Arguments for God You're Unlikely to Hear

[Unknown Soldier]

The usual from theists is that the age of such miracles ended with the apostles. I have seen this one several times now over the years.

That argument is safe for apologists because that way they don't need to demonstrate any miracles. They've tucked their miracles away in a place and time in which we cannot check to see if those miracles ever actually happened. That's why apologists will tell you some guy rose alive from his grave in a remote place two thousand years ago, but they wouldn't dare tell you it happened on Fifth Avenue this morning.

 

[finople]

This thread and its intentions confuse me.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Well, there was that miracle in some small town in New York in 1980.

If you believe the stories, then there were miracles in every town in every year since 33 CE. Apologists love to tell miracle stories because you don't need any actual miracles to tell stories. Now, showing us actual miracles is another matter entirely.

 

[Keith&Co.]

The usual from theists is that the age of such miracles ended with the apostles. I have seen this one several times now over the years.

Like Self-Mutation insisting variously thatthat God
.A] won't do miracles NOW because
....1) people would just ask for bigger miracles
....2) the miracle age expired with Jesus' resurrection
....3) it would violate free will
.B] knows miracles prove God exists
....1) but they call it 'remission' so He won't get the credit
....2) this one time his car broke down in a bad neighnorhood and God overrode a tow truck driver's free will to make him drive by SMs car and give him a tow and that was a miracle

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Well, there was that miracle in some small town in New York in 1980.

If you believe the stories, then there were miracles in every town in every year since 33 CE. Apologists love to tell miracle stories because you don't need any actual miracles to tell stories. Now, showing us actual miracles is another matter entirely.

*sigh*

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

The usual from theists is that the age of such miracles ended with the apostles. I have seen this one several times now over the years.

Like Self-Mutation insisting variously thatthat God
.A] won't do miracles NOW because
....1) people would just ask for bigger miracles
....2) the miracle age expired with Jesus' resurrection
....3) it would violate free will
.B] knows miracles prove God exists
....1) but they call it 'remission' so He won't get the credit
....2) this one time his car broke down in a bad neighnorhood and God overrode a tow truck driver's free will to make him drive by SMs car and give him a tow and that was a miracle

Without faith, you go to hell.
Of course, faith needs to be in god.
But you can't expect god to prove their existence.
That is why it is called faith.
After all, when Jesus resurrected and reappeared in the most glorious of miracles...
...hey wait....
That wouldn't be faith at that point. They'd know that Jesus was either god or a really good magician.
So why do they get the free ride, but everyone else is told to 'take their word for it' or else!!! Especially people 2000 years after the fact!

Of course, if you are a Calvinist, your belief is predicated on whether God makes you believe... which means that there is no freely held faith at all.

 

[Keith&Co.]

That wouldn't be faith at that point. They'd know that Jesus was either god or a really good magician.

But even THAT didn't work! Their 'faith' in Jesus was tested AT EVERY CLAIM JESUS MADE! At some point, an enlightened species would stop arguing 'No man can [this miracle], Rabbi!'
But they didn't. We're supposed to take 'their word' on Jesus being a miracle worker, but they didn't take their own word on faith. They couldn't remember demonstrable miracle powers for two days in order to have 'faith' that their messiah could do just about any damn thing he promised to do.
Seeing, the New Testament shows, IS NOT BELIEVING.

 

[Learner]

The usual from theists is that the age of such miracles ended with the apostles. I have seen this one several times now over the years.

That argument is safe for apologists because that way they don't need to demonstrate any miracles. They've tucked their miracles away in a place and time in which we cannot check to see if those miracles ever actually happened. That's why apologists will tell you some guy rose alive from his grave in a remote place two thousand years ago, but they wouldn't dare tell you it happened on Fifth Avenue this morning.

Sure, the above could be seen as "convenient" or "safe" for apologists in some debate. But having said that, It's also "convenient" to make this as some sort of argument.

If it was the case that only the apostles could do miracles, you'd both still be saying the same thing, regardless.

 

[Learner]

...in a court scenario, dodging questions doesn't make good for a reliable witness...

Dodging questions makes perfect sense for any dishonest person who doesn't wish to divulge facts that if exposed will be very inconvenient and possibly incriminating for that person. Courts of law are aware of this fact, and that's why they require witnesses to answer questions telling "the whole truth." Actually, contempt of court is punishable by a fine and possibly jail time.

No disputing you here. Depending on each case, where some witnesses may not want to answer questions or they've changed their minds because they may have been threatened.

And you can "plead the fifth" over where you are.

The point is ... Christianity could not sensibly be expected to reach around the world, moving against a variety of opposing obstacles, 'so soon' a time as one would naturally think of - like 'so soon' a time to mean just on the horizon etc..

If I understand what you're saying here, since it would take a long time for Christian missionaries to reach remote parts of the world, we should keep that context in mind when we judge what the early Christians meant by "soon." That's an interesting apologetic, but I don't see it in the New Testament anywhere. Even if the early Christians meant that it would take at least two thousand years for their predictions to be fulfilled, then it's simply misleading to tell people: "The time is at hand."

Well there are different ways to see it (which is why I've come back to this post). The argument from atheists is taking the perspective from the historic timeline, i.e. nothing happening, waiting for 2000 years etc.. That in itself can be misleading because: individually NO ONE "waits" for 2000 years!! There's NO contradiction when Jesus says soon in this regard.

Basically the concept is: All those that have passed away before us for the last 2000 years, wake up again. To them as far as they're aware, it was just seconds or minutes ago, when they were previously alive, regardless of how long they've been laid to rest - which obviously means: there are no memories of time passing by. If we were to say the life-expectancy was capped at 120 years - then it would take the oldest man 120 years in his life time, and others much sooner, before seeing Jesus's return (or judgement etc..) but NOT 2000 years! You die and you wake up instantly, as far as you're consciously aware.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Sure, the above could be seen as "convenient" or "safe" for apologists in some debate. But having said that, It's also "convenient" to make this as some sort of argument.

If it was the case that only the apostles could do miracles, you'd both still be saying the same thing, regardless.

Your post here is hard to follow. What is being taken as some sort of argument? What "same thing" would be said by "both" of whom? Try to use fewer pronouns and specify what you're referring to, please.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

Basically the concept is: All those that have passed away before us for the last 2000 years, wake up again. To them as far as they're aware, it was just seconds or minutes ago, when they were previously alive, regardless of how long they've been laid to rest - which obviously means: there are no memories of time passing by. If we were to say the life-expectancy was capped at 120 years - then it would take the oldest man 120 years in his life time, and others much sooner, before seeing Jesus's return (or judgement etc..) but NOT 2000 years! You die and you wake up instantly, as far as you're consciously aware.

You could talk your way out of a firing squad, or so it seems. "Soon" in the context of Christ's prophecies is referring to the dead rising with no sense of time while they were dead. Why didn't I think of that?

 

[Learner]

Sure, the above could be seen as "convenient" or "safe" for apologists in some debate. But having said that, It's also "convenient" to make this as some sort of argument.

If it was the case that only the apostles could do miracles, you'd both still be saying the same thing, regardless.

Your post here is hard to follow. What is being taken as some sort of argument? What "same thing" would be said by "both" of whom? Try to use fewer pronouns and specify what you're referring to, please.

Apologies for lack of articulation. Basically if miracles were performed by the Apostles, and people witnessed it and wrote about it. The bible would (still) read just as it is.

 

[Learner]

Basically the concept is: All those that have passed away before us for the last 2000 years, wake up again. To them as far as they're aware, it was just seconds or minutes ago, when they were previously alive, regardless of how long they've been laid to rest - which obviously means: there are no memories of time passing by. If we were to say the life-expectancy was capped at 120 years - then it would take the oldest man 120 years in his life time, and others much sooner, before seeing Jesus's return (or judgement etc..) but NOT 2000 years! You die and you wake up instantly, as far as you're consciously aware.

You could talk your way out of a firing squad, or so it seems. "Soon" in the context of Christ's prophecies is referring to the dead rising with no sense of time while they were dead. Why didn't I think of that?

"Talk my way out of...." ah ok, you don't like the answer. No prob.

It wasn't hard to think of that, as you phrase it, in the underlined above. The context I take as in the verses (two translations) below:

Hebrews 9:27 “ And It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”. (KJV)

Hebrews 9: 27 And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, (NLT)

No one waits 2000 years.

 

[Unknown Soldier]

"Talk my way out of...." ah ok, you don't like the answer. No prob.

OK, you're right. What I said was an ad-hominem, so I take it back.

It wasn't hard to think of that, as you phrase it, in the underlined above.

I seriously never heard before the argument that the early Christians thought of the imminent return of Christ in the context of the dead's perception of time. From my own studies, the prophecies that the return of Christ was at hand was a message to the living and not the dead. So I must conclude that those Christian prophets simply got their predictions wrong.

The context I take as in the verses (two translations) below:

Hebrews 9:27 “ And It is appointed unto men once to die, but after this the judgment”. (KJV)

Hebrews 9: 27 And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, (NLT)

I don't see anything in those passages regarding how the dead perceive time or that their perception of time explains the reasons why we are told Christ was "at the door" only to still be waiting for him to enter that door twenty centuries later.

No one waits 2000 years.

Yes, of course, and that's why the early Christians including Jesus got it wrong.

 

[atrib]

The point is ... Christianity could not sensibly be expected to reach around the world, moving against a variety of opposing obstacles, 'so soon' a time as one would naturally think of - like 'so soon' a time to mean just on the horizon etc..

Show your work. What's the 'sensible' rate of movement for a movement?
How does the rate of Xianity's spread compare to the world-wide popularity of, say, the Beatles? Or the US Dollar? Or British Tea? Or abolition?

You are asking technical questions again. Asking technical questions is not allowed in a discussion (or so he claims).

 

[atrib]

The usual from theists is that the age of such miracles ended with the apostles. I have seen this one several times now over the years.

That argument is safe for apologists because that way they don't need to demonstrate any miracles. They've tucked their miracles away in a place and time in which we cannot check to see if those miracles ever actually happened. That's why apologists will tell you some guy rose alive from his grave in a remote place two thousand years ago, but they wouldn't dare tell you it happened on Fifth Avenue this morning.

Sure, the above could be seen as "convenient" or "safe" for apologists in some debate. But having said that, It's also "convenient" to make this as some sort of argument.

If it was the case that only the apostles could do miracles, you'd both still be saying the same thing, regardless.

He didn't say that only the apostles could perform miracles. He said that the occurrence/reporting of miracles stopped once the apostles had died (and therefore, had stopped writing about miracles). Which would lead a reasonable person to believe that the miracles being reported by the apostles were fabricated, otherwise the miracles would have continued to be reported by other people who were not apostles. Your reading comprehension skills appear to be severely lacking.

 

[atrib]

Sure, the above could be seen as "convenient" or "safe" for apologists in some debate. But having said that, It's also "convenient" to make this as some sort of argument.

If it was the case that only the apostles could do miracles, you'd both still be saying the same thing, regardless.

Your post here is hard to follow. What is being taken as some sort of argument? What "same thing" would be said by "both" of whom? Try to use fewer pronouns and specify what you're referring to, please.

Being hard to follow is a feature, not a bug, with this poster.

 

[Learner]

Sure, the above could be seen as "convenient" or "safe" for apologists in some debate. But having said that, It's also "convenient" to make this as some sort of argument.

If it was the case that only the apostles could do miracles, you'd both still be saying the same thing, regardless.

Your post here is hard to follow. What is being taken as some sort of argument? What "same thing" would be said by "both" of whom? Try to use fewer pronouns and specify what you're referring to, please.

Being hard to follow is a feature, not a bug, with this poster.

I am greatful that posters can look past the inadequacies I may have, with no grudge or the need to keep on about what I am lacking.