sugarhitman

If people obeyed God, He would not judge them. Abraham did not steal any land. Moses made it clear that because of the wickedness of the nations of Canaan God would give the Jews their (His) land. For the world belongs to God He makes the rules, and He gives to those whom He please. Who are you to say He stole? How can He steal what belongs to Him? A twisted morality produces stupid accusations. :wave:

spin

Too bad they were humiliatingly defeated by a few thousand Hezbollah last year. The world has changed and American military aid is no longer sufficient for the Zionist factions of Israeli government to enlarge their nation through force. It didn't stop the heinous depositing of hundreds of thousands of cluster-bombs throughout Southern Lebanon, god-willing.


spin

sugarhitman

Did America ever fight along side Jews in the wars. No. And both sides recieved arms and material support from different countries. America the superpower whichever side it helps wins...right? Try telling that to South Vietnam, try telling that to the Somozistas, try telling that to the anti-Castro forces of Cuba, try telling that to the anti-Chavez forces in Venezuela. You keep on bringing up military might as if Americans fought in this war....they did not. :wave:

sugarhitman

And guess what Israel remains a nation. I bet you wish it were uprooted dont you. Then you wouldnt have to listen to people like me. Well sorry aint gonna happen. :wave:

Johnny Skeptic

No he didn't.

No he didn't.

No he didn't. Which prophecies are you referring to?

No he couldn't.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would expect to find exactly what you said. Why would God frequently mimic the way that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly causing doubt and confusion?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, there would be suspicious an unexplainable statistics regarding why people believe what they believe. 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. 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.

The authors show that elderly skeptics are much less likely to change their worldview than younger skeptics are, and that elderly Christians are much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians are. If God exists, this means that he discriminates against elderly skeptics and younger Christians. If God does not exists, then that explains why elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are. Again, if the God of the Bible exists, it is quite odd that he mimics that way that things would be if he did not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the Gospel message was distributed entirely by humans. If God does exist, he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT they hear the Gospel message, and with mimicking the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

We have a similar case regarding the distribution of food. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person that his faith is dead, but God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation. 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.

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.

You have still failed to explain why God would frequently choose to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempt to reasonably prove that he exists. No loving, rational God would ever go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist. If a loving God exists, there is no way that it could be predicted that every year, the percentage of women in the U.S. who are Christians would be a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians, and that the percentage of elderly skeptics who become Christians would be much smaller than the percentage of younger skeptics who become Christians, and that the percentage of younger Christians who become skeptics would be much larger than the percentage of elderly Christians who become skeptics. If a loving God exists, the odds against those things being the way that they are are astronomical. If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the primary factors that determine why people believe what they believe are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period.

According to you, it is reasonable for God to save a man, and then turn right around and seriously injure or kill him, and to bless some evil people with good health and lots of money, and to cause animals to kill each other and humans.

Last but not least, might does not make right. Who appointed you to judge that it is acceptable for God to run the universe, and that he is perfect?

sugarhitman

The Roman Catholics started the Christ killer myth. Roman Catholicism is not biblical Christianity and niether is protestant for that matter.

Sheshonq

Seems to me that you are the one who is trying to excuse murder and land theft by claiming some kind of divine right to do all that.

Who has worse morals?

Sheshonq

I'm talking about ordinary Jewish history - which you already knew. You haven't read much of *any* Jewish history, apparently. Your claims about Jewish life in other countries are simply wrong.

Historically incorrect.

Most thieves consider themselves justified in retaining their ill-gotten goods as well. The opinion of the thief, however, hardly counts for much.

Incorrect. As I said: if you had studied a nickel's worth of Jewish history, you would know better.

This is also sadly wrong and not supported by the historical record.

Johnny Skeptic

It is absurd for anyone to believe that a God exists who wants people to believe that he can predict the future. If he did, all that he would have needed to do would have been to make some indisputable predictions regarding when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and year.

There is no way that God intended for prophecy to strengthen the faith of Old Testament Jews. If he did, he would have told Ezekiel about Alexander. As it was, generations of Jews died without seeing the Tyre prophecy fulfilled. They certainly believed that it would be fulfilled during their lifetimes. First of all, they believed that God was angry with the Tyrians, and wanted to destroy Tyre. They certainly would not have believed that it would take centuries for God to punish the Tyrians. In addition, they certainly would not have expected God to punish the Tyrians' great great great great grandchildren for the ancestors' sins. Further, it was wrong for God to punish Tyrian babies for sins that their parents committed.

There is no way that Ezekiel would have predicted that "a king of kings" (Nebuchadnezzar) would invade Tyre, go down its streets, and tear down its towers, and fail to conquer Tyre. When it became obvious that Nebuchadnezzar was not going to defeat Tyre, that is when someone added the "many nations" part to Ezekiel 26, and falsely claimed in Ezekiel 29 that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre.

There is little doubt that Ezekiel knew of Nebuchadnezzar's plans to invade Tyre in advance. Nebuchadnezzar had a penchant for conquest, and his kingdom was located close to Tyre. Since even the New Testament criticizes Tyre, a reasonable case can be made that Jews and Christians were jealous of the wealth of Tyre, and wanted God to punish Tyre because the Tyrians were able to gain wealth that they were not able to gain. Considering the fact that most of the people in the world at that time who had heard about the God of the Bible opposed him, it is an absurd notion that God would pick on just one kingdom out of all of the kingdoms in the world, take centuries to cause the defeat of the kingdom, inspire Ezekiel to claim that "a kings of kings" would invade Tyre and fail to defeat it, and break his word to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. If anything, the Tyre prophecy weakened the faith of generations of Jews, strengthened the faith of generations of Tyrians, and reduced the size of the current Christian church by failing to mention that Alexander would defeat Tyre.

The Tyre prophecy is one of the very best examples that proves that the Bible is fraudulent.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why all tangible benefits are indiscriminately distributed at random by the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests, and that the only benefits that any Christian could ask God for and expect to received would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits.

Sheshonq

Which doesn't matter. You are claiming, HERE AND NOW, that part (or all) of that prophecy has ALREADY been fulfilled. So pointing to some future fulfillment doesn't rescue your argument.

If you want to claim an ALREADY fulfilled prophecy concerning the state of Israel, you need to demonstrate the truth of that claim.