Does belief in your God require a sacrifice?

[daedalus 2.0]

McCulloch was debating with a typical Xian and mentioned that Jesus required a sacrifice to live the life He prescribed.

Oddly, Xian's often use Pascal's Wager to justify their belief. (So do Muslims and Hindu's, btw)

The thing is, if Jesus required a sacrifice, and people use Pascals Wager, then they believe they are sacrificing something to believe in something they can only explain as "faith".

If they are sacrificing something, then they are losing something in this life for something undefined and unverifiable later. Now, I remember being Xian and thinking "Oh, no, I'm not losing, I'm gaining something in this life, too! The companionship of Jesus!"

Of course, this was religious bs, but moreso, it wasn't sacrificing, then, was it!

It was a calculated effort to gain something in this life and "the next". So what was I sacrificing?


OK, so the others will say: you aren't required to sacrifice, Jesus did it for you....

Well, not true. As a Xian (or other religionist) you are required to live a certain way: no pork, no pre-marital sex, no sin, no lusting, no killing, etc. Of course, we all make sacrifices (personally, I refrain from bad logic as my "faith" prescribes, oh, and I don't kill because my "religion" thinks it really uncool.).

I make the sacrifices because I know it will be better for me and society. A Religionist, presumably, does it to find favor: they do it selfishly.

So, what is the sacrifice? And if none, why prescribe a way to live in a religion in the first place?

[daedalus 2.0]

Why is it that Fundamentalists are now seeming like Atheists who are parodying Xianity?

Poe's Law

Similar to Murphy's Law, Poe's Law concerns internet debates, particularly regarding religion or politics.

"Without a winking smiley or other blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of Fundamentalism that SOMEONE won't mistake for the real thing."

In other words, No matter how bizzare, outrageous, or just plain idiotic a parody of a Fundamentalist may seem, there will always be someone who cannot tell that it is a parody, having seen similar REAL ideas from real religious/political Fundamentalists.
The following is an actual Internet post to Biblically defend a flat Earth:

"All I was saying was that either the earth is flat, and the bible is correct, or the earth is round, and the bible is incorect, i'm going to study the issue more and deside for myself which route I want to take. Either Atheist evolutionist, who agrees with all of mainstream sciences, or flat earth litteral bible believer.
I'm leaning toward being an atheist, because if I can't believe the bible to be completly litteraly true, then I can't believe Jesus when he speaks about heaven, etc..
That would make the moon landing a fake, and pretty much all of modern science false..."

Response:

"That's it, I'm claiming Poe's Law on this guy."

[Word_Swordsman]

The water is mixed with the alcohol. However, since your analogy by your own admission does not capture the spiritual sense of this divine illogical truth, why don't you try again? Are you claiming that Jesus is a mixture of Divine Spirit and Human? That the Father is also a mixture? I will take you inability to find a comprehensible explanation as an admission that it is a mystery beyond human comprehension.

The alcohol remains alcohol, the water remains water. You could distill the alcohol apart from the water. The alcohol is never a mixture by itself, neither the water. You distort that physical fact to say I claim the Father is a mixture. As for a spiritual meaning I am not saying the two Persons, the Father and Jesus, are permanently mixed and inseparable. The Bible contains a great many parables using the natural to at least partially explain spiritual matters. If you can't comprehend my explanation then that is your failure.

Jesus was so totally immersed in the Father and His words He could not be counted as a sole self existent human like a worldly man, and although claiming a lofty position, could do nothing of Himself except what he saw the Father do. He didn't send Himself from heaven, but the Father did.

Is that to say that he was not making divine claims about himself with this statement, but simply referring to his overwhelming dedication to his spiritual father?

He was simply yielding to the Father as His source in teaching men to do the same thing, praying in Jesus' name to the Father.

God is a logical impossibility of one being with three persons, eternal, all powerful, unchanging and an invisible spirit being. Humans are single persons, temporary, limited power, changeable and visible tangible animals. Saying that humans are made in the image and likeness of the triune Godhead is just nonsense.

In your estimation that might be so, but it is Bible.

It is in the Bible, therefore it is not nonsense!

I personally have no problem with totally accepting the Bible as the absolute source of heavenly wisdom. Therefore, none of it is nonsense. Thanks for pointing that out.

There are many things about God, or any deity man might try to invent, that defy human reasoning.

Yes, there are many examples of the JCI God deceiving humans. In many cases, one does have to wonder why.

Many instances? Present one. You won't be able to do it without exposing a profound ignorance of Bible context.

Going against human reasoning doesn't make God's claims impossible.

Human reasoning is all that we have. If we give up on human reasoning, we become mindless.

All you have is human reasoning. I have that plus the mind of Christ which corrects flawed human reasonings.

In Christ any man or woman has the right to claim equality with the Son of God, restored to a condition of perfection.

Except the women. The man is the head of the woman as Christ is the head of the Church.

In Christianity women in Christ are as equal with Jesus as any man in Christ. The Church body was established with Jesus as it's head, yet each member is an equal heir with Christ. In the same way the family is established with the man as head of the household, it's priest.

Gods' justice is obviously higher than mans' concept.

Actually, if the Bible is to be believed, God's justice is almost completely unrecognizable compared to the human idea of justice. Why even use the same word?

Fallen sinful man distorts holy justice unless having the "mind of" Christ in him.

Excuse me for making this accusation, but I cannot tell the difference between "Fallen sinful man [read atheists and other heathens] distort holy justice without having the mind of Christ" and "We're just making stuff up and if you don't believe it or understand it, it must be because you have not been given understanding from the magic source."

Your inability to handle this is it is you who add "We're just making stuff up and if you don't believe it or understand it, it must be because you have not been given understanding from the magic source." to the subject. If you can't tell the difference perhaps you should abandon the part you made up. My part is a clear teaching of the Bible. Need some scriptures? The matter is of a most basic nature, easy to comprehend, but impossible for heathen to overcome.

What is this holy justice and how is it different from human justice? I understand that with human justice, there is a responsibly to attempt to protect vulnerable innocents from grievous harm if it is within your power. This obviously is not an aspect of holy justice. Using human justice, the willing death of a substitute for a convicted felon does not count as justice. In holy justice, this is acceptable.

Deut. 32:4 "He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

God is declared to be just, of truth, without iniquity like men are. Therefore He is aways right.

From beginning to end the declaration remains. Rev. 15:3 "And they sing the song of Moses the servant of God, and the song of the Lamb, saying, Great and marvelous are thy works, Lord God Almighty; just and true are thy ways, thou King of saints."

No legislator, no human judge can make such a claim of himself by his own record.
Unable to independently invent sufficient morals to form our laws our nation's fathers took the moral basis of them from the Bible. God is our ultimate source and final judge of all.

[Word_Swordsman]

It is true a mortal human sacrifice alone would not please God. Jesus was an immortal man, subject only to physical death, both a son of man and Son of God. The sacrifice was both of a Person of God and a man with blood. God required that sacrifice of that ONE man Jesus, in so doing making that sacrifice acceptable to God.

Why? How do you know?

I will keep my answer as short as your challenge. The Bible tells me so.

WS: Since Jesus took upon Himself all sin of men it was unjust to punish Him for sin.

How do you know what justice is? How can I know that what you say is valid? You claim that holy justice is not comprehensible to humans.

You will not find "holy justice is not comprehensible to humans" or any variation of that written by me. God's justice is "higher" than that of men and holy. The Bible sets forth sufficient teaching that "just" men can comprehend God's justice. That remains a mystery to the heathen.

God's justice is defined in Genesis 18:19 "For I know him, that he will command his children and his household after him, and they shall keep the way of the Lord, to do justice and judgment; that the Lord may bring upon Abraham that which he hath spoken of him." It is the way of the Lord, and the keeping of it allows men to share in God's justice.
Psalm 89:14 "Justice and judgment are the habitation of thy throne: mercy and truth shall go before thy face."
God makes that available to righteous rulers on earth.

God even allowed the enemies of Israel to come punishing them, the enemy declaring in Jeremiah 50:7 "All that found them have devoured them: and their adversaries said, We offend not, because they have sinned against the Lord, the habitation of justice, even the Lord, the hope of their fathers." When they went beyond God's allowance they themselves were punished.

[Word_Swordsman]

A human isn't a valid sin sacrifice according to the law of God.

It is true a mortal human sacrifice alone would not please God. Jesus was an immortal man, subject only to physical death, both a son of man and Son of God. The sacrifice was both of a Person of God and a man with blood. God required that sacrifice of that ONE man Jesus, in so doing making that sacrifice acceptable to God.

This is the most confusing thing I've ever read.

1. A blood sacrifice of a Man was necessary by God.
2. A human isn't a valid sacrifice according to God
3. Jesus wasn't a Man: therefore didn't fulfill the sacrifice requirement
4. Jesus was a Man: therefore was against the law of God.

1. Beginning with Cain & Abel God respected a sacrifice offered with blood. Blood carries the life, and by being shed in worship, is irrevocable. God told Abram to offer up his son Isaac, then when seeing Abram was willing, allowed an animal substitute. Because of Adam and original sin no seed of Adam can be a suitable object of blood sacrifice. An animal meeting God's requirements provides innocent blood as a substitute. By telling Abram to give his son, God could do no less than give up His only begotten Son who was not of sin tainted blood. That answers #2 also.

3. You say Jesus wasn't a man. I say Jesus was a man (by the woman's "seed") as well as divine, one Person of the Godhead, bodily. Paul wrote that Jesus came as the "second man- Adam", the first and only flesh & blood man to qualify as having adequate blood to give. He was without sin. That answers #4 also.

Aren't we all (according to Xianity) both blood and spirit? The thing that dies is the body. Jesus's body died: that Man part of him was what was sacrificed: the flesh/blood.

The Bible supports that a human is a spirit with a soul living in a body. The Bible says men are flesh, bone and blood. Jesus returned from the grave lacking the blood, able in that glorified state to pass through a wall.

His spirit was left intact - therefore, he didn't die.

The more Xians explain it, the more it gets bizarre.

Here is my understanding. Humans have a body and soul. You can destroy the body by a nuclear blast but the soul remains. This would be true for any person AND Jesus.

The body is what makes us Men, the spirit is the spirit and is commanded unto the Spirit when we die. We are no longer men, but spirits, when we die.

This spirit was eternal before Jesus and after. The Spirit was able to go to Heaven/God before Jesus.

Why did God require that Jesus make a big show about shedding his meat husk? What difference did it make, especially considering Jesus was God?

(Allegedly).

[McCulloch]

If you can't comprehend my explanation then that is your failure.

I guess I'm stupid then.

God is a logical impossibility of one being with three persons, eternal, all powerful, unchanging and an invisible spirit being. Humans are single persons, temporary, limited power, changeable and visible tangible animals. Saying that humans are made in the image and likeness of the triune Godhead is just nonsense.

In your estimation that might be so, but it is Bible.

It is in the Bible, therefore it is not nonsense!

I personally have no problem with totally accepting the Bible as the absolute source of heavenly wisdom. Therefore, none of it is nonsense. Thanks for pointing that out.

I prefer thinking. The God of described in the Bible is a logical impossibility. Humans cannot be described as being made in God's image, just because it is written in a book.

Yes, there are many examples of the JCI God deceiving humans. In many cases, one does have to wonder why.

Many instances? Present one. You won't be able to do it without exposing a profound ignorance of Bible context.

In Genesis chapter 1, it is written that God made the stars also, on the forth day of creation, after he made plants. This same God, if the Bible is inspired by God, provided detailed genealogies, which if correct, limits the creation to some time less than 10,000 years ago. Humans have been able to measure the maximum speed of light, presumably set by this same creator God and have determined that some of those stars are orders of magnitude further away from Earth then 10,000 light years. Therefore, it is impossible for the light generated by these stars to have reached Earth. Now, did God deceive humans by putting stars in the sky that leads the inquisitive but honest humans to the false conclusion that the universe is older than it really is, or did God deceive humans by inspiring a book which clearly teaches that the universe is younger than it really is.
There! My ignorance is exposed.

Going against human reasoning doesn't make God's claims impossible.

Human reasoning is all that we have. If we give up on human reasoning, we become mindless.

All you have is human reasoning. I have that plus the mind of Christ which corrects flawed human reasonings.

No. All you have is human reasoning. You have used human reasoning to determine that this or that claimed revelation is from God and those ones over there are not. Right?

Excuse me for making this accusation, but I cannot tell the difference between "Fallen sinful man [read atheists and other heathens] distort holy justice without having the mind of Christ" and "We're just making stuff up and if you don't believe it or understand it, it must be because you have not been given understanding from the magic source."

Your inability to handle this is it is you who add "We're just making stuff up and if you don't believe it or understand it, it must be because you have not been given understanding from the magic source." to the subject. If you can't tell the difference perhaps you should abandon the part you made up. My part is a clear teaching of the Bible. Need some scriptures? The matter is of a most basic nature, easy to comprehend, but impossible for heathen to overcome.

I don't argue that what you are saying isn't straight from the Bible. No doubt it is. But it is still nonsense. You in this context is all of you Christians, from Paul, Peter, James and Luke to Word_Swordsman, Billy, Oral, Pat, Benedict and the rest of them. You cannot explain how God's alleged justice by any stretch of the imagination can be called true justice by simply using reason, logic and facts. You must invoke mystery.

What is this holy justice and how is it different from human justice? I understand that with human justice, there is a responsibly to attempt to protect vulnerable innocents from grievous harm if it is within your power. This obviously is not an aspect of holy justice. Using human justice, the willing death of a substitute for a convicted felon does not count as justice. In holy justice, this is acceptable.

"He is the Rock, his work is perfect: for all his ways are judgment: a God of truth and without iniquity, just and right is he."

Therefore the Deuteronomist also speaks nonsense.

God is declared to be just, of truth, without iniquity like men are. Therefore He is aways right.

You are, of course, familiar with the Euthyphro dilemma.

Unable to independently invent sufficient morals to form our laws our nation's fathers took the moral basis of them from the Bible.

Your nation being the USA? Your nation's fathers did not base their laws on the moral basis of the Bible.

[OnceConvinced]

All you have is human reasoning. I have that plus the mind of Christ which corrects flawed human reasonings.

Wow, what an outrageous claim. Please demonstrate how it is that you have the mind of Christ and that this mind corrects flawed human reasonings.

[Cathar1950]

A human isn't a valid sin sacrifice according to the law of God.

It is true a mortal human sacrifice alone would not please God. Jesus was an immortal man, subject only to physical death, both a son of man and Son of God. The sacrifice was both of a Person of God and a man with blood. God required that sacrifice of that ONE man Jesus, in so doing making that sacrifice acceptable to God.

Immortal men or gods do not die. Although except for the Greeks, gods could die As one god in the ancient myths was killed and humans were made from his body.
The god was a rebel and because we are made from the god, humans are rebellious.
Except for a Christian interpretation already projected there is no reason to think God required a acceptable human sacrifice. According to Paul, Jesus was made the Son of God at his resurrection. Clearly you are using a Johnathan interpretation and it is doubtful Jesus ever said such things as depicted in John. The unknown authors of the Gospel of John developed the gospel over many decades in a community influenced by both Gnostic and anti-Docetists tendencies. We have e no idea what Jesus said except what was told in stories written by followers many years after his death that were not eyewitnesses. The unknown author of Mark seems to have used the LXX as a source as well well as his own invention to tell the story and was later used by at least two other unknown writers all which has Jesus speaking much differently then the author of John.

WS:Jesus was God in the flesh, having laid aside His privilege in heaven, being born a man on earth, subject to the law of Moses, to finish what Abram initiated.

The gods told Abraham to sacrifice his not so only begotten son (there was Ishmael that was certainly begotten) and it was an angel of Yahweh that stopped him. The writings suggest he came down from the mount alone.
Actually it would be to finish what Yahweh or El initiated, but why quibble?
That seems to be the Pauline interpretation and a close reading of the genuine letters of Paul show he did not follow any ideas of the earthly Jesus and repudiated those that later Christians claim were there. Such as his disciples, James and Peter. Paul claimed to have a different Jesus and gospel that he claimed to have received a personal revelation and cursed those from James that tried to set the story right. Your apologetic mini-sermon is not persuasive even if you claim it is truth. It is largely a poor misreading of Hebrew writings reinterpreted through Paul's questionable visions.

centauri: Jesus claimed to have a God, even after he was ascended.
According to God's definitions of himself, he is not a man nor a son of man.

Jesus declared He was in fact Son of God as well as son of man. Jesus never once claimed "a" god, but claimed the Father God was in Him, and He is the Father, that same God the Jews claimed.

The unknown authors made the claim, we don't know what Jesus claimed.
How is he the son of man which is an apocalyptic figure invented by the unknown author of the second century BCE book of Danie being born of woman and while claiming God was his biological father? If Jesus ever called himself the son of man it is more likely he meant “human� and the later traditions were added to the material as were the later virgin traditions.

WS: Jesus said the Father was "in" Him, and He was "in" the Father. Yet, the Father spoke over Jesus from heaven, while Jesus stood in the water. Indeed, neither the Father God nor the Holy Spirit ever became a human like Jesus did, and neither were of man. The only relationship of man is that man was made after the image and likeness of the triune Godhead.

Less then speculation and even if you interpreted esoteric passages to make your point would not make it a fact and subject to questions and doubt alone with alternative interpretation that don't require using the gospel of John as an authority. We need to keep in mine that there are alternative interpretations and you are doing nothing more then presenting one interpretation and not making a valid claim about ultimate reality or even a definitive interpretation. Let's not get carried away with you overstating a position.

C: That doesn't do much to establish that Jesus was God, when Jesus declared that he had a God, and it wasn't himself.
God already established that he was not a man nor a son of man.

I wrote today in another post Jesus claimed He was the I AM that knew Abraham while Abraham walked the earth, going further, that He was the I AM before Abraham was.

Again the unknown authors made the claim and I suspect they where using the LXX as I am is not that good of a translation. Naturally it is the work of the unknown author of John that is presenting something more then a report. The author has a strong Christology and is a later reinterpretation of with both Gnostic and Docetist reactions and influence. I doesn't prove anything more then the authors intent which is disputable. Of course there were those in the late first and second century that Jesus was before Abraham and even some that thought he was the logos. Are you arguing that is the correct interpretation when it contradicts the older writing? Obviously here are those within the Christian traditions that disagree with you and have disagreed from the beginning. You seem to dismiss the fact that you are selective and make the choices of what you desire to use to tell your story.
It is not the only story or interpretation.

WS:
Even his blood line was not of Adam whose blood was cursed through sin. He came by the seed of the woman, not of a man, escaping the de jure curse of death on all men having the blood of Adam.

This is coming from an ancient view that women were the mere vessel for the seed of man.
Given what we know today about DNA, sperm and eggs it make little sense.

centauri:
Both Adam and Eve "sinned" and it was Eve that sinned first.
Women are just as capable of passing on a "blood" curse as men are.

It is not said of Eve that she sinned in the same sense Adam sinned. Adam was not beguiled, but deliberately chose to obey his wife instead of God. Eve was "beguiled". She was deluded by a lie and acted upon that seduction. Whether Adam picked the fruit on his own or took it from Eve's hand, his decision was classic sin. It is not said in the Bible that any curse came on the blood of the woman, but all the curse fell on that of Adam's seed.

It is a myth or story and there is no reason to think there was an Adam or Eve in a garden.
Do you know how silly it sounds when you present a story as an example when you claim supernatural curses were given to men or women? Who says there is a curse on Adams seed but no Eve's?
Where is this curse?
All this nonsense so you think you can show Jesus is a perfect sacrifice already assumed as needed.

WS: The law of the tree was given to Adam, so he had no excuse. His violation was both a transgression and a sin. The woman was beguiled. From then on the weight of the sin was placed on Adam by God, though the woman would acquire limited punishment in child-bearing but with a promise of a final victory over sin through the seed of the woman.

C: Women are considered sinners along with men.
The promise was that there would be enmity between a serpent and humans.

Yes, once sin was unleashed on earth both men and women choose to disobey God and are sinners. The promise you speak of was not between the devil and plural humans, but that one seed of the woman to come into the earth. [/quote]

WS: The highest of justice prevented Jesus from carrying the burden of all mankind's sin load in hell forever as any man not in Christ will do eternally. Jesus was then permitted to leave hell, leave the sin burden behind in the upper part called Paradise, leading a host of other departed saints back up through their graves. appearing to many witnesses. He was "sprung" from a prison designed for sinners. Since Jesus took upon Himself all sin of men it was unjust to punish Him for sin.

If you can't comprehend my explanation then that is your failure.

I guess I'm stupid then.

Well you are in good company.
I don't no how someone could present one of many interpretations and claim it is an explanation when it there is not real explanation being presenting, just the claim that his esoteric claim is fact.
I personally don't have any problem comprehending what he is presenting or preaching but I do disagree and consider most of it nonsense wen taking it any farther then metaphor and mythology misunderstood by WS as something beyond the believer claimed as ultimate reality that often is disagreed upon by other believers.

Going against human reasoning doesn't make God's claims impossible.

Human reasoning is all that we have. If we give up on human reasoning, we become mindless.

All you have is human reasoning. I have that plus the mind of Christ which corrects flawed human reasonings.

No. All you have is human reasoning. You have used human reasoning to determine that this or that claimed revelation is from God and those ones over there are not. Right?[/quote]

Excuse me for making this accusation, but I cannot tell the difference between "Fallen sinful man [read atheists and other heathens] distort holy justice without having the mind of Christ" and "We're just making stuff up and if you don't believe it or understand it, it must be because you have not been given understanding from the magic source."

Your inability to handle this is it is you who add "We're just making stuff up and if you don't believe it or understand it, it must be because you have not been given understanding from the magic source." to the subject. If you can't tell the difference perhaps you should abandon the part you made up. My part is a clear teaching of the Bible. Need some scriptures? The matter is of a most basic nature, easy to comprehend, but impossible for heathen to overcome.

Mac I think you make an excellent point that should not be over looked.
There seems to be no difference between those that claim they have the mind of Christ then other human beings or others with similar claims that disagree with each other.

[Fallibleone]

All you have is human reasoning. I have that plus the mind of Christ which corrects flawed human reasonings.

Wow, what an outrageous claim. Please demonstrate how it is that you have the mind of Christ and that this mind corrects flawed human reasonings.

Honestly, OC, it's easy. He has the mind of Christ which corrects flawed human reasoning, and Christ is God, and God operates outside of natural law, and you can't test for him in observable reality, so he has the mind of Christ which corrects flawed human reasoning, and Christ is God, and God operates outside of natural law, and you can't test for him in observable reality...

[Word_Swordsman]

If you can't comprehend my explanation then that is your failure.

{quote]I guess I'm stupid then.

While that might be true I would prefer to, for now, regard you as being deceived by Satan the same way he led Eve off course.

God is a logical impossibility of one being with three persons, eternal, all powerful, unchanging and an invisible spirit being.

Demonstrate with science how that is impossible. A little common sense with a teaspoon of reason and a dash of logic will do, for that matter. Surely you are not serving up your own unfounded opinion as a debate answer!

Humans are single persons, temporary, limited power, changeable and visible tangible animals. Saying that humans are made in the image and likeness of the triune Godhead is just nonsense.

Not all were made that way. Adam was. From then on the fallen Adam populated the world with fallen Adam's. Now please make a case for proving the notion nonsensical. I am citing a source regarded by a world of scholars through the ages as authoritative. Just because some atheist you might be quoting says it is nonsense doesn't make it so. There must be a solid case made to refute the claims of God and Christians. Our case is made on the grounds of the text and our experiences in observing the precepts to work out in life.

In your estimation that might be so, but it is Bible.

It is in the Bible, therefore it is not nonsense!

I personally have no problem with totally accepting the Bible as the absolute source of heavenly wisdom. Therefore, none of it is nonsense. Thanks for pointing that out.

I prefer thinking. The God of described in the Bible is a logical impossibility. Humans cannot be described as being made in God's image, just because it is written in a book.

I am a thinker too. I thought like you did long ago until escaping faulty thinking concerning God. I know way down deep there is something about me and any other human that is far above what a mere animal will ever know, a deep chasm that would be filled with the glory of God. My chasm is being filled.

Yes, there are many examples of the JCI God deceiving humans. In many cases, one does have to wonder why.

Many instances? Present one. You won't be able to do it without exposing a profound ignorance of Bible context.

In Genesis chapter 1, it is written that God made the stars also, on the forth day of creation, after he made plants. This same God, if the Bible is inspired by God, provided detailed genealogies, which if correct, limits the creation to some time less than 10,000 years ago. Humans have been able to measure the maximum speed of light, presumably set by this same creator God and have determined that some of those stars are orders of magnitude further away from Earth then 10,000 light years. Therefore, it is impossible for the light generated by these stars to have reached Earth. Now, did God deceive humans by putting stars in the sky that leads the inquisitive but honest humans to the false conclusion that the universe is older than it really is, or did God deceive humans by inspiring a book which clearly teaches that the universe is younger than it really is.
There! My ignorance is exposed.

Let me take that on with a question first. I suppose you believe something like the "Big Bang" theory? I like it because it fits that Genesis account. In the initial explosion, what speed did those stars fling out at before being slowed down toward an eventual collapse of the universe? What speed initially, and what is the sequence of reduced acceleration to a comparatively stable state? IOW, when did those stars begin decelerating?

Going against human reasoning doesn't make God's claims impossible.

Human reasoning is all that we have. If we give up on human reasoning, we become mindless.

All you have is human reasoning. I have that plus the mind of Christ which corrects flawed human reasonings.

No. All you have is human reasoning. You have used human reasoning to determine that this or that claimed revelation is from God and those ones over there are not. Right?

Wrong. I still have human reasoning, and that taught to me by God. His reasoning has influence on mine. I am open minded enough to dare to allow that.

Gotta go. Will resume here later.