I like debating weird hypothetical arguments. One gets tired of the same old normal arguments that (while necessary, culturally) get really really boring after a while. I've recently tested out my "Does God Lie?
" argument in a public debate with some success.
I'm brainstorming ideas for how to argue the case that if we accept
the scenario of Jesus being tempted in the desert by Satan, the balance of evidence seems to be in favor of Jesus giving in.
It would have to be possible for Jesus to fail in the desert for it to be a real temptation. If it was impossible for Jesus to sin, then it would only be a meaningless taunting. A show.
The evidence indicates that he did
fail and decide to worship Satan.
Presumably God the Father would abandon the earthly Jesus in that event.
Jesus was a failed prophet who predicted he would return shortly. He didn't. (It's been a LONG time, too) Perhaps he knew this was how it was supposed to be, but God the Father was no longer with him.
The NT promises that the Church would be accompanied by the Holy Spirit to lead them in all truth. Today the Church is splintered into hundreds and thousands of denominations. It would seem God has abandoned the Church.
The NT promises there would be miracles to accompany the gospel message. This is not the case. God is not on their team.
Jesus seems to start to lose it near the end of his ministry, becoming angry and overturning tables in the Temple.
He is overly slanderous towards his opponents, the Pharisees, indicating he'd lost patience with his earthly ministry.
He doesn't seem to have access to all knowledge, indicating God was no longer with him.
It seems Jesus was unable to accept failure, and continued on, getting himself executed in a pompous rivalry with earthly authorities. On the cross, Jesus says, "Oh God, why have you forsaken me?" seeming
to admit they had parted ways.
Hence it would make sense that God didn't raise him from the dead. Presumably the body went missing for whatever reason, and his followers moved along with a false conception of events via hallucination and group think, and started their own religion. In their writings they tried to smooth things over as best they could.
Perhaps the success of Christianity despite God's withdrawn investment was because God had prepared the way ahead of time in terms of what would
have happened in history.
It would seem salvation for humanity is not available after all.
All I've tried to do here is take the basic Christian supernatural premises for granted and make a better
shitty argument than a Christian. The moral of the story is that if we open the Pandora's box of religious epistemology, anything
goes. And anything an apologist can contrive to support a laundry list of unverifiable doctrines and supernatural propositions is really them talking out of their hindquarters.
Eventually I'll be sure to look up all the relevant verses and go searching for the apologetic responses to them in order to familiarize myself with the curve balls which would be coming my way (and to make sure my arguments actually work of course). This is just my rough outline. I'm not really even sure if I'd bother using this argument for anything other than practice in public debate since it's really just a mental exercise in lateral thinking.