bfniii

i couldn't disagree more. you agree that we have the notion of good. it must come from somewhere. you even admit that we know something exists because it can be measured against a standard, a platonic archetype if you will. if we have an idea of good and it can be measured against a standard, now our only task is to figure out what that standard is, whatever is absolutely good. that's the easy part.

bfniii

what form would that evidence come in?

how can there be proof of miracles?

bfniii

is it necessary for God to do so? why is it required?

spin

...nothing to do with my comments at all.

Obviously, once again you have totally missed the problem. But what can one expect?

By what standard can you judge the standard? You cannot logically judge, unless you supply another standard for the original standard. You have none, therefore it is meaningless to predicate god with the notion of good.


spin

(At the same time, if god is the standard of good, who is to say that that good has anything to do with the benefit or well-being of human, and the rest of the, beings in the cosmos? But again you cannot competently comment. You can only believe that that "good" is beneficial for all concerned, while everything from viruses to hurricanes kill children who are too young to intend "good" or "evil".)

If there is a moderator who is sterling enough and patient enough to cut much of the non-BC&H stuff out of this thread, for example this post of mine, theey would be doing the thread a great favour.

Jack the Bodiless

Are you seriously suggesting that all Egyptian priests walked around with stiffened snakes in their hands just in case somebody might one day pull a stunt like this? Furthermore, both Moses and God were so monumentally stupid that they didn't know this?

You're still not making any sense. You're still not addressing how these "naturalistic explanations" would actually fit into the Biblical account. WHY would God instruct Moses to perform "miracles" that the Egyptian priests were already prepared to duplicate, with apparently miraculous foreknowledge?

Why were these guys smarter than God?
Isn't it obvious? He was trying to communicate, yes? When there's a humongous set of 150-foot-high walls protecting the city, why mention another set of inconsequential walls somewhere else, without clarifying?
The only means of inflicting "downfall" that is mentioned by Ezekiel is attack by human armies.

...Ah, I forgot: you don't understand the meaning of the word "only". More on this later.
Nope: Tyre, as the MERCHANTS knew it, was unaffected.
Nope, the "rock" is Tyre, the island. That's what the word "Tyre" actually means. You also delibrately cut off the following words: "...thou shalt be built no more". The mainland settlement was rebuilt.
Ezekiel would presumably have known other uninhabited cities. Tyre was going to be like them, permanently.

...Except that this didn't happen, the prophecy failed.

This really is pointless. The failure is abundantly clear, even to Jews and Christians. Here, an honest Christian confronts this problem:
Moving on to morality:
Biological evolution. We evolved as social animals (as I already pointed out).
Of course they'd "learn"! The information would be placed in the brain: that's what learning IS! And the "free-will defense" does not apply here, as only information is being imparted.

What possible reason would there be for an "omnimax" God to inflict pain?

...And let's not forget that the "doctor analogy" was YOURS. It was based entirely on the fact that a human doctor doesn't have the power to make all treatments painless. Therefore it is worthless as an analogy.
Have you spotted the contradiction between your "no we don't" and your "overrides the instinct to preserve the species"? This is the instinct we don't even have, yes?

The instinct isn't perfect, and it can be rather easily overridden by an "us and them" mentality (which, itself, is a manifestation of the instinct to protect US, the home tribe). It is actually rather difficult to make humans kill their fellow humans: it is estimated that during WW2 battles, only about 1 soldier in 20 actually fired their weapon at the enemy. This led to changes in the way soldiers are trained, to override this instinct.

As I've said already, I see no need to further address the "bfniii principle". You have abandoned any pretense that God is "just", and have chosen to worship an amoral monster. The fact that you still have some qualms is a personal issue that you'll have to work out.
You are fantasising again. Nowhere is this mentioned, and the context refers to the person's men, beasts and fields that he owns.

Your reliance on unsupported fantasies makes me wonder why you're a Christian at all, let alone an "inerrantist". Why not go your own way, invent your personal religion?
And you were simply wrong. The Flood can indeed be accurately dated: this was pointed out at the time, and since.

On the reason for the expulsion from Eden:
I have never claimed that the Bible specifically says "...and this was the only reason", or something similar. But it is nevertheless a simple fact that the reason given IS the only reason stated. This is because NO OTHER reason is stated. That's what the word "only" MEANS. When ONE reason is stated, and no OTHER reason is stated, the reason stated is the ONLY reason stated.

I suggest enrolling on a remedial English-language class.

On the failure of most Jews to become Christians:
Why are you pretending that I have not answered this question, when I have done so SEVERAL times?

Here is my reason AGAIN:
How can I possibly make this any clearer?
When it's an issue of who is factually correct: yes, the majority IS usually right. Exceptions occur only where the majority has inadequate access to relevant information, the truth is counter-intuitive, or the minority is in a position to know better (because they have either information or skills that the majority lacks).

None of these are relevant factors here. The minority who convert aren't generally expert scholars: they tend to be the young and vulnerable. Did you know that "Jews for Jesus", responsible for converting numerous Jewish students to Christianity, is a front for the explicitly Christian "Campus Crusade for Christ" movement?

You seem to be attempting a "reverse argumentum ad populum" fallacy: the minority who convert are right BECAUSE they are the minority. You are STILL EVADING my question: you're still not providing me with an explanation of what YOU think the reason is that most Jews reject Christianity. What do YOU think their "problem" is, exactly?

On the polytheistic roots of Judaism:
Another phantom "rebuttal"?

A statement of your personal fantasy (in this case: that some Jews have always been monotheistic) is not a "rebuttal".
Those are the ones who are ignorant of the history of their religion. Fundamentalism, whether Jewish or Christian, requires rejection of scholarly findings: rejection of "meta-knowledge" of the mundane origins of the religion (we've seen that already with Daniel). This does not, however, imply ignorance of what THEIR religion (modern, monotheistic Judaism) requires of its messiah.

Toto

I don't see any volunteers (scans horizon - nope), especially after 10 pages.

But you can PM me if you have a specific plan.

John A. Broussard

No one said that god was required to restore an amputee's missing limb. Even in the bible, the miracle workers such as Jesus never did so and were never asked to do so. No requirements.

Doesn't it seem strange to you, however, that a god who cure lepers, raises the dead, makes the sun stand still, walks on water, multiplies fishes, etc. never once restored a missing limb--not so much as a missing finger or even a knuckle?

Stranger yet, why doesn't some amputee ask for that miracle?

Aren't you ever puzzled by that?

Toto

discussion on Daniel split off here

Jack the Bodiless

Incidentally, bfniii, here is an article detailing one man's investigation into the polytheistic origins of YHWH.

The author admits to being an "amateur", but quotes extensively from scholarly sources. It might give you some insight into the wealth of material out there. As the author points out, legends and attributes of one deity can frequently be transferred to another. Thus, YHWH is also (to some extent) his father El and his brother Baal too.

bfniii

concerning any alleged overall plan for mankind? yes.

how about all?

perhaps we could address the ones that are allegedly contradictory.

it's not the only way but, since the bible purports to be the word of God, it is a good tool as well.