Why do Christians make God out to be dumb?

RE: moral world That would be the society that prints "In God We Trust" on their money.
Seems you're out of sync. I see your point, but, if the lawgivers are not above the law, then how can the lawgivers execute the law on everyone?IE: Police don't violate the speed laws when they have their lights and siren on.Or everyone and or entity pays taxes except for the lawgiver who collects taxes. Ummm, guess cliff jumpers come in various forms. My bible says friendship with the world is enemity with God.
My bible says there's whole lot of people he never knew.
My bible says Jesus couldn't do much miracles in certain places because of their unbelief.
Guess some flexiablity is needed on what can or can't be. A rather definitive statement, are you basing that statement on verifiable proof that He doesn't exist or a whole lot of faith based on very little evidence? Perhaps drawing conclusions from erroneous presuppositions produces such inconsistencies. From your defining statements about God you've made, I'd say you have some incorrect perspectives.I don't recall any verse saying an "all-powerful" God watches over this world.However a verse or two come to mind that He can watch if He chooses too.RE: "One question though, if God is all knowing (as you say) then why does He ask; "Where art thou" when Adam and Eve are hiding in the garden?" Not only don't you believe in God as you have said, but you're missing some good pointers in verse about Him.

Only since the 50's. And you'll notice that it doesn't say which god. Given that it's printed on money I think you can make a guess about which god Americans really put their trust in. Hint: it's money. What is the requirement that one be above the law to enforce the law? The one doesn't follow from the other. Cops have specific legal procedures to follow. And anyway, they're not really the lawgivers - it was politicians I was referring to. Again, these are surprising positions to hear from a Christian. There's no requirement that you believe the mainstream, but since my argument was to disprove a moral, all-powerful God, and since you believe that God is not all-powerful anyway, what exactly do we disagree on? Simply the rational position that there's no reason to believe in something that there's no evidence for. Well, that would be the essence of the proof by contradiction, yes. Obviously I've shown that the presupposition "God is moral and all-powerful" is erroneous, which was my point. Like I said, he's not my god. I don't give a whit what it says in the Bible. I do give a whit about the God that most Christians refer to, who demonstratably does not exist, and who is not apparently described in the Bible, according to you.

I did not say I was not involved in religion, I said they are exclusive. And your statement "religion is just the things you do because you feel that they're the logical consequences of your faith." is absoulutely true. Too often people confuse the two, both believers and non-believers.Yeah, my church said the same thing, but:1) They said it was important to go to church, worship, and take part in other ritualsI have found for me, it is important. That is not to say it is neccesary for everyone. Again, for me it helps to emmerse myself in His presence.2) They said it was important for Christians to behave differentlyDifferently than most, but not all. Christian teaching about kindness, love and compassion is different than the way most people treat each other. Unfortunately some Christians and churches dont always succeed.3) They asked for money.This was one of the hardest things for me. However, since I have served in several leadership positions in my church, I soon realized that all the money we received was going for good causes. No one was getting rich from tithes. Again I realize ther are plenty of situations of abuse.In summary, faith and religion are exclusive, but when used in concert religion can have beneficial results. Notice I said can, not does. we all know plenty of bad that has been done in the name of religion.What shaped your athiestic viewpoints? Family, friends, school? Have you ever been exposed to "rational" Christians, or are all your experiences based upon fundamentalist or strict creationist views ?

Hey I'm new here and all but I'd just like to say a few things. First of all, the God of the bible is real whether you want to believe it or not. If you don't want to believe that England exists, does that make it real for me but not for you? Of course not. Secondly, I don't understand why athiests argue that there cannot be a god all the time and pour such huge amounts of energy into it. You may ask the same question of Christians but we have a reason to talk about it. If I am a Christian and atheism turns out to be wrong, what do I lose? That's right, nothing. If I'm an atheist and I turn out to be wrong, what do I lose? Well I gain an eternity in a very hot hotel.
Something to think about isn't it?NO evidence for God is also a very interesting and in many ways intriguing argument. What real evidence is there that there is no GOd.
One overwhelming evidence of the resurrection of Jesus Christ is that NO part of the bible has been proved false. Every other religious book or writing has been proven false in some way by historical documents but the bible.Another overwhelming evidence for a Christian God is the fact that we are all alive today. How close do you think the world has been from destruction, all it takes is a madman to push one button?But most importantly rest assured that Christians aren't trying to hurt you. We're not trying to impose our beliefs on you, we're just trying to tell the truth. This is not just the truth as we know it, but the absolute truth.
God Bless

And most of us have no argument with you and your beliefs in that case. What we do have a disagreement with is any so-called Christians who want to interfere with the teaching of science in public schools. Particularly those whose faith is so weak they need to make science appear to support what they believe.So, unfortunately, there are those who are trying to impose their beliefs on others.

---

Common sense isn't

Hi Smitty and welcome to EvC This is Pascal's wager and works on the assumption that God is dumb. There is evidence for God, but it is of a very very poor quality. Unfortunately for you, it is the person who says something exists that has the burden of proof. Philosophers have long given up trying to prove or disprove God, it cannot be done. No one is this nave. In which way has the Dhammapada been proven false? How do you make this connection? How close then? That's exactly what Torquemada said to the Jews of his day. Yes, the last time that Xianity imposed its beliefs on us we ended up in the Dark Ages. Be careful of stating absolutes.God BlessU 2Brian.

True. What I want to believe has no bearing on what is or is not.On the other hand, there's no evidence that God exists. If you have some, fire away. You'd be the first. Actually refuting God nonsense is the easiest thing in the world. I could do it 50 times before breakfast and still not have finished fixin' the pancakes. You've lost the chance for a life fully lived. Here's something else to think about - if the Muslims are right, we're both going to hell. You falsely presume that there's only two belief systems that could possibly be accurate. That's the problem with Pascal's Wager - you can't use it to rule out any other religions. There doesn't have to be. The fact that there is no evidence for the existence of God is sufficient reason not to believe that God exists. The burden of proof is on he who asserts that a thing exists. Funny, a number of parts of the Bible I'm familiar with have been proven false, such as the Genesis account, the Noaic flood, Jonah in the whale, locusts having four legs, the night sky being a tent with holes in it, and a number of other statements the Bible makes. But that's a topic for the biblical inerrancy board. I suggest you stop by. Then I'm happy you have no problem with gay marriage. I hate it when Christians try to impose their beliefs on other people.Plenty of Christians disagree with you, though. They believe that since God's laws are so great - being of divine invention, after all - everybody should follow them. That's just not American.Seriously, talk about your beliefs all you like. It's America. I don't think your attempt to talk about your beliefs is an attempt to force them on me.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004]

One evidence I am forced to show for Christianity is uniqueness. In virtually every other religon, an afterlife is attained by doing the right thing or good works. In Christianity the afterlife cannot be attained by Good works but only by the saving Grace of Jesus Christ.This was an incredible theory to the religious authorities in the time of Christ and certainly was not just copied from someone else.To also add credit to evidence of bible truth as well as for God.
These are some of the greatest scientific minds of all time who accepted Christ as their personal savior. (It is an impressive list)
Johannes Kepler
Robert Boyle
Blaise Pascal
John Ray
Isaac Newton
Michael Faraday
Georges Cuvier
John Dalton
Matthew Maury
James Simpson
James Joule
Louis Pasteur
Joseph Clerk Maxwell
John Ambrose FlemingI am unfortunately not able to answer all questions posed to me. But I do understand something. All ancient cultures believed in a God, whether the God is true or not is beside my point at this time. Science is a new religon(evolution). If believing in God is a religon, then unbelief is also a religon.(It just stands to reason)It is also curious to note as well that Chuck Missler, who worked as Branch Chief of the Air Force Department of Guided Missles, as a systems engineer would say the following concerning Psalm 102:25-26, Isiah 51:6 and Matt 24:35.It is fascinating to find such accurate scientific descriptions of the universe. Prior to the twentieth century, the notion that th e universe is "wearing out" or "passing away" was foreign to the mind of most scientists and philosphers. Such scientific foreknowledge could not have been derived from observation or intuition. When the bible was being penned there was no observable evidence that the universe was wwearing out. In fact, the consensus of the world's scientists and philosphers was that it was not decaying.Curious.I also do not believe in Gay marriage, however, being gay will not stop one from getting to heaven. It is a sin but not the unforgivable one.God Bless

Not really that unique. Muslims get to their heaven by the grace of Allah. Buddists achieve nirvana because of the grace of the Budda shows the path to enlightenment. ...which you have to choose to accept, making it a work, meaning that it's works that get you into heaven. That your particular religious fantasy may have unique elements doesn't mean that it's true. I could make up an entirely unique religion if I wanted. Would that make it true? Indeed it is. I could provide a list twice as long of luminaries that reject Christianity.Does it prove anything? No, because a proposition is not true or false because of the people that adhere to it. That's called the Argument from Authority, and it is fallacious. Science is not religion. In religion, God chooses who recieves truth. In science, truth is directly accessable to all who care to look. Any person can study to be a scientist. But no degree will make God help you write the next book of the Bible. Science is participatory, religion is revelatory. No. There are no atheist churches. There are no atheist rituals. There are no atheist observances. There are no atheist holy books. I could go on and on, but what "stands to reason" is that the lack of religion is not religion. B cannot equal ~B (that's "not B" if you'renot up on symbolic logic.) Well, I don't care if you believe in it or not. Nobody's asking you to marry another man. What I care about is whether you'll let two gay peopleget married. Yea or nay?[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 02-03-2004]

I thought it bizarre for smitty to add that bit about gay people.I have to agree with Crash. Science is not a religion, and gay people a sin? - That's a new one on me.
In the Bible I have only heard that lusty fornication with animals and same sex is a sin and confusion, - YES LUST, but clearly gay people who love each other are not in lust/confusion. Logically I must say that the Bible does not tell us enough about gay people for us to accuse them of sin. Don't quite get what you mean by this though Crash?Unbelief is unbelief, just a choice to be secular e.t.c. It's not a religion - it's the opposite. No offence smitty but saying things like this is a bit controversial and is giving our side a bad name.

No, I asked him about it. One thing I've noticed about a lot of Christians is that they say that they're not here to impose their religion on anybody in general, but when you query them about a specific issue, imposing their own religious view turns out to be exactly what they want to do.Right now gay marriage is sort of the litmus test. It's universally opposed by Bible-believing Christians, so it's a good test to see how well they're willing to play with others. Well, he said that "works", aka "things you do", won't get you into heaven. Only the grace of Christ.But it's not involuntary. You have to choose to come to Christ (free will and all.) Therefore choosing to accept Christ is a "thing you do". Therefore it is the things you do that get you into heaven. In particular it's one thing that you do. Not to mention a not-so-veiled attempt to circumvent the No Establishment clause - hardly very American, no?

HI Crash,I am not entirely in agreement with this statement: Strictly speaking this would only apply in Pure Land Buddhism, with a Buddha such as Amitabha and his pure land of Sukhavati.Nirvana is acheived by the individual who follows the eightfold path revealed by Siddartha Gautama, but each individual is responsible for their own actions. Buddha himself, and remember that Siddartha is only one of countless Buddhas, is not involved in an individual's 'salvation'. Siddartha said that we should' be a lamp unto ourselves'.One very nice concept in Buddhism is that all beings will attain Nirvana one day, no being will suffer 'eternal damnation'.So in Buddhism an individual does not have to kiss any divine butt in order to be saved.Brian.

Well, I wont get into the gay marriage thing as I really don't consider it my business, but saying it's sin is not exactly right (in my view)- as Christ said "do not judge".As for America, well I've never been there so, I'll butt out.I just thought it was a bit newbie to say " science is a religion ". That just is NOT the case!

No, but I think there's an implication that we'd pretty much all be screwed (stuck on the karma wheel) if the Buddas weren't nice enough to delay their own trip to nirvana in order to help us along the path. That's what I meant by "the grace of Budda". They don't have to help us, but they do.But, maybe I just misunderstand Buddism. I've never really given it a serious look.

Hi,I toyed with the idea of giving Mahayana Madhyamika Buddhism a go when I studied it at uni, it is very interesting, and very complex. I am assisting with the teaching of Eastern religions beginning this week at Glasgow uni, I am really looking forward to it. The kids at school just don't stretch you enough, but with adults its great to have to actually be on your toes and be prepared for difficult questions.Anyway, I will butt out and let you get on with it.Cheers.Brian.