What do you call the past 50-some comments? I'm amused that when persons of one particular faith (Christian or otherwise) present their perspective, it's "preaching," yet for a discussion board of all-knowing atheists its simply discussion. Surely if an atheistic world view is superior, one would welcome such comments, so as to shed the light of knowledge on the millions of people out there obviously duped, right?

Is the idea to just pool our ignorance, or actually REASONably get at truth? If there can be bigoted and closed-minded Christians, Muslims, etc., then it stands to reason that the same can be true for atheists. I mean, was this discussion for "My ways are not your ways" meant to make a bunch of atheists feel good, or is it meant to actually understand its meaning, weigh it against ALL the evidence, and hence make judgment. Make no mistake, any belief system has some element of faith, even atheism.

Next, one would be a poor judge of character if they took every person on a first-impression basis. In other words, you would have to understand that person in multiple contexts, right? Did they have a bad day at the office, are the kids sick again, did the dog get run over, was he beat as a kid, did she witness that horrible event back in '85; etc. I should think that each one of us would like to be viewed "in context." When we don't do this, we make some pretty downright stupid mistakes, simply because we didn't take the time to understand the seemingly confusing, quirky, strange, etc.

Similarly, it stands to reason that the best way to come at a verse such as the one presented (or any verse from any religion) is in its context; textually, historically, etc. Thus, this discussion board should, one might think, welcome Virginia's comments, as it provides more context to go on; to judge, to some extent, whether it is a valid point. I would hardly call presenting key doctrines of any religion for discussion "preaching," unless of course you're feeling a wee bit convicted. ;-)

Finally, it may be said (and has) that the best look into a belief system is by looking at its founder. Thus, if one truly wants to get an understanding of Islam, let us take a good look at this so-called prophet named Muhammad WHILE looking at the Koran. If you are indeed trying to judge whether Judaism or Christianity is valid, look to their founders. Since Christians are in the crosshairs (though historically nowhere near as long as the Jews), let us take an objective look at this self-acclaimed God-man named Jesus, called the Christ.

Honestly, If the design was to rant and rave about how foolish religious folks are and barely scratch the philosophical surface... aren't you proving the very thing they supposedly claim atheists do?

May the best argument win!

You may be interested in Stephen Law's "god of Eth" posts http://stephenlaw.blogspot.com/search/label/The%20God%20of%20Eth which reverse the moral nature of god and shows how worthless the "good god" claim acually is

And yes, I would legitimately "like to hear more about why [you] believe Christianity is distinct and why [you] believe the Bible is authoritative and complete" - just do this sort of talking elsewhere. This place isn't a pulpit.

Sorry Ebonmuse, couldn't resist.

It would not be fair for me, as a Christian, to denounce the Quran as complete heresy unless I first understood it's content...Second, I come with my prejudice towards the Bible as the only authoritative Word of God. And Third (though probably not last), I come with my presupposition that anything which contradicts the Bible cannot be valid in terms of it's doctrine.

Make up your mind.

Not that I think anyone needed a lecture on subjectivity, but it's only fair to point out that if I, as a Christian, have a certain amount of subjectivity which will ultimately affect my interpretation of the Quran; then it is equally true to say that any Athiest or person who holds to another belief system will bring the same amount of subjectivity.

Except that's simply not necessarily true. Your subjectivity is based on you accepting unevidenced assertions that are not proven. If I reject those assertions due to their lack of proof or evidence, then I have made a more objective determination than you.

So, then, how am I able to possibly justify my position as a Christian with any type of validity when comparing my beliefs to those of other religions?

You can't, considering that you've already told us that you simply assume the Bible is correct.

My point? All four major world religions hold that the OT was a part of God's revealed truth about Himself.

Irrelevant.

If you read this verse more carefully, I believe you will find the SUBJECT of the verse is forgiveness.

Please support this statement, considering that I see nothing in the verse about forgiveness.

God's thoughts are higher than our thought and His ways higher than our ways when we consider His great forgiveness of people.

Is that how you rationalize the immorality of sending people to hell?

It says that Abram believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Perhaps God is willing to look at us a little differently than we look at ourselves. We judge each other based upon deed alone, whereas God is able to judge the heart. Weak argument?

Yes, very weak. You're claiming that god doesn't judge us by our morality, but by our ability to figure out what the correct beliefs about him are, and that somehow is a moral position for god to take.

The fact that God offers mercy (underserved favor) to sinful people (not perfect people) and declares them to be righteous because of their faith in Him, is certainly a RADICAL teaching.

And highly immoral.

Does God HAVE to reveal the why for His ways to be truly good?

I doubt that you, god, or anyone can come up with a why for putting people in hell for eternal torment.

Does God answer to man?

Yes. He has a moral obligation to us.

NO credible religion accepts the premise that God is somehow accountable to mankind.

Which makes them less than credible.

If I tell my child not to touch a hot pot on a stove, I have a good reason. My child is incapable of understanding WHY, so they simply have to trust me that what I have said comes from a loving father.

A better approach would be to use the example as a way to teach the child, instead of simply issuing commands. Still, what assurance do you have that god is issuing commands for your benefit?

Many of the opinions I hear and read often reflect a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches (which to be fair is often propogated by people claiming to be christians)...

How do you know that your interpretations of the Bible are more authoritative than anyone else's?

God loves you...

Which is why he will send us to hell for disbelief I suppose?

Not that I think anyone needed a lecture on subjectivity, but it's only fair to point out that if I, as a Christian, have a certain amount of subjectivity which will ultimately affect my interpretation of the Quran; then it is equally true to say that any Athiest or person who holds to another belief system will bring the same amount of subjectivity. Do I claim to be the best person to properly interpret what the Quran says? Absolutely not! How could I be? Given my admitted subjectivity, I won't accept the Quran as truth at all and will undoubtably miss the original author's intended meaning.

So, then, how am I able to possibly justify my position as a Christian with any type of validity when comparing my beliefs to those of other religions? What a long discussion that would be! Briefly; Judaism, Catholicism, Protestantism and Muslims all trace their religous roots back to Abraham. All four accept the OT as a part of God's revealed truth. Judaism accepts it as a currently completed work. Catholicism accepts it along with the NT and Apocrapha. Protestants accept it with the NT only. And Muslims claim that God is revealing Himself in stages, and that the last revelead truth replaces previously revealed truth. So they hold to the Quran and the teachings of Mohammed. My point? All four major world religions hold that the OT was a part of God's revealed truth about Himself.

Luckily, for our discussion then, the verse originally quoted is from the OT. If you read this verse more carefully, I believe you will find the SUBJECT of the verse is forgiveness. God's thoughts are higher than our thought and His ways higher than our ways when we consider His great forgiveness of people. Noah was given in a previous example. Not what we would call a good person. Yet the Bible states he was a righteous man who walked with God. Why? We find an interesting verse in Genesis 15:6 (again OT). It says that Abram believed God and it was counted to him as righteousness. Perhaps God is willing to look at us a little differently than we look at ourselves. We judge each other based upon deed alone, whereas God is able to judge the heart. Weak argument? After all... Noah got drunk soon after the flood. Perhaps when we look at the sins of Noah and his family (Ham) we see the POINT of the verse in Isaiah quoted. If Noah and his sinful family were saved by God's grace (despite their obvious faults), then how much more sinful the rest of humanity must have become that God was not willing to hold back judgement upon them. The fact that God offers mercy (underserved favor) to sinful people (not perfect people) and declares them to be righteous because of their faith in Him, is certainly a RADICAL teaching.

Can I understand certain things about God and His will without knowing EVERYTHING about Him? I think so. I know that a piano maker is skilled. I can learn from an instructor how to properly handle the piano which was made. I can increase in skill on the piano and learn the in's and out's of the how the piano functions. Do I gain any knowledge, from my intimate exploration of the piano maker's creation, about the piano maker himself from which I could claim a personal relationship with him? Do I know his political affiliation? Do I know what foods he prefers to eat? Do I know the name of his wife or if he has one? Probably not. Not unless I either had a personal relationship with him, and even then I would only know those things about him which he chose to reveal to me (unless I'm a stalker).

Does God HAVE to reveal the why for His ways to be truly good? Does God answer to man? Well, no. NO credible religion accepts the premise that God is somehow accountable to mankind. I think the point in an earlier example was missed entirely. If I tell my child not to touch a hot pot on a stove, I have a good reason. My child is incapable of understanding WHY, so they simply have to trust me that what I have said comes from a loving father. If they choose to disobey, they are actually choosing to suffer. If they listen, they'll enjoy the freedom which comes from not being burned. They are kept safe by my loving restriction. This is what is meant when we say we cannot always fully understand God's ways. Not that He isn't clear about some of the WHAT's, but that He doesn't necessarily always reveal the WHY's. Why doesn't God tell us why? Again; 1. because He's God and isn't accountable to us, 2. it could be we wouldn't understand even if he did try to explain, 3. God wants us to trust Him.

Many of the opinions I hear and read often reflect a misunderstanding of what the Bible teaches (which to be fair is often propogated by people claiming to be christians) or reflect a prejudice which is not really objective at all and seeks only to discredit a Book which was predetermined to be false.

I won't post more at this time as I know I've already written a fairly long post. If you legitimately would like to hear more about why I believe Christianity is distinct and why I believe the Bible is authoritative and complete (OT and NT), then please let me know. Otherwise, I don't want to waste your time (more than scrolling through this post has) or give you cause to be angry. God loves you and it is my prayer that He will bless you despite your unbelief, and that you would come to know the truth about Him and that that truth would set you free.

God is a being than which nothing greater can be conceived -St. Anselm

I can conceive of a being greater than the god depicted by the bible. Morally, at least, I AM one.

I do hope someone told St. Anselm that his definition is about as good as "your guess is as good as mine". Personally, I define greatness by not sending people to hell, so I just conceived your god out of the water. Get back to me with a better example.

Randi,

That is why most belief systems are based on a certain element of faith.

No, they're based on faith because they have to be; because they have no evidence to back up their claims.

Wanna take a crack at why they have no evidence?

God is a big God, one that we could never possibly fully understand while we are on this earth.

How do you know he's big? You just said you can't fully understand him, so how are you qualified to make any statement about him?

If you read the bible, He really does begin to enlighten us to whatever He feels we need to know.

And you know he's enlightening you because you get the distinct feeling you can't understand him, or is it that tingly feeling that lets you know it's working?