Why should I bother with the Bible and Christianity?

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@jammycakes

Weighing a toy truck and getting a reading of 500 pounds does not mean that a 50,000 pound truck could weigh nothing too.

What does this sentence mean?

An inspector from the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division comes to certify the truck scale. To start, he puts his 5 pound weight on the scale, and the dial goes to 500 pounds. He doesn’t certify the scale. Perhaps if he had taken a class in physics, he would have.

@jammycakes

This is an error that I see young earth arguments making over and over again. They assume that there are only two possible options: “reliable” and “unreliable” with no regard whatsoever to any actual quantification or calibration efforts. I’m sorry but measurement does not work like that, and nor does anything else for that matter.

I do not have access to your experience, and my experience is contrary to yours. Most of the YEC scientists I read are far more thoughtful and precise than that. Could you please give me a few examples from refereed YEC journals that would illustrate your contention.

[cewoldt (Craig Ewoldt)]

@St.Roymond

This brought to mind when my sister, working in the mail room of the university at the time, after opening a delivery of a new set of scales said, “Watch”: she dropped a singe stamp on the scales and noted the reading, then licked the stamp and dropped it again. Her point wasn’t that the wight of the stamp changed a bunch from being licked, it was that it wasn’t meant to weight single stamps in the first place.

And if the scale had shown that a single stamp weighed 5 ounces, the scale would have been returned.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@St.Roymond

Except that a living organism is a machine.

I disagree. But then the way you play with words, this claim of yours probably doesn’t mean anything anyway.

@St.Roymond

I think you’re restricting the meaning of design to mechanical design, the effort to get a mechanism that does nothing but what is desired.

That is meaning of the word as I am using it. It is the meaning that makes a distinction between living organisms and machines.

@St.Roymond

I find that statement meaningless.

Yes that is what usually happens when you stick in a different meaning for a word other than the one you know that person intends.

@St.Roymond

If there was no designer, then the only result will be chaos.

Nonsense. Obviously. If there is nothing, then there is no designer AND no chaos either.

I sense one of those ridiculous proofs for the existence of God hiding in the background.

@St.Roymond

So you have contempt for a God Who wants order, not chaos?

Yes.

The God I believe in can not only embrace both order and chaos, but also the phenomenon of life which comes out in the interaction between them.

@St.Roymond

Who intended humans to be able to choose, to fail, to wonder, to explore, to learn?

Someone who limited His work of design to the conditions needed for the self-organizing process of life – who chose love and freedom over power and control.

@St.Roymond

By saying there was no design you are saying that God didn’t care

You sound like House in the series I’ve been watching – thinking the only way care about something is to manipulate everything. But this obviously is not the case. You can also show that you care by letting go, butting out, and letting them make their own choices.

@St.Roymond

was a pure accident

typical creationist mumbo jumbo… Just because God didn’t design it doesn’t make it an accident – because God isn’t the only one who makes choices. But God is more than the pitiful watchmaker they imagine. God is a creator of creators.

@St.Roymond

He didn’t expect and was most likely surprised by.

Yes that is why the choice of love and freedom is greater than the choice of power and control – the latter is frankly quite boring, while the former can actually surprise you.

[rsewell (RON SEWELL)]

@cewoldt

When a one pound truck is put on the scales and it weighs in at 500 pounds, then there is something wrong with the scale.

As any instrumentation engineer would know, you can have nothing on load cells designed for massive industrial equipment, and have it weigh in at many lbs. That is why scales must be tared. Nothing wrong with the scale, that is a normal procedure and the system is fit for purpose.

Austin botched up the dating, albeit by intention. For radiometric dating to produce good results, an appropriate sample must be properly prepared, and be within an applicable age range. Technique and protocol matters. You say “there is a way to check the accuracy of this method”, and then proceed to laud a case where the method was deliberately not followed and lab instructions ignored. Why not just say you do not care what the evidence?

For a critique of Austin’s Mount St. Helens stunt, read Young-Earth Creationist ‘Dating’ of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

The value and accuracy of K-Ar dating is validated by the volcanic rock of the Hawaiian chain, where the dates obtained vary nicely with the measured rate of tectonic drift and erosion. If YEC were true, the dates would be expected to be very similar, but that is just one of thousands of geological observations falsifying a young earth.

K-Ar is just one of many cross-correlated dating methods. Carbon dating, applicable on organic samples less than about 50,000 years, has been positively calibrated against tree ring records to over 13,000 years, which is well outside the typical accepted YEC timeline.

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

Because they wouldn’t work. Why can’t you see this?

How about because that’s not true?

@RichardG

The feather has one primary function

So what? Primary function doesn’t exclude other functions, nor does it preclude a different function having been primary before.

@RichardG

The fact that there are fliightless birds is irrelevant.

Well, that’s one way to deal with inconvenient data!

@RichardG

All the intricacies of Ecology and physiology are just brushed away by “There are millions of years to achieve this”.

Only in your imagination, or possibly in the minds of people who try to defend evolution but don’t really understand it.

@RichardG

Can’t you see that each one is a gigantic fluke?

No, I don’t see any flukes except on the former land animals we call whales.

@RichardG

When Elijah confronted Bhaal on the mountain it was to prove that Bhaal had no powers. IOW didn’t exist.

No, your conclusion doesn’t fit the historical context. What Elijah demonstrated was that Baal was not the creator-god he was claimed to be; an actual creator-god would be able to generate fire to consume the sacrifice.

@RichardG

Does the Bible claim other gods exist or that people believe that they do?

Well, God didn’t say "[quote=“Vinnie, post:126, topic:53453”]
“and I will bring judgment on all the gods of Egypt that you imagine exist”
[/quote]

We like to read strict monotheism into the Old Testament texts but on an unbiased reading it just doesn’t fit. Deuteronomy tells us Yahweh-Elohim assigned the various elohim nations to watch over, and all through the Pentateuch it is taken for granted that these gods are real beings; the point is that thought they are elohim, no other elohim is YHWH; He is the Elohim who makes other elohim.

@Paraleptopecten

Yes, and that they are usually (if real) demons.

I think that fits with the NT, but in the OT they are divine beings who initially composed YHWH-Elohim’s heavenly council but screwed up big time (as hinted at in Genesis 6). Demons seem to be the spirits of the offspring of those beings and human females who for some reason didn’t get stuck in Sheol – and after the original screw-up elohim were locked up in darkness as Peter mentions, those spirits tried to take the places of their ‘fathers’.

@Paraleptopecten

and conversely, more post-“Enlightenment” people seem too slow to allow that some false gods may be demons.

I always wonder who/what they think the “Prince of Persia” was who hindered the angel sent to Daniel.

@RichardG

Then there is Islam that post dates the Bible. The crusades failed to extinguish it.

LOL The Crusades were never meant to do that, they were only meant to reclaim the stolen Holy Land.

@bluebird1

Read Heiser’s The Unseen Realm" for a larger discussion of this. I initially was attracted to his book because of its somewhat prolonged discussion of Genesis 6–who were those beings that are being discussed there, etc?

It;s worth pointing out that there is nothing radical or even new in that book, he’s just making what scholars have been talking about for decades available to ordinary folks.

@bluebird1

Heiser (who has since passed away) had a website (or did have one)

It’s still there: https://drmsh.com/

@bluebird1

But in a nutshell, Heiser would say that these other “gods” were demonic angels posing as “the real deal”

To be more precise, Heiser notes that the original false gods were heavenly beings that Yahweh gave responsibility over various nations to, and that they decided that being worshipped would be awesome, besides being tempted by human women, so instead of doing the job they were supposed to they set themselves up as gods over the nations they were assigned to, and as they had offspring they added them to the pantheons (intriguingly similar to Greek mythology).

@bluebird1

so in that sense “the other gods” were real and existed — but were not really God Himself.

Yep. And that makes a lot of things in the OT and even NT writings make sense that didn’t before, and fits into why God the Son became incarnate (including why Satan seems to change down through the scriptures as he gets more and more desperate).

@RichardG

Ezekiel on Mt Carmel taunted the followers because Their God was not reacting to them. A demon would not be so remote. It is self defeating to be proved not to exist. A Demon would fight back with all the power he could muster.

Elijah set the conditions so that only the actual Creator could meet them. Anything short of meeting that challenge would have been failure, and thus “negative”.
Then he upped the ante by changing the conditions to make it even harder, drenching everything with water when the challenge was for the deity to start the fire for an offering. This is key since water was a symbol of chaos, so Elijah was showing that Yahweh wasn’t just able to kindle a fire, He was lord over chaos.

[jammycakes (James McKay)]

@cewoldt

What does this sentence mean?

An inspector from the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division comes to certify the truck scale. To start, he puts his 5 pound weight on the scale, and the dial goes to 500 pounds. He doesn’t certify the scale. Perhaps if he had taken a class in physics, he would have.

I think you know as well as I do what that sentence means, Craig.

The fact that the scale failed certification means that its quantified error fell outside of a legally mandated range. It does not mean that its error could be infinite. The scale may not meet the legally required standards of accuracy and precision, but the readings that it gives are not totally meaningless. And it certainly does not mean that other scales, that have been certified, could also be totally unreliable either.

The inspector has found that the scale has an error of ±500lbs. This entitles you to add or subtract 500lbs from the reading to get a plausible result and no more. So your 50,000lb reading would mean that your truck could be anywhere in the 45,000-55,000lb range. It could not be as light as the toy truck. To suggest that a 50,000lb reading could also come from something as light as the toy truck is to exaggerate the extent and significance of the measured errors out of all proportion, which is basically a form of lying.

If you wanted to argue the figure further up or down than that, you would need to demonstrate that there were additional sources of error, and quantify those as well. And you would need to provide additional evidence for those adjustments too.

@cewoldt

I do not have access to your experience, and my experience is contrary to yours. Most of the YEC scientists I read are far more thoughtful and precise than that. Could you please give me a few examples from refereed YEC journals that would illustrate your contention.

The Mount St Helens claim that we are talking about is one such example. I’ve already explained why.

[St.Roymond]

@Vinnie

All I did was point out what Scripture says. I never argued Egypt’s gods were real. Only that the Bible treats them as such in places. Your reference to other scripture can never nullify or negate that simple fact.

Espcially when the challenge in question wasn’t meant to show that Baal (and Ishtar) didn’t exist, it was to show that Baal was not the creator as was claimed. For the creator of all, a little fire would have been simple, so the failure was a theological body-slam: the people knew the claims about Baal, but they also knew the Genesis Creation accounts, and the point was to show that the first set was bogus while the second were valid; given the competing claims, “no fire” meant “not creator” which meant “not God”.

@bluebird1

In 1 Kings 18, Baal—who is supposed to be the god of fire

I’m not sure that was true in the northern area, i.e. Syria and surrounds. What is more certain is that he was called lord of dew and rain, so Elijah’s stunt with the water was a direct slap in the face to Baal since it showed that Yahweh was lord over water.

It’s a wonderful read in the Hebrew, where the whole thing reads as one big insult for Baal, from challenging his titles as creator and lord of water to the delightful line, “Maybe he’s off taking a dump” (the meaning of the idiom that most translations put as “He’s gone aside” or, more recently, “He’s relieving himself”). Elijah deliberately taunts Baal’s prophets to add anger to their frenzy, making not just Baal but his priests/prophets look utterly incompetent (plus perhaps getting them totally worn out so they had no chance to escape when he gave the instruction to capture them all).

@bluebird1

Heiser’s view is a development of the “divine counsel” concept which is a little complex, maybe controversial and I have read i of this council idea elsewhere.

The idea of a divine council isn’t at all new; as Heiser reminded people, he wasn’t saying anything new, just presenting what scholarship has been talking about for decades. It’s really only controversial to those who aren’t into biblical scholarship.

[mitchellmckain (Scientist and Christian)]

@RichardG

The feather has one primary function and it isn’t display. or insulation. The fact that there are fliightless birds is irrelevant.

Incorrect. Feathers provide more insulation (from both cold and water) for far less weight – very much needed by the very large dinosaurs. This advantage is the reason organisms like flightless birds and penguins kept their feathers.

@RichardG

“programmed” the DNA coding

Except that the DNA sequences we find in the genome of the species do not work like something which was programmed.

@RichardG

Can’t you see that each one is a gigantic fluke?

Since evolutionary algorithms have proven they can design things better than we can, it doesn’t look like a fluke at all.

@RichardG

Some actually need intelligent input.

Seems the keyword to me is “some.” Which mean some do not need intelligent input. Thus in principle, evolution works. So we believers think God did supply some input. But I think it was corrective input rather than design input.

[St.Roymond]

@cewoldt

An inspector from the Oregon Department of Agriculture, Weights and Measures Division comes to certify the truck scale. To start, he puts his 5 pound weight on the scale, and the dial goes to 500 pounds. He doesn’t certify the scale.

Um, no. I don’t know the certification requirments, but I’ve watched the process of checking a scale – they used a truck of known weight, they don’t sit a “5 pound weight” on a truck scale – and also an ODOT car of known weight. Those two data points give a read on how the scale is functioning. A OHP officer said that the scales may not even show any weight for a small motorcycle because it can take a minimum weight to make them work.
I also once sat and watched a truck drive onto the scale, an ODOT employee make notations, the truck back off while some kind of adjustment was made, then the truck drive back on again. It did this at least three times; it may have been more because I came along just when it was backing up. From the observed activity, I concluded that they do not “not certify” a scale (unless it’s a private one at a truck stop; those are handled differently), they make sure it is measuring correctly before leaving – after all, truckers are required by federal law to stop and get measured, and the stats are required to make that happen, so taking a scale out of service would have the feds asking just what they were doing – those scales are supposed to be in operation!

I presume they also work like freight scales, which can be off by some definite amount or off by a percentage, depending on the issue. When they’re off by a definite amount it’s no big deal, readings are adjusted accordingly until the scale is adjusted. When they’re off by a percentage it’s a bigger issue because many – maybe most – guys who run a freight scale don’t really grasp percentages, so the scale needs to be fixed promptly.

(This happened at a heating & sheet metal place where I pick up the filters for my furnace; one time I stopped by I needed to talk to the head honcho and got directed to the loading dock where I found him trying to explain to a worker that he just had to enter the weight the scales said into a (programmable) calculator affixed to the stand where paperwork was filled out; the poor worker couldn’t grasp that fixing a known percentage error required multiplication rather than addition)(another time I was coming down “Cabbage Hill” – officially Emigrant Hill and also known as “Hardass Hill” – by Pendleton and saw a big line of trucks at the weight station; the scale had developed a mechanical issue and wasn’t working at all, and there was an ODOT van there with a team trying to fix the issue; every minute they sat in that line waiting those truckers were losing money).

@cewoldt

And if the scale had shown that a single stamp weighed 5 ounces, the scale would have been returned.

Actually the manufacturer would have sent a technician to adjust it, and if that wasn’t possible would have provided a replacement on the spot.

[St.Roymond]

@rsewell

For a critique of Austin’s Mount St. Helens stunt, read Young-Earth Creationist ‘Dating’ of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

@rsewell

For a critique of Austin’s Mount St. Helens stunt, read Young-Earth Creationist ‘Dating’ of a Mt. St. Helens Dacite: The Failure of Austin and Swenson to Recognize Obviously Ancient Minerals

Good stuff! I only had to stop and remind myself what cross-polarization is.

[adamjedgar (adam james edgar)]

@RichardG

There is a difference between the action and the understanding. We all know what a flood means. We also know what the writer was trying to convey by calling it global. That is what is referred to, not that it was actually global.

I think you are wrong there…

If they hear not Moses and the prophets, neither will they be persuaded, though one rose from the dead. [Luke 16:31 KJV

Then this…

For had ye believed Moses, ye would have believed me: for he wrote of me. But if ye believe not his writings, how shall ye believe my words? [John 5:46 KJV]

Cross referencing is used specifically to ensure consistency.

The above two text clearly prove:

1. Moses is claimed by both Luke and John to have been a real historical figure.
2. Moses writings are believable.
3. Given John for example is specifically quoting Christs/Gods own words whilst he was here on earth during his ministry, this is a huge falsification of TEism. It directly opposes any notion Moses isnt real or that Moses didnt record literal events.
   How can i make that claim with the above evidence? Easy…

Read Matthew 24 where Christ says “a flood came and destroyed them all”…bible concordances link Matthew 24 with Noahs flood in Genesis.

Matthew 24:37 As it was in the days of Noah, so will it be at the coming of the Son of Man. 38For in the days before the flood, people were eating and drinking, marrying and giving in marriage, up to the day Noah entered the ark. 39And they were oblivious, until the flood came and swept them all away.

A flood isnt global unless every living thing that breathes dies!

Genesis 6:13 Then God said to Noah, “The end of all living creatures has come before Me, because through them the earth is full of violence. Now behold, I will destroy both them and the earth.

The fact remains, unless you are willing to support your theology with scripture, yours isnt biblical theology.

If my texts above are false, then quote bible references that prove them false.

Richard, you can deny them all you like, the theological evidences are categorically damning of your opinion. I can keep building the bible evidence against you until its abaolutely impossible for you to even call your opinion bible based. The bible is fundamentally at odds with what you are saying. Unless you have never written an academic essay in your life…that is the only way to ignore the biblical references!

This leaves but one supporting evidence…naturalism and its theories. If you want to base your biblical doctrine on naturalism, then you do not even need the bible because its historical claims you dont believe in.

So, given you are so convinced by naturalism…please prove the incarnation of Christ, his resrrection and ascention into heaven…prove Christ (i mean we know the man really existed) so scientifically prove his miracles are true. If you cant do that, then all of your claims are baseless.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

Will you please stop telling me what I believe!

I have never said anything about naturalism.

You believe in cross referencing? Fine. I do not accept your viewpoint.

Richard

[bluebird1 (Robin)]

Thanks for the insights. I think Heiser had “quite a time” with some people in this regard. I have read Mullen on this divine council idea. When I did – incl when I read Heiser – it was all news to me. In the last chapter of his book The Unseen Realm (ch 42), Heiser writes “Jesus walks on the sea and instantly brings it into submission. To the ancient mind these incidents symbolized power over chaos and everything that might bring harm and depth to humanity…This is why Revelation nends as it does…When Eden comes, there is no more sea.” Well…this was just a new way of looking at things when I first read this.

As you must know, this sort of thing does not come up in your average Sunday sermon.

Thanks for your input!

[jpm (Phil McCurdy)]

Here are the actual legal limits:

So, on a 20 ton scale, that 5 lb. toy truck could weigh a negative 75 lbs or could weigh 85 lbs. and be within tolerance. Likewise, if used inappropriately, a 10 year old rock could measure millions of years old, and the test still be accurate within its error bars. It doesn’t mean the rock is millions of years old, just that it is within that range of say, 5 million years old, plus or minus 5 million years (for example only)

[St.Roymond]

@adamjedgar

If my texts above are false

@adamjedgar

The fact remains, unless you are willing to support your theology with scripture

I do. You don’t want to hear it.

Th truth is that you don’t support your views from the text, you support them from tradition that tells you what the text is supposed to mean instead of what it actually says. You force a modern worldview onto ancient literature and end up with a bastardized version that isn’t faithful to either one.

BTW, have you accepted Tom Clancy’s and John Grisham’s books as history?

@RichardG

You believe in cross referencing? Fine. I do not accept your viewpoint.

Cross-referencing is a method that serves to emphasize the theological biases of the translators.

[St.Roymond]

@bluebird1

As you must know, this sort of thing does not come up in your average Sunday sermon.

Of course it doesn’t, at least in evangelical churches, because ears go shut before a preacher can get beyond stating a fact like that the first Creation account follow the outline and order of the Egyptian creation story. Instead of asking, “Why would God do it that way?” people start yelling and telling God how He was supposed to do it.
The sad thing is that many pastors learn this stuff in seminary but never get a chance to share the incredible insights it all brings and over time just fall into a rut of preaching what the people want to hear. I’ve pondered how I might go about it if I got to preach a series of sermons on the opening of Genesis, and I’ve concluded that I would have to not tell what scripture I was talking about until over halfway through . . . and then expect to lose half the audience.

@bluebird1

Heiser writes “Jesus walks on the sea and instantly brings it into submission."

What I love about that is the parallel with the ‘royal chronicle’ side of the first Genesis Creation account. Traditionally in the ANE a creation story included how the gods had to conquer chaos in order to build the world and then keep fighting against chaos to preserve the world, but in Genesis 1 the “battle” is reduced to simple statements: God divided between light and darkness, and God separated the sea from dry land – no strife, no combat, not even any apparent effort, as though YHWH-Elohim was so powerful he did those things as casually as we might scratch an ear! Matthew is just as casual, writing, “Jesus went out to them, walking on the lake”, no different than when He was just walking on a road.
Neither of those is about someone so powerful they subdued the forces they were dealing with, they’re both about someone who is those forces’ absolute master, a master who doesn’t even have to give an order but just expects – and gets – submission.

It all comes so alive when you know the original genre and intent!

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@St.Roymond

Cross-referencing is a method that serves to emphasize the theological biases of the translators.

No, cross referencing is comparing words and sentances without considering context. Any fool can play Snap.

Richard

[St.Roymond]

@RichardG

@St.Roymond

Cross-referencing is a method that serves to emphasize the theological biases of the translators.

No, cross referencing is comparing words and sentances without considering context.

It emphasizes the thological biases of translators because of their word choices, but yes, it tends to ignore context – including literary type, which is critical.

A comparison: reading without context is like playing chess when all you know is how the pieces move – you have the basic mechanics but no comprehension of the game.

[cogitoergosuspiro]

The conversation has gotten rather off track, I see. I have been researching different worldviews, and I am presently a convinced (Dawkins scale 6.9/7) atheist. By “atheist” I simply mean a person who lacks any belief in any god, as opposed to someone who believes in multiple gods (polytheist) or just one (deist, pantheist, theist, etc). I don’t see it as my duty to deny the existence of a god or any of that tripe. I do not believe in Christianity for the following reasons:

1. The Bible, to which Christians refer to as justification for their beliefs, is obviously a product of human thought.
2. There is no rational reason to suppose that Jesus Christ rose from the dead.
3. Belief in a god is a central dogma. After further consideration, I have abandoned my residual deism because:
   • The purpose of a god is usually to explain things that we don’t fully understand. All the arguments that I have heard for the existence of a god usually proceed along the lines of “since x is a very mysterious phenomenon, and God is very mysterious, he must be responsible for it.” Arguments along this line that come to mind: Argument from first cause, argument from design, argument from morality, argument from religion, etc. The problem with arguing thusly is that it is simply transferring the need to explain the damned phenomenon to the Totally Inexplicable (God). And I am supposed to believe that is a valid logical move?
   • There isn’t a shred of empirical evidence for a god. One must infer a god. The evidence is interpreted in a manner that supports a god, and the god is used to explain the evidence.
   • Furthermore, belief in a “good” God is central to Christian theology. However, as Richard Dawkins nicely puts it in River out of Eden, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.” Certainly, there may be valid ways of reconciling a good god with the universe we observe, but there is no evidence for one.

I know this may offend you. It is genuinely my opinion as of this moment, and I would like to discuss it with you in a calm and rational manner.

[RichardG (Richard Gillett)]

@cogitoergosuspiro

I know this may offend you. It is genuinely my opinion as of this moment, and I would like to discuss it with you in a calm and rational manner.

I fail to see how your belief / unbelief can offend. it is your choice and most Christians accept it. The pushy ones are those who believe it is in your interest to believe and convince themselves that they have a duty to “convert” you. Faith is not usually rational. At least not in an empirical or tangible manner.

@cogitoergosuspiro

There isn’t a shred of empirical evidence for a god. One must infer a god.

We believe that God does not impose Himself or wish to be “seen” or “identified” or “proven”. God is a god of faith.

@cogitoergosuspiro

Furthermore, belief in a “good” God is central to Christian theology. However, as Richard Dawkins nicely puts it in River out of Eden, “The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.”

Mr Dawkins tries to use science and Evolution to deny God. He is one of the reasons this forum exists. Admittedly Paul in Romans claims that God can be seen in creation, but that is a subjective view. Mr Dawkins sees pitiless indifference, I see wonderous harmony and interaction. I see things that chance or chaos could not create. I see order and design, and beauty… You may have seen me criticise Evolutionary theory on that sort of basis.

@cogitoergosuspiro

The purpose of a god is usually to explain things that we don’t fully understand.

That would sum up primitive religion but I do not thing it applies to Christianity or any of the other so called major religions.

@cogitoergosuspiro

The Bible, to which Christians refer to as justification for their beliefs, is obviously a product of human thought.

Obviously there are those here who would disagree. They claim God directly influenced or even virtually wrote it.
What is wrong with a treatise from people who wish to share their experiences of God? It is no different from Mr Dawkins writing against Him.

@cogitoergosuspiro

There is no rational reason to suppose that Jesus Christ rose from the dead

There have been those who have tried to ridicule or disprove the Gospel. I mentioned elsewhere the book “who moved the stone?”
Resurrection from the dead is a medical fact. It is done more times that you woul probably realise. The circumstances of Christ would confound modern mediciine but the explanation relies on a belief in God. If God does not exist He cannot raise Christ from the dead, or father Him in the first place. If God does exist He would have the power to control life and death. it sort of comes with the position. There are Roman records to prove the existence of Jesus and even His crucifixion. Matthew recounts the Romand story of The disciples stealing the body while the guards were asleep.
The problem being that most groups who lose their founder or leader dissipate. If the resurrection is a lie then as Paul puts it “we are most to be pitied”. Thomas is supposed to be the true witness because he refused to believe a lie or a story without proof. But, that is all in the Bible so you are free to disbelieve a word of it.

At the end of the day no one can talk you into faith. I could regale you with tales of my 60 odd years walking with God but they are second hand at best and there is no reason to believe me either.

If yo do not feel the need for God then, fine. Don’t let anyone convince you otherwise. I believe God wants you as you are not indoctrinated or blinded into submission. I also believe that Jesus died for everyone not just believing Christians, but that is not a universal Christian belief. The fact you are here and asking is possibly more significant.

I am not going to “push” any further. If you want to discuss my faith you are welcome to PM me. I suspect others will give stronger or at least different arguments for your belief.

I wish you well

Richard