Did Jesus Even Care....

[Yttrium]

Yeah, I was going to address that concept too, but first want to know how (s)he deals with the presented conflict?

Right, I don't want to interfere with the ongoing discussion, I just couldn't resist expressing my astonishment.

 

[cvanwey]

Right, I don't want to interfere with the ongoing discussion, I just couldn't resist expressing my astonishment.

Be my guest.

 

[Paulomycin]

Ho. There's an argument I haven't seen before. I am intrigued. I mean, it seems nonsensical to me on the face of it, but it's still something to think about.

So I, as a nonbeliever, really had no choice but to end up as a nonbeliever, since I made that choice long before I was even born, in some kind of conscious and intelligent state that I've completely forgotten about. So we have no free will in the matter, our free will to decide has already been gone and used up in this earlier state.

In that case, what about someone who started off as an unbeliever, but later converted? Is it that the person was a believer all along but didn't realize it, or is the person deluded about adopting belief? Hmm.

The "condemnation" is exclusively from God's POV, Who alone is omniscient, can read hearts & minds, and knows the end from the beginning.

You don't. Given those facts from the narrative (even when reading it as fiction), we can infer that. . .

In that case, what about someone who started off as an unbeliever, but later converted? Is it that the person was a believer all along but didn't realize it, or is the person deluded about adopting belief? Hmm.

. . .the person was a believer all-along, but didn't realize it until God saved him. And if you drop-out (so-called "ex-christians"), then you were really never saved to begin with.

 

[Paulomycin]

Okay. Does the unbeliever have a "leg to stand upon"? (a.) Has suitable evidence been provided (b.), and all unbelievers to the claim are either stupid (c.), in denial (d.), or blocked by evil? (e.)

(a.) No. Like the verse says, they're "without excuse."
(b.) Yes. If it cannot be objectively refuted, then it's suitable.
(c.) I don't believe anyone's really "stupid." Just slow. Or "delayed." But not "stupid."
(d.) Yes.
(e.) Yes, their own natural fallen nature that is evil and only wants to suppress the truth in unrighteousness.

 

[Lion IRC]

Okay. Does the unbeliever have a "leg to stand upon"? Has suitable evidence been provided, and all unbelievers to the claim are either stupid, in denial, or blocked by evil?

There's a popular example of sufficient evidence I read recently where... a mountain/trail walker heading up the trail encounters fellow hikers running in the opposite direction screaming "run away, there's a grizzly bear".

The mountain walker is a committed skeptic who - when talking to Christians - says personal claims aren't evidence. They demand empirical evidence. They won't believe it unless they see it with their own eyes.

Now. Should that mountaineer proceed up the trail? Have they been given ANY evidence, let alone sufficient evidence - based on their Baconian principles? Shouldn't they first seek to verify or falsify the hungry bear 'oral traditions'?

 

[cvanwey]

There's a popular example of sufficient evidence I read recently where... a mountain/trail walker heading up the trail encounters fellow hikers running in the opposite direction screaming "run away, there's a grizzly bear".

The mountain walker is a committed skeptic who - when talking to Christians - says personal claims aren't evidence. They demand empirical evidence. They won't believe it unless they see it with their own eyes.

Now. Should that mountaineer proceed up the trail? Have they been given ANY evidence, let alone sufficient evidence - based on their Baconian principles? Shouldn't they first seek to verify or falsify the hungry bear 'oral traditions'?

This scenario only seems relevant if the 'skeptic' both did not think bears existed, along with not thinking these bears pose a threat to humans. But even then, the skeptic would not doubt their fear of 'something'. The skeptic might only gather that their fear is mistaken/misplaced by something different. The skeptic might still run, as the skeptic might still think there's danger of some sort. Or, the skeptic might cautiously proceed, (maybe with some type of weapon). Because remember, it's much less of a grave error to commit a type I (false positive), verses a type II (false negative).

Just like I do not believe in haunted houses. And still, if several people told me "that house is haunted", I might not stay there?.?.? Maybe there's a man in the attic? And I'm sure most/all skeptics believe man exists.

Now to address something more relevant to THIS claim. There exists many opposing anecdotal God claims. If it should turn out there were more documented opposing God claims, verses YHWH, would this even matter? I doubt it. All Bible believers might just state they are mistaken, and that it was either really YHWH, or an evil spirit imitating the real God, or they are lying, or they are stupid, or bonkers.

 

[Carbon]

... If He left behind "sufficient" evidence for His resurrection, or not?

I'd wager that even a Christian could argue both "yes" or "no".

What's your take? (Yes or no), just for starters...?

(i.e.)

{No}.... His objective was to atone for human sin, and allow for humans to be saved. He did not care if anyone actually saw such a transaction or not. And hence, why He instead requires pure faith, as Hebrews 11:1 states...

{Yes}.... He did leave behind "sufficient" evidence, and the ones whom say He did not are (fill-in-da-blank)....

The atheist might want to point out how... Is it reasonable to ask that someone take such a claim, on pure faith and 'eyewitness' evidence, when the stakes are so high?.?.?

Not sure where this thread will go...?

The historical Jesus is buried under so many decades of Christian theology we can never know for sure. He probably believed in the resurrection because he believed in the apocalypse. But there was no physical evidence. His followers were supposed to experience him in spiritual visions after his death, then join him as sons and daughters of god. Upstarts in a new heavenly family to supplant the angels in the new earth.

I think I am supposed to phrase responses in this forum as a question, so...“wouldn’t you say?”

 

[A_Thinker]

Well, I won't bore you with the details, but I already tried that for 3 decades. I got no response. Hence, according to this Book, I'm either a) not really trying, b) too stupid to see He reached out, c) 'evil' forces are blocking my requests, d) God still wanted to wait longer - (even though He knew I would no longer try at some point).

Does this sum it up in a nutshell?

Or ... maybe you're right, ... and He's not there ...

Give me the strongest piece of 'evidence for God' you can think of? And why would I possibly disagree, because I'm in denial?

The world we live in is a pretty good piece of evidence. It is far too orderly ... to have likely come together with no intelligent input.

I've just had a refresher course in the interplay between the plant and animal life which makes up the living world ... and it seems much too conveniently arranged ... to have just happened to come about.

Plants take in CO2 and water, and harnessing energy from sunlight, ... produce glucose (which is then "stored" in the plant's structure), and off-put the by-product Oxygen.

Animals, OTOH, breath in Oxygen, ... and consume the glucose stores from plants, ... and, subsequently, react oxygen and glucose to obtain Energy, ... and output by-products water and CO2.

Then there are ancient writings, which tell a tale which reads like a plant seeding expedition and follow-up.

Finally, there is the character of Jesus, who, no matter what you think of the likelihood of the rest of the tale, ... is enough to engender a commitment to a like lifestyle, even among those that do not believe.

Either "Thomas" believed He rose from the dead, or not. But in this case, Jesus went out of his way to ultimately give him the evidence he needed to (change his mind and believe).

NONE of the disciples immediately believed that Jesus rose from the dead. They ALL had to be told ... and convinced with their own eyes. Thomas was just "missing" when Jesus first appeared to them.

Plus, as I already mentioned prior, we do not even know who these '500' were. Hence, you are making a blank speculation/conclusion to fulfill your own wishful thinking. The fact of the matter is, we do not know who these '500' were. This is all completely aside from the fact that there exists absolutely no evidence to suggest '500' saw any such event to begin with...?

We have a reasonable speculation as to the general identity of the 500. Certainly, it likely includes the 50 or so who were in the upper room praying at Pentecost. It includes. at least, a few new players such as Saul/Paul himself, ... but was mostly composed of those who had been a part of Jesus' following before He was crucified. There are other writings with information in this regard which was not included in the canon of scripture. For instance ... Eusubius' "History of the Church".

Remaining ambiguous or cryptic here does not answer my straight forward question. Does God think evidence is a good idea?

Certainly God makes use of evidence. But, it isn't the only thing that He makes use of, ... or even the main thing. But it is a piece in the puzzle.

In regards to a resurrection claim, you kind of already sided with "no-ish".

You've clearly misunderstood my position.

Does God think the ones whom feel they speak to God, and give this anecdotal evidence to others, is a reliable pathway to providing a truth claim; that "YHWH is indeed real"?

Certainly, it is reliable ... for some.

Evidence is key. You agree. You merely stated here that some just require less evidence than others. Hence, what would be considered the best line of evidence for His post earthly death existence? (i.e.) Anecdotal testimonials, other?

God has chosen to use the witness of those with whom He has forged relationship. But, of course, there were no photographs, or recorders in that time period. The vast majority of what we know of anyone from that period ... is witness testimony.

And ... its evident that God has chosen NOT to write a message in the sky.

When you think about it ... that principle is not so different from that of the "First Directive" ... in the original Star Trek series.

15 He said to them, “Go into all the world and preach the gospel to all creation. 16 Whoever believes and is baptized will be saved, but whoever does not believe will be condemned.

Sounds like one of God's main interests is the concern of whether or not you believe.

The Greek word translated "believe" in this context conveys more of a sense of "putting one's trust in". Sort of like ... I believe in your commitment to keep your word.

Okay, assuming this were true, isn't it hard to truly love; especially if you doubt He even exists?

One can still be grateful for the blessings one receives in this life, which, if you are first-world, are pretty undeniable.

I, often, marvel at the capacity in this world's interworkings, including humanity, to support as much life so consistently as it does.

Aside from fairly rarified cosmic events, ... the continued existence and viability of this world ... seems ONLY to be threatened by humanity's own greed and striving amongst itself. It is not an uncommon sci-fi theme that the higher-order civilizations in the universe ... await our ultimate choice ... of whether to destroy ourselves ... or not.

Tell that to 'doubting Thomas', Sal of Tarsus, etc... Furthermore, at your leisure, please take a gander at a topic I created a few months back. Which, BTW, looks to go directly against what you claim here:

Thomas was not forced to believe (i.e. align with) Christ. The Judaic religious leadership at the time saw Christ perform miracles ... and preferred to believe that He was empowered by demons (i.e. evil intelligences inhabiting dimensions other than our own).

Can many resist thinking He even exists?

There's a huge different between not following Commands, because you don't think the Commands came from that Being, because they likely do not even think He exists.

Verses, thinking they do exist and do present orders, and choosing not to listen.

The main narrative of the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is that many HEARD Jesus ... and SAW the miraculous works of Jesus, ... but still were DIVIDED in their response to Jesus.

Some aligned themselves with Him ... and others didn't. This is most clearly illustrated in the response of the thieves which were crucified on either side of Jesus. One of them CHOSE to align with Jesus ... while the other did not.

It's not really about evidence. People see the same evidence ... and CHOOSE different responses to that evidence.

P.S. I will take a look at your referenced posting ...

 

[cvanwey]

Or ... maybe you're right, ... and He's not there ...

My continued life-long investigation leads this to be a very viable option; that maybe...

"God did not create humans, but that humans created God."?.?.?.?

The world we live in is a pretty good piece of evidence. It is far too orderly ... to have likely come together with no intelligent input.

I've just had a refresher course in the interplay between the plant and animal life which makes up the living world ... and it seems much too conveniently arranged ... to have just happened to come about.

Plants take in CO2 and water, and harnessing energy from sunlight, ... produce glucose (which is then "stored" in the plant's structure), and off-put the by-product Oxygen.

Animals, OTOH, breath in Oxygen, ... and consume the glucose stores from plants, ... and, subsequently, react oxygen and glucose to obtain Energy, ... and output by-products water and CO2.

Then there are ancient writings, which tell a tale which reads like a plant seeding expedition and follow-up.

Finally, there is the character of Jesus, who, no matter what you think of the likelihood of the rest of the tale, ... is enough to engender a commitment to a like lifestyle, even among those that do not believe.

As long as you discard the 99.9999% of the universe for which humans could not inhabit. Or as long you also account for the vast majority of the earth for which humans could not or would not inhabit. As long as you also ignore that 99+% of all prior species are now extinct. As long as you are not born into complete poverty. As long as you do not look into evolutionary theory too closely, as long as you rationalize prayer, etc etc etc.....

I would imagine you've heard the story of the puddle? The puddle looks around and states "wow, my surroundings were designed specifically for me."

And it's one thing to believe Jesus was born, lived, preached, and was executed. It's a completely different category to also believe He was born of a virgin, walked on water, and rose from the grave.

NONE of the disciples immediately believed that Jesus rose from the dead. They ALL had to be told ... and convinced with their own eyes. Thomas was just "missing" when Jesus first appeared to them.

Ding ding ding This is why Jesus came back to assure they believed later. This is why Jesus had Thomas investigate Him. Thus, in the case for a resurrection claim, Jesus looks to think evidence is quite important (for some).

We have a reasonable speculation as to the general identity of the 500. Certainly, it likely includes the 50 or so who were in the upper room praying at Pentecost. It includes. at least, a few new players such as Saul/Paul himself, ... but was mostly composed of those who had been a part of Jesus' following before He was crucified. There are other writings with information in this regard which was not included in the canon of scripture. For instance ... Eusubius' "History of the Church".

No we do not. All we have is a claim from Paul. As I stated prior; we have no names, no recorded depositions, and no conformation from these claimed witnesses. It's no better than hearsay, which is not even a claimed eyewitness accounting at all.

It's nothing more than wishful thinking, to use this as a piece of evidence to claim "500 saw Him postmortem.'

Certainly God makes use of evidence. But, it isn't the only thing that He makes use of, ... or even the main thing. But it is a piece in the puzzle.

In the case for a resurrection claim, the story looks to suggest that He wanted some to really know about it, so they could tell others. Therefore, He assured they really knew about it, by providing enough evidence for them to really know about it. But then, expects all the rest to take it upon "faith"?

You've clearly misunderstood my position.

Please see directly above.

Certainly, it is reliable ... for some.

I would agree it seems to be reliable for some. But then you have to ask, why discount all opposing claims of all opposing extraordinary claims? One must remain consistent in their logic, right?

Again, Jesus seemed to walk around with some, and they still did not believe. He knew He had to come back to really prove He was the one to some. Why does He provide preferred treatment for some, and not others? And then, just expect all the rest to believe based solely upon a Book and faith?

God has chosen to use the witness of those with whom He has forged relationship. But, of course, there were no photographs, or recorders in that time period. The vast majority of what we know of anyone from that period ... is witness testimony.

Please see my response directly above.

The Greek word translated "believe" in this context conveys more of a sense of "putting one's trust in". Sort of like ... I believe in your commitment to keep your word.

God's language is "Greek"? Seems that God is crystal clear in places. Belief = chosen : unbelief = not chosen. Am I wrong here? Assuming you agree, then you must retract your prior statement that "God is not interested in the genuineness of belief."

Thomas was not forced to believe (i.e. align with) Christ. The Judaic religious leadership at the time saw Christ perform miracles ... and preferred to believe that He was empowered by demons (i.e. evil intelligences inhabiting dimensions other than our own).

Yes He was. Thomas was given overwhelming evidence. Had He stated He still did not believe, He would know Thomas was lying. Just like if you did not want to believe your spouse was cheating on you, but then you caught her in the act. Only someone whom was lying/insane/ascribed to solipsism, would still not believe their spouse was cheating.

Thus, I ask again, are you so sure that God does not cause people to become inexorably drawn to Him? If so, then it is not the human's choice. Unless you would like to argue that belief is a choice?

The main narrative of the gospels Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John is that many HEARD Jesus ... and SAW the miraculous works of Jesus, ... but still were DIVIDED in their response to Jesus.

Some aligned themselves with Him ... and others didn't. This is most clearly illustrated in the response of the thieves which were crucified on either side of Jesus. One of them CHOSE to align with Jesus ... while the other did not.

It's not really about evidence. People see the same evidence ... and CHOOSE different responses to that evidence.

P.S. I will take a look at your referenced posting ...

You seem to be missing my point here? Can you possibly love something for which you do not think exists? Take the "men of their crosses" story. One believed, one did not. Did the one choose the opposite because he:

a: Didn't think He was the Messiah, and was just another man claiming to be?
b: Know He was the real deal, and chose to rebel anyhow?

 

[A_Thinker]

You seem to be missing my point here? Can you possibly love something for which you do not think exists? Take the "men of their crosses" story. One believed, one did not. Did the one choose the opposite because he:

Our use of the word "believe" differs ...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

The world we live in is a pretty good piece of evidence. It is far too orderly ... to have likely come together with no intelligent input.

"Too orderly" is a comparative statement. So compared to what? Surely you can't compare the level of orderliness of our world to any other known thing in existence as, according to your perspective (and correct me if I'm wrong), our entire universe was created with "intelligent input." So to say our world is "far too orderly" you must be able to contrast it with a world that is not as orderly. Or from your point of view, point to something not created with intelligent input. I don't know how you can begin to do that.

You can try to imagine what our world or universe would look like if you adjusted some variables to be less orderly. But to do so would be to muse that things would be different if things had been different. Unanswered would be why the variables are the way they are.

Just because you can't imagine another cause besides God, that doesn't constitute evidence for God.

 

[A_Thinker]

"Too orderly" is a comparative statement. So compared to what?

Orderly enough to support life ...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Orderly enough to support life ...

When you say world, do you mean Earth? Or the entire "created" universe?

 

[A_Thinker]

When you say world, do you mean Earth? Or the entire "created" universe?

Earth ...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Earth ...

If another world/planet isn't capable of supporting life, is that evidence that that world was not created with "intelligent input" then?

 

[A_Thinker]

If another world/planet isn't capable of supporting life, is that evidence that that world was not created with "intelligent input" then?

Does the existence of a rock ... call into question the intelligence necessary to create a working watch ?

 

[Gene Parmesan]

Does the existence of a rock ... call into question the intelligence necessary to create a working watch ?

Is the rock the result of intelligent design? Or did it come about with no creator?

The reason the Watchmaker Argument makes sense at first glance is that you compare the watch with the rocks and conclude that it was created and the rocks were not. But the conclusion is then that EVERYTHING is intelligently created, thus stripping the comparative component of the argument rendering the entire thing absolutely meaningless.

 

[A_Thinker]

Is the rock the result of intelligent design? Or did it come about with no creator?

The relative ease of creating a rock ... does not undermine the complexity required to engineer a working watch ...

 

[Gene Parmesan]

The relative ease of creating a rock ... does not undermine the complexity required to engineer a working watch ...

It's weird to think you believe there is a difficulty scale for the things God creates.

 

[A_Thinker]

It's weird to think you believe there is a difficulty scale for the things God creates.

I don't understand why you would say this. I don't think that He's a magician. More a hard-worker, like me ...