The point of my examples was the difficulty many have of changing what they believe even in the presence of evidence.

As far as the resurrection, you greatly underestimate the mood of the city of Jerusalem and the significance of the death of Jesus. He had evoked the ire of the Jewish leadership to the very top of their hierarchy—no small player in the field of "messiahs", as if he was "leading a rebellion? (Mt.26.55). He had stirred the populace and the leadership enough that there were a number of meetings of the Sanhedrin to decide how to deal with him. Herod had heard about him (Lk. 23.8), and he was sent for judgment to the Roman governor. He had attracted the attention of all three leadership groups in Palestine, up to the highest levels present in the country. He was accused of blasphemy (offensive to Jews) and subverting Rome (offensive to Romans, Lk.23.2). The leaders were so concerned they had his tomb sealed by Pilate, and then posted a guard.

Jesus' trial was witnessed by crowds, and his crucifixion by many. Everyone in the city seemed to know about this (Lk. 24.18), especially from this entrance the week before where large crowds swarmed to welcome him.

When the resurrection allegedly happened, you can't tell me that no one bothered to check the tomb to verify anything. It's beyond reductionistic to claim that no one cared, no one checked, and nothing is verified. Where Jesus was buried was a matter of public awareness (Lk. 23.55; Jn. 20.3). Jesus' alleged resurrection was an immediate problem for both the Jewish leadership and for Rome, and continuing on for decades and even centuries. We can be confidence that if some simple evidence was available to quash the claim of the resurrection, it would have been brought forth with speed and power. You can be sure they did everything both expedient and possible to stop the claims. But they weren't able to. Since it was the same city, the same people, eye-witnessed, public death, public burial, and within weeks thousands believed, your specious reasoning rings hollow.

> Those are just a few examples, and maybe some of them aren't that great, but you get the idea.

They were all bad examples, however verbose. But they're also red herrings. He was talking about people exposed to an actual afterlife. That's hardly the same as a collegial squabble about quantum mechanics or the nature of gravity.

> As far as Jesus coming back from the dead, it's pretty tough to come up with a reasonable explanation of how thousands of people, who were religious dogmatists, in the city that was the center of their religion, in the same city that 2 months previously Jesus has been crucified, were so thoroughly convinced of his resurrection (and the tomb was verifiable at the time) that they believed.

Oh, I don't think it's that hard. There's no proof that the tomb was verifiable, there's no proof that it was "thousands" of verified believers just a couple months later... that's all.

Look, I've personally come back from being dead for 3 days as well. Don't believe me? What if I told you that there were witnesses to my empty tomb (keep in mind that every time I describe it, I will change the list of people who were there)? If you don't find that convincing, what if I then told you that there were thousands of people who believed me? Still not convinced? Weird.

Really fantastic reply. Loved the description of the weight of our important choices—put in an eloquent way that is easy to communicate, thanks.

I've heard about scientific propositions that have been proposed that go against the accepted theories of understanding. The people who proposed them get argued with, jeered, and sometimes excluded from the scientific community to which they belong because of their insistence that their idea is correct.

For instance, Ignaz Semmelweis, who discovered that not washing hands was spreading disease. "Semmelweis was outraged by the indifference of the medical profession and began writing open and increasingly angry letters to prominent European obstetricians, at times denouncing them as irresponsible murderers. His contemporaries, including his wife, believed he was losing his mind, and in 1865 he was committed to an asylum. In an ironic twist of fate, he died there of septicaemia only 14 days later, possibly as the result of being severely beaten by guards. Semmelweis’s practice earned widespread acceptance only years after his death, when Louis Pasteur developed the germ theory of disease, offering a theoretical explanation for Semmelweis’s findings. He is considered a pioneer of antiseptic procedures." (http://www.handinscan.com/2013/04/29/the-history-of-hand-hygiene-a-tribute-to-semmelweis/)

Even when evidence is presented, people are extremely reluctant to change their positions. Look at the history of science, and how long it took the Copernican theory to take hold, the ongoing skirmish between classical physics and Quantum Mechanics, disagreements about whether gravity or electromagnetic force hold the universe together. Those are just a few examples, and maybe some of them aren't that great, but you get the idea.

As far as Jesus coming back from the dead, it's pretty tough to come up with a reasonable explanation of how thousands of people, who were religious dogmatists, in the city that was the center of their religion, in the same city that 2 months previously Jesus has been crucified, were so thoroughly convinced of his resurrection (and the tomb was verifiable at the time) that they believed. Now, 2,000 years later, when we insist on a photograph or "scientific" proof of the resurrection (whatever THAT would be), of course there are skeptics.

Back then, to be honest, obviously not everyone became a believer. Back to my earlier point: Some people don't want to believe despite evidence. Some people just want to believe what they want to believe. Some are super-gullible, and others are super-skeptical. It's not always a matter of logic and evidence. Sometimes it's a matter of presuppositions, stubbornness, intuitions, and viscera.

> I happen to think it's naive to think that being confronted with the realities of eternity will effect any change in anyone.

I disagree with this. I think you would be hard pressed to find a single person who not admit that their beliefs would change if confronted with an afterlife totally different from what they were expecting. It would be impossible for a person's beliefs not to change in that situation.

> Jesus said, "Even if someone came back from the dead, they wouldn't believe."

People would believe if someone came back from the dead. The problem is there is no known reasonable basis for believing that anyone ever has. Nobody who believes Jesus came back from the dead does not believe in god.

With Robin Williams's death, and the statements that he's making them laugh at the Pearly Gates, the question arises: why don't people get to choose about eternity AFTER they die, AFTER they get to see more clearly, and AFTER the deceptions of this world are peeled away?

Some parts of life we get to keep changing our minds (I have a closet full of clothes and try on many different outfits before choosing. Ah, but eventually I choose, even though I still have the choice to run back to the closet and switch.) Some parts of life we have to make a decision and can't easily go back on it (joining the military, marriage, etc.) Some choices can never be taken back: a bullet fired, a nasty word spoken, a punch to the face delivered, bungee jumping once our feet have left the platform, sky diving, etc.

Decisions about God and eternity are not like ice cream cones. They are deep decisions we make about the evidence we see, the state of our minds, the convictions of our deepest heart and soul, the weight of values, and the direction of very being. They are both intellectual and visceral, both academic and mysterious, based on both faith and sight. They are not cavalier. I happen to think it's naive to think that being confronted with the realities of eternity will effect any change in anyone. Right here in this life we are confronted with—pounded with—information from every side, evidences, world views, philosophies and theologies, to the point that not only do we make decisions, but we shape our beings on the basis of them. And on occasion there are powerful forces that motivate us to change our positions on matters of eternity. But our worldviews become settled, and part of our being, to the point where they are who we are, and not subject to change. Jesus said, "Even if someone came back from the dead, they wouldn't believe." At some point evidence gets filtered by the worldview rather than vice versa.

The teaching of the Bible is that the afterlife is like this. After death people are assessed by the One who can see the thoughts of the mind, the designs of the heart, the decisions and convictions one truly has, and the decisions that would not be changed no matter what they see and hear. And that people will be sent to their appropriate and chosen destiny by the One who can judge honestly and fairly, without error.

If after death one has an eternity in either heaven or hell, why is death the end of conscious decision?

I was thinking of this while having a discussion about "where" Robin Williams ended up. If one were to die before being saved, why is the possibility for forgiveness after death not included into Christian doctrine? Please tell me if I'm asking or wording something strange and I'll be glad to try elaborating.