Absence of Evidence

I know that my statement is controversial. On a personal note, I have been accused (and rightly so) of "ignoring "everything" that Jesus said as well as setting a poor example of what a follower should be/do.I have also been advised that if I really really DID believe I should logically be unafraid to "give everything up" in order to follow Jesus. My counter-argument is that this implies a double standard between believers and non-believers. My critics would ask why they should be expected to "give everything up" since they do not believe that Jesus exists or is who He says He is.To be fair, I can see the point of view of my critics. They are in essence asking me why I cling to a belief that I apparently don't even take seriously. They urge me to "just be honest with yourself" and join the peanut gallery of ex-believers.I could never do that. And yet I am unwilling to give everything up. In essence, I am between a rock and a hard place.

Not really. If the dogma and tradition of what has been historically taught is examined, several assumptions stand out.

Believers are by nature inconsistent. Peter, who had allegedly seen Jesus in action, *still* denied Him three times. Were these tales simply madeup stories, I argue that there would not be so many people who were impacted by the story and through which the story, tradition, and dogma has carried down throughout History to this very day.

The evidence of the believers themselves does in fact score a point for my critics. The problem is that you assume that if Jesus were actually real, there would be absolutely no waffling among believers--both those who witnessed Him while alive and those (such as Saul of Tarsus) who claimed to witness a touch by the Holy Spirit. Apparently none of you buy the idea of a Spiritual War or conflict between personified good and personified evil.

​

Its hard enough to convince you of the idea of GOD in the flesh (through human character) without trying to also sell you the apologetic defense regarding the introduction of evil into human behavior. You have a few scientific ways out of the belief.

---

The most difficult subjects can be explained to the most slow-witted man if he has not formed any idea of them already; but the simplest thing cannot be made clear to the most intelligent man if he is firmly persuaded that he knows already, without a shadow of a doubt, what is laid before him.” - Leo Tolstoy, The Kingdom of God is Within You (1894).

​

When both religious and non-religious people reach the same conclusions then you know religion isn't the reason.--Percy

​

Democrats should not be the only party. Respect the two-party system. -Phat, in December 2022

​

We see Monsters where Science shows us Windmills.~Phat, remixed

We can and we have.Everyone has seen the emotionally embarrasing specticle of "holy rollers" and tongue-talking. Everyone has watched well known Pastors, Priests, and Teachers falling and failing morally. Not everyone has had the experiences that kept believers believing, however. Apart from the charge of willful ignorance and confirmation bias, there seems to be little explanation of why so few believers join the "ex-christian" peanut gallery.To be fair, however, this peanut gallery has a strong and loud voice.

Keep in mind that at that time, less than 10% of the overall population was even literate and of those even fewer who could write statements. Information was mixed with gossip and innuendo then as it is now. Those who could write were few and far between and had likely never met Jesus personally.And then we have the controversy over who actually wrote the Gospels, the motive(s) in writing them, and the whole issue of redactors.Which to me is indicative of a story worthy of a smear campaign. In my mind, it is a subjective suggestion that a spiritual war/conflict did in fact exist within human nature. There was a lot of interest in suppressing and changing the story.

According to the story, Peter denied Jesus 3 times. Was Peter being honest and decent?

What im saying is that the literate people of that time were likely non-believers and had no interest or sense of urgency in touching the story. The minority who were literate did not want the story to spread. Why you think i'm dishonest is unclear. All that I am doing is speculating. Last I checked, free speech still exists. Your ongoing disdain for apologetic's is noted. You would fit in well with the literate figures of that day. You would have little personal interest in furthering the story.

Oh they reported it. My theory is that the powers in charge did not want it spread or reported.

I know. I was never schooled in the disciplines of evidenced responses and/or footnotes. Not that it is any excuse....

That post from 2005 was quite thorough. I can't simply wave away the bits of researched evidence which you and others have dug up.And yet I would never let go of my beliefs.Which leaves me making stuff up. (Admittedly)Now do you see my moments of melancholy? Believers occasionally hit a wall and can get frustrated trying to get around it.The whole concept, proven to a substantial degree yet not beyond reasonable doubt, is that there is little solid evidence for Jesus Christ apart from those of us who cling to our beliefs and even try and improve them. What more is there?And yet I've never doubted God or Jesus. I DO question and allow myself to read the critics even though it shakes me up at times.

I actually found a free course online.

quote:

---

Hello and welcome to META101x - a free online introductory course about Philosophical and Critical Thinking.

​

Thinking well is important. This course is a celebration and exploration of our ability to think and hence to philosophize. We look at how thinking in certain ways allows us to frame and approach some of the biggest questions that can be asked - questions about how we can know about the world and ourselves, how we can understand identity and change, and even what it means to be thinking in the first place.

---

The course lasts 1 month. I start today.

I started my course. I am now in Module One.

quote:

---

MODULE 1: What part of 'know' don't you understand?
The search for knowledge is one of the defining characteristics of human beings. Here philosophers and scientists talk about the difference between belief and knowledge and the importance of doubt in the process of creating new knowledge.

---

I'm determined to finish this course(at least the free version) even though I must admit it gives me mild anxiety. The lessons sound like the peanut gallery already took it! I'm putting my Book Nook reading aside for a month in order to focus on the course.