Not necessarily, I would just know that there’s not really any harm being done.
That’s correct. I suspect that if Jesus appeared to me, he would not be tickling my ears.
But you think that you could not be fooled, and since all you need is faith you wouldn’t be asking for any evidence from him, will you?
Wait a second… are you saying that your God isn’t all-powerful? I mean, if he didn’t make the natural world dangerous who or what did? 
Of course I could be fooled.
I’m more of a skeptical person than you think. I don’t believe faith has to be blind.
I’ll just say this: When Saul met the resurrected Christ on the road to Damascus, he immediately called him “Lord”.
If you know the Hebrew/Christian creation account, then you will be familiar with the story of the fall of man (Adam and Eve wanting to be like gods and eating the fruit). Maybe there was no natural danger before the fall, or maybe there was. It’s just speculation.
What do you think?
Really? So in the Bible, was Jesus universally known and acknowledged as the God? Why not?
That is why I ask for evidence…but apparently my not taking on faith a centuries-old apocryphal tale as solid evidence of the existence of your particular deity is far too strict a standard for your taste.
I think it’s a crazy story that, if true, practically directs me to hate your God. He set it all up: the downfall is God’s fault, not Adam & Eve’s. And now, in your mythology, God is eternally punishing people for doing what he created them to do. He’s either all-powerful and directly responsible for everything that the universe is and does, or he isn’t. In my view, your God is a sadistic asshole.
But you don’t believe in anything supernatural at all.
Me telling you about a child that was brought back to life by a prophet or a saint is pointless, because you don’t believe a dead person can be brought back to life. If there exists the appearance of a child being brought back to life, then there must be a natural explanation that we just don’t yet understand.
I think that I have been told previously in this forum(and many other places) by those who claim to be Christian that the tale of Adam and Eve didn’t really happen, that it was a fable told to teach a lesson.
If that unevidenced centuries-old tale is the best you’ve got, then you have failed Evidence 101, and you can’t blame me for that. If you’ve got better and refuse to submit it, then you don’t get to criticize me for rejecting something you never presented.
Um, no. That’s not the story.
In Genesis 1:28-31, God clearly explains to Adam what he was “created to do”, and it wasn’t to disobey a direct command or to become a god.
If God is a sadistic asshole to you, then you are mistaken on the basic definition of “God”.
I dream about it.
On a more serious note, I think it is part of a teacher’s job to teach the children how to tell truth from lies. That’s what science is all about. Heck, that’s what history is about. If you can’t tell the difference between truth and lies then you’re going to have serious problems in life. At some point, a child should develop enough awareness of the world that they can figure out that it’s totally impractical for one person to visit every single house all in the same night – impossible by several orders of magnitude. That kind of critical thinking skill is precisely what schools should be teaching.
My 9th grade science class spent a whole quarter learning about the difference between real science and pseudoscience. I wrote a term paper about The Bermuda Triangle.
That’s quite a claim, to state that something “didn’t really happen”. It’s quite difficult to prove a negative.
Whether or not Adam and Eve were actual historical individuals, what is clear is that God created the world good, and humans made the choice to act as gods, thereby messing it up.
What about Jesus raising Jairus’ daughter? That’s recorded in three Gospels. That hardly qualifies as “unevidenced”.
Leaving aside using the Bible to prove the Bible, were these three sources independent of each other?
“The Bible” is not one book. It’s a collection of books.
Matthew, Mark, and Luke are three separate biographies. Whether or not they may have pulled from some of the same sources, I don’t know, though it is certainly likely.
So it is possible that we are talking about one possible witness, with three people retelling the tale?
Either the tale is true and you are using it as evidence for something, or it is just a tale and can’t be used for anything other than evidence that people tell tales. Which is it to you? Do you go against the grain and believe that the tale of Adam and Eve actually happened, or not?
What about Thor smashing the frost giants with his hammer Mjollnir? That’s recorded in multiple sagas. That hardly qualifies as “unevidenced”.