Why did Jesus Leave?

[amariselle]

Actually ... it doesn't .

First of all, having both wouldn't damage anything. It would enhance it, mainly because right this moment there's no way of telling between work of the "Holy Spirit" and placebo effect of people doing something and ascribing it to something else.

Jesus in the very least be evidence that the whole structure and claims of Christianity are historically and ontologicaly valid. Again, it shouldn't even be an issue of constant presence.

Jesus could leave a couple messages to some prophets. They would relay it to media and say something along the lines of "Build a large impenetrable bunker and fill it with cameras, have independent skeptics examine it and then seal it. Have each of the skeptics write a question on a piece of paper that only they will know. They will place the questions in the envelope and send multiple copies to various libraries around the world. I will then appear inside the bunker and will answer each question the best way I can and then will leave... but that will be a documented demonstration of my existence, and a little help for you in terms of how you can better treat cancer, reduce child mortality, know more about your reality in terms of physics, and etc".

The point being, I'm not a God and I can come up with at least a 100 ways in which God could provide a more plausible demonstration than a 2000 year old book about awesome things, and then some circular interpretation that whatever good believers do is a result of a Holy Spirit, and whatever bad they do is because they ignore the Holy Spirit.

I get that you seem to think you know better than God, however, Christians are not to rely on signs and wonders and those things are not what should lead us to trust Jesus.

But, people haven't changed at all since Jesus walked the earth in human form. People didn't believe Him then, even with His miraculous signs, and they wouldn't believe Him now.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

The point being, I'm not a God and I can come up with at least a 100 ways in which God could provide a more plausible demonstration than a 2000 year old book about awesome things, and then some circular interpretation that whatever good believers do is a result of a Holy Spirit, and whatever bad they do is because they ignore the Holy Spirit.

Perhaps we can address this some day.
The excuses and reasons you give that you have seen believers give or use
aren't holding water .... and there is a good reason they aren't holding water.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But, people haven't changed at all since Jesus walked the earth in human form. People didn't believe Him then, even with His miraculous signs, and they wouldn't believe Him now.

And as God's Word says someplace,
if God did not show mercy to those who ignored Him at the mountain,
do not even begin to think (God says)
that
God is going to show mercy to those who ignore Him now (since the incredibly great and immeasurably price of His Preciousness, His Son, Jesus, the Perfect Lamb of God was slain).
No,
God says His Judgment is even more fierce for those who ignore Him today.

 

[devolved]

You know for sure that God doesn't exist? You just believe a god doesn't exist. I believe a god exists. But, neither of us can prove our positions through using an objective method, so...who is right? Who is wrong?

Likewise, there's a guy in Britain called David Icke who packs large crowds with his lectures, and he tells people that this world is largely is an illusion manipulated by reptilian aliens who drove the moon into the orbit from outer space, and it's their spaceship that they use to alter and manipulate the reality that we see. And they work through interbreeding with humans around the world, and their offspring gets into power positions and they drink the blood of children and feast on the fear energy of humankind.

So, you can't prove that he is wrong. Why wouldn't you believe him? I'm assuming that you wouldn't.

 

[devolved]

Perhaps we can address this some day.
The excuses and reasons you give that you have seen believers give or use
aren't holding water .... and there is a good reason they aren't holding water.

Have you ever considered that reason to be that the belief is false, because it doesn't seem to reflect the reality when we actually examine and compare?

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

Have you ever considered that reason to be that the belief is false, because it doesn't seem to reflect the reality when we actually examine and compare?

I don't remember(what we're talking about), but I think we aren't allowed to say so here.

 

[devolved]

I get that you seem to think you know better than God, however, Christians are not to rely on signs and wonders and those things are not what should lead us to trust Jesus.

But, people haven't changed at all since Jesus walked the earth in human form. People didn't believe Him then, even with His miraculous signs, and they wouldn't believe Him now.

That's a cop-out response.

It's like me saying "I can turn invisible, but what's the point in demonstrating it to you? I've shown it to a lot of people before and they still didn't believe me... so why wouldn't you just take my word for it?"

I don't think you'd fall for this one, so why would you provide it as some form of argument? You don't see how it's a false argument?

I'm having tough time believing that you can't see how false such reasoning is.

 

[AGTG]

Actually ... it doesn't .

First of all, having both wouldn't damage anything. It would enhance it, mainly because right this moment there's no way of telling between work of the "Holy Spirit" and placebo effect of people doing something and ascribing it to something else.

Jesus in the very least be evidence that the whole structure and claims of Christianity are historically and ontologicaly valid. Again, it shouldn't even be an issue of constant presence.

Jesus could leave a couple messages to some prophets. They would relay it to media and say something along the lines of "Build a large impenetrable bunker and fill it with cameras, have independent skeptics examine it and then seal it. Have each of the skeptics write a question on a piece of paper that only they will know. They will place the questions in the envelope and send multiple copies to various libraries around the world. I will then appear inside the bunker and will answer each question the best way I can and then will leave... but that will be a documented demonstration of my existence, and a little help for you in terms of how you can better treat cancer, reduce child mortality, know more about your reality in terms of physics, and etc".

The point being, I'm not a God and I can come up with at least a 100 ways in which God could provide a more plausible demonstration than a 2000 year old book about awesome things, and then some circular interpretation that whatever good believers do is a result of a Holy Spirit, and whatever bad they do is because they ignore the Holy Spirit.

In other words, you're not seeking truth, you're merely contentious.

Additionally, you want God to bow down to you. That is not a humble position to work from, and will only leave you blind to God's truth: We're sinners in need of saving, and God gave His only begotton Son to die for our sins that we would be free from the penalty of sin, and by the power of His resurrection life and Holy Spirit we would be free from the power of sin.

 

[devolved]

I don't remember(what we're talking about), but I think we aren't allowed to say so here.

It's my thread . I'll allow it.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

thx....
.
.
but I meant higher up the chain might 'censor' some things.....

 

[amariselle]

That's a cop-out response.

It's like me saying "I can turn invisible, but what's the point in demonstrating it to you? I've shown it to a lot of people before and they still didn't believe me... so why wouldn't you just take my word for it?"

I don't think you'd fall for this one, so why would you provide it as some form of argument? You don't see how it's a false argument?

I'm having tough time believing that you can't see how false such reasoning is.

Human nature is human nature. People are skeptical, they want signs and evidence. That hasn't changed, and Jesus Himself didn't trust such people, (Even when they DID believe in Him), because their reliance on miraculous signs was not a true reliance on HIM.

"Because of the miraculous signs Jesus did in Jerusalem at the Passover celebration, many began to trust in him. But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew human nature. No one needed to tell him what mankind is really like." (John 2:23-25)

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

But Jesus didn’t trust them, because he knew human nature. No one needed to tell him what mankind is really like.

Right! ....
...
.
seems like most people today have forgotten what mankind is really like. ....
.
(whenever people TRUST mankind/ politicians/ armies/ druglords/ religious societies / etc etc etc)

 

[devolved]

In other words, you're not seeking truth, you're merely contentious.

Additionally, you want God to bow down to you. That is not a humble position to work from, and will only leave you blind to God's truth: We're sinners in need of saving, and God gave His only begotton Son to die for our sins that we would be free from the penalty of sin, and by the power of His resurrection life and Holy Spirit we would be free from the power of sin.

No, I'm not merely contentious. I don't dismiss either possibility, to which there are many. I'm merely asking as to how can I know without adequate evidence?

In the past God would light water upon Elijah's request. Was God bowing down to Elijah and Bal's prophet's in the story? I'm merely pointing out that there can be something more conclusive than a story.

God giving his son to die... is still a story. If it's not demonstrated to be reality... then it's a story. I don't understand how difficult it's to understand this concept. For it to be a reality, it actually has to manifest in reality somehow.

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

"The God Delusion". You prove my point, thank you.

How so - are you suggesting that using that phrase is ridicule or mockery? Delusion means a belief contrary to the facts or impervious to rational argument - one or other of which is how your average atheist views beliefs in gods. This has been discussed recently on another thread. We've already had a clear agreement in this one (#512) that faith is unreasonable - the cap appears to fit.

In a philosophy forum, if you don't agree with other's positions, the general idea is to counter-argue your own position; not make accusations of mockery & ridicule - that's not an argument, it's a red-herring. Either argue that a god belief isn't a delusion (scriptural authority isn't an argument), or give a rational argument for an unreasonable faith - or reject the premises and explain why.

 

[amariselle]

How so - are you suggesting that using that phrase is ridicule or mockery?

Absolutely, when that phrase is used as a complete and total dismissal, as it usually is. Just because you don't agree with people, doesn't mean it's correct go label them "deluded" or to suggest that what they believe is a "delusion."

But, if you don't understand how such labels can be used as mockery or ridicule, I doubt I'm going to convince you of such.

Delusion means a belief contrary to the facts or impervious to rational argument - one or other of which is how your average atheist views beliefs in gods. This has been discussed recently on another thread. We've already had a clear agreement in this one (#512) that faith is unreasonable - the cap appears to fit.

I guess it depends what you consider rational or irrational. Apparently plenty of people (most of the world's population in fact) thinks that belief in a god or gods is completely rational, and that there IS evidence for their beliefs. Why do Atheists get to make the ultimate decision about what is rational and what isn't?

In a philosophy forum, if you don't agree with other's positions, the general idea is to counter-argue your own position; not make constant accusations of mockery & ridicule - that's not an argument, it's a red-herring. Either argue that a god belief isn't a delusion (scriptural authority isn't an argument), or give a rational argument for an unreasonable faith - or reject the premises and explain why.

Actually I haven't mocked or ridiculed anyone.

Also, if Scripture isn't good enough for you, what is? And why do you get to decide that Scripture ISN'T an "argument" against the idea that belief in God is nothing more than a "delusion"? Obviously many disagree with that view, so why should we accept that Scripture must be completely dismissed?

 

[FrumiousBandersnatch]

God exists. I know for sure. The SAME Spirit that RAISED JESUS from the dead, (and JESUS lives never to die again)
dwells in me.

It is NOT possible to have the living Spirit of JESUS dwelling with you and not know it.

In fact, in the NT, when the believers were likewise indwelt by Jesus Spirit,
OTHERS knew it ! (UNbelievers SAW and KNEW THIS)....

That is how DIFFERENT a real believer with JESUS inside is,
to those unbelievers watching. ---
they (the unbelievers) CAN SEE THE DIFFERENCE.

A word to the wise - all-caps is webese for SHOUTING; posts with capitalized words dotted around tend to look like 'green ink'.

 

[Deidre32]

Likewise, there's a guy in Britain called David Icke who packs large crowds with his lectures, and he tells people that this world is largely is an illusion manipulated by reptilian aliens who drove the moon into the orbit from outer space, and it's their spaceship that they use to alter and manipulate the reality that we see. And they work through interbreeding with humans around the world, and their offspring gets into power positions and they drink the blood of children and feast on the fear energy of humankind.

So, you can't prove that he is wrong. Why wouldn't you believe him? I'm assuming that you wouldn't.

My beliefs don't hurt anyone. If someone is suggesting for you to hurt people, it probably would be wise to steer clear.

It's funny to me that people who are not believers of Christianity, seem to have a chip on their shoulder in this thread...like why do you care if and why I follow Christianity? If I were urging you to convert, then I could see the need to debate...but, that's not the case.

 

[amariselle]

No, I'm not merely contentious. I don't dismiss either possibility, to which there are many. I'm merely asking as to how can I know without adequate evidence?

In the past God would light water upon Elijah's request. Was God bowing down to Elijah and Bal's prophet's in the story? I'm merely pointing out that there can be something more conclusive than a story.

God giving his son to die... is still a story. If it's not demonstrated to be reality... then it's a story. I don't understand how difficult it's to understand this concept. For it to be a reality, it actually has to manifest in reality somehow.

And it did. Jesus was here on earth, He actually lived and died and rose again. But, He did so ONCE for all mankind, and He isn't going to continually do so.

The point is, that even when He was on earth in human form, many rejected Him. In fact, the people who knew the most about the coming Messiah, the religious leaders, were the ones that rejected Him more than anyone. Human nature hasn't changed and real faith is not based on signs, wonders or ultimate physical evidence. If those things are all a person is looking for, they will miss Jesus.

 

[devolved]

And it did. Jesus was here on earth, He actually lived and died and rose again. But, He did so ONCE for all mankind, and He isn't going to continually do so.

The point is, that even when He was on earth in human form, many rejected Him. In fact, the people who knew the most about the coming Messiah, the religious leaders, were the ones that rejected Him more than anyone. Human nature hasn't changed and real faith is not based on signs, wonders or ultimate physical evidence. If those things are all a person is looking for, they will miss Jesus.

You don't see how it's an ad-hoc rationalization?

Again, I keep telling you as to various methods that we get to know things, and that merely believing a story is the least reliable of them all.

And you keep saying, BUT IN THE STORY Jesus says that if he demonstrated everything again then you wouldn't believe because IN THE STORY people wouldn't believe

It's an extremely dishonest ploy, because you presume to judge my character prior to actually understanding what I'm after. I'm not here to invalidate Christianity. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to see if it can be validated in some shape or form.

 

[yeshuaslavejeff]

It's an extremely dishonest ploy, because you presume to judge my character prior to actually understanding what I'm after. I'm not here to invalidate Christianity. Quite the opposite. I'm trying to see if it can be validated in some shape or form.

That's not called for devolved. There's nothing to show nor prove any dishonest motive there.

It is good perhaps if you want to not invalidate Christianity (true Christianity, not the false christendom throughout the world) (hey, maybe that's the core of the problem seeing it?).

Read Foxes Book of Martyrs(free online, devastating embarrassing truth) . If it is true you want to see if true Christianity can be validated, that is one way to see.
Oh, you don't have to read it, of course.... but then , who is being dishonest - if you say you want to see, then don't even choose to try, to seek, to find ?