The Time Machine -- A Question of Curiosity

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by Knight

Again.. you and granite fail to get the point. Dying for a belief (even a false one) is completely different than dying for a lie that you devised.

I think you are missing the point that Smith, Jones, Koresh -- all died for a lie they devised (and so did their followers, some of whom helped engineer that lie).

Unless you believe what they espoused wasn't a lie? Could you expand on that please?

Again, please don't dismiss the fact that there is a very real possibility that there was no lie -- but a belief based on events that had other explanations.

 

[JayHoover]

Originally posted by SOTK

:thumb:

This is what makes it so difficult to have intelligent discussions with atheists and/or agnostics. You all want us to apply your sense of reason or logic (your perpsective) to the existence of God but seemingly refuse to apply or consider our perspective. I sometimes wonder why atheists and/or agnostics even bother. Other than a few posters here at TOL who are admitted atheists or agnostics, the majority of you waste your time. It's the same old argument(s) time and time again. You expect us to play at your game, but refuse to play ours. So, again, why bother?

I don't often see the "If you were confronted with the events and they were different from what you believed, what would you think?" argument too often. Usually the arguments swirl around biblical inerrancy and extra-biblical support for the events recounted in the NT.

Actually, my question had nothing to do with the existence of god but with the events of the Christ story. I suppose one could infer that a crippling of the NT is a rejection of the bible entire, thus leading one to disbelieve the entire thing -- but numerous people have said they'd abandon their Christianty but not their belief in god.

That's an intriguing question, and the thread is meritorious for that reason alone.

Actually, if you'll examine the post and my reply, I did adhere to the scenario precisely as Knight wrote it -- I just pointed out that it doesn't constitute a "reverse". My scenario blatantly contradicts your theistic beliefs. His scenario shows the events precisely as they were, but that doesn't negate the still-extant possibility that there are (or were) alternate explanations. It simply doesn;t make it more true just because a group of fisherman insist Jesus was the son of god. That part is irrelevant. What is relevant is Did Jesus actually die? and even more importantly, "Did he rise from the dead?"

Reversing my scenario doesn't address those questions.

 

[The Berean]

Re: Re: The Time Machine -- A Question of Curiosity

Re: Re: The Time Machine -- A Question of Curiosity

Originally posted by Turbo

I'd cease to be a Christian, of course.

• But if there is no resurrection of the dead, then Christ is not risen. 4And if Christ is not risen, then our preaching is empty and your faith is also empty. Yes, and we are found false witnesses of God, because we have testified of God that He raised up Christ, whom He did not raise up--if in fact the dead do not rise. For if the dead do not rise, then Christ is not risen. And if Christ is not risen, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins! Then also those who have fallen asleep in Christ have perished. If in this life only we have hope in Christ, we are of all men the most pitiable. 1 Corinthians 15:13-19

Thankfully, there is overwhelming evidence that Christ did in fact rise from the dead. That is why I became a Christian to begin with.

I'm a little late coming to this discussion. I'm with Turbo on this. If I found out that Jesus died and wasn't resurrected then he is NOT the Son Of God. I would leave my Christianity behind...

 

[b-baggins]

. What is relevant is Did Jesus actually die? and even more importantly, "Did he rise from the dead?"

In the time machine scenario you were given, you got to watch the crucifixion. You would be able to examine, visually, the body as the spear was thrust into the side, as the body was wrapped and laid in the tomb. To claim you wouldn't be able to visually verify that the body was dead and therefore reject the resurrection is ridiculous.

Of course, it goes further than that. Since you have the time machine, you can also see the events at Christ's baptism. You can see the events at the mount of transfiguration. You can see Christ appear in a closed room to the Apostles. You can see the angel announcing to Mary that he is risen. You can see him ascend to heaven and the angels testifying that he will return. You can see the angel making the annunciation to Mary and to the shepherds.

Your initial question really is nothing more than a clever form of a begging the question fallacy.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by JayHoover
Let me cut to the chase for you: If I were to find out for certain that the NT related facts exactly as they were -- of course I would believe. I don't know any atheist who wouldn't believe, if there were verifiable evidence.

You would believe, but would you humble yourself before Him?

After-all... even Satan believes. Satan knows experientially that Christ is the Son of God but rejects Him none the less.

Are you be prepared to humble yourself before Christ?

 

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Knight

You would believe, but would you humble yourself before Him?

After-all... even Satan believes. Satan knows experientially that Christ is the Son of God but rejects Him none the less.

Are you be prepared to humble yourself before Christ?

Knight: :thumb:

JH: To answer the question, I would leave Christianity.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020

:thumb:

To answer the question, I would leave Christianity.

 

[SOTK]

I think MR. 5020 was referring to the original Time Machine hypothetical question posed by Hoover.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by SOTK

I think MR. 5020 was referring to the original Time Machine hypothetical question posed by Hoover.

That is correct.

The :thumb: was for Knight's post.

The answer was for the original question.

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Mr. 5020

That is correct.

The :thumb: was for Knight's post.

The answer was for the original question.

I see.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Knight

I see.

You'll notice I edited the "Post in Question".

 

[PureX]

If I had a time machine like that, I'd go visit all kinds of times and places. But I don't think I'd try to find Jesus.

It's a matter of faith.

 

[Turbo]

Yes PureX, we know you would prefer to remain as ignorant as possible.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by Turbo

Yes PureX, we know you would prefer to remain as ignorant as possible.

:chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by Turbo

Yes PureX, we know you would prefer to remain as ignorant as possible.

:chuckle:

 

[Nathon Detroit]

Originally posted by PureX

If I had a time machine like that, I'd go visit all kinds of times and places. But I don't think I'd try to find Jesus.

It's a matter of faith.

Pure X is preparing himself for when Jesus returns.

I am guessing Pure X will be hiding from God then as well.

Hey Pure X.... you can run but you cant hide!

 

[SOTK]

:crackup:

 

[JayHoover]

Very enjoyable discussion, thank you all!

To answer the somewhat more critical posts, yes, the time machine would allow the Time Traveller to visit all those times and places. The scenario simply extends however -- each thing you witness doesn't jibe with the NT, or is -- how to say it? -- a lesser version. I don't think it necessary to pick apart each and every event in the bible, but there would be some that -- if witnessed -- would be compelling, and others less so. Jesus is a pretty clever bloke when dealing with the Pharisees and Sanhedrin (until the end), but there's nothing particularly miraculous about him exposing them for the hypocrites they were.

OTOH, if he were to raise the dead (the daughter, Lazarus, himself) there'd be compelling evidence in favor of his godhood.

I especially like the question about belief versus humbling. While I do not believe in gods and such, I do not believe in them because for me the overall model is intrinsically flawed, undemonstrated, and I see no compelling evidence (and a discussion regarding this, if there's one to be had, belongs in another thread). I do not disbelieve because I am, like Satan is described, arrogant, prideful, hateful and challenging, etc. I simply find the proposal to be lacking in supportive merit.

However, even though I've come to this as a conclusion, I am -- as a rationalist -- a servant to compelling evidence. If I were given reasonable cause to believe in it, I would, and I would belive in it with all the attendant devotion required. I have a lot of problems with the anthropomorphic SuperMan gods of the bible, but if reality dictates they are in existence, then I have no choice but to acknowledge them and adhere to their desires.

So yes, I would both believe and humble myself.

 

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by JayHoover

Very enjoyable discussion, thank you all!

To answer the somewhat more critical posts, yes, the time machine would allow the Time Traveller to visit all those times and places. The scenario simply extends however -- each thing you witness doesn't jibe with the NT, or is -- how to say it? -- a lesser version. I don't think it necessary to pick apart each and every event in the bible, but there would be some that -- if witnessed -- would be compelling, and others less so. Jesus is a pretty clever bloke when dealing with the Pharisees and Sanhedrin (until the end), but there's nothing particularly miraculous about him exposing them for the hypocrites they were.

OTOH, if he were to raise the dead (the daughter, Lazarus, himself) there'd be compelling evidence in favor of his godhood.

I especially like the question about belief versus humbling. While I do not believe in gods and such, I do not believe in them because for me the overall model is intrinsically flawed, undemonstrated, and I see no compelling evidence (and a discussion regarding this, if there's one to be had, belongs in another thread). I do not disbelieve because I am, like Satan is described, arrogant, prideful, hateful and challenging, etc. I simply find the proposal to be lacking in supportive merit.

However, even though I've come to this as a conclusion, I am -- as a rationalist -- a servant to compelling evidence. If I were given reasonable cause to believe in it, I would, and I would belive in it with all the attendant devotion required. I have a lot of problems with the anthropomorphic SuperMan gods of the bible, but if reality dictates they are in existence, then I have no choice but to acknowledge them and adhere to their desires.

So yes, I would both believe and humble myself.

Have you seen this?

 

[Granite]

Originally posted by Knight

Again.. you and granite fail to get the point. Dying for a belief (even a false one) is completely different than dying for a lie that you devised.

Knight, I got your point. That's why I noted that the Smith brothers, for their part, died for a con they cooked up and could have just as easily kicked at any moment. Anyway, it's a tangent issue and not really the point of this thread.