Love and Rebellion

[URAVIP2ME]

Nah, there have always been missionaries and crusades to carry on.
How has anyone demonstrated that Jesus was resurrected? Just because people believe a thing, doesn't make it true. There aren't any eyewitness accounts. We're talking about people in a story.
But to say that people don't die for "something that was not true" is demonstrably false. For instance, how about that religious cult that drank all the Kool-Aid and committed suicide? They certainly seemed to believe in the thing they were dying for (and killing their children for).
That's not really relevant to the discussion, but I don't agree that we should "not resist an evil person." I think evil should always be resisted.

...and because there was so large a crowd to start Christianity get off to a flying start is why missionaries.
Crusades were a teaching outside of 1st-centrury Christianity done by fake 'weed/tares' Christians.
Yes, there are local fake 'weed/tares' cults but they don't spread their beliefs on an international scale.
Jesus taught the 'good news' (Not bad news) of God's kingdom (Daniel 2:44) would be proclaimed world wide.
Yes, evil should be resisted.
Jesus will Not only resist evil (remember when twice Jesus threw out those corrupted money changers out of the temple). The coming 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of the wicked.
Just as taught at Isaiah 11:3-4 & Revelation 19:14-15 will come to pass. Just as it is written so shall it be !

 

[URAVIP2ME]

....You have zero eyewitness accounts to the supposed resurrection of Jesus Christ. And even if you did, eyewitness accounts are known to be unreliable.

True, none of us today were alive in the 1st century.
The real people of Luke chapter 3 are historical people that we never saw.
Unlike other books, ALL Scripture is inspired by God..... 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Unseen God is the Author.

 

[InChrist]

But I was going by how you explained things when you said:

So if God is perfect, as the scriptures indicate, as well as being omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient, don’t you think He knew the way He designed humans, their environment and opportunity to respond to Him and His love was the very best way to do so?​

Because I don't understand why A&E couldn't respond to God's love by just responding to it? Because why would any parent present a life or death ultimatum to any of their children as an opportunity to respond to their parents' love? That seems sadistic to me.



Well, I guess you haven't figured out by now that I don't share the same beliefs as you do.

It does not seem sadistic to me, but rather sensible because the ultimatum was based on a spiritual reality. When God said they would die if they ate from that one tree it was about spiritual death or separation from God. This is very important to understand since God is the only source of life; humans are dependent upon God. Separating ourselves from God through lack of trust, disobedience, sin, whatever cuts us off from Life and all God meant it to be and include for eternity- love, joy, peace, goodness, beauty, creativity and more. These are only accessible in God. We are not independent or autonomous.

So if you don’t share the same beliefs I do, why are you interested in discussing this?

 

[URAVIP2ME]

The resurrection is implausible and not a fact. And Christianity was a diverse and splintered mess before Constantine used it as a unifying political movement for his empire. Had Constantine not done this the religion might have died out when islam came about.
There were many splinter groups in early Christianity. Despite Constantine setting out to unify the religion it ended up splintering again after martin Luther. So lots of people influenced how the religion evolved.

Yes, you are right about splinter groups just as Jesus forewarned about the genuine 'wheat' Christians would grow together with the fake 'weed/tares' Christians until the coming Harvest Time or the soon coming Time of Separation to take place on Earth as illustrated at Matthew 25:31-33.
Or, as Jesus forewarned us that MANY would come in his name but prove false - Matthew 7:21-23.
Gospel writer Luke forewarned us that once the apostles were off the scene men dressed in sheep's clothing would try to fleece the flock of God - Acts of the Apostles 20:29-30.
So, even long before Constantine, already the apostasy was at work.
Constantine, Martin Luther, do Not make the Bible as wrong just makes 'Christendom' (so-called Christian) as wrong.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

.....How do we differentiate between someone who hears God's voice and a schizophrenic person who hears his dead grandfather's voice?

I had a relative that suffered from schizophrenia and sure she heard voices but that has nothing to do with the written word of God (aka Bible) .
Jesus said his 'sheep' would 'hear' his voice. Not a literal hearing but when one hears Jesus' words read they 'hear' (obey) those words just as if they are literal audible words.

 

[Wildswanderer]

There's no such thing as free will. Don't tell me you think there is.

Here is a great explanation of the recent studies, but you have to read down the text to get to these parts:
There’s No Such Thing as Free Will


My ideas are criticisms of the typical Christian interpretation of the A&E story. I'm doing a critical and objective analysis of the story at face value, and without certain assumptions Christians make. Feel free to point out any errors I'm making. You haven't yet, so I take it you can see I'm correct?

No free will equals nothing matters anyway so there's no point to your argument... it's just what you were programmed to say.

 

[F1fan]

No free will equals nothing matters anyway so there's no point to your argument... it's just what you were programmed to say.

Thanks for admitting defeat. If you had posted nothing I would have forgotten, but now I know my post got to you.

 

[David Davidovich]

6,000 years for Earth to be populated as required at Genesis 1:28 ( populate Earth )

So, is that supposed to be some sort of time-duration criteria in order to prove the loyalty of human beings? Because I'm not seeing that in Genesis 1:28.

Don't know how easy or not easy was Adam's choice.
We don't know how long Satan worked on Eve. Satan was cautious as a serpent.( moved slowly ?)

But Genesis 3:1 is referring to the movements of a snake and not the mannerisms of Satan. Also, what you are suggesting is not what the Bible verses say. The Bible says that the serpent and Eve had a back-and-forth conversation, and the serpent only spoke twice until Eve was deceived.

Additionally, since Eve was supposed to have been a perfect person and had already understood what animals were, it makes absolutely no sense that she was not shocked or rattled by a talking snake... and which is something that fundamentalists generally don't observe or wonder about.
.

Right, Adam did Not have to prove the success or failure of People Rule.
By breaking God's Law in effect then Adam was taking the Law out of God's hands and putting the Law in man's hands.

But that is not what scripture indicates because Genesis 4:1 demonstrates that Eve still had reverence for God and was not endeavoring on a life without God.

Without the Law then intelligent life could say they were automatons/robots with No choice in matters.
I like being loved by choice, like being chosen to be loved by someone.

No they wouldn't have. Without the Eden ultimatum, A&E would have just continued their relationship with God. However, you are making it sound as if the Eden ultimatum gave A&E free choice. Also, without the Eden ultimatum, how could intelligent life ever say that they were automatons/robots? That doesn't make sense.

 

[David Davidovich]

You went after my character instead of my point.

And which is why I should start keeping my threads out of debate forums.

 

[David Davidovich]

It does not seem sadistic to me, but rather sensible because the ultimatum was based on a spiritual reality. When God said they would die if they ate from that one tree it was about spiritual death or separation from God.

But as perfect human beings, A&E should have understood that, regardless of what an animal that is not even supposed to be able to talk said to Eve. However, the scriptures and fundamentalist interpretation make it appear as if Eve had inferior reasoning power than Adam did. And because of that, Satan knew that Eve would be easy prey. Therefore, Satan was betting on everything when he decided to deceive Eve instead of Adam. Also, the scriptures imply that Satan deceiving Eve was a sure bet and that it couldn't have gone wrong for him.

This is very important to understand since God is the only source of life; humans are dependent upon God. Separating ourselves from God through lack of trust, disobedience, sin, whatever cuts us off from Life and all God meant it to be and include for eternity- love, joy, peace, goodness, beauty, creativity and more. These are only accessible in God. We are not independent or autonomous.

I see. But why didn't perfect A&E understand that? And if you want to contend that A&E were not perfect, then why did intelligent creatures that were sinless and supposedly better off mentally and emotionally then we are, not understand that?

So if you don’t share the same beliefs I do, why are you interested in discussing this?

The same reason why anyone would want to discuss something. Also, I've been wondering about the questions that I asked in this thread and decided to ask them in order to see for myself if the A&E Genesis creation story held water... (No pun intended. Gensis 1:9-10 )

 

[David Davidovich]

Christianity would have died out a long time ago if the Resurrection did Not happen.
First-century Christianity got off to a flying start because God resurrected Jesus.

Have you ever researched the information as to why some people question the authenticness of the resurrection? I would say that you haven't because that is the corner stone of your faith.

Many would Not have risked their lives, and even died, for something that was Not true.

What you're saying is not true. SkepticThinker gave you an example of that. Also, have you ever heard of the United States January 6th Capitol riots?

 

[SkepticThinker]

Which character quality, your skepticism?
Eye witness accounts can be unreliable for like an event like a robbery or car crash but very reliable when you live with someone daily for 3 years and then 40 days after they rise from the dead, then you watch Him go up to Heaven, then what He said would happen does at Pentecost and afterwards, then their lives reflect that. Then millions after that experience the same thing throughout the centuries and still testifying today of the resurrection of Jesus Christ and that He is still active in their lives.

No. Eyewitness accounts don't suddenly become better because the person said someone rose from the dead. That's nonsensical.
And never mind that the accounts we're talking about aren't even eyewitness accounts, they're also anonymous, and on top of that they're thousands of years old. Eyewitness accounts don't get better with age and they definitely don't get better when they're hearsay.

 

[SkepticThinker]

...and because there was so large a crowd to start Christianity get off to a flying start is why missionaries.
Crusades were a teaching outside of 1st-centrury Christianity done by fake 'weed/tares' Christians.
Yes, there are local fake 'weed/tares' cults but they don't spread their beliefs on an international scale.
Jesus taught the 'good news' (Not bad news) of God's kingdom (Daniel 2:44) would be proclaimed world wide.
Yes, evil should be resisted.
Jesus will Not only resist evil (remember when twice Jesus threw out those corrupted money changers out of the temple). The coming 'sword-like executional words from Jesus' mouth' will rid the Earth of the wicked.
Just as taught at Isaiah 11:3-4 & Revelation 19:14-15 will come to pass. Just as it is written so shall it be !

Not sure how this addresses my post, Christianity was spread by people spreading it around the world, often by force, other times in a more nicey-nice way via missionaries.

The point is that people die can, and do, die for things that aren't true. Something doesn't magically become true because a person really, really, really believes it.

The rest of your post is just preaching.

 

[Wildswanderer]

Thanks for admitting defeat. If you had posted nothing I would have forgotten, but now I know my post got to you.

What does that mean? You are arguing against the very thing that would make your argument matter.
If you are just a robot why would I care what you are programmed to recite?

 

[SkepticThinker]

True, none of us today were alive in the 1st century.
The real people of Luke chapter 3 are historical people that we never saw.

Yep, so how do we verify things we weren't witness to and can't investigate?

Unlike other books, ALL Scripture is inspired by God..... 2 Timothy 3:16-17. Unseen God is the Author.

That's a claim, not in evidence. As far as I can tell, human beings wrote the Bible, and it shows.

 

[SkepticThinker]

I had a relative that suffered from schizophrenia and sure she heard voices but that has nothing to do with the written word of God (aka Bible) .

How do you know? How can we test that? That's my question.

Jesus said his 'sheep' would 'hear' his voice. Not a literal hearing but when one hears Jesus' words read they 'hear' (obey) those words just as if they are literal audible words.

And that's different from the above example, how?
How do you know it's Jesus and not your dead grandfather? Or Thor? How can we test this?

 

[ElishaElijah]

No. Eyewitness accounts don't suddenly become better because the person said someone rose from the dead. That's nonsensical.
And never mind that the accounts we're talking about aren't even eyewitness accounts, they're also anonymous, and on top of that they're thousands of years old. Eyewitness accounts don't get better with age and they definitely don't get better when they're hearsay.

Do you read what people write? The eyewitnesses I’m talking about lived with Jesus for 3 years and after He rise from the dead 40 more days,
watched Him ascend into Heaven. Then there were 500 others after He rise from the dead.
So when you talk eyewitness testimony being unreliable you are talking about something different.

 

[SkepticThinker]

Do you read what people write? The eyewitnesses I’m talking about lived with Jesus for 3 years and after He rise from the dead 40 more days watched Him ascend into Heaven.

,

Yes I read what you wrote and responded directly to it. This has been addressed in the very post you were responding to. Maybe you should pay closer attention.

People watched him ascend to Heaven? So they saw Heaven too?

Then there were 500 others after He rise from the dead.

That's another claim, not in evidence. Anybody can say "A whole bunch of other people saw it too, I swear!"
That doesn't mean much unless we have accounts from each of those 500 people. So where can I find those? Oh, they don't exist.

And again, we're not even dealing with eyewitness accounts here, as already pointed out. We are dealing with hearsay. You know, before you admonish others for not reading, you'd best take a look in a mirror first.

So when you talk eyewitness testimony being unreliable you are talking about something different.

We're not even talking about eyewitness accounts here. It's much worse than that - we're dealing with hearsay.

And as noted already, eyewitness accounts don't become better with age and they don't get better as the claims become more extraordinary - quite the opposite.
But again, these aren't even eyewitness accounts we're dealing with.

 

[ElishaElijah]

We're not even talking about eyewitness accounts here. It's much worse than that - we're dealing with hearsay.

How was this hearsay? Just because you say it’s hearsay doesn’t make it so.
The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses

 

[SkepticThinker]

How was this hearsay? Just because you say it’s hearsay doesn’t make it so.
The New Testament was written by eyewitnesses

The majority of New Testament scholars agree that the Gospels don't contain eyewitness accounts. My Bible says that right in the preface. Heck, the authors themselves don't even claim to be eyewitnesses. For example, the one labelled "Luke" says, "Many have undertaken to draw up an account of the things that have been fulfilled among us,
2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the first were eyewitnesses and servants of the word.
3 With this in mind, since I myself have carefully investigated everything from the beginning, I too decided to write an orderly account for you, most excellent Theophilus,"

That's called hearsay, and it's most definitely not accepted in a court of law.

"Even in our modern court of law, the testimony of an eyewitness carries much weight."
Nope.

You should read this:
Eyewitness Testimony