Johnny Skeptic

Not even faith?

Regarding "the history of the church," what specifically does the history of the church say about inerrancy? In other words, who said what about inerrancy? What means did early Christians have available to them that would have helped them determine that the Bible is inerrant. Regarding what the Bible says about homosexuality, how could early Christians have known whether the writers were speaking for God, or for themselves under the assumption that they were speaking for God. Surely you know that innocent but inaccurate revelations are quite common in religious texts.

What do you mean by the word "required"? Doesn't the word "required" have to do with power, not character? Any dictatorial tyrant who has enough power is able to require people to do certain things, but that does not necessarily mean that he is good.

Your argument is not valid. All criminals know for certain that humans have passed laws that hold them accountable if them break them. All skeptics do not know that at least one being exists in the universe who has the power to send people to heaven and hell, and is able to speak a new galaxy into existence. God needlessly withholds evidence, with no possible benefits for himself or for anyone else.

All criminals want to break laws. All skeptics do not want to break laws. Some of the most loving, kind, and moral people in the world are skeptics and non-Christian theists. It would be quite natural for loving, kind, moral skeptics and non-Christian theists to accept any moral being if they had sufficient evidence that such a being exists.

Regarding "The crime has been committed," what crime have skeptics committed who would become Christians if God provided them with additional evidence?

Has God not committed many crimes against humanity as judged by his own rules?

ksen

Sure, I'd classify my faith as evidence for me. I wouldn't try to use my faith as evidence to present to someone else. I wouldn't expect you to believe anything simply based on the fact that I may have faith in it.

Sorry, I'm not taking on that homework assignment. I have other things to do besides sift through the early church fathers to pick out what they had to say about the inerrancy of scripture.

Oookay. :huh:

You mean "no possible benefits for himself or for anyone else [that you can figure out]." Wouldn't that be more accurate?

And since when is ignorance of the law a justification for breaking the law?

Those are some pretty sweeping generalizations. I've seen skeptics on this very board say that if they were convinced the Christian God exists they would spit in his face and still not worship. That sounds like they would "want" to break God's laws if they could be convinced there were any to begin with.

I agree and have never said differently.

Easy to assert. Not so easy to prove.

Read the sermon on the mount. Read the ten commandments. Have you ever lied in your entire life?

Are you saying that skeptics are not guilty of any of the sins that are listed in the bible?

No, he hasn't.

Johnny Skeptic

When the law is unknown to billions of people. Humans who break laws have easily verifiable, tangible, empirical evidence who made them, and evidence that people who are caught breaking laws will be punished. God has never stated his laws tangibly, in person, in front of everyone in the world, or even in front of 1/100th of 1% of the people in the world, so that no one would have any excuses. In addition, he has never tangibly shown even a small number of people in the world that heaven and hell exist. How does such conduct benefit God or anyone else? No moral God could ever act like that if eternity in hell without parole was at stake.