rhutchin

If... Your arguments are always prefaced by "If..." Regardless of your "ifs...," God is still the one before whom you must stand and give account of all that you have done. Do you have any "If..." that can change that situation?

Such is your argument and your choice. Live with it.

rhutchin

Yep. So, is that what happened? Or is it that there is a true gospel message that some men pervert to their advantage?

rhutchin

I think that I am asserting that it is a possible fact that cannot be proved otherwise. It is contingent on the historical accounts in the Bible. It is true contingent on the truth of those accounts.

rhutchin

Rational support requires a rational analysis by a rational mind. Perhaps bias unknowingly crept in and caused you to reach a non-rational conclusion.

Johnny Skeptic

Since when is it rational to injure and kill people who love you?

Actually, I don't need any "ifs". Based upon the evidence that we already have regarding God's frequently detestable character, there is sufficient eivdence for people to reject him. In fact, decent people are not able to endorse God's many atrocities. May I ask what qualities God has that has caused you to love him with all of your heart, soul, and mind? God says that killing people is wrong, but he kills some of his most devout and faithful followers. Therefore, God is a hypocrite. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. He punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. Even in the supposedly "better covenant" that the New Testament supposedly represents, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. God tells Christians to spread a message that he has no interest in spreading himself. You really do have a strange taste in Gods. One wonders to what extent you would endorse detestable behavior, and what kind of God would actually displease you. It is said that birds of a feather flock together. You like Pascal and John Calvin. If Pascal were here at this forum, he would tell you that you will go to hell because you are a Roman Catholic. If John Calvin were here today in the U.S., he would immediately be ostracized from society for wanting to kill Christians who disagreed with his religious views. He was a murderer, and the Bible says that murderers will go to hell.

If you attempted to save only some of your children from drowning when you could have attempted to save all of them, you would be rejected by society, including Christian society, and you would have to live with it. Of course, you would not do that because you do not approve of it, but wait, maybe you do approve of it. Will you please tell us which is the case? This has gotten quite confusing. You can call immoral acts moral acts all that you want to, but no rational minded and fair minded person will pay any attention to you.

Many skeptics are kind, moral, loving, and forgiving people, some of whom would risk their lives to save your life. It would be out of character for them to reject any being who is good.

The best evidence indicates that God does not exist. No rational being who wants to reveal himself to people would go out of his way to make it appear that he does not exist. Today, while tangible benefits are frequently DISTRIBUTED to those who ARE NOT in greatest need, they are frequently WITHHELD from those who ARE in greatest need. This indicates that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics regardless of a person's worldview. No loving, caring God would act like that. He would not not be able to derive any possible benefits from such behavior. Is there any particular tangible benefit that you, meaning rhutchin, can ask God for and expect to receive? Well of course there isn't, which is exactly what is to be expected if God does not exist.

My concept of love and the Bible's concept of love are quite different. I am much more loving and merciful than God is. If I had enough power, I could run the world much better than God does. I would not run a world government OF the people, or BY the people, but I would run a world government FOR the people. That is what true love is all about.

Now will you please tell us how God chooses the elect, possibly out of a hat? If you have children, do you choose which ones to love out of a hat?

Why have some Muslim countries been so successful at preventing God from choosing the elect from their countries?

Jesus said that when the gospel of the kingdom had been preached unto all nations, the end will come. The gospel of the kingdom has been preached unto all nations, but where is Jesus? If Jesus does not return within 100 years, what will fundamentalist Christians say then? How do you interpret the parable of the fig leaf?

Now what about inerrancy? There is a new thread about inerrancy at this forum at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=183634. Why haven't you made any posts in that thread? I might be able to get Farrell Till to visit that thread and debate you about inerrancy. How about it? I am willing to debate you about inerrancy for oh, about a year or two, probably longer. The Secular Web has hundreds of articles about inerrancy, and the Internet has thousands. You will not live long enough to settle the issue of inerrancy. I suspect that you have conveniently been deliberately avoiding getting into extended debates about inerrancy.

Regarding your claim that a decent case for Christianity cannot be made without referring to the Bible, I suggest that you visit James Holding's web site at tektonics.org. His admittedly flagship article is titled 'The Impossible Faith.' Holding makes very little mention of the Bible in his article.

Ignostic Morgan

:banghead: :huh: :banghead: What a cop out! Take a reading course and learn to read at college level . Alll you spout is nonsense ! Johnny and others have soundly beaten you in argument .

pharoah

The above is a good example of why postmodernism is a futile, destructive and self-refuting endevour. If there are no factual texts, then what you've you've just written isn't factual either, which would mean that there are factual texts, which of course contradicts your premise. :huh:

rhutchin

It isn't.

Ignostic Morgan

:notworthy: Yehshua also said that some of that generation would still be alive when he came back. He didn't. He flubbed the name of some characters ,so he was not omniscient. Oh, how about Moses seeing Yahweh's backside such that showed he had a human-like presence before he was incarnated as his own son . It is just obfuscation to say that he was his own son! See Michael Martin's ' The Case against Christianity." Christinsanity, Moses' s Folly and Mohammed's Nonsense just don't measure up ! Without special pleading , how can one advocate one over the others, much less any other religions ?:wave: fundamentalists and non-fundamentalists:huh: :banghead:

Gamera

Actually that's incorrect since I'm in a conversation with Jake and he can ask me to respond. Historical documents can just be read.

But leaving that aside, you have identified the issue: you've confused langauge with facts, and poststructuralist properly position language in the realm of meaning, not facts. Basically your position is naive impericism or scientism where you assume that facts are just out there and can be related with language.

Forget postmodernism, philosophy has rejected that position since Kant.