This seems to me a non sequitur.

This is a derailment, though. Personally, I am a Christian now; but none of the above is required in order to live a sufficiently good life.

Natural theology is sufficient. — Bob Ross

Thus you have a theism on *your* terms, *not* on God's terms. That's the problem with "natural theology".
Divine revelation, even if accepted merely as a concept, is necessary in order to overcome "natural theology". Because "natural theology" is self-centred with God merely as an object in it. Not only is in existing monotheisms theology structured top-down (God reveals himself to his underlings), it also logically follows that if one is to consider God properly (in his almighty creative and controlling power), then one's religiosity has to be on God's terms (ie. involving revelation), not on one's own.


This is also why you have a problem with "Old Testament evil": You're evaluating God on *your* terms, not on God's terms. If you accept that God is the Creator of the Universe, the Lawmaker, then you have to accept that he can do with it as he pleases, including killing infants.

There has to be a point where a monotheist says something along the lines of, "Surely God had a reason for doing what he did, and even though I don't understand it or personally approve of it, I still have faith in him and submit to his will."

If all one ever does is rely on one's own reasoning about God, one doesn't actually believe in God, or one's idea of God is god as an impotent and inconsequential being.

What implication did I make where the consequent is illegitimate connected to the antecedent?

Thus you have a theism on *your* terms, *not* on God's terms

Natural theology is the application of reason, and Her Principles, to the natural world God created to determine God’s existence and nature. There’s nothing about this that is personal or subjective.

Our reason is an image of the Divine Reason; which gives it its legitimacy.

Divine revelation, even if accepted merely as a concept, is necessary in order to overcome "natural theology". Because "natural theology" is self-centred with God merely as an object in it.

Natural theology is an attempt of determining God’s existence and His nature: it is not self-centered at all; other than being the attempt at acquiring truth, which is equally true of anything Divinely Revealed being accepted by people.

You're evaluating God on *your* terms, not on God's terms.

That is begging the question: you are assuming it is Divinely Revealed. I was using my analysis to determine if it is Divinely Revealed in the first place.

Any attempt of verifying the OT legitimacy will fall prey to your critique. E.g., well you method of verifying the OT’s historicity to verify that it is Divinely Revealed is “a bottom-up”, self-centered, and “on-your-own-terms” attempt; so it is illegitimate.

I was using my analysis to determine if it is Divinely Revealed in the first place. — Bob Ross

No, that would require a divine revelation of your own, ie. God revealing to you, personally, whether something you wondered whether it is a divine revelation or not, is in fact divine revelation.

Your approach lacks the fideist element so typical for traditional monotheistic religions.