Agnostic Theist

Tu Quoque.

Also I'd have thought plausibility does have some bearing (not much) on truth - if something is considered implausible by everyone, we're hardly likely to consider it true. Likewise, if someone can find plausibility in any issue, it's worth exploring (either to verify the plausibilty or show the other person to be misinformed).

Wallener

Only if one assumes Existence is predicated on Belief, otherwise both claims are content-free and quoquishness does not apply.

Any takers?

Magus55

I never claimed it did. I don't claim to know for a fact God exists. I just claim to have belief and faith that He does.

Prester John

Just out of interest do you classify the Canaanite pantheon as created by the human mind?

Stephen T-B

I am very interested in the answer to that question.

When Magus55 has attended to it - if he will - I'd like to mention this statement of his: "...as usual, you are viewing things from a human mind. Why do humans value life? When you are an eternal being, where time is essentially meaningless, why would you assume that from God's PoV, physical life is all that important? 70 years, compared to eternity. Which holds more weight and would be God's primary concern?"

God is all-knowing. God knows how important those 70 years are to a human being. Also, a 70-year life-span is a wild exaggeration in terms of the experience of the vast majority of mankind. The point I was making is that according to divine justice, it is OK for a person to live a short brutal life, without access to Christian teaching, and then to die and go to Hell while a rich American lives a long, comfortable, fulfilled life, has access to Christian teaching, dies and then goes to Heaven.
(This has nothing to do with the thread, and I don't look for a response. I merely wish to point out that having problems with "God's justice" is not unreasonable).

Wallener

No, it is not unreasonable, nor is it wrong to do so. Questioning the justice of the G-d is at the root of Abrahamic tradition: Abraham is THE patriarch precisely because he was the first to challenge G-d.

Ulrich

If the Bible were not rife with inconsistencies and instances of being demonstratably wrong, it may be more convincing to skeptics. How can I believe in God as an omniscient being if his "word" is factually incorrect and internally inconsistent? If the Bible contained scientific information in it that could not possibly have been known by bronze age goathearders, such as the circumference of the Earth, and contained little or no scientific blunders (the firmament, animals classified incorrectly, etc.), then it would be more likely to be accepted (at least in part) by skeptics.

But really, all he would have to do is to appear to everyone who doubted him at the moment of doubt, and prove in person that he exists. Now don't give me that "freewill" crap, because God trampled all over Pharoahs freewill, just so he could visit more plagues on the Egyptians. You have to overcome this little discrepancy before you can claim that God requires us to have freewill, and this is why he does not reveal himself.

How can I have a relationship with somone whom I have never seen, never had a conversation with, and who apparently does not exist?

Miracles were not an everyday occurance in the OT either. You were trying to say that there God was more active in the OT than in the NT, but when I demonstrated that this was untrue because of the issue of the amount of time covered by the respective testaments, you retreat to the position that these miracles were produced by Jesus instead of God.

That is an interesting position for you to hold, as the concept that you are arguing against in this thread is that Jesus and Yahweh are two distinct Gods. How do you reconcile this apparent inconsitency in your argument?

If God created humans, knowing full well that the scenario would unfold (omniscient God, remember) then is it not more his responsibility than ours?

And your religion telling me I am going to burn in fire for an eternity because I do not believe in something that cannot be proved using logic and reason is not arrogant? Logic and reason are the tools I use to determine what is plausable, and to me that has every bearing on what I deem to be true.

AdamWho

I would like to get back to how many gods are in christianity.

I change my vote from 4 (father, son ,HG and satan) to 10,000+.

The reason, is that the Catholic Church is the largest sect of chrisitianity and they are therefor a good measure of christianity.

Catholic Saints Facts

10,000+ named saints

These saints get prayed to and they perform miracles, they possess demi-god status.

Now, we all know that the various protestants posting here will claim that catholic aren't real christians, but we all know about that fallacy...

Catholics will say "We pray with saints, not to them." but then why don't they just pray to god or jesus? They through action believe that praying to a lesser god will curry them favor with a bigger one.

Gawen

Because God can't be bothered; he's above us...(pun intended). Jesus is too busy answering Protestant prayers and picking out a new celestial SUV.

John A. Broussard

Actually, there's probably some sort of need for human beings to feel a close personal relationship with the supernatural. As a result, even in the most monotheistic of religions, "helpers" creep in. Yahweh is pretty remote--like Zeus, Odin, et al. So, guardian angels, saints and lesser dieties make the person feel there's someone out there personally interested in their well being.

Protestant sects have a strong tendency toward fragmenting into cults, with some religious leader who is concerned for her/his flock and has a personal pipe line to god. And there are even minor defections. Ever see a St. Christopher medal in a protestant's car?

The gist of this rambling is that I agree with you. Christians (as do most religionists) never really settle for just one god.