I'm pointing out that assumptions are not evidence. They're assumptions. We can barely understand around 3% of the universe (matter) and know nothing about 97% of the universe (dark matter). To say, "Well, the universe exists and it looks created to me, a creature that evolved to find patterns and creates them even where they don't exist, so therefore an intelligent creator who happens to present a lot like a human did it," isn't much of an argument. It's just a desired assumption. It might be true, but it's not actually demonstrable.

My position is that humans aren't as smart or insightful as we think and that ascribing purpose to a universe well beyond our capacity for understanding is just arrogant.

Archeologists distinguish man made objects from natural objects by observing millions of natural objects and then understanding how ancient humans created objects and tools.

An observer can deduce Mt Rushmore is created by observing thousands of mountains, recognizing this one is different and then having some understanding of how humans manipulate rock.

An alien could deduce Voyager was created by observing a near infinite amount of space objects, recognizing Voyager is different, and having some understanding of how beings can manipulate materials into complex machines.

Until we have millions of naturally occurring universes to compare and understand, your analogy does not work as justification for concluding the only universe we can observe must be created. The process used in deduction by the archeologist and tourist and alien are completely different than what you are using.

Edit. Maybe not completely different - but certainly not equivalent.

Sapper Redux said:

---

I'm pointing out that assumptions are not evidence. They're assumptions. We can barely understand around 3% of the universe (matter) and know nothing about 97% of the universe (dark matter). To say, "Well, the universe exists and it looks created to me, a creature that evolved to find patterns and creates them even where they don't exist, so therefore an intelligent creator who happens to present a lot like a human did it," isn't much of an argument. It's just a desired assumption. It might be true, but it's not actually demonstrable.

My position is that humans aren't as smart or insightful as we think and that ascribing purpose to a universe well beyond our capacity for understanding is just arrogant.

---

That's pretty ironic. In another post, you'll use scientific hypothesis about that same universe, of which we only understand 3%, to argue dogmatically for the age of the universe, the size of the universe, the initial stages of the universe, the makeup of the universe, etc.

It is fair to say that all of the evidence we have so far points to an intelligence having created the universe. It has all of the hallmarks of an intelligent creator.

Quote:

---

Archeologists distinguish man made objects from natural objects by observing millions of natural objects and then understanding how ancient humans created objects and tools.

---

As someone who has studied archaeology intensely, you grossly overstate the degree to which archaeologists study anything. You might substitute dozens for millions. And you gloss over the fact that archaeologists have developed criteria for separating natural from human made flakes of flint. With those criteria, any person is able to conduct that analysis. Materialistic naturalists object to even attempting to develop such criteria for the origin of the universe itself. Why is that? Why reject it even as a possibility?

Yet another example of criteria to distinguish intelligence from randomness is the SETI project which has developed tests for distinguishing signals that are random noise from signals from an ET. Is the search for ET also sheer arrogance?

(BTW, the SETI test is interesting. It's basically a two-part test: 1. A narrow-band signal, and 2. the signal is either completely polarized or contains coded information:


"The main feature distinguishing signals produced by a transmitter from those produced by natural processes is their spectral width, i.e. how much room on the radio dial they take up. Any signal less than about 300 Hz wide must be, as far as we know, artificially produced. Such narrow-band signals are what most radio SETI experiments look for. Other tell-tale characteristics include a signal that is completely polarized or the existence of coded information on the signal."

SETI Observations

Wouldn't DNA meet that test?)

Quote:

---

An observer can deduce Mt Rushmore is created by observing thousands of mountains, recognizing this one is different and then having some understanding of how humans manipulate rock.

---

Baloney. Any observer seeing Mt. Rushmore for the first time knows instantly that it was created by man.

Quote:

---

An alien could deduce Voyager was created by observing a near infinite amount of space objects, recognizing Voyager is different, and having some understanding of how beings can manipulate materials into complex machines.

---

Again baloney. Any observer of Voyager would know instantly that it was created by an intelligence. It does not take observations of "a near infinite amount of space objects" to recognize that Voyager is different.

Jabin said:

---

.It has all of the hallmarks of an intelligent creator.

---

Utter nonsense.

What are the hallmarks of a universe that occurred naturally and one that was created by an intelligent force? And how do come up with those hallmarks. Where are the different universes that you have observed that permits you to define and categorize types of universes?

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Jabin said:

---

.It has all of the hallmarks of an intelligent creator.

---

Utter nonsense.

What are the hallmarks of a universe that occurred naturally and one that was created by an intelligent force? And how do come up with those hallmarks. Where are the different universes that you have observed that permits you to define and categorize types of universes?

---

It is not utter nonsense. Rather, you have blinders on that prevent you from recognizing and crediting the evidence. "You can lead a horse to water . . . ."

You ignore all of the arguments and analogies presented and simply reply with that non-persuasive and illogical response, "utter nonsense". You have argued that one must have observed countless universes to reasonably conclude that ours was the product of an intelligence. Can you support that proposition, or is it only an assumption you have inserted to ensure that your agnosticism can never be defeated?

Countless universes? Have you observed them, or are you just making that up?

Of the hundreds of words of posted on this thread, is 'utter nonsense' the only two that you've read? I've explained why I disagree with your 'evidence' and analogies. I have not simply dismissed them.

I have suggested that we should observe lots of universes in order to conclude this one is the product of intelligent design. That was a little tongue in cheek. To be more sincere - I believe we need to know more about our universe in order to conclude anything. I think there are limitations to our intelligence and our ability to discovery that may prohibit us from ever knowing. The fact that only people born to Christian parents end up believing in your version of Creation should be a pretty big hint that your beliefs on the subject are driven mostly by culture.

And a conclusion that the universe was created by an intelligent Creator that is all powerful and outside of time and space is to replace a big mystery with one that is infinitely bigger. It's certainly not an answer. It's a kicking of the can down the road.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Countless universes? Have you observed them, or are you just making that up?

---

If you get to claim an unobserved God and claim it is real, why can't I do the same for universes?

Quote:

---

The fact that only people born to Christian parents end up believing in your version of Creation should be a pretty big hint that your beliefs on the subject are driven mostly by culture.

---

Where in the heck did you get that assertion? Do you actually believe it's true? If so, you need to go back and recheck all of your beliefs and assumptions. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. If it were true, there would be no Christian religion. Goofy.

Quote:

---

If you get to claim an unobserved God and claim it is real, why can't I do the same for universes?

---

Because the evidence for God is all over the place, not only with fantastic interconnectedness of nature and natural beauty, but also with miracles.

Thaddeus73 said:

---

Quote:

---

If you get to claim an unobserved God and claim it is real, why can't I do the same for universes?

---

Because the evidence for God is all over the place, not only with fantastic interconnectedness of nature and natural beauty, but also with miracles.

---

Yep, God's left evidence everywhere.

How many of those other religions have a God that left a written record?

Christianity is relatively unique in that it has a lengthy book that claims to be from the Creator himself and is substantiated through archaeology and history.

God leaves strong clues about himself elsewhere in the fine tuning of the universe, no physical explanation for the very existence of the universe, the fine tuning of the Earth itself for life, the location of the Earth in such a unique spot for observing the universe, DNA, and on and on.

Does Christianity claim that?

Zobel said:

---

Does Christianity claim that?

---

Claim what?

That the Bible comes from God Himself? I think the Quran makes that claim but I don't think the scriptures do.

Quote:

---

What are the hallmarks of a universe that occurred naturally

---

1. No moral obligations
2. No knowledge (see Plantinga'a argument for skepticism from Evolutionary naturalism)
3. No consciousness (for it's inexplicable that consciousness could arise from mere material particles)
4. No agency (for determinism - or, perhaps, random indeterminacy - follows from naturalism. )
5. No moral value
6. No transcendent beauty


It's really not a great list.

Zobel said:

---

That the Bible comes from God Himself? I think the Quran makes that claim but I don't think the scriptures do.

---

OK, the portions that didn't come directly from God verbatim were inspired by God. Men wrote as they were led by the Holy Spirit. The point I was trying to make is that the Bible itself is evidence of God, a record he has left with us.

fat girlfriend said:

---

Quote:

---

What are the hallmarks of a universe that occurred naturally

---

1. No moral obligations
2. No knowledge (see Plantinga'a argument for skepticism from Evolutionary naturalism)
3. No consciousness (for it's inexplicable that consciousness could arise from mere material particles)
4. No agency (for determinism - or, perhaps, random indeterminacy - follows from naturalism. )
5. No moral value
6. No transcendent beauty


It's really not a great list.

---

Shouldn't life itself be added to that list? The materialists not only have the problem of coming up with any workable theory, let alone actual evidence, of how life began, but the first life had to have so much already in existence for it to survive. For example, the first cell had to be more than mere protoplasm. It already had to have DNA in place to ensure it could replicate and create survivable additional cells. It also had to have a solid membrane. All of the little biological machines within the cell had to be in existence from the beginning. That factual reality is inexplicable in a purely materialistic universe.

Zobel said:

---

That the Bible comes from God Himself? I think the Quran makes that claim but I don't think the scriptures do.

---

To be fair the God of Islam is also the God of Christianity, at least according to their writings, sayings, beliefs, and doctrines. (Minus Jesus/Holy Trinity)

Minus Jesus and the Trinity = not the same God.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Jabin said:

---

Kurt, from your posts here I get the sense that you expect absolute proof of something before you can accept it. But that's not how we live life. We accept far less than absolute proof in planning and ordering our lives. That reality is exemplified in our legal system that requires merely "evidence beyond a reasonable doubt" (in criminal cases) or a mere "preponderance of the evidence" (in civil cases). There is nothing in life, except perhaps mathematical proofs, in which we have 100% certainty. Even DNA evidence does not provide 100% certainty because, after all, it is done by humans.

If one looks at the totality of the evidence, it is reasonable to conclude that God is the creator of the universe. That evidence includes not just the evidence relevant to the origin of the universe, but the evidence from the universe itself and how it provides significant evidence of fine tuning, evidence from history about the historical reality of Jesus Christ and the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, to name just some of the evidence.

You are right, there does not appear to be evidence that gives 100% certainty as to how the universe originated. But you (hopefully) live no other aspect of your life demanding that level of certainty.

---

My bar is not set at absolute proof.

What Christianity proposes, if true, would be the most profoundly important thing ever imaginable. It would literally be the meaning of life, the universe, and everything multiplied by eternity.

The evidence for the truth of Christianity you pointed out is not evidence of the claims of Christianity. I give some weight to the cosmological argument as suggestive of the possibility of a Creator, but it is a billion miles away from evidence that Christianity is true. Archeology has no business in concluding a particular person was the son of God. At best, it can confirm that the stories involve actual places and events. London can be shown to exist, that doesn't mean the story of Harry Potter is true. And the Old Testament is fantastically inaccurate. Even where it is historically accurate, this no more proves the accuracy of the claims of Christianity than it proves the truthfulness of the personal beliefs of any other historian.

The majority of humans alive do not accept Jesus or your God. The majority of people who have ever lived do not accept Jesus or your God. The majority of people who have ever lived believe the religion that was taught them. The overwhelming majority of people that do accept Jesus and your God do so because they were born into it or because it was spread to them through violence (1.2 Billion in S America and Africa for example). Christianity has not sprang up independently in different parts of the world or by remote isolated tribes. It is a taught philosophy rooted in the beliefs and culture of a very specific people in a tiny part of the world. It is what you were taught and it is what you believe. Had you been born in India, you might be on this board explaining how obvious the truth of Hinduism is. I think it would be incredibly dishonest to deny the influence that one's situation and environment influences their beliefs.

I don't need absolute evidence for Jesus or your God, but what has been offered amounts to virtually nothing. And the same is true for Hinduism, Buddhism, and other other religion. This is why so few people convert to different religions or why there are always additional circumstances involved when they do convert.

The suggestion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong is to suggest an intentional and obstinate dishonesty on the part of 75% of the planet when it comes to God. Every single devout Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever is intentionally rejecting what they know to be true. . . That is a bonkers belief to me.

The consequences involved in religious claims are not on the same level as being taken advantage of by a friend, or having a contentious marriage, or losing some money, or failing at something in life. We all take chances in our lives that we are not 100% certain about. But, the bigger the consequences, the more certain we want to be. If an action taken by you could result in your death, how certain would you need to be before taking that action? Pretty damn high, right? If an action taken by you could result in eternal bliss or torture, how certain do you need to be?

And that is the heart of this specific complaint I have about religion. The implications of religious claims and the evidence of their truth are massively disproportional. Perhaps infinitely disproportionate.

I don't reject the possibility of a God. But, the proposition of a God offering eternal and infinite consequence for a decision for which we are given effectively zero information goes against every intuition I have. Trying to convince others to believe in bull**** is what humans do to one another. Why would this be the strategy of God All Powerful?

---

If we are being fair, Christians do state that we have the most profound truth ever imaginable. And, I think you are right that it's the most important thing multiplied by eternity. I will also state that we sometimes lose sight of that fact. Myself included.

I Will also state that the God of Christianity. Some dogmas aside, is the same God of the largest religious group in the world, and encompasses about to almost have of the current world population. Also to state that the majority of all humans in history were not Christian is akin to me stating the majority of humans living and dead did not believe in evolution through natural selection. Both can be true, and unpopular. I will also state that Christianity has the distinction of being a religion that transcends culture. Other religions may do it, but I would contend that they have limited success.

Further I would state that the "archeological" or even historical claims of the OT are not 100% historical claims. Meaning they were not meant to be read/written as a news article or peer reviewed paper in The journal of archaeological and historical research. There is metaphor, spiritual, and contextual reading and it is a strawman to use blunt literalism as the default reading.

I would also say that there is a certain incorrect absolutism To your claim of…..
"The suggestion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong is to suggest an intentional and obstinate dishonesty on the part of 75% of the planet when it comes to God. Every single devout Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever is intentionally rejecting what they know to be true. . . That is a bonkers belief to me. ".

Again, that is a strawman, even if we consider the implications. For one, even within early Christianity there was some debate on the salvation for the unbaptized. So even with Christianity there is some discussion and no absolutism. Further, to state that somebody who does not believe a truth is a person who has a "intentional and obstinate dishonesty" seems like a disingenuous strawman argument as well. As a papist, I can draw on documents like "Nostra aetate" that states…"other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself."

TLDR other religions have truth in them, however the fullness of truth lays with Christ who is truth itself incarnated.

In this case I would say you have constructed an artificial binary of 100% true or it's false because of "intentional and obstinate dishonesty".

Also it's a bit hyperbolic to state "effectively zero information"…. Further, and frankly speaking a God that would force us to love him is a dictator. There can be consequences for rejecting love. Not out of jilted spite, but a reality that to reject the good, the true, and the beautiful has horrific consequences, but to also have a God that would force me to love him seems much worse than a God that would allow me that choice.

Zobel said:

---

Minus Jesus and the Trinity = not the same God.

---

By that standard Judaism worships a different God. A view which is basically a Gnostic Marcionism. Even sociologists would state it's an "Abrahamic religion". Heck Jesus and OT prophets are in the dang Quran.

Quote:

---

By that standard Judaism worships a different God.

---

On one hand, yes; on the other, no. The portions of Judaism which retain its original understanding of the scriptures that identify the Word who is Yahweh and the Spirit of Yahweh worship the God of Israel. That's why St John, a Jew, easily wrote "the Word became flesh." He said, that Person in the scriptures who is the Word Yahweh is Jesus.

The portions which have rejected that view do not worship the God we know. Christ Jesus taught this:

"they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me."

"You do not know Me or My Father," Jesus answered. "If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well."

"whoever sees Me sees the One who sent Me."

"they do not know the One who sent Me."

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

And St John writes: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well."

Zobel said:

---

Quote:

---

By that standard Judaism worships a different God.

---

On one hand, yes; on the other, no. The portions of Judaism which retain its original understanding of the scriptures that identify the Word who is Yahweh and the Spirit of Yahweh worship the God of Israel. That's why St John, a Jew, easily wrote "the Word became flesh." He said, that Person in the scriptures who is the Word Yahweh is Jesus.

The portions which have rejected that view do not worship the God we know. Christ Jesus taught this:

"they will do these things because they have not known the Father, nor me."

"You do not know Me or My Father," Jesus answered. "If you knew Me, you would know My Father as well."

"whoever sees Me sees the One who sent Me."

"they do not know the One who sent Me."

"Anyone who has seen me has seen the Father."

And St John writes: "Whoever denies the Son does not have the Father, but whoever confesses the Son has the Father as well."

---

I'm that case it would be proper to say they reject the fullness of God, not that they worship an entirely different god. When they pray, they are not praying to some demiurge as the "not the same god" claim implies.

I disagree. That is not what the scriptures say.

" the Father who sent me has himself borne witness about me. His voice you have never heard, his form you have never seen, and you do not have his word abiding in you, for you do not believe the one whom he has sent. You search the Scriptures because you think that in them you have eternal life; and it is they that bear witness about me, yet you refuse to come to me that you may have life. I do not receive glory from people. But I know that you do not have the love of God within you. I have come in my Father's name, and you do not receive me. If another comes in his own name, you will receive him. How can you believe, when you receive glory from one another and do not seek the glory that comes from the only God? Do not think that I will accuse you to the Father. There is one who accuses you: Moses, on whom you have set your hope. For if you believed Moses, you would believe me; for he wrote of me. But if you do not believe his writings, how will you believe my words?"


Put another way. The Yahweh of the Scriptures IS Jesus.

Zobel said:

---

I
Put another way. The Yahweh of the Scriptures IS Jesus.

---

Sure, but again, you are making the claim that when Jewish people pray to Yahweh, they are praying to a different God than that of Christianity. They acknowledge the Father. So when they acknowledge the father in worship, are they worshiping God?

I think it's significant that they don't use the name "Father".

Quote:

---

when Jewish people pray to Yahweh, they are praying to a different God than that of Christianity

---

This is kind of like you writing letters to a pen pal who lives far away for years. Periodically when friends of yours are traveling they swing by the pen pal's house and tell your pen pal stories about you. Then you show up to visit one day, and your pen pal kicks you out and says you're not the person who wrote the letters. Bizarrely they keep writing.

Are they writing to you?

Ha ha, you were on a roll Zobel until you posted that last analogy. It makes no sense at all, lol. You need another cup of coffee or two.

Shrug. Every time the OT says "the Word of Yahweh came to..." St John would have us understand that to be identical to "Jesus came to..."

If you say "not Jesus" you are saying "not Yahweh". You can't worship Yahweh and reject Jesus.

Zobel said:

---

Shrug. Every time the OT says "the Word of Yahweh came to..." St John would have us understand that to be identical to "Jesus came to..."

If you say "not Jesus" you are saying "not Yahweh". You can't worship Yahweh and reject Jesus.

---

Oh, I agree with your overall point completely. It's just that your analogy confused things more than clarified them.

I had the same discussion several years ago with an old friend who is a Syrian Christian who grew up in Lebanon. He was also contending that Christians and Muslims worship the same God. I disagreed strongly. It's always dangerous to judge someone else says motives, but, having said that, I suspect his belief was based out of a desire to find common ground with his Muslim friends.

Jabin said:

---

Quote:

---

The fact that only people born to Christian parents end up believing in your version of Creation should be a pretty big hint that your beliefs on the subject are driven mostly by culture.

---

Where in the heck did you get that assertion? Do you actually believe it's true? If so, you need to go back and recheck all of your beliefs and assumptions. Nothing could be further from the truth than that. If it were true, there would be no Christian religion. Goofy.

---

Environment is the biggest predictor of religious belief. I honestly didn't realize this was up for serious discussion. People tend to believe in and follow the religion they are born and raised and brought up with. And really 'tend' is not strong enough a word. In most places in the world and for most times, this is a near - 100% predictor. The biggest exception is when religion spreads through violence. . . . which is often the case. Even in the godless, liberal West, it is still the biggest predictor. The accident of when, where, and to whom you are born is the biggest determining factor in your religious beliefs.

This explains why 99% of Afghanistan is Muslim. And why 99% of their previous generation is and why 99% of their next generation will be Muslim. What is your alternate theory?

Quote:

---

I Will also state that the God of Christianity. Some dogmas aside, is the same God of the largest religious group in the world, and encompasses about to almost have of the current world population. Also to state that the majority of all humans in history were not Christian is akin to me stating the majority of humans living and dead did not believe in evolution through natural selection. Both can be true, and unpopular. I will also state that Christianity has the distinction of being a religion that transcends culture. Other religions may do it, but I would contend that they have limited success.

---

That is a big 'nope' from me. If Christianity is true, then humans were created by God with a specific purpose, the expectation that we are to realize this purpose, and with eternal consequences for following or not following toward that purpose. The theory of evolution is in no way remotely equivalent on this points.

Quote:

---

Further I would state that the "archeological" or even historical claims of the OT are not 100% historical claims. Meaning they were not meant to be read/written as a news article or peer reviewed paper in The journal of archaeological and historical research. There is metaphor, spiritual, and contextual reading and it is a strawman to use blunt literalism as the default reading.

---

I fully recognize that there is a more nuanced discussion to be had about historical accuracy of the OT. I will give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that you are not one to hide behind the argument that the OT is meant to be metaphorical in order to justify inaccuracies of a literal translation of some of the passages.

So, what is the historical evidence that assures us that the OT is accurate? Proof that some of the cities or events or people existed does not proof that the claims of Christianity are true. I do not see an archeological or historical path for proving that Jesus was the son of God . . . . . or that God has purpose for us. . . . or that God sets morals for us. . . .or that there is an afterlife. Christianity is not the claim that certain places exist, events happened, or that people lived. The study of archeology and history are simply not appropriate tools for proving the important and profound claims of Christianity.

Quote:

---

I would also say that there is a certain incorrect absolutism To your claim of…..
"The suggestion that there is sufficient evidence to conclude that Christianity is right and all other religions are wrong is to suggest an intentional and obstinate dishonesty on the part of 75% of the planet when it comes to God. Every single devout Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, whatever is intentionally rejecting what they know to be true. . . That is a bonkers belief to me. ".

Again, that is a strawman, even if we consider the implications. For one, even within early Christianity there was some debate on the salvation for the unbaptized. So even with Christianity there is some discussion and no absolutism. Further, to state that somebody who does not believe a truth is a person who has a "intentional and obstinate dishonesty" seems like a disingenuous strawman argument as well. As a papist, I can draw on documents like "Nostra aetate" that states…"other religions found everywhere try to counter the restlessness of the human heart, each in its own manner, by proposing "ways," comprising teachings, rules of life, and sacred rites. The Catholic Church rejects nothing that is true and holy in these religions. She regards with sincere reverence those ways of conduct and of life, those precepts and teachings which, though differing in many aspects from the ones she holds and sets forth, nonetheless often reflect a ray of that Truth which enlightens all men. Indeed, she proclaims, and ever must proclaim Christ "the way, the truth, and the life" (John 14:6), in whom men may find the fullness of religious life, in whom God has reconciled all things to Himself."

---

Okay. The previous claims in this thread indicate there is sufficient evidence for one to conclude that Christianity is correct. Please give me an explanation as to why 99% of Afghans are Muslim? Why is India 80% Hindu, 15% Muslim, and only 2.5% Christian? Why are remote and isolated tribes of humans never discovered to be Christian? If the truth of Christianity is so obvious, why is it that so few people accept it and why is the correlation between Christianity and the accident of when and where and how you are born such an incredibly accurate predictor.

I mean every Hindu, Muslim, Buddhist, and other on this planet. . . . if they have a sincere desire for religious truth . . . . . should be able to see the truth of Christianity. Why don't they? Either they are insincere or intentionally dishonest. What other option is there?

You say this is a false dichotomy and you are probably correct. But, I content that any nuance you push into a rebuttal will be of minimal affect.

Quote:

---

Also it's a bit hyperbolic to state "effectively zero information"…. Further, and frankly speaking a God that would force us to love him is a dictator. There can be consequences for rejecting love. Not out of jilted spite, but a reality that to reject the good, the true, and the beautiful has horrific consequences, but to also have a God that would force me to love him seems much worse than a God that would allow me that choice.

---

For arguments sake, I won't object to the charge of hyperbole. The larger point I have been trying to make is that the proposed magnitude of consequences of Christianity are out of proportion to the evidence we have. This is the meaning of everything times eternity, right? The evidence for Christianity should be on the same magnitude, in my opinion. From the Christian God's perspective, I don't see the value in asking people to 'guess' at what is truth. . . . which we are all clearly doing.

Well how do you explain the explosive growth of Christianity in China, Africa, and Protestant Christianity in South America? And the explosive growth of Christianity in the first four centuries after Christ?

The reality on the ground doesn't seem to match up with the statistics you cited. Makes one wonder if somebody just simply made up those statistics. After all, 93% of all statistics you read on the Internet are simply made up.

Finally, your attempt to limit believers in God simply to those who were raised that way is weak on your part. First, even if it is true, it doesn't make their beliefs wrong. Secondly, it's a copout. And finally, it's always a mistake judge other's motives and heart. I have known lots of American Christians who were not raised as Christians but converted because they became convinced of the truth Of Christianity. In fact, I was just checking the church website out yesterday evening and the pastor of that very evangelical church was raised as an agnostic/atheist Unitarian.

One last point: your argument undercuts your own position. That is, your beliefs must also be due to your parents' beliefs. If your point is valid, your arguments are not. You are making them simply because of your background and how you were raised.

So to be clear, do Jewish people worship Yahweh? Did they at some point then stop? Are they LARPers aping worship but not doing anything?

Who are they worshiping?

You seem to reject the Marcionistic or Gnostic viewpoint and seem to acknowledge that they did in fact worship God at one point. So what, they stopped worshiping God once their was a rejection of Jesus? Why not say that those who leave X denomination no longer worship God cause they rejected "God's Church"? While it seems the latter argument has been made historically, I would disagree with that too. We can argue about if that worship "counts" (for lack of a better word). But it's still worship to the same acknowledged being.

Quote:

---

Jewish people worship Yahweh

---

St John Chrysostom says what they offer, they offer to demons. People react negatively to this statement, but I think it's misinterpreted often. What this means is not that they're evil people or that they intentionally are doing this - although maybe some are? it would be par for the course in Israel's history to worship other gods - but that they have been deceived.

Quote:

---

Did they at some point then stop?

---

Yes. At one time there were people who worshipped Yahweh. Things fell apart...repeatedly...but a faithful remnant remained. This is basically the OT in a nutshell. St John the Forerunner was the second Elijah to prepare the faithful remnant for Christ. Those faithful ones recognized Him immediately, eve if they were sinners in the eyes of the world. The unfaithful didn't recognize Him at all. This is a major theme in the gospels.

After the second temple period ended there was a concerted effort to kind of retcon the OT to scrub these "Christian" interpretations of two powers in heaven. They even rehabbed some famous early Rabbis by saying they used to believe in two powers but were later corrected. A new interpretation of the OT that scrubbed the Word as God came about.

Quote:

---

You seem to reject the Marcionistic or Gnostic viewpoint and seem to acknowledge that they did in fact worship God at one point.

---

Well I'm not a Marcionite, so yeah. I think it would be more appropriate to say "we" worshipped God in the past, and continued to do so when He became incarnate. Others did not, because they never knew Him.

Quote:

---

But it's still worship to the same acknowledged being.

---

You can't deny Christ and acknowledge God as the same being. There is an identity relationship between Christ and God. No matter how hard you want to square that circle it can't be done.

The only true God Israel ever knew was Jesus.