Dogfish

Dodge, Dodge, Weave, Weave...

Dogfish

And the greek gods exist too?

Dogfish

IOW, no proof. You're too easy.

Dogfish

Yeah, but you're so easily amazed!

karlmarx

If you don't think that might makes right, and you believe God would agree with you, then you'd have to conclude that God is inconsistent and arbitrary. The rightful owners of Palestine would not be the Jews, but the Canaanites that the Jews, under Joshua, expelled from their land with their God's help.

Unless, of course, you wanted to argue that it was ok in this instance because God said so... which of course you wouldn't do. Because if you did, then you may as well dispense with the disingenuous "might does not make right" claims. You may as well be honest and admit that, in your philosophy, whatever God says, goes. Regardless of the consequences, regardless of prior claims to land, regardless of what's fair.

You wouldn't argue that because then you'd have to admit the possibility that this inconsistent and arbitrary God may have wanted the Romans to take over Israel, which would totally destroy your argument that the Romans had "no right" to kick the Israelites out.

Johnny Skeptic

Are you making a secular case, or a religious case? If you are making a secular case, Abraham originally cast the Canaanites out of their homeland. Would you also like to also make a secular case for the rights every other ethnic group in human history. Everyone has rights, not just Jews.

If you are making a religious case, the Bible definitely does make a case that might makes right, and millions of Christians agree with me. In the NIV, Romans 9:15-22 say "For he says to Moses, 'I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.' It does not, therefore, depend on man's desire or effort, but on God's mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh: 'I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.' Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden. One of you will say to me: "Then why does God still blame us? For who resists his will?' But who are you, O man, to talk back to God? "Shall what is formed say to him who formed it, 'Why did you make me like this?' 'Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for noble purposes and some for common use? What if God, choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction?'"

That is a bona fide case of "might makes right." Long ago, I remember reading a comment by a well-known Christian apologist, I forget his name, that basically said "If you make it, you own it." That is most certain what Romans 9:15-22 says.

It is partly a question of God's motives. When assessing the motives of any being, his motives are everything. Why does God predict the future? Why does the Bible contain 100% disputable prophecies? The odds against a loving God existing who wants people to believe that he can predict the future, but makes 100% disputable prophecies when he could easily make 100% indisputable prophecies, are astronomical. I wish to distinguish disputable prophecies from false prophecies. A false prophecy is a prophecy that does not come true. A disputable prophecy does not necessarily have to be a false prophecy. Even if all Bible prophecies are true prophecies, they have needlessly failed to convince the vast majority of the people in the world that they are true prophecies. If Jesus had accurately predicted what the names of the Roman emperors would be for the next 200 years, and their dates of birth and death, those would have been indisputable prophecies if we were to define indisputable prophecies as prophecies that could not have been made by humans, and would therefore plausibly have been made by a God. Since the New Testament says that Jesus made some predictions, Christians cannot intelligently argue that if Jesus had predicted what I said, that that would have unfairly interfered with people’s free will. If Jesus had predicted what I said, surely more people would have become Christians. That is a reasonable assumption since historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

In my opinion, no prophecies at all would be much better than 100% disputable prophecies. That is because the Bible says that God is not the author of confusion (1 Corinthians 14:33), and yet Bible prophecies have needlessly caused lots of confusion. If a God inspired the Bible, no intelligent case can be made that he could not have prevented lots of confusion. The logical conclusion is that the God of the Bible does not exist.

If Christians are really honestly searching for the truth, if the truth is accessible, Christians would be able to find it under a variety of conditions, but such is not the case. If 1,000,000 Christians in the U.S. had been taken at birth, and had been raised by Muslims in Syria and Iran, it is a given that the vast majority of them would be Muslims today even if they had heard the Gospel message on at least several occasions. Geography has a lot to do with what people believe. For instance, in 50 A.D., no one who lived in China had heard the Gospel message. No loving God would ever discriminate against people based upon geography. The percentages of women theists is much higher than the percentage of men theists across all cultures. Why is that? The percentages of elderly people who change their worldviews is much lower than the percentages of younger people who change their worldviews across all cultures. Why is that?

If the universe is naturalistic, or if some other God exists who chose to mimic a naturalistic universe, that explains the preceding factors. If a God inspired the Bible, it is quite odd that he frequently mimics a naturalistic universe in many predictable ways, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

Even if a God inspired the Bible, no reasonable man would be able to accept a God who allowed what people believe to be determined by chance and circumtance. In addition, no reasonable man would be able to love a God who wants people to hear the Gospel message, but only if another person tells them about it. Further, no reasonable man would be able to love a God who wants people to have enough food to eat, but only if another person tells them about it.

Is it your position that God is not able to provide additional evidence that would convince more people to love and accept him without unfairly interfering with their free will, or that he is not willing to do so?

Sheshonq

No it isn't.

For fundies that isn't the question.
The question is whether or not it fulfills the prophecies.
It does not.

BWAAHAHAAHHAHAAA

Sheshonq

But you mentioned sacrifices. How is the red heifer irrelevant to sacrifices?

Toto

Mod advisory: This thread is one of the longest in the history of BCH, but it is becoming one of the most pointless. It seems to have degenerated into repetitious statements and mockery. I prophesy that it will probably be closed and locked in the not too distant future.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, I will agree with that for the sake of argument. What do you propose next?