VoodooChild

The funny thing is, many of the other religions would say the same thing but instead have their belief as the true faith that is a step above everyone elses. Again... who to believe. :huh:

Awmte

You misunderstand. I'm not commenting on God's relationship to man. All I'm saying is that an (any) entity cannot be morally superior to another based purely on attributes such as power, or knowledge.
For example, Satan cannot be morally superior to me just because he is more powerful or knowledgeable or whatever other characteristic you would care to consider. The same applies to God.

Evoken

Well you can start examining the contents of those religions.

Evoken

Like I have said already, God is viewing the whole picture, we just see the little details and with a lot of confusion, we are not to judge God's action based on that.

VoodooChild

I have... They are all very similar. Most have sacred texts said to be inspired by their particular diety, There is usually a central figure that the followers look to for spiritual guidance. Most claim that they are the one true religion and that their central figure(s) have the true testament from their god(s). I found nothing really original or convincing in any of them that would lead me to believe that any of them are correct.

John A. Broussard

Wasn't it Tertullian who said, "I believe because it is absurd"?

That seems to sum up IAsimis' view.

Since he didn't answer my question of why "One should love God and obey him, freely and without interest" (his words), I can only assume that again we aren't to question why. Believe, believe, believe--the more blindly the better. Hitler used to demand that kind of belief.

Awmte

A rational reason would negate the need for faith. The true believer should believe everything, including (and especially) the contradictions in the Good Book.
Skirting dangerously close to Godwin's Law here...

Awmte

Again, I'm not judging God here. Notice I said any entity. I'm just presenting the moral abstraction that Might does not make Right. Adding infinite power and/or infinite knowledge into the equation does not change the equation substantially.
God could or could not be morally superior to me, but such would not necessarily obtain from his omnipotence or omniscience.

Avatar

No, I mean anyone and everyone who claims to have a monololy on "the Truth". The Catholic Church is no more authoritative than anyone else...they just have a longer history of rationalizing why they should be in charge.

Try asking the protestants who rejoice so much atatcking The Church why they accept The Bible as God's word, why do they accept that cannon and not any other?

I do ask them that question...a great many times. I keep getting the same answer that you give: "Because we're right as you can tell if you just read the Bible". I'm pretty sure you're aware of just what

Because The Church determined it, if it were not for that the'll be accepting the Gnostic Gospels as well and would most likely be Arians or Gnostics too.

And the point is...?

mirage

So here you seem to be saying that the correct choice is apparent to our reason? Perhaps you will add the caveat that we first must be moral? And perhaps also that no one is moral since the Fall (tm), so reason is actually no use, we must be picked out by Gods "salvific" "grace" or something first, as the Calvinist TAGers say.

So which is it? Reason or sit and wait to be picked?

[BTW, I very much admired your drop of humility, but it does rather look as if you are making stuff up on the fly, which is the impression I get with a lot of theology.]