Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Dogfish · 01-08-2008, 02:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

So, what's the contradiction? You choose a parable told by Jesus which is a story used by Him to teach doctrine and not describe reality. Seems a little contrived on your part.

Damn, broke ANOTHER irony-meter!

Dogfish · 01-08-2008, 02:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by ben052483

I can understand dedicating your life to a belief in god and not wanting to let it go and admit it was a waste, but Rhutchin here is a slippery fellow.

Why would God demand that you corrupt your reason so much? There could be a verse in the bible that says "The fool hath said in his heart that there is a god" and he would claim that it depends on how we interpret fool.

There is a verse that says, "The fool hath said in his heart that there is a NO God" and it does depend on the interpretation of a "fool" and the phrase "hath said in his heart."

How about "heart", "said" and "god" while you're at it?

Dogfish · 01-08-2008, 02:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

He was denying that only God could forgive sins and performing a magical healing to give himself legitimacy. Just like any other alleged healer of the time and just like Paul and the apostles did later.

You are reading your beliefs into this passage.

That would mean that Jesus was making Himself God and challenging the God of the OT. That is not what was happening. I think you have allowed your imagination to run roughshod over reason.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-08-2008, 06:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

But no one knows anything about what heaven and hell are like. How can a man like or dislike that which he knows nothing about?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

You know that which the Bible says about them. No more; no less.

But no one should trust the Bible. First of all, God's refusal to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as he promised is proof enough that the God of the Bible does not exist because the Bible says that God does not tell lies. Second of all, if the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject the same quality of evidence that you accept now. That proves that your emotional perceived self-interest has caused you to reject any promises that you do not believe will ultimately benefit you. Hypothetical arguments are frequently useful to reveal bad arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that it suits their purpose to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

If God chooses who he reveals himself to, it would be very unlikely that it could frequently be predicted WHERE he successfully reveals himself to people. It is easy to predict in any given year that God will be able to convince a much higher percentage of American children that he exists than children in Syria who have Muslim parents. This is quite suspicious, and is good evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that accounts for why a much higher percentage of women in the U.S. become Christians than men because it is well-known that women are generally more emotional than men are, and the emotions have a lot to do with religion.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explain why elderly skeptics are much less likely to become Christians since research has shown that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews.

If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against Muslim children, women and elderly skeptics.

If God wanted to use the Bible as a primary means of communicating with people, it is very unlikely that he would deny millions of people access to it.

It is very unlikely that during Old Testament times God would use geography, otherwise stated geographic favoritism, as a primary means of determining who he revealed himself to, especially since that would have unnecessarily mimicked the way that people would hear about him if he did not exist. If the God of the Bible does not exist, and the Jews appointed themselves as God's chosen people, news about the God of the Bible would have been heard first by people who lived closer to Palestine. It is much too convenient and suspicious that God just so happened to use humans to spread the Gospel message in exactly the same ways that would have been the case if he did not exist.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-08-2008, 06:21 PM

Message to rhutchin: In an older thread at the GRD Forum, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Is it wrong for God to give a person the freedom to destroy himself?

Please be advised that God did not give anyone anything. The Bible writers wrote the Bible, not God. No skeptic would put his hand on a hot stove for ten seconds, let alone choose to suffer for eternity without parole. You are not making any sense. If God were to show up and demonstrate that heaven and hell exist, your arguments would be better, but as it is, your arguments are not valid.

It is my position that a loving God who is worthy of being accepted would deliver all of his promises about heaven and hell in person because then no one could claim that heaven and hell do not exist.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-08-2008, 06:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I guess you don't debate contradictions.......

On the contrary, I guess you don't debate contradictions. When I mentioned God breaking his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre, you evasively suggested that I start a new thread on that topic. I did start a new thread, and you made only one serious post which was just for show, and another post that was not serious.

In your first post, you said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Till, of course, has little interest in the spiritual welfare of people and would naturally read the passage for its physical elements. I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

I replied:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

That is ridiculous. The passage contains physical elements that did not happen. That no doubt harmed the spiritual welfare of some Bible believers. The same goes for Nebuchadnezzar's failure to defeat Tyre after Ezekiel called him a "kings of kings," reference Ezekiel chapter 26. I suspect that the "many nations" part of Ezekiel 26 was added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar would not conquer Tyre. It is doubtful that Ezekiel would claim that a "king of kings" would get into the city of Tyre, tear down lots of its towers, and kill lots of people, and then fail to capture the city. Several generations of people who knew about the Tyre prophecy died without seeing if fulfilled. If anything, that would have caused doubt, certainly not confidence. You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about.

Instead of making a serious reply, which would have been the appropriate thing to do, all that you did was waste your time posting and replying to my last sentence. My last sentence was "You obviously do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about." You replied "That makes two of us." I assume that that absurd reply was an intent to draw attention away from the issue. If so, your attempt did not work since you still have an apparent contradiction to explain.

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

What is your explanation for that? At the very least, it is needlessly confusing, as are the two apparently different versions of the death of Judas, and the apparent different versions of the events at the tomb. If God inspired the Bible, there would not have been any need for him to inspire confusing and misleading writings that even Christians themselves often disagree on regarding what they mean. Many Christians have killed each other regarding disputes over interpreations of the Bible. Such would not have been the case if God has acted properly.

I seldom debate Bible contradictions because 1) it is not emcumbent upon skeptics to reasonably disprove PRIOR assertions that are in the Bible, and because 2) there are many ways to adequately dispute the Bible without discussing contradictions. The only reason that I brought up the Nebuchadnezzar issue is because it is either an obvious contradiction, or needlessly confusing and misleading.

I will enjoy discussing the contradictory events at the tomb with you in the near future.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I don't really do much with the OT prophecies.

How utterly absurd. Perhaps you wanted to make a joke. Essentially, there is no difference between a contradiction and a failed prophecy since either one reasonably proves that the Bible is not inerrant. Since you have been willing to discuss many contradictions in this thread, your comment does not make any sense. The simple truth is that if you believe that you had a good rebuttal for my arguments, you would have posted it.

What does "really much" mean? You made a post in the that thread about the Nebuchadnezzar prophecy, but you quickly left town when you got into trouble. Typical of evasive fundamentalist Christians, you carefully cherry-pick arguments so that you will not embarrass yourself. However, you still frequently embarrass yourself anyway. One especially ridiculous argument that you made in some thread, possibly in this thread, was about amputees. You said that people should ask God to prevent them from becoming amputees. That is quite odd since sometimes God causes people to become amputees, not to mention that he sometimes kills babies and innocent animals.

You have said that people can ask God for tangible benefits. Why did you say that since everyone already knows that people can ask God for tangible benefits, or Buddha, or President Bush for that matter? The point is not whether or not people can ask God for tangible benefits, but whether or not people can ask God for tangible benefits and expect to receive them. If the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. The only benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits. What evidence do you have that the preceding scenarios are not the case today? You need to establish a cause/correlation between asking God for tangible benefits and receiving tangible benefits from God?

Do you recommend that amputees ask God for new limbs? Why does God always refuse to give amputees new limbs? Why would God want to provide food for people? Why would God want to give amputees new limbs?

rhutchin · 01-09-2008, 03:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dogfish

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amaleq13

He was denying that only God could forgive sins and performing a magical healing to give himself legitimacy. Just like any other alleged healer of the time and just like Paul and the apostles did later.

You are reading your beliefs into this passage.

That would mean that Jesus was making Himself God and challenging the God of the OT. That is not what was happening. I think you have allowed your imagination to run roughshod over reason.

:rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling: :rolling:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-09-2008, 06:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

I guess you don't debate contradictions.......

On the contrary, I have repeatedly tried to debate with you the issue of God breaking his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to conquer Tyre. The first time that I brought his up, you evasively suggested that I start a new thread, which I did. You made one serious reply as a pretense that you actually wanted to participate in the thread, and withdrew because you knew that you were in trouble.

At the very least, the Nebuchadnezzar issue is needlessly confusing, as are the two apparently different versions of the death of Judas, and the apparent different versions of the events at the tomb. If God inspired the Bible, there would not have been any need for him to inspire confusing and misleading writings that even Christians themselves often disagree on regarding what they mean. Many Christians have killed each other regarding disputes over interpreations of the Bible. Such would not have been the case if God has acted properly.

I seldom debate Bible contradictions because 1) it is not emcumbent upon skeptics to reasonably disprove PRIOR assertions that are in the Bible, and because 2) there are many ways to adequately dispute the Bible without discussing contradictions. The only reason that I brought up the Nebuchadnezzar issue is because it is either an obvious contradiction, or needlessly confusing and misleading.

Amaleq13 · 01-09-2008, 09:17 AM

I suspect that empty grins are the closest we will get to an admission that nothing but faith supports his position.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

01-09-2008, 09:17 AM	#229
Amaleq13 Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Eagle River, Alaska Posts: 7,816	I suspect that empty grins are the closest we will get to an admission that nothing but faith supports his position.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.