(For) whom would God prefer ?

[LillSnopp]

Lets say the Christian God exist.

Using commonsense logic, whom do you think God would prefer?

1. A Christian whom believe in him, without any proof.
or
2. A Atheist, that do not believe in him, because there is no proof.


Personally, i would say that if this God exists, he would prefer an intelligent person whom questions things. And whatever or not a god do exists, he would prefer the people not to believe in anything without proof, because this is the sign of blind ignorance (believing in anything just because). And why would a God want stupid people around?


What do you think?

[youngborean]

I believe the proof that Christians use is that God appeared before all men in the form of Jesus Christ, and through miracles and his ressurection solidified the existence of God. So there are clearly more options than what you have suggested. Perhaps maybe,

The atheist who chooses not to believe in God even though he came to earth.

[Arch]

I believe the proof that Christians use is that God appeared before all men in the form of Jesus Christ, and through miracles and his ressurection solidified the existence of God. So there are clearly more options than what you have suggested. Perhaps maybe,

The atheist who chooses not to believe in God even though he came to earth.

1. There is no proof of a ressurection

2. There is no proof of miracles

3. So a man being born, walking the earth, and dying at the hands of the Romans for being a revolutionary is not proof of GOD.

However,

I think if there is a logical god he would want any being christian or not who tried to live by the code do unto others as you would have to do unto you.

If there is a GOD the point at which he shows herself and proves to herself to be truly GOD every agnostic and atheist would cease to be in those categories.

For all would KNOW god exists.

It would also be at this same point and time that every BELIEVER would cease to be BELIEVERS because they would KNOW she exists.

[youngborean]

Arch,

You are absolutely right in saying there is no absolute proof of Jesus and his miracles. But there is evidence. The gospels are absolutely evidence of his existence and his behavior on earth. Now, if you believe it is bad evidence, that is an entirely different matter. But if the message is enough overwhelming evidence to overcome reasonable doubt (which I personally believe it is), then it becomes proof of his existence. For instance, I could say there is no proof of Alexander the Great in the same way that you are saying that there is no proof of Jesus. Well then why did all of these different people give a witness to Alexander the Great? We could then continue this discussion to others like your great-great grandparents, and eventually we could see that the discussion becomes more philosophical than it needs to be.

[Arch]

Arch,

You are absolutely right in saying there is no absolute proof of Jesus and his miracles. But there is evidence. The gospels are absolutely evidence of his existence and his behavior on earth. Now, if you believe it is bad evidence, that is an entirely different matter. But if the message is enough overwhelming evidence to overcome reasonable doubt (which I personally believe it is), then it becomes proof of his existence. For instance, I could say there is no proof of Alexander the Great in the same way that you are saying that there is no proof of Jesus. Well then why did all of these different people give a witness to Alexander the Great? We could then continue this discussion to others like your great-great grandparents, and eventually we could see that the discussion becomes more philosophical than it needs to be.

I never said Jesus didn't exist. I absolutely BELIEVE that some man existed 2000 years ago about whom these stories arose.

They say all myths an legends start with some framework of truth. I can logically see a revolutionary rising up during the time of a nations occupation and oppression by another people and nation.

This would not even be close to contrary to history and what were have always seen when a situation like that arises.

However, him being GOD is not something anyone no matter how close to him CAN possible bear withness to. Even if they did see him rise from the dead.

Lazarus was risen from the dead according to the bible he wasn't GOD.

Elijah and Enoch nevery died they weren't GOD.

On top of that the ressurection isn't proven either. The bible is highly questionable as a source.

Now let's take Alexander the great, he conquered foreign lands. People wrote of him that were independant of his own people. Now the greatness of him is questionable and may be over exagerated but it is higly unlikely that he did not exist.

But hey its possible that he did not. Maybe a person existed that they formatted stories upon, we all know that there was also mythology surrounding Alexander he was supposed to be a decendant of the GODs

Are we to believe that because someone wrote it?

[youngborean]

I never said Jesus didn't exist. I absolutely BELIEVE that some man existed 2000 years ago about whom these stories arose.

They say all myths an legends start with some framework of truth. I can logically see a revolutionary rising up during the time of a nations occupation and oppression by another people and nation.

This would not even be close to contrary to history and what were have always seen when a situation like that arises.

However, him being GOD is not something anyone no matter how close to him CAN possible bear withness to. Even if they did see him rise from the dead.

Lazarus was risen from the dead according to the bible he wasn't GOD.

Elijah and Enoch nevery died they weren't GOD.

On top of that the ressurection isn't proven either. The bible is highly questionable as a source.

You are bringing up some very interesting points. I find it very amazing that you use some parts of the bible to constitute proof and then throw out others. Proof to me is something that is in the mind of the person assessing evidence. We still have hung juries today. My point is that if the accounts in the gospel remove resonable doubt for a person, one of the accounts being that Jesus claimed to be god and showed he was god by this personal claim and including everything else about him. Then, if true, this would constitute proof of god for that indivudal who has removed resonable doubt. Now you obviously still have doubts, that is more than acceptable. You claim the bible is a highly questionable source, you should elaborate. Jesus never traveled outside his own land apart from when he was a child and a breif stint in Samaria according to the Scriptures, so there would be no account of him outside of his people. But what makes the bible questionable? Particularly the New Testament?

[Overcomer]

Personally, i would say that if this God exists, he would prefer an intelligent person whom questions things. And whatever or not a god do exists, he would prefer the people not to believe in anything without proof, because this is the sign of blind ignorance (believing in anything just because). And why would a God want stupid people around?
What do you think?

I think it's unfair and incorrect to assume that Christians don't use their intelligence when considering Jesus and the Bible. It isn't because there's a lack of evidence that people don't believe in God. As youngborean says, there's plenty of that. The reason that people don't believe in God is entirely spiritual.

And the interesting thing is that, a number of years ago, British lawyers set out to try the story of Christ in court and they determined that the evidence was sufficient for him to win the case.

The Bible instructs us to love God, not just with all our heart, but with ALL OUR MIND! The Christian doesn't turn off his brain when he accepts Christ. In fact, he learns how to use it better with the guidance of the Holy Spirit who gives us revelation knowledge.

You might find some ex-atheists and their work interesting, people like Lee Strobel and his books, The Case For Christ, and The Case For Faith or Frank Harber.

Also, I remember Derek Prince saying once that, as a student of logic and reason at Oxford, the thing that drew him to Christianity was how logical Christianity was. You might enjoy reading some of his material as well.

Now, having said all that, the beauty of the Gospel is that even a small child can understand it. Jesus himself remarked on that.

[Arch]

I never said Jesus didn't exist. I absolutely BELIEVE that some man existed 2000 years ago about whom these stories arose.

They say all myths an legends start with some framework of truth. I can logically see a revolutionary rising up during the time of a nations occupation and oppression by another people and nation.

This would not even be close to contrary to history and what were have always seen when a situation like that arises.

However, him being GOD is not something anyone no matter how close to him CAN possible bear withness to. Even if they did see him rise from the dead.

Lazarus was risen from the dead according to the bible he wasn't GOD.

Elijah and Enoch nevery died they weren't GOD.

On top of that the ressurection isn't proven either. The bible is highly questionable as a source.

You are bringing up some very interesting points. I find it very amazing that you use some parts of the bible to constitute proof and then throw out others. Proof to me is something that is in the mind of the person assessing evidence. We still have hung juries today. My point is that if the accounts in the gospel remove resonable doubt for a person, one of the accounts being that Jesus claimed to be god and showed he was god by this personal claim and including everything else about him. Then, if true, this would constitute proof of god for that indivudal who has removed resonable doubt. Now you obviously still have doubts, that is more than acceptable. You claim the bible is a highly questionable source, you should elaborate. Jesus never traveled outside his own land apart from when he was a child and a breif stint in Samaria according to the Scriptures, so there would be no account of him outside of his people. But what makes the bible questionable? Particularly the New Testament?

Let me say first I have provided NO PROOF. These are only ideas based upon texts that wer written. I have no illusions of providing any proof in maaters of faith.

For example yu say Jesus said he was GOD. I say Jesus didn't say he was GOD.

Factually I am correct and the bible is proof of my correctness.

But since in response you will say he didnt say "I AM GOD" but he did say this"" which I interpret to mean he said he was GOD. Then what I said is no longer proof to YOU that he didn't say he was GOD. Even though I am texually correct.

This makes for a hard time debating...lol

Simply put you can disprove belief, belief is not predicated on proof in the first place.

I don't intepret the bible I leave that to people who say they believe in it. I can give an assessment of interpretation based upon direct quotes but thats about it. It still up to you what you choose to believe.

When I quote the bible, I quote the bible as in this is factually what the bible actually says. I am not stating that the bible is fact. Just that factually this is what the bible says.

I recognized when talking to a believer in the bible that the bible is fact to them and I can speak to them on this level. Especially since I was once a dedicated believer in the bible.

So saying that let me state my point again maybe in a better light.

If the bible were true. The bible does not say that Jesus was GOD, it does say he was ressurected. I am just pointed out the the escape from death was not unique to Jesus in the bible and none of the other people who it happened to were deemed DEITIES.

I can make that statement without giving any validity to any of the stories in the bible.

Now when speaking on why the bible is a questionable source. That has been discussed intensively on this site. So I wont go into deeply. I'll just note these things.

1. It is said to be inerrant and it is not

2. Stories contradict each other

3. If we took away the devine and tested it simply as a historical book, it would fail.

4. Most of its characters can not be verified as every having existed less alone having had these extrodinary events happen to them.

5. There is no REAL indpendant proof of it's validity.

6. Because of its supernatural claims the validity of its stories can't be tested.

7. It was not written by the original people who supposedly experience these events.

8. It contradicts writings of people in history who have been proven to have existed and actual records that have been proven to have been written during that time. Like the Egpytian historical writings.

9. Most of what is said in it is not logical.

10 Most of it's conepts are not unique to the times in which they were written.

11. Writings have been found that predate the bible and speak of their GODS we don't believe them either...lol

12. Man existed on this planet more than 5000 years, the sun doesn't rise, you can see all the kingdoms of the world from one high mountain top. The rainbow exists because of light and water not because of a promise.

13. We find these same mistakes and propensity to discribe things unknown to man at the time through mythology and superstition in all civilizations on the earth. The bible stories fit the same mold.


Finally I don't believe that a man walked the earth during the time of the roman occupation who was possible killed for being a revolutionary because its in the bible.

I believe that because it is very likely that if a nation is oppressed some one will rise up to revolt. And as far as I know Romes occupation of Isreal is documented.

[LillSnopp]

Oh Jesus (no pun intended), it was just a very easy Question here, A or B, 1 or 2. Nothinf more, the rest would be the Reasons for why you choosen A or B. I´l try it again, and i´l bold it.

Using commonsense logic, whom do you think God would prefer?



(A) A Christian whom believe in him, without any proof.
or
(B). A Atheist, that do not believe in him, because there is no proof.


Which one do you think God would prefer ?
Intelligence, or Ignorance ?

[Arch]

Oh Jesus (no pun intended), it was just a very easy Question here, A or B, 1 or 2. Nothinf more, the rest would be the Reasons for why you choosen A or B. I´l try it again, and i´l bold it.

Using commonsense logic, whom do you think God would prefer?



(A) A Christian whom believe in him, without any proof.
or
(B). A Atheist, that do not believe in him, because there is no proof.


Which one do you think God would prefer ?
Intelligence, or Ignorance ?

The question would be like asking

Which would you prefer

1. Believing in Jesus
or
2. Going to hell

A person has the right not to accept either choice if neither one suits him or her.

But let me try to go along with this loaded question ( I am not a Christian)

If I were GOD I would prefer to have people who did wha tI told them to do in heaven.

So by the narrow options of you gave me I would have to say GOD would prefer Christians in heaven. (That would be making the asumption that Christianity is the correct faith of said god)

Our system of LAW is the same way. We don't care if you know why you should keep our laws. We want you to keep them anyway and if you don't we are going to punish you period!

So logically I would think if there was a GOD he would be the same way. That would be my best guess.

Here is a question

Who would you prefer to exist in your society

1. A person who doesn't murder but is ignorant of why he should not murder.

2. A person who is intelligent enough to understand the consequences of murder, but does it anyway because he just feels like it.

I believe in a court of law number 2 is called First Degree Murder and is punishable by death in many of our Intelligent states