Do You Still Believe a God Cares for You?

by JosephAlward 58 Replies latest jw friends

Unclepenn1

REM wrote-Which logical fallacies have I committed in my post?
The fallacy of 'faulty analogy'. Making the claim that a historical figure (Jesus) has the same amount of historical evidence as an invisible pink unicorn (which by the way we are *certain* of no evidence for). Also, my 'appeal to authority' was not unjustified in this instance because I used it as a refutation of your fallacy. In other words, appeal to authority can be viable when necessary. Legitimate authorities can be trusted, i.e. you trust your doctor because he knows what the symptoms of pnemonia look like. You put a phorensics (sp?) specialist on the witness stand because he knows what a strangled body looks like. My appeal to authority was formed as a question, wondering how many phd's have done extensive research on this unicorn. No fallacies there.
>And just because someone says that the evidence would stand up in court doesn't mean it will.
True, but when you have a man who's life work is 'admissable evidence' and he makes the claim that 'no unbiased jury in the world could come to any other conclusion than that Jesus Christ rose from the dead' you have good reason to believe that he knows what he is talking about. Could he be wrong? Yes, but on the other hand, he spent 5 years looking at the evidence (as an atheist) and became a Christian based on the *evidence* (which I believe is the argument here).
So, how about evidence for this invisible unicorn. Will anyone be a beleiver in this unicorn based on historical evidence? Could anyone spend 5 years looking at the evidence for this unicorn? I didn't think so.
Penn
Mohammed- 'My teachings lead to the attainment of truth'
Buddha- 'The truth has been revealed to me'
Jesus- 'I am the truth'
rem

Unclepenn,
I never mentioned Jesus in my original post. I was talking about God - YHWH - the creator in the sky, not a historical person. You went off track with the whole historical Jesus question. You interpreted me saying the "Christian God" as meaning Jesus because of your Trinitarian views. My original statement is true - there is as much evidence for the Christian god (the creator in heaven) as there is for an Invisible Pink Unicorn. Thus I committed no logical fallacy. If you have evidence of a heavenly creator, be my guest and provide it.
It is not a false analogy to say that there is the same amount of evidence for God as the Invisible Pink Unicorn. It is the truth - there is zero for both. I could have used any number of examples, such as fairies, gnomes, santa clause, the tooth fairy, etc. They all have the same amount of evidence backing their existence - none.
Note that I never said there is as much evidence for the existence of a historical Jesus as an Invisible Pink Unicorn, so your argument is just a red herring. Of course I know there is some evidence for a historical Jesus. It just happens to be noncontemporary hearsay, that's all. It's evidence, just not very convincing evidence.
Your appeal to authority was just a red herring since the fact that PhD's probably have not done any dissertations on Invisible Pink Unicorns is irrelevant to the discussion. It doesn't bolster your position one bit - you provided no evidence for your case.
As far as a Jury deciding on the historicty of Jesus, if I and other rational people were on the Jury, then the judgement would probably not be the favor of Jesus existence.
It's interesting that Strobel didn't interview any skeptics in his book. You might want to read the other side of the story here: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/strobel.html
If that "evidence" convinced Strobel, then that's fine. It just goes to show that there will always be credulous people in the world. I guess the fact that there are no first-hand accounts or corroborating independent contemporary accounts for any of the stories of Jesus doesn't bother him or you.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
rem

Just and addendum - I assumed you were speaking about Strobel since he too claims to be a converted atheist, but here are some articles about McDowell's apologetics and his use of Greenleaf as an authority. Still the same is true, appeals to authority and second-hand evidence, but no independednt contemporary accounts to corroborate the stories of Jesus in the bible:
http://www.infidels.org/library/magazines/tsr/1996/5/5mail96.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/robert_price/son.html
http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/jeff_lowder/jury/chap5.html
Sorry about the confusion,
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain
Unclepenn1

REM, my mistake. Thats what I get for not going back to page one. I thought we were talking about Jesus. I will look into those links you provided. I have already browsed the J. McDowell one a few weeks ago. Perhaps we can pick this up at a later date. Also, what type of evidence are you looking (or should I say not looking) for? I mean, I am assuming that you don't believe most of history then right? If 2 people see a man rob a liquor store, he's going to jail. If hundreds of people see an event happen, including unbiased historians (Roman and Jewish) then I think it's a safe bet.
Penn
P.S. A red herring is a fallacy of diversion. I was not trying to divert the argument or change the subject, I was merely trying to back up my claims.
Penn
Mohammed- 'My teachings lead to the attainment of truth'
Buddha- 'The truth has been revealed to me'
Jesus- 'I am the truth'
Satanus

UnclePenn
You seem like an honest, sincere guy. I don't take exception to where you are, i was once there.
You said: 'Love is being upset when injustices are made. When Hitler killed 10 million people (6 mil being Jews) you hear that and get upset, because in your heart you have a sense of justice.' This is not really a fair illustration, if you break it down and examine it. First of all, the general public that got upset w this didn't have unconditional love, not to mention ordinary love for either hitler or his victims before or during the events. As you say at the end of the sentence, it was about percieved justice, not love.
But, let's take hitler as an example. Suppose god loved him unconditionally. If his love stopped because of his atrocities, then it wasn't unconditional. Let's suppose for the sake of this discussion that god did love hitler unconditionally. Would endless torture show unconditional love for hitler. I don't think so. Would unconditional godly love have alternatives? All things are possible w god. While i haven't gotten into hitlers head too much, i do know that most times power hunger, materialism and attention grabbing are caused by insecurity and fear. He also valued high culture and the german race.
After his death, god could help his spirit to overcome his fear and insecurities by replaying the causal events. God could allow him to experience these events, not just through his own little boy eyes, but through the feelings of the various other persons involved, be it one person or 1000. So hitlers spirit would get the big picture, and would see the error of his attempts at overcompensating, thus being won over/saved. Remember that all sins were paid for by jesus death. Whether someone kills one person, a thousand or merely contemplates it, it's all the same in gods eyes.
'The spirits of those types that all want to blow up the World Trade Center can all go and hang with each other and talk about how they wish they could do it again.' While some may get their biggest kicks from blowing up buildings, often there are core beliefs behind war like actions. They could have felt a righteous anger at percieved injustices to others w whom they identified. If that was true, then a righteous anger or something similar could have been their main motivation. Are not u.s. forces motivated by similar feelings? If these suggestions are close to the facts for most of them then, in my hypothesis, fighters from both sides could be drawn to the same place in the afterlife, to continue their conflicts.
'You attach yourself to a belief system that lets you freely be devious and not have to sweat the guilt. I was there man.' I always read a lot and tried to figure things out logically. I tried my best to live what i was believing. I still do. I never chose my way because it was easy. You say that in the past, chose a belief system that would allow you the freedom to do as you pleased. Since that was you guide for choosing a belief systen in the past, then maybe, one day, you will need to examine why you chose you present one.
I will probably respond to you reincarnation responses later.
'Not religion, not church, but Jesus.' Go a step further and say, 'not bible', because if you run into jesus then, don't you have everything you need? Won't he teach you all things? If not, why not? Unless he isn't there, or isn't what they say he is.
All the best
SS
Satanus

UnclePenn
Reincarnation
One site said that half the worlds population believes reincarnation of one type or another. A recent gallup poll found that 25% of americans believe in it. Christianity today found that 20% of born again christians believe in it. http://www.christianitytoday.com/ct/2000/009/31.80.html
Mt17:10-13, says: "And the disciples asked him, ‘Why, then, do the scribes says that Elijah must come first?’ He replied, ‘Elijah is indeed coming and will restore all things; but I tell you that Elijah has already come, and they did not recognize him, but they did to him whatever they pleased. So also the Son of Man is about to suffer at their hands.’ Then the disciples understood that he was talking about John the Baptist." In essence, Jesus is stating that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.
John9:2,3Another incident has Jesus healing the man born blind, and the disciples asking him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" , and it contains the idea that the blind man might have been born that way because he sinned in a previous life.
Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him." The idea that the man sinned in a previous life must have been acceptable, or the disciples never would have asked Jesus about it. And Jesus certainly was calm enough about his answer, saying in effect, "No, in this case, what the man had done in his former life was not the cause of his blindness."
And jesus himself reincarnated when he supposedly raised his physical body after 3 days.
SS
Abaddon

No.
No evidence.
Logically there would be.
A reasonable god would not allow it's existence or desires to be dependant on;
a) faith
b) human interpretation (i.e. books, prophets etc.)
A reasonable god could prove its existence, and inform people as to its desires.
The fact that there is such multiplicity of beliefs and such a lack of evidence for the theory of god shows that this has not happened.
When will theists get with the plot and be willing to state they believe because they want to, not because they are objectively 'right'?
People living in glass paradigms shouldn't throw stones...
Unclepenn1

>You seem like an honest, sincere guy. I don't take exception to where you are, i was once there.
Thanks SS, I will be straightforward with you. If I think you have a point on something, I will tell you. I am not here to just spew out some rehearsed jargon that someone told me. I will share with you what I *know* to be true.
>This is not really a fair illustration, if you break it down and examine it. First of all, the general public that got upset w this didn't have unconditional love, not to mention ordinary love for either hitler or his victims before or during the events. As you say at the end of the sentence, it was about percieved justice, not love.
I think you have a problem understanding what love means. Love is caring for someone to the point that you would want to be cared for. Putting someone else in as high a priority as yourself. Love is selfless. (see1 Cor 13) But, love is also *inseparable* from justice.
>But, let's take hitler as an example. Suppose god loved him unconditionally. If his love stopped because of his atrocities, then it wasn't unconditional.
The love that God has/is is based on justice and truth. He loves us enough to give us free will and the ability to make our own choices. He loves us enough to give us the option to choose Him or reject Him. For perfect love to be possible there must be justice involved or you do not have perfect love. If I love my neighbor but I let Him be mugged while I stand there, then that is not love. If God ignores the killing of 6 million Jews then that is not love. In fact, it is the anithesis of love. God loves Hitler not because who Hitler is but because who God is.
> Would endless torture show unconditional love for hitler.
God, loving him enough to give him free will, has also given him the choice to choose evil and reject Him. God will not force Hitler to spend eternity with a God whom he hates. Since God loves justice, Hitler will pay for His crimes against God and against humanity, in a world without God, in darkness and despair. (Believe me, Hitler will not want to be in hell, but likewise he will not want to be with God either)
>After his death, god could help his spirit to overcome his fear and insecurities by replaying the causal events. God could allow him to experience these events, not just through his own little boy eyes, but through the feelings of the various other persons involved, be it one person or 1000.
SO, now God has adopted the thoughts of modern psychologists and psychiatrists?!? Now, it's not really Hitlers fault that he killed all those people, he was a victim because of some insecurity or fear?!? I think you would see it differently if you were humiliated and stripped of everything you had, stuffed into a camp with thousands of people , sitting in your own urine and being starved to death and given a common burial. All because of Hitlers insecurities.?! You are not speaking about God my friend but the devil. Think about it SS.
>So hitlers spirit would get the big picture, and would see the error of his attempts at overcompensating, thus being won over/saved.
No SS, Hitler had his chance on earth to repent. Do you think Hitler was killing people and had no idea that killing people was wrong? There's a local group here in town that has been rounding up neighborhood cats and torturing them and setting them on fire and superglueing their eyes shut. Are these people doing this without the knowledge that it is wrong?! Of couse not! They all know it's wrong. God has given us a conscience that sets off a 'red alert' whenever we violate it. Modern man goes to the psychiatrists and is told that the guilt he feels in 'not his fault' and he believes his conscience is lying to him and covers it all up with a nice little prescription. (But that's a different topic altogether) Of course people do evil with the knowledge that it is wrong. The word conscience means 'with knowledge'. All God needs to teach you or show you is all built in. He has already set the boundaries in place. We choose to reject them.
>Remember that all sins were paid for by jesus death
I am not even sure how to address this one.......... People that reject God and hate God and live a life in opposition to God will in no way take the sacrifice of the King of Glory and use it as a ticket to paradise. God did not become incarnate and have His back ripped apart and have his body nailed to a Roman cross so people can live in opposition to everything that He is. You are not getting it SS. You do not understand perfect love (justice) nor do you understand what happened at Calvary. I say this with due respect, but the god that you believe in doesnt exist. he is a figment of your imagination and you have created him in your mind to suit your sins. Then, you cling to some philosophies like 'Conversations w/God' and they reinforce your ideas and your desire to silence your conscience by thinking that God is actually 'Barney' the purple dinosaur, and that he is just so giddy in love with everybody that there really is no right and wrong, just misunderstandings.
> I always read a lot and tried to figure things out logically.
And you logically concluded that right and wrong are not really that much different.
>'Not religion, not church, but Jesus.' Go a step further and say, 'not bible', because if you run into jesus then, don't you have everything you need? Won't he teach you all things?
John 14: 25-27
25 "All this I have spoken while still with you.26 But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, will teach you all things and will remind you of everything I have said to you.27 Peace I leave with you; my peace I give you. I do not give to you as the world gives. Do not let your hearts be troubled and do not be afraid.
(2 Tim 3: 14-17)But as for you, continue in what you have learned and have become convinced of, because you know those from whom you learned it,
15 and how from infancy you have known the holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.
16 All Scripture is God-breathed and is useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness,
17 so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.
Penn
Every human being, but especially the adult, prefers to keep on believing what he already believes, and to accept ideas only when they reinforce the ideas he already has. He tends, in other words, to become less and less intellectually curious and to have more and more of a closed mind as he grows older. - Charles Adrian
Unclepenn1

>Christianity today found that 20% of born again christians believe in it.
Unfortunately, people do not understand what it means to be 'born again'. I have a guy at work I took to an Easter service once and he told me he was born again back in the 80's. He lives a life of carousing bars and sleeping with women. He obviously uses it as a title and has no idea what it means. So do a lot of people I am sure.
>In essence, Jesus is stating that John the Baptist was the reincarnation of Elijah.
Luke1: 17 And he will go on before the Lord, in the *spirit and power* of Elijah, to turn the hearts of the fathers to their children and the disobedient to the wisdom of the righteous--to make ready a people prepared for the Lord."
John the baptist was similar to Elijah in that he was used by God as a prophet. This has nothing to do with reincarntation. He came in the 'spirit and power' of Elijah. You really have to do some stretching and twisting to make this fit your view.
>John9:2,3Another incident has Jesus healing the man born blind, and the disciples asking him, "Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?" , and it contains the idea that the blind man might have been born that way because he sinned in a previous life.
Jesus answered, "Neither this man nor his parents sinned; he was born blind so that God’s works might be revealed in him." The idea that the man sinned in a previous life must have been acceptable, or the disciples never would have asked Jesus about it. And Jesus certainly was calm enough about his answer, saying in effect, "No, in this case, what the man had done in his former life was not the cause of his blindness."
Wow SS, your exegesis is horrible ( and I do not say that to be argumentative) 'Jesus was saying in effect' and 'it contains the idea ' gives neither of your assertions any weight.
The prevailing idea at the time was that bad things happened to you because you had sinned. Not in a previous life, but in this one. Let me give you a couple of examples from scripture.
Acts 28 :2-4 The islanders showed us unusual kindness. They built a fire and welcomed us all because it was raining and cold.
3 Paul gathered a pile of brushwood and, as he put it on the fire, a viper, driven out by the heat, fastened itself on his hand.
4 When the islanders saw the snake hanging from his hand, they said to each other, "This man must be a murderer; for though he escaped from the sea, Justice has not allowed him to live."
Notice they immediately thought that he had commited some heinous crime. Not in a past life, but before he came to the island. Why? Because something bad had just happened to him. They thought God was giving him justice for his sin.
Luke 13:1-5 Now there were some present at that time who told Jesus about the Galileans whose blood Pilate had mixed with their sacrifices.
2 Jesus answered, "Do you think that these Galileans were worse sinners than all the other Galileans because they suffered this way?
3 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish.
4 Or those eighteen who died when the tower in Siloam fell on them--do you think they were more guilty than all the others living in Jerusalem?
5 I tell you, no! But unless you repent, you too will all perish."
Here are 2 tradgedies that happened and Jesus clearly tells them that it has nothing to do with sins they have committed. Pilate had slaughtered Galileans while they were sacrificing to God. Also, a tower fell on a bunch of people and they were killed. Jesus's response? If you think that they were worse sinners than most folks, I tell you, repent or you too will perish. The idea was that you were being punished by God for sinning. If you sinned and then broke your arm because you fell into a ditch, you assumed it was because of the sin. Past life ideas have nothing to do with any statements in the Bible.
>And jesus himself reincarnated when he supposedly raised his physical body after 3 days.
Jesus rose from the dead and defeated death. His resurrection has nothing to do with reincarnation. At all! Why do you think this way SS? Did you read it somewhere? Curious. Thanks for the conversation :)
Heb 9:27 Just as man is destined to die once, and after that to face judgment
1 Pet 3:18 For Christ died for sins once for all, the righteous for the unrighteous, to bring you to God.
Penn
Mohammed- 'My teachings lead to the attainment of truth'
Buddha- 'The truth has been revealed to me'
Jesus- 'I am the truth'
rem

Unclepenn,
Also, what type of evidence are you looking (or should I say not looking) for? I mean, I am assuming that you don't believe most of history then right? If 2 people see a man rob a liquor store, he's going to jail. If hundreds of people see an event happen, including unbiased historians (Roman and Jewish) then I think it's a safe bet.
First of all, even if it could be proved that a literal Jesus existed I don't see why that would make anyone want to be a Christian. I mean, believing in the existence of Muhammad doesn't make one want to be a Muslim. Even still, I'm not saying that it's impossible for a man named Jesus to have walked the Earth. I'm just saying the evidence is pretty scant. And then when you say this man did miracles and was resurrected, the evidence becomes even worse.
Like I've said before, I would like contemporary (of Jesus' time) evidence by independent parties. I don't think this is too much to ask since Jesus is supposedly the most important man to ever live (according to Christians). If he really did all of the things attributed to him, you would expect to see amazing evidence. You would expect secular writings from the time period about this amazing god-man.
The problem with all of the evidence we do have is that it is all second hand and most of it comes decades after the supposed events. Worse, some of the evidence has clearly been added in by forgers - interpolations into Josephus' accounts. Why would believers need to do such things if the evidence was so clear?
As far as your example of hundreds of witnesses see a man rob a store, here is the problem with the evidence:
What if a man a few decades after the supposed event says that hundreds of witnesses saw this robbery? The problem is that we don't have the first hand accounts of these hundreds of witnesses - only his word years after the event. Now the evidence doesn't look so good.
But now you say unbiased historians report it. Well, were these historians contemporaries with the robber, or did they live decades and centuries after the robber died? You could hardly call them eye-witnesses. Obviously they got their story from second and third hand accounts as well. And an interesting note is that some of these supposedly unbiased historians are a bit sloppy in their research and we know they have reported other things that are not true. Now their credibility is also in question.
Now with that evidence I think you'd be hard pressed to find a jury to find the robber guilty.
rem
"We all do no end of feeling, and we mistake it for thinking." - Mark Twain

Do You Still Believe a God Cares for You?

Share this