Rational defense of Christianity?

[psychoslice]

Yes I agree with the OP, I was banned a few times because of simply asking question to the Christians, questions they didn't want to answer, and because of their childish fear they reported me to the staff.

[Drich]

The tree represents choice. Since the tree was placed in the garden from the beginning, it means God intended that we be given choice.

That choice being His will or our own.

What else you got?

So are you saying God is anti-choice or just really bad at creating people who'll carry out his plan?

How would God be anti choice if He gave us a choice in the garden?

---

Yes I agree with the OP, I was banned a few times because of simply asking question to the Christians, questions they didn't want to answer, and because of their childish fear they reported me to the staff.

... And I've been bann for answering those blasphemous questions in a way not consistant with a given web site's creed or perfered doctrine. That is why I spend my time here. Because despite what the 'free thinkers' want you to think, they allow just about anyone to post what it is they truly think.

[Mudhammam]

Is anybody aware of a forum with lots of rational Christians where the rules are reasonable? (Atheist forums usually have reasonable rules, but the few Christians who inhabit them are weird - sorry I don't know a nicer way to describe them. )

It's just beyond that clearing.

[Alex K]

Jeez where did you find that pretty piece of art!

[watchamadoodle]

What would be considered to be a blasphemous question?

In my case, I asked if a God might exist that appears to be the Christian God to Christians, Hindu God(s) to Hindus, etc. This would open the possibility that people have true interactions with God in spite of their religions being false. Religious people would simply hear God in their own religious language using the religious vocabulary available.

Apparently that was a scary question, so they deleted my thread and told me I was blaspheming and flaming. I was actually being polite and respectful; they just didn't like my idea IMO.

[robvalue]

Wow, christians really can't be very secure that what they believe is true if they have to ban people for answering questions.

Then again, that's pretty much what indoctrination is. Questions are bad, I'll scold/hit/kill you.

If my atheism was so weak that I had to run away from theists asking me questions, I'd be pretty embarrassed and would need a rethink.

[Tonus]

I sympathize with you. Unfortunately the churches are full of Christians that don't know who Christ is.

I suspect that they say the same thing, only they're pretty sure that their version is the correct one. And no doubt that some of them have experiences that 'prove' that their version is the one. And that some of them have used 'reason' and 'logic' to determine that their version is the one. And that none of them can corroborate any of this sufficiently to get the rest to abandon their own claims, much less provide the evidence necessary to unite them in one set of beliefs. I just wish that they'd all understand how this looks from the outside.

I was an embarrassment to Jesus,

You've got plenty of company on that score.

---

The tree represents choice. Since the tree was placed in the garden from the beginning, it means God intended that we be given choice.

If god had not placed that tree in the garden, would Adam and Eve have been deprived of a choice to serve or reject god?

[watchamadoodle]

I don't make that claim, and it's not a theological statement, but a statement of scientific knowledge. As I've said above, this cannot be possible. If anyone had knowledge that God existed than they wouldn't need faith or religion. Belief would be a thing of the past. So unless you know different, another challenge for you, please try again.

It seems ridiculous to state that Christianity doesn't make the claim that God exists.

[abaris]

In my case, I asked if a God might exist that appears to be the Christian God to Christians, Hindu God(s) to Hindus, etc. This would open the possibility that people have true interactions with God in spite of their religions being false. Religious people would simply hear God in their own religious language using the religious vocabulary available.

You probably would have more luck if you were to look for a European board instead of an American one. Mainstream protestants and mainstream catholics usually aren't that stubbornly fixated on everything being literal. It's the Evangelicals, wo are even afraid of opening a science book, in case they might actually learn something that doesn't conform with their presupposition.

[watchamadoodle]

'Facts' as in scientific information ie information revealing the mechanics of creation is NOT the subject of the bible. If you're looking for those facts you are looking in the wrong place. No reasonable person would make this mistake, but I feel it's necessary to point it out.

Science moves on. Nothing much stays the same (to scientific understanding). Our understanding evolves and improves constantly. This is the amazing thing about science. We would be foolish to declare ourselves at the pinnacle of all understanding. Ever. In just a few years we could have very different ideas.

What would a scientific revelation prove (hard scientific fact written in religious texts, beyond what the technology of the time was capable of) in theological terms? That belief in God cannot be doubted? To me, that would be contradictory. Belief has to be a choice. If you don't choose to believe, then you cannot believe.

To clarify, the factual errors that bother me relate to the historical narratives - not science. The nativity stories in the gospels are a good example (since we just finished Christmas). I'm sure somebody could list hundreds of these types of factual errors. In other words, the factual errors problem is bigger than Noah's ark and affects the NT as well as the OT.

Also, your point about science always changing leads me to ask why Christianity and the Bible shouldn't be always changing too. Biblical inerrancy works against this.

---

In my case, I asked if a God might exist that appears to be the Christian God to Christians, Hindu God(s) to Hindus, etc. This would open the possibility that people have true interactions with God in spite of their religions being false. Religious people would simply hear God in their own religious language using the religious vocabulary available.

You probably would have more luck if you were to look for a European board instead of an American one. Mainstream protestants and mainstream catholics usually aren't that stubbornly fixated on everything being literal. It's the Evangelicals, wo are even afraid of opening a science book, in case they might actually learn something that doesn't conform with their presupposition.

That's a good possibility. English is my only language, so that limits me. I saw some Anglican forums that might be more rational.