1. God exists and helps everyone who asks for help.

2. God exists and doesn't help anyone who asks for help.

3. God exists and only helps some of the people who ask for help.

4. God doesn't exist.


Explain why.

The Banned said:

---

I like where you're going with this, but what do you mean by "help"

---

I suppose for the purposes of this query it would be the kind of help that God would be more likely to give someone. ie....something that would be hard for us to understand him not giving.

If someone asks for a financial windfall there could be a multitude of reasons why they wouldn't receive it...
But if someone asks for the strength to get through a rough time in their life it would be hard to imagine why that help would not be given.

I guess I'd go with a version of #1. The problem is the "help" we want may not actually be helpful. Your windfall obviously fits here, but take the more difficult version of strength to get through a rough time. What does that look like? We wake up happy one day despite the rough time? The rough time ceases to exist, so we can be happy again? We aren't really in a situation to know what the help should look like.

Here I'd say turn back to Jesus on the cross. In a way, he wanted "help" to get out of the pain to come when he prayed for the cup to pass from him. But that ultimately wouldn't be helpful, as it would have prevented him from fulfilling the plan of salvation.

From here we can ask why this was the plan for salvation in the first place. I would suggest it's because we are all destined to die one day. We're all destined for hardships. Life is gonna suck sometimes. Because of the fall, God isn't going to make utopia on this earth. So how does God help us when we pray during these rough times? By pointing us back to the fact He was willing to suffer along with us. It's part of the journey. We look to Him and choose to follow His path of commitment to God even when life is hard. Suffering with joy, as many biblical passages point to. The help is already there, but none of us really like the help that is offered, myself included.

nm

92Ag95 said:

---

1. God exists and helps everyone who asks for help.

2. God exists and doesn't help anyone who asks for help.

3. God exists and only helps some of the people who ask for help.

4. God doesn't exist.


Explain why.

---

I'm having a hard time with the question being asked.

As others have pointed out, the meaning of the term 'help' could make it hard to evaluate the question. But, I think that the term 'God' makes it much more difficult. Which God? If this question utilizes the term 'God' in the most generic possible way, then I don't see a way we can assign any liklihoods to any of the options above. If the term 'God' refers to the Christian God, then I think we have a better chance of justifying an answer, because at least the term 'God' is partially defined in Christianity.

If you intend to ask about the Christian God or God from one of the major religions, my answer is 4 without hesitation.

If you intend to ask about God, being inclusive of any and all possibilities from a certainly infinite pool of supernatural deities we could think of or could never think of, . . . . I don't really have an answer.

I think its tempting to want to respond to the question with what we want to be true or with what we feel to be true. But, you aren't asking which we want to be true. To go with options 1, 2, or 3 would require that we pretend to know the mind and motivations of a potentially infinite being. And to go with option 4 requires an equally unjustifiable claim to knowledge about the nature of reality.

--------------------

Now that I've provided a non-answer. . . If you forced me to answer:

I would rule out Option 1. I simply don't think that answer can be justified without absolute confirmation bias. This is the option that would see some kids dying from Leukemia and some kids surviving Leukemia and seeing all results as God's plan and God's help. If literally every result of asking for help is evidence of God's help, then nothing is.

Option 3 potentially has the same problem as 1. If we are permitted to imagine what God's motivations could be, then any and every result of asking for help can be justified against a God that sometimes helps and sometimes doesn't help.

Options 2 and 4 are basically the same. Sure, there is the factual distinction related to the origins of existence, but practically speaking, we might expect to observe the same thing in realities 2 or 4.

I think I'd have to go with option 2 / 4. And I think that I choose this answer because it feels the most like choosing agnosticism. . . if that makes any sense.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

Now that I've provided a non-answer. . . If you forced me to answer:

I would rule out Option 1. I simply don't think that answer can be justified without absolute confirmation bias. This is the option that would see some kids dying from Leukemia and some kids surviving Leukemia and seeing all results as God's plan and God's help. If literally every result of asking for help is evidence of God's help, then nothing is.

Option 3 potentially has the same problem as 1. If we are permitted to imagine what God's motivations could be, then any and every result of asking for help can be justified against a God that sometimes helps and sometimes doesn't help.

Options 2 and 4 are basically the same. Sure, there is the factual distinction related to the origins of existence, but practically speaking, we might expect to observe the same thing in realities 2 or 4.

I think I'd have to go with option 2 / 4. And I think that I choose this answer because it feels the most like choosing agnosticism. . . if that makes any sense.

---

Very close to my line of thinking as I posed the question. Help in this case needs to be seen as the most general sense of divine intervention.....or better yet seen from the opposite perspective being defined as anything other than ZERO intervention.

I have no real motive for asking the question, simply thinking about the disparity of the human condition globally.
Very intriguing to me how some people can have such a charmed life and some people can be so snake bit in everything they do. Setting aside any measure of control we have over our lives....it just seems so unfair how some people can never seem to win and some people never seem to lose.

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

1

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

---

Agree on 1. Sometimes it is not in the way we think it should happen but God always works it out for good for those who love Him.

Luke 4: 25 But in truth, I tell you, there were many widows in Israel in the days of Elijah, when pthe heavens were shut up three years and six months, and a great famine came over all the land, 26 and Elijah was sent to none of them qbut only to Zarephath, in the land of Sidon, to a woman who was a widow. 27 And rthere were many lepers1 in Israel in the time of the prophet Elisha, and none of them was cleansed, sbut only Naaman the Syrian."

If you want a Biblical answer then here it is. God answers some prayers and not others

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

1

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

---

Agree on 1. Sometimes it is not in the way we think it should happen but God always works it out for good for those who love Him.

---

I feel like in scenario #4 though that people can always find something positive about an outcome and attribute it to devine intervention. One thing I've always thought about is why the requirement for "faith". It's like if I were buying a car from you and you were expected to hand it over and have "faith" that I would pay you....how convenient for me. What is the road block for us to have some form of validation? People will always point to good things as evidence of a higher power whether it's true or not. Why do we have to exist in this proof-less vacuum? So believing without seeing is somehow holier? We hear of great miracles but most, like Fatima, are all in the past. Why do we not hear of true miracles that can ONLY be attributed to a higher power under the highest scrutiny.....ie....why no modern day Lazarus? Seems like most documented miracles leave the door slightly ajar to be explained away. Imagine what a true modern day miracle that absolutely CANNOT be refuted would do for faith on a global scale.

92Ag95 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

1

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

---

Agree on 1. Sometimes it is not in the way we think it should happen but God always works it out for good for those who love Him.

---

I feel like in scenario #4 though that people can always find something positive about an outcome and attribute it to devine intervention. One thing I've always thought about is why the requirement for "faith". It's like if I were buying a car from you and you were expected to hand it over and have "faith" that I would pay you....how convenient for me. What is the road block for us to have some form of validation? People will always point to good things as evidence of a higher power whether it's true or not. Why do we have to exist in this proof-less vacuum? So believing without seeing is somehow holier? We hear of great miracles but most, like Fatima, are all in the past. Why do we not hear of true miracles that can ONLY be attributed to a higher power under the highest scrutiny.....ie....why no modern day Lazarus? Seems like most documented miracles leave the door slightly ajar to be explained away. Imagine what a true modern day miracle that absolutely CANNOT be refuted would do for faith on a global scale.

---

If you talk to missionaries who go to third world countries, miracles still do occur. And I believe them. I personally think it is a miracle that after two thousand years there are still so many Christians. That has to be due to the Holy Spirit.

92Ag95 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

1

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

---

Agree on 1. Sometimes it is not in the way we think it should happen but God always works it out for good for those who love Him.

---

I feel like in scenario #4 though that people can always find something positive about an outcome and attribute it to devine intervention. One thing I've always thought about is why the requirement for "faith". It's like if I were buying a car from you and you were expected to hand it over and have "faith" that I would pay you....how convenient for me. What is the road block for us to have some form of validation? People will always point to good things as evidence of a higher power whether it's true or not. Why do we have to exist in this proof-less vacuum? So believing without seeing is somehow holier? We hear of great miracles but most, like Fatima, are all in the past. Why do we not hear of true miracles that can ONLY be attributed to a higher power under the highest scrutiny.....ie....why no modern day Lazarus? Seems like most documented miracles leave the door slightly ajar to be explained away. Imagine what a true modern day miracle that absolutely CANNOT be refuted would do for faith on a global scale.

---

I think the answer is simply that there are fundamental differences in how people understand the world and reality.

I am someone that agrees with all of your concerns above. The 'Hidden God Dilemma' is absolutely one of my biggest obstacles to faith. But, my evaluation of objective reality tends to lean heavily on the material and empirical and independently verifiable. Its not that I do not value the spiritual and emotional and subjective, its just that I place these experiences into a different category of understanding that is separate from objective factual understanding. Am I right to do so? Well, it makes sense to me. On the other hand, you'll meet many devout followers on this board who are fully sincere in their beliefs. And to whom spiritual experiences are just as applicable to understanding objective reality as the empirical. . . and in many cases more so. Are they wrong to do so? Well, I don't agree with using religious faith as a tool for understanding reality, but I'm not prepared to say someone is wrong to do so.

I know that I've applied the Mark Twain quote "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religions is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." as a criticism of how people of faith view other faiths. . . . but, I think we have to be willing to apply the quote to non faith as well. I see the quote as a call to humility. That we should not be so certain and quick to assert that we are right. Or that our presuppositions are without flaw. The idea of a God that gives ambiguous direction and then stays hidden seems absurd to me. The idea that God hasn't given clear direction and isn't plainly open for all to see is absurd to others. I know enough sincere and intelligent people that believe in the latter option for me to not be able to just simply discard faith because it seems absurd to me.

Anyway. . . .like I said, your reasoning above all appeals to me. My take from years on this board is that arguments like this only really get you to the point of getting the faithful to acknowledge that there might be a sorta logic to this type of skepticism. But I think that for a lot of believers, the value they place on the spiritual experience outweighs this type of skepticism. And so for the person who answers '1' to your original question, they may value the personal spiritual experience far more than a well stated reasonable skeptical argument that questions God for being hidden.

When it comes to questions about knowledge or about how we evaluate the types of question you've proposed, it sometimes feels to me like the religious live in a different reality and speak a foreign language. And perhaps they feel the same about me. But half of the enjoyment I get from this board is just trying to learn some of that foreign language so that I can understand someone else a little bit better.

One more post for tonight because I think that Derm's post is perhaps an opportunity to demonstrate my above long winded ramblings.

Quote:

---

If you talk to missionaries who go to third world countries, miracles still do occur. And I believe them. I personally think it is a miracle that after two thousand years there are still so many Christians. That has to be due to the Holy Spirit.

---

When I read the post above, the first thing that pops into my brain is: Well, miracles are reported within other religions. There are reports of miracles from other gods and Gods for as long as humans have believed in gods and Gods. Reports of miracles in other religions still occur today. And the followers of those religions believe in those miracles. Other religions predate Christianity. And its clear that there are many followers of other religions. In fact, Christianity has never claimed a majority of people on the planet. The idea that the truth of Christianity is demonstrated by its longevity or growth should be easily discarded


Of course, Derm knows all of these things. But, I don't think that any of what I just typed moves him much, because I don't think that what I wrote really relates to the core reasons why he believes. None of these arguments speak to his spiritual experience. To me, its significant. It is clear justification for skepticism toward claims of miracles. . . . . particularly when the claims are made by people who only entertain miracles that confirm their faith.

I think this is what I mean when I say that we simply understand the world differently.

Kurt, 92Ag,Rocag,
What do you believe to be true about the documented life and history of Jesus of Nazareth?

I know this does not answer the question in the OP, but I think that question was answered well by The Banned. Instead since the miraculous was brought up I want to give a testimony of one example of how God has miraculously blessed me through answered prayer. I have been healed supernaturally, by a word spoken by someone I never met, over a video sermon in a mega church miles from the location I was attending that day. I was a guest at the church (~400 miles from my home). The pastor that week was a guest preacher (~1750 miles from his home), again he and I had never interacted in any way. I am not a mega church person, I don't like rock and roll church services, so it wasn't because I was caught up in the feeling or moment of the church service. I am still in awe of the blessing 6 years later.

God hears prayer.

I believe I was healed so that my faith would increase. I wasn't going to lose my faith if I hadn't been healed, in fact I hadn't prayed for my health in several months prior to my healing. I was definitely not healed because I live a better life than others. That was clear to me because I had committed sins (plural) that very morning. I simply put my trust in Him and I think part of that trust was demonstrated by not continuing to ask for it. I had asked, I know He heard my prayer and I know He loves me.

I do not know why some prayers seemingly go unanswered. These types of questions have been around for millennia. Maybe some of the EO folks have a church father teaching they can bring to the discussion.

What I do know, is God loves us. I pray that God will bless each of you reading this, and my hope is that He will reveal himself to those who do not know Him. Amen.

northside_99 said:

---

Kurt, 92Ag,Rocag,
What do you believe to be true about the documented life and history of Jesus of Nazareth?

---

I certainly believe that Jesus existed and that there is sufficient historical evidence to conclude that he was a Jewish teacher that lived in Nazareth and the surrounding areas. I think there is evidence that he gained a following and that this following developed over time into Christianity. I think there is enough 3rd party accounts to show he was probably put to death. And I'm certain that there are other details that can be reasonably believed about Jesus.

Nothing above is extraordinary. And I feel that the bar of evidence for reasonable belief of these things should be set accordingly. When you see historical sources discuss this person and attribute followers of a faith to this person, I don't have an issue saying it is reasonable he existed.

The problem for most non-believers is in the miraculous and in the specific claims about what Jesus is said to have said or taught or did. If true, the stories and lessons taught in Christianity would easily represent the absolute most important and profound knowledge for all of humanity. And I feel it is reasonable to set that bar of evidence toward reasonable belief accordingly. The big claim / big evidence argument is an issue for me.

kurt vonnegut said:

---

92Ag95 said:

---

dermdoc said:

---

Martin Q. Blank said:

---

1

For everyone who asks receives, and the one who seeks finds, and to the one who knocks it will be opened.

---

Agree on 1. Sometimes it is not in the way we think it should happen but God always works it out for good for those who love Him.

---

I feel like in scenario #4 though that people can always find something positive about an outcome and attribute it to devine intervention. One thing I've always thought about is why the requirement for "faith". It's like if I were buying a car from you and you were expected to hand it over and have "faith" that I would pay you....how convenient for me. What is the road block for us to have some form of validation? People will always point to good things as evidence of a higher power whether it's true or not. Why do we have to exist in this proof-less vacuum? So believing without seeing is somehow holier? We hear of great miracles but most, like Fatima, are all in the past. Why do we not hear of true miracles that can ONLY be attributed to a higher power under the highest scrutiny.....ie....why no modern day Lazarus? Seems like most documented miracles leave the door slightly ajar to be explained away. Imagine what a true modern day miracle that absolutely CANNOT be refuted would do for faith on a global scale.

---

I think the answer is simply that there are fundamental differences in how people understand the world and reality.

I am someone that agrees with all of your concerns above. The 'Hidden God Dilemma' is absolutely one of my biggest obstacles to faith. But, my evaluation of objective reality tends to lean heavily on the material and empirical and independently verifiable. Its not that I do not value the spiritual and emotional and subjective, its just that I place these experiences into a different category of understanding that is separate from objective factual understanding. Am I right to do so? Well, it makes sense to me. On the other hand, you'll meet many devout followers on this board who are fully sincere in their beliefs. And to whom spiritual experiences are just as applicable to understanding objective reality as the empirical. . . and in many cases more so. Are they wrong to do so? Well, I don't agree with using religious faith as a tool for understanding reality, but I'm not prepared to say someone is wrong to do so.

I know that I've applied the Mark Twain quote "The easy confidence with which I know another man's religions is folly teaches me to suspect that my own is also." as a criticism of how people of faith view other faiths. . . . but, I think we have to be willing to apply the quote to non faith as well. I see the quote as a call to humility. That we should not be so certain and quick to assert that we are right. Or that our presuppositions are without flaw. The idea of a God that gives ambiguous direction and then stays hidden seems absurd to me. The idea that God hasn't given clear direction and isn't plainly open for all to see is absurd to others. I know enough sincere and intelligent people that believe in the latter option for me to not be able to just simply discard faith because it seems absurd to me.

Anyway. . . .like I said, your reasoning above all appeals to me. My take from years on this board is that arguments like this only really get you to the point of getting the faithful to acknowledge that there might be a sorta logic to this type of skepticism. But I think that for a lot of believers, the value they place on the spiritual experience outweighs this type of skepticism. And so for the person who answers '1' to your original question, they may value the personal spiritual experience far more than a well stated reasonable skeptical argument that questions God for being hidden.

When it comes to questions about knowledge or about how we evaluate the types of question you've proposed, it sometimes feels to me like the religious live in a different reality and speak a foreign language. And perhaps they feel the same about me. But half of the enjoyment I get from this board is just trying to learn some of that foreign language so that I can understand someone else a little bit better.

---

I'm sitting here with time and felt like I could give a different perspective on this issue. There are a lot of unspoken assumptions in the "Hidden God Dilemma" with which I don't agree. The first is the biggest: the idea that the most important thing to God is that people have knowledge of his existence. If God doesn't care about that, or at least makes it a low priority, then there is no "Hidden God Dilemma". The lack of confirming miracles doesn't mean anything if God doesn't care that you know He is real. You can also argue it from the reverse. It's easy to imagine an omni/omni/omni God that cares only about being known and worshipped. We can then imagine what world and universe created by such a God would look like. There would be constant miracles, God would appear to everyone at all times, etc. We know that's not our world.

I could say the same regarding the skepticism about other faiths. Again, it's easy to imagine a God who wants the world to have only one correct faith. It's also easy to imagine the actions that would make that trivial, like giving a heart attack to anyone who believed and espoused the wrong faith. Clearly we don't live in that world either, so to my mind that is clearly not God's highest priority (assuming you believe in God).

Now that does leave us with really big questions. Is there a God? If so, what does God want? My answers to these are a little off mainstream. God wants us to choose to be good. So the world is the way it is so to maximize our opportunity to make moral decions and take moral actions.

A lot of great thought provoking responses. The thing I am the most intrigued with is the point of 'no objective proof'

Is the absence of proof and the requirement of faith somehow a key component of our salvation or is it an indication, and a very convenient one at that, of an entirely human contrived spirituality?

I'd say the thing I desire most in this life is for eternity to be a reality. The thought of reunions with loved ones and infinite happiness is highly appealing. I do not fear the alternative though because it is a fear that can never be realized.

northside....I have a hard time believing that all accounts of Jesus' life are made up.....to what end or benefit?
I believe Jesus was real and I want to believe he is the son of God....but again....everything we have comes from earthly sources and I will continue to wonder why it has to be that way.

How about your thoughts on the documented human accounts of the resurrection?

To 92s response, if not true, what benefit would have there been to all the apostles and disciples who willingly died via persecution to keep a lie going.

Also, an interesting question is, where did Jesus's body go after crucifixion and the documented accounts around the empty tomb?

If not resurrected, what is the rationale for another alternative and why die for a lie if stolen/taken/etc and that secret was never found or forced out?

Those are always credible questions I have examined.

ramblin_ag02 said:

---

I'm sitting here with time and felt like I could give a different perspective on this issue. There are a lot of unspoken assumptions in the "Hidden God Dilemma" with which I don't agree. The first is the biggest: the idea that the most important thing to God is that people have knowledge of his existence. If God doesn't care about that, or at least makes it a low priority, then there is no "Hidden God Dilemma". The lack of confirming miracles doesn't mean anything if God doesn't care that you know He is real. You can also argue it from the reverse. It's easy to imagine an omni/omni/omni God that cares only about being known and worshipped. We can then imagine what world and universe created by such a God would look like. There would be constant miracles, God would appear to everyone at all times, etc. We know that's not our world.

I could say the same regarding the skepticism about other faiths. Again, it's easy to imagine a God who wants the world to have only one correct faith. It's also easy to imagine the actions that would make that trivial, like giving a heart attack to anyone who believed and espoused the wrong faith. Clearly we don't live in that world either, so to my mind that is clearly not God's highest priority (assuming you believe in God).

Now that does leave us with really big questions. Is there a God? If so, what does God want? My answers to these are a little off mainstream. God wants us to choose to be good. So the world is the way it is so to maximize our opportunity to make moral decions and take moral actions.

---

Yup, I agree with that. I think the hidden God argument is only really useful as an argument against a set of claims that proposes a God that wants to be known. It doesn't work as an argument that there must be no God at all.

I believe god exists and has zero interaction with the world we live in. In other words, he neither helps nor doesn't help. We need to do as we're told in the Bible and we may see him and interact at death but outside of that, he does nothing. We are free to do as we wish and the world responds without his input.

It's the only way I can reconcile god. Any other option for me means god shows preferential treatment and that's not a god I can follow.

Same questions, out of curiosity.

What is your take on the documented life and death of Jesus of Nazareth and his early Apostles and followers?

northside_99 said:

---

How about your thoughts on the documented human accounts of the resurrection?

---

I don't recognize your name and I'm not sure how much you know about my posting style. . . . let me apologize in advance for being rambly and long winded.


I don't fully discard those accounts. But, I also see oceans of room for skepticism. Below is what drives my skepticism. As you read it, understand that I am not an expert and I'm open to being better informed. In no particular order -

- The gospels were written decades after the events and only existed as oral tradition or lost older versions. I'm not an expert on the subject, but most people put the gospel of Mark at 35 to 40 years after Jesus would have been killed.

- Questions about authorship of the gospels.

- Some of the gospels being word for word identical suggest that later gospels simply copied.

- The fact that accounts and references to the Resurrection are often accompanied by 'in fulfillment of the Scripture' ought to make everyone's skepticism bone tingle a bit. If your goal is to convince someone that Jesus was the Old Testament coming Messiah, of course you want to check all of the prophecy boxes. It would be more impressive if the gospels had no knowledge of the prophecies.

- Lack of independent verification. I am aware of some writings within one to two hundred years after Jesus that mention the belief in the Resurrection as important to Christians. But that only serves as an account of what Christians believe happened.

- Again - the size of the claim compared to the size of the evidence. I don't think it is exaggeration to say that Christianity proposes a message it believes to be infinitely important. And the evidence is writings from 1900 years ago that cannot be falsified?

- Parallels to other religions. And, I think this is a big one. Other gods have been divine sons of other gods. Other gods have been born from virgins. Other gods have performed miracles and heeled the sick. And yes, other gods have died and been resurrected.

The contradictions between the gospels doesn't carry a lot of weight in my book. I can accept that multiple people providing slightly different accounts does not mean the accounts should be thrown out. Except again, that this is the book that I'm supposed to model my entire life after.

------

A lot of my skepticism around the legitimacy of the Resurrection can be summed up with the following analogy. I've made this analogy before several times, so apologies to the regulars on this board.

Imagine being the CEO of a gigantic multi-national company like GE. As CEO, you decide you wish to communicate a new policy to the whole company. And you decide that you wish for all employees to hear of this policy, understand it, and hopefully follow the policy. There are options to communicate this policy to the whole company, but you choose the following:

You hire your son and send him to the Corporate Affairs department in some local branch office and ask him to distribute the message of your policy. Your son explores the department collecting coworkers who believe that he is correctly advising on a new policy from the CEO. Your son and his followers are met with skepticism or worse, but eventually they gain a footing and attempt to spread the message of the policy.

Now, for 2000 years, the message of this policy is spread through violent acquisitions of other departments. And calculated and highly focused political efforts aimed at creating alliances with less powerful departments who agree to adopt the policy for the political benefits they gain through the alliance. And by sending representatives to departments who desperately need resources and offering to help. . . . but only if they adopt this new policy.

And all the while, the group of policy believers are fracturing and splintering into thousands of sub-groups all of whom believe they have the correct policy interpretation. Leading to hundreds of years of animosity, hatred, and inter departmental warfare.

And after all this time, only 31.6% of GE employees believe in some version of this policy and fall into one of tens of thousands of sub-groups of policy believers.

At this point, the value of the resolution of the original few coworkers that joined up with the CEO's son is simply lost to me. I mean, WTF did I just write? This is God's plan to spread his message to humanity? I cannot reconcile what Christians tell me God wants with any of what I'm told God has done to make his presence and message known.

The free will argument - that by making His presence known removes free will - makes no sense to me. How does providing me with the knowledge to make an informed decision remove my free will? If anything, God not making his presence and message known hinders my ability to make an informed decision.

Anyway. . . enough rambling on that.

Quote:

---

To 92s response, if not true, what benefit would have there been to all the apostles and disciples who willingly died via persecution to keep a lie going.

Also, an interesting question is, where did Jesus's body go after crucifixion and the documented accounts around the empty tomb?

If not resurrected, what is the rationale for another alternative and why die for a lie if stolen/taken/etc and that secret was never found or forced out?

Those are always credible questions I have examined.

---

Sincerity does not equal truth. People can be deeply sincere and still wrong. And this world has no shortage of people willing to die for just about any religion you can name. The fact that Jesus followers did not waiver could be evidence that they believed, but it still doesn't make their beliefs right.

Beliefs like this can become interwoven into a group identity. For small tight knit and persecuted groups, the commitment to the reinforcement of that identity becomes more important than the belief itself. This cultural phenomenon isn't unique to Christianity.

Ultimately, I find the discussions around the actions and motivations of Jesus's followers to be a game of confirmation bias for most people. If you've already decided that Jesus is God, then any and every scrap of itty bitty possible evidence that might reinforce that idea is grasped onto as 'gospel' truth. And if you've decided that Jesus is not God, then any bit of evidence that might suggest otherwise is discarded.

Either way, we are discussing the motivations and beliefs of people that lived 2000 years ago by examining disputed and translated documents from unknown sources. In my opinion, anyone that does not conclude 'I don't really know' has fallen victim to the confirmation bias game.

Maybe there is a God. If God wants everyone on the planet to know and understand his message, this is something an omni / omni / omni God could do. Presumably, God does what God wants to do. And so, if there was something God wished to change about our world, He could. The fact that there is not near universal agreement on who God is and what God wants, makes me think that we've been inventing characteristics and assigning them to God. After all, the need to spread our beliefs and assert our own truths as universally true is a VERY human thing. Maybe God doesn't care. Or doesn't care the way religions say God cares. Even if there is a God, I'm completely comfortable with my agnosticism and atheism. Faced with the potential of a Diety so awesome and powerful and beyond our comprehension, I will offer all of the 'I don't know's and all of the 'I don't understand's that I can until I become convinced absolutely that I do know and do understand.

The End. You were warned of my rambling.

Enjoy the long weekend! Happy 4th!

Thoughtful reply.

The question of where did the body go is an interesting one, as there are no Jewish or Roman writings even after the fact that talk to the recovered body of Jesus which they would have been desperate to report and kill the movement.

Which if it was not recovered would mean either Resurrection or somehow destroyed by his disciples and yet kept in secret forever and for what, to dedicate your life and die and go to the grave with a secret for an elaborate rouse where no one involved ever broke ranks and talked?


Agree that most folks will bias towards what they want to believe. And the CEO analogy is interesting. Although one might argue that no other CEO with a specific policy has even come close to remaining for 2000 years and 31% of the company believes in after all that time. Especially if the policy wasnt even true to begin with.

I am not an expert on all the world religions, but almost all of the planet is either Christian, Muslim, Hindu, Buddhist, or Jewish and believe only one of those believes that God came to earth died and was resurrected.

Enjoy the 4th as well.

northside_99 said:

---

Same questions, out of curiosity.

What is your take on the documented life and death of Jesus of Nazareth and his early Apostles and followers?

---

I think Jesus was a real guy. He might have even been born of a virgin and resurrected. But he is not here to save you in this world. I think his efforts are only focused on the next. As such, God does not interfere. It's the only way I can reconcile a gos who sounds like an a-hole when children get cancer and die, but murderers and rapists live long healthy lives. It's the only way I can justify poor people struggling to make ends meet and others being born into trust funds. Everyone and their dog praises god when good things happen. And when bad things happen well "he has a plan". No he doesn't. There is no plan. The plan is good and evil befall everyone and some people get really gawdam lucky and some are cursed. Then we're told that we must believe. That's super easy to do when you're born into a trust fund and don't have to work or struggle in life. Not so much when you're the unlucky one.

I just think the entire religion thing is a hell of a business based on fear and if god does have a hand in anything then it means he shows favoritism to some and disdain for others. It's hogwash. The o my way I can even remotely consider that Jesus and god and all of religion isn't total bull crap is to think god makes no interference with our earthly lives. As such, I don't know that I can legitimately pray with any degree of usefulness. I still do it because that's how I was raised but given my thought process, it's a wasted effort.

But in the end, I really don't know. Maybe god is a judgmental a-hole and some people are blessed and some are cursed and that's the way it is.

Flooding in central Texas now is a good example. We all prayed for rain…well, we got it. I didn't get much of anything at all. Were the people that got 15" more worthy? How about the ones that lost their homes or died? Did they deserve it? If the answer is "it just happens" then you have no real choice but to agree that God does not interfere OR he does so preferentially.

I don't believe any religion has it right. They are no more informed than me, or anyone on this this read. I think the best any of us can do is to treat people and animals with respect and do good when you can and hope for the best. Basically just try to live life and not be an ******* and you'll see the other side just the same as anyone else.

Quote:

---

Questions about authorship of the gospels.

---

I think this is one of the weakest arguments proposed by secular scholars.

There's simply no good explanation for why the early church would just make up Mark and Luke as authors. They were bit players at best.

The simplest explanation is the Church had a reasonable chain of custody for the Gospels (which is exactly what they say in their own writings) and we lack sufficient evidence to argue otherwise.

We have stronger evidence that the gospels were written by the authors they are traditionally identified with then we have that Plutarch wrote anything that is attributed to him. I guess if one wants to take a hyper skeptic standpoint that we don't know if anything and everything from antiquity is made up, they can, but that seems to render any discussion on the matter to meaningless conjecture.

So what's the official explanation for a benevolent God "allowing" little girls at a Christian Summer camp to get washed away? It would seem that #4 is very much in play.

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Not the time and place.

---

And when would you say IS a good time to help a fellow ag who is hurting and needs spiritual assistance? Good thing Jesus' disciples didn't say "dude, can you come back another time, this is inconvenient for me."

92Ag95, I am a weak religious person at best, but my answer from decades of searching is that, the Bible does not promise us a life free of hardship. In fact, it damn near promises it. It also makes no promises that God will assist us in any way. It also says free will is not without consequences and those are what we deal with every day, either our own decisions or that of others. The floods are not inherently evil or good. I don't think God 'allowed' them. It just...happened. He did not interfere and my belief is that he doesn't. I believe his purpose is not for this life and this world, but the next. I think there are instances in the past where god did interfere, but they are not frequent. Even during Jesus' life, he did not save people all of the time. I do not know why or understand that myself.

BrazosDog02 said:

---

Silent For Too Long said:

---

Not the time and place.

---

And when would you say IS a good time to help a fellow ag who is hurting and needs spiritual assistance? Good thing Jesus' disciples didn't say "dude, can you come back another time, this is inconvenient for me."

---

Times like these test our faith more than ever and force us to ask questions that we know deep down will not be answered satisfactorily. Questioning why things like this are allowed to happen is very much in line with questioning why we must believe without any proof. "Proof" always seems to be in the form of explanations which are made up after the fact to fit what we know or think we know. I can't even begin to imagine how mankind supposedly "benefits" in the long run from things like this being allowed to happen. Many would claim that God is crying right along side of us when these things happen. I really wish I could understand the "hands off" approach here.

Another thing....why would some people receive the benefit of knowing Jesus in the flesh while the rest of time and humanity does not. That hardly seems fair to me. Some people were able to witness things like water to wine at the wedding in Cana, others were able to see the resurrection of Lazarus. How were the remainder of their lives positively affected by this? The rest of us are supposed to just read historical accounts and believe? How is that fair? This sort of fits scenario 3.

I don't either. But people much smarter than myself have been trying to answer these questions for thousands of years and I doubt in what's left of my life, I will figure it out. I have prayed about it for 40 years and still receive nothing but more questions and no answers. It is why I arrived at the conclusion I have and how I make this world AND God make sense to me. I don't like it, but it's what it is.

" And when would you say IS a good time"

Two scenarios:
1. 92Ag95 has been personally impacted by this and has a daughter, niece or someone who is missing. He's in a state of spiritual crisis and needs help.
2. He's here to use an unfolding tragedy to make a theological argument and dunk on Christians or at the very least use it for an academic conversation as to why there is no God.

The first scenario is more than fair game.

The second scenario is in poor taste given the fact that families with missing children are asking for prayers and we have posters on here with little girls in their families asking for prayers.

Serotonin said:

---

" And when would you say IS a good time"

Two scenarios:
1. 92Ag95 has been personally impacted by this and has a daughter, niece or someone who is missing. He's in a state of spiritual crisis and needs help.
2. He's here to use an unfolding tragedy to make a theological argument and dunk on Christians or at the very least use it for an academic conversation as to why there is no God.

The first scenario is more than fair game.

The second scenario is in poor taste given the fact that families with missing children are asking for prayers and we have posters on here with little girls in their families asking for prayers.

---

I resent being accused of "using" any tragedy. I'm just as grief stricken as any of you and if you are finding solace in your faith right now than good for you. You don't even know me.