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.)

[Sender]

Bringing this topic back to the issue at hand. (We seem to have wandered a fair ways.)

I think the belief in a deity whose personality is defined by sacrificial love and grace (God as revealed through Christ) is reasonable, based on the nature of the universe. The universe is structured in such a way that its energy dissipates (second law of thermodynamics), creating structures that can use that energy most efficiently. Life, for example: as living beings we take in all manner of energy through food, water and air and disperse it through all manner of activities. Living creatures are highly ordered, but through their maintenance they produce a great deal of entropy. In other words, the universe is running us indiscriminately at great cost to itself (in useable energy), much the way a parent would for his or her children.

As far as natural disasters and the problem of evil go, apparently the structures (like plate tectonics and atmospheric dynamics) that dissipate the energy most efficiently can also sometimes create devastating conditions, like earthquakes, hurricanes and thunderstorms. Given that these are inescapable consequences of living in a world that can support life, I am quite loath to call earthquakes, hurricanes and thunderstorms evil.

Of course, if the universe does have a personality predicated on sacrificial love and grace, a person so vast and inscrutable and given to caring for all of his creation would not really give a damn about the troubles of just one of his more insignificant creatures (me), so the only assurance of any personal interest God may have in me is through Christ.

Jesus said..."I am the way and the truth and the life, no man comes unto the Father but by me". There is only one way to God and that's through his son.

[Dilettante]

Tilia wrote:

And Tilia expects that his posts will not be replied to along with a reply of any other poster, especially when placed after a reply to another poster. He won't even read such a reply.

Oops... sorry Tilia, I assure you that no offence was intended. Here's the most important part of my response again:

Tilia wrote:

The nub of that matter is that the true leap of faith is not an intellectual one, but a matter of the will; that of committing one's life to Christ and living for Him only. Nobody does that unless they know about the facts of the matter; true, there may be endless debate about whether they are facts, but those who do not have actual faith may also believe in the alleged facts as found in the Bible; and many do so, imv.

I totally agree that the true leap is not the work of the intellect or of reason (that was my point all along). I do not understand, however, how can it be an act of the will entirely. If I wanted to, I could not will myself to believe something if there wasn't a strong emotional motivation. Faith is more emotional than rational.

Who are you to tell others what their motives should be? Is this clear enough? People can take Christianity, or leave it. That is their own business

If I thought that believing something was a matter of life or death, and if I cared about people, I'd make sure they chose the right thing. If a friend was about to cross the road and I saw a car coming, I would shout at the top of my lungs.

[Tilia]

Tilia wrote:

The nub of that matter is that the true leap of faith is not an intellectual one, but a matter of the will; that of committing one's life to Christ and living for Him only. Nobody does that unless they know about the facts of the matter; true, there may be endless debate about whether they are facts, but those who do not have actual faith may also believe in the alleged facts as found in the Bible; and many do so, imv.

I totally agree that the true leap is not the work of the intellect or of reason (that was my point all along). I do not understand, however, how can it be an act of the will entirely. If I wanted to, I could not will myself to believe something if there wasn't a strong emotional motivation. Faith is more emotional than rational.

But the emotions are involved because faith is a matter of will. There is always a struggle for 'ownership' in conversion, more with some than with others, and with some, it is a matter of literally sweating profusely. But the emotion is not faith. The personal trust in Christ that results from a change of the will is faith. There are those, stimulated by certain preachers, who think that conversion is merely an emotional experience, but they are not one whit converted if that is all they have had.

Who are you to tell others what their motives should be? Is this clear enough? People can take Christianity, or leave it. That is their own business

If I thought that believing something was a matter of life or death, and if I cared about people, I'd make sure they chose the right thing.

But we cannot choose for other people. We can tell them about a particular danger, but if they say, for whatever reason, that there is no such danger, there is no more to be said. One only annoys them and wastes one's own time by persisting.

[otseng]

And Tilia expects that his posts will not be replied to along with a reply of any other poster, especially when placed after a reply to another poster. He won't even read such a reply.

As a note, there is no rule against having responses to multiple posters in one post. As a matter of fact, I often do this myself. It is only a personal preference whether one decides to have one post with multiple responses or one post with only one response. So, though you would expect other people to make a single post to respond only to you, it would not be enforcable by any rule. But it would simply be other posters graciously complying with a wish that you have.

[Tilia]

And Tilia expects that his posts will not be replied to along with a reply of any other poster, especially when placed after a reply to another poster. He won't even read such a reply.

As a note, there is no rule against having responses to multiple posters in one post. As a matter of fact, I often do this myself. It is only a personal preference whether one decides to have one post with multiple responses or one post with only one response. So, though you would expect other people to make a single post to respond only to you, it would not be enforcable by any rule. But it would simply be other posters graciously complying with a wish that you have.

Is the above written as from a moderator/administrator, or as an ordinary post?

[The Happy Humanist]

I refer to destructive environmental policies that pretend that god will save us from ourselves (or that don't care for the plight of our grandchildren), or that assume god will provide after we rape the world,

The direct result of which we are seeing played out in New Orleans right now...