**
Did I say they did?
**
So what about native Americans? Did they have a chance to meet Jesus in the flesh?
Amulet, if you’re going to ignore my questions, I don’t see a lot of point in continuing this. We all know that Christians claim that Jesus was resurrected. The entire point of this thread is to ask why God doesn’t provide better proof of that in the present day.
-Ben
Yeah, you might be right, cause near as I can tell the questions I’ve “ignored” boil down to “why do fundies say X, Y, and Z?” I don’t care why they say it, because they’re wrong.
stuffinb:
Well, I think that many people on this board, and not only the religious ones, would say that the logic in that statement does not hold true. I’ll repeat the analogy I used before: “If I can’t tell you why the theoretical thief stole my money, then there must not have been a thief.” I could speculate about his reasons, but never be absolutely certain of them. Nonetheless, this uncertainty does not negate the possibility of a thief.
As a matter of fact, you’ve hit on something that very few people bother to ask about…but Jewish writers have dealt with this question in the past. The answer, in a nutshell, is that the “free will” of that generation was significantly reduced by witnessing explicit miracles. However, G-d felt that doing those miracles and thus impairing (to some degree, but clearly not removing it entirely) their free will was necessary for the sake of fulfilling his covenant with Abraham, Isaac and Jacob.
Chaim Mattis Keller
cmkeller wrote:
Well, I think that many people on this board, and not only the religious ones, would say that the logic in that statement does not hold true. I’ll repeat the analogy I used before: “If I can’t tell you why the theoretical thief stole my money, then there must not have been a thief.” I could speculate about his reasons, but never be absolutely certain of them. Nonetheless, this uncertainty does not negate the possibility of a thief.
Ah, but there is a problem with your logic. You have a reason to suspect the existence of a thief, though you can only speculate about the motive. See your analogy provides for two possible sources of the missing money. Misplacement, or your thief. It implies the evidence of someone behind the scenes so to speak. I think the thiefs motivation is irrelevant to the belief that there is one.
The OP approaches the problem from the other end. I.e there were susposedly miracles at one time therefore the people of that time had reasons for there belief. Again, gods motivation is irrelevant to his existence.
So again we have evidence for a thief, there’s missing money, i.e actions to which we can attribute to him.
We have no evidence for the existence of god, no miracles, i.e no actions for which to attribute to him.
stuffinb:
We have a book describing said miracles that has been transmitted through hundreds of generations as fact. That’s the “missing money” in the analogy.
Chaim Mattis Keller
/hijack we need a smilie ripping hair out /end hijack
This would be heresay evidence at best and doesn’t answer the OP. We’re not basing the evidence of people stealing on two-thousand y/o translations.
Let’s look at it another way
If you were to sucribe to the “literal” bible school. Then the bible gives us some pretty clear accounts on how god acts. He intervenes in society he talks to various people, he’s destroyed some cities, turns people to salt, causes floods, blinds people, in short his influence was readily apparent. Now in the absence of any claims that he’d go away and let us figure it out for ourselves (book and verse please) why has his behavior changed so radically?
stuffinb:
Not that this completely eases your concerns about the age of the document, but we do have an untranslated version.
And, regarding the age of the document, past events are only as trustworthy as their witnesses and those witness’s documentation. How else do you verify any event that you didn’t witness yourself?
Check out Deuteronomy 31.
But he didn’t suddenly go away. As generations progressed, and people began to act more sinful, the direct supernatural involvement regressed.
Chaim Mattis Keller
The cite you referenced I believe was a predicition god made for teh COI and referes to there struggles in the desert before they got to the promised land. I don’t think it applies to my question.
But he didn’t suddenly go away. As generations progressed, and people began to act more sinful, the direct supernatural involvement regressed.
This seems to be contrary to the message we’re given, that god wants us all to be saved.
I guess I have to be more specific:
Deuteronomy 31 16-18
16
And the LORD said unto Moses, Behold, thou shalt sleep with thy fathers; and this people will rise up, and go a whoring after the gods of the strangers of the land, whither they go to be among them, and will forsake me, and break my covenant which I have made with them.
17
Then my anger shall be kindled against them in that day, and I will forsake them, and I will hide my face from them, and they shall be devoured, and many evils and troubles shall befall them; so that they will say in that day, Are not these evils come upon us, because our God is not among us?
18
And I will surely hide my face in that day for all the evils which they shall have wrought, in that they are turned unto other gods.
In other words, when, some time (not immediately) after the death of Moses, when the Children of Israel transgress by practicing idolatry (a gradual progression, beginning with the idol of Micah story near the end of the book of Judges, then halted under Samuel, Saul, David and Solomon, then resumed, to varying degrees, from the time of Jeroboam and onward), G-d will “hide his face,” i.e., no longer perform explicit miracles.
So? Who says you cannot be saved without witnessing an explicit miracle?
Chaim Mattis Keller