Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sugarhitman · 01-13-2008, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: Your anger, resentment, and hostility shows that you are not a Christian. The second greatest commandment is that people should love their fellow humans as they love themselves. 1st Corinthians 13 says that love is patient and kind, and keeps no record of wrongs. Jesus told his followers to do good to those who mistreated them.

No skeptic ever becomes a Christian based upon threats. That is one reason why Pascal's Wager is fraudulent. Jesus told the disciples to spread the Gospel. The word "Gospel" means "good news." You have not offered any good news, only threats. You have made a mockery out of the Gospel message. If the God of the Bible exists, you have put your salvation at risk with your hateful, vicious behavior.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Revelation 2:2-5

"I know thy works, and thy labour, and thy patience, and how thou canst not bear them which are evil: and thou hast tried them which say they are apostles, and are not, and hast found them liars: And hast borne, and hast patience, and for my name's sake hast laboured, and hast not fainted. Nevertheless I have somewhat against thee, because thou hast left thy first love. Remember therefore from whence thou art fallen, and repent, and do the first works; or else I will come unto thee quickly, and will remove thy candlestick out of his place, except thou repent."

Have you lost your first love, or did you ever have it?

Are you not aware that many skeptics are loving, kind, wonderful, forgiving people? Many skeptics keep some of the Ten Commandments better than some Christians do. Some skeptic police officers would be willing to risk their lives in order to save your life. Many skeptics join the Corps, and do volunteer work, including working for free in soup kitchens.

How you do expect people who have never heard of the God of the Bible to accept him? Millions of people died without hearing the Gospel message. Why was that? During Old Testament times, the vast majority of people in the world had not knowledge of the specific existence of the God of the Bible. Why was that?

You need an attitude adjustment. If you do not get one, I predict that your threads will be transferred to another forum, or that you will be banned.

This forum is for discussions. You seldom discuss anything. You usually preach at people and threaten them, and typically do not reply to what people say. Why is that?

Anger, hostile, resenment, I need an attitude adjustment? You wish. You are now stooping to the level of character assassination, my friend. I'm preaching rather then discussing? I have read many post where God is called evil a liar, immoral etc. you call that a discussion? That is called accusing, character assassination and not discussion. I will defend this Book my friend. Whether you like it or not. An attack on one's God is an attack on himself. :wave:

Sheshonq · 01-13-2008, 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Anger, hostile, resenment, I need an attitude adjustment? You wish. You are now stooping to the level of character assassination, my friend. I'm preaching rather then discussing?

Yes. The list of unanswered questions waiting for you is a mile long. Instead, all we get is preaching.

Quote:

I will defend this Book my friend. Whether you like it or not.

But that's just it: you are *not* defending your book. You are preaching. That is not the same.

Quote:

An attack on one's God is an attack on himself. :wave:

Then let God defend Himself. In the meantime, you have made statements here about your own beliefs - statements that need to be backed up.

sugarhitman · 01-13-2008, 10:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Messge to sugarhitman: May I ask why you typically spend much more of your time proselytizing and quoting Scripture than you do directly replying to what skeptics say. This is the Internet Infidels Discussion Board. However, you seldom DISCUSS anything. You typically not talk WITH skeptics. You talk AT them. When people get together, they generally do not like to be with a person who likes to be heard, but who does not like to listen to what other people have to say. You are a rude and disrespectful person. You need an attitude adjustment. God has killed more people with parasites alone than all of wars in history, and you have the audacity to say that Christians have mistreated Jews.

If God's protection of the Jews has been conditional upon good behavior, what about Jewish babies who would have unfairly suffered many times during Jewish history because of the disobedience of their parents? That proves that God is evil. Another Scripture that proves that God is evil is Exodus 20:5, which says that God punished people for sins that their ancestor committed. Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. God refuses to protect women from rapists. God sent Hurricane Katrina to New Orleans. There is not doubt whatsoever that the God of the Bible is the most dangerous being in the world. He even empowered a vicious Devil to help him terrorize mankind. No loving, rational God would indiscriminately kill people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Indiscriminately killing is good evidence of evil, amorality, or mental incompetence.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Critics like to tell us that Israel was setup to prove Bible prophecy by Britain and other Christains allies. What a stupid argument. The fact is yes Britian and other countries drew Plans for a restored Israel.......

That is correct, a planned restoration that DID NOT happen. God promised Abraham and his descendants ALL of the land of ancient Canaan. Today, the Jews do not occupy ALL of the land of ancient Canaan, and there is not any credible evidence that they ever did.

But how some Christians treated the Jews does not have anything whatsoever to do with the failed restoration of Israel.

You believe that God's protection of the Jews was conditional upon good behavior. You also believe that Pharoah enslaved the Jews. You also criticized Pharoah for mistreating the Jews. Why did you choose to embarrass yourself by saying that? If Pharoah mistrated the Jews, it was obviously THEIR fault for not obeying God. Otherwise, God would have allowed Pharoah to enslave the Jews. Isn't that right?

You have another blunder to deal with. You believe that God's protection of Jews has been dependent upon good behavior. you criticized Pharoah for mistreating the Jews. You embarrassed yourself since you believe that God's protection of the Jews was conditional upon good behavior. If the Jews had acted right, God would not have allowed Pharoah to enslave them. If Pharoah enslaved them, it was their own fault. Not only that, but what about Jewish babies who would have unfairly suffered many times during Jewish history because of the disobedience of their parents?

But that does not have anything to do with the FAILED restoration of Israel.

And with good reason. It is wrong to steal people's land. No one has stolen more land than Christians have stolen. The largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...he_declaration

First of all, regarding "the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations......." that does not agree with the following that you said: "How can you support something and hate it too?" Lord Balfour certainly did not hate the Jews. On the contrary, he said "the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations......."

At any rate, what evidence do you have that God had anything to do with the failed restoration of Israel in 1948?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Will you tell me that the wars over this land, and the condemnation of Israel by the world are all done to support the Bible?

Regarding conservative Christians, the correct answer is certainly "yes." Regarding non-Christians who supported the failed partition of Palestine, the correct answer is "no, many non-Christians supported the partition of Palestine because the Jews had been persecuted by lots of people, not because they were Jews, which proves that it was human sympathy that accounted for the partition of Palestine, not God.

Years after the Balfour Declaration Britain restricted Jewish immigration and land that was promised the Jews was given to Transjordan. During the rise of Nazism in the 30's 250,000 Jews fled to Palestine. Which led Britian to put a cap on immigrating Jews. The White Paper of 1939 By Britain would allow a limited number of Jews to immigrate to Arab-Jew governed Palestine. After the cut-off date further immigration of Jews would be determined by THE ARAB MAJORITY. Restrictions were also placed on the rights of Jews to buy land from the Arabs.

"The policy of restricted Jewish immigration set limits on the ability of those Jews who intended to FLEE PERSECUTION IN EUROPE by immigrating to Palestine....After the second world war it led the British Government to detain large numbers of Jews in British camps on Cyprus." Wikipedia

After the war, the determination of many Holocaust survivors to reach Palestine led to large scale illegal migration to Palestine. British efforts to block these clandestine operations encountered VIOLENT RESISITENCE by Jewish terrorist groups operating outside the Zionest mainstream.---wikipedia

"The British labour party, whose sympathy and promises had encouraged us in some of our darkest moments, had upon coming to power, turned our fate over to the callus hands of Ernest Bevin....we soon learned that Mr. Bevin regarded the Jewish people as intruders on the Near Eastern landscape....The British would welcome no Jew to Palestine."

"On Cyprus, the bewildered British army authorites hastily set up some army tents and surrounded the area with a barbed wire fence and armed sentries. Here the illegal Jewish immigrants as they were called by the British, were to live until their fate would be decided."

"Tired, but elated, we hoped to elude the British navy and land on the beach near Caesarea. But as fate willed we were sighted by a British destroyer as we attempted the final run to shore. There followed a minor battle against three ships of the Royal navy. British marines boarded our ship, to be met by a hail of stones and broken bottles. Raking machine gun fire from a destroyer finally cleared our decks (casualties: two immigrants wounded and one of the English Habonim killed)."

Shimon Kaufman, Los Angeles 1958

'Aliyah Bet' was the code name given to illegal immigration by Jews to the British Mandate of Palestine in violation of British restrictions against such immigrations." Wikipedia

Exodus 1947 a ship of Jewish immigrants that was "intercepted, attacked and boarded by British Navy forces. It was diverted back to Europe, and after significant resistence from its passengers, the refugees were once again in Germany....1 killed several dozen injured.

August 2 during this episode "an anti-Jewish riot broke out in Liverpool in which Jewish owned shops were smashed and there were random attacks on Jews. Over the next few evenings attacks spread from Liverpool, to Manchestor and London with the authorities forced to place police guards in JEWISH AREAS ACROSS BRITIAN."---Wikipedia

Fleeing from European persecution (including in Britian) after 6 million killed in the Holocaust. Britian blockade of Jewish immigration. Hostile Arabs waiting in Palestine to "drive the Jews into the sea." A war with 5 Arab countries for the right of statehood. Self-fulfilling prophecy? Yeah right. :wave:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-13-2008, 12:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Anger, hostile, resentment, I need an attitude adjustment? You wish. You are now stooping to the level of character assassination, my friend. I'm preaching rather then discussing? I have read many post where God is called evil a liar, immoral etc. You call that a discussion? That is called accusing, character assassination and not discussion. I will defend this Book my friend. Whether you like it or not. An attack on one's God is an attack on himself.

If your attitude and approach are so effective, why don't Ben C. Smith and Andrew Criddle use it? Why don't Billy Graham, and Gary Habermas use it? The correct answer it, because they know that whenever God is attacked, the best way to defend God is not by attacking the attacker, but by defending God.

Attacking the character of skeptics will never get you anywhere unless you have credible evidence that back up your assertions. You ought to know that when you attack skeptics, that is not defending God. If you wish to present a credible defense of God's actions and allowances, just SAYING that skeptics are evil and wrong is the wrong approach. You need to reasonably prove WHY they are wrong instead of criticizing them for WHAT they do. I have discussed some evidence on numerous occasions that you have consistently and conveniently refused to reply to even though I have posted it on numerous occasions. Here is a summary, in some cases a reposting of some of the arguments that you have either refused to reply to completely, or refused to continue discussing when you knew that you were in trouble. We shall see how long you will be willing to discuss the arguments.

1 - In the thread on the Tyre prophecy I mentioned that God had broken his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. You said that you would get around to it, but you didn't even though I asked you to do so on numerous occasions. If that had been an argument that you thought was easy to refute, you certainly would have discussed it. Here it is again:

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.

At the very least, the evidence is unnecessarily confusing and poorly stated.

2 - I have posted these arguments on numerous occasions. As far as I know, you have never replied to them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The history of the Jews has been one of dispersion and restoration.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

What restoration? God promised Abraham and his descendants ALL of the ancient land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy ALL of the ancient land of Canaan, and there is not any credible evidence that they ever did.

And what evidence do you have that God made a land promise to Abraham and his descendants in the first place?

Regarding the partition of Palestine in 1948, anyone who has enough power can conquer and hold territory. What does that prove? The Romans held a lot of terroritory for centuries. Does that mean that they had good character? Of course not. There is not a necessary correlation between power and good character, or didn't you know that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

He who asks the same questions over and over again after being answered, means he is not looking for an answer.......but looking only to find faults.

But as far as I know, you did not reply to any or all of those arguments. If you did, I did not read them. If you did, please restate what you said, or summarize what you said, state a new reply. Please reply to everything that I said in that post. "Over and over again" certainly did not happen regarding those arguments.

3 -

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The history of the Jews has been one of dispersion and restoration.......

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Please define what you mean by the word "restoration."

What is admirable about the acquisition of land by force? Are you trying to make a case that "might makes right"?

I just checked several pages of posts, and you did not reply to those arguments.

4 -

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

The Bible is filled with many prophecies about the destruction and restoration of the Nation of Israel and why God did it. As well as prophecies about disputes over that land by Israel and the surrounding nations.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Which Scriptures are you referring to?

If the prophecies had not been written, what is odd about Jewish history? Without military and financial help from the U.S. and Britain, Jews would not have been able military take part of Palestine. What is odd about superior military forces helping a much weaker military force acquire land? If Jews had taken parts of Palestine without anyone's help, your arguments would be much better, but such was not the case.

As far as I know, you did not reply to those arguments. If you did, please restate or summarize what you said, or state a new reply.

5 -

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Message to sugarhitman: Please summarize or update your previous explanations regarding why God predicts the future. God's motives for doing what he does is a very important issue.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

You say something?

That is a good example of your rudeness and your evasiveness. Do you call that discussing? Regarding assessing the character of any being, motives are everything. Unless you can come up with some sensible reasons why God predicts the future, you lose. You and I once had a brief discussion about why God predicts the future in another thread, possibly in the thread on the Tyre prophecy. I remember that you said that God predicted future to strengthen the faith of Jews, and that I said that that was not likely because when Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre, who Ezekiel had called "a king of kings in Ezekiel 26," that would have weakened the faith of Jews, not strengthened it, especially since it took hundreds more years for Tyre to be defeated by Alexander. Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? Wouldn't that have strengthened the faith of Christians?

Why did God essentially turn his back on everyone except for the Jews during Old Testament times?

6 -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: You are not actually as interested in Bible prophecy as you assume you are. If the Bible predicted that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject it. On the other hand, I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim was true. Not only do I not believe that God will send some people to hell, but I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone to heaven, although I would hope that he would. If the Bible said that God will send everyone to heaven, I would not accept it for the same reasons that I do not accept it now. Following are some of my reasons for not accepting the Bible now:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from John.

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to heaven, I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

I would still question God's unmerciful desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven or hell were at stake.

So there you have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, you will only accept promises that you believe will ultimately benefit you. You have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Being convinced that God exists means nothing "for even the demons believe that" It is to trust and LOVE God that matters and not just belief. And by some of your earlier statements and accusations against this Holy God, I can't but help to think that should you ever become convinced of His existence your obvious hate for him would only grow.

On the contrary, I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 30 years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Just like Pharoah who was convinced that God indeed existed (indeed he was convinced) his heart grew harder and harder against God.

I did not come to this site to convert the unconvertible. But rather to defend The Truth that is being attacked. Because who knows maybe some young believer who may not know enough of the Word stumble upon this site and become filled with doubt because of some rantings by a hard nosed ignorant critic, may be comforted by my defenses and others.

Critics like to complain that there is not enough or no evidence to support the Gospels (but yet they believe island Tyre was sieged by Nebby which there is no history to back this claim) heck much of history of anything is incomplete or non-existent. It takes faith to believe in secular history as well as Biblical history for the simple fact NONE OF US TODAY WAS THERE TO WITNESS THESE HISTORICAL EVENTS (unless the critics have a time machine, which I seriously doubt). History is subject to manipulations which anyone should now know by secular and Religious historians alike (like the lie that Columbus sailed exploring lands to convert the heathen. But in reality it was to explore for gold and extend that power of the Unholy Roman Church. People may never know the whole truth for the reasons behind world war 1 and 2 Vietnam etc. Official history is usually incomplete or just outright lies).

The history of their own beliefs are filled with little or no evidence or history, like Evolution or Paganisim. To cut it short the walk of a Christian is in faith....just like anybody else who choose to believe anything produced by the past.

I was not previously aware that you had replied to those arguments, so let's discuss them now. You said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Being convinced that God exists means nothing "for even the demons believe that" It is to trust and LOVE God that matters and not just belief.

But that does not refute my arguments. I said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If the Bible predicted that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject it.

Under that scenario you certainly would not trust and love God. I proved that my beliefs would be consistent whether the Bible said that I would go to heaven or hell, and that you will only accept the Bible if you believe that God will send you to heaven. Hypothetical arguments are excellent tools for revealing invalid arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that is suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Critics like to complain that there is not enough or no evidence to support the Gospels (but yet they believe island Tyre was sieged by Nebby which there is no history to back this claim) heck much of history of anything is incomplete or non-existent. It takes faith to believe in secular history as well as Biblical history for the simple fact NONE OF US TODAY WAS THERE TO WITNESS THESE HISTORICAL EVENTS (unless the critics have a time machine, which I seriously doubt).

You obviously did not understand my arguments. Let me try again. If the New Testament said that the same number of eyewitnesses saw Jesus injure and kill people with supernatural power, and that Jesus said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject the same quality of evidence that you accept now because of your emotional perceived self-interest. On the other hand, as I told you before, "I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim was true."

I have proved that is it not actually the EVIDENCE that you find to be convincing, but what the evidence PROMISES. Therefore, your apparent interest in evidence is obviously a masquerade. On the other had, what I find to be convincing is what the evidence IS, not what the evidence PROMISES.

You were quite right that:

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

It takes faith to believe in secular history as well as Biblical history for the simple fact NONE OF US TODAY WAS THERE TO WITNESS THESE HISTORICAL EVENTS (unless the critics have a time machine, which I seriously doubt).

It also takes faith to believe that President Bush is not an alien, but believing by faith that President Bush is not an alien is not an issue, is it?

7 - Here are some arguments that I have used at the General Religious Discussions forum:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Obviously, false religions by necessity have to start in one place. A true religion could easily start with miracles being simultaneously performed all over the world since that would be easy for a God to accomplish, and much more convincing than a religion that started in one place. If the God of the Bible exists, it is quite odd that he mimicked the way that Christianity would had to have started and spread if he did not exist.

No one who died in China one year after the supposed resurrection of Jesus had heard the Gospel message. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why, and why no one has ever heard the Gospel message unless another human told them about it, at least as far as we know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

If God prefers faith to providing tangible, firsthand evidence, then we need some explanations for the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

And here is another Scripture that shows that many people were very impressed with the miracles that Jesus performed:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples went about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles. That is quite odd if Jesus had already performed many miracles, and had been seen by hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and if the Holy Spirit had come to the church. Why were even more confirmations needed? We need tangible, firsthand confirmations much more today than people did back then because there aren't any still living eyewitnesses around like there supposedly were back then. Why would Jesus say "O ye of little faith" and then give in to some stubborn skeptics who demanded tangible, firsthand evidence? Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly content to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.

Following are some of the things that we would expect to find if the God of the Bible does not exist:

a - Biblical history would have started in one small geographic region instead of in many geographic regions.

b - No prophecy would be indisputable. For instance, there would not be any prophecies of the exact dates of the occurrences of hurricanes or volcanoes, or the exact dates of the births of famous historical characters.

c - The Gospel message would be spread entirely by humans according the the prevailing secular means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period.

d - Since religion has a lot to do with emotions, and since women are generally more emotional than men are, the percentage of women who are Christians would be higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is at least the case in the U.S. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled "One Nation Under God." Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is much higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it is I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. Either God discriminates against men, or he does not exist. If he does exist, it is quite odd that he would choose to mimic the percentages of women and men who would become Christians if he did not exist, meaning that since it is well-known that women are more emotional than men are, from a biological perspective, it is to be expected that the percentage of women who become Christians would be higher than the percentage of men who become Christians, and that the percentages would be fairly consistent year after year.

The authors show that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldview than younger people are. This means that elderly skeptics are much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics are. Either God discriminates against elderly skeptics, or he does not exist. If he does exist, it is quite odd that he chooses to mimic the way that age would influence what people believe if he does not exist.

e - 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. No one could ask God for a tangible benefit and be assured that he would receive it. The only kinds of benefits that anyone could ask God for would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits. Today, there is good evidence that that is the case.

f - James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead, and yet millions of people have died of starvation because God refused to give them food, many of whom were devout and faithful Christians who asked him for help, but were forced to die slow, painful deaths by starvation.

Why do you suppose God inspired James to write that? It could not possibly have been because he wanted people to have enough food to eat. What we have here is a situation where God only wants people to have enough food to eat if other people give them enough food to eat. This means that God is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT they get enough food to eat. Now that is utterly absurd if God exists, but it would be quite natural if God does not exist. If God does exist, it is quite odd that he mimics the ways that food and other tangible benefits would be distributed if he does not exist.

You love to talk about the past, but what kinds of contemporary tangible evidence do you have that the God of the Bible exists, and that he is loving?

g - If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that the Bible would invite dissent instead of encourage dissent. If God exists, he could easily have inspired the Bible writers to write much more clearly than they did. For instance, the Nebuchadnezzar issue that I mentioned could easily have been written more clearly. In addition, Ezekiel could have mentioned Alexander. Further, the events at the tomb could have been written more clearly.

h - If Jesus rose from the dead, why did he make some personal appearances? In addition, why did he greatly limit the number of people who he appeared to?

8 - Ok, now let's discuss the character of God. Assuming for sake of argument that a God inspired the Bible, it is my position that there is not any credible evidence that God is not able to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals without injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it.

After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God caused animals to start killing each other. That was wrong, and it was needless.

Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. How does that help anyone?

Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed. That is wrong.

God killed Ananias and Sapphira over money. That was wrong, especially since Paul criticized the Corinthians for doing things that the Gentiles did not do, but still called them brothers. It is much too convenient that God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. The texts says that as a result fo the deaths of Ananias and Saphira fear spread around the countryside. Fear of what? Obviously, fear of not giving enough money to the church.

God killed animals with the flood. That was wrong, and it was unnecessary for the achievement of any fair, worthy, and just goals. If God caused the flood in order to get rid of all of the evil people, he would not have needed to use a global food to do that, especially a flood that modern geology has proved never happened. Even some evangelical Christian biologists have stated that a global flood did not occur, and that it is counterproductive for some Christians to claim that a global flood occurred.

If you claim that God wanted to test Noah's faithfulness, I will tell you that the texts do not say that. They say that God's reason for causing the flood was to get rid of all of the evil people in the world. God could have tested Noah's faithfulness in thousands of other ways, AND without injuring and killing innocent animals.

God killed babies at Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt.

God has never showed up to mediate disputes regarding what books belong in the Bible. That is wrong. If God exists, there was no need for the Protestant Reformation, and for the books of the Roman Catholic Bible that Protestants call the Apocrypha. God should have showed up in person and mediated disputes about what books belong in the Bible.

Why did God allow Christians to conquer the largest empire in history by far under a single religion by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property?

Why did God empower a vicious Devil to help him terrorize mankind?

With parasites alone, God has killed more people than all of the wars in history. That was wrong, and it was needless.

The Bible says that God is merciful, but that is false because God endorses eternal punishment without parole. That is good evidence that God is immoral, or that he does not exist.

I previously said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Regarding assessing the character of any being, motives are everything. Unless you can come up with some sensible reasons why God predicts the future, you lose.

The issue of God's motives deals with all of his motives, not just his motives for predicting the future. If you cannot come with sensible reasons why God does what he does, I will tell you that you lose for the following two reasons:

The lack of sensible motives for God far outweighs any supposed historical evidence that you have posted. For instance, if a religious or a secular book said that one hundred eyewitnesses saw a man count one hundred grains of sand just to prove that he was able to count one hundred grains of sand, that would not be a credible historical claim because there would not be a sensible motive for a man to do that. In addition, if a religious or a secular book said that a man had the power to create food, and out of compassion gave food to some people, but only on several occasions, that would not be a credible motive for a man do that since if he feed some people on several occasions out of compassion, he would also want to give everyone in the world enough food to eat. Christian medical researchers try to discover cures for diseases. When they are successful, they want as many people as possible to have access to the cures. The New Testament says that one at least one occasion, Jesus fed people out of compassion. Since God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation, with no apparent benefits for himself of for anyone else, Jesus could not possibly have given food to anyone out of compassion. True compassion is not limited, and it does not play favorites. If two loving parents have 15 hungry children, and the parents have enough food to give to all of their children, they certainly give food to all 15 of their children, not just to some of them.

I invite you to participate in a thread at the GRD Forum that is titled "Justifying Biblegod's Atrocities." The link is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=230295.

In conclusion, I challenge you to state one single fair, worthy, and just goal that God is not able to achieve without indiscriminately injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes. I also challenge you to produce credible evidence that everything that God does is right.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-13-2008, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

This argument that these countries set up Israel to support prophecy, is not only stupid but false. How can you support something and hate it too?

Consider the following:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balfour...he_declaration

Quote:

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

First of all, regarding "the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations......." that does not agree with the following that you said: "How can you support something and hate it too?" Lord Balfour certainly did not hate the Jews. On the contrary, he said "the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations......."

At any rate, what evidence do you have that God had anything to do with the failed restoration of Israel in 1948?

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Will you tell me that the wars over this land, and the condemnation of Israel by the world are all done to support the Bible?

Regarding conservative Christians, the correct answer is certainly "yes." Regarding non-Christians who supported the failed partition of Palestine, the correct answer is "no, many non-Christians supported the partition of Palestine because the Jews had been persecuted by lots of people, NOT just because they were Jews, which proves that it was HUMAN SYMPATHY that accounted for the partition of Palestine, NOT God.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

At the same time the Bible is being attacked by these same Global Government pushers in their home countries?

What in the world are you talking about? What Global Government pushers are opposed to the partition of Palestine.

Sheshonq · 01-13-2008, 02:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Years after the Balfour Declaration Britain restricted Jewish immigration...

1. Restricted? In point of fact, the Balfour Declaration did nothing of the kind.

2. And in point of another fact, immigration into Palestine by Jews predates Balfour by several decades.

As I said earlier: you know even less about world history than you know about the bible or science.

Pagandawn · 01-14-2008, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Years after the Balfour Declaration Britain restricted Jewish immigration...

1. Restricted? In point of fact, the Balfour Declaration did nothing of the kind.

2. And in point of another fact, immigration into Palestine by Jews predates Balfour by several decades.

As I said earlier: you know even less about world history than you know about the bible or science.

Yeah, let's talk about the Balfour declaration!

Sugarhitman. What kind of BS is this? You must be aware of the fact that the British mandate and the Balfour declaration were the foundation of Israel?

In the early 1900's there were a couple of tousends of Jews in Palestine (the proper name). From that, they managed to steal the land from the Palestinians and become the military superpower in the ME with the help of Albion and the USA. Have you read Israeli historian Ilan Pappe? The ethnic cleansing they did in 1948? This is now facts, they pushed out 800 000 Palestinians and stole their land.

And both Balfour and the receiver of it Lord Rothschild were Jewish. Very shameful for the British and the Yanks and the Jews. Indeed.

sugarhitman · 01-14-2008, 06:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

Quote:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Years after the Balfour Declaration Britain restricted Jewish immigration...

1. Restricted? In point of fact, the Balfour Declaration did nothing of the kind.

2. And in point of another fact, immigration into Palestine by Jews predates Balfour by several decades.

As I said earlier: you know even less about world history than you know about the bible or science.

So are you saying that Britain did not prevent Jewish immigration? That there were no British navy ships out to capture immigrating Jews? If you are saying this then indeed you are the one ignorant about this history. Come on just admit it the Jews encounterd MUCH resistence in their quest for statehood. History says it was so. Dont embarrass yourself, not all on this forum is ignorant of this historical fact. :wave:

sugarhitman · 01-14-2008, 06:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pagandawn

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sheshonq

1. Restricted? In point of fact, the Balfour Declaration did nothing of the kind.

2. And in point of another fact, immigration into Palestine by Jews predates Balfour by several decades.

As I said earlier: you know even less about world history than you know about the bible or science.

Yeah, let's talk about the Balfour declaration!

Sugarhitman. What kind of BS is this? You must be aware of the fact that the British mandate and the Balfour declaration were the foundation of Israel?

In the early 1900's there were a couple of tousends of Jews in Palestine (the proper name). From that, they managed to steal the land from the Palestinians and become the military superpower in the ME with the help of Albion and the USA. Have you read Israeli historian Ilan Pappe? The ethnic cleansing they did in 1948? This is now facts, they pushed out 800 000 Palestinians and stole their land.

And both Balfour and the receiver of it Lord Rothschild were Jewish. Very shameful for the British and the Yanks and the Jews. Indeed.

I said years AFTER the Balfour Declaration not during it. The White Paper came afterwards, as well as the British attempts to prevent Jewish immigration. Although I do believe the author of the Balfour Declaration was sincere, Britain did not honor it. Transjordan was given this land that was promised the Jews.

Note: These measures called for a joint Jew Arab country. Not a restoration of 'Israel'. The Jews fought for control of this land and gave back to it its original name....'ISRAEL' :wave:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-14-2008, 07:08 AM

Message to sugarhitman: Unless you can come with some sensible reasons why God predicts the future, you lose. You have been very evasive regarding this issue because you know that there are not any good reasons why God would have wanted to predict the future in the ways that he predicted the future in the Bible. Yes, a loving God would want to predict the future, but not in the ways that the God of the Bible predicted it. For instance, a loving God would predict when natural disasters would occur.

In another thread you said that God predicted the future in order to strengthen the faith of the Jews. That could not have been the case regarding the Tyre prophecy. No Jew who lived during the time of Ezekiel lived to see the final destruction of Tyre, nor any Jew in the following generation, nor any Jew in the following generation after that. Now that was after Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar "a king of kings," reference Ezekiel 26. If anything, Nebuchadnezzar's failure to defeat Tyre weakened the faith of Jews.

Consider the following Scriptures:

Ezekiel 26

7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people.

8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee.

9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers.

10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach.

11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground.

So, we have all of that destruction that was supposed to be accomplished by "a king of kings," who failed to conquer Tyre. Surely any Jews who were aware of those predictions would have expected Nebuchadnezzr to defeat Tyre. Not only that, but God told a lie because he broke his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. If God really wanted to strengthen the faith of the Jews, he would have defeated Tyre quickly, or at least would have told Ezekiel that Alexander would eventually defeat Tyre.

PLEASE BE SURE TO READ THIS: True prophecies are beneficial to people who are alive when they are made, or to people who live in future generations when the prophecies come true. Regarding the former, the Tyre prophecy was of no value to Jews who lived during Ezekiel's time because they never saw it fulfilled. Regard Jews who lived when Alexander defeated Tyre, they must have wondered why Ezekiel did not say anything about Alexander. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander, that wouldl have strengthened the faith of Jews who lived during Alexander's time a lot, as well as Christians who are alive today.

No, God could not possibly want anyone to believe that he can predict the future. If he did, all that he would have needed to do was to predict when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and year. Prophecies like that would be very convincing, but non-existent Gods never make convincing prophecies.

Have you considered the innocent babies in Tyre who were injured and killed by God though no fault of their own?

Have you considered the innocent animal who God injured and killed with the flood?

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

01-14-2008, 07:08 AM	#150
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to sugarhitman: Unless you can come with some sensible reasons why God predicts the future, you lose. You have been very evasive regarding this issue because you know that there are not any good reasons why God would have wanted to predict the future in the ways that he predicted the future in the Bible. Yes, a loving God would want to predict the future, but not in the ways that the God of the Bible predicted it. For instance, a loving God would predict when natural disasters would occur. In another thread you said that God predicted the future in order to strengthen the faith of the Jews. That could not have been the case regarding the Tyre prophecy. No Jew who lived during the time of Ezekiel lived to see the final destruction of Tyre, nor any Jew in the following generation, nor any Jew in the following generation after that. Now that was after Ezekiel called Nebuchadnezzar "a king of kings," reference Ezekiel 26. If anything, Nebuchadnezzar's failure to defeat Tyre weakened the faith of Jews. Consider the following Scriptures: Ezekiel 26 7 For thus saith the Lord GOD; Behold, I will bring upon Tyrus Nebuchadrezzar king of Babylon, a king of kings, from the north, with horses, and with chariots, and with horsemen, and companies, and much people. 8 He shall slay with the sword thy daughters in the field: and he shall make a fort against thee, and cast a mount against thee, and lift up the buckler against thee. 9 And he shall set engines of war against thy walls, and with his axes he shall break down thy towers. 10 By reason of the abundance of his horses their dust shall cover thee: thy walls shall shake at the noise of the horsemen, and of the wheels, and of the chariots, when he shall enter into thy gates, as men enter into a city wherein is made a breach. 11 With the hoofs of his horses shall he tread down all thy streets: he shall slay thy people by the sword, and thy strong garrisons shall go down to the ground. So, we have all of that destruction that was supposed to be accomplished by "a king of kings," who failed to conquer Tyre. Surely any Jews who were aware of those predictions would have expected Nebuchadnezzr to defeat Tyre. Not only that, but God told a lie because he broke his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. If God really wanted to strengthen the faith of the Jews, he would have defeated Tyre quickly, or at least would have told Ezekiel that Alexander would eventually defeat Tyre. PLEASE BE SURE TO READ THIS: True prophecies are beneficial to people who are alive when they are made, or to people who live in future generations when the prophecies come true. Regarding the former, the Tyre prophecy was of no value to Jews who lived during Ezekiel's time because they never saw it fulfilled. Regard Jews who lived when Alexander defeated Tyre, they must have wondered why Ezekiel did not say anything about Alexander. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander, that wouldl have strengthened the faith of Jews who lived during Alexander's time a lot, as well as Christians who are alive today. No, God could not possibly want anyone to believe that he can predict the future. If he did, all that he would have needed to do was to predict when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and year. Prophecies like that would be very convincing, but non-existent Gods never make convincing prophecies. Have you considered the innocent babies in Tyre who were injured and killed by God though no fault of their own? Have you considered the innocent animal who God injured and killed with the flood?

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.