IS the christian god the only one that exists? Why?

[workmx]

That part is still bordering me. Was hoping some of our Jewish friends can give a better answer. Is there any thing in the oral Torah that would help? TG would just jump in and put himself between the Canaanites and the Israel army.

It bothered me too when I was a catholic.

 

[dcalling]

It would bother me too when I was a catholic.

It must borders our Jewish friends as well. I hope he is researching the oral torah right now.

But God's way can be strange, in the Cain killed Abel but God still helped the killer.... My only other explanation is, people without the spirit of God are just machines, without moral and feeling, only programed to do certain things. In another word, bio machines. So maybe the Canaanites are all machines (sort of like ISIS, did you see how they kill people? Maybe they are people without souls).

 

[workmx]

Ok, that is fine, and I am keen to see you get the understanding you claim to desire. So, I think that if you can answer this question then the answer to your OP will become more obvious: what is a god?

Mate, no matter how many times you ask, I simply cannot answer.

I have no idea of how to define gods.

As God means so many different things to so many different people and as there is no one definition of God that can be tested, I cannot answer the question.

 

[workmx]

It must borders our Jewish friends as well. I hope he is researching the oral torah right now.

But God's way can be strange, in the Cain killed Abel but God still helped the killer.... My only other explanation is, people without the spirit of God are just machines, without moral and feeling, only programed to do certain things. In another word, bio machines. So maybe the Canaanites are all machines (sort of like ISIS, did you see how they kill people? Maybe they are people without souls).

Sorry I meant to say: It bothered me too, when I was a catholic.

Now I just see it as a wierd old story that I can ignore, because I am no longer a catholic.

 

[oi_antz]

Mate, no matter how many times you ask, I simply cannot answer.

I have no idea of how to define gods.

As God means so many different things to so many different people and as there is no one definition of God that can be tested, I cannot answer the question.

That is better than saying the question doesn't make sense, and I can see that it seems to be true. So you now know that you require an understanding that you don't have, and it is my expectation that until you have that understanding, you will not be able to obtain the fullness of understanding that you are seeking. But you don't need to have an answer to my question straight away, it is perfectly reasonable to go about finding the best answer. So I encourage you to do that, meanwhile I might just watch everyone else try and get you to understand what they want you to understand.

 

[Aryeh Jay]

.

 

[TheyCallMeDavid]

TCMD - I have read the bible with an open mind and twice at that.

An open mind is someone without a belief that they feel a need to justify, by definition christians are closed minded.

I am willing and open to following the evidence to a rational conclusion. the problem with god claims is that there is no evidence, that I have seen.

Do you have any?

An open minded Person is One who doesn't come to the table with a strong bias toward their current status and who is totally willing to go where the evidence leads...even if it means giving up their complete autonomy that includes how they live. It is a total surrender of the will because of sound logical and reasonable evidence .

People say they are willing and open to go toward a rational conclusion...but they stop right there IF they even get that far. They don't go the next vital step because its too much of a live change to what theyre used to.

Yes, I have plenty of good rationale evidence for the Biblical personal theistic Creator from modern science without opening the pages of the Bible. But its always been available to People, especially now with the Internet . So :

a. What have you done to get this information ?
b. Have you concluded that an atheist worldview and origins is logic and reasonable ?
c. How did you get to the place of wanting to be an atheist ?
d. What are the personal benefits to you wanting to be an atheist ?
e. Have you encountered any major problems believing in an atheist worldview/origins or does it make total sense to you ?

Answer these questions, so I understand more where you are coming from.

 

[Joshua260]

No - you are wrong.

The bible is consistently racist, misogynist and violent.

Are you sure that you have read it?

Yes, I've read the bible, (plenty more than just twice ), and enough to know that your assertion that the Bible (and by implication, God) endorses slavery, rape and murder, is utterly ridiculous.

 

[Joshua260]

The extermination of the Canaanites seems to disagree with your interpretation of the bible.

Please read the forum rules. This is a forum designed for the OP to converse with believers and not a free-for-all forum. This type of organized communication helps keep the chaos to a minimum. Thank you.

 

[workmx]

An open minded Person is One who doesn't come to the table with a strong bias toward their current status and who is totally willing to go where the evidence leads...even if it means giving up their complete autonomy that includes how they live. It is a total surrender of the will because of sound logical and reasonable evidence .

People say they are willing and open to go toward a rational conclusion...but they stop right there IF they even get that far. They don't go the next vital step because its too much of a live change to what theyre used to.

Yes, I have plenty of good rationale evidence for the Biblical personal theistic Creator from modern science without opening the pages of the Bible. But its always been available to People, especially now with the Internet . So :

a. What have you done to get this information ?
b. Have you concluded that an atheist worldview and origins is logic and reasonable ?
c. How did you get to the place of wanting to be an atheist ?
d. What are the personal benefits to you wanting to be an atheist ?
e. Have you encountered any major problems believing in an atheist worldview/origins or does it make total sense to you ?

PLEASE answer these questions, so I understand more where you are coming from.

You left out a word there.

a. What have you done to get this information ?

I don't know. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim.

If you claim that there is evidence, please present it.

b. Have you concluded that an atheist worldview and origins is logic and reasonable ?

There is no such thing as an "atheist worldview".

Atheism is a single position on a single claim (the denial of belief in the claim that gods exist).

I am curently withholding judgement on the claim that gods exist.

Not sure, if that makes me an atheist or not.

I prefer to positively label myself as a rationalist.

c. How did you get to the place of wanting to be an atheist?

I doubt that anyone wants to be an atheist.

Have a read of Jerry Dewitt's book "Hope After Faith" where he says he was dragged kicking and screaming out of belief.

If we follow the evidence (or lack of, in this case), to the rational conclusion, we must withhold belief in the existence of gods.

d. What are the personal benefits to you wanting to be an atheist?

Again I doubt that there would be a benefit from a single position on a single claim.

There are benefits to being guided by rationality (not faith) though.

e. Have you encountered any major problems believing in an atheist worldview/origins or does it make total sense to you ?

No.

 

[aiki]

Have a read of Jerry Dewitt's book "Hope After Faith" where he says he was dragged kicking and screaming out of belief.

If we follow the evidence (or lack of, in this case), to the rational conclusion, we must withhold belief in the existence of gods.

LOL! Not according to Lee Strobel, or Josh McDowell, or C.S. Lewis - all of whom had the exact opposite experience of Jerry Dewitt. They all set out to defeat the Christian worldview and found instead that the evidence for it was too strong to do anything but accept it. Even Antony Flew, one of the most prominent and outspoken atheists of the twentieth century, was pressed to theism (though not to Christianity) by the evidence for such a belief.

Selah.

 

[workmx]

LOL! Not according to Lee Strobel, or Josh McDowell, or C.S. Lewis - all of whom had the exact opposite experience of Jerry Dewitt. They all set out to defeat the Christian worldview and found instead that the evidence for it was too strong to do anything but accept it. Even Antony Flew, one of the most prominent and outspoken atheists of the twentieth century, was pressed to theism (though not to Christianity) by the evidence for such a belief.

Now I wonder if I can trust you.

Antony Flew became a deist. Not a theist.

And it hypothesised that it was as a result of a brain injury.

If Lee Strobel, or Josh McDowell, or C.S. Lewis were really convinced, as you say, I would like to see and evaluate that evidence.

 

[aiki]

Now I wonder if I can trust you.

Antony Flew became a deist. Not a theist.

Wonder as you like. You are right, though: Flew would be better described as a deist. Regardless, my point in mentioning him remains unaffected.

And it hypothesised that it was as a result of a brain injury.

Yes...hypothesized. The only ones I have encountered who have suggested this with any seriousness are, as one would expect, those who have the most to lose by his change of view.

If Lee Strobel, or Josh McDowell, or C.S. Lewis were really convinced, as you say, I would like to see and evaluate that evidence.

They all have books recounting their journeys from atheism to belief in God. Google it.

Selah.

 

[workmx]

Wonder as you like. You are right, though: Flew would be better described as a deist. Regardless, my point in mentioning him remains unaffected.

So, you do not want to admit your error?

Yes...hypothesized. The only ones I have encountered who have suggested this with any seriousness are, as one would expect, those who have the most to lose by his change of view.

I struggle to see why this is important.

People change their minds all the time.

On that point, the number of people that are deconverting from religion is growing rapidly, especially among youth.

One person going the other way is a drop in the tsunami.

They all have books recounting their journeys from atheism to belief in God. Google it.

Will do.

I enjoy reading and listening to William Lane Craig, Ray Comfort and Sye Ten as well.

 

[workmx]

Wonder as you like. You are right, though: Flew would be better described as a deist. Regardless, my point in mentioning him remains unaffected.

So, what do you make of Flew's description of the gods of christianity and islam?

His God was strictly minimalist – very different from "the monstrous oriental despots of the religions of Christianity and Islam", as he liked to call them.

Professor Antony Flew - Telegraph

 

[aiki]

Wonder as you like. You are right, though: Flew would be better described as a deist. Regardless, my point in mentioning him remains unaffected.
​

So, you do not want to admit your error?

"You are right, though: Flew would be better described as a deist."

Will you acknowledge that the change in descriptors makes no difference to my point?

I struggle to see why this is important.

People change their minds all the time.

It appeared to be important to you when you mentioned Jerry Dewitt.

On that point, the number of people that are deconverting from religion is growing rapidly, especially among youth.

World-wide? I think not.

One person going the other way is a drop in the tsunami.

If there is a "tsunami" of deconversion from religion in one place there is a "tsunami" of conversion in another. Especially conversion to Christianity is exploding in South America, Africa and China.

Selah.

 

[workmx]

"You are right, though: Flew would be better described as a deist."

Will you acknowledge that the change in descriptors makes no difference to my point?

It makes the world of difference.

You totally misrepresented Flew's position.

He held a mild deist position while maintaining hostility towards theism.

I think you should withdraw the comment and apologise.

It appeared to be important to you when you mentioned Jerry Dewitt.

No, you are now misrepresenting my post.

I was challenging your assertion that people would want to choose to an atheist.

Please address that.

World-wide? I think not.

I did not say world-wide.

Quit the strawman arguments please.

If there is a "tsunami" of deconversion from religion in one place there is a "tsunami" of conversion in another. Especially conversion to Christianity is exploding in South America, Africa and China.

If christianity is the "truth" why do people have be indoctrinated to believe in it?

 

[dcalling]

If christianity is the "truth" why do people have be indoctrinated to believe in it?

Christianity is not "indoctrinated", or should not be. We study the bible and try to be Christ like, base on our own abilities. But I am sure most of us at least try to love our neighbors as yourself, love our enemies, the things that make us Christian. No one will force you to do that.

 

[aiki]

It makes the world of difference.

You totally misrepresented Flew's position.

Actually, all I did was confuse terms. The difference between a deist and theist is not particularly vast. The difference mainly turns on whether or not the Creator of the universe continues to superintend/govern its function. Regardless, my point in referencing Flew was to show that people move in both directions between atheism and theism/deism, not just from a religious perspective to an atheistic one.

I think you should withdraw the comment and apologise.

I have responded to my terms mix-up to the degree that I believe is warranted. If you want to make a mountain out of a mole-hill, well, you'll have to do so by yourself.

It appeared to be important to you when you mentioned Jerry Dewitt.

No, you are now misrepresenting my post.

So, Dewitt's change of perspective isn't really important?

I was challenging your assertion that people would want to choose to an atheist.

Please address that.

It wasn't my assertion.

World-wide? I think not.
​

I did not say world-wide.

Quit the strawman arguments please.

Where do I say that you did? I asked a rhetorical question; I did not make any assertion about the scope of your comment. No Strawman argument here... Mind you, as I think on it, you took no pains to limit or qualify the scope of your comment.

If christianity is the "truth" why do people have be indoctrinated to believe in it?

What do you mean by "indoctrination"?

Selah.

 

[ChesterKhan]

I assume that:
- most christians believe in a single one god (monotheism); and
- that this god is the christian god.

In that case, how do you know that the gods in other monotheistic religions do not exist?

How do you know that there are not multiple gods (polytheism)?

Depends on how you define the term "god", also as opposed to "God".

I believe there are many "gods", but there can only be one "God" in the Aristotelian sense.

I can believe Zeus, Mephistopheles, Screwtape, Amon-Ra, etc etc all exist. I must take their mythologies with a grain or 700 of salt, but nothing stops me from believing they exist. Quite the opposite. Where did they come from? Men's minds? Yeah, right. People aren't that stupid.

St. Augustine once proposed in "De Civitate Dei" that they were just immoral demons - citing the adulterous, murderous acts they asked pagans to do and to imitate. Tertullian lay similar charges against the pagan gods; if they are gods, why are men so able to manipulate them, or why do they depend on men to name them? Tertullian claimed not that they did not exist, but that they were demons. A loaded term in our time, but all it really implies is that they are spirits - however vile - who are not worthy of our worship.

I have no problem with the pagan gods. They pose neither me nor God Almighty any threat. They're little more than super-powerful man-like creatures.

As for other monotheistic religions, shortly, the Catholic Christian view of what God is is most liberal: God simply is, or as Aquinas put it, He is the "essence of Being". All things "are", but only He possesses perfect "is-ness", if that makes sense. Anyone who understands God to be that believes in the same God as we do - even if we do not agree on everything He is. Usually the difference is a fixation on some point of God - like fixating on the fact that a cone has a circular face, to the exclusion of the cylindrico-triangular body that comes to a point above the circle.