convince us when you use it to argue for your own religion?

No, you are entirely wrong. If you know Christianity well enough, physical death is not something a Christian will fear. Neither do Christians threaten physical death in order for others to believe, that in itself is against the very teachings of the Gospel. I do not understand why it is difficult for you to see that my line of reasoning simply cannot apply to Islam because Islam demands submission or physical death. There is no offer of salvation or eternal life in Islam, something entirely unique to the Christian faith. Not a single person will feel physically threatened even if they reject Christianity, the exact opposite happens in Islam. Christianity allows for people to choose, test, evaluate and even question God. If you do the same in Islam, you would be beheaded without any chance to reason. How, then can my line of reasoning apply to their religion?

 

[Archaeopteryx]

No, you are entirely wrong. If you know Christianity well enough, physical death is not something a Christian will fear. Neither do Christians threaten physical death in order for others to believe, that in itself is against the very teachings of the Gospel. I do not understand why it is difficult for you to see that my line of reasoning simply cannot apply to Islam because Islam demands submission or physical death. There is no offer of salvation or eternal life in Islam, something entirely unique to the Christian faith. Not a single person will feel physically threatened even if they reject Christianity, the exact opposite happens in Islam. Christianity allows for people to choose, test, evaluate and even question God. If you do the same in Islam, you would be beheaded without any chance to reason. How, then can my line of reasoning apply to their religion?

The only reason you find your line of reasoning convincing when it is used to argue for Christianity is because you are already convinced of its truth. You are obviously not convinced by a Muslim apologist who throws your argument back at you and says, "You are risking eternal damnation by denying Islam. Come, convert, and you shall enjoy Paradise!"

To repeat my question, if this doesn't convince you when it is used to argue for Islam, why expect it to convince us when you use it to argue for your own religion?