Whats even attractive about Christianity anyway that people want to stay in ignorance

[Voltair]

If Christianity is to be based on faith and faith is what you said it is then how can you really stand inside of Christianity? How is it more than simply a desire or a belief you have without substantiation? If you can't substantiate it then what still causes you to believe? Is it something you desire or something that you fear or both?

I can't prove scientifically that my sister loves me, but I believe it. Anything within the mind (what makes us human and not animal) is not testable. It is only accessible through secondary observation. If you simply watched humans and had no inside knowledge (being "in the know" as C.S. Lewis described) you would never come to the conclusion that our species had a morality. God (the source of our persona and spirituality) is unprovable in the same way. He is present in our hearts and minds and that is how we know him. To aid us, he sent his son Jesus in the flesh in ways we could observe and record. Nonbelievers in the 1st century refused to believe for different reasons than today. They said Jesus was demon-possessed or a magician or a mere prophet, but never that he never actually existed or died. God set up the Bible to point us to him. The Old Testament outlines the Law and shows our sin. The New Testament shows God's love and sacrifice for us in Jesus, fulfilling the Law and freeing us from the sins we were convicted of in the first half. No Christian believes on wishful thinking, as you suggest. Everything is based on reason, just a different reason than yours. This is intrinsic in humanity--we can't force ourselves to believe in something unless we believe it is true. Jesus' life and resurrection may have less sensory evidence than, say, the reproduction of rabbits, but that doesn't make the events any less probable. It's hard to believe on faith, but real truth is never easy to come by. God designed the world so we would have to seek him. He didn't force himself on us. But inside, consciously or not, we make the decision to accept him as God or to make ourselves our own god.

There again other people of other faiths can claim that self revelation as well. Does that mean their self revelation is just as relevant as yours? If that were true that would also cause a contradiction with the doctrine of Christianity though.

I agree, we cannot force ourselves to believe in something unless we are actually convinced. That is precisely why I cannot force myself to believe in God/the Bible I am terribly unconvinced that it is true. If this is something I cannot help then what is the point of discussing it? Real truth is hard to come by? Perhaps real truth is rather simple to come by we just don't like how simple it really is sometimes. For example I know I often have looked for complicated/other reasons for the way things are going in my life before. Often the answer is an uncomfortable but simple one, the problem is me.

The issue of the whole God/Jesus/Biblical account isn't because it has slightly less sensory evidence as rabbit reproduction. The problem is you have claims of things that are supernatural with absolutely NO proof of supernatural events/entities in reality. What if you read a book that talked about fairies and magical gnomes? Would you readily accept that fairies and magical gnomes exist even though you have NEVER seen any evidence of this? How exactly is the existence of spiritual forces any different? Just because a lot of society feels like it exists doesn't mean it does.

You mention the biblical account not being made any less probable. How probable do you think it is that any other religious account of supernatural demonstration outside of the Bible is true? I do not know for certain but I assume that you only regard your book as faith as having the real ones. But what makes yours more likely? Why are these other religious groups miracles/gods any less likely than yours?

A lot of the ancients may have believed that the God's lived not too far above the clouds. It did not matter that most people believed in it because it still wasn't true as we have traveled far beyond the clouds and found no such thing.

Saying God is the source of morality because through observation we could never perceive what morality is doesn't prove anything. The moral argument for the existence of God is simply someones speculation as to how we have moral phenomenon. You can structure the argument in a logical format but that does not mean its premises are true. If you argument is based mostly off of scripture then you are basing it off what someone else said not self revelation anyway.

Saying we unconsciously or consciously choose to refuse God is something I think you probably pull from the Bible. If you didn't say that you would have to toss the apostle Paul out on his head due to what he says in Romans and elsewhere. The problem is reality conflicts with what the Apostle says. Of course you may argue that while I may not be dishonest I am "subconsciously being dishonest". Well can I control my subconscious? If I cannot then God would be unjust by punishing me and if I can control it all please tell me how I do that.

I can just as easily say that a Christian subconsciously knows that there are tons of problems with their faith but just chooses to reject them. Of course I do not believe that is true in many cases but my statement can be just as valid as yours on the surface. Prove to me other than because the Bible says so that I am consciously/subconsciously rejecting God based on something wrong. How is acknowledging that God cannot be proven plus acknowledging the many issues with scripture and coming to the conclusion I have "wrong"? God could easily solve these issues by simply revealing himself directly and as was pointed out earlier this would not violate free will.

You mentioned God wants us to seek him but what if we don't find him? The Bible says he who seeks shall find right? Well many people have sought and found quite the opposite of God. That is another strike against it in my mind. You may just say "well you weren't HONESTLY" seeking. Does the only honest seeking is the one that leads to the answer you believe to be true? That is a loaded phrase if that is true. You and I both know with relative certainty that God will not reveal himself directly. You believe so, I am guessing, because somehow that would make faith not valid. I have already shown before how that is an invalid argument so what argument is left? I am relatively certain God won't show because I am relatively certain the Christian God does not exist.

It was good enough for him to demonstrate his power at mount Carmel, Egypt, the Red Sea, the many battles of the Israelites, Jerusalem, roughly 1980 years ago, etc but its not good for him to now? So the ancient people get ABSOLUTE knowledge of his existence and we get a book written by MEN who were supposedly inspired. A book with a questionable history and poor extra-biblical support for many of its claims. I really don't see how it makes any sense whatsoever to give the more superstitious people of the past more proof than the more skeptical people of today. That seems quite foolish but I guess as the Bible says the wisdom of God is foolishness to man? I think the reason it appears foolish isn't because it is so divine that we just can't understand but because it really doesn't make sense.

The reason it probably doesn't make sense is that it was written by men who are not all knowing and who did not see the holes in it.