QUOTE Have you read the Bible entirely? If so, when was the last time you did?
Yes. Last time was about 2 to 3 years ago.
QUOTE Do you approach the issue with an open mind?
Indeed. On top of that I was baptised, went to sunday school when I was a child, our public school in brisbane had religious instruction, I went to a private catholic school, and majored in religious studies.
My mind wasn't just open, god was always the default option.
QUOTE When was the last time you genuinely prayed to God?
When I was a teenager I do believe. I have since recieved greater reaction/benefit praying to my pet rock, but only because the rock might actually be able to be thrown at and effect things...
QUOTE Do you know that many of the events of the Bible are historically either verified or have strong supporting evidence, including geological evidence of a Great Flood?
I actually know there's no such thing. Evidence of the great flood has always been trumpted out by the likes of creation scientists (ie. Not scientists). That there have been historical floods is not at issue, but that one such as mentioned in the bible happened is completely unsupported by any evidence.
In fact its quite the opposite. There is no evidence that the jews were ever enslaved as a people in egypt, no evidence of any pharoah letting them go or dissapearing in the red sea, no evidence of their journey through the desert.
There is positive direct archaelogical evidence that jews, and jewish religion/monotheism developed directly out of the polytheistic ancient caananite religion/area, that many parts of the bible are almost direct plaguarisms from this polytheistic older religion which has left its mark on the bible and jewish culture/language.
The distinctions between which rules in the bible ie the commandments and which are not neccesary to follow are completely arbitary, not to mention some of the rules themselves.
The historical evidence of jesus, when we come to that, is just as bad. There's really sweet fuck all evidence for an historical jesus, or at least if we accept his existence, no hard evidence of anything actually concrete about him. None of the gospels were written by anyone who had any contact with him, some are even ignorant of basic geography of the judean area and fuck up jewish dates, and then you get letters from the likes of paul, who's main contact with jesus is in a fucking vision (which we rightfully mock the historicity of the gnostic sources for), and who has rules and opinions, which, no offence DS, you completely ignore and are completely different from gospel theoloy.
If we treat the gospels with the same degree as we do the claims made by the supposedly "historical" books of the other regions and religions (ie. stories about buddha or articles about krishna), we must admit they have absolutley no historical validity whatsoever essentially.
The only reason we take them seriously, or think that any of the stuff mentioned in them in regards to jesus is real or even vaguely historically accurate is exactly the same reason that all those other religious people believe in the stories about buddha or krishna. Because they always have and because they have always been told its real.
QUOTE If God could be completely proven to you, would you not agree that it would be sheer foolishness to defy Him?
If we accept the proviso that freedom is present, and we must accept that it is if we believe there is any choice in defying god, then if god was hypothetically actually satan, and hated us and wanted us to feel pain, it would then make sense that we could, and should, defy him, for we could be at least somewhat better off in doing so.
One can emotionally ask whether one would defy satan if he were god, and we could reasonably say yes, because even if satan wants what is worst for us, through our choices we can at least create some good.
The mere existence of god therefore, does not neccesarily imply the best action is devotion to him.
QUOTE Would you not seek to do His will? He would, effectively, become a law of the universe to you and the cornerstone of reality.
Freedom and choice removes all connection we have with god, at least morally, as a cornerstone of reality. Because, as has been shown, the existence of god, both in christian theology and if satan were in fact god, does not deem us to follow him, our dilemma is one of being personally responsible for our choices and actions. God coudl not force us to do anything which we would then be personally responsible for, and in that regard, it is our choices, and not the quality of god that plays any part.
To think otherwise is to simply beg the question.
Of course there is no choice to defy god if your starting assumption is that god is good, you know everything about god and good, and you want to be good. But in such a state of mind, there is similarly no room for discussion, growth, or debate. |
.
And if you'd claim that such isn't an appeal, then how do you reconcile that so many (in fact, most) people believe in a 'monotheistic' God.