What Truth Is

[Jagella]

The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.

Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.

[imhereforyou]

The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.

Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.

To me, if something is true, there's no bending needed (that concept seems very illogical to me).
Surely truth is what it is. Unfortunately, this biblical god hasn't made that clear at all (proof by looking at all the differing sects of the same belief system not to mention the FACT that it's a belief system ignoring facts).
Some people like to live a lie - it's comforting to them (I guess).

[Clownboat]

Let's test this response of yours shall we?
What other god concepts do you believe are real besides the Christian god concepts?

Well first, I really do not understand what you mean by, "real?" I have been on this site for some 4 years now, and I have never referred to Christianity, nor the "Christian god concepts" as "real." In fact, I have never claimed they were true.

You belong to the usergroup 'Christian'. Group description is 'I believe'.
Perhaps you should lose that label? That or own it...
So... what (other than Christianity) god concepts to you believe are real? Remember, you were trying to avoid having to acknowledge that you are atheist towards other gods.

The closest thing I can think of, that would come close to what you say here is, I have claimed to believe Christianity to be true. However, this is a far cry from proclaiming that it must, and has to be true. And it certainly has nothing to do with it being, "real."

Right, all things I'm not calling into question.
What god concepts, (besides the Christian one) do you find to be real? Feel free to admit that there are none and that you are atheistic when it comes to competing gods. Notice, I'm not asking if you think Christianity 'must' be true or 'real'.

Next, as far as the, "other god concepts", (which I would assume would be other religions) I do not know how to better explain it? I have not studied any other religion. With this being the case, I would have no idea, if there may be reasons to believe these other religions, or not, since I know very little, if anything about them.

Thanks again for your honestly, but it has been made perfectly clear that you are ignorant when it comes to the other god concepts. No need to keep bringing that up.

But again, and however, I would not have to know anything at all about these other religions, in order to understand, and believe if there may be good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity. I really do not know what would be difficult to understand here.

Nothing is difficult and I'm not sure why you think there is.
You don't know about competing religions. You have picked one and decided that there are good reasons for believing it. Your arrival at finding it believable is not credible for me due to your ignorance.
Would you have brain surgery from a doctor that knew one way to do it, but was totally ignorant about the other options? I would assume you would want to speak with a doctor that was better versed on the subject. Again, something you are not when it comes to other god concepts.

Very honest of you. Kinda hard to respect your decision to stick with Christianity though don't you think?
If you only ever ate broccoli, how would you have any idea if pizza is any good?

This was exactly my point. I do not have to know anything at all, about any other religion at all, in order to understand if there may be good reasons to believe Christianity.

You need to rethink your point then.
Again, would you go to the brain surgeon that understands all the available options for your surgery, or just to the one that knows one way to do it and even finds reasons to believe that his one ways is a good way? What if there are better ways? What if there are ways that don't have as many negative side effects? You really wouldn't care? I think you would.

Simply because there may be good reasons to believe Christianity is true, does not necessitate that it is true. This simply means, there are good reasons to believe.

Strawman. Who is arguing this point?

Because there may be good reasons to believe Christianity to be true, would not necessitate that there could not be good reasons to believe any other religions.

But you would not know this due to your admitted ignorance. Therefore, your take on Christianity is like going to a brain surgeon that found one way to do the surgery and is ignorant about all the other ways. Sure, he may have reasons to believe that he is doing it in a good way, but he would have no idea if there are better options.

Pretending that you have the answers stops future learning. This goes for your religious beliefs as well as real world issues.

To acknowledge that there could be good reasons to believe other religions, does not necessitate, that there are good reasons, if one has not studied these other religions.

Never claimed that it did. Please stay on task.
I acknowledge your ignorance when it comes to competing religions and therefore acknowledge that you are ignorant when it comes to these god concepts. Besides the one you 'think' you have reasons to believe is true of course.

Again, this 'good enough' attitude you display is not a sound way to arrive at truth. It's just being complacent.

Is it? Do I have to eat pizza, to understand if broccoli is good?

Yes, this 'good enough' attitude is just being complacent it would seem.
If you only ate broccoli, you would not know what good is because you would have nothing to compare it to. You would just be complacent with your ignorance about how good you think broccoli is.

Do I have to study every other religion in the world, to understand if there may be good reasons to believe Christianity?

It would sure help, but no body here is forcing you to do anything. Still appreciate your honesty though about your admitted ignorance.

Correct, but who cares what you have to say about religion, you admit that you are ignorant when it comes to competing religious ideas.

Is this to say that you are an expert on every religion, and can tell us exactly what each, and everyone of them teach, and exactly why it is we should not believe each, and everyone of them?

Holy crap! It's like I'm debating my wife here.
Please explain to me how you read what I typed above and arrived at this conclusion about me being an expert on every religion. That was a jump that even Evel Knievel wouldn't have made.

Or is it, that you have very little idea of what any of them teach, and simply have some sort of six sense, and just know deep down inside that they must be false, in the same way many Christians claim to know Christianity must be true?

What claim of mine are you responding to? Please copy and paste it.
When you cannot, please understand that when I say 'tomato' and you respond saying 'bowling shoes' that we are having issues communicating.

Or, is it that, you were once a Christian, who truly embraced the faith at one time, and you admit that you made this major life decision without the use of the mind, and you now want us to believe that your mind is now engaged, and it was this thinking process that has lead you to the truth of unbelief concerning Christianity, and since Christianity for you now must, and has to be false, then this naturally means that all such religions, must, and has to be false, so there is no need in you studying each, and every religion?

Please stop debating this hypothetical person and debate the actual points I make.

It would be my guess, that it is the latter that is the case. If I am correct, then you would be admitting yourself, that you did not use the mind when you were a Christian, which would more than likely mean, you know very little concerning what Christianity actually teaches, since you admit that you were not using your mind, which would seem to mean that you simply sucked up anything, and everything you were taught, without thinking about it.

Your not correct, however, your also not debating unfortunately.

Why we should care about what ignorant people say is still lost on me though.

I think we just determined whom.

Please note that I asked you a why question. You responded with a whom answer.
I'm saying 'tomato', and your saying 'bowling shoes' again. Please stop.

Why should I care what ignorant believers have to say? I might as well debate religion with my children.

The way things are going right now, you might want to go find your children, because you are not faring so well.

Are you threatening my children?
Let's go with you are not threatening my children (fingers crossed). Notice how I once again asked you a 'why' question. Notice your lack of being able to address it?

I would think so. Can you point to an unbelievable claim that I should accept?

Allow me to answer this by giving an example. Many years ago, the overwhelming majority of folks believed that the Sun, must and had to revolve around the Earth. They could not believe it possible that the Sun was actually stationary. The evidence seemed overwhelming because it certainly appears that the Sun is moving across the sky.

When you cannot meet a challenge, the honorable thing would be to just admit it.
I can actually name a man from history that believed that the earth revolved around the sun. Guess what, there were reasons to believe it. Ironically, it was religious belief that stifled such knowledge. Ignorance at its best...

More than likely, if you and I were alive at the time, we would have been in the same boat, as the majority, thinking it impossible for the Sun to be stationary.

You perhaps. Myself, I would sure hope not. However, I'm not one to just pick a belief and then look for reasons to support it while being ignorant about other options.

The reason they would not believe such a thing, is because they were blinded to what was actually occurring, and therefore were only looking at the surface, because they could not see, the things occurring behind the scenes, which is exactly my point.

Your point is lost on me because you are ignorant about what is occurring behind the other scenes. You see your scene and you find reasons to believe it. I got that.

However, I am not arrogant enough to believe that I know everything,

I have not called you arrogant and acknowledge your ignorance.

You, on the other hand, seem to believe you posses such ability. You seem to believe that you can determine the truth of a claim, not by attempting to examine the evidence for, or against it, but rather by determining if the claim seems to be possible.

Please copy and paste the words that make you think this. Perhaps you are just arguing from emotion?

But the thing is, those who claimed that Jesus was resurrected, were not in any way attempting to claim that it was possible, but rather, they understood just as well, as you, and I, that it was not possible. If it was possible, then there would be nothing extraordinary about it, at all. Rather, it would then be, an ordinary claim.

What you seem to fail to realize is just how 'normal' claims of dead bodies coming back to life and demigod virgin births were back in those days. Such claims were normal compared to today's world.

Now, as we look at your example of the "ocean front property in Arizona", I would know the claim to be false.

Perhaps not if you are ignorant about geography like you are competing religions.

You are irrelevant to this discuss though IMO. You admit to being ignorant about the competing god concepts.

And you are an expert on them all, right?

Compared to you, yes, it seems that way.
However, I have eaten more than just the 'broccoli', so I have other 'foods' to compare it to. You are complacent with broccoli, and that is fine.

Or, is it that, I must understand all other religions, in order to determine if there may be good reasons to believe Christianity, while you do not have to know anything at all, about any religion, in order to determine that they are all false?

Who are you debating? Who has made these claims? Try to stick to facts. It seems like your emotions might be getting the best of you.

You seem to have found one you like and are just sticking with it.

Wrong again. I do not like Christianity. Who would like, or want to believe it, if they truly understand it?

What parts do you hate about Christianity? Perhaps if you knew more about other religions, you would not be a Christian? Face it, you cannot compare the things you hate about Christianity to other religions. You found broccoli and have no idea if pizza is good or not. Congratulations on your complacency.

Therefore, your doubt or lack of doubt should not be considered for being admittedly ill-formed.

First, can you please explain why I would need to know anything at all about any other religion, in order to understand if there may indeed be good reasons to believe Christianity?

Yes. Imagine a person that has only ever eaten broccoli. Now compare that to a person that has experience with all sorts of food. If you wanted to know which religion/food was most beneficial for you, which person would you ask? The one that only knows the taste of broccoli, or the one that has more experience with not only broccoli, but other foods.

Next, if you yourself are not an expert on all religions, then would this not mean that your rejection of them would be, "ill informed?"

Only on the ones I am ignorant about. Please note, I do not claim to be ignorant about religious beliefs in general.

Correct. We have the natural explanation that the disciples took the body that to Galilee to be buried. You are admittedly ignorant about other gods, yet you buy the resurrection story when a natural explanation is available.

Allow me to explain the difference between you, and I. You would be correct to say that there COULD be natural explanations that MAY explain the empty tomb. However, the very fact that you, and others have come up with other possible explanations, is an admission that there was a man named Jesus, that he was indeed crucified, that he was indeed buried, and that there was indeed an empty tomb.

False. According to the story itself, there is a natural explanation. This does not mean that the story is true, accurate or that there was an actual Jesus though. (I would imagine there was one by the way).

The problem with your explanation is, you cannot demonstrate, nor prove, in any sort of way, that your explanation is correct.

Yup, just being honest with myself that according to the story in question, according to the story, there is a natural explanation to be had.

Rather, you seem to be arguing, it must be true, simply because it is a natural explanation, as opposed to an extraordinary explanation.

Um... can you point to anything supernatural at all? Anything, because I can point to natural. It would be dishonest to pretend we are on equal footing.

However, you seem to act as if your explanation would have been simple. In other words, you seem to act as if your explanation would not have been extraordinary at all?

Burying a body where said body grew up was the norm, not anything extraordinary.

The point is, either these men were telling the truth, and it is the most extraordinary event that has ever occurred. Or, these ordinary, fishermen, save one tax collector, instead of being devastated, by the humiliating public demise of their leader, pull off the biggest hoax in the history of the world, all within a short amount of time. Either way, it is extraordinary indeed!

This is obvious and hardly a point you need to make.
Humans lying or being deceived is hardly extraordinary though.

Next, you seem to believe the natural explanation wins out, without having to think through any of these things. In other words, you seem to be insisting that you must, and have to be correct. I on the other hand, am not insisting that I must, and have to be correct.

Please stop debating the person. Please respond to the things that I type and not your imaginings.

Unlike you,

Your still doing it. Sad face.

The point is, you can come up with all sorts of natural explanations. However, until, or unless there is evidence to back up these claims, then all you are doing is to throw out possibilities, with no facts to back them up.

Again, please stop saying common sense things and then claiming that it is your point. It reads like: The point is... the sky is blue. What is the point of such an obvious statement?
More importantly, you need to notice that I did not make a claim, but am just pointing out the natural explanation that is available. It's there in the story itself, so what evidence you would want to justify such an acknowledgement is lost on me.

You're mistaken. There is more to offer than just doubt. There is faith at play, and faith is a requirement to believe in false things.

I will again point out, that you seem to be working on the assumption that what I believe must, and has to be false, when you have failed to demonstrate your case.

Please respond to the actual words that I type. I said you were mistaken because there is more at play than just doubt.
I did NOT say that what you believe must and has to be false. This is the type of thing that makes me wonder if your emotions are debating.

Next, you and I have a completely different understanding of faith. You see, I do not need faith in order to believe that there was a man named Jesus that walked the face of the Earth.

Yes, you actually do. Most would agree that the Jesus stories are based off of a real person, but this person did not record anything himself. Therefore, what we have about Jesus was penned by unknown people decades after the events are claimed to have taken place. You can have faith and believe the claims, but you nor anyone else can show that the claims are true.

I do not need faith to believe that this man was crucified, dead, and buried. I do not even need faith, in order to believe he was resurrected. Rather, what I need to believe these things is evidence. Because you see, I can look, see, read, study, and analyze the evidence for these sort of things.

I can place faith in Harry Potter, but my faith would not make the stories true. The same goes for your Bible whether you like it or not. Remember, it takes faith in order to believe in false things.

What I would need faith to believe is, I have been forgiven. Again, I can study, and analyze these other things, however, I cannot feel, touch, weigh, see, nor analyze, forgiveness. Rather, I have to trust that I have been forgiven.

Not sure what this has to do with faith. First, you need to convince yourself that you deserve eternal damnation because of what an Adam and Eve ate. Once you have convinced yourself via faith that you are sick and deserve this fate, then you will be willing to buy the medicine (human sacrifice to a god).

Please demonstrate that you know what you are talking about.

Sure. I know, that you can in no way demonstrate what you believe concerning Christianity.

Well that was a complete failure at a rebuttal don't you think?

I also know, that I can in no way demonstrate what it is I believe concerning Christianity.

Correct. This is where faith comes in. If you knew your beliefs were true, you could demonstrate such a thing. For now, you are just demonstrating that you are capable of faith.

I have already dealt with my, "being ignorant about competing gods", and am waiting on you to tells us if you are an expert on all the gods.

I do not claim to be an expert on all gods. You should know better anyway, as there are far too many god concepts to be an expert on all of them.

Next, I really do not know how in the world I could, "DEMONSTRATE why I believe."

For the 'why' you believe... perhaps it's so you can have somewhere to go when you die. This is common for many along with other reasons like providing a purpose for being here and having a way to see dead loved ones again.

However, it always seems comical to me when I am asked this question. The reason is, are there those who are really under the impression that one could explain all the reasons they believe, in one simple post?

Your humor seems misplaces as I just provided some reasons without any difficulty at all.

As an example, I certainly hope there are not those who do not believe, and are under the impression that they can explain all the reasons they do not believe, in a single post.

I don't see why that would not be possible, but it also has nothing to do with this debate, so I will leave it for now.

But, to think that I could explain all these things in one post, would be simple minded, in my opinion.

Let me try on your behalf for fun and we will see how hard it might be.
You believe because of faith. Done... Really not that hard to explain belief if you think about it. Don't forget the other reasons already listed as well.

Show that I doubt your religious claims for no other reason than doubt.

That is for you to, "show."

Actually it is not. You said: "Well, to dismiss a claim, when all one has to offer is their doubt"

[Realworldjack]

[Replying to post 32 by Clownboat]

You belong to the usergroup 'Christian'. Group description is 'I believe'.
Perhaps you should lose that label? That or own it...
So... what (other than Christianity) god concepts to you believe are real? Remember, you were trying to avoid having to acknowledge that you are atheist towards other gods.

I have been on this site for some 4 years now, and have just now in the last few weeks joined the "Christian user group." The only reason I did so, is because I wanted to respond to a post in the "Holy huddle" forum. To be allowed to do that, I had to join the group, and since I am a Christian, I decided to join it.

And again, I really do not know how better to explain it. I have very little knowledge of these other religions. With this being the case, it would be almost impossible for me to determine if there may be reasons to believe these other religions.

What god concepts, (besides the Christian one) do you find to be real?

I do not "find any god concepts", including Christianity to be, "real." Rather, I believe there are good, and solid reasons to believe the reports in the NT, which would also mean that I believe there are good, and solid reasons to believe Christianity.

As far as the other religions, there may indeed be good reasons to believe them as well, but since I have not studied these religions, I would not know. Therefore, I am not debating that, "there are no reasons to believe them."

Feel free to admit that there are none and that you are atheistic when it comes to competing gods.

Notice, I am not claiming to know, or to be able to demonstrate anything other than there are good reasons to believe Christianity to be true. If there are good reasons to believe other religions, this is something those that believe them should be attempting to demonstrate. I am not under any burden to demonstrate this to be false.

The point is, I do not have to be "atheistic" towards other gods, in order to demonstrate that there may indeed be good reasons to believe Christianity.

Would you have brain surgery from a doctor that knew one way to do it, but was totally ignorant about the other options? I would assume you would want to speak with a doctor that was better versed on the subject. Again, something you are not when it comes to other god concepts.

Not a very good analogy here, as with another of your analogies we will get to in a moment.

We are not talking about some sort of procedure here, in which there may be a better, more improved ways of accomplishing the same result. Rather, we are talking about what may be true, or not, historically.

With this being the case, I can only study, and examine the evidence concerning Christianity, and determine if there is good, solid, reasons to believe the events did in fact occur as they are reported, and this would have absolutely zero to do with what other religions may claim.

In other words, what these other religions claim, and whether there may be good reasons to believe them, would have no effect upon whether there are good reasons to believe the reports from those in the NT.

You need to rethink your point then.
Again, would you go to the brain surgeon that understands all the available options for your surgery, or just to the one that knows one way to do it and even finds reasons to believe that his one ways is a good way? What if there are better ways? What if there are ways that don't have as many negative side effects? You really wouldn't care? I think you would.

And again here, you demonstrate that you are looking at this as some sort of procedure, when it is not.

In other words, you seem to be thinking thus, "Christianity may work, but there may be other religions that work better." However, since we are not talking about a procedure, the question should be, "is there reasons to believe the claims."

I said,

Simply because there may be good reasons to believe Christianity is true, does not necessitate that it is true. This simply means, there are good reasons to believe.

To which you respond,

Strawman. Who is arguing this point?

How in the world would the be a "straw man?" I am simply acknowledging that even though I may be successful in demonstrating that there are reasons to believe, would not demonstrate that it would indeed be true. Therefore, I am not making an argument, but am rather making a point. I never suggested that you said anything different.

Pretending that you have the answers stops future learning.

Now, do you really want to talk about a, "straw man?" Where in the world have I suggested that, "I have all the answers?" I would think that it is pretty clear that I am claiming not to have, "all the answers" since I am not proclaiming anything to be true, but am rather simply claiming to believe certain things to be true, and that there are reasons to believe them to be true. So how would this translate into, "I have all the answers?

This goes for your religious beliefs as well as real world issues.

Agreed. But again, one would not have to study the, "historical claims" of other religions, in order to understand if there are good, and solid reasons to believe the claims of another.

Yes, this 'good enough' attitude is just being complacent it would seem.
If you only ate broccoli, you would not know what good is because you would have nothing to compare it to. You would just be complacent with your ignorance about how good you think broccoli is.

Here is the other analogy that I knew was not a very good one. However, I went along with it the first time.

The problem here is we are talking about, tastes, and we all have different tastes, and so what may taste good to you, may not be the same for another. But, we are not talking about tastes.

Therefore, I used the analogy to demonstrate that I would never have to eat pizza, in order to determine if the taste of broccoli was appealing to me. If I were to happen to go on to eat pizza, I may find it more appealing than broccoli, but my new taste would not cause broccoli, to taste any different.

But again, we are not talking about, tastes. Rather, we are talking about what may in fact be true, as opposed to what may not be true.

A better analogy would be, I may be the head of a police dept. that has a murder scene to investigate. Lets imagine that I have three different detectives on the scene, and lets also say that they all have completely different ideas of how the murder happened, along with who the guilty party would be.

I could go to the first detective, and listen to his reasoning, and I could conclude that he does indeed have very good reasons to believe as he does. I would not have to talk to any of the other detectives, in order to determine this. In fact, this first detective that I speak to, may be completely wrong about what may have occurred, but this would not in any way mean, there were not very good reasons to believe as he did.

Where my analogy would break down is, when I went to the other detectives, I may find that one of the others had a better explanation, but this would still not mean that the first detective did not have good reasons.

The problem with my analogy is, when we compare this analogy to the different religions, we are not talking about the same crime scene, now are we? Rather, we are talking about completely different crime scenes. With this being the case, what may have happened at one crime scene, would have no bearing at all, upon the other.

So then, while there may indeed be good, and solid reasons to believe the reports in the NT, this would have no bearing upon what the other religions claim as historical evidence.

The bottom line here is, we are not claiming that one, as opposed to another must, and has to be true at this point. Rather, we are simply attempting to determine if there may be reasons to believe the historical claims. I believe there is very good reasons to believe the claims in the NT, but this would have no bearing upon whether there may be good reasons to believe the others.

I do not claim to know if there may be reasons to believe these other religions. What about you?

It would sure help, but no body here is forcing you to do anything. Still appreciate your honesty though about your admitted ignorance.

How in the world could it possibly help, to study other religions? I would not have to know a thing about any other religion, in order to understand if there may be good reasons to believe Christianity. If I were to study other religions, and come to the conclusion that there may indeed be good reasons to believe them, this still would not negate the fact that there would be good reasons to believe, Christianity.

Holy crap! It's like I'm debating my wife here.
Please explain to me how you read what I typed above and arrived at this conclusion about me being an expert on every religion. That was a jump that even Evel Knievel wouldn't have made.

Did you happen to notice that I started the sentence with, "Is this to say?" This means that it is a question, and not a statement. Therefore, I have not arrived at a conclusion, but have rather ask a question in order to better help me arrive to a conclusion.

What claim of mine are you responding to? Please copy and paste it.

It would be this, along with others,

Thanks again for your honestly, but it has been made perfectly clear that you are ignorant when it comes to the other god concepts. No need to keep bringing that up.

So then I admit to ignorance concerning most other religions. My question to you is, do you reject all religions, and is this because you have studied them all, and can tell us why there is no need to believe them? Again, it is a question, not a statement.

Because you see, as I said, I began with, "is this to say", which is a question, and went off this lead to asked, "or is it", which is again a question, it is not arriving to a conclusion.

I went on to ask,

Or, is it that, you were once a Christian, who truly embraced the faith at one time, and you admit that you made this major life decision without the use of the mind, and you now want us to believe that your mind is now engaged, and it was this thinking process that has lead you to the truth of unbelief concerning Christianity, and since Christianity for you now must, and has to be false, then this naturally means that all such religions, must, and has to be false, so there is no need in you studying each, and every religion?

Again, this is bouncing off my original question, and it is still a question, which means, I am not concluding anything at all, but am rather asking a question, in order to help me come to some sort of conclusion. Your response to this was,

Please stop debating this hypothetical person and debate the actual points I make.

First, I believe I have addressed every point you make, and have done so very well. However, at this point, I am not debating at all, but am rather asking a question, which I believe is legitimate.

Your not correct, however, your also not debating unfortunately.

You are correct that I am not debating at this point, and am simply attempting to ask a question which I have acknowledged. So then, if I am incorrect, exactly what point am I incorrect about?

Were you not a Christian at some point? Did you not truly embrace the faith, when you were a Christian? When you decided to become a Christian, was it because you were engaging the mind about Christianity, and came to the conclusion that it certainly had to be true, because of the evidence that you investigated?

These are important questions, and they are legitimate, because it will help us understand exactly how you make such decisions. If you did in fact use the mind in order to become a Christian, then how could you have been so wrong, and how can you be so certain that you are now correct to reject it?

Please note that I asked you a why question. You responded with a whom answer.
I'm saying 'tomato', and your saying 'bowling shoes' again. Please stop.

Oh, okay? So it is legitimate for you to ask questions? I am simply attempting to understand what you may know about other religions yourself?

Are you threatening my children?
Let's go with you are not threatening my children (fingers crossed). Notice how I once again asked you a 'why' question. Notice your lack of being able to address it?

I have addressed this questioned every time you bring it up by clearly demonstrating that one would not need to know a thing about any other religion, in order to understand if there may be reasons to believe another.

Your argument is a failed, and very weak. It assumes that since there are other religions, that this somehow proves a point, when there is no point to be made at all. If there is a point, then please make it.

When you cannot meet a challenge, the honorable thing would be to just admit it.
I can actually name a man from history that believed that the earth revolved around the sun. Guess what, there were reasons to believe it. Ironically, it was religious belief that stifled such knowledge. Ignorance at its best...

Your challenge is sort of ridiculous. In other words, it is an oxymoron, to tell someone "here is something unbelievable, that you need to believe." Therefore, it is better to give an example of those who refused to believe certain things, had reasons to believe as they did, and were completely in error.

At any rate, you go on to make my point. There were those who came along much later, who believed the Earth revolved around the Sun, and there were reasons to believe it, which would mean that it is not unbelievable. This is why your question would be an oxymoron.

So then, as we turn our attention to Christianity, you may believe, that it is unbelievable that a body came back to life. However, there may be reasons to believe it, which would cause it not to be, unbelievable.

You perhaps. Myself, I would sure hope not. However, I'm not one to just pick a belief and then look for reasons to support it while being ignorant about other options.

You are really missing the point. There were very good reasons to believe the Sun to be moving. So then, it is those who simply look at the surface, in other words those who simply go on what seems believable, as opposed to unbelievable, who miss the boat.

Your point is lost on me because you are ignorant about what is occurring behind the other scenes. You see your scene and you find reasons to believe it. I got that.

I have answered this objection over, and over. The ball is now in your court, and you must demonstrate why, and how it is imperative that I must know something about other religions, because it is lost on me?

Please copy and paste the words that make you think this. Perhaps you are just arguing from emotion?

As far as the claim goes for being a logical thinker. That is one that I must question.
What is the logic in believing that animals talk, or that bodies that have been dead and liquefying for days come back to life, or that a man lived in the belly of a fish for days, and on and on?

I would think so. Can you point to an unbelievable claim that I should accept?

You are admittedly ignorant about other gods, yet you buy the resurrection story when a natural explanation is available.

So then, as we can clearly see, you certainly seem to base your beliefs upon what seems to be believable to you, rather than the evidence one way or the other. You know, like those who refused to consider the evidence concerning the Sun?

What you seem to fail to realize is just how 'normal' claims of dead bodies coming back to life and demigod virgin births were back in those days. Such claims were normal compared to today's world.

Now there is a logical reason to discount something. However, what you say simply does not add up at all. If what you say were truly the case, then the claims being made by the NT writers would not have been all that extraordinary. So then, why all the uproar?

Allow me to explain all the uproar. It was because the claims were unbelievable. In other words, it would be one thing to simply claim a invisible god came back to life. It would be quite another to point to one whom all knew was alive and well, who was buried, and now the tomb where he laid is empty, and it is because, that human came back to life. Your argument does not wash in the least.

There were not those who believed it possible, and even those making the claims clearly understood the claims to be extraordinary, which demonstrates that no one was walking around thinking, "these are normal claims."

I asked,

And you are an expert on them all, right?

Of course I am asking about religions here, to which you respond,

Compared to you, yes, it seems that way.

Well then, why don't you explain to us exactly what you know about all the religions?

You see, our whole debate here started when you came along and seemed to accuse me of being atheistic towards all gods but one. This is an old lame point that one came up with a long time ago, in which whomever it was thought they had come up with such a great point. In the end however, we can see, there is really no point at all.

At any rate, I went on to demonstrate that you had no point, because I have never claimed that there were no reasons to believe these other religions. You seem to take offense to this, and also seem to believe that I need to be an expert on all religions, in order to be convinced of one.

Again, the ball is now in your court, you need to make your case that it is imperative that I understand each, and every religion, and how this may effect what I am convinced of concerning Christianity? Good luck!

I asked,

Or, is it that, I must understand all other religions, in order to determine if there may be good reasons to believe Christianity, while you do not have to know anything at all, about any religion, in order to determine that they are all false?

To which you respond,

Who are you debating? Who has made these claims? Try to stick to facts. It seems like your emotions might be getting the best of you.

Can you really not see that this is a question? I am asking questions, in order to obtain facts. Moreover, I am doing so, in order not to make assumptions. Allow me at this point to explain the way I am seeing things, and you can correct me if I am wrong.

Either, you know all there is to know about each and every religion, and can explain to us why it is, we should not believe any of them. Or, you know very little about any of them, including Christianity, and simply do not care.

I think we can eliminate the latter, since you seem to care a lot, and this is demonstrated by your interest to debate.

Another option would be, you think you know a lot about Christianity, and are convinced it is false, and can explain all the reasons you have arrived to this conclusion but, like me, you know very little concerning the others, and also like me, you are not claiming they must, and have to be false, and you do not have to know about these other religions, in order to make a judgement concerning Christianity.

Now, if there are other options I have neglected, it would be helpful if you could point them out, so I will not have to assume, and sift through all the options that I see. So then either,

A. You are an expert in religion, and believe none of them.

B. You believe you understand Christianity, and believe it to be false, but know very little concerning the other religions, but like me, you are not claiming that they must, and have to be false.

What parts do you hate about Christianity?

Who said anything about, "hate?" I think I said, "who would like, or want to believe it, if they truly understood it?" There are many things I may not like, but this would not entail hate.

Yes. Imagine a person that has only ever eaten broccoli. Now compare that to a person that has experience with all sorts of food. If you wanted to know which religion/food was most beneficial for you, which person would you ask? The one that only knows the taste of broccoli, or the one that has more experience with not only broccoli, but other foods.

Again, comparing this to food taste is not a very good analogy. We are not talking about what one may prefer, nor are we talking about what may work best. These things would never inter my mind. What we should be concerned about, is what may actually be true, in spite of what one may prefer to believe, or what may work best in one's life.

So, as we can see, there are those who have trouble in determining what questions would need to be asked to begin with, which would lead to bad conclusions in the end.

I asked,

Next, if you yourself are not an expert on all religions, then would this not mean that your rejection of them would be, "ill informed?"

Your response,

Only on the ones I am ignorant about.

Is this to suggest that you have rejected certain religions without knowing about them? Would you consider this to be, "ill informed?"

You then go on to say,

Please note, I do not claim to be ignorant about religious beliefs in general.

Exactly what does this mean? I know about Islam, Hinduism, Judaism, Mormonism, etc. However, I have not studied them closely enough to understand if they must, and have to be false. My question is, are you under the impression that this "general knowledge" is enough to determine them to be false? I think not!

False. According to the story itself, there is a natural explanation. This does not mean that the story is true, accurate or that there was an actual Jesus though. (I would imagine there was one by the way).

Here is where you really begin to make my point. Because you see, I will assure you that you do far more than simply, "imagine" that there may have been a man named Jesus. Rather, I am sure you are convinced of the fact, and the reason you are so convinced of this fact is because of the overwhelming evidence involved.

There are those who will, and have attempted to make the argument, that there may have never been a Jesus at all, but this is to commit intellectual suicide, and also demonstrates, desperation.

You know like, there are scholars who argue that the writings in the NT, may not have been written by those they were attributed too, and that they more than likely were written decades, or even generations after the fact, using stories that may have been past down through the generations. Now, why would there be those who attempt to make such an argument? Allow me to explain the reason.

These scholars attempt to make such arguments, because they are very aware that if these things were indeed written within the lifetime of those they have been attributed too, then this would be pretty powerful evidence. Not that it would demonstrate of prove the case, but it would certainly lend more credence to the stories. This is why they attempt to make such desperate arguments, and they are desperate indeed.

At any rate, as we return to you, and you beliefs concerning Jesus, we could keep moving forward, and determine that there are other things you believe concerning this man, and the reason you would believe these things, is because of the evidence supporting them. The question would only become, "how far are you willing to go, and why?"

Yup, just being honest with myself that according to the story in question, according to the story, there is a natural explanation to be had.

Yup, and I guess that is enough to drop the whole thing for many?

Um... can you point to anything supernatural at all? Anything, because I can point to natural. It would be dishonest to pretend we are on equal footing.

Right. And again, what happens in most cases, demonstrates what, exactly?

Burying a body where said body grew up was the norm, not anything extraordinary.

Correct, but the problem is, you have not demonstrated that this is indeed what took place, while there are testimonies concerning the body coming back to life, which is certainly evidence. What is the evidence that they took the body back to it's home?

Moreover, you continue to make my point. The fact that you are attempting to make an alternative argument, (which btw I am certain it is not your's) demonstrates that there is evidence to believe the reports in the NT. Otherwise, there would be no need in coming up with alternatives.

This is obvious and hardly a point you need to make.
Humans lying or being deceived is hardly extraordinary though.

I am quite sure that you understand that I am not talking about the lying, being extraordinary. Rather, this is simply some sort of tactic to divert the conversation. In other words, the extraordinary part would have been all that would have had to be entailed, in order for these men to pull off such a hoax. We could go through all of it if you like, but I would assume one who is so opposed to Christianity would have already thought through these things. Either way, I assure you, that lying would not have been an easy task in the least. To think otherwise, would certainly demonstrate weak minded thinking.

More importantly, you need to notice that I did not make a claim, but am just pointing out the natural explanation that is available. It's there in the story itself, so what evidence you would want to justify such an acknowledgement is lost on me.

There seems to be a lot that is, "lost on you", isn't there? Pointing out that there is a "natural explanation" is indeed a claim. Claims need to be demonstrated, with evidence to back up such claims. Allow me to demonstrate.

It is claimed that we have traveled to the moon, landed on it, and a human being walked upon it. This is an extraordinary claim, especially from back in the 1960's. Well, allow me to share with you that there are natural explanations, that would not involve a trip to the moon. Now, are we to dismiss the trip to the moon, because there is a natural explanation?

This seems to be your solution. If there is an extraordinary claim, and there is a natural explanation to be had, then we should believe the natural explanation, over the extraordinary, no matter how extraordinary the natural explanation would have to be.

As an example, I find it extremely difficult to believe that we actually traveled to the moon in the 60's. However, do you know one of the reasons I happen to believe that we must have made the trip? Well, it is because the natural explanation would be just as extraordinary, if not even more extraordinary, than the trip itself. In other words, there would have to be to many people involved, too many people in the know, and too many people to hold such a hoax together, when there would have been those who would have loved to demonstrated that it was a hoax.

Does this sound familiar? Or, is it lost on you? This is a question btw., it is not a statement.

Please respond to the actual words that I type. I said you were mistaken because there is more at play than just doubt.
I did NOT say that what you believe must and has to be false. This is the type of thing that makes me wonder if your emotions are debating.

Did you happen to see the word, "seem" that I used in the sentence? Let's look at it.

I will again point out, that you (SEEM) to be working on the assumption that what I believe must, and has to be false, when you have failed to demonstrate your case.

I know by now that many things get, "lost on you", but when one uses such words it is not a statement of fact, that this is the case, rather it simply means, "this is the way it seems, even if it is not the case."

Next, you claim, "there is more at play than just doubt", and I will assume this means concerning your rejection of Christianity? If this is the case, can you explain what more is involved? Because thus far, it SEEMS to me, (notice the word SEEMS) this is all you have offered.

The next thing I will point out is, you do not necessarily, "need faith to believe false things." You can believe something that is false, based upon evidence. Again, going back to those who believed the Sun revolved around the Earth. These folks did not believe this upon faith. Rather, they believed it upon the evidence they had available to them.

I said,

Next, you and I have a completely different understanding of faith. You see, I do not need faith in order to believe that there was a man named Jesus that walked the face of the Earth.

To which you respond,

Yes, you actually do.

Well, no I do not need faith to believe this, rather what I need is evidence, and you back this up with your next statement.

Most would agree that the Jesus stories are based off of a real person, but this person did not record anything himself.

Exactly! And why would, "most people agree that the Jesus stories are based off of a real person?" Well, it would not be based upon faith. Rather, "Most would agree that the Jesus stories are based off of a real person", based upon the overwhelming evidence. No faith needed.

Next, as far as "this person not recording anything himself." Well, this sort of backs things up now doesn't it? In other words, it is one thing for some sort of religious leader to write all sorts of things about himself, things he claims to have done, things he may have witnessed, and or experienced, as opposed to one who never left a word of his own, but the things recorded are done so by numerous different people, all the while these folks that record these things, are not in any way concerned as to whether there may be those thousands of years later who may read these things, but rather they were simply writing these things in letters to each other at the time, and we just so happen to have these letters, which is one of the most common ways in which historians actually claim to know certain things that have occurred throughout ancient history. In other words, historians, must, and have to count on letters that were written between folks at the time, which is exactly what we have as far as the NT is concerned.

Moreover, this man who never penned a word, as far as we know, just so happened to become one of the most well known names, if not the absolute most well known name, in the history of the world, and it would all be because of a few ordinary men, whom you would want us to believe accomplished this task, by lying, being deceived, or delusional.

In other words, these ordinary, uneducated men, actually cause this Jesus, to become the most well known name, in the history of the world, and it was all based upon a falsehood. I would say that this would be pretty extraordinary in itself.

Therefore, what we have about Jesus was penned by unknown people decades after the events are claimed to have taken place.

Can you back this claim up? Or, is this something you are simply taking from the scholars? I really do not believe you have the ability to back this claim. I am ready to demonstrate that at least some of these writings can be demonstrated to have been written in the lifetime of the Apostles. If I can do this, (and I can) then this would indeed demonstrate that all the others could quite possibly have been written by those they have been attributed to, which would mean they would have been written within 20, to 30 years of the events, themselves.

However, I will allow you to make your case first, since you have made the claim. I will also point out that it is quite comical how you claim that it was, "decades after the events are claimed to have taken place." Well, that would certainly be expected, especially when we are talking about those who were writing letters among themselves. Did you think these things would have been written the next day?

The point is, this would be expected. However, they is no evidence whatsoever, that they could have possibly been written, generations later, which some attempt to argue, which would be a different story. But, these arguments simply do not hold up under close examination, and I will be glad to go over this with you if you like.

You can have faith and believe the claims, but you nor anyone else can show that the claims are true.

But here is the thing, my friend. I have already demonstrated that I do not need faith in order to believe these things. What I need is evidence, and I have demonstrated that there is an abundance of evidence, which is why you are certain about certain things concerning Jesus.

Next, I have been on this site for some 4 years now, and have never hinted toward the idea that I could, "show that the claims are true." In fact, I have actually stated that I cannot. So then, what is your point? I have simply demonstrated that there are reasons to believe the claims, which is a far cry form claiming that they are indeed true.

I would imagine that you have certain convictions concerning Christianity, yourself. If I am correct, can you demonstrate that what you believe concerning Christianity is true? Or, are you in the same boat with me, which is to claim that you believe certain things concerning Christianity, but cannot in any way demonstrate that what you believe concerning these things is so?

I can place faith in Harry Potter, but my faith would not make the stories true.

Right, and I agree, but surely you are not attempting to compare, Harry Potter to, Christianity, now are you? If you are, then this is sad, and goes on to tell me what I am dealing with. Which would be, desperation.

Moreover, I understand completely that what I believe, nor how strongly I believe it, would have any effect at all upon what the truth may actually be. But again, I do not hold out faith that Jesus was a man that walked the face of the Earth. I do not hold out faith to believe that he was crucified. Nor do I have faith that he was resurrected. Rather, I have evidence for these things.

The same goes for your Bible whether you like it or not. Remember, it takes faith in order to believe in false things.

No! I believe you are wrong my friend. I do not in any way need faith in order to believe that Luke actually wrote the two letters contained in the Bible, because the evidence in overwhelming. I do not need faith to understand that Luke, spent a lot of time with Paul, and that Luke was with Paul on his missionary journeys. I do not need faith to know that Paul actually planted Churches. I do not need faith to know that Paul wrote letters to these Churches that he planted, when he was in one of the other cities, planting Churches there.

I do not need faith in order to know that Paul was originally opposed to this movement to the point that he was willing to consent to the death of those who adhered to it. I do not need faith in order to know that Paul converted to this movement that he was so violently opposed to. I do not need faith to know that Paul traveled to Rome, in order to stand trial. I do not need faith in order to know that Luke was there to witness these things. I do not need faith to know that Paul told Timothy in a letter, "only Luke is with me."

I do not need faith, in order to know these, and many other things concerning Christianity, because the evidence supporting all these things, is overwhelming.

So now, do you need faith in order to believe that the scholars are correct, concerning who the authors may have been, and when they may have been written? Or, do they supply some sort of evidence that this may indeed be the case? I will assure you that they are only supplying an opinion, of what could have been.

Not sure what this has to do with faith. First, you need to convince yourself that you deserve eternal damnation because of what an Adam and Eve ate.

I really do not believe this is something that I need to convince myself of? In other words, I do not need to think of Adam, or Eve at all, and what they may have done, to understand that I am not even able to live up to the standards that I have set for myself. In fact, I find that I cannot live up to any sort of standard, unless of course, I water the standard down. Maybe, you are better off than I am, and find it easy to live up to standards.

The point is, it really does not matter what standard we use. We all fall short of standards. Now of course there are those who have convinced themselves that they are able to live up to standards. As for me, I understand that I continually fail, no matter the standard.

Once you have convinced yourself via faith that you are sick and deserve this fate, then you will be willing to buy the medicine (human sacrifice to a god).

Again, I do not need faith to understand that I do not live up to standards, no matter what they may be. Rather, I have the overwhelming evidence to attest to this fact. Not only do I know this to be a fact, I also have the experience throughout life that everyone I have ever met, has failed to live up to certain standards which have been set. So then, what causes us all to fail at these things?

Correct. This is where faith comes in. If you knew your beliefs were true, you could demonstrate such a thing. For now, you are just demonstrating that you are capable of faith.

Again, I do not have faith in the things I believe. Rather, I have evidence concerning these things. However, I believe the same thing could be said concerning what it is you believe concerning Christianity. Unless of course, you have no beliefs at all concerning Christianity. The point I am attempting to make is, if you happen to believe Christianity is false, then you would surely have to depend upon faith to believe this to be the case, unless of course you could demonstrate that it is indeed false. But, I am sure you cannot, which according to your thinking, this would cause you to be operating upon, faith.

However, according to me, you would not necessarily have to be operating upon faith, because you may have some sort of evidence to support your belief. But again, according to you, if you cannot demonstrate what it is you believe to be true, then you must be operating upon, faith. Ball in your court again.

I do not claim to be an expert on all gods. You should know better anyway, as there are far too many god concepts to be an expert on all of them.

GOOD GRIEF! I understand this very well! However, you expect me to be an expert on them all? Do I have to be an expert in all the gods, in order to be a Christian? This seems to be the whole theme of your debate here, and now you admit that I "should know better as there are far too many god concepts to be an expert on all of them?"

Again, you came to the conversation with what you believed to be a great argument which was, I was an atheist when it comes to all gods but one. This argument did not work out as you had hoped, so you tell us that I somehow should be an expert in the all, or I may be missing out, and then you go on to admit that this would be an impossible feat? WOW!

I said,

Next, I really do not know how in the world I could, "DEMONSTRATE why I believe."

I emphasized the word, "DEMONSTRATE" because I do not understand how one could "demonstrate" why the believe? I could only give you the reasons why I believe, which would not be a demonstration. At any rate you respond,

For the 'why' you believe... perhaps it's so you can have somewhere to go when you die. This is common for many along with other reasons like providing a purpose for being here and having a way to see dead loved ones again.

Well, who are you debating? You scold me for these sort of questions, however you are allowed to do such things?

At any rate, you may be correct that "this is common for many along with other reasons like providing a purpose for being here and having a way to see dead loved ones again." This causes me to wonder if this may have been your motivation when you were a Christian, and you cannot imagine anyone who could possibly think any differently.

As for me, this sort of thinking is extremely weak minded. In other words, it would not be very wise to believe something simply for the conveniences one who like to have. Because you see, it really would be of no benefit to believe in something that was not true, in order to have these benefits, when there would be none of the benefits, if the whole was not true.

This is something I have argued with other Christians about. In fact, there was a particular elder of a Church that shared with me the reason he was a member of that particular branch of Christianity, which was because of their teachings concerning infants. You see, his wife had several miscarriages, and he somehow found comfort in this teaching. I scolded this particular elder, and explained to him how weak minded such thinking was.

The point is, you are transposing something upon me, that is not there, because I know better.

Your humor seems misplaces as I just provided some reasons without any difficulty at all.

Exactly, and they are very weak minded reasons, and I tend to think more deeply than that. However, I can understand those who may have made the major life decision to become a Christian without the use of the mind, continuing to believe that all Christians must be just as weak minded. This would be a simple solution for such a person, and cause them comfort in what they now claim to believe. The problem is, in my experience, those who make such major life decisions without the mind, continue to do just that.

I don't see why that would not be possible, but it also has nothing to do with this debate, so I will leave it for now.

Oh really? I believe it is part of the debate because you brought it into the conversation when you ask me to, "demonstrate what I believe." My point is, if you show me someone who believes they can give all the reasons they have rejected Christianity in one post, then I am convinced that I will be able to show you, a very weak minded person. The same would go for those who would believe they could explain all the reasons they believe, in a single post.

The reason for this is, there is a whole lot more to it than that. In other words, there would be a whole lot more to consider in order to come to an informed decision. However, and again, I can certainly understand those who would make such a major life decision to become a Christian without the use of the mind, thinking that it would be that simple. You know, easy in, easy out.

These sort of folks continue to look for easy answers. But again, if you show me someone who believes the answer to Christianity is a simple, and easy one to figure out, I believe I will be able to show you and example of weak mindedness.

Let me try on your behalf for fun and we will see how hard it might be.
You believe because of faith. Done... Really not that hard to explain belief if you think about it. Don't forget the other reasons already listed as well.

Yep! Just as I thought. This would be an example of weak mindedness. Again, it causes one to wonder if the reason a person would use such weak minded reasons is because this is exactly how they came to faith. We have already established that my understanding of faith is not the same as yours.

[dianaiad]

...........Holy crap! It's like I'm debating my wife here. ..........

Moderator Warning


The use of profanity (or even the milder sort of scatological language) is against the rules.


Please review our Rules.

______________

Moderator warnings count as a strike against users. Additional violations in the future may warrant a final warning. Any challenges or replies to moderator postings should be made via Private Message to avoid derailing topics.

[Jagella]

The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.

Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.

To me, if something is true, there's no bending needed (that concept seems very illogical to me).
Surely truth is what it is. Unfortunately, this biblical god hasn't made that clear at all (proof by looking at all the differing sects of the same belief system not to mention the FACT that it's a belief system ignoring facts).
Some people like to live a lie - it's comforting to them (I guess).

I generally think people should be allowed to think what they want to, but I can see some problems with some beliefs. For example, is it OK for people to believe that the elderly and disabled are better off dead and that we should "help" them get there? Is it acceptable to believe that Steven Hawking is burning in hell? Beliefs can and do lead to actions. Remember 9/11/2001?

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 33 by Realworldjack]

...I really do not know how better to explain it. I have very little knowledge of these other religions. With this being the case, it would be almost impossible for me to determine if there may be reasons to believe these other religions.

Actually, if anybody applies the logic of Christian apologists fairly and consistently, then they would need to believe all religions because the same logic can make those other religions appear to be true as well as Christianity.

[Jagella]

[Replying to Realworldjack]

As far as the other religions, there may indeed be good reasons to believe them as well, but since I have not studied these religions, I would not know.

Both Mormonism and Islam claim to have prophets sent by God. These prophets are Joseph Smith and Muhammad respectively. They were commissioned by angels. Such claims are the same as the claims made for Christianity.

[imhereforyou]

The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.

Can Christians understand this principle? You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.

To me, if something is true, there's no bending needed (that concept seems very illogical to me).
Surely truth is what it is. Unfortunately, this biblical god hasn't made that clear at all (proof by looking at all the differing sects of the same belief system not to mention the FACT that it's a belief system ignoring facts).
Some people like to live a lie - it's comforting to them (I guess).

I generally think people should be allowed to think what they want to, but I can see some problems with some beliefs. For example, is it OK for people to believe that the elderly and disabled are better off dead and that we should "help" them get there? Is it acceptable to believe that Steven Hawking is burning in hell? Beliefs can and do lead to actions. Remember 9/11/2001?

I've always said people can believe what they want. And so long as it doesn't hurt me or my loved one directly I don't much care (past being annoyed that is).

[Jagella]

[Replying to post 38 by imhereforyou]

I've always said people can believe what they want. And so long as it doesn't hurt me or my loved one directly I don't much care (past being annoyed that is).

One of my home-health aides is a very vocal, pushy Christian. Although I enjoy a spirited discussion about religion, he appears to be over-stepping his bounds a bit. After all, I'm his client, and he shouldn't be haranguing me to adopt his religious beliefs. If the situation gets out of hand, then I may need to replace him.

So the moral of this story is that "personal" beliefs often affect more than the person who holds them. For instance, many people adopt Christianity, and then they expect everybody they know to follow suit. The resulting evangelism can lead to divisions between friends and family. Some Christians like to say that ideas have consequences, and they are right although they seem oblivious to the harm their own beliefs can cause.

[peterk]

The warrior Miyamoto Musashi said:

Truth is not what you want it to be; it is what it is, and you must bend to its power or live a lie.

Agreed.

Can Christians understand this principle?

Yes.

You can try to argue your God into existence, but by doing so you just end up living a lie.

I think that a good test of our commitment to this principle is the respect that we show (or don't show) to people who hold views contrary to ours. I as a Christian believe that Christianity is rational. But I also believe that those who reject Christianity do so for reasons that are rational to them.

It saddens me to see the OP author asking "Can Christians understand this principle?" If we're serious about respect for truth wherever it leads, then respect of atheists for theists and vice versa is crucial.