What do you object to regarding Christianity and Jesus?

[CSLewis]

Of course there is no evidence of God. By defiition GOd is not a phyical entity and trancsends conventionality. Objective evidence cannot exist for a God that is beyond the natural realm.

I totally disagree. God must be able to make himself known in the physical world. He has supposedly done it many times before and people often claim he is still doing that today. I see no reason to assume that an all powerful God that supposedly created me and the physical Universe can't make himself known to me in an irrefutable, objective way. To say God cannot transcend his own creation is to place him in a human sized box... after all, you think he came to Earth as Jesus, right?

This is not a problem - our brains are very interesting in which the capacity of fatih and in many cases the need for a structural religion surpasses our need for objective evidence for the "unseen". Either you believe in God or you don't there is only the great mystery of faith that could change you viewpoint. The mystery of faith cannot be understood in a conventional sense but must be experienced. This experience only occurs when we allow our objections to be over took with the subjective and emotional experience. Much in the same way brains function under the influence of hallucenegenic substances. The "mystical" experience happens and is "true" to the person that it occured however these experiences are subjective and no words can explain these subjective and mystical events. I have found in Christianity something that is different in other religions- that first is last that humility and servitude are not only good traits but exemplified by God himself.

I see religious faith as something people believe in because they want something to be true. The fact that virtually all religious beliefs require a component of faith should be pretty evident in it's inability to discern reality because these beliefs are often mutually exclusive, even though they feel real to each believer.

Christianity not only satisfies the subjective regions of the brain but compensates though theology the objective regions also. Is it "true"? Yes and I hope that you will one day experience the fullness of Christ in your life.

I agree that Christianity is one of the more evolved religions, and thus, is one of the most accepted. So is it "true"? I see no reason it is more true than any other religious belief taken on "faith".

What would be a possible evidence for a spiritual being?

A miracle is a subjective experience and when one says they "heard from God" that such and such - well that is there subjective experience. Those who spoke in tongues in Acts - though they heard from God it wasn't "proof" that God existed in that it is repeatable and could be repeated in a laboratory.

That is the main problem , it is not objective because it is not repeatable, and if it was repeatable in the laboratory it would then become a natural phenomenon or theory, therefore telling us nothing of the spiritual realm.

God does work miracles but they cannot be objective or they cease to be miracles.

[Ovedya]

I've written this before, but it bears repeating: One should never use their ears to try and smell the roses.

I use my five senses to experience the world around me. I can smell a rose, touch a rose, see a rose, taste a rose and perhaps hear a rose, but I can do none of those things with BibleGod, yet, I am expected to believe he is still there. This doesn't make sense to me.

And that's the point of my response to you. The organs which are designed to touch the substantial cannot be used to contact the etherial. By attempting to rationalize God through the use of your 5 senses you are, in effect, attempting to "smell the roses" with your ears. You are using the wrong organ.

[ayin jade]

I totally disagree. God must be able to make himself known in the physical world. He has supposedly done it many times before and people often claim he is still doing that today. I see no reason to assume that an all powerful God that supposedly created me and the physical Universe can't make himself known to me in an irrefutable, objective way. To say God cannot transcend his own creation is to place him in a human sized box... after all, you think he came to Earth as Jesus, right?

Would you believe even with Him in front of you? There were many who saw Jesus, saw His miracles, and refused to believe in Him. You said He can show Himself to me. Yet I see no humility in your words. Do you seek the Lord? Or are you so certain He isnt real, but hey if He wants you He can show up and prove Himself....yea that will force God to act. Why should He do any more than He already has for you? Why should He even done as much as He has already for any of us?

[TheProcess]

...And why is that a problem again?

You can't see the problem? The issue is well known.

"The second horn of the dilemma (known as divine command theory) runs into three main problems. First, it implies that what is good is arbitrary, based merely upon God's whim; if God had created the world to include the values that rape, murder, and torture were virtues, while mercy and charity were vices, then they would have been. Secondly, it implies that calling God good makes no sense (or, at best, that one is simply saying that God is consistent). Thirdly, it commits the naturalistic fallacy; to explain the evaluative claim that murder is wrong (or the prescription that one should not commit murder) in terms of what God has or hasn't said is to argue from a putative fact about the world to a value (to argue to an

[TheProcess]

Ive never heard anyone say "Praise You Lord for Your moral perfection."

People praise Him for everything, for all He does in our lives, for His love, mercy, gift of salvation. We praise Him in all things. We praise Him on a personal level. For being Him. Not for some distant intellectual concepts.

Even if Christians aren't concerned to praise God for his moral perfection, can they sensibly take a position which destroys God's moral perfection?

And couldn't God's love and mercy, which you mention, be considered connected with God's moral perfection?

[Copper Scroll]

Please quote some Christian theologians or philosophers on this point. If you claim a distinction between God being "moral" and God being "good", then lets see some support for this: that it is recognized within Christian theology.

I'm not interested in doing that research for the purposes of this exchange. Christians are not brought to Christ by theologians and philosophers anyway. They are brought to Christ by family members, church leaders, friends, and the like--not to mention Christ Himself. Just ask a few typical Christians what makes God good, and I'm certain you find the support for my position that you are asking for. Ayin Jade and most practicing Christians will tell you the same....

Even if you can do so, you still have the problem that your position destroys the moral goodness of God and makes it an empty tautology. Even if you can find other reasons to praise God -- a different kind of goodness -- big deal, you have still destroyed the moral goodness of God. This is not really a sensible position for a theist.

This is silly. My position does not destroy "the moral goodness of God". My position was that God must be morally good, based upon my definition of "morality"... so saying "God is moral" is like saying "A chair is a chair." Both of these statements are true, but they don't really say much... but they are still true.

[TheProcess]

What is moral is what is obedient to God and what is loving of God. All God has to do in order to be moral is to obey Himself. I think it is safe to assume that He always obeys Himself--so He is, in a sense, always moral. But at the same time, it is absurd that He would disobey Himself--so it would be absurd for Him to be immoral. So saying that He is moral is not really saying much... and saying that He is immoral is absurd.

So your position makes it impossible for God to be immoral.

We do not have knowledge of all the factors involved in God's actions--that might elicit those actions or that might result from those actions. God has all knowledge of all factors, period--so we are in no position to judge Him.

Why then, are the "factors involved in God's actions" at all relevant? They don't seem to matter at all. You say that we are in no position to judge him, we don't have the knowledge to do so. How is this consistent with your position that God is necessarily moral perfect?

[Copper Scroll]

We do not have knowledge of all the factors involved in God's actions--that might elicit those actions or that might result from those actions. God has all knowledge of all factors, period--so we are in no position to judge Him.

Why then, are the "factors involved in God's actions" at all relevant? They don't seem to matter at all. You say that we are in no position to judge him, we don't have the knowledge to do so. How is this consistent with your position that God is necessarily moral perfect?

First, you have to show me what makes these inconsistent, because it is not all that obvious to me....

[Ovedya]

I totally disagree. God must be able to make himself known in the physical world. He has supposedly done it many times before and people often claim he is still doing that today. I see no reason to assume that an all powerful God that supposedly created me and the physical Universe can't make himself known to me in an irrefutable, objective way. To say God cannot transcend his own creation is to place him in a human sized box... after all, you think he came to Earth as Jesus, right?

Would you believe even with Him in front of you? There were many who saw Jesus, saw His miracles, and refused to believe in Him. You said He can show Himself to me. Yet I see no humility in your words. Do you seek the Lord? Or are you so certain He isnt real, but hey if He wants you He can show up and prove Himself....yea that will force God to act. Why should He do any more than He already has for you? Why should He even done as much as He has already for any of us?

If someone literally "saw Jesus" and saw him perform miracles, they wouldn't doubt he existed. But these days, you don't see Jesus coming down to walk on water, etc.... Any so-called "miracles" are incredibly subjective and subtle and are really just emotional experiences. Eg. "I survived in a car accident, it's a miracle!", meanwhile I know atheists who have survived too and christians who have died in them.

Ever see someone run out of gas on the freeway, pray over their car, then put water in their gas tank in order to make it the next 5 miles to the nearest gas station?

Ever hear someone tell you that, while flying through the air from the wreckage of a plane crash, somehow their trajectory was suddenly changed in order to avoid hitting the side of a tree?

There are many who have seen and heard true miracles. How far would you go to try and explain these things away for the sake of your own comfort in rationality?

[EricH]

I totally disagree. God must be able to make himself known in the physical world. He has supposedly done it many times before and people often claim he is still doing that today. I see no reason to assume that an all powerful God that supposedly created me and the physical Universe can't make himself known to me in an irrefutable, objective way. To say God cannot transcend his own creation is to place him in a human sized box... after all, you think he came to Earth as Jesus, right?

Would you believe even with Him in front of you? There were many who saw Jesus, saw His miracles, and refused to believe in Him. You said He can show Himself to me. Yet I see no humility in your words. Do you seek the Lord? Or are you so certain He isnt real, but hey if He wants you He can show up and prove Himself....yea that will force God to act. Why should He do any more than He already has for you? Why should He even done as much as He has already for any of us?

If someone literally "saw Jesus" and saw him perform miracles, they wouldn't doubt he existed. But these days, you don't see Jesus coming down to walk on water, etc.... Any so-called "miracles" are incredibly subjective and subtle and are really just emotional experiences. Eg. "I survived in a car accident, it's a miracle!", meanwhile I know atheists who have survived too and christians who have died in them.

No offense, but your argument is the old "guilt trip on nonbelievers", and is an argument from emotion. Arguments from emotion are a fallacy.

Appeals to emotions are only fallacious, if such an appeal is designed to cover a weakness in the argument of the individual making the appeal. The fact that an argument produces an emotional response does not make it fallacious. It is not fallacious to state that the Bible teaches that Jesus is the only way to the Father. Jesus himself stated that in John 14:6. For you to feel guilty or fearful does not make the argument fallacious.