Johnny Skeptic

What's to interpret about God's character? The evidence is quite clear. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. The Bible does not clearly oppose slavery, but it ought to. God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout and faithful followers, and their children. God kills innocent animals. God allowed one million people to die of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians, in spite of the fact that he told Christians via James that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. This means that God is vain, and he is hypocrite. You have said that people who need help should ask God to help them, but surely you must know that God has always refused to help amputees, at least at far as we know. God frequently distributes tangible needs to those who are not in greatest need, including to some evil people who never become Christians, and frequently withholds tangible needs from people who are in greatest need, including some of his most devout followers. Ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, by genetics or by some other means, God has ensured that everyone must commit sins at least some of the time by passing a sinful nature on to succeeding generations. God knows that skeptics need help interpreting the Bible, but he refuses to provide some of them with additional information that they would accept if they were aware of it.

If you believed that God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and you would reject him. Choice would not be involved. In such a case, I would use your own argument against you and tell you that you might be making a bad decision. Now I ask you, which do you consider to be more immoral, lying, or the atrocities that I mentioned? What can we do except examine the evidence? The evidence clearly indicates that God is not the moral, loving, caring, compassionate being that the Bible says he is. Logically, no loving, rational being ever does anything that he does not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or in the future. There is not any credible evidence that many of God’s actions and allowances benefit him or anyone else. What kind of God would deliberately withhold additional information from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it? Such detestable behavior could not possibly benefit God or those people in any way. What kind of God would allow some of his most devout and faithful followers to starve to death when he had food in abundance? Such detestable behavior could not possibly benefit God or those people in any way.

You are not a decent person. You have abandoned your principles and morals in God's case and endorsed atrocities that you would not accept if anyone other than God committed and allowed them. Under our legal system, many of God's actions and allowances are punishable by life in prison or death. Your buddy Pascal was not a decent person. If he were at this forum, he would tell you that you will go to hell because you are not a Roman Catholic. If you had been alive during your buddy John Calvin's time, I do not doubt that you would have endorsed his policy of having Christians killed who did not agree with his religious views.

How about some definitions for the words "atrocity", and "atrocious"? A web definition for the world "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane".

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "atrocious" as follows:

1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC

2 : APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>

3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>

Johnny: Those definitions pretty much describe God. If God were mentally incompetent, how would he act any differently than he acts now? The correct answer is, not any differently at all. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own followers. No mentally competent being helps AND kills people, and allows them to starve to death.

Johnny Skeptic

Although I did start a thread on inerrancy at this forum earlier this year, I did not start one recently at this forum because I do not trust you. There were two recent threads on inerrancy at this forum, and even though many of your arguments depend lock, stock, and barrel upon inerrancy, you conveniently did not make one single post in either one of them. If you promise to immediately participate in a new thread on inerrancy, and make frequent posts in it, I will start one today. There are a veritable plethora of good arguments against inerrancy at the Secular Web and elsewhere at the Internet. You recently told me to use my own arguments and not use other skeptics' arguments. Why was that? Obviously, because you know that you are no match for Farrell Till and other skeptic experts. Why shouldn't I take advantage of the research that other skeptics have done? No one is able to become an expert on all issues. You have quoted other Christians' arguments on certain issues on many occasions, or provided links to their articles.

By the way, Farrell Till has a standing invitation at the Skeptical Review for any Christian to post arguments about inerrancy. There is a forum where he and anyone else can make comments. I assume that you are afraid to go to Farrell Till's web site.

Pending good evidence that the Bible is inerrant, you don't really have any intelligent arguments to make whatsoever. You ask people to speculate and guess that by some off chance, the Bible might be inerrant. How utterly absurd. The simple truth is that you do not have a clue what the originals said, how the originals were chosen, and how many times the originals might have been changed.

djrafikie

Don't be stupid. If someone doesn't believe in the bible, they wouldn't be laughing.

context,re your last reponse to me.
You said that if someone doesn't know the gospel or gods word for some reason, that they would not burn. surely if they were lied to and misled through no fault of their own, they would not be damned.

Eve was misled by satan, did the first woman created by god go to hell? Bearing in mind she was innocent that would be terribly cruel.

In fact, further to that, why are we all being punished for the actions of a women who had no concept of lies or decit, and therefore had no way to understand that she was being misled? If nobody had EVER lied to me, I would be gullible as well, would that be my fault? Of course not!

JPD

Welcome to Christian Nonsensical Arguments Class 62B. They were innocent but Biblegod knew. The warning to not eat the apple would have made no sense to someone who has no awareness of right or wrong, of good or bad. Biblegod was responsible for the event and is responsible for all suffering thereafter. Had Biblegod not mentioned the apple (and he knew what was going to happen) the whole sorry state of affairs would not have had to have taken realistic shape in the minds of gullible individuals.

rhutchin

If I said it, then it was wrong. No person can get into heaven if the person has sinned. All people have sinned, so all are in the position of having to do something about that sin in order to enter heaven. If a person doesn't know the gospel or gods word, then they would not be able to do anything about their sin and would not be allowed entry into heaven. If a person is lied to about what they can do to enter heaven, then they would not know what to do about their sin and would not be allowed entry into heaven.

God has made it possible for all to enter heaven. That is the good news of the gospel. I am confident that Eve did something about her sin and will be in heaven. I do not have that same confidence with djrafikie.

When A/E sinned they were cast out of the Garden. This is a picture of A/E being cast from God's presence. To reenter God's presence (i.e., heaven), A/E (and their descendents which include both of us) must petition God to enter heaven. God requires that a person be sinless in order to enter heaven.

Falling for a lie, as Eve did, has consequences.Even though Eve might perhaps claim some innocence, she knew better.

djrafikie

Think very carefully about your statement, i will give you a clue to get you started, it made NO SENSE AT ALL. I'm not talking theology here, I'm talking basic english.

How TERRIBLE. God created us all, yet he will let the vast majority burn in hell through no fault of their own? What an asshole.
In defence of the bible, I am going to point out that you are completely and utterly wrong, and suggest the you read it.


Then it's not their fault.

Again, so someone doesn't know what to do, and is going to be punished for that? I will reiterate, you are wrong and need to re-read the bible, spreading untruths about the gospel of christ is, as you know, blasphemy.


Not in the way you think buddy. again, go back, and read it.

Really? Proof.

Do not judge, lest you yourself be judged.

You don't know me rhutchin. I have forgiven worse than most, you forgive no-one at all.

OHHH! A picture! YAY! Hang on, where's the picture? Next paragraph does'nt even count as a metaphorical one...... it's discussing what happened AFTERWARDS.

She was COMPLETELY innocent and pure. Again, lying about the contents of the bible is blasphemy. I'm sorry, but in order for you to follow your own faith properly, you have to remember this.

Johnny Skeptic

Not if it is God's intention to encourage as many people as possible to go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. That is obviously not God's intention, which is sufficient grounds for people who have principles and morals to reject him. God knows that skeptics need help interpreting the Bible, but he refuses to provide some of them with additional information that some of them would accept if they were aware of it. That is immoral and unfair.

No man who has principles and morals is able to accept the God of the Bible. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. The Bible does not clearly oppose slavery, but it ought to. God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout and faithful followers, and their children. God kills innocent animals. God allowed one million people to die of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians, in spite of the fact that he told Christians via James that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. This means that God is vain, and he is hypocrite. You have said that people who need help should ask God to help them, but surely you must know that God has always refused to help amputees, at least at far as we know. God frequently distributes tangible needs to those who are not in greatest need, including to some evil people who never become Christians, and frequently withholds tangible needs from people who are in greatest need, including some of his most devout followers. Ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, by genetics or by some other means, God has ensured that everyone must commit sins at least some of the time by passing a sinful nature on to succeeding generations.

If you believed that God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and you would reject him. Choice would not be involved. In such a case, I would use your own argument against you and tell you that you might be making a bad decision. Now I ask you, which do you consider to be more immoral, lying, or the atrocities that I mentioned? What can we do except examine the evidence? The Biblical and extra-Biblical evidence clearly indicates that God is not the moral, loving, caring, compassionate being that the Bible says he is. Logically, no loving, rational being ever does anything that he does not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or in the future. There is not any credible evidence that many of God’s actions and allowances benefit him or anyone else. What kind of God would deliberately withhold additional information from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it? Such detestable behavior could not possibly benefit God or those people in any way. What kind of God would allow some of his most devout and faithful followers to starve to death when he had food in abundance? Such detestable behavior could not possibly benefit God or those people in any way.

You are not a decent person. You have abandoned your principles and morals in God's case and endorsed atrocities that you would not accept if anyone other than God committed and allowed them. Under our legal system, many of God's actions and allowances are punishable by life in prison or death. Your buddy Pascal was not a decent person. If he were at this forum, he would tell you that you will go to hell because you are not a Roman Catholic. If you had been alive during your buddy John Calvin's time, I do not doubt that you would have endorsed his policy of having Christians killed who did not agree with his religious views.

How about some definitions for the words "atrocity", and "atrocious"? A web definition for the world "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane".

The Merriam-Webster's Online Dictionary defines the word "atrocious" as follows:

1 : extremely wicked, brutal, or cruel : BARBARIC

2 : APPALLING, HORRIFYING <the atrocious weapons of modern war>

3 a : utterly revolting : ABOMINABLE <atrocious working conditions> b : of very poor quality <atrocious handwriting>

Johnny: Those definitions pretty much describe God. If God were mentally incompetent, how would he act any differently than he acts now? The correct answer is, not any differently at all. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own followers. No mentally competent being helps AND kills people, and allows them to starve to death.

Since God commits sins according to his own standards, he is not in a position to fairly and morally criticize anyone else who commits sins. It is called hypocrisy, or didn't you know that? God is the most dangerous being in the world, and there is not anything that anyone can do about his evil ways.

Your God exists only on copies of copies of ancient texts. Neither you nor anyone else can ask God for any tangible necessity of life and be assured that you will receive it. Spritual benefits are subjective. It is an absurd notion that a loving God would always refuse to show up tangibly, in person, and have discussions with people, refuse to prevent hurricanes from killing people, and refuse to protect people from murderers and rapists.

By the way, I am ready to start a new thread on inerrancy if you will promise to immediately participate in it, and frequently make posts. How about it? There is lots of excellent evidence that the Bible contains errors.

Berggy

I would like to have this topic conerning inerrancy made. I want to see your evidence concerning this matter.

Ghostdog

Christians hate it, End of story.

Johnny Skeptic

You can start by visiting http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../4evide92.html. Of course, without reasonable proof which writings originally comprised the Bible, and whether or not the writers always spoke for God and not for themselves, the issue of inerrancy is not really all that important.