If A Stranger From Cleveland Saw A Ghost........ (Jesus, Earth)

[Buttercup]

And asked you to believe he saw this ghost, would you?

If a stranger from Cleveland saw a ghost and said this ghost was God would you believe him?

If a stranger from Cleveland saw a ghost, said this ghost was God and unless you also believed this ghost was God you'd go to hell.......would you believe him?

Isn't that the same sort of analogy we're supposed to buy into with the Christian faith? We're to believe words written by strangers thousands of years ago or suffer eternal consequences? How does that make sense?

[Ori]

I think they mean that the ability to believe in God cannot be verified by writings from thousands of years ago.

But I could be wrong.

[fullyveiled muslimah]

The analogy is too simplified. When the prophets came forth with their claims, they were often met with much contention and distrust. Those who ended up believing them, did so only after the passage of some time and some proof. So like in the time of Jesus, he didn't just walk up to people and was like 'hey I'm the messiah, follow me', and the people were all like 'yeah sure ok'. They asked for proof all the time. From every prophet a proof was given to them to convince the people of their claim. Usually this proof was in the form of some miracle. Many people in their day still did not believe and attributed the proofs as a magic rather than what it was.


So you analogy is almost insulting. If a stranger from cleveland made this claim, what makes you think he wouldn't be asked for a proof?

I think this thought stems from the idea that theists are gullible bunch, that whenever an extraordinary claim is made by anyone for any reason, we go for it no questions asked. It also supposes that we do not examine why we believe what we do, we just do blindly without even a moment of thought or consideration. We are assumed to not have possibly thought this out, given that we didn't come to the conclusion that it was false.

[Super Universe]

Most people believe because they want to believe, it fills a need they have.

And for some it feels good to be privileged (I'm going to heaven).

Some feel good believing there is a sense of justice in the universe, justice that isn't perfect on the earth.

And a few have no choice but to believe in God because they are here to do certain work.

[MdmSzdWhtGuy]

Originally Posted by Evmo

And asked you to believe he saw this ghost, would you?

If a stranger from Cleveland saw a ghost and said this ghost was God would you believe him?

If a stranger from Cleveland saw a ghost, said this ghost was God and unless you also believed this ghost was God you'd go to hell.......would you believe him?

Isn't that the same sort of analogy we're supposed to buy into with the Christian faith? We're to believe words written by strangers thousands of years ago or suffer eternal consequences? How does that make sense?

I think it is an apt analogy. I wouldn't buy it if the guy from Cleveland said he saw a ghost, and I don't buy any other supernatural claims either.

B.

[Buttercup]

Originally Posted by fullyveiled muslimah

The analogy is too simplified. When the prophets came forth with their claims, they were often met with much contention and distrust. Those who ended up believing them, did so only after the passage of some time and some proof. So like in the time of Jesus, he didn't just walk up to people and was like 'hey I'm the messiah, follow me', and the people were all like 'yeah sure ok'. They asked for proof all the time. From every prophet a proof was given to them to convince the people of their claim. Usually this proof was in the form of some miracle. Many people in their day still did not believe and attributed the proofs as a magic rather than what it was.

The NT writings weren't recorded until 70 years ( or perhaps later) after the death of Jesus according to some sources. People are to assume that the words of Christ were remembered verbatim that many years later? It's extremely hard to imagine that people in 2007 would write down the exact words of a prophet that died in 1937 simply from memory. And much of the teachings would be second or third generation because a percentage of people would have died.

So you analogy is almost insulting. If a stranger from cleveland made this claim, what makes you think he wouldn't be asked for a proof?

I think this thought stems from the idea that theists are gullible bunch, that whenever an extraordinary claim is made by anyone for any reason, we go for it no questions asked. It also supposes that we do not examine why we believe what we do, we just do blindly without even a moment of thought or consideration. We are assumed to not have possibly thought this out, given that we didn't come to the conclusion that it was false.

I'm sorry if you find the analogy insulting, it's not meant to be. It's just how my mind views the religious quandry.

You say that there was proof to the people of the day. What about for us? Why were they given proof but not us? We have the disadvantage here. They are given proof and get to go to heaven. We are not given proof and are threatened with hell if we don't believe. How is that fair?

[kmkemp]

Originally Posted by Evmo

The NT writings weren't recorded until 70 years ( or perhaps later) after the death of Jesus according to some sources. People are to assume that the words of Christ were remembered verbatim that many years later? It's extremely hard to imagine that people in 2007 would write down the exact words of a prophet that died in 1937 simply from memory. And much of the teachings would be second or third generation because a percentage of people would have died.

You are excluding many cultural factors. In Jesus' day, oral tradition was rampant. They couldn't just type everything on their computer and save it for later reference like us. Many pharisees memorized the entire OT word for word, for example. Oral tradition was passed down through the generations with much more accuracy than it would be today.

Also, there was not an emphasis on quoting word for word like there is today in our culture. Almost all of Jesus' sayings were surely paraphrased (as evidenced by different wording in the gospel accounts).

Originally Posted by Evmo

You say that there was proof to the people of the day. What about for us? Why were they given proof but not us? We have the disadvantage here. They are given proof and get to go to heaven. We are not given proof and are threatened with hell if we don't believe. How is that fair?

We have the Bible, the testimony of nature and the Holy Spirit, our own consciousness, and numerous philosophical arguments and historical accuracies as well as fulfilled prophecy. If you want to say that we have no proof, I'm afraid that is just inaccurate. Still, we don't have the advantage of Jesus walking the earth in human form. God realizes this as well:

John 20:29
29Then Jesus told him, "Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed."

[fullyveiled muslimah]

I'm sorry if you find the analogy insulting, it's not meant to be. It's just how my mind views the religious quandry.

I'm not offended.

You say that there was proof to the people of the day. What about for us? Why were they given proof but not us? We have the disadvantage here. They are given proof and get to go to heaven. We are not given proof and are threatened with hell if we don't believe. How is that fair?

Would the proof render a different outcome? In the times of the prophets so many proofs were given, but that didn't stop people from disregarding the messege sent. So I doubt that now if we see any type of miracle, we are so cynical, as people were back then, that we would simply disregard that person as a charlatan.