What beliefs would we consider reasonable for a self proclaimed Christian to hold?

[Amarok]

Now riddle me this... You followed the God path in the bible and found God yourself. would you need 'science' to tell you what to think about what you found?

Your gross misconception of science notwithstanding, we should be reasonably capable of understanding that a character in a book, a character created merely from fallible man's overactive imagination, is only a product of fiction.  To fancy that a fictional character is in any way a representation of reality, existing outside the conceptual paradigm, is logical folly of the highest disorder.

Indeed

[Drich]

Now riddle me this... You followed the God path in the bible and found God yourself. would you need 'science' to tell you what to think about what you found?

Your gross misconception of science notwithstanding, we should be reasonably capable of understanding that a character in a book, a character created merely from fallible man's overactive imagination, is only a product of fiction.  To fancy that a fictional character is in any way a representation of reality, existing outside the conceptual paradigm, is logical folly of the highest disorder.

...and what of the examples of when the character exceeds the knowledge of the men who created Him? What is folly is to dismiss any claim without proper examination. Out of most of you there are only a handful who have properly investigated such a claim.

[Silver]

...and what of the examples of when the character exceeds the knowledge of the men who created Him? What is folly is to dismiss any claim without proper examination. Out of most of you there are only a handful who have properly investigated such a claim.

I will give as much credence to the realistic existence of the purple people eater as I will to the christian god, which is to blatantly and reasonably assert that no credence will be given whatsoever. A claim should only be taken seriously under the circumstance that it is not absurd from the start, and a god claim is absurdity at its finest.

[Whateverist]

I guess I'll throw in my two cents. According to the evangelical view, there are certain core beliefs on which Christianity simply must stand, including the authority of Scripture, the depravity of man, and the death and resurrection of Christ, without which Christianity itself is meaningless (1 Cor 15:17). Lutherans, Baptists, Pentecostals, Methodists, and other such denominations will disagree quite a bit on less important issues such as the proper method of baptism, church government, music styles, etc., but they are all alike in that they hold to basic, fundamental Christian doctrines such as these. Of course, I think that "reasonable" Christians must still adhere to basic principles of deductive and inductive logic as well as science, and they should be willing to think critically and honestly about how to integrate these into their worldview.

*my bold*

Regarding what is basic to and what needs integrating into ones worldview, I'd naturally prefer to see a reasonable person start with the tangible and then work his way out to the wildly speculative.

I'm as in favor of a little depravity now and then as any church goer but I hardly see any reason to say it is the defining characteristic of mankind. That may be a little histrionic.

[Amarok]

.and what of the examples of when the character exceeds the knowledge of the men who created Him? What is folly is to dismiss any claim without proper examination. Out of most of you there are only a handful who have properly investigated such a claim.

That which is presented without evidence . Can dismissed without evidence or further thought .

[Whateverist]

Well if that describes the way you see yourself then I'll have to take you off ignore and give you another look.  Maybe I was hasty.

Thank you. I have always taken thess 5:21 to heart which says question all things and hold onto what is Good. For most this means to question the questionable. to me this always meant question the foundation. meaning the foundations of what we as Christians believe and why the church now does not operate like it did. The answer I found has put many in the church off, but it seems to be truth as I have found God right where the bible says he is to be found.

I'm sympathetic to your inclination to reject the authority of churchly officialdom. Viva la protestant revolution.

So why can't others 'see him?"

Well, what is there to "see" after all? Most believers I know hold that God is undetectable by our senses, leastwise without a generous amount of inference. Isn't it really a matter of introspection and deduction? Why would we expect to find agreement based on that? You look inside and find something different than the usual. I look inside and wonder why we should call that God. Fine with me if you do, but that's not what I see.

 

What are they looking for? What if what they are looking for is not the picture of God found in the bible would they recognize Him? The obvious answer is no. Otherwise most of you would acknowledged God. Which is what I think you've backed yourself into by saying you should follow what the bible says or what we can accurately translate from it.

Not sure if I follow. Are you saying atheists here insist that God must be understood as the biblically branded version? Some might but I leave the door wide open. For my money it is a complete mystery what has held so many people enthralled all this time.

But I'm a naturalist. I assume that whatever a god may be will have a natural explanation since I define "natural" as everything that actually exists. Either gods exist and arise in our consciousness for natural reasons, or they don't exist at all. Pretty sure we'll just have to agree to disagree on that.

Most of us has created a version of God loosely based on the bible, and when we test this God we find out he does not exist and simple pride then says because "I" was wrong about God there is no room for any God.

The version of God I created in childhood was completely uninformed by any bible learning. While I think that version had some good selling points, I stopped buying. I have no interest in finding any God and I think a reasonable believer has to accept that.

[Amarok]

My answer to dirch is the same answer i gave banning . If god existed you would know who is he is . There is no way you could not .

[Drich]

...and what of the examples of when the character exceeds the knowledge of the men who created Him? What is folly is to dismiss any claim without proper examination. Out of most of you there are only a handful who have properly investigated such a claim.

I will give as much credence to the realistic existence of the purple people eater as I will to the christian god, which is to blatantly and reasonably assert that no credence will be given whatsoever.  A claim should only be taken seriously under the circumstance that it is not absurd from the start, and a god claim is absurdity at its finest.

Translation:
"because if the world was spherical we'd all fall off of it!!!"

Truthfully, do dismiss 'evidence' because it does not fit your narrative or your elitism's definition on what evidence should be is the ultimate absurdity, as witnessed by those who thought they knew the world was flat! 

Remember sport the TOP scientific minds of that day made a mockery of those who did not think as the population did concerning the world's shape. 

This is the KEY: The question why??? Why were people mocked and disparaged for not believing as the rest did? the answer is pride. The Pride in the idea that their world view was complete and they themselves knew the world to be flat so NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER GOOD ENOUGH.

Sound familiar?

You are not even willing to question your foundational principles Why not? are they so fragile? Or is it against the intellectual's rule book? Must intelectual questions and change only come from the top? are you not able to question or think for yourself?

---

.and what of the examples of when the character exceeds the knowledge of the men who created Him? What is folly is to dismiss any claim without proper examination. Out of most of you there are only a handful who have properly investigated such a claim.

That which is presented without evidence . Can dismissed without evidence or further thought .

And if presented with evidence?

[Whateverist]

My answer to dirch is the same answer i gave banning . If god existed you would know who is he is . There is no way you could not .

Unless god turned out to be something entirely natural as something ones consciousness can produce. Then one might feel they are receiving signs and 'proofs', but they would probably assume that 'God' was whatever the local legends say about it. If God's existence turned out to be just one more thing your brain/mind produced right along side ones sense of identity, then there could be a great deal of uncertainty about the nature of God.

[Silver]

Translation:
"because if the world was spherical we'd all fall off of it!!!"

Truthfully, do dismiss 'evidence' because it does not fit your narrative or your elitism's definition on what evidence should be is the ultimate absurdity, as witnessed by those who thought they knew the world was flat! 

Remember sport the TOP scientific minds of that day made a mockery of those who did not think as the population did concerning the world's shape. 

This is the KEY: The question why??? Why were people mocked and disparaged for not believing as the rest did? the answer is pride. The Pride in the idea that their world view was complete and they themselves knew the world to be flat so NO EVIDENCE WAS EVER GOOD ENOUGH.

Sound familiar?

You are not even willing to question your foundational principles Why not? are they so fragile? Or is it against the intellectual's rule book? Must intelectual questions and change only come from the top? are you not able to question or think for yourself?

---

Science, not being in the business of attempting to prove or disprove the existence of God, is still more credible than religious claims because at least scientists can admit when they are wrong and move forward. If there was ever any "evidence" of god's existence, the question then would not be one of belief but rather of how worthy the god was of being acknowledged or worshipped.