Why are you (still) a Christian?

[BrianSoddingBoru4]

Yet the point ... he cannot answer.

There is NOONE that affirms the views of Data.
NO ONE.
He can cite NOY ONE scholar or rabbi that agrees with his crap bullshit exegesis.

Rabbi! What bullshit. Where do you get your nonsense. You're worse than a Christian. Show me in the Hebrew scriptures where it says rabbi anywhere.

It doesn’t, but the term ‘rav’ is used frequently as a different word to describe the same function.

But I don’t see how that applies to Bucky’s comment. What does the fact that ‘rabbi’ doesn’t appear in Hebrews scriptures have to with rabbis disagreeing with you?

Boru

[Bucky Ball]

Yet the point ... he cannot answer.

There is NOONE that affirms the views of Data.
NO ONE.
He can cite NOY ONE scholar or rabbi that agrees with his crap bullshit exegesis.

Rabbi! What bullshit. Where do you get your nonsense. You're worse than a Christian. Show me in the Hebrew scriptures where it says rabbi anywhere.

Hey fool, 
the rabbis were discussed all the time in the NT, which YOU quote all the time. 
They studied things, in Hebrew culture (which you don't know about) at all. 

There are NO SCHOLARS or other writers, who have spent LIFETIMES studying the shit you post, and NOONE agrees with you. 
You are nothing but a fool, an ignoramus with whom NOONE agrees with. 

Go away. Stop polluting this site with your ignorance.

[brewer]

How 'ya doin? Enjoying the show? Nice. Just a rerun though, huh? 

Enjoying the silly argument over what is and isn't believed about a myth, which interpretation is more valid. Then devolving into personal attacks.

Can you do the Simarillion next?

[FrustratedFool]

So, you are theist who believes that Jehovah exists.

But you haven't really said what your reasons for that belief are except that you found that the fallible bible made more sense than other stuff.

Can you be more specific as to what your warrant for faith in Jehovah is?

Sorry I didn't see this right away. No notification. I saved it as a draft but I'm up to my ears in alligators. I have to hurry before I get tossed. 

Unbelievers have asked me this question from time to time and they expect some specific answer, I don't know, of a metaphysical or tragic experience I may have had? There was none. I was simply an unbeliever. By dad from a long line, I assume, of non-church goers and my mom from a religious background where she saw nothing but hypocrisy. i had no idea except for that the religious nuts I know had no answers so I went to the source. 

It's as simple as God, through the imperfect translators, made sense to me. Since then I have made it a hobby to talk with unbelievers and they are no different to me from a knowledge point of view. Knowledgeable. They are in the difficult position of having to base their knowledge on the believers who haven't any. They can rise above that but that would destroy their sociopolitical world view which has become an emotional part of them. 

So, the reason I gave is simply it. If God had ever given me reason to doubt I would. The believers don't have the reason. The unbelievers don't have it. I don't have it. 

So, if someone wants to believe in God, I recommend they do what I did. If they come to another conclusion then that's fine.

Thanks for the response.
What I was asking for was what rational arguments and/or evidence persuaded you. For example, do you find the kalam cosmological argument convincing, or did you have some religious experience.

Or have you not really considered the arguments for and against God?

[Data]

Thanks for the response.

You're most welcome. Thanks for the interest and listening.

What I was asking for was what rational arguments and/or evidence persuaded you.  For example, do you find the kalam cosmological argument convincing, or did you have some religious experience.  

Or have you not really considered the arguments for and against God?

I had no religious experience. That was sort of what I alluded to in my response. When someone says something like kalam cosmological argument, I don't know what that is. I avoid, like the plague, narrowing my search with theological, philosophical, or doctrinal excursions. Most atheists here know more about those sorts of things than I do. So, if I look that up on Google just to see if I inadvertently have an interest in it, I find this

Now, I never listen to people making these sorts of arguments, so I haven't given them any thought. Doing this sort of thing I've stumbled upon Craig videos and he seems really thoughtful but I don't entertain his theology. That means I have no opinion on it. The description of the argument I've read highlighted on the Wikipedia link I gave isn't convincing to me because as far as we know everything could just as easily have been random. But, like I said, I haven't listened to the argument. I can't get it just looking at that brief description.

Really, in that sort of case, rather than exploring the Bible I would be exploring theology. Leaving the source for the explanation. It seems to me like that would be either some sort of confirmation bias or curiosity and I just don't think that is conducive to my personal exploration of spirituality or search for God. I don't have the time.

[Data]

Enjoying the silly argument over what is and isn't believed about a myth, which interpretation is more valid. Then devolving into personal attacks.

Why? There's nothing wrong with personal attacks as long as there's something else with it. Really, the absence of it, no matter what the subject for debate, is, as far as I can tell, just pretense and suppression of a natural response. Keep a lid on it, sure. no point in letting it boil over, but don't be such a vag.

Can you do the Simarillion next?

No, sorry, spectator, don't know that one. Maybe you could start up a game.

[LinuxGal]

Rabbinic Judaism emerged after the Jewish-Roman War, so naturally the title of Rabbi will not be found in the Hebrew scriptures.  It'd be like looking for "Pope" in the New Testament.

[brewer]

Enjoying the silly argument over what is and isn't believed about a myth, which interpretation is more valid. Then devolving into personal attacks.

Why? There's nothing wrong with personal attacks as long as there's something else with it. Really, the absence of it, no matter what the subject for debate, is, as far as I can tell, just pretense and suppression of a natural response. Keep a lid on it, sure. no point in letting it boil over, but don't be such a vag.

Can you do the Simarillion next?

No, sorry, spectator, don't know that one. Maybe you could start up a game.

Bold: Nice try but I'm not taking the bait. In short, you're/it's not worth it.

[Data]

Rabbinic Judaism emerged after the Jewish-Roman War, so naturally the title of Rabbi will not be found in the Hebrew scriptures.  It'd be like looking for "Pope" in the New Testament.

Yes, and I wouldn't pay any more attention to a Rabbi than I would the Pope.

[Bucky Ball]

Rabbinic Judaism emerged after the Jewish-Roman War, so naturally the title of Rabbi will not be found in the Hebrew scriptures.  It'd be like looking for "Pope" in the New Testament.

Yes, and I wouldn't pay any more attention to a Rabbi than I would the Pope.

Your problem is you pay no attention to anyone. 
You consider yourself the expert on everything. 

Jesus was sometimes called “rabbi” in the Gospels (Matthew 26:25, 49; Mark 9:5, 11:21, 14:45; John 1:38, 49, 2:2, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, 11:8). The word “rabbi,” as John informs us, is translated “teacher” (John 1:38). The title “teacher” is more common.

A rabbi (/ˈræbaɪ/) is a spiritual leader or religious teacher in Judaism.[1] One becomes a rabbi by being ordained by another rabbi—known as semikha—following a course of study of Jewish history and texts such as the Talmud. The basic form of the rabbi developed in the Pharisaic (167 BCE–73 CE) and Talmudic (70–640 CE) eras, when learned teachers assembled to codify Judaism's written and oral laws. The title "rabbi" was first used in the first century CE. In more recent centuries, the duties of a rabbi became increasingly influenced by the duties of the Protestant Christian minister, hence the title "pulpit rabbis", and in 19th-century Germany and the United States rabbinic activities including sermons, pastoral counseling, and representing the community to the outside, all increased in importance.