Misconceptions of Christianity

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
401

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If you cannot understand why it is a fallacy then any book I point you to will fall short of your requirement.

I have never stated that an intelligent God is impossible but to claim that it is likely because there is a step in the creation of the universe that we don’t understand is again no different from inferring a sun Chariot drawing the Sun across the sky each day just by looking up.

Also theoretical physicists spend most of their time discussing what happened after the big bang, not before.[/quote]

It’s not a fallacy, that’s my point. Don’t point me to books, tell me where the argument is a fallacy? What logical rule does it break rendering it fallacious? For an argument to be fallacious it must violate some rule logic, the cosmological argument in it’s many forms, does not do that. If it were it would have been debunked a long time ago.
Now if you are contending that the premises or conclusion is false, then let’s here why. There have been plenty of arguments against the cosmological form, yet all fall short of proving it false.

If you are still asserting the cosmological form is a God of Gaps argument then you do not understand it. There is no gap, it simply asserts that casual relationships cannot regress infinitely with out begging the question. To avoid fallacy, it is necessary that an uncaused-cause must exist.

Plenty of PT’s are discussing the how the universe and in fact existence itself comes from…It’s about all Hawking does. It’s why string theory exists. It’s why the have that massive Hadron Collider in Switzerland is looking for…They’re all pieces to the puzzle.

402

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]

It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.

Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.

No. Why would it?

403

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus for the atonement of his sins . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by moses and continued through the apostles . . . .

I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]

…or you could just say: “I don’t know”
[/quote]

But I do know what Christianity is . . . I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here . . .[/quote]

…belief is not knowledge. You believe christianity is true on the basis of faith. It’s an elaborate way of saying, “I don’t know”…

404

[quote]anonym wrote:

You have seen and heard miracles you cannot provide for the rest of us.

My comment was regarding those of us who DO NOT ascribe to a particular set of beliefs and who are instead looking at all the various perspectives and sects and wondering which is the right one. Your response would most likely be to learn about all of them and reach an informed conclusion (while thinking I was wrong if I didn’t conclude Catholicism), but why is it that I must do all this and “go with my gut” when people 2,000 years ago had it shoved down their throats?

My point was that if you were Catholic then you already believe in the existence of God and therefore do not require any miracles to affirm your faith. If people 2,000 years ago already believed in God then he wouldn’t have had to waste time with much of the showmanship.[/quote]

I got it, no I never needed to look for miracles because I came to it through reason. However, it was not until after I became a Catholic (or choose to become one) that I say my first miracle.

Miracles are the same as learning how to do something or look at something and then only being able to see the world through those new eyes. Secular example, I took a photograph 101 class and learned how to critique photos, now any time I go to a photo gallery I can critique without thinking because of learning how to critique or look at pictures.

Same thing with miracles.

405

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus for the atonement of his sins . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by moses and continued through the apostles . . . .

I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]

…or you could just say: “I don’t know”
[/quote]

But I do know what Christianity is . . . I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here . . .[/quote]

…belief is not knowledge. You believe christianity is true on the basis of faith. It’s an elaborate way of saying, “I don’t know”…
[/quote]

Reason and faith for me. :slight_smile:

406

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

If you cannot understand why it is a fallacy then any book I point you to will fall short of your requirement.

I have never stated that an intelligent God is impossible but to claim that it is likely because there is a step in the creation of the universe that we don’t understand is again no different from inferring a sun Chariot drawing the Sun across the sky each day just by looking up.

Also theoretical physicists spend most of their time discussing what happened after the big bang, not before.[/quote]

It’s not a fallacy, that’s my point. Don’t point me to books, tell me where the argument is a fallacy? What logical rule does it break rendering it fallacious? For an argument to be fallacious it must violate some rule logic, the cosmological argument in it’s many forms, does not do that. If it were it would have been debunked a long time ago.
Now if you are contending that the premises or conclusion is false, then let’s here why. There have been plenty of arguments against the cosmological form, yet all fall short of proving it false.

If you are still asserting the cosmological form is a God of Gaps argument then you do not understand it. There is no gap, it simply asserts that casual relationships cannot regress infinitely with out begging the question. To avoid fallacy, it is necessary that an uncaused-cause must exist.

Plenty of PT’s are discussing the how the universe and in fact existence itself comes from…It’s about all Hawking does. It’s why string theory exists. It’s why the have that massive Hadron Collider in Switzerland is looking for…They’re all pieces to the puzzle. [/quote]

The argument goes. Everything has a cause but a causual chain cannot be infinite therefore there must be an uncaused cause which means God exists so shops shouldn’t sell beer even to atheists on a Sunday (or something roughly like that)

So firstly, who says everything has a cause. Secondly who says a causual chain cannot be infinite. If the previous two are true you have a paradox and inserting God is just a cheat. It says, we have rules we can’t follow so we invent something outside of the rules.

All you are really seeing is proof of Gödel’s Incompleteness theorem. You are trying to describe a set using the set. Can’t be done.

And incidentally, all the physics you mention is focused primarily on understanding what happened after the big bang.

407

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]

It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.

Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.

No. Why would it?
[/quote]

Well simultaneous causation would allow a causual chain with infinite regress.

408

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< It seems as though he spared no expense in the days when people were, comparatively, easier to convince (they already looked to the supernatural for many answers, didn’t they?) but is holding back in modern times where a parted sea, water-to-blood transformation, resurrection or worldwide death of a *firstborn would carry significantly more weight in showcasing his existence. >>>[/quote]
And Christians do themselves and more importantly the gospel a disservice by failing to recognize the nearly fatal inductive weight behind this line of reasoning on the part of skeptics. Any answer that shoots very far beyond “I don’t know” is where we get into trouble by handing people like you, by which I honestly mean no particular disrespect, a shiny new set of weapons of our own invention.

I’m not saying no further explanation should be given whatsoever, but in the end, the truth is we don’t know for sure. What’s important to me is that I have no doubt there are perfectly holy and just reasons why there’s a scrap of paper stuck to a plant I can see in my front yard out the window right now to say nothing of God’s ongoing purposes for miracles. [/quote]

Let me carry this a bit farther. I do agree with Tirib that there is a lot that we do not know. But the reality of your question is simply (despite all objections to the contrary) “why doesn’t God do miracles that we can prove are miracles.” He was very clear in scripture that he will not respond to a request by a skeptic for a miracle, because no matter the miracle the skeptic will not believe - AND THAT IS THE HEART OF IT.

The Miracles that were performed in the New Testament by Jesus were performed for a specific reason -to identify Jesus as God. If you like I can provide a whole litany of verses that support this conclusion.

God does not perform miracles to merely alleviate suffering - taken to its logical conclusion, if God was doing miracles to alleviate suffering there would be no logical end to the circumstances in which a miracle would be applicable. Everyone would be perfect, there would be no death, no sickness, no pain, no suffering- but that was what He gave us and we have chosen to reject. We have chosen sin and sin has consequences.

Why is there pain and suffering in this world? The result of sin. What will end all of the pain and suffering? The removal of sin from this creation.

You can whine all you like about the absence of miracles to prove whatever conclusion you’d like to draw from it - but the plain biblical reality is that God will not perform a “sign” for, because He has already given you all of the evidence necessary to believe - you just have to choose to believe or not to believe.

409

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< It seems as though he spared no expense in the days when people were, comparatively, easier to convince (they already looked to the supernatural for many answers, didn’t they?) but is holding back in modern times where a parted sea, water-to-blood transformation, resurrection or worldwide death of a *firstborn would carry significantly more weight in showcasing his existence. >>>[/quote]
And Christians do themselves and more importantly the gospel a disservice by failing to recognize the nearly fatal inductive weight behind this line of reasoning on the part of skeptics. Any answer that shoots very far beyond “I don’t know” is where we get into trouble by handing people like you, by which I honestly mean no particular disrespect, a shiny new set of weapons of our own invention.

I’m not saying no further explanation should be given whatsoever, but in the end, the truth is we don’t know for sure. What’s important to me is that I have no doubt there are perfectly holy and just reasons why there’s a scrap of paper stuck to a plant I can see in my front yard out the window right now to say nothing of God’s ongoing purposes for miracles. [/quote]

Let me carry this a bit farther. I do agree with Tirib that there is a lot that we do not know. But the reality of your question is simply (despite all objections to the contrary) “why doesn’t God do miracles that we can prove are miracles.” He was very clear in scripture that he will not respond to a request by a skeptic for a miracle, because no matter the miracle the skeptic will not believe - AND THAT IS THE HEART OF IT.

The Miracles that were performed in the New Testament by Jesus were performed for a specific reason -to identify Jesus as God. If you like I can provide a whole litany of verses that support this conclusion.

God does not perform miracles to merely alleviate suffering - taken to its logical conclusion, if God was doing miracles to alleviate suffering there would be no logical end to the circumstances in which a miracle would be applicable. Everyone would be perfect, there would be no death, no sickness, no pain, no suffering- but that was what He gave us and we have chosen to reject. We have chosen sin and sin has consequences.

Why is there pain and suffering in this world? The result of sin. What will end all of the pain and suffering? The removal of sin from this creation.

You can whine all you like about the absence of miracles to prove whatever conclusion you’d like to draw from it - but the plain biblical reality is that God will not perform a “sign” for, because He has already given you all of the evidence necessary to believe - you just have to choose to believe or not to believe.
[/quote]
And just to clarify, yes I also do agree. I cited the story of the rich man and Lazarus on the previous page for this purpose. “If they won’t believe Moses and the prophets neither will they believe if one rose from the dead”. This was in response to Dmaddox citing John 20:29: "Jesus said to him, “Because you have seen Me, have you believed? Blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.”

The proof to me that God exists and the gospel of Christ is true is that I know Him. It’s tough to explain exactly what that means, but He lives with me and in me. I can hear people thinking (not literally) “ya know I woulda never pegged Tirib, who I always thought was a passably smart guy as a self deluded mystical nutcase like this.” What can I tell ya. I know He’s there and He has been through thick n thin for a very long time. That’s why when Mikethebear, who is a nice enough fella to me BTW, warns about Bill Maher and Religulous I have to chuckle a bit. You’re kiddin right? The Spirit of the living God dwells in my heart and I’m supposed to be afraid of Bill Maher?

410

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
Any of you Christians ever read the “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” argument?

What are your thoughts on it?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/[/quote]

It’s a gay argument. First of all, you cannot know it’s never happened. And even if it didn’t, the only thing it would prove is that amputees haven’t been healed.
It goes to the “God doesn’t act like I think he should therefore he must not exist” argument.[/quote]

Considering the number of people who livd in the civilized world, and the numbers of amputees, it’s remarkable that it has never happened. If it did happen, people would definitely know about it.

It seems many of the conditions that are healed are “psychological”, and hardly serious ones at that. Some of them can be faked.
It seems God is extremely selective in what he heals.
As for Brother Chris, it was a serious question.

As for non believers, God knows before hand who will believe or not. Before they are even born. Does that mean that God willingly allowed non believers to exist, just so he could condemn to hell for all eternity?
Seems backwards.

411

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< What if it only converted one person? One person saved from eternal damnation as the result of an action that, again, required absolutely nothing to make it so. Wouldn’t YOU choose to save a person’s soul by… doing something that is instantaneous and requires no effort?
<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
That you presume to know that nothing can be done to change anyone’s mind is ridiculous, especially considering how many people convert to religion after years of not believing. Some just require a higher standard of proof than others. >>>[/quote]
God is not tearfully wringing His hands praying to Himself that more people will believe. Also, regeneration from very dead to eternal life is not a religion and has nothing whatever to do with acquiescence to sufficient proof regardless of standard.[/quote]

But ISN’T He (minus the dramatics, of course)? Why else would He reveal himself to people and inspire conversion if it isn’t something He wants for one reason or another? Why else would Matthew 28:19 state “Therefore go and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”?

I recognize the Bible also has quotes that essentially say to not waste your time one some people, but there is a clear difference between people who express skepticism and people who express derision.

That He might simply not care (how omni-benevolent of Him) to save more people from eternal damnation would make sense if no one admitted to ever converting as a result of God revealing Himself to them by some means… but, as it stands, all we can really go on are these ambiguous situations that suggest God only chooses to convert people when it is a figurative cherry picking expedition for Him. The rest will burn for eternity for want of a single moment of clarity that is as of much effort for God to bring them as it was for Him to give everyone else.[/quote]Oh boy my friend, you are steering us right into one the oldest and most fundamental theological controversies there is. God does indeed desire that people believe the gospel and be saved. That’s the whole point from our perspective. However, He doesn’t “hope” anything. Indeed He CANNOT hope anything. Hope implies a desire, the accomplishment of which may not occur due to circumstances beyond your control.

No such circumstances are so much as possible with the God of all creation who upholds all things by the Word of His power.[/quote]

The idea that everything is ultimately under His control is what I find interesting. He charges His followers with doing what the can to convert nonbelievers and even pitches in Himself from time to time… but there appears to be this threshold at which He simply shakes His head and decides to push no further - when at one time in history this wasn’t the case.

It suggests that there is a certain “type” of person God will ultimately bother Himself with pursuing, after which He simply decides to continue no further. And, it just so happens that these people who are such a bother to reach are also the ones who wonder what makes people 2,000+ years ago special enough to deserve irrefutable proof of His existence but who, themselves, are expected to suspend their disbelief over the various reasons that would explain dodging traffic tickets and vanishing tumors in ways just as possible - and to them, even more believable - as a divine creator would.

And, once we are singled out as being particularly tough skeptics, we are dismissed and lumped in with the derisive, foaming-at-the-mouth atheists as people who simply find joy in taking shots at religion… and everyone else is told that there is simply nothing that can convince us when, in reality, anything BUT everything has been done to give that declaration any credibility.[/quote]

Hmmm, Much anger in him there is…Sounds like your just pissed off at Christians…If that’s the case, why don’t you just go to God directly? You don’t need anybody to talk to God.[/quote]

There’s that dismissive tone I wrote about earlier…

Maybe some posters on this forum have given you the impression that everyone who asks questions about your religion is simply looking to point out how moronic they find organized religion, but I assure you I am not sitting in my chair twiddling an imaginary moustache and hatching nefarious schemes to bring Biblical shortcomings to the light of T-Nation.

I merely recognize that there are people here more versed in these things than I am and that they can be a valuable resource as far as my questions are concerned… and I would be doing myself a disservice if I ignored the blinking red light that goes off in my head when I read something that doesn’t sit well with me simply to fit in with the rest of you.[/quote]

Well then, I apologize. I hope you get the answers you are looking for.

412

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus for the atonement of his sins . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by moses and continued through the apostles . . . .

I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]

…or you could just say: “I don’t know”
[/quote]

But I do know what Christianity is . . . I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here . . .[/quote]

…belief is not knowledge. You believe christianity is true on the basis of faith. It’s an elaborate way of saying, “I don’t know”…
[/quote]

True, but what do you actually know?

413

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]Cockney Blue wrote:
It was originally thought up by Aristotle in the form of the Prime Mover, he was looking for a logical explanation for why things move given that for something to be in motion, as far as he was aware, something had to set it in motion what he actually came up with was that energy caused motion. This idea was later developed by Plato. A thousand years or so later, thinkers of the time took the idea and applied it as a ‘logical’ proof that there is a God. It is nothing of the sort.
[/quote]
Aristotle wasn’t explaining only motion he was explaining causation. But Plato was Aristotle’s teacher, Plato wasn’t smart enough to even borrow it. It is a proof of something with God like properties. Only thing that can posses a God like quality is God.
[/quote]

It is not proof of something with godlike properties. It is proof of something that was at the time beyond the comprehension of the person doing the speculation.

Quentin Smith would be a good place to start.

No. Why would it?
[/quote]

Well simultaneous causation would allow a causual chain with infinite regress.[/quote]

No. Keep in mind that infinite and infinite regress are not the same things. You keep thinking in terms of time. We as humans think in terms of time, but time isn’t necessary. An infinite regress is circular reasoning, in or out of time.
As you go through the process of causal regression, each phase loses uniqueness and gains commonality with everything else. For instance, I have used the example before, the subatomic make up of dog shit is the same as a bar of gold. By regressing, you remove the causal process that made one eventually assemble in to dog shit and the other into gold. The regression process for us takes place in time, but causal chain doesn’t necessarily happen that way. The same regression exercise you can use for physical objects, which exist in space time, as well as metaphysical objects which do not exist in space time.
Causal regression will either lead you to nothing or something with out cause. Those are the two choices.

414

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
Yep - God . . . God makes man . . . . man sins (disobeys) . . . man dies (separation from God) and will be separated from God for all of eternity once he physically dies . . . God sends himself as a sacrifice to pay for man’s sins . . . Jesus (God) is resurrected from death to prove that God can save all mankind and has accepted Jesus’s sacrifice for our sins . . . man chooses to place faith in Jesus for the atonement of his sins . . . man dies, is resurrected and spends eternity in fellowship with God . . . so that all future generations could understand this simple message it is recorded in the inspired word of God as begun by moses and continued through the apostles . . . .

I tried to keep in a few sentences . . . [/quote]

…or you could just say: “I don’t know”
[/quote]

But I do know what Christianity is . . . I don’t understand what you’re trying to say here . . .[/quote]

…belief is not knowledge. You believe christianity is true on the basis of faith. It’s an elaborate way of saying, “I don’t know”…
[/quote]

Sorry - i haven’t been able to post much lately - in training new role at work for the next 6-7 weeks

Your comment is unrelated to the question I was answering. The question I was answering was specifically related to what the foundational Christian doctrines are. I know what these are. That’s a fact

You’re simply raising the age-old criticism that know one knows nothing for certain in matters of faith (another misconception) . . . hope that makes your day, but it has nothing to do with the conversation.

Did you want to actually build an argument or are you satisfied with just the statement?

415

[quote]ephrem wrote:
<<< …belief is not knowledge. <<<>>> It’s an elaborate way of saying, “I don’t know”…
[/quote]
Where the one true God is concerned oh yes it is and oh no it isn’t.

You may remember a long while back I told you that your construct of reality (every unbelievers actually) was engineered and erected financed entirely by capital borrowed from my bank. If not for the truth of what I believe you wouldn’t even exist to declare your unbelief in the first place. The revelation of God almighty IS the foxhole you hide in and the weapon you blindly fire at what you ill perceive is His direction when the truth is every direction is His direction.

Being a child of Adam you still the bear the image of God, distorted though it is through sin. That remaining distorted image IS the revelation of God within you and answers to the revelation of Him in the universe at large leaving you incessantly confronted by the fact that He is and you are accountable to Him. Every calorie you burn is in support of an ongoing campaign to convince yourself that ANYTHING but that is actually the case. You are the one in the unnatural state of spiritual death groping desperately about in a world of darkness that you yourself have declared is subjective.

How can I say these things? Because for my first 20 years on this earth I lived your life of death and now having seen myself and the world through God’s own eyes, yes that’s what I said, it’s all become so clear. Circular arguments n all. (that’s what they’ll look like anyway)

416

Stated,

“…The Miracles that were performed in the New Testament by Jesus were performed for a specific reason -to identify Jesus as God…”

May I put up a side bar at this time? Thanks. An uncle of mine, while attending school (ministerial studies) in California was walking downtown with two of his co-students. The school was having a seminar and they were on a lunch break. As they were returning to the campus, a group of individuals approached them and inquired of them if they were attending the Religious Seminar. When my uncle and his friends replied with an affirmative the other group of individuals stated that they were attending a large meeting at a Satanic Seminar. Suddenly the satanic group levitated about a foot off the ground. They then in unison asked, “can your God do this?” In reply, my uncle stated that “it is said in the Holy Scriptures that we are not to tempt our God, but in Jesus name, you can’t do that again.” Try as they may, they could not do so and hurriedly turned away and left. With the crowd that had gathered around them, believers and non-believers and fellow students, they too, hurriedly, returned to the school’s campus to testify of what they had heard and seen.

I was troubled in my spirit with concern in relating the above happenings because of the stated “… no matter the miracle the skeptic will not believe…” but eventually submitted to the urging of the Holy Spirit to do so.

417

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
<<< It seems as though he spared no expense in the days when people were, comparatively, easier to convince (they already looked to the supernatural for many answers, didn’t they?) but is holding back in modern times where a parted sea, water-to-blood transformation, resurrection or worldwide death of a *firstborn would carry significantly more weight in showcasing his existence. >>>[/quote]
And Christians do themselves and more importantly the gospel a disservice by failing to recognize the nearly fatal inductive weight behind this line of reasoning on the part of skeptics. Any answer that shoots very far beyond “I don’t know” is where we get into trouble by handing people like you, by which I honestly mean no particular disrespect, a shiny new set of weapons of our own invention.

I’m not saying no further explanation should be given whatsoever, but in the end, the truth is we don’t know for sure. What’s important to me is that I have no doubt there are perfectly holy and just reasons why there’s a scrap of paper stuck to a plant I can see in my front yard out the window right now to say nothing of God’s ongoing purposes for miracles. [/quote]

Let me carry this a bit farther. I do agree with Tirib that there is a lot that we do not know. But the reality of your question is simply (despite all objections to the contrary) “why doesn’t God do miracles that we can prove are miracles.” He was very clear in scripture that he will not respond to a request by a skeptic for a miracle, because no matter the miracle the skeptic will not believe - AND THAT IS THE HEART OF IT. [/quote]

Firstly, there are no “objections to the contrary” - the very specific question I am asking IS why God never does anything that is inarguably miraculous. I really don’t think I have beaten around the bush AT ALL as far as that is concerned.

Secondly, idea that a skeptic will not respond to ANY sort of demonstration is, as I wrote earlier, false. As Tirib said, I would consider that to be a “cop out”… because there are numerous examples to be found of former atheists/agnostics who converted after witnessing something they found to be a true miracle.

I already wrote my thoughts on that in a past post or two. Instead of trotting out the same old lame horse, please respond with something more substantial than “because there is no convincing all of you skeptics”.

But, I guess all we can take from God not performing miracles for the benefit of skeptics is that these sorts of people were inspired to convert under false pretenses?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
The Miracles that were performed in the New Testament by Jesus were performed for a specific reason -to identify Jesus as God. If you like I can provide a whole litany of verses that support this conclusion.[/quote]

And yet, every single one of those miracles Jesus showcased to demonstrate his godliness were transitory. While it was right and good to put his powers on exhibit for his contemporaries to prove himself, the idea of creating or performing something of eternal significance or of enduring existence was off limits. You can argue that your religion is of “eternal significance” and that your afterlife will be of “enduring existence” but we are speaking in the context of converting skeptics. And that is exactly what Jesus was trying to do - otherwise he wouldn’t have had to bother with the miracles.

Why were we - 2,000 years later - given so much less slack than those who actually had the opportunity to see, firsthand, these miracles as they were worked?

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
God does not perform miracles to merely alleviate suffering - taken to its logical conclusion, if God was doing miracles to alleviate suffering there would be no logical end to the circumstances in which a miracle would be applicable. Everyone would be perfect, there would be no death, no sickness, no pain, no suffering- but that was what He gave us and we have chosen to reject. We have chosen sin and sin has consequences.

Why is there pain and suffering in this world? The result of sin. What will end all of the pain and suffering? The removal of sin from this creation.[/quote]

But yet, the point was never that God must work to alleviate suffering - the point is that, while God is continually credited with curing various ailments and diseases, he never sees it fit to work on those who suffer from conditions or circumstances in which his holy touch is the ONLY possible way for those people to find treatment.

And this just goes back to the idea that - relieving suffering aside - God only decides to work in ambiguous ways.

[quote]IrishSteel wrote:
You can whine all you like about the absence of miracles to prove whatever conclusion you’d like to draw from it - but the plain biblical reality is that God will not perform a “sign” for, because He has already given you all of the evidence necessary to believe - you just have to choose to believe or not to believe.[/quote]

And here we go again - because I ask questions and don’t simply nod my head at whatever scraps of rationale are tossed my way I must be a whiner.

But besides that, it still comes back to the idea that God chooses to give some people more “evidence necessary to believe” than others… unless, of course, he has never provided any sort of miracle for any agnostic/atheist/skeptic/whathaveyou - in which case I would hate to be the one breaking the news to those converts that they misread their signs.

418

anonym have you ever asked God to show you who he is? Does it have to be a miracle, or could it be something else? I promise you he will show you exactly what you need. Seek him with all your heart and you will find your answers.

Luke 11:9-10 9So I say to you: Ask and it will be given to you; seek and you will find; knock and the door will be opened to you. 10For everyone who asks receives; he who seeks finds; and to him who knocks, the door will be opened.

I am not trying to stear you away from asking questions of us, but we are human. We make mistakes all the time. I do not have all the answers, but God does. I seek him all the time for help, and he always does. It might not be the help I was looking for at the time I wanted it, but it is exactly what I needed and at the right time.

419

Anonym to me there is one sufficiently scientifically proven miracle that evidence for is still around for it and the product of allows one to experience said miracle. It is the creation of the universe out of nothing by the Word of God which by logic one reaches this conclusion(such as pat was demonstrating). Background microwave radiation, quantized red shift, Hubble’s law are still observable today. God has a promise that anyone who searches after him with all his heart, he will reveal himself to him. Jeremiah 29:13

420

[quote]legendaryblaze wrote:

[quote]pat wrote:

[quote]anonym wrote:
Any of you Christians ever read the “Why Won’t God Heal Amputees?” argument?

What are your thoughts on it?

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/[/quote]

It’s a gay argument. First of all, you cannot know it’s never happened. And even if it didn’t, the only thing it would prove is that amputees haven’t been healed.
It goes to the “God doesn’t act like I think he should therefore he must not exist” argument.[/quote]

Considering the number of people who livd in the civilized world, and the numbers of amputees, it’s remarkable that it has never happened. If it did happen, people would definitely know about it.

It seems many of the conditions that are healed are “psychological”, and hardly serious ones at that. Some of them can be faked.
It seems God is extremely selective in what he heals.
As for Brother Chris, it was a serious question.

As for non believers, God knows before hand who will believe or not. Before they are even born. Does that mean that God willingly allowed non believers to exist, just so he could condemn to hell for all eternity?
Seems backwards.

[/quote]

What was a serious question?