makerowner

Why is it that you fundies insist that everything in Genesis is literally true, but that everything in Daniel and Revelation is an elaborate metaphor for modern geopolitics?

Johnny Skeptic

I assume that your stay in that thread will be quite brief.

I have read the story of Job, and it embarrasses Christians. First of all, it proves that even good behavior from the most righteous man in the world was not enough for God. Second of all, Job ended up complaining about his suffering, and only gave in after he was sternly confronted by a threatening God. Third of all, even though God replaced what Job lost, no Christian living today can ever expect God to replace what they lost. Are you aware of any Chrisitian amputees who have asked God to give them new limbs? Proably not. Since Christians frequently ask God to heal them of sicknesses, why don't Christians amputees ask God for new limbs? This proves that there is not a reasonably provable correlation between people recovering from sicknesses and God's help.

If you wish to debate the book of Job further, please start a new thread at the MF&P Forum, or at the GRD Forum.

Johnny Skeptic

But if the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his intent to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

We would also expect to find that the primary, if not the only factors that determine what people believe would be geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of 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, to which I would like add time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if 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 a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

We would also expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and mimics the way that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case.

We would also expect to find the following:

Food would be distributed entirely by humans. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

The New Testament says that on one occasion, Jesus fed hungry people out of compassion. There is no way that that happened. A truly compassionate person who wanted some people to have enough food to eat would certainly not limit his compassion to people who lived in Palestine.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.

If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and had been raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in had been predominantly Buddhist, the very same secular factors would cause you to choose your worldview.

It is much too convienient that geography has played such an important role regarding the spread of the Gospel message, which is exactly the way the way that things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. If the God of the Bible does exist, then his frequent use of geography invites dissent instead of discouraging dissent, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist. The odds against a loving, rational God acting like that are astronomical.

Johnny Skeptic

No, Israel is not currently fulfilling any Bible Bible prophecies. You certainly cannot be referring to Genesis 17:8, which requires that Jews occupy ALL of the ancient land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near ALL of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfillment of prophecy. Jews cannot possibly have restored a nation that even you admitted they never had since you said that they have never occupied all of the land of Canaan. Now how in the world do you know that Jews have never occupied all of the land of Canaan?

That is easily explained by the facts that the partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy, and that the Middle East has the largest oil reserves in the world. If the Arab-Israel conflict was happening in the middle of a remote Australian desert that had few natural resources, most nations would not care about the conflict.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If the Jews occupied parts of Palestine, but not Jerusalem, would you call that a fulfilled prophecy?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Is it still your position that the Partition of Palestine was not a self-fulfilled prophecy, meaning that it would have happened even if the Bible had not been written, and that the Bible did not have anything to do with the Partition of Palestine?

The partition of Palestine is a bona fide example of a self-fulfilled Bible prophecy. If Jewish and Palestinian history had been reversed, and Palestinians had been persecuted by Hitler and other parties instead of Jews, there is no way that the U.N. would have granted Palestinians control of Jerusalem and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got. Logically, if the Partition of Palestine was not a self-fulfilled prophecy, under my hypothetical scenario, the U.N. would have been consistent, and would have granted the Palestinians control of Jerusalem and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got, but as you know, under that scenario, such would definitely not have been the case, and the reason would have been the Bible. Of the 33 governments that voted in favor of the partition, 32 are predominantly Christian. The only non-Christian government that voted for the partition was Russia. At that time, Russia was joyfully getting lots of aid from the U.S. for rebuilding purposes, and was certainly not interested in contesting the wishes of the U.S. and 31 other countries.

Incredibly, you would have people believe that the Bible did not have anything to do with the Partition of Palestine, and that no other religious books have anything to do with how people act.

Do you still wish to claim that the Bible did not give Jews and Christians any incentives at all to endorse the Partition of Palestine when the Israeli Declaration of Statehood says "ERETZ-ISRAEL (the Land of Israel) was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books. After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim (immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation) and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood," and when 32 of the 33 governments that voted for the Partition of Palestine were predominantly Christian, and when
12 of the 13 governments that voted against the Partition of Palestine were non-Christian, and in the case of the Greek government, nominally Christian. The Partition of Palestine was essentially Christian nations against non-Christians nations, and the Christian nations had the most military power. All that it takes to occupy land is power.

I said:

Do you disagree with that?

arnoldo

It was a fulfillment of God's promises to the seed of Abraham which are the Jews/Israelis. Seeing how the Torah is what helped the Jews maintain their cultural/ ethnic identity once the Jews were dispersed within the nations they would have been easily assimilated into the nations and their religious identity destroyed had the Torah not been written. However, the Torah was written so the Jews were able to keep themselves separate from the Gentiles.
The Bible had everything to do with the creation of the State of Israel, God kept his promise to Abraham.

mg01

It's the hill of Megido, or "har megido", "הר מגידו". The site of a large Roman garrison in the 1st century BCE at a mountain pass leading southward towards Sameria and Jerusalem. "Armageddon" comes from a corruption through translation via Greek and the idea put forth by John of Patmos of it being the location of the final battle where the Jews would win their freedom from the Romans.

Johnny Skeptic

More accurately, it was a failed SELF-FULFILLMENT of God's SUPPOSED promises to the seed of Abraham which are the Jews/Israelis that you cannot reasonably prove would not have happened if the God of the Bible did not exist.

All that it takes to self-fulfill a prophecy is a BELIEF a the prophecy is true, and ENOUGH MILITARY POWER TO FULFILL THE PROPHECY.

The partition of Palestine most certainly was not a fulfillment of Bible prophecy. Genesis 17:8 says "And I will give unto thee, and to thy seed after thee, the land wherein thou art a stranger, all the land of Canaan, for an everlasting possession; and I will be their God." Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near all of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfilled prophecy.

You can't restore a nation that you never had. Genesis 17:8 can never be fulfilled unless Jews occupy all of the land of ancient Canaan.

If the Jews occupied parts of Palestine, but not Jerusalem, would you call that a fulfilled prophecy?

In the NASB, 2 Samuel 7:10 says "I will fix a place for my people Israel; I will plant them so that they may dwell in their place without further disturbance. Neither shall the wicked continue to afflict them as they did of old." The Partition of Palestine most certainly did not fulfill that prophecy, and it never will since the Jews are surrounded by hostile neighbors, not to mention terrorists who live in Israel, and some Muslim countries that are developing nuclear weapons. That prophecy alone discredits all of your arguments about the Partition of Palestine being a fulfilled prophecy. Israeli will never be able to "dwell in their place without further disturbance." Now please do not claim that 2 Samuel 7:10 refers to the next life. If you do, I doubt that you will find one single Bible scholar who agrees with you. Old Testaments Jews had to have believed that 2 Samuel 7:10 promised that eventually, IN THIS LIFE, Jews would be able to "dwell in their place without further disturbance."

I will be happy to instruct you further in Bible hermeneutics if you wish.

Last but not least, no rational God would inspire disputable prophecies when he could easily inspire indisputable prophecies.

Johnny Skeptic

But if the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

We would also expect to find that the primary factors, if not the only factors that determine what people believe would be geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of 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, to which I have added time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if 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 a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able to reasonably predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

We would also expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and mimics the way that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case.

We would also expect to find the following:

Food would be distributed entirely by humans. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

The New Testament says that on one occasion, Jesus fed hungry people out of compassion. There is no way that that happened. A truly compassionate person who wanted some people to have enough food to eat would certainly not limit his compassion to people who lived in Palestine.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.

If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and had been raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in had been predominantly Buddhist, the very same secular factors would cause you to choose your worldview.

It is much too convienient that geography has played such an important role regarding the spread of the Gospel message, which is exactly the way the way that things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. If the God of the Bible does exist, then his frequent use of geography invites dissent instead of discouraging dissent, thereby needlessly undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist. The odds against a loving, rational God acting like that are astronomical.