Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

[harvey1]

From my understanding it seems some atheists might think that theism is a rational belief, but they reject that a belief in a Christian God is a rational belief. So, I'd like to open this up for discussion here on the Christianity subforum. Is belief in the Christian God a rational belief?

(Edited: A specific example was taken out because it was disputed as being a fair example on my part.)

[Lotan]

The Jews were known as being intensely (fanatically, in some cases) monotheistic, and they could not have interpreted Scripture as indicating anything but monotheism.

Presumably you're not talking about those "Jews" that were always "whoring after other gods", to the consternation of the prophets. After Moses led the Israelites through the Red Sea, they couldn't even wait fot their feet to dry before they began to worship the golden calf. How odd that the chosen people of YHWH, witnesses to his mighty mightiness, were so fascinated time and again with the gods of their Canaanite neighbors.

The plural is generally thought to indicate great power and majesty (as with the royal 'we', which may be related).

That is "generally thought" by some. It is also "generally thought" by others that YHWH was a member of a pantheon (eg. Psalm 82).
Hey! Why didn't Jesus call himself "we"?

[Tilia]

The Jews were known as being intensely (fanatically, in some cases) monotheistic, and they could not have interpreted Scripture as indicating anything but monotheism.

Presumably you're not talking about those "Jews" that were always "whoring after other gods", to the consternation of the prophets.

Obviously not; they did not even attempt to interpret Scripture. The prophets and the orthodox were decidedly monotheistic, of course.

After Moses led the Israelites through the Red Sea, they couldn't even wait fot their feet to dry before they began to worship the golden calf.

Some of them did, but things changed rapidly.

How odd that the chosen people of YHWH, witnesses to his mighty mightiness, were so fascinated time and again with the gods of their Canaanite neighbors.

It's not odd at all, given the universal propensity of humans to create any excuse to commit offences of greedy and sexual natures, which is what ancient idols were.

The plural is generally thought to indicate great power and majesty (as with the royal 'we', which may be related).

That is "generally thought" by some. It is also "generally thought" by others that YHWH was a member of a pantheon (eg. Psalm 82).

Every conservative commentator that I know of interprets those 'gods' as being the human rulers of Israel, or, much more likely imv, the whole assembly of Israel.

Hey! Why didn't Jesus call himself "we"?

Because he wanted people to recognise his divinity from his humility and goodness.

[McCulloch]

Hey! Why didn't Jesus call himself "we"?

Because he wanted people to recognise his divinity from his humility and goodness.

You know this because ... or are you guessing?

[Tilia]

Hey! Why didn't Jesus call himself "we"?

Because he wanted people to recognise his divinity from his humility and goodness.

You know this because ... or are you guessing?

Is it supposed that Jesus disagreed with the Decalogue?

[Lotan]

Is it supposed that Jesus disagreed with the Decalogue?

He wasn't too crazy about honoring Mom & Dad. I'll get to the previous stuff later (it's time for church).

[Tilia]

Is it supposed that Jesus disagreed with the Decalogue?

He wasn't too crazy about honoring Mom & Dad.

He was a thief, a murderer, an adulterer and liar too? Is that what comes of being a polytheist? Or an idolater?

[Lotan]

He was a thief, a murderer, an adulterer and liar too? Is that what comes of being a polytheist? Or an idolater?

I never said any of those things. Why don't you confine your rebuttal to what I actually did say?

[Tilia]

He was a thief, a murderer, an adulterer and liar too? Is that what comes of being a polytheist? Or an idolater?

I never said any of those things.

I didn't say that you did. I asked questions that need an answer if we are to proceed.

Why don't you confine your rebuttal to what I actually did say?

I did. If it is supposed that Jesus took scant notice of the Decalogue, there does not seem to me to be much purpose to this discussion or on any regarding Christianity.

[Cathar1950]

"The purpose of reason is to promote the art of living" A.N. Whitehead.
I see do many definitions flying around. Reason, Rational, Irrational, God, Gods, Monotheism, Theism, Christianity, the Trinity and even Jesus.
Now personally I see the irrational and the rational as opposing ideas and the irrational wrong for the obvious reasons. It is not rational and opposed and by definition makes no sense. Now the non-rational is perfectly suited for this debate and a legitimate part of reality including a materialist view. There is feeling among other ideas that are not rational
except for in explanation, yet real and persuasive. I have no doubt that they are related in some causal link with experience, biology and culture.
But it seems from the start that unless everyone agrees on a single definition. Which I fine unlikely. then we have to talk about Beliefs, Christianities, and Gods. There is the rational and the non-rational. any intellectual system will contain aspects of both. It is the irrational we try to avoid.
Tilia wrote:

McCulloch wrote:
Lotan wrote:

Hey! Why didn't Jesus call himself "we"?

Tilia wrote:

Because he wanted people to recognise his divinity from his humility and goodness.

You know this because ... or are you guessing?

Is it supposed that Jesus disagreed with the Decalogue?

I don't see where that follows anything. As far as the decalogue goes we don't really know what they were talking about that is the prophets I mean. There is some question when and where it was wrote and by whom.
They may have been talking about the Hammurabi's law code for all we know or something like it. The Canaanites and the hebrews seem to worship the same God(El) at first. I think it even says(the Bible) in one place that El gave YHWH(Adoni,The Lord) Israel.

Because he wanted people to recognise his divinity from his humility and goodness.

That is a new Gospel or an Interpretation. Pure conjecture.

[Lotan]

Is it supposed that Jesus disagreed with the Decalogue?

He wasn't too crazy about honoring Mom & Dad.

He was a thief, a murderer, an adulterer and liar too? Is that what comes of being a polytheist? Or an idolater?

I never said any of those things.

I asked questions that need an answer if we are to proceed...If it is supposed that Jesus took scant notice of the Decalogue, there does not seem to me to be much purpose to this discussion or on any regarding Christianity.

Suit yourself.

Now, to get back on topic, unless someone can define what "the Christian God" is, there isn't much point in arguing whether belief in it is rational or not. So far, no one on this thread is in any danger of agreeing with anyone else on a definition, and harvey1 hasn't been forthcoming with one. Iy appears that "the Christian God" (and before that "the Israelite God", or whatever) is a subjective term, open to the interpretation of the individual. Furthermore there is no reason to believe that the situation has ever been any different than it is now, despite the attempts of various religious leaders to create orthodoxies.

Obviously not; they did not even attempt to interpret Scripture.

I doubt that many of them could read. Besides, it would depend on your definition of (pre-exilic) "Scripture".

The prophets and the orthodox were decidedly monotheistic, of course.

Well, either the prophets were monotheistic, or the bible authors were. Your claim about "the orthodox" reminds me of the TrueChristianTM fallacy.

It's not odd at all, given the universal propensity of humans to create any excuse to commit offences of greedy and sexual natures, which is what ancient idols were.

We'll have to take your word for that, since they hadn't yet received the commandments.

Every conservative commentator that I know of interprets those 'gods' as being the human rulers of Israel, or, much more likely imv, the whole assembly of Israel.

Does "conservative commentator" mean 'apologist? There are these ...

"Examples of texts that demonstrate an implicit assumption of multiple gods: Exod 15.11; 18.11; 20.3; 23.24; Num 25.2; Deut 10.17; Josh 24.15; 1 Kgs 11.2-10; 2 Kgs 17.31 "

...and also this ...

"The Bible does not present a simple or unified picture of the religious beliefs and practices of the period before the exile. The dominant impression the casual reader receives is coloured by the sweep of the narrative in the Torah and in the Former Prophets. This presents Israel as monotheistic from the start, forever in contrast to the peoples around them.

As one looks at the details of this narrative one soon spots occasions when this ideal broke down. From Rachel with her family household gods (teraphim) in Gen 31:19ff. through the home based idols of the period of the judges (cf. Micah's story in Jud 17) to the state-supported cults of Ba'al and Asherah in the time of the kings (e.g. 1 Kgs 14:15, 23; 15:13; 16:33; 18:19; 2 Kgs 13:6; 17:10, 16; 18:4; 21:3, 7; 23:4-7, 14-15) there seems to have been a regular, or at least frequent stream of polytheism in popular religion.

That the Psalms sometimes picture Adonai as "king of the gods" (eg. Ps 95:3) with other gods as his ministers (Ps 82) suggests too that even "official" pre-exilic religion was henotheistic."

...and then there's archaeological evidence; like references to Yahweh and his Asherah.

There's lots more evidence than this but, no doubt, the "conservative commentator"s will be able to explain away just about anything that comes along.