arnoldo

Your arguments sound something like circular reasoning.

circular reasoning

Johnny Skeptic

Nope, a God who treated everyone well would attract a lot more followers than the God of the Bible has attracted.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: I accept your admission of defeat regarding the following post that I posted before, including my question in the opening post that you have never answered because you do not want to embarrass yourself. You and sugarhitman are the most evasive Christians that I have ever come across. You both frequently and conveniently refuse to directly reply to my arguments, but you want skeptics to directly reply to your arguments. That is not fair. The undecided crowd interpret evasiveness as a sign of weakness. It is not likely that you will be able to convince any skeptic at this forum to become a Christian. The undecided crowd is essentially the only crowd who you have a chance to influence. They are surely not impressed with your evasiveness. If William Craig debated in public debates like you do, his evasiveness would cause him to lose every debate, even in the opinions of Christians.

If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. I would not become a Christian unless the supposed God of the Bible answered some questions to my satisfaction, but surely some people would if If Pat Robertson accurately predicted when and where some natural disasters would occur, month, day, and year.

If another supposed God showed up, what would Christians do? If he proved that he had great powers, Christians would have tangible, firsthand evidence. Is tangible, firsthand evidence the very best kind if evidence? Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

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.

In those cases, obviously, Jesus’ words alone were not enough to convince some people to accept him.

In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says “So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.” That Scripture shows that even though Jesus had performed many miracles, and had appeared to hundreds of people after he rose from the dead, and even though Jesus had criticized Thomas for wanting tangible, firsthand evidence that he had risen from the dead, and even though the Holy Spirit had come to the church, God was willing to provide Christians with even more tangible, firsthand evidence. That is suspicious.

That is gibberish. The God of the Bible does not exist. No loving God would only want people to hear the Gospel message if another person told them about, and would only want people to have enough food to eat if they were able to obtain it through human effort.

You still have not answered the question that I asked in my opening post. Why is that? I said:

ksen

There was this guy that claimed to be God and during his life it is claimed that he fed thousands, healed many people, and cast many demons out of people as well as personally telling them how they could inherit eternal life.

The people he visited ended up having him crucified.

So I'm not buying the "nicer God = more followers" argument.

Johnny Skeptic

Let me put it another way. If I somehow acquired the powers of a God, and was able to create my own world, and humans, and did not seriously injure and kill people like the God of the Bible does, I would be able to attract a lot more followers than the God of the Bible has attracted. I am not suggesting that a God should create a perfect world, only a better world. A reasonable argument can be made that humans are better able to enjoy life if they have some obstacles and difficulties to overcome, or some goals to achieve that are not easy to achieve, but a reasonable argument cannot be made that Hurricane Katrina was necessary in order for God to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals. In addition, a reasonable argument cannot be made that it was necessary for God to force animals to kill each other in order to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals. Some time ago, a Christian asked me where I would stop, with having God prevent traffic accidents, common colds, and some other things. I forget what I told him, but my current answer is that specific details are not important, only whether or not God would have been able to convince a lot more people to love him and accept him if he had wanted to without unduly interfering with anyone’s free will. The correct answer has to be “yes” since no Christian could make a valid claim that the tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced some people to accept Jesus when his words were not enough to convince them unduly interfered with their free will.

It is interesting to note that after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God told Adam and Eve that life on earth would become very difficult. Incredibly, ever since, followers of the God of the Bible have not only been trying to undo God's tough mandate to Adam and Eve by for example trying to prevent and cure diseases that God caused, but actually ask God to help them undo his own tough mandate by for example asking God to heal them of diseases. God essentialy says "I will kill people and destroy houses with hurricanes." Christians essentially say "Not if I and my hurricane shutters can prevent it." That is ridiculous. Since God chooses to kill people and animals with hurricanes, and to destroy houses, Christians should not try to prevent him from doing that.

It is interesting to note that when God creates hurricanes and sends them where he wants to send them, he treats people, animals, plants, and houses the same as if it does not make any difference to him what he kills and destroys.

Please answer the question that I asked in my opening post.

Johnny Skeptic

Let me put it another way. If I somehow acquired the powers of a God, and was able to create my own world, and humans, and did not seriously injure and kill people like the God of the Bible does, I would be able to attract a lot more followers than the God of the Bible has attracted. I am not suggesting that a God should create a perfect world, only a better world. A reasonable argument can be made that humans are better able to enjoy life if they have some obstacles and difficulties to overcome, or some goals to achieve that are not easy to achieve, but a reasonable argument cannot be made that Hurricane Katrina was necessary in order for God to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals. In addition, a reasonable argument cannot be made that it was necessary for God to force animals to kill each other in order to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals. Some time ago, a Christian asked me where I would stop, with having God prevent traffic accidents, common colds, and some other things. I forget what I told him, but my current answer is that specific details are not important, only whether or not God would have been able to convince a lot more people to love him and accept him if he had wanted to without unduly interfering with anyone’s free will. The correct answer has to be “yes” since no Christian could make a valid claim that the tangible, firsthand evidence that convinced some people to accept Jesus when his words were not enough to convince them unduly interfered with their free will.

It is interesting to note that after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God told Adam and Eve that life on earth would become very difficult. Incredibly, ever since, followers of the God of the Bible have not only been trying to undo God's tough mandate to Adam and Eve by for example trying to prevent and cure diseases that God caused, but actually ask God to help them undo his own tough mandate by for example asking God to heal them of diseases. God essentialy says "I will kill people and destroy houses with hurricanes." Christians essentially say "Not if I and my hurricane shutters can prevent it." That is ridiculous. Since God chooses to kill people and animals with hurricanes, and to destroy houses, Christians should not try to prevent him from doing that.

It is interesting to note that when God creates hurricanes and sends them where he wants to send them, he treats people, animals, plants, and houses the same as if it does not make any difference to him what he kills and destroys.

Please answer the question that I asked in my opening post.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would at least one more Jew have accepted Jesus? Please answer the question yes or no. If you wish to elaborate further, that is fine, but please start with a yes or no answer.

Why doesn't the Bible contain any indisputable prophecies? No reasonable motives regarding why God makes disputable prophecies = no God of the Bible.

Exciter

Very well then. The answer is still no. More Jews would not have accepted Jesus. Why you ask? Not everyone, Jewish or non Jew is supposed to accept Jesus.

The God of the OT Bible is evil and mean to most everyone no matter what the humans try and do to please Him, so why would it be a big surprise that less Jews accepted Jesus? God probably sets some kind of quota on how many will accept Jesus, and it's quite obvious He only wanted however many did accept Jesus to accept Jesus.

So it doesn't matter if Micah 5:2 was written differently and came with a money back guarantee, no more and no less Jews would have accepted Jesus!

They would have found other reasons not to accept Jesus.

Johnny Skeptic

If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, why wouldn't more Jews have accepted Jesus?

What Old Testament prophecies were Jews expecting the messiah to fulfill?

Why doesn't the Bible contain any indisputable prophecies?

Are you aware that a God would not have any trouble at all convincing everyone that he can predict the future?

Johnny Skeptic

You did not answer the question. Please do so. I asked a question. Your answer did not answer the question. If you do not wish to embarrass yourself by directly answering the question, just say so.