• Welcome to the new Internet Infidels Discussion Board, formerly Talk Freethought.
  • 2021 Internet Infidels Fundraising Drive
    Greetings! Time for the annual fundraiser.Sorry for the late update, we normally start this early in October. Funds are needed to keep II and IIDB online. I was not able to get an IIDB based donations addon implemented for this year, I will make sure to have that done for next year. You can help support II in several ways, please visit the Support Us page for more info. Or just click:

    I will try to track all donations from IIDB. Many thanks to those that have already donated. The current total is $550. If everyone dontated just $5, we would easily hit our goal.

Arguments for God You're Unlikely to Hear

Keith&Co.

Contributor
I see they had an opiniated point to make, favourable to the similar in minded . .. otherwise you could have got the verses straight from the bible.

I think the problem is that not everyone easily recognizes, say, a 'reviler.' Most of my coworkers argue that a verse stating 'revilers don't get into Heaven' is not saying Trump's pissing off God.
 
Funniest is why they think God needs any help to convince anybody of his existence. If God is omnipotent, don't you think he could handle this on his own? If anybody feels God needs any help in spreading the gospel, they've already revealed that they don't really believe in God.

I've thought of that too. I suppose apologists believe that their evangelizing is a way of expressing love for God. But why would a perfect God need love? He doesn't seem to want love considering the way he treats people. Jesus commanded people to love him nevertheless. If God was lovable, then nobody would need to be told to love him.
 

Wiploc

Veteran Member
Unknown Soldier, just letting you know that some are on your side. When I read the OP, the meaning and intent was clear to me.
 

DrZoidberg

Contributor
Funniest is why they think God needs any help to convince anybody of his existence. If God is omnipotent, don't you think he could handle this on his own? If anybody feels God needs any help in spreading the gospel, they've already revealed that they don't really believe in God.

I've thought of that too. I suppose apologists believe that their evangelizing is a way of expressing love for God. But why would a perfect God need love? He doesn't seem to want love considering the way he treats people. Jesus commanded people to love him nevertheless. If God was lovable, then nobody would need to be told to love him.

At least the Christian God doesn't require us to fix his design mistake of the penis.

God 1
Yehova 0
 

steve_bank

Contributor
Three engineers are debating who desired the human body.

One says t has to be an electrical engines given the nervous system.

One says it had to be a mechanical energizer given the skeleton and muscles.

The third says you are both wrong. Only a civil engineer would rout liquid waste disposal trough a pleasure center.
 

steve_bank

Contributor
I think it is more like 'misery likes company'. Converting someone reinforces one's beliefs. It makes people feel good. Being on a sacred mission form a god spreading the word.

Or maybe like a pyramid scheme.
 
Unknown Soldier, just letting you know that some are on your side. When I read the OP, the meaning and intent was clear to me.

That's good to hear. I'm not sure where the confusion lies. The "unheard" arguments in the OP offer very clear and convincing evidence for a real God, and that's why we don't hear them! If God is real, then we'd have that kind of evidence and hear apologists offering it to doubters. If God isn't real, by contrast, those who want to believe in him and get others to believe in him would offer weak and unprovable arguments like--the arguments we do hear.

And note that apologists don't normally even mention the kind of evidence I posted in the OP. If somebody does bring it up, they'll just ridicule the idea that we could have evidence that good. It's known as the "laughing jackass fallacy."
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
I see they had an opiniated point to make, favourable to the similar in minded . .. otherwise you could have got the verses straight from the bible.

The verses are from the Bible. That's the point.
They're from the bible and Largely say, 'think twice and then maybe don't say anything.'
More terse versions of St. Augustine's
Often a non-Christian knows something about the earth, the heavens, and the other parts of the world, about the motions and orbits of the stars and even their sizes and distances, . . . and this knowledge he holds with certainty from reason and experience. It is thus offensive and disgraceful for an unbeliever to hear a Christian talk nonsense about such things, claiming that what he is saying is based in Scripture. We should do all that we can to avoid such an embarrassing situation, lest the unbeliever see only ignorance in the Christian and laugh to scorn."
--"De Genesi ad litteram libri duodecim"
 

Learner

Veteran Member
I'm not sure why that would be a problem for a theist in that situation. If he honestly can't answer with a yes or no to a question, then I'd think his answer could be that he doesn't know the answer or that he isn't sure what the answer is. Can you post an example of a question an atheist might ask a theist that can't be answered with a simple yes or no?

Interesting..

Being a debater as you indicated in your posts, that your are, or were. You seem (for some reason) to have been 'unaware' of a particular yes and no' type of tactitical questioning - sometimes used in arguments, in scenarios like court-cases, apologetics or what ever other debating arguments. are. I merely mention this ('Yes or No's,' in context to extremely limiting the answer, stifling the extra details) to illustrate the disingenuous use - i.e. being tactical, just for the sake of debating.



Again, can you clarify with an example of a yes/no question a lawyer might ask a witness in court that would get his client off on a technicality? Attorneys, of course, want to defend their clients so they're not found guilty. In a debate over religious issues, on the other hand, I think it's best to determine the truth. What good is it to win a debate yet be

I don't suggest at all, that some crooks get off on just ONE simple yes and no answer (it can be anyone, doesn't have to be a crook btw), although it could make the difference. Besides, the whole court ordeal scenario, would have a series of likewise questions, combined, building a particular illustrated portrayal in their favour. The underlining point is: facts don't necessarily matter, as long as its technically (or legally) sound - meaning the aim is to win!

(It looks like you're askking the above, tactically. ... just jesting )



I think most believers have the same answer to that question: Not yet. Believers who do specify a time for God's power to manifest itself have so far been wrong in every instance.
Many Christians look forward with glee to the death and destruction of Armageddon.


Most believers who take to the ' not yet' idea, must be the believers in Revelation, e.g. having 'not yet' happened, won't happen until a sequence of events happens in a particular order. Like the Gospels must be preached throughout the world - the nations marching under one rulership (as written, ALL nations fighting the return of Jesus etc..) and so on.

In light that you were a former believer, I would curiously ask, Where you a 'not yet' believer, or did you go along with the 'failed' prophecy dates?


Oh sure--maybe God has performed some miracles for some people. So far, though, it hasn't happened to anybody under circumstances in which everybody else can check to see if it really happened. It appears that if God does exist, then he only performs miracles for those eager to believe in them. Skeptics are not offered any such proof. It results in a snow-balling effect in which the skeptics become more skeptical when not only are they denied proof for the miracles but are called "an evil and adulterous generation."

Understandable . Seeing is believing.



 
Last edited:
Interesting..

Being a debater as you indicated in your posts, that your are, or were. You seem (for some reason) to have been 'unaware' of a particular yes and no' type of tactitical questioning - sometimes used in arguments, in scenarios like court-cases, apologetics or what ever other debating arguments. are. I merely mention this ('Yes or No's,' in context to extremely limiting the answer, stifling the extra details) to illustrate the disingenuous use - i.e. being tactical, just for the sake of debating.
I've never seen that tactic much if at all. The other side of the coin, though, is when a debater can easily answer with a simple yes or no yet opts to go off on a long tangent never really answering the question. That tactic is a popular way to dodge questions which if answered honestly will expose a flaw in one's own position.
Most believers who take to the ' not yet' idea, must be the believers in Revelation, e.g. having 'not yet' happened, won't happen until a sequence of events happens in a particular order. Like the Gospels must be preached throughout the world - the nations marching under one rulership (as written, ALL nations fighting the return of Jesus etc..) and so on.
Jesus is always coming but never arriving.
In light that you were a former believer, I would curiously ask, Where you a 'not yet' believer, or did you go along with the 'failed' prophecy dates?
I suppose I was the not-yet style of Christian prophet believing that Jesus' return was "soon." Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
I've never seen that tactic much if at all. The other side of the coin, though, is when a debater can easily answer with a simple yes or no yet opts to go off on a long tangent never really answering the question. That tactic is a popular way to dodge questions which if answered honestly will expose a flaw in one's own position.
There's that too, dodging the question, not answering.
Jesus is always coming but never arriving.
I suppose I was the not-yet style of Christian prophet believing that Jesus' return was "soon." Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years.
Ok, fair enough pov, that's how you viewed it.

I take the differing view from: It took several hundred years just for the Romans to accept and adopt Chrisitianity before spreading to the rest of the world.
 
I've never seen that tactic much if at all. The other side of the coin, though, is when a debater can easily answer with a simple yes or no yet opts to go off on a long tangent never really answering the question. That tactic is a popular way to dodge questions which if answered honestly will expose a flaw in one's own position.
There's that too, dodging the question, not answering.
In courts of law, dodging questions while under oath can result in a witness being charged with contempt of court. Our system of jurisprudence knows well how question-dodging can hinder the truth being revealed, and many debaters know the same thing.
Jesus is always coming but never arriving.
I suppose I was the not-yet style of Christian prophet believing that Jesus' return was "soon." Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years.
Ok, fair enough pov, that's how you viewed it.

I take the differing view from: It took several hundred years just for the Romans to accept and adopt Chrisitianity before spreading to the rest of the world.
I'm not sure what your point is here. If it was possible that I lived from the first century to the reign of Constantine knowing that in the first century a Christian told me that the Romans would soon accept Christianity, then I would have thought I was lied to. About the only context I know of in which soon is understood as centuries or even thousands of years is Christianity. And even then, the vast majority of Christians otherwise never think of soon as being such a ridiculously long period of time. Obviously the meaning of soon is being altered to smooth over the fact that Christ is awfully darn tardy.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
I've never seen that tactic much if at all. The other side of the coin, though, is when a debater can easily answer with a simple yes or no yet opts to go off on a long tangent never really answering the question. That tactic is a popular way to dodge questions which if answered honestly will expose a flaw in one's own position.
There's that too, dodging the question, not answering.
In courts of law, dodging questions while under oath can result in a witness being charged with contempt of court. Our system of jurisprudence knows well how question-dodging can hinder the truth being revealed, and many debaters know the same thing.

Well yes, in a court scenario, dodging questions doesn't make good for a reliable witness - he or she will be thrown out. However, in a debate scenario, the debater can still debate whilst thinking he/she can still continuously dodge some questions. Both looked upon with low credibilty..
Jesus is always coming but never arriving.
I suppose I was the not-yet style of Christian prophet believing that Jesus' return was "soon." Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years.
Ok, fair enough pov, that's how you viewed it.

I take the differing view from: It took several hundred years just for the Romans to accept and adopt Chrisitianity before spreading to the rest of the world.
I'm not sure what your point is here. If it was possible that I lived from the first century to the reign of Constantine knowing that in the first century a Christian told me that the Romans would soon accept Christianity, then I would have thought I was lied to. About the only context I know of in which soon is understood as centuries or even thousands of years is Christianity. And even then, the vast majority of Christians otherwise never think of soon as being such a ridiculously long period of time. Obviously the meaning of soon is being altered to smooth over the fact that Christ is awfully darn tardy.

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..
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Why would he need to return? It isn't like he actually accomplished anything the first time. He didn't exactly impart any useful wisdom, forget about knowledge, for mankind. Just read from a few fortune cookies, then got arrested for allegedly stealing enough fish to feed a large group of people, then died on the cross, then "disappeared". Much of which isn't foretold in prophecy.

For the savior will then accomplish so very very little. He might upset a bit of the establishment, but not much will come of it, and then he'll steel (sp) lots of fish and get arrested and crucified, but then he'll disappear from the cave that his body was placed in and guarded or not... and had a boulder in front of the opening... or not. And like during his lifetime, more nothing would happen for over 2000 years.
 
...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."
- he or she will be thrown out.
Actually, contempt of court is punishable by a fine and possibly jail time. No such punishment is imposed on Christian apologists for dodging questions posed to them by skeptics, and they know they can get away with it.
However, in a debate scenario, the debater can still debate whilst thinking he/she can still continuously dodge some questions. Both looked upon with low credibilty..
I have seen some formal debates in which the debaters agree prior to the debate to not to dodge questions. Even then I've seen at least one apologist slip out of a sticky situation by "answering" a question he was never asked.
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."
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor

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?
 

Learner

Veteran Member

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?
As I said previously in post #64, it took the Romans a few hundred years to accept Christianity, before other nations were introduced to the Christian faith - and for some nations, hundreds of years later... after the Romans.
 
Last edited:

Keith&Co.

Contributor

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?
As I said previously in post #64, it took the Romans a few hundred years to accept Christianity, before other nations were introduced to the Christian faith - and for some nations, hundreds of years later... after the Romans.
Yes. now, how do you know if that was quick or not? What's the standard you're using for your claim about 'sensible expectations?'
 

Learner

Veteran Member

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?
As I said previously in post #64, it took the Romans a few hundred years to accept Christianity, before other nations were introduced to the Christian faith - and for some nations, hundreds of years later... after the Romans.
Yes. now, how do you know if that was quick or not? What's the standard you're using for your claim about 'sensible expectations?'
Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6, "Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years."

Mathew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”


In the context of Mat 24: 14, sensible expectations in just thirty five years is hard to grasp.

(Having said that... there's another way of seeing the word soon. I'll post that in the other responses.)
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,
And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?
"Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years."

Mathew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”


In the context of Mat 24: 14, sensible expectations in just thirty five years is hard to grasp.

(Having said that... there's another way of seeing the word soon. I'll post that in the other responses.)
the authors of this are among the people who think there's a place on Earth where you can stand and see all the kingdoms of the world. So i don't think it makes much sense to depend on their 'sensibility' in comparison to someone with modern knowledge of just how freaking big the actual world actually was, and is.
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,
And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?
I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, would match as the right response to your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer... ;)



"Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years."

Mathew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”


In the context of Mat 24: 14, sensible expectations in just thirty five years is hard to grasp.

(Having said that... there's another way of seeing the word soon. I'll post that in the other responses.)
the authors of this are among the people who think there's a place on Earth where you can stand and see all the kingdoms of the world. So i don't think it makes much sense to depend on their 'sensibility' in comparison to someone with modern knowledge of just how freaking big the actual world actually was, and is.

How small then, did they think the world was? Makes no difference regarding modern knowledge - in their eyes the world seemed pretty big. Rome expanding its empire over vast lands, which would seem big to them. Israelites and their historic journeys. People going out into the world from Babel with different languages becoming new nations and so on
 

Keith&Co.

Contributor
Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,
And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?
I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, certainly matches your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...

You're the one making a claim. Now you can't show any support for it. As usual
"Soon turns out to be at least thirty five years."

Mathew 24:14
“And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.”


In the context of Mat 24: 14, sensible expectations in just thirty five years is hard to grasp.

(Having said that... there's another way of seeing the word soon. I'll post that in the other responses.)
the authors of this are among the people who think there's a place on Earth where you can stand and see all the kingdoms of the world. So i don't think it makes much sense to depend on their 'sensibility' in comparison to someone with modern knowledge of just how freaking big the actual world actually was, and is.

How small then, did they think the world was? Makes no difference regarding modern knowledge - in their eyes the world seemed pretty big. Rome expanding its empire would seem big to them. Israelites and their historic journeys and so on.
Learner, there's not even a place you can stand to see all of the Roman Empire that existed, then. The details in the stories cast doubt upon their veracity.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,
And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?
I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, certainly matches your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...

You're the one making a claim. Now you can't show any support for it. As usual
Well yeah. Is this a surprise?
 

Learner

Veteran Member
Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,
And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?
I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, certainly matches your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...
You're the one making a claim. Now you can't show any support for it. As usual
Well yeah. Is this a surprise?

Is it surprising, when you (plural) contradict yourselves - the simple logic (thats what I use as a simple man), when you (atheists) often make the arguments about the bible, being written 60 to a 100 + years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus!?

After such a time, would thirty five years be "sensible" expectations to write down what Jesus said as being 'soon'... decades later?
 
Last edited:

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
Sensible expectations was my 'difference of opinion' to the last line in post# 6,
And you differ based on 'pulled out of your ass,' i guess?
I suppose if such a feat were possible, pulling out an answer from there, certainly matches your line above.

Ask a silly question get a silly answer...
You're the one making a claim. Now you can't show any support for it. As usual
Well yeah. Is this a surprise?

Is it surprising, when you (plural) contradict yourselves - the simple logic (thats what I use as a simple man), when you (atheists) often make the arguments about the bible, being written 60 to a 100 + years AFTER the crucifixion of Jesus!?

After such a time, would thirty five years be "sensible" expectations to write down what Jesus said as being 'soon'... decades later?
Who now? The guy who has a story about his birth and almost nothing else (see my above post) until he goes on his Conventions speaking tour. Then dies shortly there after with umm... well... nothing. Guy's life is virtually undocumented and we wonder why it took so long to come up with something. A Holy Book with only four chapters dedicated to the main character... and that is just repeated content.

Kind of like those Special Deluxe Box sets with the same album in four different formats, original stereo, remastered stereo, 5.1 Lossless, and instrumental.

But of course... born of a virgin (no details after) and died and disappeared like magic. Instead of the New Testament, should have went with Occasional Miracles.
 

Cheerful Charlie

Contributor
The Argument from Watch Me Move This Great Big Mountain We're here in Olympia, Washington, and I am about to show you the reality of MT 17:20, where our Lord says that with the smallest amount of true faith -- which I have -- I will be able to say to a mountain, go hence from this place, and it will go, because, as Jesus says, NOTHING will be impossible. So, okay, watch closely. Hey, Mount Rainier! I command you in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, move yourself to Secaucus, New Jersey!!! Stand back, everyone.

That's a good example of The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration. Jesus was obviously wrong about faith moving mountains, so apologists will avoid that claim. If somebody does cite it, the apologist will no doubt argue that the passage is not meant to be taken literally. Any problematical Bible passage that is obviously false if taken literally must be interpreted figuratively to save the Bible from being seen as full of errors.

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.
 

Jimmy Higgins

Contributor
The Argument from Watch Me Move This Great Big Mountain We're here in Olympia, Washington, and I am about to show you the reality of MT 17:20, where our Lord says that with the smallest amount of true faith -- which I have -- I will be able to say to a mountain, go hence from this place, and it will go, because, as Jesus says, NOTHING will be impossible. So, okay, watch closely. Hey, Mount Rainier! I command you in the name of Jesus of Nazareth, move yourself to Secaucus, New Jersey!!! Stand back, everyone.

That's a good example of The Argument from Miraculous Demonstration. Jesus was obviously wrong about faith moving mountains, so apologists will avoid that claim. If somebody does cite it, the apologist will no doubt argue that the passage is not meant to be taken literally. Any problematical Bible passage that is obviously false if taken literally must be interpreted figuratively to save the Bible from being seen as full of errors.

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

Contributor

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

Contributor

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.

Contributor
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

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
...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.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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.
 
"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

Veteran Member

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).
 
Last edited:

atrib

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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

Veteran Member
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.
 
Last edited:
Top Bottom