Is it wrong to demand evidence?

[agua]

...

No I wasn't suggesting that actually, I was wanting to know specifically what I had asked, and you answered it.

You're tired and I will leave one question for you after you are rested.

Can you define Christianity, for me ?

 

[agua]

Well......
I took my faith in a creator and applied it to what is said in scripture, and it made a lot of sense to me to apply it there as well. I figure that if God actually exists and created the universe, then there is a purpose, along with explanations for why things are now the way they are.

Hello Alderbaran. I highly recommend continually seeking the Creator with all of our being. We won't be disappointed.

I agree the scriptures describe the world and the real battle is spiritual and becoming less obvious. because of desensitivity, but more insidious.

 

[KCfromNC]

Can you articulate why exactly?

Prove that it shouldn't be the standard everyone uses.

 

[TillICollapse]

You're tired and I will leave one question for you after you are rested.

Cool

Can you define Christianity, for me ?

Personally ... generally speaking, it's a major world religion that typically has the person and nature of Jesus Christ as a focus. Beyond that, it's an umbrella term for a wide variety of systems and groups and businesses that claim either to be part of it either in name or heritage, etc.

 

[ananda]

I suppose it depends upon the truth claim being made. There are some claims for which there is no evidence, nor should we expect any. This doesn't make the claim any less true though.

Perhaps, but my question wasn't in regards to the truthfulness or otherwise of a claim; it was in regards to the basis for acceptance of a claim.

 

[ananda]

Having said that, I could see instances where with-holding evidence of such things would seem reasonable in certain contexts, as with anything really. Knowledge has an impact on us in various ways, for various reasons, and there are often and arguably times and places to learn things, understand them, etc. Consider a child ... we withhold evidence of things from children all the time. We do the same with adults in certain contexts, depending on what we want to protect, reveal, the way we want events to unfold, etc. Context plays a key.

Do you believe God withholds information in such as way from mankind?

 

[ananda]

True faith is based upon something other than wanting to believe it. But the way you've worded this question seems to make it a quid pro quo--i.e. give me the proof and THEN I will agree. That's a bit different and I wouldn't be sympathetic to that approach to faith.

What is the "other" then?

 

[ananda]

It is not only right, but is necessary.
However, I would change the verifiable to viable. One usually can not verify any evidence easily, if all possible. To faith, evidence is good enough.

What kind of "good enough" viable evidence do you have for your faith?

 

[ananda]

Christianity does not require faith without evidence. In fact, it requires Christians to be witnesses to what they've personally seen, heard, and experienced that causes them to believe.

To be sure, a lot of modern-day Christians conflate "witness" with "evangelist" and fail to understand that if they're talking about something they did not personally experience, it's not "giving witness" in the biblical sense.

Now, as is the case with any personal witness to an event, the audience of that witness can take it or leave it. People go to prison every day on the testimony of witnesses without "personally verifiable evidence," whatever that actually is.

What is the witnesses are liars?

 

[ananda]

Christianity at least does not demand "blind obedience" or "blind trust". At least that's not how I would describe it. What do you mean by these terms?

Since orthodox Christianity places such a huge emphasis on "believing the correct things about Jesus", then it stands to reason that great importance is placed on the alleged claims regarding the important events in Christianity. Are any of those claims personally verifiable, or must they be accepted blindly?

 

[ananda]

What is personally verifiable mean?

I cannot go back in time and see Christ Crucified, let alone verify a resurrection. If for some reason everything is shifted 2000 years and Christ were alive today and just a teenager I in 4015 still could not go back and I would know videos can be faked and it would be strange indeed If I were allowed to test some pieces of the True Cross for age. (Very strange as if others before me were given the chance it should have long ago been used up).

So does personally verifiable evidence mean God appearing specifically to me? I'd rather not as almost all who are said to be granted such a boon end up suffering a painful death.

Now if we are talking about claims made by some who claim to speak for the Christian God, yes I'd want to verify those. So far those making the most remarkable claims seem to produce the least evidence.

The problem is that some people are NOT making wild claims for their God. I'm not promised riches, safety or health. Nothing for today that is testable.

So is it reasonable to expect personally verifiable evidence for the creeds that do not make wild claims? I don't think so. But I do think expecting more evidence from sources outside the Church that support the historical claims before believing to be quite reasonable.

I would define "personally verifiable" as things like direct experiences with God or Jesus. Why were such direct experiences given to people 2,000 years ago, but we are denied the same?

 

[RDKirk]

What is the witnesses are liars?

Did I not say: Now, as is the case with any personal witness to an event, the audience of that witness can take it or leave it.

 

[RDKirk]

Why were such direct experiences given to people 2,000 years ago, but we are denied the same?

You have to speak for yourself on that score.

 

[RDKirk]

Do you believe God withholds information in such as way from mankind?

Scripture records that not even Jesus knew all that the Father knows. Jesus apparently did not have idle curiosity and only wanted to know what He needed to know to perform His mission.

Same thing goes for a soldier. I had access to the information I needed to do my job, but I did not have access to, say, the launch codes for ballistic missile submarines because I was not even in the Navy, much less responsible for launching missiles.

 

[ananda]

Did I not say: Now, as is the case with any personal witness to an event, the audience of that witness can take it or leave it.

Yes you did.

I guess my question is more oriented towards this: how can the audience tell if he's lying?

 

[RDKirk]

Yes you did.

I guess my question is more oriented towards this: how can the audience tell if he's lying?

How can an audience ever tell a witness is lying? BTW, a witness can be wrong and yet not be lying.

 

[ananda]

Scripture records that not even Jesus knew all that the Father knows. Jesus apparently did not have idle curiosity and only wanted to know what He needed to know to perform His mission.

Same thing goes for a soldier. I had access to the information I needed to do my job, but I did not have access to, say, the launch codes for ballistic missile submarines because I was not even in the Navy, much less responsible for launching missiles.

So Jesus couldn't be trusted with all the information the Father knew?

 

[variant]

Prove that it shouldn't be the standard everyone uses.

Perfect.

 

[RDKirk]

So Jesus couldn't be trusted with all the information the Father knew?

When I was in the military, I held a TOP SECRET SBI clearance, which is the highest clearance (really, it is. There is no such thing as, for instance, "Tippy Top Secret"). What that meant was there was never any further investigation needed to determine whether I was trustworthy for any information at all. I was as trusted as anyone could get.

That did not mean, however, I had access to all classified information all the time.

I was fully trusted, but I simply did not have a mission need to know everything. What this meant practically was that if at any moment my commander decided I did need to know something to carry out the mission he assigned me, I was instantly granted access on his command...no further investigation was necessary. And when my mission changed so that I no longer needed access to that particular information, that access was taken from me. I only had access at any one time to what I needed to know to perform the mission I was currently assigned at that time.

It appears to me that God works the same way. We simply don't need to know what might be happening on some planet orbiting a distant star. For what Jesus needed to do, He did not need to know all that the Father knew.

And that's presuming that the finite human mind--only five pounds of wet meat, after all--can even contain all that the Father knows.

 

[ananda]

...

It appears to me that God works the same way. We simply don't need to know what might be happening on some planet orbiting a distant star. For what Jesus needed to do, He did not need to know all that the Father knew.

And that's presuming that the finite human mind--only five pounds of wet meat, after all--can even contain all that the Father knows.

Whether Jesus is God and knew all that the Father knew is a topic for another thread, but ...

Why don't God/Jesus regularly speak to seekers directly, and instead we are required to only "hear him" through others?