A Way to Think About Free Will and God: Open Theism

No it says He walked through walls. He had a changed body. I guess the mental task of inference is too hard for you?Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

I've been thinking about our (EvC) collective group of conversations---debates---passionate discussions---regarding faith, belief, and the concept of evidence. ringo challenged me to begin compiling any evidence that I could find regarding the existence of God, the divinity of Jesus, or proof of the truthfulness of the Bible. So I went searching hither and yon...through the virtual corridors of the internet, writers, and teachers whom I respected, and most apologetic defenses. I realized that I couldn't find anything that was strong enough to use..(never say never, but so far I have nothing) and as this realization dawned on me, I contemplated the purpose of my argument, as well as the essence of what I wanted to say.So it became apparent that what I really wanted---the point that I really wanted to get across here at EvC, was that I was not impressed with attempting to teach that God is fiction or that the God of the Bible was an unlikeable character whom nobody best believe in anyway. Trying to fight for the belief to be evidentially true seemed to be (seems to be) impossible. You might suggest that my response at this moment is an attempt to *double down* and I suppose in a way it is----largely because I not only have a lot of my own emotional development tied into the belief...but because I feel that the message that I see being written of here at EvC is attempting to lead people into scientific truth and dismissing all belief as needless superstition.Does that make any sense?The point that I now am trying to argue is that people should have belief and that it helps rather than harms them.

No it doesn't.

quote:

---

John 20:19 Then the same day at evening, being the first day of the week, when the doors were shut where the disciples were assembled for fear of the Jews, came Jesus and stood in the midst, and saith unto them, Peace be unto you.

---

It may be impressive that He knew where the disciples were but it doesn't say anything about Him walking through walls. As I have explained to GDR, the "inference" of a changed body makes the whole death and resurrection thing irrelevant.

Yes you have a really terrible time with inference, and with the implications of Jesus' changed body. Sometimes I think you just spend all your time trying to come up with the most nonsensical objections possible to everything anyone says.

All I'm doing is pointing out that your inferences don't make any sense. And yet you do nothing to refute the implications. If it wasn't the same body, there was no resurrection and the wounds were fakes. It has to be the same body or the whole story is irrelevant. You flatter me. There aren't enough hours in the day to point out everything you're wrong about. I only pick the most egregious examples.

Actually it depends which translation you use. The inference is that Jesus somehow got in the room despite the locked doors.
Do you see any other meaning?

It doesn't seem likely to me that the disciples would have locked themselves inside a room. Their enemies could have just waited for them to come out. The context seems to be more like "behind closed doors" - i.e. private - i.e. nobody knew exactly where they were or what they were doing.

What seems likely to you is not the point, what the words say is the point, and all this stupid gameplaying being done here is a big waste of time. Jesus did not come in by the door. The door was locked against the Jews they thought might break in. This kind of discussion is a huge waste of time. Blech.

I'm not trying to talk anyone out of their religious beliefs. I'm trying to talk them out of any silly notions that there's evidence for their religious beliefs. Every religion has tons of proponents who think they have evidence. It's just a very common quality of people who have deeply held religious beliefs, regardless whether they're Christian or Islamic or Buddhist or whatever. You (and you've got tons of company across all faiths) have got your knickers all tied in knots wondering endlessly about things that have no evidence. It's faith. Look it up. Watch season 2 episode 3 of Young Sheldon some time.--Percy

I was curious, so I watched the episode on CBS all access. A cute and refreshing show...I think I like Young Sheldon better than Big Bang Sheldon.

So Jesus just suddenly arrived fashionably late? The only reason you reject the walked through walls argument is because you limit the stories to what is evidenced in reality. The whole point of some of the stories is to emphasize Jesus heightened abilities.

That's right - and the words don't say anything about walking through walls. They just say that Jesus appeared unexpectedly - unexpectedly because the disciples thought He was dead. By dwelling on insignificant details like how He got into the room, you miss the point of the story: He was alive.

I reject the walking through walls argument because it isn't what the story says and it doesn't make sense. Not this one. The point of this story is that Jesus was unexpectedly alive.The story of "doubting Thomas" is actually one of the most abused stories in the New Testament. Take the time to read John 20. What you should notice is that despite your hatred of evidence, Jesus offered evidence. And He offered exactly the same evidence to Thomas that He had offered to the other disciples. It was the disciples that Thomas doubted.

Yes.The same sort of "issues" that cause problems with almost all science fiction novels.
Once you "make up" a portion of reality... there's usually consistency issues that crop up here and there.This seems to be a similar "consistency issue" that surrounds the story of the resurrection.
Which would be an indication that the story is as made-up as other science fiction novels with similar consistency problems.Reality doesn't have to worry about consistency issues.
Like Judge Judy always said - you don't have to remember anything if you tell the truth. And if you lie, I'll catch it - because I'm smarter than you.

This topic is a continuation of our philosophical discussions on the rationality (or irrationality) of Biblical Mythos. It is a direct quote from Open Theist Dr.Gregory Boyd in his ReNew Blog where he has a lengthy post which I will quote large portions of here to get this topic off of the ground. [quote]Satan and the Corruption of Nature: Seven Arguments Mantrusted God was love indeed
And love Creation’s final law —
Tho’ Nature, red in tooth and claw
With ravine, shrek’d against his creed
Tennyson, In MemoriamTennyson nailed it. We trust that God is love, but we also believe that God is the Creator of nature, and nature simply does not seem to point to a God of love. Parasites, viruses, bacteria, diseases and cancer kill millions and torment millions more, humans and animals alike. Earthquakes, hurricanes, tsunamis, mudslides and volcanoes do the same. And the animal kingdom is, as Tennyson said, red in tooth and claw. (So is the human kingdom for that matter).
The creation looks almost as much like it was created by a cosmic predator (I Pet 5:8) as it does like it was created by an all loving, peaceful, benevolent Creator. There seems to be a Lucifer Principle at work in the world, as Howard Bloom noted. Nature does not abhor evil, he says. [S]he embraces it. (The Lucifer Principle, Atlantic Monthly Press, 1995).This is the problem of natural evil, and it’s arguably the most formidable objection that can be raised against the belief in an all-powerful, all good God. (I shall put natural in quotes when referring to natural evil to signify that I don’t believe there’s anything natural about it.) Evil that humans inflict on one another can be explained by appealing to free will. But how are we to explain evils where there is no human agent responsible?[/quote]You can read this essay in full here:
Satan and the Corruption of Nature: Seven Arguments
I invite science based arguments, philosophical arguments, and faith based arguments.I recommend watching the You Tube clip as well. That is Dr.Boyd.Whats funny is that the right Wing Christians label Dr.Boyd as a basic heretic, but I applaud some of his ideas.Edited by Thugpreacha, : No reason given.