Johnny Skeptic

But what if God did not inspire Bible writers to write prophecies about Israel? In that case, what about Jewish history would indicate to you that God has protected Jews for thousands of years?

It is easy to reasonably prove that you are only interested in prophecies that you believe will ultimately benefit you. If the New Testament said that the same number of eyewitnesses saw Jesus injure and kill people with supernatural powers, and that Jesus said that God will send everyone to hell, Christians would reject the same quality of evidence that they accept now because of their emotional perceived self-interest. On the other hand, I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim was true. Following are some of the reasons that I do not accept the Bible now:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark.

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there we have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, Christians will only accept promises that they believe will ultimately benefit you. Christians have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interests.

Hypothetical arguments are frequently excellent tools for revealing invalid arguments. Fundamentalist Christians frequently use them when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

How do you explain the fact that in the U.S., every year the percentage of women who become Christians is over 5% higher than the percentage of men who become Christians?

How do you explain the fact that a much smaller percentage of elderly skeptics become Christians than younger skeptics, and the fact that a much small percentage of elderly Christians become skeptics than younger Christians?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to sugarhitman: I would still like to know why God would want to predict the future.

arnoldo

God doesn't necessarily predict the future since he is the Alpha and Omega and exists outside our limitations of time and space. My take is that he wrote prophecies in order to give encouragement to believers in both the old and new testament eras. Again I don't want to start quoting scripture but in general terms there is a bit where the prophet Daniel is held captive in Babylon, reads the scriptures written down by another prophet, and then realizes that the time is approaching when Israel will return back to their homeland. Often times believers all throughout our human history went through difficult times and reflecting on bible prophecy previously fullfilled gives one a sense of hope and faith to carry on.

arnoldo

The problem with that quote is that in bible prophecy there is a term called dual fullfillment. Meaning that bible prophecy can be fullfilled in two different times. Obvioulsy Yeshua fullfilled many prophecies two thousand years ago however some prophecies remain to be fullfilled. The Jews of that time were expecting the Kindgom of Israel to be established and an overthrow of the Roman Empire. Obviously that didn't happen and was a reason that as a whole the israel rejected Yeshua as the messiah. There is a bit where Yeshua enters a temple and he reads a scroll something along the lines "The Spirit of the Lord is upon me..." and then states that the prophecy has been fullfilled and then rolls the scroll back up. The next bit states "And the day of vengence of the Lord" which will be fullfilled when Yeshua returns and his foot touches down on the Mount of Olives.

Sheshonq

In fact, there is no such term. You won't find the term anywhere in the bible.

It is a concept created by christians to allow them to recycle old testament prophecies and place them inside the context of the new christian religion.

arnoldo

Well, it's implied. For example God promised Abraham the entire land of Israel and currently Israel is only occupying a small portion of that territory. The prophecy that the Jews will return to Israel has been fulfilled in part but is still pending it's complete fulfillment. The example of Yeshua reading the scroll up to a certain part, stating that the prophecy has been fulfilled, is an example of a partial fulfilment of prophecy. The next part Yeshua would have read was "the day of vengence of the Lord" which will not be fulfilled upon Yeshua returns. That seems like a dual prophecy to me.

Sheshonq

No, it isn't.

1. Maybe the prophecy just failed.

2. The promise was conditional anyhow - obey me, and you get the land. Don't obey, and you won't get it. The Jews' own holy book says that they didn't obey.

No, that's just the christian reinterpretation that I described earlier.

Johnny Skeptic

There is no such thing as a partly fulfilled prophecy. Unless the Jews occupy all of the land of ancient Canaan like God promised, skeptics can fairly claim that there is not any credible evidence that God made a land promise to Abraham and his descendants.

All that it takes to occupy land is military power. If the Axis powers had won World War II, the partition of Palestine in 1948 would not have happened. If God had appeared in person and kicked the Palestians out of Palestine, then you would be able to establish a credible correlation between God's power and the establishment of a Jewish state in Palestine. Why didn't God do that? Why would he want to create doubt?

What evidence do you have that God has protected Jews for thousands of years?

That is patenly false. The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary defines the word "predict" as ": to declare or indicate in advance; especially: foretell on the basis of observation, experience, or scientific reason:

The Bible indicates many things in advance. The Tyre prophecy and Micah 5:2are good examples. So is Jesus' prediction that he would rise from the dead.

[quote=arnoldo] My take is that he wrote prophecies in order to give encouragement to believers in both the Old and New testament eras.

Sugarhitman used that argument too, but it doesn't work. First of all, regarding the Tyre prophecy, generations of followers of the God of the Bible died without seeing the prophecy fulfilled. If anything, that would have weakened the faith of the followers of the God of the Bible, and it would have strenghthened the pagan faith of the Tyrians for generations until Alexander defeated Tyre. If Ezekiel had mentioned Alexander, that would have strengthened the faith of the followers of the God of the Bible, and future Christians as well. If God really wanted to strengthen the faith of believers, and influence lots of skeptics, all that he would have needed to do was predict when and where some natural disasters would occur. By "when," I mean month, day, and year.

Oh please, don't get me started on Daniel. The book of Daniel has been widely discredited. Please read an article at http://www.infidels.org/library/mode...tz/critic.html. The article reasonably proves that the book of Daniel is fraudulent. If you would like to start a new thread on the book of Daniel, please do so. I would enjoy discuss the book of Daniel with you. So would some other skeptics.

Why did God break his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre?

Ezekiel 26 is suspicious. Ezekiel call Nebuchadnezzar "a king of kings," but yet this king of kings failed to defeat Tyre. It does not make any sense to predict that a kings of kings, which is an extraordinary claim, will invade a kingdom, go down its streets and tear down its towers, and give up 14 years later. I mean really, how long would it have taken for an angry God to punish the Tyrians? Certainly not centuries at the hands of an unnamed conquerer.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: You are not really as interested in Biblical evidence as you think you are. If the New Testament said that the same number of eyewitnesses saw Jesus injure and kill people with supernatural powers, and that Jesus said that God will send everyone to hell, Christians would reject the same quality of evidence that they accept now because of their emotional perceived self-interest. On the other hand, I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim was true. Following are some of the reasons that I do not accept the Bible now:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark.

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there we have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, Christians will only accept promises that they believe will ultimately benefit you. Christians have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interests.

Hypothetical arguments are frequently excellent tools for revealing invalid arguments. Fundamentalist Christians frequently use them when they feel that it suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.

Johnny Skeptic

Messge to arnoldo: Since religion has a lot to do with emotions, and since women are generally more emotional than men are, the percentage of women who are Christians would be higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is at least the case in the U.S. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled "One Nation Under God." Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one 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 much higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it is 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 higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. Either God discriminates against men, or he does not exist. If he does exist, it is quite odd that he would choose to mimic the percentages of women and men who would become Christians if he did not exist, meaning that since it is well-known that women are more emotional than men are, from a biological perspective, it is to be expected that the percentage of women who become Christians would be higher than the percentage of men who become Christians, and that the percentages would be fairly consistent year after year.

The authors show that elderly skeptics are much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics are. Either God discriminates against elderly skeptics, or he does not exist. If God does not exist, that explains not only why elderly skeptics are much less likely to become Christians, but also why elderly Christians are much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians are.

If God does not exist, the primary factors that would influence what people believe would be, as Kosmin and Lachman show, geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender and age, to which I would like to add time period.

No loving, rational God would spread news about him in way that mimic the ways that news would have been spread if he did not exist.

False religions must by necessity start in one place. A true religion could, and would start simultaneously all over the world since a God could easily accomplish that. Surely 1,000 only begotten Sons of God peforming miracles all over the world would have been much more convincing than just one only one only begotten Son of God.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

The lesson is, if some miracles are very useful and convincing evidence, many more miracles are much more useful and convincing evidence, especially if they are performed all over the world instead of in one small geographic reason, which is the way that all false religions must start.

In your opinion, is the spread of the Gospel message more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God feel that way? If a Christian doctor invented a cure for cancer, it he was able, he would immediately distribute the cure to everyone in the world who had cancer. He would do that because he had compassion for people. Similarly, if a devoted early Christian had been able to immediately let everyone in the world know about the Gospel message, he would have because he would have had compassion for people. Obviously, devoted Christians are more compassionate than God is.