The burden of proof

[zyzygy]

I'm curious. If a god or gods really existed, wouldn't they be a part of our everyday lives? And I mean for everyone, not just people who are already emotionally predisposed to wanting them there. We're essentially ants to them, right? Or even better, we're like their pets. My pets don't really have a choice as to whether or not I'm in their lives. They deal with me every day whether they like it or not, and there's no possible way they could presume that I don't exist. How could something as powerful as a god be mysterious? How could it even be arguable? If there were any gods, it wouldn't be something that we'd have to debate on the internet. It would be an overwhelming part of our every moment. There would be no more room for discussion of their existence than there is for the sun.

Mysterious gods are inherently self-contradicting.

Gods are painfully shy.

 

[zyzygy]

YOu talk about science almost as though it were a living entity. Kind of like God. Is science your god?

Gods are not living entities. Not the old "science is your god" cliche again. Boring. Have you something more original?

 

[Ikari]

YOu talk about science almost as though it were a living entity. Kind of like God. Is science your god?

Science is but a tool of man. Though it's pretty awesome.

 

[zyzygy]

Science is but a tool of man. Though it's pretty awesome.

Science has forced gods into smaller and smaller gaps.

 

[Cable]

Gods are not living entities. Not the old "science is your god" cliche again. Boring. Have you something more original?

Maybe you could teach me. Your responses are so fresh and insightful.

 

[zyzygy]

Maybe you could teach me. Your responses are so fresh and insightful.

That is so perceptive of you. One does one's best. It's nice to be appreciated.

 

[Cable]

That is so perceptive of you. One does one's best. It's nice to be appreciated.

You never did tell me what you don't like about Christ. ?

 

[Manc Skipper]

Truth?
Here is some truth for you.
1. You can not demonstrate that there are two Gods that are equal, much less a thousand.
2. I had no indoctrination of any significance. Father was atheist. Mom was baptist. Went to church maybe 3 times in my entire childhood. Never understood God then. I was an atheist at 17 thru 27.
3. You have absolutely no way of knowing whether I am right or not.

But it's not about me being right. It's about Christ being right. I am not the target. If I was preaching my own way as right, then rightly shoot me down. But if I am testifying about Christ, you must shoot him down, no?

There is exactly as much valid evidence for the existence of each and every god man ever made.

 

[Cable]

There is exactly as much valid evidence for the existence of each and every god man ever made.

That isn't truth. That is your subjective opinion. ...I take that back. Man made gods do have probably about equal evidence. I didn't realize you had excluded the One.

 

[William Rea]

If you can't see your own argument I won't force it on you. This is why I stay out of these threads. Most Christians today have no idea what is in the Bible and cannot get past basic theology.

"Jesus was a Jew. He loves eeeeeeverybody."

Yeah, thanks for the insight. If you wanna try and say that complex circumstance in the outcome of life or death has nothing to do with how far science is advanced or not, then whatever. If you're trying to use that phrase in a hypothetical sense:

"Johnny's parents wouldn't let him have treatment because they believed God would heal him and He didn't"

Then you're reaching. Yeah, science is increasing the outcome of life expectancy, but God wouldn't give us brains if He didn't want us to use them right? Or am I reaching with that?

You had at least three opportunities to ask for clarification and instead you tried to tell me what I meant and still now you shrug and continue on. Your choice.

 

[William Rea]

YOu talk about science almost as though it were a living entity. Kind of like God. Is science your god?

Is proselytising your delusion your god?

 

[RabidAlpaca]

The Bible is evidence that God exists. You choose to reject it.

The Quran is evidence that Allah exists. You choose to reject it.

Do you see how that's not really an argument? You look at the Bible and subjectively feel that it's true, while others feel other religious books are true. I would think if God really wanted us to follow a specific doctrine he wouldn't make thousands to choose from with no way to prove one over the other.

Is it so hard for you to recognize that every human being on the planet sees things in a different way than everyone else. You've fallen into the typical believer trap that because you believe it, it's 100% the only reasonable option.

 

[zyzygy]

You never did tell me what you don't like about Christ. ?

I neither like or dislike him. If he ever existed then he has been dead for a long time.

 

[Cable]

The Quran is evidence that Allah exists. You choose to reject it.

Do you see how that's not really an argument? You look at the Bible and subjectively feel that it's true, while others feel other religious books are true. I would think if God really wanted us to follow a specific doctrine he wouldn't make thousands to choose from with no way to prove one over the other.

Is it so hard for you to recognize that every human being on the planet sees things in a different way than everyone else. You've fallen into the typical believer trap that because you believe it, it's 100% the only reasonable option.

We can look at this a bit deeper and see whether it is an argument. God didn't make thousands, he sent His Son. Men made thousands.
From a distance the Bible and the Quran may seem two things that are basically the same. But they are not.
The focus of the Bible is God's one and only Son. The Quran takes Christ and reduces him to a prophet. The Quran destroys Christ's meaning.
So these two books are mutually exclusive. If they were not then Muslims and Christians would not have such great issues between them.
This is how one can be ruled out, and one accepted. They can not be equally true.

All that said, I know there will be huge multitudes that will not believe Christ. I used to be one of them, and a thoughtful one at that.
I am called to be a witness and testify to Christ. I am not called to save everyone. That is between them and God.
I can be passionate about it, because I do believe, and awesome does not begin to describe a good relationship with my Lord.
But I try to be compassionate as well. We are called to love and anything less represents my human fallibility, not Christ.

 

[Cable]

I neither like or dislike him. If he ever existed then he has been dead for a long time.

This is not the belief we hold to. It is easy to say he is dead, and would be most fitting of any other human being. But Christ wasn't any other human being.
Your concerns though are not new. They are common. Paul addressed them in this section. And he talks about the outcome if you are right. This is interesting for Christian and non-Christian I think for consideration:

12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

 

[zyzygy]

This is not the belief we hold to. It is easy to say he is dead, and would be most fitting of any other human being. But Christ wasn't any other human being.
Your concerns though are not new. They are common. Paul addressed them in this section. And he talks about the outcome if you are right. This is interesting for Christian and non-Christian I think for consideration:

12Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

You don't understand atheism. The bible is true because the bible is true is not a convincing argument.

 

[Somerville]

This is not the belief we hold to. It is easy to say he is dead, and would be most fitting of any other human being. But Christ wasn't any other human being.
Your concerns though are not new. They are common. Paul addressed them in this section. And he talks about the outcome if you are right. This is interesting for Christian and non-Christian I think for consideration:

1 Corinthians 1512 Now if Christ is preached, that He has been raised from the dead, how do some among you say that there is no resurrection of the dead? 13 But if there is no resurrection of the dead, not even Christ has been raised; 14 and if Christ has not been raised, then our preaching is vain, your faith also is vain. 15 Moreover we are even found to be false witnesses of God, because we testified against God that He raised Christ, whom He did not raise, if in fact the dead are not raised. 16 For if the dead are not raised, not even Christ has been raised; 17 and if Christ has not been raised, your faith is worthless; you are still in your sins. 18 Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. 19 If we have hoped in Christ in this life only, we are of all men most to be pitied.

The question for the believer falls upon the definition of "resurrection". Reading this passage from 1 Corinthians, the questioner just might think the "resurrection" described in the text is solely a spiritual one, an event that takes place upon a heavenly level and not the physical one which supposedly occurred. Other than the passage in Matthew 27:52-53, there is no other mention in the Gospels of physical resurrection -- OK, Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, but not at the time of the crucifixion.

Owing to the predicted failure to return (Matthew 24:32) when he promised to return, the early Church soon came to promote the idea of spiritual resurrection for Christians -- or was it always a part of the early teachings?

Was the "resurrection" Paul describes in 1 Corinthians a spiritual one and not a physical event?

 

[Cable]

You don't understand atheism. The bible is true because the bible is true is not a convincing argument.

That isn't what I have said Z. All along I've said read the words of Christ and consider them. His words have meaning. You can measure what he says and weigh it to your life experience.
What Christ said is amazing. The bible is just a book full of words. Without Christ in them they might be as worthless as you seem to feel they are.
With Christ though, they are amazing words. There is our hope.

When I was younger, I read his words as though he were just another good man giving some advice. It was pretty good practical advice, so I listened and I threw out all the spiritual stuff as unimportant.
Over time however, reading and studying, I came to understand that the spiritual stuff could not be thrown out without throwing out all.

The Bible isn't true because there are so many stories of different gods is also not a logical argument.

 

[zyzygy]

That isn't what I have said Z. All along I've said read the words of Christ and consider them. His words have meaning. You can measure what he says and weigh it to your life experience.
What Christ said is amazing. The bible is just a book full of words. Without Christ in them they might be as worthless as you seem to feel they are.
With Christ though, they are amazing words. There is our hope.

When I was younger, I read his words as though he were just another good man giving some advice. It was pretty good practical advice, so I listened and I threw out all the spiritual stuff as unimportant.
Over time however, reading and studying, I came to understand that the spiritual stuff could not be thrown out without throwing out all.

The Bible isn't true because there are so many stories of different gods is also not a logical argument.

What it boils down to is that you believe in one more god than I do.

 

[Cable]

The question for the believer falls upon the definition of "resurrection". Reading this passage from 1 Corinthians, the questioner just might think the "resurrection" described in the text is solely a spiritual one, an event that takes place upon a heavenly level and not the physical one which supposedly occurred. Other than the passage in Matthew 27:52-53, there is no other mention in the Gospels of physical resurrection -- OK, Lazarus and the daughter of Jairus, but not at the time of the crucifixion.

Owing to the predicted failure to return (Matthew 24:32) when he promised to return, the early Church soon came to promote the idea of spiritual resurrection for Christians -- or was it always a part of the early teachings?

Was the "resurrection" Paul describes in 1 Corinthians a spiritual one and not a physical event?

Why are you asking me? You note yourself 3 examples of physical resurrection, including Christ, and then throw them away?

 

[Cable]

What it boils down to is that you believe in one more god than I do.

I know Z. It makes me sad.

 

[Somerville]

Why are you asking me? You note yourself 3 examples of physical resurrection, including Christ, and then throw them away?

They are only in the Gospels which were written well after the Epistles of Paul. Paul, in the oldest versions available, did not seem to know of a physical resurrection. In fact it is argued by some scholars that he never even knew of a human named Jesus, son of Mary. It is one reason there were so many early versions of Christianity - a debate over the nature of Christ.

So what happened to the hundreds of dead who supposedly rose from their graves at the time of the crucifixion? There are so many improbable events that supposedly took place and yet there is no mention of them in any pagan writing.

 

[zyzygy]

I know Z. It makes me sad.

Chin up. There are millions and millions of people who either do not believe in a god or worship a different god. For myself I am very happy that I do not live my life under the thrall of religion.

 

[zyzygy]

They are only in the Gospels which were written well after the Epistles of Paul. Paul, in the oldest versions available, did not seem to know of a physical resurrection. In fact it is argued by some scholars that he never even knew of a human named Jesus, son of Mary. It is one reason there were so many early versions of Christianity - a debate over the nature of Christ.

So what happened to the hundreds of dead who supposedly rose from their graves at the time of the crucifixion? There are so many improbable events that supposedly took place and yet there is no mention of them in any pagan writing.

That's probably because those events did not happen.

 

[Cable]

They are only in the Gospels which were written well after the Epistles of Paul. Paul, in the oldest versions available, did not seem to know of a physical resurrection. In fact it is argued by some scholars that he never even knew of a human named Jesus, son of Mary. It is one reason there were so many early versions of Christianity - a debate over the nature of Christ.

So what happened to the hundreds of dead who supposedly rose from their graves at the time of the crucifixion? There are so many improbable events that supposedly took place and yet there is no mention of them in any pagan writing.

Miracles from the Son of God. They can't be true, right? He probably never even existed, right? ...Or maybe he did, just as it is written.

There are so many denominations of Christianity today because men bicker and argue, even believers. It's on us, not God. Men do all kinds of evil, sometimes even intending to do good.

There is one Church belonging to Christ. Best be part of that.