Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: March 17, 2025, 8:23 am

Thread Rating:
  • 7 Vote(s) - 1.57 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach
(June 30, 2015 at 6:11 pm)Godschild Wrote: You aren't think about what goes one here, how many thousands of times have atheist here said they wouldn't live a life limited by God.
They are usually referring to a specific god or a specific description of god. No one wants to live under a tyrant, and if they see god described as a tyrant, it's natural that they reject that god. Keeping in mind that until any god makes his existence known, it's hypothetical to them as well.

Godschild Wrote:In the end Satan would accuse God of forcing people to do what He wanted, He would ask God what kind of love is forced love, he would say forced love is no love at all, and he would be correct.
I don't think he would be correct. I don't see why god would give us the ability to turn away from him if the only possible outcome of that is eternal torment. It's a pretty fine line between offering that and forcing us to obey. How free can we really be when one of the two choices ends in the worst possible outcome?

Godschild Wrote:Yes I do believe they understood what death meant as for lies I do not believe they understood what deception is, that to me would have been a knowledge that came from the tree.
But this implies that they were expected to obey without question. In the face of deception, their only recourse was blind obedience to god, otherwise they risked damnation. That doesn't seem very different from the concept of forced love.

Godschild Wrote:I noticed you said risky. It's only risky for those who refuse to choose Christ.
I meant risky for god, in the sense that he desires for everyone to be saved, yet implements a situation that he knows many will fail. If each lost soul pains god in the way that a lost child pains its parents, he has placed an enormous burden upon himself, even though it's in his power to change it in a way that makes it better for everyone: him and all of humanity.

Godschild Wrote:God doesn't see choice as a flaw, in actuality it's a gift, one to be used as we desire.
But with a very bad end to those whose desires do not follow those of god. It's a bad choice because god has the capability to save us all if he chooses. He chooses a situation where most will fail and suffer. That is a bad setup. Why couldn't we have the freedom to choose anything except to reject god? Is it really a bad thing to be incapable of choosing only the things that would be bad for us? Would world be a worse place if no one felt the urge to hurt one another?

Godschild Wrote:Sounds to me you are like a number of people I've known, you went through the motions until you got tired of trying to do God on your own and then quit, I think you didn't turn your heart over to Christ and receive the faith God has for you.
I don't know how to judge my time as a Christian. To the believer, there has to be an explanation that covers what they expect from god, and so it is not possible that I was sincere or that I was doing it the right way. To me, it seems much more sensible to recognize the extent to which we interpret our lives when we want god to be real, and understand that if we have to do all the lifting, then god is either very lazy or not there.

I've skipped over any parts that I don't want to respond to or that I am satisfied with your reply. You can consider those points conceded in your favor.
"Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape- like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered."

-Stephen Jay Gould
Reply



Messages In This Thread
RE: Proving The Resurrection By the Minimal Facts Approach - by Tonus - June 30, 2015 at 7:30 pm

Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Proving evolution? LinuxGal 24 4034 March 19, 2023 at 10:36 pm
Last Post: Ferrocyanide
  What will win the god wars? Faith, Fantasy, Facts, or God? Greatest I am 98 10565 December 28, 2020 at 12:01 pm
Last Post: Greatest I am
  In what way is the Resurrection the best explanation? GrandizerII 159 22832 November 25, 2019 at 6:46 am
Last Post: Abaddon_ire
  Travis Walton versus The Resurrection. Jehanne 61 18642 November 29, 2017 at 8:21 pm
Last Post: Angrboda
  Why do Christians believe in the Resurrection of Jesus but not alien abductions? Jehanne 72 14062 June 27, 2016 at 1:54 am
Last Post: Redbeard The Pink
  We can be certain of NO resurrection - A Response Randy Carson 136 43729 October 2, 2015 at 4:10 am
Last Post: Aractus
  Disproving The Resurrection By The Maximal Facts Approach BrianSoddingBoru4 160 31355 July 5, 2015 at 6:35 pm
Last Post: Jenny A
  Obama and the simulated resurrection professor 116 21678 April 25, 2015 at 10:39 pm
Last Post: Wyrd of Gawd
  MERGED: The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part 1) & (Part 2) His_Majesty 1617 424652 January 12, 2015 at 5:58 pm
Last Post: dyresand
  The Case for the Resurrection of Jesus Christ (Part Ad Neuseum) YahwehIsTheWay 32 8191 December 11, 2014 at 4:58 pm
Last Post: robvalue



Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)