Stephen T-B

"That people fail to ask God for help accounts for much distress among many people." (rhutchin)
This is way off topic, and I shouldn't pursue it, but it astonishes me that rhutchin should believe that "many people" experience "much distress" because they fail to ask God for hellp.
Does he not know that asking for God's help is the very first thing that every person with even the most residual and vague belief in God does when faced by a crisis?
His remark astonishes me, frankly.

Johnny Skeptic

I quoted you in a thread that I recently started at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259452 at the General Religious Discussions Forum. Please make a post in that thread. I assume that you won't because you are not confident of your debating abilities, in which case I accept your admission of defeat.

I quoted that too in another recently new thread at http://www.freeratio.org/showthread.php?t=259383 at the General Religious Discussions Forum. Please make a post in that thread. I assume that you won't because you are not confident of your debating abilities, in which case I accept your admission of defeat.

You have said that people should ask God for help. What evidence do you have that reasonably establishes a cause and effect relationship between asking God from something, and receving it? Do you recommend that amputees ask God for new limbs? Do you know of even one case in the modern world where God gave an amputee a new limb? If not, what does God have against amputees?

Why would anyone ask God's protection from hurricanes when they know that God does not have any intention of giving up killing people with hurricanes, not to mention innocent animals? After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God told them that life would become very difficult in the world. Why would God change his mind and give up injuring and killing people and innocent animals, and forcing innocent animals to kill each other?

rhutchin

Why don't you post something substantive to which I can respond.

rhutchin

Many people consider themselves "Christian" or "Jew" or some other designation because they are born into a certain culture. A "Jew" has Jewish parents which implies no particular religious intent. So, when you refer to "we Christians" which includes you, I was curious as to whether you meant that you were a Christian in the sense of having submitted to the rule of Christ in your life.

You should use a different term or an adjective to modify "Christian." I don't think the term, "Christian," would ever be construed as narrowly as you seem to have intended.

rhutchin

Which god do you think it is from which they ask help. Would it not be that god whom they serve in the normal course of their life? Why the presumption that people would call on Christ when they are in a crises and not that god they serve normally and why the presumption that Christ is obligated to act if such people should call on Him?

Johnny Skeptic

I obviously already did. I said a number of things that you conveniently refused to reply to. You are obviously being evasive, which is typical of you, including your refusal to discuss inerrancy, even though your beliefs depend upon the Bible being inerrant. I asked you to discuss what you said in two new threads at the General Religious Discussions Forum, but you are obviously not confident enough of your arguments to go that forum. I understand your longtime reluctance to go to the General Religious Discussions Forum since it allows a wider variety of topics and arguments than are allowed at this forum.

You said "Do you have more to offer than personal opinions?" You also said
"Speculation proves nothing and never will." If you intend to refuse to discuss what you said in the two threads at the General Religious Discussions Forum, just say so and I will accept your admission of defeat. Your typical approach over many months has been to become evasive whenever you know that you are in trouble. That has been obvious to everyone who has read a lot of your posts. You obviously know that you cannot logically defend your absurd statements.

Here is something else that is substantive: Do you believe that a global flood occurred?

Do you believe that firsthand, eyewitness testimonies is an important issue? If so, do you know of any cases of firsthand, eyewitness testimonies in Matthew, Mark, and Luke? If so, how many, and which Scriptures? Since you have been evasive when I asked you that in the past, I would not be surprised if you are evasive again.

Would you like to discuss all 24 articles at the Jews for Judaism website that I posted? That organization does not believe that Isaiah 53 refers to Jesus. I agree with them, especially since there is not any credible evidence that Jesus fulfilled any Old Testament prophecies.

If ancient native American Indians and Chinese got along fine without the Bible, obviously, everyone else can get along fine without the Bible too.

I assume that I have as much or more time to debate as you do. I am retired, and I do not have a wife or family. In addition, I enjoy debating you since it is quick and easy to refute your posts.

spamandham

If you are capable of it, look at this from the perspective of someone who does not a priori accept the Bible as true. Why should we believe these things actually happened, rather than that they are simply stories in a book?

show_no_mercy

This is a totally naive view of history. There are other ways of verifying events other than just reading about them in documents. History isn't built from just a huge stack of papers. As a matter of fact, that's one of the least effective ways of establishing history. History is established by multiple corroborations: physical antiques such as busts, coins, pottery, boats, and other artifacts; letters from other people who witnessed the events writing contemporaneously with the other writing; and of course there's the geological record like the evidence left behind due to earthquakes, evidence left behind due to floodings, etc.

The writings in the bible are just that: writings. There's no other external corroboration of these events. No artifacts. No contemporary writings. No physical evidence. So there's very little reason to believe what's written.

bacht

The Lazarus story is problematic: why would such a spectacular miracle be unreported by anyone except John, who possibly wrote after everyone else in the NT? Paul never alludes to such a thing in his discussions of resurrection, in fact he never mentions any miracles performed by Jesus on earth, yet he was supposedly closer to Jesus and his witnesses than any other Christian writer.

Lugubert

Although no longer a member, I'm happy that lycanthrope doesn't claim to be speaking for the Evangelical Lutheran Church of Sweden or any other group that I know of in this country.