Questions for God

[Trailblazer]

Please justify your position that eternal life is required in order for their to be a "point of it all."

We won't really 'know' the point of eternal life until we die. Till then all we can do is 'believe' what scriptures say, or not believe them.

 

[Dimi95]

First, the resurrection did not take place as the four gospels, and the brief mentions in Paul and in Acts 1, describe, since each of the six accounts contradicts the other five on major points, but as I understand it, it's not claimed that there were six resurrections.

Since you made the claim , feel free to present the points

Second, the resurrection did not take place at all, since death is the irreversible cessation of the body's life support systems, so that anyone who 'comes back to life' wasn't dead in the first place.

Yet , the definitions that you use come back to you in the same way you point them.

"Just days before Drew Kohn’s 23rd birthday, he was hit by a car as he rode on his motorcycle. The impact was so intense, it actually knocked off Drew’s helmet and shoe.

It’s the kind of incident where no one is expected to survive. But Drew’s near-fatal motorcycle accident was merely the start to an incredibly inspiring modern-day miracle story!"

Son’s 1st Words After 244 Days Brain Dead Were ‘I Love You Mom’ - You’ve Got To See Him Now

There’s no question, Drew Kohn is a modern-day miracle. Following an awful motorcycle accident, doctors declared him brain dead, reeling off a long list of things he’d never do again. But Drew’s family held onto their faith - and each day, Drew is defying all of the doc

thefishportland.com

A claimed event contrary to this, being innately not believable, would require evidence of the very highest quality. But instead there is no eye-witness account of it, there is no contemporary account of it and there is no independent account of it. Indeed, the first account with any details is in Mark, written some 45 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion.

Where do you get your info?

Even Wiki says enough and otherwise

Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

Some will say , well how will they write it in Greek , since most probably they spoke Aramaic or Hebrew , but they fail to understand that Matthew was a tax collector and most probably he spoke Greek because of what he was doing before he met Jesus.

The authenticity of these letters is accepted by almost all scholars, and they have been referenced and interpreted by early authors such as Origen and Eusebius. Given that the Pauline epistles are generally dated 50–60 CE, they are the earliest surviving Christian texts that include information about Jesus.

What is interesting to me is how you treat the evidence.

I don't know where you got your numbers from, but yes, from about 250 CE Christianity had reached critical mass and was steadily spreading through the Roman Empire. It was illegal but only occasionally were there outbursts of persecution, nothing systematic. They were attractive to a wide range of citizens, they were organized with local leaders and regional bishops, they were as involved as anyone in local and regional politics. Thus they too had internal feuds, popular and unpopular candidates and leaders, manipulations and maneuverings, all those good things that go with corporation life, including schism, and so on and so on.

In other words , they died because they belived that Christ rose from the dead.I mean you can go around that as many times as you want , but nothing will change what is there.

You see them as sect , you treat them as such , i see them as people.

The difference is that what we claim is supported by what early schollars wrote about it.

"Christian sources such as the New Testament books in the Christian Bible, include detailed accounts about Jesus, but scholars differ on the historicity of specific episodes described in the biblical accounts of Jesus. The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

And when Constantine found the idea of one Great God politically useful, and as a matter of expediency put an end to their illegal status, they shortly became the politically and actually dominant religion of the Empire.

This is nothing more then personal interpretation of evidence.
Do you claim to know Constantine?

So what? Do you think the Chiefs won Superbowl LVII this year because God was on their side?

This is a very odd question considering the topic

And how do you account for the schism of Christianity into Eastern and Roman, Roman and Protestant, Pisco and Southern Baptist, Mormon and Rastafarian, on and on endlessly?

So basically you point to division.

Can you explain to me how division must be Neccesary wrong?

No, not even a single eye-witness account. All they had was uncritical indoctrination.

All that they had was faith in what was given to them , to pass to the other generations what was passed to them
It is our own choice to accept or accept not their testimony.

You can't dictate how it will be interpretated

You may find >this< instructive. There were even videos of it on the net. Yet despite the video evidence and the fact that I like Ganesha and the principles he stands for, learning and fellowship, I don't believe that anything miraculous was involved. What about you?

I will look into it and come back with an answer.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

It is possible that God chooses not to know certain things, if one believes in a God who is all-powerful.

Nothing good comes from a willfully ignorant character.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Well, not if one’s eternity, beyond physical death, is the point of it all.

Saying that you will solve my hunger by buying me a burger long after I died doesn’t help. A person in need is in need NOW.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

In other words , they died because they belived that Christ rose from the dead

They were no different than modern hamas. They were terrorists, part of a movement that likely began with the Baptist, who was an anti Herodian rebel, gathering followers including Jesus in the desert.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

Serious question ─ I've never seen the point of living eternally.

I don’t see why many want it. I did before I realized that a finite life is trouble enough. These people can’t handle the years that they have, much less all the years.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The impact was so intense, it actually knocked off Drew’s helmet and shoe.

It’s a miracle if two unattached objects fall off? No, a miracle is something that was attached fall off and was successfully replaced, like his head. Not even Jesus could fix the Baptist.

 

[Kelly of the Phoenix]

The only two events subject to "almost universal assent" are that Jesus was baptized by John the Baptist and was crucified by the order of the Roman Prefect Pontius Pilate.

Yes, and there is a clear political subtext that Christians often miss.

 

[blü 2]

Since you made the claim , feel free to present the points,

Briefly, death is the irreversible cessation of the body's life support functions. If you're actually dead, your condition is by definition irreversible.

To claim that there are exceptions to this in authentically dead people is to claim black is white. And extraordinary claims require extraordinary demonstration of their correctness. However, the NT provides nothing of the kind ─ no eyewitness account, no independent account and not contemporary account ─ the first with any details is in Mark, written some 45 years after the traditional date of the crucifixion.

Not only that, but each of the six accounts of the resurrection in the NT contradicts the other five in major ways. I set a few of them out >here<.

Yet , the definitions that you use come back to you in the same way you point them.

I'm not talking about narrow escapes and improbable recoveries. I've talking about literally dead people. Out here in reality they don't come back to life.

Sources for the historicity of Jesus - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I'm not arguing against the historicity of Jesus. I think it's at least as likely as not that the stories are based on a real person, though we know very little about him.

In other words , they died because they belived that Christ rose from the dead.I mean you can go around that as many times as you want , but nothing will change what is there.

People choose to die for their beliefs all the time. The fact that they believed something is not of itself evidence that their belief was correct, was somehow related to events in reality.

This is nothing more then personal interpretation of evidence.
Do you claim to know Constantine?

All interpretations of evidence are done by someone, are personal in that sense. The question often hinges on the good repute or otherwise of the interpreter.

This is a very odd question considering the topic

Not at all. Good and bad things happen all the time, with no evidence of God's will in action, which is the point of my question to you.

So ─ do you think God wanted the Chiefs to win, and that is why they won? Do you think the spread of Christianity through the Roman Empire was God's will and intervention, or just the run of another political view through history? Does Coca-Cola sell well because people like it or because God wills its success?

Can you explain to me how division must be Neccesary wrong?

It means that while one view may be right or wrong, where you have more than one incompatible views, all may be inaccurate but at best only one can be accurate.

I will look into it and come back with an answer.

I'll be interested to hear your view.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I don’t think people who say that have met people.

Or have never had a fight-or-flight response in a potentially dangerous situation when they felt like they were in danger and their life was threatened.

 

[InChrist]

Because Gods WERE part of material reality back then.

Not according to the scriptures, which give an account of a very distinct unique, supernatural Creator God outside of the material world, revealing Himself to and interacting with humans.

 

[InChrist]

Saying that you will solve my hunger by buying me a burger long after I died doesn’t help. A person in need is in need NOW.

And yet Jesus said that people do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, meaning that eternal life and what is necessary to sustain that is more important that this brief physical life. I think humans beings were created to live forever, so to lose focus of that or lose eternal life altogether, is the real loss.

 

[ppp]

And yet Jesus said that people do not live by bread alone, but by every word that proceeds from the mouth of God, meaning that eternal life and what is necessary to sustain that is more important that this brief physical life. I think humans beings were created to live forever, so to lose focus of that or lose eternal life altogether, is the real loss.

None of those words change the fact that solving someone's hunger problem after someone has died is crap. As @Kelly of the Phoenix has said, and you have callously ignored a person in need of food is in need now.

 

[Trailblazer]

None of those words change the fact that solving someone's hunger problem after someone has died is crap.

That is not what Jesus taught. Jesus taught that we should solve the hunger problem while the needy are still alive.

Matthew 25:41-46 Then shall he say also unto them on the left hand, Depart from me, ye cursed, into everlasting fire, prepared for the devil and his angels: For I was an hungred, and ye gave me no meat: I was thirsty, and ye gave me no drink: I was a stranger, and ye took me not in: naked, and ye clothed me not: sick, and in prison, and ye visited me not. Then shall they also answer him, saying, Lord, when saw we thee an hungred, or athirst, or a stranger, or naked, or sick, or in prison, and did not minister unto thee? Then shall he answer them, saying, Verily I say unto you, Inasmuch as ye did it not to one of the least of these, ye did it not to me. And these shall go away into everlasting punishment: but the righteous into life eternal.

 

[1213]

Do you think any of the Jan 6 rioters are happy they made an emotional and irrational decision to attack the Capitol, only later being arrested and convicted?

You should ask them.

You don't understand human psychology. Look at you, can you chose to not believe in God?

I can chose every action I make.

Atheists can, and explain why. I can't decide to believe because I assess the ideas with reason, and all God and gods lack adequate evidence.

And for some reason you have chosen that all the evidence is not adequate, probably because you don't like the idea that God would be real.

See, you can't be convinced.

I don't change my mind on basis of poor reasons.

Then don't oppose abortion. Murder means nothing. Morals are irrelevant since we all die. Is this what Christianity has taught you?

Christianity teaches, don't murder.

Humanism is vastly better as a moral code.

How? It allows mothers to murder their babies for to get better life.

Why not just admit that hour interpretation of the Old Testament (that even Jews don't do) implicates God as the cause for cancer.

How?

A God that deliberatel murdered all but 7 people because he regreted what he created. And even that act did not fix anthing.

It did what it was meant to do. And the reason why God did was that all of them were evil and violent. If you think people are now as evil and violent, we can expect end is near.

 

[F1fan]

Not according to the scriptures, which give an account of a very distinct unique, supernatural Creator God outside of the material world, revealing Himself to and interacting with humans.

Which is why rational minds don't assume the scriptures is true and to be interpreted literally. Those who do interpret it literally can't demonstrate that they are correct. They struggle to explain how it makes any sense in the real world. That means the more literalist the believer, the more into illusion and fantasy they live.

 

[setarcos]

It's irrelevant how omniscience is defined in Christianity because here omniscience is the claim under investigation.

Not that its relevant here but the only claim I've made is a belief in the omniscient Christian God.
You've set the stage by narrowing the claimed Gods that others believe in specifically down to that Christian God. So, your claim is dealing with the Christian God specifically.
What claim have you made you might wish to ask since anti-theists love to claim they make no claims and therefore the onus is on the theist to prove whatever?
That claim is that omniscience cannot be logically coherent. In order for us to discuss a potential proof or disproof of such a claim it is imperative that we understand what is meant by the terms involved.
For instance. The ignorant will often come up with foolish contradictory statements like "If God can't create a rock big enough that he can't lift it then he can't be all powerful because there is something that God cannot do."
These things stem from an ignorant understanding of what is meant by God, specifically the Christian God when we speak of God.
In order to avoid these misunderstandings and the accompanying waist of time it IS imperative that we understand our definitions.

And that means the mere assertion of omniscience is insufficient.

I agree. Your mere assertion that omniscience is not logically sustainable is insufficient for the discussion. You must demonstrate why such a term as specifically defined is logically unsustainable. Remember your own argument, we are not trying to prove that any particular thing with omniscience actually exists in reality. What I've tried to show is that omniscience can be logically sustainable. You should be trying to prove that it isn't. You've simply posed a question that may not even be realistically meaningful.

Yet until the supporters of omniscience can explain how God knows there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know, mere assertion is all there is.

I've given you some propositions and examples. I've yet to get your counterpoints to these in order to further the discussion.
Perhaps I'm getting you mixed up with another poster...I'll go back and reread. Maybe you should as well?

IF its supporters can't answer the question, How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know? Otherwise okay until some other problem may arise.

Um...okay? But I've answered your question - not definitively since I cannot prove such things- and have shown how omniscience is logically coherent. Do you or can you comment on my propositions instead of relying on your question to be the answer or not?

No. You're pitching omniscience's mere assertion against a logical problem that arises from the assertion.

No I'm "pitching" a proposal that either you've misunderstood what is meant by omniscience in Christianity, how it relates to logic, and the fact that you've not commented on my potential solutions to your problem.
Your asserting that there is a logical problem but you've not demonstrated that God can't know everything that is possible to know and you've not demonstrated whether or not your question is meaningful given the definitions of the terms involved.
The answer to your question may be as self evident as "How do you know you are self aware?". Or as meaningless as asking "What color is an invisible purple rock?".
Can you show that your question is logically sustainable?

As I've repeatedly made clear here, to isolate that question and examine it on its own, I've stated that the existence of the bible God is a given for this purpose.

Yes! And as I've repeatedly made clear here, because of your givens you've opened yourself up to the same standard of proof as what your question asks for. You've made a claim. You've not demonstrated proof of that claim but ask for proof against that claim. Let me give you a comparison....
Believer: God exists because I don't know how the universe | Unbeliever: Omniscience is logically unsustainable because I got here otherwise. | don't know how God could know what he doesn't know.
Unbeliever: Prove your claim that God exists. | Believer: Prove your claim that omniscience is logically unsustainable.
Believer: Prove it doesn't. | Unbeliever: Prove that omniscience IS logically sustainable.
Unbeliever: I've made no claim so the onus is on you | Believer: You've made the claim that omniscience as defined is to prove the claim you have made. | logically unsustainable so the onus is on you to prove the | claim since actual existence is irrelevant here.

I invite you to answer the question itself, and not keep trying to duck it.

Like I said...I've given a few propositions in answer. I don't "duck" questions. "Ducking" doesn't seem like a good path to a solution - if there is one.
If I don't know the answer or haven't a potential answer I will tell you and what's more I wouldn't look for one if I had thought you had proven your case.
Not only have I not ducked your question, I've given some answers in relation. I've also posed some questions which you yourself seem to have ducked, ignored, or not realized were asked. Perhaps you can reskim what I've posted and engage with what I've said specifically in regards to attempting to answer your question.
Humble regards...

 

[Bird123]

You don't see a problem in attributing nonsense qualities to God like omniscience? Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.


How do you know that? Did someone tell you, or have you met a real non-imaginary God? If the latter, please describe [his] physical appearance to me so that if I run into [him] I can say hello. Oh, and what was [he] wearing at the time?


You'd probably enjoy writing down the plate numbers of passing cars too.


Demonstrate to me that I'm wrong.


No, I'm not saying that, though God seems to qualify.


Which God will it be? How can I distinguish this being from the other gods? Or from a mere superscientist?

Do tell.

 

[Bird123]

You don't see a problem in attributing nonsense qualities to God like omniscience? Perhaps I shouldn't be surprised.


How do you know that? Did someone tell you, or have you met a real non-imaginary God? If the latter, please describe [his] physical appearance to me so that if I run into [him] I can say hello. Oh, and what was [he] wearing at the time?


You'd probably enjoy writing down the plate numbers of passing cars too.


Demonstrate to me that I'm wrong.


No, I'm not saying that, though God seems to qualify.


Which God will it be? How can I distinguish this being from the other gods? Or from a mere superscientist?

Do tell.

Physical qualities of God? Do you assume the physical is all that exists. Must God be in your terms only? Do you really want to see God? Have you asked God at all? Be very careful what you ask for. You might just get it.

What purpose would I have writing down plate numbers of passing cars? Aren't there so many more things one can choose that actually accomplishes something? Do you want to accomplish??

Can't you demonstrate that you existed before last Thursday? You are starting to sound like some theists. Poof creation is no creation at all. What purpose does implanting memories serve? Where is your math? Pinch yourself and wake up.

Which God will it be? I'll leave that surprise up to you when the time comes. You already know God so there will be no doubt or argument. Try not to feel foolish. Instead, look deeper into yourself to understand.

That's what I see. It's very clear!!

 

[loverofhumanity]

1. How does God know there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

2. How does God know [he] didn't spontaneously spring into existence. fully formed with memories and all, with the rest of the universe last Thursday?

3. How does God know [he]'s not just a dream in the brain of a human?

Because He is All Knowing.