Was Christianity designed for people who think like people?

[OnceConvinced]

In another thread:

Christianity wasn't designed for people who think like robots, after all. It was designed for people who think like people.

So was Christianity designed for people who think like people? Please support your argument.

If Christianity is not designed for people who "think like robots" does that then imply that Christianity was not designed for everyone?

[OnceConvinced]

It would seem to me that Christianity is not designed for people who think like people.

The reasons I give are:

1) Jesus claimed that we had to think like children. So in other words, accept without question. So it would be more accurate to say "Christianity is designed for people who think like children"

2) Christians claim that we have to have the holy spirit. ie, we can't just look at things with the human mind (as a person would).

3) The bible contains parts of it which apologists would argue requires us to look at it from the point of view of God, not our own point of view. eg, a thousand years to us is like a day to God. When God says soon he means thousands of years.

I also have a problem with the words "Christianity wasn't designed for people who think like robots". People do not think like robots. They think like people. It's just that some are more structured and rational in their approaches than others. The way we think is determined by our genetic make up. We all think differently, so if Christianity is not designed for people who think in a logical structured way, then it is not designed for all people.

[Adstar]

[Replying to post 1 by OnceConvinced]

Christianity was not designed to conform to the thinking of people.

Within the Bible it says that
Isaiah 55
8 ¶For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the LORD. 9 For as the heavens are higher than the earth, so are my ways higher than your ways, and my thoughts than your thoughts.

And

Proverbs 14
12 There is a way which seemeth right unto a man, but the end thereof are the ways of death.

Christianity is Gods thoughts that are designed to save men.

[Adstar]

[Replying to post 2 by OnceConvinced]

1) Jesus claimed that we had to think like children. So in other words, accept without question. So it would be more accurate to say "Christianity is designed for people who think like children"

Not exactly.. Jesus said:

Matthew 18
2 And Jesus called a little child unto him, and set him in the midst of them,
3 And said, Verily I say unto you, Except ye be converted, and become as little children, ye shall not enter into the kingdom of heaven.
4 Whosoever therefore shall humble himself as this little child, the same is greatest in the kingdom of heaven.

So Jesus mentioned humbleness. Also little Children are innocent. So one has to be humble and innocent to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

[Divine Insight]

Christianity is Gods thoughts that are designed to save men.

Save men from what? His own wrath?

I don't think Christianity has a legitimate excuse for their God.

And quoting from the Christian doctrine isn't impressive to those of us who have already recognized it to be a man-made scam.

When you quote from it as if that's meaningful it's like quoting from a scam artist and expecting people to be convinced of things just because these scam artists have convinced them.

The idea that there exist some God who is so far above your ability to comprehend that this means that ignorant and immoral things can justified by this claim is truly a very bad "scam".

If concepts such as love, compassion, trustworthiness, intelligence and understanding mean something different to this God than they do to us, then what's the point in claiming that God is all of these things when they don't even mean what we understand them to mean?

I would never buy into the verses you just posted. This is clearly being used by the authors of these texts precisely because they know that they can't justify their religious claims. If they had a valid religion they should be able to justify everything instead of hiding behind these kinds of truly lame claims.

It's actually a confession by them that their religious claims are as bogus as can be.

I'm talking about the authors of the Bible here. The verse that you actually quoted.

I would call them on their scam. No way would I accept their lame excuses.

[David the apologist]

In another thread:

Christianity wasn't designed for people who think like robots, after all. It was designed for people who think like people.

So was Christianity designed for people who think like people? Please support your argument.

I would say that it was. I would say that effectively nobody was ever converted to Christianity by philosophical and historical argument alone. At the very least, certain aesthetic and emotional judgments about the "fitness" of God becoming man played a role.

Many modern epistemological positions, particularly those with empiricist leanings, incline one against any sort of belief formed by metaphysical thought, and lead one into downright hostility towards aesthetic thought. Instead, every train of thought is construed algorithmically, as being a series of inductive and deductive steps that can be made explicit in every case. Where a train of thought does not instantiate such an algorithm, it is regarded as irrational.

But not only is this sort of strategy incapable of bringing one to belief in Christianity, it is incapable of bringing one to trust induction or acknowledge the existence of other minds. And yet, we reliably identify other minds all the time, and induction works. Clearly, then, such robotic epistemologies, formed on the basis of some particular "rationality program," are to be rejected.

I would argue that Christianity is more rational than its competitors, but I cannot argue that its rationality is why most people believe it, or even why I myself believe it. The evidence for it is good, but not many people come to it on the basis of the evidence. More to the point, the evidence for it would not be convincing to an artificial intelligence that had neither emotions nor a sense of aesthetics. To judge something like an incarnation or a resurrection as "probable" or "improbable," one needs to see how it fits in with the grand scheme of things, whether it makes sense as a deviation from the ordinary metre in the epic poem of our cosmos. For this, induction and deduction are inadequate. We need something else. Without this something else, we've missed what it means to be essentially human. In order to get to the truth of the Christian religion, we need to recover our own humanity. Otherwise, our search is over before it even begins.

[Divine Insight]

I would argue that Christianity is more rational than its competitors,

Who or what do you believe are its "competitors"?

And how can you sure that the idea being in a competition isn't a false illusion of those who believe in a religion like Christianity?

Isn't it Christianity that proclaims to have a "Jealous God" who is in competition with other God's for the attention and favor of humans?

The evidence for it is good.

Can you provide a convincing argument to support this claim?

More to the point, the evidence for it would not be convincing to an artificial intelligence that had neither emotions nor a sense of aesthetics. To judge something like an incarnation or a resurrection as "probable" or "improbable," one needs to see how it fits in with the grand scheme of things, whether it makes sense as a deviation from the ordinary metre in the epic poem of our cosmos. For this, induction and deduction are inadequate. We need something else. Without this something else, we've missed what it means to be essentially human. In order to get to the truth of the Christian religion, we need to recover our own humanity. Otherwise, our search is over before it even begins.

I'm one of the most die-hard hopeless romantics you could ever hope to find. I have a very deep and profound sense of aesthetics and emotions. Why should that cause me to believe in Christianity, or to even find it attractive?

The picture I see is a story that is simply unbelievable on any level. Specifically on the level of the idea that any supremely intelligent creator would behave as ignorant and immature as the God depicted in the Bible.

I mean, I can grant all the "miracles" and supernatural events that the Bible has to offer, and I see nothing but an extremely selfish, inconsiderate, egotistical Godhead, who is not only hopelessly hung up on his own "glory", but who also has absolutely no understanding of human empathy or compassion at all.

In short David, I see absolutely no emotional or aesthetic reasons to believe in Christianity. On the contrary, those are the greatest reasons why I reject it.

I could allow and accept for supernatural events by a God if those events and behaviors actually portrayed an intelligent being. But as far as I can see the Biblical God is not even remotely intelligent. On the contrary it's every bit as ignorant and unintelligent as I would expect the mortal authors to be who wrote this stuff.

This God never solved a problem intelligently. In fact, if you truly open your eyes and look at the Bible you will notice that this God never solves a problem at all, ever. He uses extremely crude curses and violence to try to solve his problems, and they never result in a solution anyway.

Is this the behavior an emotional and ascetic person would expect to see in a supposedly all-wise, all-intelligent, omnipotent, omniscient God?

I don't think so. On the contrary, I would expect to see behaviors that actually reflect wisdom, intelligence, omnipotence and omniscience.

So proclaiming that a person needs to be emotional or have a sense of aesthetics to believe in Christianity makes absolutely no sense to me at all. On the contrary those are the greatest reasons why I personally reject it.

The God depicted in the Bible represents the epitome of stupidity, as far as I'm concerned. And that's just in the Old Testament. Christianity only takes this God to the extremes of absolutely insanity by having him commit what can only be seen as an act of pure desperation.

Any God who would create a church and religion and not even be able to keep his own priests in order to the point where he has no choice but to send his only begotten son among them to "set them straight", by having them call for the brutal crucifixion of his only begotten son, can neither be intelligent, nor wise. And he most certainly couldn't be omnipotent or omniscient either.

My reasons for rejecting Christianity are almost 100% based on emotions and aesthetics, coupled with what appears to me to be the obvious practical common sense that no all-wise God could possibly be as stupid as the Biblical fables demand.

Forget about the practically of miracles or supernatural events. I'll grant that to any supernatural creator God. But granting supernatural powers to the God of the Bible does absolutely nothing to salvage it from being the world's most idiotic deity ever invented by mankind.

And I don't say this with malice in an effort to be derogatory toward this mythology, it's simply the truth of the reasons why I reject it. I reject this religion because, IMHO, it represents the epitome of stupidity in terms of how this God behaves.

This is the reason I reject this religion above all others. It has absolutely nothing to do with supernatural technicalities. I can easily accept a supernatural God if you can show me a truly wise one. But please, don't point to Christianity as an example of a wise God, because it's not even remotely close to representing a wise God IMHO.

[Adstar]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Save men from what? His own wrath? Think

To justly save people from the just judgement hanging over them. Eternal separation from His Perfect existence.

[Divine Insight]

[Replying to post 5 by Divine Insight]

Save men from what? His own wrath? Think

To justly save people from the just judgement hanging over them. Eternal separation from His Perfect existence.

That doesn't fly because there is not "just judgement" hanging over the heads of many people.

This religion is a scam based upon the idea that people will fall for the claim that they deserve eternal punishment. But this is what you must believe about yourself as a matter of pure faith, before you can even consider believing the religion.

Do you believe this accusation about yourself? Do you believe that you deserve everlasting punishment?

When someone asks you if you believe in Christianity as faith, this is what you are placing your faith in. You are placing your faith in the highly negative idea that you deserve ever lasting punishment.

That doesn't seem to me to be a worthy thing to place our faith in. In my entire life I have never even done anything that would warrant nailing me to a pole. Much less condemning me to eternal damnation.

If you want to speak about "Just Judgement" then I certainly deserve a decent afterlife if such a thing is possible. Anything short of that would be extremely unjust to be certain.

I also know many non-Christians who clearly deserve better than eternal punishment.

So there's nothing "just" in Christianity, especially considering the absolutely absurd reasons it gives for condemning people.

So if this is the reason anyone believes in Christianity they either must be an extremely evil and disgusting person, or they have naively fallen for accusations made about them that simply aren't true.

Why do you believe that you justly deserve eternal punishment?

What did you do that was so horrible that it would justly warrant such a horrendous judgement against you?

[Zzyzx]

.

So Jesus mentioned humbleness. Also little Children are innocent. So one has to be humble and innocent to enter into the kingdom of heaven.

It appears as though preachers and politicians prefer that people be humble and childlike (gullible) -- perhaps because such people are easily led. If Jesus existed as a preacher, that fits.

Why would a "creator god" (or "his son" part) prefer that humans be humble and childlike?