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

What the scripture actually says is that it was the same Jesus in the same body, not some magical new body.

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.

Percy,to GDR writes: Why is it not enough for you just to have faith in your beliefs? Why this additional faith that your beliefs are evidenced? How, in any rational way, does faith that there's evidence lead to conclusions of fact like historicity?

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.

Faith writes: No it says He walked through walls.

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.

Faith writes: I guess the mental task of inference is too hard for you?

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.

Faith writes: Yes you have a really terrible time with inference...

All I'm doing is pointing out that your inferences don't make any sense.

Faith writes: .. and with the implications of Jesus' changed body.

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.

Faith writes: Sometimes I think you just spend all your time trying to come up with the most nonsensical objections possible to everything anyone says.

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.

John 20:19-20 writes: On the evening of that first day of the week, when the disciples were together, with the doors locked for fear of the Jews, Jesus came and stood among them and said, "Peace be with you!" 20 After he said this, he showed them his hands and side. The disciples were overjoyed when they saw the Lord. (from New International Version)

The inference is that Jesus somehow got in the room despite the locked doors.
Do you see any other meaning?

Phat writes: 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.

Faith writes: What seems likely to you is not the point, what the words say is the point...

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.

Phat writes: The only reason you reject the walked through walls argument is because you limit the stories to what is evidenced in reality.

I reject the walking through walls argument because it isn't what the story says and it doesn't make sense.

Phat writes: The whole point of some of the stories is to emphasize Jesus heightened abilities.

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.

1. Jesus appeared to the disciples when Thomas wasn't there; He voluntarily showed them His wounds. (verse 19-20)
2. Later on, the disciples told Thomas that they had seen Jesus; Thomas said that he would believe it when he saw what they had seen. (verse 25)
3. Later again, Jesus appeared to the disiples again when Thomas was there; He voluntarily showed His wounds to Thomas (verse 27)

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.

ringo writes: In fact, it's the evidence of Jesus' wounds that argues against resurrection. If He was the same Jesus with the same wounds, He didn't die and could not be resurrected. If the wounds were faked, there's no reason to think he was the same Jesus. If it really was the same Jesus but in a different body, the wounds are meaningless.

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

Man…trusted 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 Memoriam

Tennyson 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?

---

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.