Viti

Godwin's Law already on page two. Nice, Truthtells, you just ended and lost the debate.

Roland

The key witness to Christianity's pivotal event - the resurrection - gives contradictory testimony.

In Matthew's account, Mary Magdalene claims to have learned of Jesus' resurrection from an angel.

In John's account, she learns of it from Jesus himself.

Steven Carr

You would think that if people are sacrificing their children, then God would order the children to be killed, wouldn't you?

But such is not the case. God will allow them to keep sacrificing children, because he wants people to come to know Him.

Ezekiel 25:26 I let them become defiled through their gifts — the sacrifice of every firstborn —that I might fill them with horror so they would know that I am the LORD.'

Steven Carr

Even when people see with their own eyes, they refuse to believe.

What can be done with people who cannot see or hear?

TomboyMom

This just in: TruthTells banned.

Johnny Skeptic

Well, my arguments might be out of place at this forum, but here they are:

Matthew 14:14 says "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick." While healing sick people is of no eternal significance whatsoever, the most compassionate thing that God could possibly do would be to do everything that he could to help insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. God has not done that. If heaven is the greatest reward ever promised, and if hell is the greatest punishment every promised, then a loving God would be compelled by his loving nature to do everything that he could to help insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell.

John 3:16 says "For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life." 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." The verses describe a God who would go to much greater lengths to help people than merely healing them of their illnesses. If Jesus exists, if he returned to earth today and performed miracles all over the world, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced, proving that the only reason that they rejected God was because of insufficient evidence. In such a case, God could not possibly have anything to lose, and mankind would have much to gain.

There are some Christians at this forum whose scholarship is impressive, but no amount of scholarship can adequately justify God's actions and allowances. God is best defined by his actions and allowances, not by ancient writings that describe him. If the God of the Bible exists, what can one know about his specific existence without the Bible? Nothing at all, but that didn't bother God at all since he allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without having heard the Gospel message. If the God of the Bible exists, what can one know about his nature from the Bible and personal experience? Most notably that he refuses to do everything that he can in order to help insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. Based upon this evidence, I could not will myself to love the God of the Bible even if I was certain that he existed unless he explained to my satisfaction why he refuses to do everything that he can in order to help insure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell.

It has been my experience over the years that even sophisticated, well-read, and educated Christians have much more trouble debating philosophical issues than they do debating apologetic issues. I would not hesitate to take on Gary Habermas, William Lane Craig, J. P. Moreland, or N. T. Wright regarding debating the nature of God. I would have a significant advantage from the beginning of the debates because I would concede for the sake of argument that the God of the Bible exists, and that Jesus rose from the dead, leaving them with the impossible task of attempting to adequately justify God's actions and allowances. Oh I know that they would bring up the ontological argument and other arguments, but I am confident that I could embarrass them. I do not mean to be prideful or boastful. It is just that I am confident of my positions.

No Robots

This is like saying that you have no problem wrestling one-legged opponents. Why don't you try that "God-intoxicated" Christianissimus, Spinoza?

Johnny Skeptic

Well, you have ample opportunity to attempt to refute my arguments, so where's the beef?

No Robots

No beef. I'm just sayin' that if you want something to really sink into, try Spinoza. For example, there is his definition of "God" as substance. In essence, he argues for the stoic Logos, the ordering, dynamic principle which underlies all reality. This is the God of Spinoza that Einstein ascribed to.

Further, Spinoza asserts that Christ's resurrection was spiritual. What does that mean? Well, you'd have to look at what he says about the union of the body and the mind. In other words, in Spinoza I think you will find an excellent philosophical debating opponent.

Johnny Skeptic

That would be quite impossible because Spinoza has been dead for centuries. If someone at this forum wishes to attempt to refute my arguments with some of his arguments, please do so.