7 ms·

My I ask why you are a Christian? Personally I think the question of a god has only one answer: we cannot know. But the question of the christian god, with th

• dvt 10y ago
  > My I ask why you are a Christian? Sure, I believe that man is essentially fallen and we were redeemed by the grace of God through his son Jesus. If the question "why" is meant to be more analytical, I can't be of much help. I profoundly believe that believing in God is by definition non-analytical. That is, you can't "prove" it, nor can you "logic" your way into it. I have some arguments I find convincing and that I like, but when push comes to shove, it's a personal (and wholly non-rational) choice someone makes. > But the question of the christian god, with the bible and traits like loving, good. That is easily disproven. Killing 100,000 innocent Egyptian kids? Genocide and more promise of genocide? Stoning? Hating homosexuals? Sending good people to hell? None of these things are loving or good. Or just try Mark 16:17-18, a simple test, but I have never seen it demonstrated. You're severely oversimplifying here. I think if you work towards understanding the fundamental difference between the Old and New Testament (e.g. Judaism and Christianity), it should become obvious why the OT seems violent and filled with a "just" and "vengeful" God, whereas in the NT, we find a more "merciful" and "forgiving" God. This, theologically speaking, happens because we believe Jesus Christ was kind of a big deal that changed the moral workings of the universe. As far as the homosexual issue, etc., these are very complicated and are hotly debated both in a political and social context, as well as in theological circles. I'm not sure if homosexuality is a sin or not (to me, it doesn't seem that way), but I just do my best to treat everyone as Jesus would: with love and respect. > Would you mind expanding on what convinces you? If not the cosmological argument? As I mentioned, nothing truly "convinces" me -- I think the belief is at its very essence not a rational one. It's sort of like appreciating a beautiful piece of art or listening to Beethoven's 5th; there's no science or math here. However, I will say my favorite argument is the moral one: I think that there are some cases where we can trivially say "X is morally good" or "X is morally bad". Let's focus on the latter for now. For example, I think most people can agree that it's trivially morally bad to cause pain for no good reason. I think this intuition points to some sort of "realness" of the idea of good, e.g. some "ideal" of good. I think that this is, in some sense, a whiff of God. We "get" that there's good things and bad things (irrespective of laws), so I think that's indicative that God is a real thing. Now, some people are complete moral relativists. I think that's wrong and it throws out the baby with the bathwater.
  • lisper 10y ago
    > I profoundly believe that believing in God is by definition non-analytical. Why by definition? There are many people who purport to believe in God because they claim there is evidence that God exists. That claim may be false, but it doesn't seem to me to be logically incoherent. > For example, I think most people can agree that it's trivially morally bad to cause pain for no good reason. Sure, but that just begs the question: what is a "good reason"? The Inquisitors thought that they were saving people from eternal hellfire by torturing them. Does that constitute a "good reason"?
    • Koshkin 10y ago
      >> I profoundly believe that believing in God is by definition non-analytical. > Why by definition? Well, the parent said "I profoundly believe...". That is the proof.
      • deleted 10y ago
        [deleted]
    • dvt 10y ago
      > There are many people who purport to believe in God because they claim there is evidence that God exists. I think faith is the antithesis of proof. I believe God asks us for faith. As opposed to my logic courses, which asked me for proofs :) > Sure, but that just begs the question: what is a "good reason"? The Inquisitors thought that they were saving people from eternal hellfire by torturing them. Does that constitute a "good reason"? I'm using a very typical run-of-the-mill "good reason". E.g. it's a "good reason" to hurt someone if they need to get an arm amputated to prevent a cancer from spreading but it's not a "good reason" to crush a baby kitten's skull just because you feel like it.
      • lisper 10y ago
        > I believe God asks us for faith. OK, fair enough, but then how do you know it's Jesus and not Allah (or some other deity) asking for your faith? (That's a serious question, BTW. I'd really like to know your answer.) > it's not a "good reason" to crush a baby kitten's skull just because you feel like it. Yes, well, there's a reason I didn't choose that as my example. Is scientific research a "good reason"? It is moral to vivisect a kitten for research? What about a mouse?
• krick 10y ago
  > Personally I think the question of a god has only one answer: we cannot know. I usually avoid talking about such things, but since it came up, I'll try once more. When I was in my early teens, I was proudly calling myself an atheist. Because materialism and all. Then, of course, there was stage of agnosticism, because you clearly cannot prove existence or non-existence of transcendental entity. Pretty much by definition. So, yeah, the only correct answer must be "we cannot know". Now I find both previous statements so primitive, so obviously wrong that it seems almost silly. Of course there is God, I say. It's useless to try to find and describe it, because, first things first: "god" is a mere word. As much as "table", "truth", "yellow" are mere words, i.e. some (very much imperfect!) tools, humans use to try and carry a thought from one human brain to another. To describe something. And "god" is not a thing, it isn't a property, it is a concept. Concept of something ultimately bigger than human can understand. Something that can both "be" or "not be". If your school of thought has some concept you call "God" — God obviously exists. For you and your peers. Because there is such concept. If your school of though doesn't have any meaningful (i.e. consistent) concept of "God" — it doesn't make sense to claim it doesn't exist, because you have to "invent" it first. It's like saying "asdgjhgj doesn't exist". "Dao doesn't exist." Like for some farmer not versed in category theory to say "catamorphism doesn't exist". What does it even mean? So, surely, for a Christian and a Pagan "god" might have 2 separate meanings (actually, it'd be better to say "they use word god to name 2 different things", words "god" and "god" are "false friends" in their languages), but usually these meanings are consistent within one school of thought. It can be argued, for instance, that "good" and "bad" are highly ambiguous terms all by themselves, and Christian God is in fact good in a way you, an uneducated man, cannot possibly understand. Even such bizzare things as the story of Job have their justifications. And your examples, quite frankly, don't even require any sorts of sophisticated philosophy. I won't go into details, because I dislike the Old Testament and the portrait of "Jewish God" myself, but let me assure you: well-educated priests and theologists have solid explanation for pretty much anything you can think of. The same can be said about Islamic, Hindu or any other concepts of "God". But more simple and more popular statement about Christianity is that it isn't about Old Testament at all, and you shouldn't take it too literally. Judaism is Judaism, and Christianity is Christianity, they just happen to share some holy texts for historical reasons. Coincidence, nothing more.
  • 10y ago