Faith

[SurveyMack10]

A billion other possibilities is quite a large amount.  Are you prepared to actually post about a billion other possibilities to back up your statement?  I'm not disagreeing, but making a point about what our words indicate.  Before I take the time to "debate" your remarks on delusional and irrational, I'm asking that you first read the different types of reasoning in another post of mine. 

I will say that you think those words should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box, and we all know this is aimed toward the Christians.  The same can be returned right back at you as well.  Some of you do not want to step out of your restraining box and take a leap of faith.  Just as there are religious zealots there are also athiest zealots out there.  However, debating and discussing does not mean that someone is forcing their views on others - but, unfortunately, there are some on both sides who do and both sides turn people off, tune them out, or start calling names.  That to me, is wrong, and going too far.

Loved the second paragraph of this so much. Insulting and calling names just degrades the whole debate and lowers the credibility of those who take to that tactic. It is nice when adults can discuss something, disagree, and still have a conversation about  both sides. That is definitely not always the case here.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
Everyone who dies will either live forever with God, or live in the eternal place of punishment, OR, will know nothing because of nothing afterwards.  That's the time when those "belief systems rendered false" will be either be shown to be true, false, or nothing.

Quote from: falcon9:
You're speculating there, (since there is no evidence to support your contentions).  Being unaware of other potential options, (no one knows yet), doesn't default the options to the ones speculated upon.  The belief systems mentioned are rendered false because they rely wholey upon "faith/belief" sans substantiation.  That makes them false claims, (since the claimants have consistantly failed to support their claims with anything other than they believe because they have faith - a manifestly circular justification).

You don't need evidence for contentions - it is as it is, or will be.  Either Christians will be proven wrong; or nonbelievers will be proven wrong, or nothing will be shown either way because of being dead and buried or cremated and nothing afterwards.  They are not false claims; they are reasonable possibilites/answers - with today's arguments regarding God/no God, if He is real, then everyone will know regardless of the direction they have chosen to go in.  If there is not God, then noone will ever know because of being dead.  So, if I'm wrong, I'll never know, will I?  But if I'm right, then not only will I know, but so will everyone else on earth.  Personally, I choose to believe in God, even if it is "irrational" to you or any other nonbeliever.  I'm not interfering in your choice of needed proof, nor is my choice affecting how I live my life and suffer things and enjoy things in my life.  Words like irrational, delusional, etc. are just that: words.  They are used to intimidate or manipulate people's choices and I'm not bothered by being labeled any of those. 

  great response!

Thank you!

[falcon9]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
The bottom line is that people become Christians because they choose to believe, others choose to ignore any concept of God, while others are searching for answers. 

Quote from: falcon9:
One of the main points of contention within this debate has been whether or not such a choice "to believe" is made on an irrational or, rational basis.  So far, no case for a rational basis for that choice has been presented while the reasoning behind the counter contention of an irrational basis has been elaborated upon extensively.  As far as "searching for answers" goes, I submit the theory, (not the claim), that those holding whichever religious beliefs they cling to have ceased searching and "believe" they've found their "answers".  On the other hand, those who do not cling to such irrational beleif systems are in a better position to keep searching, questioning and being skeptical of unsupported opinions.

Well, you are right in your "theory," in that those who have found salvation in the Lord do cling to that and don't have the need to search for other answers: God is their answer.  As for rational/irrational, that will remain to be determined, won't it?

Ultimately?  Perhaps so.  In the here and now, (which is where we are, as opposed to being dead), no rational basis of reasoning has yet been presented therefore, it must be concluded that, as far as we know so far, there is no rational basis, (and, that the basis presented as "faith" does not qualify as a rational basis because of an a priori assumption that 'faith requires no proof, eschewing it instead').

With your other response, you say those who aren't clinging to an "irrational belief system" are in a "better position to keep searching, questioning, and being skeptical of unsupported opinions."  Please clarify then, just what these others are searching for and questioning about.

To clarify, at your request; I stated that those not locked into an irrational belief system remain free to keep searching for answers, not that they already had those answers in mind while conducting such searches.  They are therefore in a better position to keep searching than others who believe they've concluded their search and found "answers".  One who continues to learn is more likely to learn than one who has ceased searching for knowledge, believing that they already know.

Also, why they are even searching in the first place? 

You want me to speculate, eh?  Okay, some search because the carious religious belief systems expressly do not provide answers to their questions.  Some continue to search because making a 'leap of faith' across an unknown abyss may not be the wiser option available.  Then there are those whose search is intensely personal and not amiable to catagorization under one or more religious belief systems.  These are the ones who seek no followers and prefer to farage ahead alone.  They eschew faith while standing upon reason to reach for the stars.

And what's the use of searching and finding something when it may have "unsupported opinions?"  Because then it would be too irrational to question and search about anything that may be a possible answer because of skepticism and/or not having enough supported opinions.

It isn't entirely clear what you intended the statement following your question to mean.  Nonetheless, as to the former question; the utility in continuing the search when the answers are still inconclusive is to get as close to conclusive as one can.  Ceasing the search when one finds 'comfortable' yet, inconclusive answers is an abducation by the searcher.  It's also their choice.  Some choice to keep looking, even if that constitutes their existance.

However, it appears that just about anything people put out there is better supported when it comes up against the speaking of God. 

Yeah, that's kind of a bummer for you guys but, at least Pascal's Wager took a sophist shot at it.

It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.[/color]

Neither I, nor George Carlin for instance, have/had any such "fear".  Both he and I have directly invited "god" to 'strike us dead' to verify "his" existance and lo and behold, nothing happened.  Well, nothing except for religious appologists attempting to 'explain' why "god" didn't smite us.  Afterall, the xtian bible has "god" supposedly smote folks left and right for a lot less so, why not now?

[falcon9]

Insulting and calling names just degrades the whole debate and lowers the credibility of those who take to that tactic. It is nice when adults can discuss something, disagree, and still have a conversation about  both sides. That is definitely not always the case here.

Such hypocrisy would be astounding were it not so commomplace with you.  Regardless, it's amusing to see the 'pot hiss' when called 'black' by the 'kettle'.

[freepcmoney]

I don't understand WHY you people keep posting and arguing about Religion. It never changes anyone's mind. But knock yourself out !!

[falcon9]

If I may butt in- you leave out about a billion other possibilities and how other people feel. Christianity isn't the only correct path to salvation according to the majority of the world.  

While a "billion" may or may not have been an exaggeration for emphasis, (depending upon whether one considers a billion or more different and nontraditional beliefs), the point is well taken.  Historically, there has been ample cause to be wary of several religious belief systems which promoted conversion at swordpoint.  Given such events as 9-11, there is no valid reason to discount the impact even the 'lunatic fringe' has upon others when that impact is steeped in a one "faith" or another.

The way you live your life does fall into others lives-- for instance I recall you believing in creationism. Believing and teaching this is completely delusional and that these teachings have an impact on whoever you spread it to. We live in a time where we should value reason and not primitive/backwards thinking. "Irrational" and "delusional" are more than just words because they can have a major impact on others and how they learn about the world. You call these words intimidating and I completely agree- they should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box. Other than the religious zealots, there is nothing wrong with that.

[jcribb16]

A billion other possibilities is quite a large amount.  Are you prepared to actually post about a billion other possibilities to back up your statement?  I'm not disagreeing, but making a point about what our words indicate.  Before I take the time to "debate" your remarks on delusional and irrational, I'm asking that you first read the different types of reasoning in another post of mine. 

I will say that you think those words should intimidate someone to think outside of the restraining box, and we all know this is aimed toward the Christians.  The same can be returned right back at you as well.  Some of you do not want to step out of your restraining box and take a leap of faith.  Just as there are religious zealots there are also athiest zealots out there.  However, debating and discussing does not mean that someone is forcing their views on others - but, unfortunately, there are some on both sides who do and both sides turn people off, tune them out, or start calling names.  That to me, is wrong, and going too far.

Loved the second paragraph of this so much. Insulting and calling names just degrades the whole debate and lowers the credibility of those who take to that tactic. It is nice when adults can discuss something, disagree, and still have a conversation about  both sides. That is definitely not always the case here.

This is true.  

[falcon9]

I don't understand WHY you people keep posting and arguing about Religion. It never changes anyone's mind. But knock yourself out !!

I'd be speculating however, some may engage in such discussions & debates because there are others who remain undecided on the issues, (and they are either curious or, prompted to think about the nature of such issues when they observe these posts).  Others may view these threads as simply 'flame-fests', (they'd be mistaken since an exclusively mud-slinging contest hasn't occurred).  Still others can extraplolate for themselves upon issues they may have declined to consider before or, were unaware of - not that these would necessarily 'persuade' someone else who has a deathgrip on "faith" to change their minds but, to present the counter-arguments and let those others decide for themselves.

[jcribb16]

I don't understand WHY you people keep posting and arguing about Religion. It never changes anyone's mind. But knock yourself out !!

I do know what you mean.  However, religion will always be at odds between believers/non-believers, just as it was in Bible history.  Occasionally someone's mind may change, but usually, like you said, the majority of people have made up their minds, based on whatever reason/s that helped them come to their decisions.  Since the forum is offering the bonus earnings to post at least 30 posts a month, debates are usually well attended, with plenty of chances to offer opinions, beliefs, arguments, etc.  I like how you put it, though, to "knock yourself out," lol.  It does seem that way at times!! 

[SurveyMack10]

Insulting and calling names just degrades the whole debate and lowers the credibility of those who take to that tactic. It is nice when adults can discuss something, disagree, and still have a conversation about  both sides. That is definitely not always the case here.

Such hypocrisy would be astounding were it not so commomplace with you.  Regardless, it's amusing to see the 'pot hiss' when called 'black' by the 'kettle'.

Thank you for further proving my point.

[SurveyMack10]

I don't understand WHY you people keep posting and arguing about Religion. It never changes anyone's mind. But knock yourself out !!

Personally, I don't post here to try to change anyone's religious beliefs at all. More just to try to show people that not everyone has to believe the same thing and that it is perfectly fine for Christians to be Christians and atheists to be atheists and so on...

[Abrupt]

Do not concern yourself with defending your position to others based on what falcon9 says as any that read many of his posts will soon notice that he is self referencing and often relies upon his accusations as evidence of an offense.  

The acccusation that many, (or indeed any), of my posts are self-referential is empty and false.  It is made baldly and with no substantiation whatsoever which qualifies it as mere ad hominem to be disregarded.  On the other hand, evidence in the form of the 'acussed' own printed words, (of which unaltered records exist in these threads), exists to support the contentions, (not "accusations"), made against those who would prefer they were overlooked.  The weak 'counter-attack', (essentially a "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" schoolyard 'argument'), made fails simply because zero conclusive evidence was presented to support it.

It isn't ad hominem because it is the truth.  I can present this evidence at any time I wish to but haven't felt inclined to and I have never been quite the "to the jugular" man.  I had even already formulated an introduction to it comparing your criticisms and insults towards faith with the type of faith that would be required to believe you had ever performed anything more than the citing of "your' accusations as evidence of an offense by the other.  The evidence of you doing this (unlike the evidence you claim to exist) is within these pages and I pointed out to you many of the times you did such.  If you have forgotten you can take a look, or if others are interested they can as well.  Don't mistake my failure to press to mean a lack of position, instead you should accept my generosity and leave it alone.

--what I mean is in relation to faith is that they cannot understand how faith can give you a sense of knowledge about things that cannot be learned or gained in some external observation.

A false "sense of knowledge" does not equate to accurate knowledge, particularly if such dubious "knowledge" relies on a LACK of evidence or substantiation, (e.g., "faith").  By definition then, "faith" cannot impart conclusive knowledge since it relies specifically on unsupported beliefs rather than verifiable evidence.  The word you seem to be hunting for in this context would likely be "gnosis" instead.

Since you don't posses this knowledge you can only speculate as to its lack of truthfulness.  Considering your complete inability to understand faith (you repeatedly call it irrational which indicates the best of your ability to understand it) you cannot really expect me to let you get by with such an argumentum ad verecundiam.

These people trust their physical senses, and some even trust their instincts or gut, but they can never realize that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense and just as impossible to define to one without such a sense.

Falsely characterizing "faith" as a "tangible sense" does not transform faith into a tangible sense.  In fact, asserting that it does constitutes another unsupported claim, (which I have little expectation of being substantiated, given your previous documented failures to do so).

Again with the ipse dixit.  A blind man could make the same statement that you just made to a man with sight and it would be the same argumentum ad ignorantiam you just made.  In fact I propose that is what just happened.  I have never attempted to prove faith to you so how I could fail at such a task I cannot imagine.  This is a classic example of one of your attempts at a weak and empty accusation stated oh so boldly with the hopes to inject some sort of an appeal from authority.  Even if I could move mountains with my faith it would not suffice as proof to you.  You do realize that only you can prove it to yourself don't you?  I can demonstrate my faith and that is about my limits, but it isn't something capable of being done over a medium such as this.  You will likely find this amusing (maybe even insulting), but I have prayed for a Saul to Paul moment for you as that is about the only way I can imagine you understanding.

I try to be respectful, and generally never mean offense even when it appears that I do.  I do sometimes employ more base tactics to learn information about people when I try to get a better understanding of the person behind the words, but even these are not meant to damage or insult, but instead to reveal and sometimes even to rattle the cage a bit.

Such an 'excuse' would carry more conviction were it applied to your opponents as well.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this.  I was specifically talking about the way I treat my 'opponents' (that isn't how I see it, seems a bit harsh to me).

I am no master of debate but have had experience with it and enjoy the exercise and I find the best way to improve is to pursue it with/against those that have a talent for it.  There are many different debate styles, and some feel more like a blood sport or an intellectual battle than they do a persuasion of ideas or a sharing of the opinions of knowledge and/or experiences.

There are indeed a variety of 'debate styles' and some are far more subtle than others.  Be that as it may, information has been imparted in the course of these 'debates' and discussions, (either apart from or, embedded within the discussions themselves).  Each and every time such information as contradicts a "belief" has failed to be countered by "faith" alone.  This indicates either that those holding such "beliefs" have no reasonable counter-arguments or, that there aren't any, (thus envincing the fallback position of 'I don't need reason because faith expressly fails to require it').  And isn't that convienent?

Yes some information has been transferred, but the bulk I what I expect to obtain here is interesting debate and an improvement upon my skills at such.  While I don't hold to the position that theology is strictly the domain of theologians I can reasonably conclude we are not likely to turn up anything ground breaking here in our endeavors.  I haven't witnessed any of this uncontested 'information as contradicts a "belief"' that you speak of.  What page is that on please?

[falcon9]

The acccusation that many, (or indeed any), of my posts are self-referential is empty and false.  It is made baldly and with no substantiation whatsoever which qualifies it as mere ad hominem to be disregarded.  On the other hand, evidence in the form of the 'acussed' own printed words, (of which unaltered records exist in these threads), exists to support the contentions, (not "accusations"), made against those who would prefer they were overlooked.  The weak 'counter-attack', (essentially a "I-know-you-are-but-what-am-I" schoolyard 'argument'), made fails simply because zero conclusive evidence was presented to support it.

It isn't ad hominem because it is the truth.  I can present this evidence at any time I wish to but haven't felt inclined to and I have never been quite the "to the jugular" man. 

If it exists, (in quotable form, rather than 'loosely misinterpreted'), present it.  Your rationalization for not doing so is inadaquate.

I had even already formulated an introduction to it comparing your criticisms and insults towards faith with the type of faith that would be required to believe you had ever performed anything more than the citing of "your' accusations as evidence of an offense by the other. 

That's preposterous; I've presented the evidence in the form of citing the 'accused' own words and the reasoning which supports the contentions made.  No reasonable refuations were presented as counter-arguments; instead, the empty counter-accusation that mine are 'self-referential' and 'it in't ad hominem because it is the truth" are made with zero evidence to substantiate such counter-accusations.  Your tactic of making tangential diversions is entirely a non sequitur.

The evidence of you doing this (unlike the evidence you claim to exist) is within these pages and I pointed out to you many of the times you did such.  If you have forgotten you can take a look, or if others are interested they can as well.  Don't mistake my failure to press to mean a lack of position, instead you should accept my generosity and leave it alone.

Seriously; you're now attempting to use my 'own argumentive method' against me?  And the attempt fails with such transparent clumsines as to be laughable.  If such purposrted 'evidence' is "within these pages", you'd have no trouble excerpting a contextual quote.  Both you and mack10 seem to feel that I should somehow be obligated to find _your_ supportive evidence when you are the ones making the claims which require such evidence.  Once again, such smoke & mirrors in lieu of a substantiated refutations is only worthy of passing observation.

--what I mean is in relation to faith is that they cannot understand how faith can give you a sense of knowledge about things that cannot be learned or gained in some external observation.

A false "sense of knowledge" does not equate to accurate knowledge, particularly if such dubious "knowledge" relies on a LACK of evidence or substantiation, (e.g., "faith").  By definition then, "faith" cannot impart conclusive knowledge since it relies specifically on unsupported beliefs rather than verifiable evidence.  The word you seem to be hunting for in this context would likely be "gnosis" instead.

Since you don't posses this knowledge you can only speculate as to its lack of truthfulness. 

On the other hand, I can and have requested that the claimant, (that would be you in this instance), respond with the urden of proof for making the initial claim.  Instead, you dodge it and somhow believe that you've shifted the burden to 'disprove' your initial claims.  Amazing; the sheer dishonesty of such a ploy and yet, not entirely unexpected.

Considering your complete inability to understand faith (you repeatedly call it irrational which indicates the best of your ability to understand it) you cannot really expect me to let you get by with such an argumentum ad verecundiam.

On the contrary, I called it irrational because it lacked rationality; which meaans I not only understood it but, drew the logical conclusion from the premise.  No appeal to an external authority or, 'argument from prestige' has been made.  Your extraneous diversions into inapplicable latin tems remains a non sequitur, (pun intended).

These people trust their physical senses, and some even trust their instincts or gut, but they can never realize that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense and just as impossible to define to one without such a sense.

Falsely characterizing "faith" as a "tangible sense" does not transform faith into a tangible sense.  In fact, asserting that it does constitutes another unsupported claim, (which I have little expectation of being substantiated, given your previous documented failures to do so).

Again with the ... [irrelevant non sequiturs] .. I have never attempted to prove faith to you so how I could fail at such a task I cannot imagine. [/quote]

I didn't request that you "prove faith", I requested that you support your claim "that faith grants you another sense that is as tangible as any physical sense ...".  If it as tangible as the physical senses, please produce the tangible evidence to support your claim.  If there is no tangible evidence, your claim is empty.

This is a classic example of one of your attempts at a weak and empty accusation stated oh so boldly with the hopes to inject some sort of an appeal from authority. 

I've made no appeals to authority.  Are you instead implying that you're appealing to supernatural authority regarding "faith"?

You will likely find this amusing (maybe even insulting), but I have prayed for a Saul to Paul moment for you as that is about the only way I can imagine you understanding.

It is mildly insulting however, not for the 'reason' you might suppose.

I try to be respectful, and generally never mean offense even when it appears that I do.  I do sometimes employ more base tactics to learn information about people when I try to get a better understanding of the person behind the words, but even these are not meant to damage or insult, but instead to reveal and sometimes even to rattle the cage a bit.

Such an 'excuse' would carry more conviction were it applied to your opponents as well.

I am not quite sure what you mean by this.  I was specifically talking about the way I treat my 'opponents' (that isn't how I see it, seems a bit harsh to me). [/quote]


Your failure to undertand is duly noted.

I haven't witnessed any of this uncontested 'information as contradicts a "belief"' that you speak of.  What page is that on please?

Where did I state it was "uncontested information" again?  Your strawman counters are superfifical.  If I stated that, quote it.  If not, you dissemble.

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 10, 2011, 11:45:30 am
The bottom line is that people become Christians because they choose to believe, others choose to ignore any concept of God, while others are searching for answers. 

Quote from: falcon9:
One of the main points of contention within this debate has been whether or not such a choice "to believe" is made on an irrational or, rational basis.  So far, no case for a rational basis for that choice has been presented while the reasoning behind the counter contention of an irrational basis has been elaborated upon extensively.  As far as "searching for answers" goes, I submit the theory, (not the claim), that those holding whichever religious beliefs they cling to have ceased searching and "believe" they've found their "answers".  On the other hand, those who do not cling to such irrational beleif systems are in a better position to keep searching, questioning and being skeptical of unsupported opinions.

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 08:53:14 am
Well, you are right in your "theory," in that those who have found salvation in the Lord do cling to that and don't have the need to search for other answers: God is their answer.  As for rational/irrational, that will remain to be determined, won't it?

Quote from: falcon9:
Ultimately?  Perhaps so.  In the here and now, (which is where we are, as opposed to being dead), no rational basis of reasoning has yet been presented therefore, it must be concluded that, as far as we know so far, there is no rational basis, (and, that the basis presented as "faith" does not qualify as a rational basis because of an a priori assumption that 'faith requires no proof, eschewing it instead').

I disagree.  It must not so quickly be concluded that there is no rational basis.  Faith actually means that there is a belief in something or "someone" that can't be seen.  I will give an example that has been used so many times but good examples are not to be ignored.  A person can feel the wind or breeze blowing, as well as seeing evidence of it with the tree leaves and branches swaying.  However you cannot see the wind itself.  So there is a rational belief in wind existing though the wind itself can't be seen.  Did a ghost do that?  Or someother supernatural effect?  We already know why the wind is there, scientifically, but you cannot actually prove its source is not part of God's scientific inventions he created.  There are amazing scientists out there - have you ever just given even an inkling of a thought as to where their amazing abilities and skills come from?  There had to be someone with that kind of knowledge and understanding who could create such an amazing and awesome brain.  I'm digressing, though.

 Going back to the quoted "someone" - people have said they feel the "presence" of the Lord, or see miracles happen, or specific prayers answered.  You would be inviting trouble upon yourself if you disagreed to their face that they were lying or irrational or delusional.  The fact is, is that unless you are in their shoes, so-to-speak, you don't know what they experienced.  You may never experience what they say they have, but it doesn't mean it didn't really happen to them.  Therefore, they believe in God, though they can't actually see Him, Himself.  Many people say you are looking at the essence or evidence of God when seeing flowers, trees, mountains, rainbows (which has a Biblical promise people believe,), and so many other things.  However, for some people, they avoid that kind of talk and that leap of faith like that is too hard to take. 

[jcribb16]

Quote from: jcribb16 on October 11, 2011, 08:53:14 am
It almost sounds like there are some very strong nonbelievers who have a very real irrational fear about the possibility of God actually existing and yet they just can't get past the "irrationality" part of it.[/color]

Quote from falcon9:
Neither I, nor George Carlin for instance, have/had any such "fear".  Both he and I have directly invited "god" to 'strike us dead' to verify "his" existance and lo and behold, nothing happened.  Well, nothing except for religious appologists attempting to 'explain' why "god" didn't smite us.  Afterall, the xtian bible has "god" supposedly smote folks left and right for a lot less so, why not now?

I am so glad you have brought that up.  I won't say rational or delusional, but I will say that what you and George Carlin have tried is a tad ridiculous, but hey, you gave it a shot, right?!!

First, you need to understand that God heard both of you, but since you are not one of His, He knew you were asking something out of mockery, and He doesn't need to prove or verify Himself to you, George Carlin, or anyone else.  Faith in Him is the way and if you don't have faith, then you can shout all you want to Him but He won't answer just to prove He exists.

Second, even though He heard both of you, when you are both unsaved, He does not respond in the way you demand Him to.  He hears a sinner's prayer of repentance and acknowledgement of Him as Lord.

Third, once you are a Christian, then yes, He listens and responds in the way, will, and time, of what He wants; once again - you cannot "demand" God what to do.

Fourth, when it's your time to die, it doesn't matter what you ask or demand, etc., you will die when it's your time, according to His plan.  If He wants to "strike" you dead or not, He will do exactly that or not.

Fifth, a Christian knows they don't need to ask God to "strike" them dead, because they already believe He exists, believe in Him, and they don't need verification that He exists.

I would like to add, even if He were to strike a nonbeliever dead, the nonbelievers still would not accept God.  Why?  Because they will use the final findings of "heart attack," "ongoing cancer," "gun shot," "burnt to death in a fire," etc., as to what happened and consider it coincidental timing of the "strike" prayer and the death itself.

Another thing I would like to respond to is that the "smiting" of people that God did Himself, or had others do, took place under the Old Law (Old Testament.)  That was before Jesus's death, burial, and resurrection, which then became the New Law (New Testament.)  Jesus became the focus, was seen for a time while sharing His message/ministry of salvation (which some people who actually looked upon Him still could not accept Him even then,) and finally, the acceptance of Christ through faith.  If you really want to understand the "smiting" in the Old Testament, then researching the Bible itself, with commentaries and helps, will give the you background of why those things happened.