Christianity does ONE THING

[Avoice]

Christianity would fail if man didn't have to face deaths. It survives because people are scared of death. People believe because they want to be saved. What else does it offer?

God is merciful. He has allowed those who reject him to die with a smile on their face. Christians don't worry about eating pork. They are going to heaven just by saying Jesus us their savior.

Where is the God who spoke at Sinai in Christianity? Do people really believe God will reward those who say his law has been replaced? God said they were forever. Why call him a liar by saying his law is done away with?

"Like a Partridge that sits on eggs and doesn't hatch them is he who gets riches and not by right will leave them in the midst if his days and in the end will be a fool"

[1213]

...Should the righteous people whose cognitive functions are unfortunately impaired to some minor or major degree as a consequence of their genetics, health, or a brain injury be expected to accurately understand the apologetic arguments and subsequently conclude that there is no other reasonable explanation than the God?...

What would make that person righteous in your opinion?

If person has damage in brain, why would he choose some other choice as explanation for everything that exists?

[bluegreenearth]

...Should the righteous people whose cognitive functions are unfortunately impaired to some minor or major degree as a consequence of their genetics, health, or a brain injury be expected to accurately understand the apologetic arguments and subsequently conclude that there is no other reasonable explanation than the God?...

What would make that person righteous in your opinion?

My question was offered within the context of your description of what defines a righteous person. Therefore, my opinion is not relevant to your ability to answer the question. If you believe that people whose cognitive functions are impaired to some minor or major degree cannot be righteous, then that would be relevant to your ability to answer my question. So, I’ll continue to patiently wait for your response to my question.

If person has damage in brain, why would he choose some other choice as explanation for everything that exists?

Again, my question was offered in the context of your expressed worldview, and any response I could give to your question above would not be relevant to your ability to answer my question. Consider how you would answer your own question within your own worldview while I continue to wait patiently for you to answer my question,

[brunumb]

There are very reasonable explanations for this world that do not require God, the Bible, or even being righteous. .

Please tell one?

Perhaps it would be more balanced if you actually provided some thoughtful answers.

Awaiting a response to "Why should belief in God be a prerequisite for righteousness?:.

[1213]

...Awaiting a response to "Why should belief in God be a prerequisite for righteousness?:.

I don’t claim it is prerequisite. But, because God is the reasonable and logical explanation, and righteousness is basically wisdom of the just, I think it is logical if they understand God to be the reasonable belief. Believing that all what we can observe would come by chance is not reasonable, for example because we can’t observe such chance happening in nature as it should, if nature has really that ability.

[1213]

...My question was offered within the context of your description of what defines a righteous person. Therefore, my opinion is not relevant to your ability to answer the question. If you believe that people whose cognitive functions are impaired to some minor or major degree cannot be righteous, then that would be relevant to your ability to answer my question. So, I’ll continue to patiently wait for your response to my question.
... ...Again, my question was offered in the context of your expressed worldview, ...

Ok, thank you, in my world view such hypothetical situation does not exist, therefore, I “cross the bridge only when I come to it” and say that righteousness depends on what person desires and wants, not about his physical abilities.

[brunumb]

...Awaiting a response to "Why should belief in God be a prerequisite for righteousness?:.

I don’t claim it is prerequisite. But, because God is the reasonable and logical explanation, and righteousness is basically wisdom of the just, I think it is logical if they understand God to be the reasonable belief. Believing that all what we can observe would come by chance is not reasonable, for example because we can’t observe such chance happening in nature as it should, if nature has really that ability.

Sorry, but that in no way explains why belief in God is needed to be righteous,

[bluegreenearth]

...My question was offered within the context of your description of what defines a righteous person. Therefore, my opinion is not relevant to your ability to answer the question. If you believe that people whose cognitive functions are impaired to some minor or major degree cannot be righteous, then that would be relevant to your ability to answer my question. So, I’ll continue to patiently wait for your response to my question.
... ...Again, my question was offered in the context of your expressed worldview, ...

Ok, thank you, in my world view such hypothetical situation does not exist, therefore, I “cross the bridge only when I come to it” and say that righteousness depends on what person desires and wants, not about his physical abilities.

Yes, but did you not claim a righteous person would be expected to understand that the God is the only reasonable explanation? If righteousness depends upon people's desires and not their physical (i.e. cognitive) abilities, then what is the logical justification for expecting a righteous person to have the cognitive ability to understand that the God is the only reasonable explanation?

[bluegreenearth]

...Awaiting a response to "Why should belief in God be a prerequisite for righteousness?:.

I don’t claim it is prerequisite. But, because God is the reasonable and logical explanation, and righteousness is basically wisdom of the just, I think it is logical if they understand God to be the reasonable belief. Believing that all what we can observe would come by chance is not reasonable, for example because we can’t observe such chance happening in nature as it should, if nature has really that ability.

If someone were to explain to your understanding and satisfaction that nature doesn't produce all we can observe entirely by chance, would you agree to discontinue describing the non-theistic perspective in such terms?

[Bradskii]

Christianity would fail if man didn't have to face deaths. It survives because people are scared of death. People believe because they want to be saved. What else does it offer?

My first question would be 'Which version of Christianity are we discussing'. But I guess all versions hold to an eternal happy-ever-after. As do all religions. It would be difficult promoting a rival set of beliefs if you pointed out that yours offered eternal happiness and the other one didn't. So it's not hard to see why it's one of the big selling points. As you said (rather disparagingly I thought), people believe because they don't want to die. But if that was the only reason then there are plenty of others from which to choose.

And I was going to say that Christianity gives one a sense of community. But seeing as there are scores (hundreds?) of denominations, then it might seem that the opposite is the case. It seems to fracture rather than bring together.

A sense of hope? All other religions offer that. Moral guidance? Well, apart from the fact that different Christians seem to hold to different moral views, the scriptural rules seem blatantly obvious: Don't cheat, don't murder, don't steal...nothing new there.

So I don't think it offers much. Although that's a personal view. I know some Christians who get a sense of...faith, I guess. Comfort, perhaps. And who could deny them that?

[1213]

...
If someone were to explain to your understanding and satisfaction that nature doesn't produce all we can observe entirely by chance, would you agree to discontinue describing the non-theistic perspective in such terms?

At least it would be interesting to hear the explanation. Especially it would be nice to know how biological life came to exist, if not by someone creating it. But, how I would think after the explanation would probably depend on what is the explanation.