Sven

Mods: Not sure if this belongs here or in EoG. Feel free to move it.

Questions like this come up often, but mostly the existence of any god and all type of theists are included. I want to focus on non-fundy-Christians (that is, excluding Christians who take the bible to be literal and/or inerrant) and (obviously) the Christian god.

Being this type of Christian formerly myself and now no longer believing in his existence, I'm really interested in the reasons why you still believe.

I think that Evolution, cosmology, that is natural science in general, which contradict the bible, are no a priori reason to reject the existence of the Christian god. The answer that the bible is not meant as a science book but as a "spiritual guide" or something along this line, is IMHO not satisfactory, but at least an argument. I understand that bronze age goat-herders simply didn't understand these things and did the best they could to incorporate answers to these questions in their holy book, and that the Christian god simply didn't care about the bullshit they wrote, because he still could get his "spiritual truths" (or something like this) across.

But what about the fact that most of the history of the OT was also fabricated to suit the needs of the priests (and possibly large parts of the NT, too)? That is, something they could have gotten right is also a bunch of lies? This IMHO casts severe doubt on anything the bible says.

Furthermore, although I don't find the typical arguments for the existence of gods convincing (ontological, transcendental, etc.), we can accept them for the sake of argument. Problem is, of course, that these at best establish the existence of a god, not specifically the Christian god.

Then there's personal revelation. But looking around the world, personal revelation seems to lead to all kinds of different, contradictory beliefs, and thus doesn't seem to be reliable.

Further, there's a strong correlation between the belief of your parents / your culture and your own belief, suggesting that the main cause of belief in a particular god is your upbringing.

Finally, humans are known to make cults up, which agglomerate many, many followers, despite being obviously bullshit (examples are Mormonism and Scientology).

Summary:
(1) the bible is probably not trustworthy
(2) you have no logical argument (that I know of) to go from "a god" to "the Christian god"
(3) personal revelation is not trustworthy
(4) belief is strongly correlated with upbringing
(5) many beliefs are known to be fabrications

So, Christians, please enlighten my: What makes you still believe your god is the "right" one - despite all of the above?

And please, I'm not interested in the rants of folks who take the bible literally / to be inerrant.

Edited to add: To clarify, with this post, I don't claim that you are wrong in your belief, and I'm right - I only want to understand your reasons for your belief, because I fail to see any. That is, I agree that perhaps I'm simply ignorant.

run2white

Hmmm...I'm not sure I'm one you want to hear from, but I'll attempt to offer a thought or two within the few minutes I have...

I understand that the bible was written by men inspired by God. In my view, all men are inspired by God when acting of the practice of creation. Do we tend to filter that inspiration through our human understanding and desires? Naturally. Does that make the bible untrustworthy? I don't know, but I don't think that would be a necessary conclusion.

I believe that there are truths obvious and truths hidden in the words of the bible. But that's not a personal revelation, more like a suspicion.

I understand the frustration many have with finding logical foundation for particular beliefs. There is logic for believing in the Christian God. That's primarily based on known history and the way the world has evolved around the concept of the presence and teachings of Christ. Is the world so foolish to disregard an entity that so profoundly changed the concept of God and man's relationship to God and himself? We're not all that foolish all the time after all this time. There's something to it, although I would be insincere to claim faith without question.

Ah, the old insanity argument. Psychotic break. Even quantum science doesn't support this argument. I think we have much to learn in the area of spiritual revelation. Call it untrustworthy, but do so in the face of a world of contrary, as well as supportive personal and documented proof. Personal revelation may well be the most trustworthy experience we have to rely on. This brings into question the nature of reality—what is it, really?

True. If I had grown up in Thailand to become a builder of houses, I would have naturally been influenced by the architecture of my environment. But should I think that other people in other places do not live in houses? Should I think that other people in other places build houses of the same design? Should I choose to believe that anyone who lives in a house different in design and texture from my own be condemned to my concept of error? Should I choose to believe that the house one lives in is limits of his being?

I think what turns off so many people to "God" is the forced-upon nature of our human concepts. Maybe we can experience a presence of God in many forms, but I believe it's foolish to claim to know God in any complete understanding. If the limits of our logic is confined to a single point at any one time, how is it possible to hold every possibility to a single measurement? What is the nature of logic?

Most of life falls outside the boundaries of our logical concepts. It's our nature to explore and understand. It's our wisdom that reminds us that we understand very little.

I think most beliefs are fabrications to a great extent. But what is a fabrication? Is this not a creation? Even if this creation stands in contrast to an agreed-upon mass reality, does that alone make it erroneous? What would become of this fabrication if it were to be accepted by a shared reality embraced by the world-wide scientific community? Is it then still just a fabrication?

We are very limited in our understanding of all things. I think an interesting question is; why are we ALL so limited and ALL come prewired with universal laws of love and fear in this experience we call a life?

Plognark

Hmm...I don't think insanity is what was being hinted at. Delusions do not equal insanity, although they do indicate irrational thinking. Not the same thing.

It's hard to dismiss "personal revelation" type experiences, but at the same time, all of them can't be correct (unless you're some kind of pluralistic sissy ) and it's impossible to verify even one of them.

People put a whollllllllle lot of stock in what they experience, and for good reason, but they often put too much stock into their interpretations without knowledge of the possible causes.

Thus, gods of thunder :wave:

Sven

My point was that the bible is not trustworthy when it comes to history - something the writers could have easily gotten right. But what we find is that the history in the bible was (mostly) written to fit the needs of the priests of the Yehovah cult, and later of the Jesus cult. So why should we expect that there's anything trustworthy therein when is speaks about god?

OK - but on what do you base this suspicion? Is it more than wishful thinking?

Ask yourself to things: Why does it matter that Jesus (allegdly) teached this and that although many of his teachings were known before his time? And how would the world look like if Jesus was "just" a wise men and was mistaken about his divinity (or never claimed it, got it only ascribed to by his "biographers")? Can you really make a case that the world would look different then?

You terribly misunderstood.

My only point was that personal revelation is contradictory around the world. Thus, without an outside standard to judge its validity, it can not be used to bolster a specific belief.

:huh: What's the relevance of this to my point?

This has no relevance to my question why you specifically chose the Christian god.

Of course not. But I asked how you determine that your god is not a fabrication.

I don't understand what you mean by "to be accepted by a shared reality".

That's all well and true - but how does this lead to the Christian god?

You nowhere answered my primary question in your post, you only commented on my points. Sorry, the only answer I could distill from your answers was "I believe because I believe". If this misrepresents your stance, please correct me.

run2white

My apologies, Sven, for using your summary as a point of communication for my own expression without considering your personal need. I assumed the OP was an invitation for discussion, not realizing you were sincere in your quest. I selfishly attempted to answer your question(s) to my satisfaction rather than yours. No offense intended.

BadBadBad

Then why inspire the Bible? If all men are inspired by God, why doesn't God inspire each man sufficiently to believe in God?

Why would God inspire that truth be hidden?

Really? I thought believing in God requires discarding reason and logic. I thought it required faith independent of logic and reason. What logic is there for believing in God?

I think that's the weakest response I've ever heard to explain why if you were born in another culture, you wouldn't be Christian.

I think what turns so many people off about God is the forced upon nature of your God concepts.

Our logical concepts are based upon the boundaries of our life. Therefore all of our logical concepts fall within the boundaries of life.

In this context, I think Sven meant a lie or a make believe story.

It's a lie.

As a made up story and a lie, we need to substitute the truth for your term "agreed-upon mass reality." Then your play on words reads "If this lie stands in contrast with the truth, does that alone make it erroneous." Yes it does.

Yes it would still be a lie. What other description were you looking for? How about mass fraud?

Our evolution does not require our understanding of all things. Our evolution was enhanced by love and fear.

Columbo

Hmmm. Why do we "still" believe? Why would taking the bible literally make it a stronger belief though? I don't woeship the bible Sven.

I personally don't see science and the bible as contradictory. I see the bible as "why" and the science as "how".

Because of the nature of the passages therein, there is a lot of possibilities in Genesis alone. I see no particular reason to take it literally and then pitch it against science.

I first read it when I was ten, Genesis - and thought it was pretty poetic even then. What with trees of knowledge etc, and talking snakes. It's hard to take literally, as talking snakes seems farsicle. I see the snake as a representation.

And the more one digs into the prophetical and purposeful wisdom of the bible, the more one finds out that it's essentially a book of man and his relationship with God. That is, how God has communicated with man in the past. And how God has worked through man in the past and how he will work through man in the future, as he commands us to preach the Gospel, and untill he hath accomplished to scatter the Holy people.

Sorry about this rant.

Sven

Of course. Only Christians who take the bible literally worship it. Since I think this is a ridiculous position, I specifically excluded those kinds of Christians in my OP. But I think you still need the bible to be a Christian, don't you?

Sorry, if you take everything in the bible which contradicts science allegorically (Earth doesn't move, mountain from which one can see all of the Earth, diseases are caused by demons, etc.), then of course the bible doesn't contradict science. But then interpreting the bible starts becoming a little bit arbitrary, don't you think?

Because of this, I specifically pointed out in my OP that science isn't a reason against being a Christian.

This entirely ignores that large parts of the bible are (most probably) fabrications. Where does this leave your faith if large parts of the description of "man and his relationship with god" were simply invented to serve the need of the priests?

No need to be sorry. But you also didn't answer my question:

Why do you believe in the Christian god?

Are there really no takers for a direct answer to this question?

I repeat: I don't claim that you are wrong in your belief, and I'm right - I only want to understand your reasons for your belief, because I fail to see any. That is, I agree that perhaps I'm simply ignorant.

seebs

I guess... it's not that someone presented me with the claims, and I accepted them based on this. I accept the Bible because it appears to describe something I had already concluded I believed in, and I consider it a possible tool for refining my understanding.

But I believed in Something before I was convinced of anything about the Bible. I read the Bible because it appears, to me, that it was written by people having experiences much like my own, and gives me some ideas about how I can understand these experiences better.

Sven

That's exactly the same a Moslem or a Hindu would say about his belief (only substitute "Koran" or "Vedas" (?) for "bible").

Why do you think you are right and they are wrong? Or, to omit references to "right/wrong", what makes the difference?