rhutchin

Sounds like an interesting hypothesis. Maybe you can go out and investigate what is happening in the world and determine whether your hypothesis is correct. Anecdotal evidence hardly proves anything. Do you think differently??

JPD

But someone writing that Jesus walked on water proves that it took place?

JPD

Demanding that people be punished for things that they have not chosen but that nature has.

Johnny Skeptic

Since God does not have sex, it is not possible for him to break the Bible's rule about homosexuality. However, as I showed in one of my previous posts, he breaks plenty of other rules. It you break one rule, you have broken them all, right? If God breaks any of his rules, he is a sinner, and a hypcrite, and is not perfect.

But skeptics have exploited that advantage quite well. Is it not true that there is a smaller percentage of inerrantists today in the Christian church than at any other time since Christianity was founded? The undecided crowd want more evidence than your speculations and guesswork that the Bible is inerrant, and hasn't been changed. Is all that you have to say to those people "Nonetheless, we have what we have." That is not at all very convincing.

Johnny Skeptic

Oh, it is much more than a hypothesis. It is quite obvious to anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense that tangible benefits are frequently distributed to people who are not in greatest need, including to some evil people who never become Christians, and they are frequently withheld from people who are in greatest need, including some of God's most devout and faithful followers. Now how is that a hypothesis? The indiscriminate distribution of tangible benefits without regard for a person's needs or worldview does not indicate that God has anything to do with the distribution of tangible benefits, and in fact is a good indication that he does not exist. If God does exist, at best he is mentally incompetent. No mentally competent being helps people AND kills people, and gives food to hungry people, AND allows hungry people to starve to death.

It is an interesting and unproven hypothesis that God loves people. Maybe you can go out and investigate what is happening in the world and determine whether your hypothesis is correct. You said that people should ask God for peace, but the Bible says that peace will not come in this life. You said that if people need help, they should ask God for help, but are you not aware that if an amputee asks God for a new limb, God will refuse to give him a new limb? Do you believe that God sometimes heals people who have cancer? If so, why doesn't God ever give amputees new limbs, at least as far as we know? Why would God go out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist by refusing to give amputees new limbs? Why does God refuse to protect women from rapists?

Regarding tangible benefits, it is logical to conclude that they are distributed exactly the same whether people ask God for them or not.

Why does God refuse to protect people from having traffic accidents that are not their fault?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 7:13 Enter ye in at the strait gate: for wide is the gate, and broad is the way, that leadeth to destruction, and many there be which go in thereat:

14 Because strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it. (KJV)

Matthew 22:14 For many are called, but few are chosen. (KJV)

Romans 9:15 For he says to Moses, "I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion."

16 It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. (NIV)

Johnny: How do you interpret those Scriptures?

What do you believe God's chief desires are?

Are you aware that if you want to prove to people that you exist, requiring faith greatly limits the number of people who will believe that you exist?

Johnny Skeptic

But thanks to the illogical and confusing way that the Bible was written, there isn't any methodology that millions of Christians will not protest. Martin Luther did not believe that the book of revelation belongs in the Bible. The majority of Christians are not Calvinists like you are. Your buddy Pascal believed that only Roman Catholics will go to heaven. Millions of Christians do not like Pascal's Wager. Your buddy John Calvin endorsed the killing of Christians who disagreed with his religious teachings. Inerrancy is widely disputed in the Christian church. For about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, the majority of Christians endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women. The Church of Christ does not believe that musical instruments are appropriate in church. The Roman Catholic Bible has books in it that Protestant Bibles do not have. Bible commentaries sometimes give different interpretations of Scriptures. The Bible has two different versions of the death of Judas. It gives contradictory accounts of the visits to the tomb. Among other skeptics, Farrell Till has clearly demonstrated contradictions regarding the visits to the tomb. Christianity has been a mess ever since it was founded. What else should anyone expect from a God who inspired the writing of such a confusing book, left town, and never returned to tell Christians how to properly interpret it? Christians are much too gullible and ignorant to sort out these issues for themselves. God knows this, but he doesn't want to intervene and help Christians interpret the Bible correctly. If God exists, he should show up and help Christians sort out these issues, but don't count on it. God is a "hands off" God.

rhutchin

Nope. It is an eyewitness account alleging that such an event occurred. A person believes by faith.

Johnny Skeptic

But if you really want to convince people that you exist, and prevent them from going to hell, the last thing that you would do would be to require faith. There is not doubt whatsoever that requiring faith greatly limits the number of people who will believe that you exist, with no possible benefits for yourself or for anyone else. No loving being would require faith.

If you break one rule, you have broken them all, right? If God breaks any of his rules, he is a sinner, and a hypocrite, and is not perfect. Now are you going to tell us that God does not break any of his own rules, that he is not a hypocrite, that he never injures or kills anyone, that he does not refuse to protect women from rapists, and that he never withholds information that would cause some people to become Christians who were not previously convinced?

It is not possible to reject a God unless you know that he exists. If the God of the Bible exists, the majority of the people in the world are not aware of it. Under our legal system, a man can be punished for breaking a law that he is not aware of, but no man can (or should) be sentenced to life in prison or death for breaking a law that he is not aware of. Millions of people are not certain whether or not at least one being exists who can instantly create a planet. If God has the power to do that, he could easily show up and demonstrate to everyone that he can do it. If he did do it, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. It is question of how badly God wants people to go to heaven, and not to hell. Logically, spiritual AND tangible evidence are much more convincing than spiritual evidence alone. That is just plain old common sense. Many people would become Christians if God provided them with additional tangible evidence. In those cases, people reject Christianity out of ignorance of the facts, not out of rejecting what they know are the facts. I am not aware of any skeptic in the world who would not like to be 100% certain whether or not there is at least on being in the universe who is able to instantly create planets.

Since risk assessment is one of your favorite arguments, let's discuss that issue. Risk assessment is of course a fraud. First of all, you can never convince anyone to love you based upon threats alone. Second of all, virtually all skeptics are pleased that we know that beneficial microorganisms (rewards) and harmful microorganisms (risks) exist. So, it is quite natural that if there are actually rewards and risks associated with accepting Christianity, especially where eternity is involved, all skeptics would surely want to know about it.

In the first century, it is probable that no one who died in China had heard the Gospel message. That happened because God deliberately withheld the Gospel message from those people. This means that there was no way that Jesus gave the disciples the Great Commission. Human effort alone is a poor means of spreading the supposedly most important and helpful message in history. The Gospel message was spread by the grossly inefficient prevailing means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation, which is exactly what was to be expected if God does not exist. If you discovered a cure for cancer, if you we able to immediately provide it to everyone in the world, would you do so? Do you believe that spreading the Gospel message is more important than discovering and disseminating a cure for cancer?

Where is God today in tangible ways? What tangible benefits can you ask God for and be assured that you will receive? Do you believe that today, all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics, or by God?

What is your evidence that the Bible is inerrant? Why do you believe that the Bible is inerrant, and why do you believe that so many Christians do not believe that the Bible is inerrant?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: I suggest that you visit my new thread that is titled 'Some problems for inerrantists'. Inerrancy is one of the most absurd notions that I have ever heard of, but at least it appeals to your emotions to create a God who conforms to what you want him to be.

Why do you believe that God finds it necessary to injure and kill people with hurricanes? How does that benefit him and mankind? Why do you believe that God withholds evidence from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it? Why do you believe that God refuses to protect women from rapists? do you believe that God heals people today? If so, why doesn't he ever give amputees new limbs. Are you aware that people who never ask God for anything enjoy as many, sometimes more tangible benefits than Christians do? If God does not exist, it is to be expected that tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs of worldview. Do you have any evidence that that is not the case today?