Why Yahweh? (Or Allah, or Zeus, etc.)

[Aroura]

Why are atheists voting, though? (Two have so far)

For me, When I clicked on the thread, the first thing I saw was the post and I voted.

As there was an acceptable choice for those that reject the claim of the existence of a god, I felt it was a no-brainer.

Most, if not all theists, tend to reduce their god to the petty levels of mere mortals.

Same here. It didn't say "theists only"..

Also, I couldn't see the results unless I took the poll, that I saw. Probably something obvious I missed. Sorry.

[Darkstar]

Also, I couldn't see the results unless I took the poll, that I saw. Probably something obvious I missed. Sorry.

Don't worry about it. You can see the results on a seperate page if you click 'show resluts' and it has names there so I can see what the theists voted for, but I really should have put in a dud option for convienient viewing.

[Mystic]

The proof of Christianity is suppose to lie by the holy spirit. That is suppose to make you know. Therefore the need of miracles is really not there.

The only problem Islamically, is that Prophets did come with miracles, per Islam clams. Therefore there is inconsistency. The excuse of not coming with miracles was a fallacy as well.

Therefore miracles are not evidence of Christianity, but keeps the story consistent with past stories (miracles of Moses).

Now I think I would like to attack the holy spirit? What is the job of the holy spirit? It's not simply to make you know Christianity is true, but to bring a sacred spirit into the lives of Christians.

The only thing is, that Christians don't show any superior morals to non-Christians.

What is more, is that the Bible states that whom loves the world is without love of God.

Christians tend to love the world. They are not ascetics. But lo and behold they have faith in Jesus. And faith in Jesus is suppose to mean you have the holy spirit making you know the truth.

The thing is it's pretty obvious, that Christians are believing in Christianity for similar reasons that other people believe in their respective religions.

This an essential problem with praising belief.

Belief in evolution for example is not praiseworthy if you simply believe on blind following authority. If you yourself are convinced by a certain amount of knowledge of it, and that knowledge does indicate it's true strongly, and you perceive that, than it's praised.

Otherwise, just believing true things isn't always praiseworthy.

You cannot say that Christians all know Christianity to be true. Yet faith in it is praised. A lot believe primarily due to being born into it and raised up in that religion.

Even if you are right that Christianity can be known by evidence, the problem is that a great amount of Christians haven't even read the Bible but still believe. It cannot be anyway argued that all believers know the bible is true by the holy spirit or that Christianity is true or have believed in it due to good reasons.

And essentially for that, praise in belief in it is illogical.

[FallentoReason]

Where? They agree that extraordinary miracles of healing are attributed to Jesus. They state that the greatest miracle of Muhammed is the writing of the Quran. They then list supposed miracles of Muhammed. These miracles are not found in the Quran. In the Quran, Muhammed expressly states that the doesn't have miraculous powers. These miracles came about in later tradition, which is what we would expect of a legend growing up around true but mundane events. Critics of Christianity recognize this principle and speculate that there must have been non-miraculous texts on which the gospels were built, but no such texts have been found.

You're probably aware that the Gospels are evidence of a story being exaggerated. Jesus is not god in the Synoptics but then in John, the last Gospel written, all of a sudden he is "one with the Father". How do the Synoptics miss out on such a fundamental detail that is the basis of Christianity?

[IATIA]

Looking at the poll results, it would seem that Akincana Krishna dasa has given the best response for a deluded sky-daddy worshiper. If there were a god, that would be my response.

[The Grand Nudger]

Nah, he can't have my ancestor's gods. Over-ruled.

[John V]

It basically said that because people like Moses were given the power to perform miracles in the name of god, then Jesus's miracles do not prove his divinity any more than the parting of the red sea proves Moses's. Jesus was not the only person to be raised from the dead on the day of his ressurection, so this too does not show that he is divine.

I agree. I haven't said that miracles are necessarily evidence of divinity. I said they're evidence supporting extraordinary claims. As these others didn't claim divinity, you're correct, their miracles/raising doesn't prove divinity.

I'm not saying that they are making a good case for miracles actually occuring; I'm just saying that Christianity isn't necessarily making a better one.

I've shown a difference: Christianity includes miracles of Jesus and the apostles in its earliest documents. Islam's earliest documents denied such miracles, and miracles were only attributed to Muhammed over time.

Allaah The Almighty supported His Prophets with miracles, which are extraordinary events that are usually of the same nature that the people of that particular prophet excelled at. For instance, the people of Prophet Moosa excelled at magic, so the miracle of Prophet Moosa was that he threw his staff and it turned to a serpent. Likewise, the people of Prophet ‘Eesa excelled at medicine, so Prophet ‘Eesa cured the blind and the leper, and gave life to the dead by the permission of Allaah The Almighty. The Arabs excelled at poetry and rhetoric and therefore Allaah The Almighty sent them the Quran and it was a miracle that they were not even able to compose one Soorah (Chapter) like it.

Here, the miracles of pre-Muhammad prophets are briefly explained.
[/quote]
Yes, Moosa being Moses and Eesa being Jesus. They admit that Moses and Jesus performed miracles, and Muhammed wrote a book.

---

You're probably aware that the Gospels are evidence of a story being exaggerated. Jesus is not god in the Synoptics but then in John, the last Gospel written, all of a sudden he is "one with the Father". How do the Synoptics miss out on such a fundamental detail that is the basis of Christianity?

John stressed Jesus divinity more than the Synoptics, but it's not absent from the Synoptics.

Matthew 11
27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Luke 10
22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

John 10
15 As the Father knows Me, even so I know the Father; and I lay down My life for the sheep.

[FallentoReason]

Matthew 11
27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Luke 10
22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

I'm not too sure where the divine aspect is here. All I see is that Jesus is the spokesperson for God. Nothing more, nothing less.

[John V]

Matthew 11
27 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows the Son except the Father. Nor does anyone know the Father except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.

Luke 10
22 All things have been delivered to Me by My Father, and no one knows who the Son is except the Father, and who the Father is except the Son, and the one to whom the Son wills to reveal Him.”

I'm not too sure where the divine aspect is here. All I see is that Jesus is the spokesperson for God. Nothing more, nothing less.

One can be a spokesperson for God without these claims. Indeed, the prophets and apostles were all spokepersons, but none made this claim.

Another example:
Matt 16
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

[FallentoReason]

One can be a spokesperson for God without these claims. Indeed, the prophets and apostles were all spokepersons, but none made this claim.

Another example:
Matt 16
15 “But what about you?” he asked. “Who do you say I am?”
16 Simon Peter answered, “You are the Messiah, the Son of the living God.”

And how does that make him divine? Aren't we all supposedly sons and daughters of your god? Sure, Jesus is supposed to be sent from the Father and hence he is the "Son", but so what? How does that show he is divine? He's still just a spokesperson for this new covenant.