Dogfish

So, once you rationalized the bible as the word of god to yourself, you can rational anything!

rhutchin

When we read the text starting from v 1, we can see that the challenge put to Jesus was to go to Judea and show Himself openly by doing many miracles with which to challenge the Jews with His power. Thus, Jesus declines to go to the feast to confront the Jews but goes secretly (without raising a stir) and teaches in the temple.

George S

One textual analyst, Bart Ehrman who is Chair of the Department of Religious Studies at UNC, disagrees. He makes note that there are more factual errors in the Bible than just a few.

"Turns out there are thousands of errors in the New Testament, Ehrman says, and several places where passages were added to early versions of the Bible." -- http://research.unc.edu/endeavors/sp...feature_05.php

George S

Spin it how you will, he still said he would do one thing and did another.

rhutchin

What else is there to rationalize? You have but to believe the Bible and thereby know your destiny or not believe and deny that which will come anyway.

rhutchin

He said that He would not do the one thing and instead did something different.

George S

How do you know? We have been around that tree. Presuppose the truth of the Bible without reasons. Believe it because of a choice to believe it not founded on evidence. (If there were convincing evidence it would not take faith, now, would it.)

A god set up a most brutal game. He says he will punish everyone for disobeying these rules (which rules cannot be met by anyone -- everyone "covets" (wants what someone else has)). Failure to adhere to the rules results in eternal punishment with no parole. Unless... unless you are of the Chosen People that this god has designated. Then you are okay. And even if you aren't one of the Chosen, there is a further out, to wit, use belief magic. And worship magic.

This kind of god is a projection of what a tyrant king of the era in which it was written might do.

Which of the hundreds of religions that are decided by faith is the correct one? How do you know?

George S

Why yes, I see that you agree that he lied when he said that he would not attend a particular feast. Even though he apparently at the time he said it (since he knows all the future) knew it was a lie.

That deceit is not always wrong might be a reasonable conclusion. He apparently disagrees with "thou shalt not lie" and has modified it to "thou shalt not lie when that deceit is harmful in some way."

Not the first time he abrogated and corrected (amazing isn't it, to correct the very Word of God) the Old Testament.

Only God, the theory goes, could change His Perfect Word (hmmm) and update it to The More Perfect Word.

How is the Perfect Word of God changeable? God changes his mind from time to time? You mean he made a perfect decision at one time that he regrets and changes to a more perfect decision later? This denies that the first decision was perfect, doesn't it?

Scripture both claims that the Word of God is perfect absolute truth for all time and then goes and changes it as well. This is contradictory, isn't it?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: I will number my arguments for easy reference. Since this post is large, if you wish, you can reply to this post one argument per post.

Because I know that you are typically evasive, I will frequently repost any arguments that you conveniently refuse to reply to so that the undecided crowd will know that you are evasive. It has been my experience that when fundamentalist Christians get into trouble, they either completely disregard a post even if it is posted a number of times, like you have done with the Nebuchadnezzar issue, or they claim that the skeptics are being repetitive, even though they are frequently repetitive themselves, which certainly includes you.

Argument #1

But my argument is exactly the opposite of what you said. What you said assumes that I WOULD believe it to be true. What I said was that you WOULD NOT believe it to be true. Not only would I not believe it was true, but I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone to heaven, although I would hope that he would. I would oppose the Bible for the same reasons that I oppose it now. Some of my reasons are as follows:

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 John.

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

Argument #2

But inerrant means not any errors at all. Why did God break his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to conquer Tyre? Why did God inspire so many confusing writings. Even Christians have killed each other over disputes about interpretions.

Argument #3

It is important to note that truth is much more important than inerrancy. Copies of the New York Times are inerrant, but some of the claims are false.

The Bible itself does not preclude a reasonably possibility of tampering with the texts. The last page of the book of Revelation warns against tampering with the texts. If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Of course, it would be a simple matter for some skeptics to change parts of the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and deceive at least a few people at least some of the time.

Argument #4

And with good reason. Many people hope that a God does not exist who needlessly kills babies and innocent animals, and causes animals to kill each other, and who unmercifully endorses eternal punishment without parole.

Many skeptics are loving, helpful, and forgiving, are wonderful parents, and are productive members of society. In addition, many skeptics keep most of the Ten Commandments better than many Christians do. Such being the case, it seems to me that the main issue is not how skeptics act, but whether or not they acknowledge that the God of the Bible exists, and accept him. Regarding the existence of the God of the Bible, assuming that he exists, he withholds evidence that would convince some skeptics to believe that he exists. That is wrong. Regarding accepting the God of the Bible, even if skeptics believed that the God of the Bible exists, there are lots of good reasons why they would not be able to accept him even if they wanted to. Following are some examples:

1 - Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb.

2 - Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed.

3 - God killed babies at Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt.

4 - Even in the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Sapphira, but did not kill people who acted far worse than Ananias and Saphira did. Paul accused the Corinthians of doing things that even the Gentiles did not do, but he still called them brothers.

5 - God kills people with hurricanes, or has empowered someone else to kill people with hurricanes. Contrary to what you claim, there is no such thing as a natural disaster. From a Christian perspective, hurricanes cannot be natural disasters. They have to be supernatural diasters, unless you have credible evidence that hurricanes originally created themselves and have always decided where they go on their own.

6 - God causes animals to kill each other. That is wrong.

7 - God kills animals without just cause. That is wrong.

8 - God unmercifully endorses eternal punishment without parole. That is wrong.

9 - Any being can claim that he is good, but just because a being declares that he is good does not necessarily mean that he is good, especially if he breaks his own rules like God sometimes does. Christians usually do not like hypocrisy, but they do not mind God's hypocrisy.

10 - Logically, there is not a necessary correlation between power and good character. That is one reason why Pascal's Wager is not valid. No man can force himself to love a God just because he believes that God is able to punish him.

11 - Many skeptics are far more moral than the God of the Bible is, and yet you criticize skeptics. Why is that? If skeptics were able to discover a cure for cancer, they would do so. On the other hand, God refuses to do so. Some skeptics give food to hungry people. There is not any empirical evidence that God gives food to anyone. Why is that? James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Why do you suppose that God inspired James to write that? It couldn't have been because God wanted to prevent anyone from starving to death.

Argument #5

But I have already proven that you are only interested in what the evidence PROMISES, not in the QUALITY of the evidence. If the very same quality of evidence said that God will send everyone to hell, you would be using some of the same arguments against the Bible that skeptics use.

Argument #6

Exactly, which reasonably proves that it is parents' choice, not God's choice which parents he will use. It is an absurd claim that God prefers to use Christian parents to teach their children about him than using Muslim parents to teach their children about him. If the God of the Bible does not exist, the Gospel message would be spread exactly like it has been spread, by human effort.

Argument #7

The story of Noah is probably false. The vast majority of geologists do not believe that a global flood occured. Even some evangelical Christian geologists do not believe that a global flood occured, and have said that conservative Christians who claim that a global flood occured undermine Christianity.

Some conservative Christians claim that flood advocates have misinterpreted what the Bible says about the flood, and that the Bible does not mean that a global flood occured.

If Noah's group repopulated the earth, a claim that cannot be historically verified, and if the flood occured in 2344 B.C., which would have been the case if the earth is 6,000 years old, and if the Old Testament genealogies of Adam through Noah are accurate, how do you account for the fact that there is not any mention of the God of the Bible in ancient Chinese historical records, nor in that ancient historical records of any other culture. Even if the ancient Chinese rejected the God of the Bible, they would have known about him because Noah's group repopulated China.

Regardless, today, most Syrian parents who are Muslims do not teach their children the Gospel message. That is obviously because it is their choice not to do so, as it is obvious that it is the choice of Christian parents to teach their children the Gospel message. In both cases, God has nothing to do with it.

Argument #8

Do you consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer?

Argument #9

Are you a YEC (Young Earth Creationist)?

Argument #10

Or, if the God of the Bible does not exist, we find exactly what we would expect to find regarding how the Gospel message was spread. We would also find exactly what we would expect to find regarding the distribution of tangible benefits. If the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. I challenge you to reasonably establish a cause/correlation basis between asking God for a tangible benefit, and receiving it. If the God of the Bible does not exist, the only benefit that anyone could ask God for an expect to received would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits.

Although you have said that Christians should ask God to help them, many skeptics have better health than many Christians do. In addition, many skeptics do not live in poverty like many Christians do. There are not any good reasons that I can think of why God would want to provide tangible benefits to skeptics more than he would want to provide tangible benefits to Christians, but if the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why there is not a reasonably provable correlation between asking God for a tangible benefit and receiving a tangible benefit from God. In addition, I am not aware of any good reasons why God would want to mimic the way that tangible benefits would be distributed if the universe is naturalistic, which gives many people the impression that God is irrational, and/or immoral, and more likely, that he does not exist.

No moral God would be much more interested in people's spiritual needs that he would be in their physical needs. Consider the following Scriptures:

James 2

14 What [doth it] profit, my brethren, though a man say he hath faith, and have not works? can faith save him?

15 If a brother or sister be naked, and destitute of daily food,

16 And one of you say unto them, Depart in peace, be [ye] warmed and filled; notwithstanding ye give them not those things which are needful to the body; what [doth it] profit?

17 Even so faith, if it hath not works, is dead, being alone.

18 Yea, a man may say, Thou hast faith, and I have works: shew me thy faith without thy works, and I will shew thee my faith by my works.

19 Thou believest that there is one God; thou doest well: the devils also believe, and tremble.

20 But wilt thou know, O vain man, that faith without works is dead?

21 Was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered Isaac his son upon the altar?

22 Seest thou how faith wrought with his works, and by works was faith made perfect?

James obviously was more loving than God is, and knew that people have tangible needs too, not just spiritual needs.

If God gave food to Adam and Eve, and gave manna to the Jews, why did he do it? Why did Jesus give food to some people? In one case, the New Testament says that he gave food to people out of compassion, but that was not possible since God has refused to give food to millions of people who have died of starvation.

Today is a much better judge than the past is. We cannot observe the past, but we can observe the present. Today, there is much too much randomness in the world, that is easily explained by the laws of physics, to confirm that the God of the Bible exists, and that if he exists, that he is moral.

Argument #11

You are correct that if the God of the Bible does not exist, Jesus would not have performed many miracles, and would not have risen from the dead. However, if the God of the Bible does not exist, the Gospel message could still have been made up, and Jesus could still have been crucified. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes miracle healing. Why do you believe that is was any different back then?

Argument #12

Even if Jesus rose from the dead, why did he rise from the dead? What historical evidence do you have that Jesus said what he said about himself? It is well-known that Matthew and Luke did a good deal of borrowing from Mark. It is also apparent that the anonymous Gospel writers seldom claimed that they saw Jesus perform miracles, and seldom revealed who their sources were.

Argument #13

Because it is well-documented in Kosmin and Lachman's "One Nation Under God." Billy Graham endorses the book. If I could prove to your satisfaction that such is the case, how would you account for the difference?

Argument #14

Because he convinces a much smaller percentage of men to become Christians.

Argument #15

Why do you think that a younger skeptic would even want to become a Christian, or a Buddhist? Why would an older skeptic want to become a Christian, or a Buddhist?

Argument #16

Because he convinces a much smaller percentage of elderly skeptics to become Christians. Since elderly people are much less likely to change their worldview no matter what their worldview is, the best explanation is that the God of the Bible does not exist. If he does exist, you need to explain why elderly people are much less likely to change their worldview no matter what their worldview is.

Argument #17

For the same reason that all religions exist, which is because people made them up.

Argument #18

The typical participant and reader at the IIDB is too intelligent to be influenced by your poorly prepared posts, not to mention that the typical participant and reader is not impressed with your frequent evasiveness. Your typical post is essentially "the Bible says so," and "the Bible is inerrant because it says that it is inerrant." By all means, please continue to use you inept approach that is nothing more than uncorroborated guesses and speculations. You are an asset to skepticism.

rhutchin

I don't think you are grasping the context in which this occurs. We are first told--

3 His brothers therefore said to Him, “Depart from here and go into Judea, that Your disciples also may see the works that You are doing.
4 “For no one does anything in secret while he himself seeks to be known openly. If You do these things, show Yourself to the world.”

Jesus declined to do so. We are then told--

10 But when His brothers had gone up, then He also went up to the feast, not openly, but as it were in secret.

Jesus declined to go up openly (with great fanfare to draw attention to Himself) but he went up secretly.

There is no lie here. The context makes clear what Jesus had been challenged (dared) to do. He refused to do it the way He had been dared to do.