Johnny Skeptic

Now really, Helpmabob, do you really expect to get away with that? I said:

I guess you support changing our legal system so that people are punished for crimes that their grandparents committed. You sure have a strange taste in Gods. I would think that you would choose one who has better character, or become an agnostic pending the possibility of the disclosure of more information than we have at this time.

Amaleq13

No, you invent specious subcategories of logic. What you are suggesting is as ludicrous as the notion of "human math" and "divine math".

Helpmabob

God has said at various times: “I am the vine; the way, the truth and the life; the living water; the bread of life. He never said, “See how logical I am”. If that is what you want from a God, why not find a professor of logic and ask him to be your God?
One is hopeless without God. You’re welcome to hold that view of my opinion on logic - now allow me to give my actual opinion on God’s logic. If I was privy to scientific proof of the existence of God and what exactly were all of His purposes here on earth, and in heaven and hell - in relation to all the 6 billion people that currently inhabit earth, plus all that have gone before and will follow after – can you guess how much more contented I would be? I’ll tell you: none whatsoever, because as I have learned in practice, my ways are inferior to God’s ways.

I’m hopeful.Not necessary. The crimes committed against God by ourselves are enough to condemn us. We are all personally culpable. Good news everyone: because sin entered through one man, the first Adam, so sin can logically be pardoned through the sacrifice of the one man, Jesus.It sounds like you dislike God’s wrath. But through God and from God I have discovered mountains of love, the heights of which I will never be able to scale. And I severely doubt if a return to agnosticism has anything remotely comparable to offer me.

I reckon human math(s) = divine math(s). I stand by what I have written above about logic and prophecy though.

EarlOfLade

The previous post is an excellent example that the most incredible arguments can be pulled out of ones rear when needed and without regards to reality.

None of what is said above is documented anywhere by your socalled god, but is taken out of thin air to fabricate an argument of support.

spin

I'm glad that when all else fails you can still manage to attempt to proselytise.

Free association. It doesn't help you here though. The reason why you don't communicate is because one is hopeless without logic. If you can't communicate then your efforts are wasted. You may think that the effort is worth it anyway, but that's just self-gratification. There, there, there, it's alright, Helpmabob.

Do you give lessons in the art of the non sequitur? You'll have to lift your act, Helpmabob.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

I know, and if God healed all of the people who have cancer, you would not be pleased in any way whatsoever.

Why thank you. God punishes people for what their grandfathers did and you said that is not necessary. There is hope for you yet.

I guess that you believe that it is necessary for God create hurricanes and kill some of his most devout followers with them, right? Have you ever heard of cruel and unusual punishment? I guess not. Trust must be earned. God has not earned the trust of humans. Consistency is an important part of earning trust. Sometimes God heals people, but sometimes God hurts people and kills people. Exodus 4:11 says “And the LORD said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?” May I ask you what evidence you have that the God of the Bible is a moral being and not a being who is bi-polar and/or mentally incompetent? If you knew a man who sometimes deliberately injured and people, sometimes helped people, and was willing to risk his life in order to help some people, what conclusions would you make regarding the man’s mental health? Why should the moral actions of a man be considered any different from the moral actions of a God? What gives God the right to rule the universe? What evidence do you have that his judgments are fair and appropriate? What reasonable proof do you have that God is perfect? Any being can show up and declare that he is perfect, but by what criteria can we check out such a claim?

It HAS NOT been reasonably proven that it is necessary to hurt people and kill them in order to gain their trust.

Are you aware that there is not one single tangible blessing from God that anyone can always count on in this life? No one can always count on having enough food to eat, or being healed from disease. Small children cannot always count on their parents not being killed in an automobile accident. This indicates that if the God of the Bible exists, he has made certain that Christians and everyone else are in the same boat regarding the issues that I mentioned.

Well sure we are. Everyone makes mistakes, including God. The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people, including babies and innocent animals. God is culpable of committing the greatest possible crime. He has consistently refused to do everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell, and he is a liar to boot. 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." However, it is clear that God IS willing that some people perish or he would have done much more than he has done to prevent it.

Actually, sin entered the world when God entered the world.

All that you have are uncorroborated assertions that are built entirely upon faith. Tangible good things and bad things are distributed in a RANDOM manner. This DOES NOT indicate the involvement of a supernatural being. Evil people frequently enjoy much better health and finances than some of the most devout Christians. The follower of ANY religion can subjectively claim that they have received spiritual blessings, but no follower of ANY religion can claim that God is consistently interested in our tangible needs. If the God of the Bible does not exist, or if he is frequently apathetic regarding our tangible needs, and frequently rewards evil people who never become Christians with tangible blessings while frequently refusing to heal some of his most devout followers, what would we expect to find? The correct answer is, exactly what we have in the world today.

Amaleq13

Can you offer a rational explanation why this does not also apply to logic?

Gullwind

I've always thought this was rather odd. The claim is that Adam caused sin to enter the world, but according to Christian theology, Satan (as the serpent) was there first to tempt Eve. So wouldn't that mean that Satan brought sin into the world and not Adam?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helpmabob: Any being can arbitrarily claim that he is righteous, that he has the right to establish his version of absolute morality, and that he is worthy of being worshipped. All that you are saying is that God is worthy of being worshipped because he says that he is worthy of being worshipped, nothing more. You have committed the fallacy of circular reasoning. Consider the following:

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphi.../circular.html

…….in circular reasoning, the conclusion is contained in a single premise or assumption, while in a deductive argument the conclusion is derived from both premises. Consider the following exchanges:

Deductive Reasoning (Valid)

Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world?

Sports Fan #2: Because it is the fastest and highest scoring form of football, and whatever is the fastest and highest scoring form of football must be the most exciting sport in the world.

Circular Reasoning (Fallacious)

Sports Fan #1: What makes you say Australian Rules Football is the most exciting sport in the world?

Sports Fan #2: Because it is.

In both examples, the conclusion has been assumed in the premises. But the first argument follows a valid pattern: If P (fastest and highest scoring), then Q (most exciting). Aussie Rules Football is P (fastest and highest scoring), therefore Aussie Rules Football is Q (most exciting). But in the second example, the one for circular reasoning, the conclusion has been assumed entirely (or almost entirely) in a single premise. As a result, the conclusion of a circular argument can be seen as just a restatement of its only premise. It's like saying, "A is B, therefore A is B."

Johnny: If Jesus returned to earth and provided evidence like he supposedly did in the 1st century, there is no doubt whatsoever that some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Today, just like back then, the majority of humans place great importance upon compassion, and all humans place great importance on good health. Any being who was compassionate and healed people would easily be able to attract a lot of followers.

2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance.” However, God HAS NOT done everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell, and he IS willing that some people will perish or he would have done much more than he has to prevent it. Therefore, God is a liar, and no one should accept him. In fact, it is impossible for rational minded and fair minded people to accept the God of the Bible.

Helpmabob

Hi spin – I guess you are saying that unless and until I stop talking to God and about God and join the atheists, then you will not be happy with my communication methods? I don’t myself regard it as a zero-sum game. The gospel has power to which I need add nothing. If it depended on my art of communication, then it would not be drawing people to God the world over.

Pay heed to the prophets of old and cling to what is good, flee from evil. It is clear from your post that you can tell the difference.Therefore: 1. you believe in God and; 2. you understand the insidious nature of sin. All you need now is to know how to deal with it. This is exactly where biblical prophecies come in. The path is open now for you to do something proactive about it. And part of your reward is that you will gain an appreciation of what biblical prophecy really is. It is not primarily about proving there is a God and foretelling the future.Only one claims to forgive sins, as was prophetically written in the Old Testament.

Hi Amaleq - My reasoning is that it does not necessarily have to apply to logic. My reasoning is that, as Creator, God has made use of maths and physical properties and laws to build and maintain the planet in equilibrium. It is the same maths we use – maths concerns itself with the physical aspects of life. That much is clear by inspection of the world around us. Of course, humans are still discovering and understanding maths, whereas God had a perfect mathematical knowledge from the beginning. That divine logic and purpose is aligned with that of us created beings is not immediately clear and certainly highly doubtful.

Human maths can show how God did it, but human logic cannot show why God did it. That is where the Bible comes in.

Hi Gullwind – Temptation and sin are not synonymous.