Why are some immune to miracles?

[Willum]

This is a very neat reply by JP:

Yet another way to look at it is:

If Jesus arrived today, as he allegedly did 2000 years ago, would anyone believe him? Would you believe him?
Put yourself in your own shoes.
Some migrant/refugee claims she had a virgin birth, several years after the conception event took place.
The father only knows he is not the father.

Claims of healing that have less aplomb than evangelistic roadshows.
He gets tortured somewhere and comes back from the dead, according to some source.
Assume this is recorded.

Do you believe it?

Why do you believe it out of a Book written 300 years after the fact?

This is one of the big miracles, because the Gospel accounts do stand the test of time.

Many other beliefs and religions and philosophies have come and gone - yet this one about Jesus Christ remains and endures.

It is even arguable that this same Jesus of 2000 years ago is indeed the most powerful person in the entire world now into the 21st century.

The Gospels certainly do stand the test of time, despite their flaws.
Is there a miracle at work allowing many to believe what, to the plainly logical mind, is preposterous? Why are some of us immune to this miracle, or capable of changing our minds?

Or are those of us skeptics, just definitely not part of the chosen (some of us gratefully)?

[JehovahsWitness]

Why does God require his followers to believe the unlikely, even the preposterous or even, quite possibly the impossible?

I don't think he does. Whether something is "unlikely" "preposterous" or "impossible" is largely a matter of context and opinion, and from my point of view (and millions like me) there is nothing that God asks believers to put faith in that doesn't have a firm foundation in truth.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 21 by JehovahsWitness]

Try to see things from another point of view then.
Why would even an all-powerful god use resurrection, the thermodynamic and chemical reversal of three days of cellular decay to make a point?

It is neither effective, nor likely even possible - even for a creature of unlimited power and finesse. It is hardly a matter of context or opinion, but pragmatism.
All things being equal, reality is not a function of opinion.


Please note: I am asking you to see it from anothers' point of view, not to provide a religious explanation.

[JP Cusick]

Try to see things from another point of view then.
Why would even an all-powerful god use resurrection, the thermodynamic and chemical reversal of three days of cellular decay to make a point?

It is neither effective, nor likely even possible - even for a creature of unlimited power and finesse. It is hardly a matter of context or opinion, but pragmatism.
All things being equal, reality is not a function of opinion.


Please note: I am asking you to see it from anothers' point of view, not to provide a religious explanation.

I agree that the idea of resurrection from the dead has lots of negative implications, and the idea of my own dead body being raised back to life is an unpleasant thought.

And so it seems to me that the claim of a resurrection has a message included that this physical life is the only life available, and so without resurrecting then there is no more life and death is the end of life.

As such it is a very intense message about reality.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 23 by JP Cusick]

Reversal of thermodynamics and chemistry, not self-perception.
V/R

[JP Cusick]

Reversal of thermodynamics and chemistry, not self-perception.
V/R

It is sad that you did not appreciate my previous comment - because it was the best reply possible.

I feel free to speak for everyone of all religions or non believers by saying that no one expects or envisions that a dead body would "reverse" or regenerate or regrow or even renew itself by thermodynamics or by chemistry or by resurrection nor by any will of God.

And what about the bodies which are cremated and then the ashed dumped into a river or over a mountain side? ~ so no, they are not going to be reversed.

The concept of the resurrection of the dead back to life means resurrected with a new body and new heart and new soul and new spirit, so the corruptible puts on incorruption, see 1 Corinthians 15:42-44

[Willum]

[Replying to post 25 by JP Cusick]

But that is not what happened to Jesus or Lazarus, is it?

Most Christians, in other words, the ones I need to address, according to forum rules, because, infringing on individual beliefs on this form, risks insult and is contrary to forum rules.

So perhaps you do not believe in a physical resurrection - no comment.

I see your comment, and can make no return injunction.

What is your opinion of the eigen-Christian belief in resurrection and how it pertains to this topic?

[JP Cusick]

But that is not what happened to Jesus or Lazarus, is it?

Most Christians, in other words, the ones I need to address, according to forum rules, because, infringing on individual beliefs on this form, risks insult and is contrary to forum rules.

So perhaps you do not believe in a physical resurrection - no comment.

I see your comment, and can make no return injunction.

What is your opinion of the eigen-Christian belief in resurrection and how it pertains to this topic?

Your questions are a bit confusing to me so you probably will never like my replies.

First is that we do not know what medical phenomenon happened to Jesus or to Lazarus, so speculation can be fun but hard to argue.

My view is that we are working with a translation into modern English from the primitive Greek language, and so a resurrection can have a different meaning to them as for us today, and in those times they had no concept of resuscitation as we do today.

So I do believe that Jesus had a physical resuscitation and it was a great miracle.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 27 by JP Cusick]

You see, I do know what happened to Lazarus and Jesus: They were not resurrected, because resurrection is impossible.

But if I take that cheap route, in simply dismissing the subject matter, it arrests discussion and makes it completely about me.

So, if resurrection is the topic, mainstream Christianity accepts it: Therefore we must accept it for discussion purposes, at least. (With me?)

Therefore, a requirement of (mainstream) Christianity is something that is, within reason, impossible - yet (mainstream) Christians must believe it. God requires them to believe in the impossible, is it a miracle to do so?

[JP Cusick]

The Gospels certainly do stand the test of time, despite their flaws.
Is there a miracle at work allowing many to believe what, to the plainly logical mind, is preposterous? Why are some of us immune to this miracle, or capable of changing our minds?

The above belief about miracles is mistaken.

The miracle is that it happened, not that there is some miracle making it to happen.

The word miracle describes an event, the miracle does not create the event.

If the power of God makes some thing happen then the after result is the only miracle.

That Jesus was resurrected or resuscitated then that is the miracle - it is not that it was orchestrated beforehand as the miracle.

Jesus laid hands on a person to heal them - that laying on hands is not the miracle - the later healing is the only miracle.

The miracle of salvation has not happened yet, so it is not really a miracle until after it happens.

As such any thing might look impossible - so when the miracle happens then it stops being impossible.

[Willum]

[Replying to post 29 by JP Cusick]

I don't see how an additional step to a miracle - many, or 'the chosen' believing the impossible, as a miracle is any different from an impossible miracle.

There is simply no way to say, and no point in doing so.