[Cont.]

Let me sum it up for you.

If you could see things clearly from the 'I Don't Know' side of the road, then you'd also see that the statement I made 'It may be just as likely...' is completely reasonable and logical (and shows respect to the brain God may have potentially given me) and nothing to GET offended about in the first place.

It's only you, the believer who might get offended because of your own belief in 'Claiming to Know'.

Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain;
And then expect you to discard those gifts for faith alone?

- And that's why I'm happy where I am being a fencesitter -

Armchair Critic,

<<Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain; And then expect you to discard those gifts for faith alone?

- And that's why I'm happy where I am being a fencesitter>>

God expects the Christian believer to use all of those things PLUS the spirit/soul/conscience/mind/heart that is within a person, to know God in a spiritual dimension.

Could you be open to this teaching by Jesus? "No one can come to me [Jesus] unless DRAWN by the Father who sent me; and I will raise that person up on the last day" (John 6:44).

This is not God the Father drawing a person's physical characteristics, including the brain, but drawing the internal dimension of human beings that can't be seen.

When the Father drew me through my spirit, I responded positively to God. I could have rejected that drawing.

One minute after your last breath you won't be a fence sitter. Why not deal with the eternal issues of life, death and the future now?

Hi OzSpen

Actually I worded that earlier bit wrong.
I meant to use the word 'betray' instead of 'discard'.

Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain;
And then expect you to betray those gifts for faith alone?

I CAN'T touch God,
I CAN'T taste God,
I CAN'T see God,
I CAN'T smell God and
I CAN'T hear God;

Also my Brain says 'I Don't Know'.

On that last 'hear God' issue many people think they speak to God when they pray.
- Personally I think they believe they're talking to God but their conscience is what responds with some insightful comforting message.

Choosing faith is to betray his gifts. (If he exists)
My mind says 'I Don't Know'.

«Why would God give you touch, taste, sight, smell and hear, as well as a brain; And then expect you to betray those gifts for faith alone?»

Are these truly gifts?

While we do get pleasures from our senses and brain, this pleasure is sparse. The senses mostly give us pain and the brain, worries.

So long as you consider yourself a limited human, these faculties are necessary for "your" survival. This human survival should not be discarded because it is necessary for knowing God, but once we know God, these faculties are no longer necessary.

We need to use these faculties as crutches, but then we become addicted to them and the time comes when we must break our addictions and betray these faculties, seeking God alone.

Knowing God ends all suffering.

"When the Father drew me through my spirit, I responded positively to God. I could have rejected that drawing."

I'm not sure I want to share the background story in regards to Christianity in my life, but there definitely is one.
All I'm really willing to share is that I had it forced upon me as a child because a of a parents remarriage.
If you knew that backstory then my positions would probably make more sense to you.

"One minute after your last breath you won't be a fence sitter. Why not deal with the eternal issues of life, death and the future now?"

Why because I'll be dead? Lol

There you 'believers' go again.
You're attempting to make your belief my belief.
Why do you do that, are you trying to shore up your own belief?
- With a need for me to agree with you?

"Why not deal with the eternal issues of life, death and the future now?"

What does that mean exactly to a fence sitter, someone who says and believes 'I Don't Know'?
What is it a guilt trip of some sort?

"You have nothing to lose and everything to gain" they claim.
- Heard it all before, no offense;
- But I'll give you brownie points for trying.

Banjo,

Previously you claimed you read 200 of N T Wright's 817pp on The Resurrection of the Son of God (2003). Now you admit: <<when I SIFTED THROUGH the 817 pages>> That sounds more like it.

<<I think you will agree that the only evidence he ever mentions anywhere in his book for the claimed resurrection of Jesus is the early Christians’ interpretation of the open tomb>>

You're inventing again. For you to accept the historical fact of the bodily resurrection of Christ is out of your mind.

I agree that the evidence for Jesus' resurrection is in the researched and demonstrated reliable New Testament. See: http://minnehahachurch.org/Library/06Writing/NTDocuments-Reliable-Bruce.pdf. Also, http://www.equip.org/PDF/JAR011.pdf

I rely on reliable NT documents.

<<Also, as I’m sure you are aware, Wright cites Matthew 28:12-15 but discounts it.>>

That is false. That’s a 'skim' a book conclusion. Wright deals with it in pp 636-40, "There is nothing improbable in this narrative; indeed, it makes good sense all round" (p 637)

<<If the same “phenomena” were to occur today, I, personally, doubt that anyone in his right mind would seriously consider that the dead person had resurrected.>.

Your presuppositions are speaking Banjo.

<<You mention Captain Cook, but I am not aware that anyone has ever suggested that he had resurrected.>>

I never said that. Cook was mentioned to demonstrate the only way we have to access his story is through historical investigation; same as with the resurrection.

Since I claimed the resurrection was founded on FACT, you stated:

<<I beg to disagree. The legal definition of the term “fact” is “the truth about events as opposed to interpretation” (OED)>>

The Oxford Living Dictionaries (online) disagree stating that FACT is "a thing that is known or proved to be true" (2019. s.v. fact).

Jesus' resurrection is from the reliable NT, a fact proved to be true. See the forum interaction between atheist, Antony Flew, and evangelical scholar, Gary Habermas: http://www.veritas.org/did-jesus-rise-dead/.

<<Nobody has ever proven that there is a god (nor, consequently, a son of a god) – and that includes Tom Wright>>.

Would you accept the positive evidence provided?