If as a society we convict people of crime, if we have a preponderance of evidence, why do atheists reject Christ when there is more then a preponderance of evidence showing he is the Lord sent to give us redemption and salvation? Not only rejection but ridicule those who do believe and know the truth?
2007-12-08 05:22:46 · 27 answers · asked by Jethro Bodine 3 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
It is better to let the guilty go free,
than to incarcerate the innocent.
They reject what the original apostles wrote.
They reject the Christians being murdered for their belief in the Roman arenas.
They reject what Josephus, Pliny the Elder, Pontius Pilate and others wrote.
They reject the writings and there are many of the former Pharisee, Jew and Christian named Apostle Paul or Saul of Tarsus.
But worst of all - They reject Christ.
2007-12-08 05:47:16 · answer #1 · answered by Jeancommunicates 7 · 1⤊ 5⤋
Actually the standard for criminal conviction is "beyond reasonable doubt"--"preponderance of evidence" is a lesser standard.
I do reject, but do not ridicule those who believe. I do not accept that they know the truth.
That the New Testament teaches that Jesus is "the Lord sent to give us redemption and salvation", I do not dispute. However, there are a whole host of reasons why this is almost irrelevant to non-believers. If by Jesus is the Lord, you mean that Jesus is the incarnation of the God of the Hebrew Bible, that is not much of an endorsement to us, since we find this God distasteful and immoral. The fundamental Christian claim that Jesus is the Messiah I find can be sustained if the term Messiah be redefined to make the term almost meaningless. Jesus is the Christ in only the most equivocal sense. The preponderance of the ENTIRE evidence, at the very least, make Christian belief very doubtful.
2007-12-08 05:33:55 · answer #2 · answered by Darrol P 4 · 5⤊ 1⤋
somewhat the common for offender conviction is "previous much low priced doubt"--"preponderance of evidence" is a lesser undemanding. I do reject, yet do no longer ridicule persons who evaluate. i do no longer settle for that they know the reality. That the recent testomony teaches that Jesus is "the Lord sent to present day us redemption and salvation", i do no longer dispute. although, there are an entire host of clarification why that's style of beside the point to non-believers. If by ability of way of Jesus is the Lord, you recommend that Jesus is the incarnation of the God of the Hebrew Bible, that may no longer a good number of an endorsement to us, because of the reality that we hit upon this God distasteful and immoral. the main vital Christian declare that Jesus is the Messiah i hit upon is often sustained if the term Messiah be redefined to make the term on the edge of meaningless. Jesus is the Christ in maximum effective probable the main equivocal journey. The preponderance of the finished evidence, on the least, make Christian theory very doubtful.
2016-11-14 02:19:58 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
If the preponderance of the evidence showed that there was a God, then I'd believe. I wouldn't even require evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.
2007-12-08 05:33:39 · answer #4 · answered by Let Me Think 6 · 4⤊ 1⤋
But, you see, there is NO preponderance of evidence. Not one thing...nothing....
The only thing that exists is a book written by old men who have been dead for thousands of years. It has been rewritted, edited, translated hundreds of times, chapters added, chapters removed, words deleted or added. There is nothing there that could be considered evidence of anything other than a book of stories.
It's like saying Stephen Kings character, Roland the Gunslinger is a biography of a real character...when, in fact, it is a book of fiction. Just because a book is written doesn't mean it's true.
2007-12-08 05:59:53 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5⤊ 1⤋
"why do atheists reject Christ when there is more then a preponderance of evidence showing he is the Lord sent to give us redemption and salvation?"
Have you stopped beating your wife?
2007-12-08 05:31:09 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 2⤋
Sorry, error in your statement.
People are not convicted based on a "preponderance of evidence." Even Perry Mason got it wrong using "beyond a shadow of a doubt." The standard for criminal conviction is "beyond a reasonable doubt."
I have "reasonable doubt" as to the existence of god. Ergo, god does not exist under criminal conviction standards.
The standard of prevailing in a civil tort is a "preponderance of evidence."
This is a big deal, so all questions based on your bold topic are irrelevant. Please restate the question.
2007-12-08 05:28:51 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 9⤊ 1⤋
Because there's an even larger preponderance of evidence to suggest that Deus does not exist.
2007-12-08 05:28:23 · answer #8 · answered by battleship potemkin AM 6 · 6⤊ 2⤋
And that preponderance of evidence is?
I would go ahead and ridicule you. But you do it to yourself so well why should I bother?
2007-12-08 05:32:58 · answer #9 · answered by Simon T 7 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If you want to convince someone of an idea, you should offer evidence, not just claim it exists. Seriously, I have no clue what you might be referring to, which makes you look rather rude as you suggest that non-Christians must be idiots.
2007-12-08 05:31:27 · answer #10 · answered by Nightwind 7 · 6⤊ 1⤋