@Riffraft @MikeDeTiger thanks for the response. And Mike, if you find that YT video, let me know.
To me, and I'm not trying to sound like OAM here... It just brings up a lot of questions...
So we're not supposed to understand God. Yet, it's claimed he made man in his image. So we should have at least SOME natural inkling of his nature, right? But hey, he's supernatural. I can definitely accept that our conception of his nature is... Limited. I will say that looking at humanity, I sure as shit see a lot more of the reflection of the Old Testament angry spiteful god than the love & kumbaya of Jesus...
So then we should base our limited understanding of him on the nature of what he's revealed to us. And that, of course, is the Christian god only. Because the Greek & Roman gods were just stories. And the Zoroastrian god, well, I guess I don't know much. And the Jewish god and the Christian god and the Muslim god are all supposedly the same one, but he seemed to change his nature of what he did and didn't reveal to us across time. And then of course there's the Buddha, and all of the Hindu gods... And let's not bring up the Mormons, who know Jesus was in New York after the resurrection where the golden plates were found by Joseph Smith. It's confusing why we should ONLY trust the Christian god, and believe that everything there in the Bible is what He revealed to us.
The idea that we can't understand the parts of God that are problematic to human morality/ethics but yet we have to follow one book's account of the things we do know about him (but not the various other books/accounts that also claim to be the truth) is, well, difficult.
I've kinda come to the opposite conclusion. That we invented God in our own image, as a way to explain all the difficult and scary things that the world offers us that we don't understand, and as a way to give us comfort from the existential despair that is inherent in facing our own mortality. And we invented organized religion as a shared community in which we can cement social values (and social control) for a more harmonious society. Is that cynical? Yes. I'm a cynic.
---------------
But on a personal level is where it gets me. The Bible says that we are saved ONLY through faith. Now, I'm an unbeliever and don't have that. Yet, at the same time, I try to sincerely be kind and loving. I try to behave in the most ethical way that I can. I pride myself on trying to do the right thing not because I have to, but because it's the right thing. Am I perfect? Of course not. Nobody is. But IMHO I act more ethically than a lot of people who consider themselves Christians. What Jesus preached is pretty damn remarkable, and I feel like my principles are actually pretty similar to what he prescribed. Yet the Bible tells me I'm going to burn in hell for eternity because I haven't accepted Jesus as my savior.
The idea that a God will punish me for eternity, despite trying to live up to as many of the principles of Jesus as I can, just because I rationally can't see direct evidence of his existence that will make me a believer? Again, that doesn't sound like a God I want to believe in...
You've said a metric ton here, so below I've tried to summarize your objections (if "objections" is the right word).
- Are we supposed to be able to understand God or not?
- There's an apparent difference/contradiction in the Old Testament God and the Jesus of the New Testament
- Why believe in the Christian god and not other religions' gods?
- The god of the monotheistic religions seems to "change his nature of what he did and didn't reveal to us across time" (I admit I'm a bit confused by that one, but maybe it's just a wording thing.
- Why trust the Bible is a reliable book about God and not other holy texts?
- The idea of following one book about God is hard because of how we can't understand parts of God in light of human morality/ethics.
- Faith is required, but some people just don't have it (in good faith, as it were). What's up with that?
- Someone may live a good, moral life, and the idea that God would still punish them for lack of faith is problematic
- These problems, either individually, or taken together, indicate a God one may not want to believe in.
I could spend gobs of time trying to answer these for you, and I'd be happy to do it, because they're all great questions, and they deserve answers and have answers.
The problem, I've found, when conversations go this direction, is that often a person isn't really asking me to answer those things. They're voicing frustration about things that seem unfair and hard to understand. Generally, if I proceed to answer a bunch of things it comes off like I'm a disingenuous, arrogant, know-it-all who thinks he has the answers to everything, or it totally misses the point, which was not the questions, but really a statement of "I think your worldview has too many problems."
People who aren't believers either have logical objections, or emotional objections (or some combination of both). Answering questions like those mentioned above might get me somewhere with a person with logical objections. Emotional objections are a whole different story. Those folks don't want Christianity to be true, and data shows that evidence and arguments don't move their needle. You've told me two very key things. First, that it's a very personal level that gets you. Second, that some things don't sound like a God you would want to believe in. Pardon my frankness, but as someone who is not new to this discussion, these are indicators--if I've understood you correctly--that the main problem is not the questions about God you don't understand, rather it's what you think you
do know, and don't like.
I don't want to make assumptions, so I'd ask you to carefully consider that and then tell me what you want next. Do you want me to try to make a case for Christianity, or at least point you to some resources you can dive into for yourself? Or do you want me to know that the whole thing falls short based on what you already know, and leave it there? Because I have no interest in annoying you, or spending time writing a bunch of stuff when you've already earnestly told me it's not what you're after.
There's a simple question that's always worth asking people when they more or less challenge me to defend my faith and prove it to them (I don't think that's what you're doing, btw....challenging me, that is). "If Christianity were true, would you become a Christian?" It's so simple it's almost dumb, but you'd be amazed how many people will say "No." At which point, why bother? They already said they don't care what kind of evidence there is or what points they haven't considered.....they ain't moving. Let's just go get a pizza and talk about football.
Just so there's no bait-and-switch, I'll tell you right now: if you wanted to know more, I won't start with the questions above. Not that they're not good questions--they are, and as I say, they deserve answers. But they're not central, they're peripheral. The two central questions that have to be answered in this case are 1) does God exist? 2) did Jesus rise from the dead? If those two things are true, then I submit to you Christianity is true, no matter what other warts, objections, or lack of understanding goes with it. Those are the central claims of Christianity, and whatever we do or don't like about God, whatever other questions we do or don't have answers to, is all theological icing on the cake. Suppose I didn't have an answer or any elaboration on why God would still punish someone who lives a good life? (There is a world of answers, I'm just saying, "suppose.") It still wouldn't change whether or not Christianity were true. And the central truth-claims necessarily come first. Without them, answers to the other questions are just studs in a failed architecture with no foundation or support beams.
I'd probably PM you from here on out, lest
@Drew4UTk boot me for proselytizing.
