FA+
Shop
† Why Jesus? - Response (Part 1)†
10 years ago
General
Take no one at their word, but test everything against what you know to be true: the Bible. Be like the Bereans (Acts 17:11).
In the previous journal entry, I asked the question “why Jesus?” What’s so special about this man who lived two thousand years ago that people are still willing to die in His name? Why do Christians say He is the only way to Heaven? What I took for granted, though, was that we are on the same page as to why it matters. Does it matter if we’re right, or (as the Unitarian Universalists say) do “all rivers lead to the same ocean?” What I endeavor to accomplish with this follow-up journal (in two parts) is to answer three questions:
1) Why should we care about being “right?”
2) How do we know we’re right about Jesus?
3) Why do other prominent religions still disagree?
Why should we care?
Not very long ago, I was in a debate with an atheist on Facebook. I opened the discussion with a classic example of risk-versus-reward analysis called “Pascal’s Wager.” In a nutshell, it’s presented as follows:
There are two possibilities: either God exists, or He does not.
We have two options: we can either believe in God, or not.
If God does not exist and we believe in him, we ultimately neither gain nor lose anything.
If God does not exist and we do not believe in him, we ultimately neither gain nor lose anything.
If God exists and we believe in Him, we will be eternally rewarded.
If God exists and we do not believe in Him, we will face eternal judgement.
Of course, the atheist I was debating had heard this before. Needless to say, he wasn’t openly moved by it. Nevertheless, the argument is valid. The outcome of belief in God is neutral at worst and positive at best. Conversely, the outcome of being an atheist is neutral at BEST and negative at worst. While this is not a proof for Christianity in itself, we can logically deduce that it makes sense, at the very least, to investigate the claims of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. (Note that I say Abrahamic religions because pantheism falls into the same risk/reward category as atheism.)
Why do I bring this up? Because the trend in our culture is toward something we’re calling “tolerance.” While society is pretending that it just means “respectful disagreement,” in actuality it’s being used as a weapon to shut down theological discourse. If you attempt to argue for an objective truth that contradicts someone else’s belief, you risk being labeled as “intolerant.” Possession of that label is grounds for others to immediately discredit your claims. It’s not logical, but if you have spent any significant amount of time trying to convince non-believers, you’ve likely already encountered this bait-and-switch tactic. It stems from a philosophical notion that “happiness is the greatest good we can achieve.” As long as we’re “happy,” it doesn’t matter if we’re “right.” Well, again, that’s playing with fire, as demonstrated above with Pascal’s Wager.
I could write for hours against the intellectual-genocide that is the “tolerance” movement, but I believe it’s more important to discuss the original question:
Why Jesus
How do we verify the claims that Jesus is the son of God, and that belief in Him will get us to Heaven? How do we even know who Jesus really was? Did He really say these things, or did the apostles make it up? Can the Bible even be trusted?
Theologians have dedicated their lives to just answering parts of these questions. I won’t insult them by pretending I can present all the evidence in a couple short journal posts. What I do hope to accomplish is to present at least the framework for how to go about answering these questions. I believe the first question we ought to ask is: if God wanted to communicate with man, how would He authenticate His message?
Religions have different ways of trying to authenticate their claims. For example, the Quran claims divine inspiration from “beauty” and logic (sura 2:23, Mishkat-ul-Masabih, Volume III, etc.). The problem with this claim is that beauty is subjective, and logic is universal. Can we make the argument that Shakespeare was divinely inspired because his works were beautiful? Was Blaise Pascal divinely inspired for devising Pascal’s Wager? Certainly no modern Muslim would make these claims, so we must look for something uniquely divine to show the authentication of God. In my research, I’ve come across just two such methods of authentication. The first is when God violates the laws of nature. The second is when God violates time itself. In simpler terms, we call them “miracles” and “prophecies.”
The lesser proof is miracles. Why is it the lesser? Because the Bible itself says that satan can perform wonders (Matthew 24:24, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, Exodus 7:11). If that is the case, then how are miracles a proof at all? First we have to acknowledge that something beyond human power is occurring. Be it by God or otherwise, miracles (by definition) are not something we’re able to naturally perform. But how do we know if it is God or the enemy? Quite simply, God has shown that He will not be mocked. In the example from Exodus, although pharaoh’s magicians were able to replicate Moses’ miracle, God took things a step further by having Moses’ snake/staff devour those of the magicians. Subsequently, there were signs that the magicians were simply not able to reproduce like Moses. God used miracles to demonstrate His presence through His appointed messengers (like Moses, Elijah and Elisha). God consistently performed miracles through them and was quick to discredit imposters (1 Kings 18:20-40, Daniel 2).
So what can we extrapolate from the fact that Jesus performed many miracles, was never miraculously discredited, and consistently attributed His power to the Jewish God, Yahweh, whom He also claimed to be? The Pharisees knew that demons could perform miracles and even claimed this was the source of Jesus’ power (Matthew 12:24). Yet if Jesus was not, at the very least, from God, then why didn’t God send someone to stop Him? In fact, the Pharisees do us a favor by acknowledging that Jesus was performing miraculous works; it proves that there was a power beyond mere humanity at work. It was only by the hands of men that he was eventually… temporarily… silenced.
Nevertheless, God provides even greater authentication of His word, and it is through a power that He alone possesses: knowledge of the future. Nothing we do surprises God. He exists outside of time, and thereby it presents no challenge for Him to “predict” the future… or at least that’s how it would seem from our perspective. God attests to the uniqueness of this power, using it as a basis for identifying His prophets amongst imposters (Deuteronomy 18:22).
In the next post, I will discuss the prophecies of the Messiah as they were understood by the Jews of that day, the historicity of the Bible, and how these all authenticate the claims of Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah. I’ll also examine some of the counter-arguments from Islam and Judaism.
This has been a very surface-level discussion on some very deep and important subjects. I encourage anyone who is interested to research them further, as I believe questions of faith are truly of the highest important in life. Feel free to discuss in the comments, just please keep it respectful.
Humbly,
Kal
1) Why should we care about being “right?”
2) How do we know we’re right about Jesus?
3) Why do other prominent religions still disagree?
Why should we care?
Not very long ago, I was in a debate with an atheist on Facebook. I opened the discussion with a classic example of risk-versus-reward analysis called “Pascal’s Wager.” In a nutshell, it’s presented as follows:
There are two possibilities: either God exists, or He does not.
We have two options: we can either believe in God, or not.
If God does not exist and we believe in him, we ultimately neither gain nor lose anything.
If God does not exist and we do not believe in him, we ultimately neither gain nor lose anything.
If God exists and we believe in Him, we will be eternally rewarded.
If God exists and we do not believe in Him, we will face eternal judgement.
Of course, the atheist I was debating had heard this before. Needless to say, he wasn’t openly moved by it. Nevertheless, the argument is valid. The outcome of belief in God is neutral at worst and positive at best. Conversely, the outcome of being an atheist is neutral at BEST and negative at worst. While this is not a proof for Christianity in itself, we can logically deduce that it makes sense, at the very least, to investigate the claims of Christianity and other Abrahamic religions. (Note that I say Abrahamic religions because pantheism falls into the same risk/reward category as atheism.)
Why do I bring this up? Because the trend in our culture is toward something we’re calling “tolerance.” While society is pretending that it just means “respectful disagreement,” in actuality it’s being used as a weapon to shut down theological discourse. If you attempt to argue for an objective truth that contradicts someone else’s belief, you risk being labeled as “intolerant.” Possession of that label is grounds for others to immediately discredit your claims. It’s not logical, but if you have spent any significant amount of time trying to convince non-believers, you’ve likely already encountered this bait-and-switch tactic. It stems from a philosophical notion that “happiness is the greatest good we can achieve.” As long as we’re “happy,” it doesn’t matter if we’re “right.” Well, again, that’s playing with fire, as demonstrated above with Pascal’s Wager.
I could write for hours against the intellectual-genocide that is the “tolerance” movement, but I believe it’s more important to discuss the original question:
Why Jesus
How do we verify the claims that Jesus is the son of God, and that belief in Him will get us to Heaven? How do we even know who Jesus really was? Did He really say these things, or did the apostles make it up? Can the Bible even be trusted?
Theologians have dedicated their lives to just answering parts of these questions. I won’t insult them by pretending I can present all the evidence in a couple short journal posts. What I do hope to accomplish is to present at least the framework for how to go about answering these questions. I believe the first question we ought to ask is: if God wanted to communicate with man, how would He authenticate His message?
Religions have different ways of trying to authenticate their claims. For example, the Quran claims divine inspiration from “beauty” and logic (sura 2:23, Mishkat-ul-Masabih, Volume III, etc.). The problem with this claim is that beauty is subjective, and logic is universal. Can we make the argument that Shakespeare was divinely inspired because his works were beautiful? Was Blaise Pascal divinely inspired for devising Pascal’s Wager? Certainly no modern Muslim would make these claims, so we must look for something uniquely divine to show the authentication of God. In my research, I’ve come across just two such methods of authentication. The first is when God violates the laws of nature. The second is when God violates time itself. In simpler terms, we call them “miracles” and “prophecies.”
The lesser proof is miracles. Why is it the lesser? Because the Bible itself says that satan can perform wonders (Matthew 24:24, 2 Thessalonians 2:9, Exodus 7:11). If that is the case, then how are miracles a proof at all? First we have to acknowledge that something beyond human power is occurring. Be it by God or otherwise, miracles (by definition) are not something we’re able to naturally perform. But how do we know if it is God or the enemy? Quite simply, God has shown that He will not be mocked. In the example from Exodus, although pharaoh’s magicians were able to replicate Moses’ miracle, God took things a step further by having Moses’ snake/staff devour those of the magicians. Subsequently, there were signs that the magicians were simply not able to reproduce like Moses. God used miracles to demonstrate His presence through His appointed messengers (like Moses, Elijah and Elisha). God consistently performed miracles through them and was quick to discredit imposters (1 Kings 18:20-40, Daniel 2).
So what can we extrapolate from the fact that Jesus performed many miracles, was never miraculously discredited, and consistently attributed His power to the Jewish God, Yahweh, whom He also claimed to be? The Pharisees knew that demons could perform miracles and even claimed this was the source of Jesus’ power (Matthew 12:24). Yet if Jesus was not, at the very least, from God, then why didn’t God send someone to stop Him? In fact, the Pharisees do us a favor by acknowledging that Jesus was performing miraculous works; it proves that there was a power beyond mere humanity at work. It was only by the hands of men that he was eventually… temporarily… silenced.
Nevertheless, God provides even greater authentication of His word, and it is through a power that He alone possesses: knowledge of the future. Nothing we do surprises God. He exists outside of time, and thereby it presents no challenge for Him to “predict” the future… or at least that’s how it would seem from our perspective. God attests to the uniqueness of this power, using it as a basis for identifying His prophets amongst imposters (Deuteronomy 18:22).
In the next post, I will discuss the prophecies of the Messiah as they were understood by the Jews of that day, the historicity of the Bible, and how these all authenticate the claims of Jesus Christ as the promised Messiah. I’ll also examine some of the counter-arguments from Islam and Judaism.
This has been a very surface-level discussion on some very deep and important subjects. I encourage anyone who is interested to research them further, as I believe questions of faith are truly of the highest important in life. Feel free to discuss in the comments, just please keep it respectful.
Humbly,
Kal
Well said, and A-Men!
Someone outside of us has to speak and rectify..
The meaning of life on earth can only be found from a source that exists outside of itself..
Mainly , that source can be found in Jesus
He is just man made by the church to keep people going to church and a way to tell you that you are damanged when we are not damaged at all.
It is just away to sell you on Jesus by telling you he is the cure for everything that ails you.
Much like the snake oil salesmen says I have a cure all but in truth it is poison and slowly kills you the more you take.
That being said I really enjoyed reading this. It was definitely an interesting take on that debate.
He is just a myth.
The church gets richer as the guilible get poorer in believing the snake oil salesmen up front trying to sell you a fake cure for the fake disease which is the made up wor sin.
Religions cram there shit in every ones face and kill any one that does not believe exactly as they do.
That is called terrorism.
And all religions are cults.
Claiming tolerance and love and peace but I've been back stabbed and betrayed by the religious to many times and I am sick and tired of the goody to shoes attaboy bullshit in the church.
That's one opinion.
"The church gets richer as the guilible get poorer in believing the snake oil salesmen up front trying to sell you a fake cure for the fake disease which is the made up wor sin."
Pretty broad statement. At one point that was true, particularly with the Catholic church during the Middle Ages, but that is just one point in history. The early American Puritans and Pilgrims, for example, at one point believed in equally redistributing wealth. Lutherans kept their churches very sparse and simple in response to the ostentatious Papacy. The point is you can't paint with a broad brush.
"Religions cram there shit in every ones face and kill any one that does not believe exactly as they do."
There have been instances of that in Christianity, but since the Enlightenment 300 years ago those instances of 'terrorism' have been on the decline, particularly in Europe and North America. The rise of secularism during Napoleonic times largely put an end to state-sponsored religious persecution in the west. That was a long time ago. If you want to complain about religions 'cramming shit in every ones face,' you might direct your rant at the Muslim Furs group if you have the guts to do so. Considering you've showed up in this thread being disrespectful, it seems you're the one cramming shit in people's face right now.
"And all religions are cults."
No they aren't all cults. Cults have a specific definition. It's true that there has been cultism present in many religions, but it is typically not the norm, especially among everyday believers here, whom, by the way, you are being very disrespectful and rude to.
"Claiming tolerance and love and peace but..."
Yeah. Actually it's leftist groups such as Atheists and their close relatives the Feminists who talk the most about 'Tolerance' these days, but are actually some of the least tolerant people around, as you've clearly demonstrated here.
And I am an Atheist who used to be a Christian the church back stabbed me and I see them and all churches as money grubbing frauds!
All religions are frauds you have no evidence what so ever of your claims.
Every time during those times all had a Creation Story all had a Jesus Story.
I am talking about the Greeks, Romans, Chinese, Egyptians, Vikings and Pagans.
They all had a creation story and all of them had a story of some dude dying and rising on the 3rd day.
The christians story is not special in any way because religions were plagiarized from every one elses beliefs.
And I've been back-stabbed by atheists in the past in the same way you've been back-stabbed by churches. Not all atheists are intolerant assholes, but I've met plenty of them to convince me there are assholes in every religious sect (Or non-religious one). So the idea religion is somehow bad because there are a few corrupt assholes that misuse it for their own selfish purposes is in itself a fallacy. And if you're so anti-religion why are you even on here? Why does our little chat matter at all to you?
You should be happy anyway. The number of people who subscribe to any religion has been declining in America for decades, so you'll have plenty of people to get along with in the coming years
I know, you are not responsible for that. 90 percent of the US calls themself christians. Why is a minority in the obligation to be respectfull, when the majority is not?
And why is Atheism wrong?
Thanks for the post brother
The second reason one might reject the wager has to do with that first out of four options you listed:
"If God does not exist and we believe in him, we ultimately neither gain nor lose anything." The key word here is "ultimately" and that makes your statement technically correct. But one might argue that this possibility might rob one of a hedonistic life that they could otherwise have had since belief in God entails adopting certain moral restrictions on one's behavior and making self-denying sacrifices that are often unpleasant. If this one life is the only life there is, and life ends at the grave, one might as well try to maximize pleasure in the immediate since that's all anyone has.
Also, I don't think it's a Christian position to say that beauty is subjective. Beauty is a real, objective, transcendent quality just as goodness and truth are and all of them are grounded in God's eternal nature. Humans have subjective tastes and perceive beauty in highly subjective ways, but the same can be said for morality or truth. The fact that humans disagree on these things and experience them subjectively is not a reason to conclude that an objective standard does not exist. To do so is fallacious and confuses the question of ontology with epistemology.
Otherwise this is thought-provoking journal and it's nice to some intellectual Christian discussion on FA.
Regarding paragraph 2: I understand, but I don't agree that it's an argument against the wager. You're right, I used the word "ultimately," but I don't think that presents a technicality so much as it highlights the reality of an atheistic worldview.
Regarding paragraph 3: I disargee. I find no Scriptural basis for an objective standard of beauty. If you wanted to argue that all of God's work is "beautiful," I can at least see the argument, but I see no cause for applying that to the work of man. It would be akin to arguing that, because it is a part of the nature of God, there is an objective standard for what is "humorous." Regardless, the very fact that humans have subjective perceptions of beauty still affirms the point: it's not a suitable basis for judging the divine inspiration of a religious text.
Moreover, I simply disagree that Scripture provides no support for this. The Bible clearly affirms right and wrong as being independently true of human opinion and since beauty and goodness are related (though distinct) you cannot ultimately have one without the other when either property is fully realized or manifested. Moreover, the biblical account of God depicts him as a creator and an artist who delights in things that are beautiful and deliberately makes them to be so. If God has a concept of beauty and affirms the beautiful as an aspect of reality, then it must be objectively true since nothing that God "thinks" or "perceives" is untrue or subject to human opinion.
I also disagree that beauty is irrelevant when judging the inspiration of Scripture. I believe the Bible is objectively more beautiful than the Qur'an. It is clearly better written and has more sublime teachings and theology. Beauty is certainly not the sole criterion for judging a text as inspiration. If that were so, then a lot of great works of literature would have to be consider divine writ. But to say that because beauty is not the criterion of divine inspiration that it must therefore be irrelevant in making such judgments is a fallacious jump in reasoning and absurd. I would expect God's true message to be not only inherently beautiful but more beautiful than other texts making the same claim since God's revelation (which is ultimately a revelation about himself) is suppose to be a reflection of his own divine nature. Thus, your argument actually implies that God's nature is not beautiful which I would consider to be a potentially blasphemous statement. Or at the very least, it is at total variance with any intelligible description of who and what God is.
If atheist use this argument, would they then be admitting there is some form of god or gods?
The key word here is "ultimately" and that makes your statement technically correct.
I would think this term is referring to when a person's life has ended on Earth. Having a hedonistic lifestyle is short lived once you are in the grave. Even if the word "ultimately" is removed from the argument, the individual will not gain or lose anything as he can not reap the rewards of his life on Earth once he is gone.
No. What they are arguing is that the theist using Pascal's wager has arbitrarily excluded all other possibilities when it comes to the nature of reality and supernatural entities besides the God of Christianity and a world where said God does not exist. If the theist could show that the God of Christianity is either the only deity that could conceivably exist or the deity that is most likely to exist, then the wager has a bit more force. Also,
As for your other point, I'm using the terms "gain" and "lose" in their straightforward and literal meaning. For example, it is not wrong for me to say I have gained when I receive money from a paycheck for example. I have indeed gain something: money. Just because the nature of what I have gained is only temporary does not mean I have not gained something. Likewise, living a devout Christian life inevitably requires or obligates a person to give up something they may want or to reject something that they would otherwise gain, even if such gains are temporary. In this context, Pascal's wager is weighing eternal or permanent gains and losses, and that is appropriate. Atheism has no eternal gains over Christianity and tremendous losses if it turns out that atheism is false. But one could point out that if one has nothing to gain in a permanent, eternal sense, it is better to seek temporary earthly gain than to suffer through life and ultimately die just the same. King Solomon in Ecclesiastes actually made this very point.
The first point, if atheist conclude that other possibilities must be included, then they are modifying Pascal's Wager. They are introducing a "red herring" into the discussion. Pascal's Wager involves only two possibilities, “God is, or He is not.”. Like the flipping of a coin, heads or tails. It also involves two wagers, believe or not believe (flip the coin or not flip the coin). By introducing other possibilities you are changing the wager from a coin flip to a roulette wheel. (Pascel was a gambler and thus his study of probability.)
Your "gain and loss" is from a humanist view point, that is gain can only be of a worldly possession or pleasure. It is similar to the philosophy of "Do as we please as for tomorrow, we die". Pascel's gain is referring to the afterlife, or what happens after we die. Again, Pascel's Wager is on a two choices and two outcome, using the flipping of a coin analogy.
I also disagree with your implication that Christians "suffer through life". That too is a humanistic view point and can be a discussion in itself.
Our discussion here has moved completely away from the original post. If anyone is interested in Pascel's Wager, a good discussion can be found here: http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/pascal-wager/
God bless you and the whole Fandom... even those who reject Him.
Pascall's Wager only works when presented with two options. You have lumped together all the Abrahamic religions, but you are not a practicing Jew or Muslim. Your belief systems are different, despite sharing the same god. If Islam or Judaism turned out to be correct, you would be punished in the afterlife for being a Christian. We do not have a Pascal's Wager situation on Earth; we have multiple competing religions. Christianity should be assessed and accepted on the merits of its arguments and evidence, not on an unsubstantiated fear of consequences for being wrong. Pascal's Wager is a rhetorical trick based on a false dichotomy between atheism and Christianity. I imagine the atheist you were debating understood this. That's why they weren't impressed. :P
Because our eternity is at stake and you cannot redo life. Jesus is the only one who has actually died came back to life to testify about it to a multitude of witnesses. You live only once, my friend.
2) How do we know we’re right about Jesus?
Study the Bible, compare it with facts, compare it with other religions, do the math. By logic, you will find out that Jesus is the only qualified answer.
3) Why do other prominent religions still disagree?
At root it all comes down to pride and rebellion. The pride that you can save your own soul through good deeds and the refusal/rebellion of not letting go of their life of sin (e.g.: "I want to do whatever I want, whenever I want.").
There will always be enough evidence for those who want to believe.
There will never be enough evidence for those who don't want to believe.
Does not matter what cult you belong to they are all barbaric towards others that do not share there religious views.
Jesus is a myth just like god and satan and the holy spirit.
They were all made up by the church.
To keep guiliible people in the church to use hell as a fear tactic to put fear into people.
It is pure terrorism at its finest.
And the bible has been edited by the church to make it say what ever they want since the snake oil salesmen got a hold of it.
(Contrast this with "controlled transmission," such as with the Quran. Adnan Rashid and James White had a good debate that can be found on YouTube, describing the difference.)
As far as being intolerant, though... you're right on the money. It doesn't mean I hate you, though. Far from it. On the contrary, I wouldn't be posting anything if I hated you. Penn Jillette gets it: http://www.radicallychristian.com/w.....out-evangelism
You have every right in the world to ignore me - I won't chase you - but you're dead wrong if you think I don't love you... even if it's not the way you want to be shown love. :)
I'm a good person very compassionate but I don't believe in the Cristian god whatsoever.
If god sends me to hell because I didn't believe, then so be it! I would feel good knowing that I have a better morality then the 'Supreme being' who claims he loves me but rejects all of my life achievements and sends me to endless suffer for eternity because he did not provide me enough of a reason or evidence to believe in him. That sounds like god has an extreme human like sadistic ego.. Why would a god even have weak and flawed human emotions? That's enough evidence for me to say that this was created by humans. It is no different from how the Greeks personified acts of nature into human like beings.
What gets me is that you say your just going to heaven or nothing but really you could just as easily go to another religions hell for not believing in their god! There are soooo many endless possibility's! God could let everyone go to heaven or God exists but when we die its just the end of it ect ect...
In short, consider this. IF there is no creator - OR even if there is, but he doesn't care about us - THEN there's no point in even looking for him. If there IS a creator AND he cares about us, THEN we need to consider what methods he would use to go about demonstrating his existence and communicating with his creation. That's where I get into talking about miracles and prophecy: the tangible evidence. THAT is how the Bible argues for itself. (Normally I'd post a link here, but I can't find a good string of words to type into google to generate results for "how do the major world religions argue for themselves?")
It's not an argument I'm going to pursue here in the comments; there are just too many people who dislike me to keep responding to them all. :P Hopefully it's at least a compelling starting point for you, if you want to keep researching religions.
Then the millions of different other religions with different claims is the icing on the cake for me. :P
He does debates too, so you can listen to how he responds to rebuttals from guys like Sam Harris and Christopher Hitchens. His lectures can come off a little condescending at times, since he's usually speaking to like-minded people. If you can stomach that, I think you'll find him, at the very least, more engaging than your rank-and-file, internet-educated evangelist. :)
You actually think for yerself and don't let a dictator think for you.
The dictator being the preacher con-man that there christian book says do not take mans word for it but christians certainly eat up the words of a lyer and a thief taking there money.
If god didn't offer heaven but instead a bleak purgatory like existence that's enviable after death, would you still worship him?
If you were wondering why an atheist would reject that, chances are he was morally superior to you. Naturally you wouldn't see it since you've been brainwashed to believe your morals come directly from God. However you lack a certain empathy, something that forms the entire basis for an atheist's morals because we have no gods nor are we influenced by religious institutions the way you are.
You see, believing in God because he offers a reward or punishment scenario, or claiming to believe just in case, is a morally corrupt and hollow mindset. If your reasons are rooted in fear of punishment, or desire for reward, then you are at best a fearful sheep, at worst a self serving hypocrite.
Now look at the atheist's reasons for rejecting this.
1: It is morally hollow and corrupt, reeking of little more than self interest.
2: There is no tangible, scientific or verifiable historical evidence that concludes God is real.
3: He prefers to be honest with himself and others rather than live a potentially damaging lie just in case.
No. I could hardly hope to fully express my reasons for faith fully in a journal post. It would take me far too long to write, and let's be honest, no one would read it. :P Not to mention, better minds than mine have already presented the arguments more eloquently. If you're interested, check out some of William Lane Craig's debates or lectures. I've never seen a debate change anyone's mind, but at the very least, he can provide you with a fuller understanding of the upper-escheolon of modern Christian polemics.
I can say I was in hell when I was in the christian church and much more happy now that I do not have to worry about any gods.
I am stronger then all religious gods because I exist and religious gods only exist in there imaginations.
They are afraid to let go because they have been brainwashed into thinking if they do leave god is gonna hammer them to hell.
I left and I am just fine.
Any person or so called god says you have to love me or burn in hell is not free will that religion likes to throw out there.
It is slavery pure and simple.
Everyone's talking about how our faith is based on fear. To be honest, I'm not afraid of "punishment" or going to hell. I can be a pretty bad person, I wouldn't blame God if he let me die. But I also have put my trust in him with my own worries, and he has never failed. Many of my friend and family members have witnessed miracles, as have I... Not "oh hey I found my socks, it's a miracle!" Physically impossible healings, food appearing out of nowhere, even a few encounters with demons. I'd be happy to share.
That's what my faith is built on. Not my feelings, not what my parents believe, but real encounters with an unexplainable power.