If I would have

@bigdogg said
But surely you can see this is written for an audience of believers.

And?

@josephw said
If you want to understand it, then become a believer.

You do understand it, but you don't believe it.
Consequently, it's application doesn't resonate with your spirit.
Therefore, in your mind, it's not real.

Ah this old chestnut. Your understanding of the human condition would have you believe that people who are unconvinced of certain claims about supernatural things can simply sidestep their disbelief and choose to believe them?

@josephw said
If you want to understand it, then become a believer.

You do understand it, but you don't believe it.
Consequently, it's application doesn't resonate with your spirit.
Therefore, in your mind, it's not real.

This is mostly what I had in mind, especially the observation that OP does not resonate with people who do not believe.

But if you know this, then I am not sure why you'd criticize unbelievers for not "getting it", when that is not the problem at all.

Seems like your first responses were merely empty contrarianism. Something about as useful as, "when you know, then you know."

Right?

@kellyjay said

“If I would have pulled Joseph out. Out of that pit. Out of that prison. Out of that pain. I would have cheated nations out of the one God would use to deliver them from famine.

Similarly, if humans execute other humans they could unwittingly kill a human God has a purpose for and 'cheat nations out of the one God would use to deliver them.'

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Similarly, if humans execute other humans they could unwittingly kill a human God has a purpose for and 'cheat nations out of the one God would use to deliver them.'

The point of the OP was that those who went through things accomplished great things while they were going through them. If you are familiar with all of the stories you would know these had people assisting them now and then, it was not about not helping people, but some twisted it to make it so. Their lives accomplished great things even though they suffered in the midst of them, we are told in this life we will have tribulations, and we do. Can God deliver?

Daniel 3
Shadrach, Meshach, and Abednego answered and said to the king, “O Nebuchadnezzar, we have no need to answer you in this matter. If this be so, our God whom we serve is able to deliver us from the burning fiery furnace, and he will deliver us out of your hand, O king. But if not, be it known to you, O king, that we will not serve your gods or worship the golden image that you have set up.”


Yes, He can, but He doesn't always, sometimes we go through things common to all men that harm and kill us. No one is above that as each of those stories tells us. God sometimes through evil done in this world, accomplishes great things. Jesus went to the cross and took all that man could dish out, and the full punishment of the wrath of God for us, and even through what evil did to Christ, it was through that, that God's justice was satisfied and all of our shame, iniquities, guilt were paid for.

Justice is as real to God as love is, neither will be set aside for the sake of the other. Human justice God set up and honors and the judgment of a whole life is different than answering for a crime among men justice system, in the end, that system and those that played a part in it will answer for the righteousness or lack thereof in each trial as we will for everything done or not done in this life.

@kellyjay said
The point of the OP was that those who went through things accomplished great things while they were going through them.

Understood Kelly, but the point goes both ways. If a human intervened to (for example) pull Joseph out of the pit, they would have unwittingly influenced the future good things he accomplished. Similarly, if a human takes another human life (even in the name of Earthly justice) he could unwittingly have influenced/prevented the future good things that individual might have accomplished (in God's name and for God's purpose).

@fmf said
Ah this old chestnut. Your understanding of the human condition would have you believe that people who are unconvinced of certain claims about supernatural things can simply sidestep their disbelief and choose to believe them?

You once believed, then you chose not to. Apparently you believed before you had evidence to the contrary.

First you believed without evidence, then you believed not, based on some new evidence.

I'm curious to know what evidence it is you have that proves the resurrection of Jesus is false, because you once believed based on evidence that you now find to be false.

There appears to be evidence of cognitive dissonance.

@bigdogg said
This is mostly what I had in mind, especially the observation that OP does not resonate with people who do not believe.

But if you know this, then I am not sure why you'd criticize unbelievers for not "getting it", when that is not the problem at all.

Seems like your first responses were merely empty contrarianism. Something about as useful as, "when you know, then you know."

Right?

I'm not "criticizing" unbelievers. I'm being critical of the matter with regards to the process of the reason for or against belief.

If one finds reason for or against belief, then I want to know why.

I know why I "get it". Why don't you?

Seems the OP made a plain statement. I'm sure you "get it" in that sense, but why should I be critical(judgmental) of you if you don't "get it" to the point of belief?

My point is, that there is something beyond the surface of mere words, which are the vehicles that carry meaning, that portrays a picture of spiritual truth that obviously is perceived by a component of our being we call spirit.

Isn't this the Spirituality Forum? Am I not allowed to reference that thing below the surface?

@josephw said
You once believed, then you chose not to. Apparently you believed before you had evidence to the contrary.

First you believed without evidence, then you believed not, based on some new evidence.

I'm curious to know what evidence it is you have that proves the resurrection of Jesus is false, because you once believed based on evidence that you now find to be false.

There appears to be evidence of cognitive dissonance.

Belief or disbelief isn't a choice in itself. (It's not like deciding whether to have cereal or toast for breakfast). What 'is' a choice is whether or not we decide to explore a particular faith (which could result in belief). It is also possible for an individual to believe something without concreate evidence and then lose that belief due to a given experience. (For example, I've known Christians who have lost their faith due to the death of a loved one etc).

At no point in my life, as an atheist, have I believed in the existence of gods or God. This isn't as a result of a lack of study or interest, but an honest reflection of what I believe to be true and untrue. I could pretend I believed in God, or fake a belief, but what I can't do is 'choose' to believe in a God that I simply don't think exists. True belief in something comes from a deeper place and involves genuine emotions that can't be switched on or off at will.

-Removed-

That's what the OP is saying.

You didn't "get it", obviously.

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Understood Kelly, but the point goes both ways. If a human intervened to (for example) pull Joseph out of the pit, they would have unwittingly influenced the future good things he accomplished. Similarly, if a human takes another human life (even in the name of Earthly justice) he could unwittingly have influenced/prevented the future good things that individual might have accomplished (in God's name and for God's purpose).

Every time one of us are born there is good we could do, that is always limited by our choices. Not sure what your reasoning is attempting to show?

@ghost-of-a-duke said
Belief or disbelief isn't a choice in itself. (It's not like deciding whether to have cereal or toast for breakfast). What 'is' a choice is whether or not we decide to explore a particular faith (which could result in belief). It is also possible for an individual to believe something without concreate evidence and then lose that belief due to a given experience. (For ...[text shortened]... ng comes from a deeper place and involves genuine emotions that can't be switched on or off at will.

"Believing" isn't a matter of choice.
Obviously one doesn't choose to believe without knowing something is true.
Choosing to believe without knowledge is ignorance.
A choice made without knowledge is folly.
Believing blindly is worse than not believing at all.

It says in the Bible that "we walk by faith and not by sight."

It would be ignorant to suggest that that means we choose blindly to believe without evidence.

Choosing to believe, or believing to choose doesn't make any sense if it's done without sure and certain knowledge.

Why do unbelievers think that's the issue with believers, that we chose to believe blindly without a cause?

The Spirit cannot be measured by physical means.