rhutchin

Actually, it is because there is no profit to you to be converted to Calvinism.

Sarcasm aside, I think your question is, "Why don't you pray that God will save all the IIDB'ers?" You are right to an extent in your comment. God may have no intent to save all the IIDB'ers. The Bible tells us that God is willing for all the IIDB'ers to be saved but it does not tell us that God will save all the IIDB'ers.

What I can pray for, and what I did, is that God would allow all the IIDB'ers to understand the Bible and to know their eternal destination and not be ignorant of the things that are to happen to them. I think that is sufficent. Given that many IIDB'ers seem to be pretty ignorant of that which the Bible says, I think that is a good request. That way, all the IIDB'ers would know what they are rejecting. Everyone should know that. No IIDB'ers should have to stand before God and complain about never having been told that they could not get into heaven.

rhutchin

Evading the issue is not weasling out of it (although maybe it is the best you can do).

It's a non issue. People are still accountable. Again let's use this rule, God holds people accountable for doing to others those things that they do not want done to them.

As you have demonstrated above, you cannot think of a way to weasel out of this accountability. People can be held accountable for their actions and God does not have to provide a way for them to escape that accountability.

All your griping about what God should do is to cover over what you know to be true -- you have sinned and do not deserve to be let into heaven.

rhutchin

The historical accounts collected in the Bible.

And all you have is the hope that there is no God.

Johnny Skeptic

Ok, you find a righteous amputee and ask him to ask God for a new limb, or ask God yourself to provide him with a new limb. You do believe in intercessory prayer, don't you? You can bet that God will never in this life instantly create a new limb for an amputee, that is, unless he decides to stop discriminating against amputees. If you are not able to determine which Christians are righteous, then reliable tests are not possible and your suggestion of a test is a fraud. Are you a rightous man? If Pat Robertson went to the media and told them that he was going to pray that God would give an amputee named John Smith a new leg, or if John Smith went to the media and said that he (John Smith) was going to ask God for a new leg, and John Smith got a new leg, what do you suppose would happen around the world as a result?

One million people died in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians. I suppose that you believe that not one of those Christians who died of starvation who asked God to provide them with food was a righteous person, and that not one of the Christians who died in the Bubonic Plague who asked God for help was a righteous person. The Bubonic Plague, which was caused by a bacteria that God created, killed one fourth of the people in Europe.

The best conclusion is that there is not any credible evidence that God has anything whatsoever to do with the distribution of tangible benefits to humans, or to animals for that matter.

Is it your position that God's plagues and hurricanes single out non-righteous people to attack? If the God of the Bible exists, it seems to me that he rewards and attacks people indiscriminately with no proven regard for their needs or worldviews. While tangible benefits are frequently distributed to those who are not in greatest need, including to some very evil people who never pray for anything, and who never become Christians, they are frequently withheld from those who are in greatest need. This gives millions of people the impression that God does not exist, or that is he does exist, he is mentally incompetent. No loving, rational being helps people AND kills people, especially not indiscriminately.

Please do not forget to tell us whether or not you are a righteous man.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you believe that God should be involved in crime prevention, or that he is already involved in crime prevention? Do you believe that God should prevent hurricanes from occuring?

rhutchin

I have a better test. Let's get a group of people together who will commit to serving God and have them pray every day for God's protection and provision. Let's get another group of people together who commit to doing everything on their own without any help from God. Let God shine the sun on both groups and provide rain for harvests to both groups. At the end of their lives, let's look to see if there is any difference in the experiences of the two groups.

rhutchin

If people want God involved in crime prevention, they should be free to ask God for help. God should not be expected to intervene (or interfere) if not asked. Same with hurricanes.

Johnny Skeptic

God has sinned, so he does not have the right to judge anyone. Decent people do not have a choice whether or not to love a God who has committed the numerous atrocities that God has committed against mankind. Your definition of the word "atrocity" is much different than decent peoples' definition. If God told lies, you would consider that to be an atrocity, but when it comes to God’s atrocities, many of which are much worse than lying is, you have somehow been able to abandon your principles and morals. A web definition for the word "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane". God is definitely shockingly cruel and inhumane. Consider the following:

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

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

3 - God killed babies at Sodom and Gomorrah

4 - God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout followers. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own followers.

5 - God empowered a savage Devil to help him attack mankind.

6 - God is willing that some people starve to death even though he has food in abundance. In the Irish Potato Famine alone, one million people died of starvation, most of whom were Christians. It is probable that many if not most of the Christians desperately asked God to provide them with food, but to no avail. James says that if a man refuses give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. This makes God a hypocrite. Human effort alone could never feed all of the hungry people in the world, and human technology at this time is not able to prevent God’s killer hurricanes from seriously injuring and killing people, and destroying their property.

7 - Today, it appears that all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics. This is to be expected if God does not exist. If he does exist, then he frequently distributes tangible benefits to those who are not in greatest need, but frequently withholds tangible benefits from those who are in greatest need, and with no provable regard for a person’s worldview.

Do you believe that hurricanes do or do not operate in a random manner?

8 - God deliberately withholds information from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it. If God clearly revealed himself to everyone, no man could complain that he did not have adequate information, in which case no man would have any excuses. As it is, on judgment day, any man who has never heard the Gospel message who Jesus chooses to send to hell can rightly say that the rules were not clearly disclosed. In addition, on judgment day, any man who has heard the Gospel message and rejected it, and would have accepted it if he had had more information, can rightly say that he was treated unfairly.

In the thread on 2 Peter 3:9, you said “If God revealed Himself in the manner you are describing, then everyone would obviously become a Christian.” I replied “But you have said that the Devil knows that God exists, but has rejected God, so you have refuted your own argument. In addition, millions of decent people would not be able to accept God even if they believed that he exists.”

God is able to provide additional information that would convince some people to become Christians who were not previously convinced, which means that he is not nearly as loving and merciful as you claim he is. If a man tells his son on numerous occasions not to drive when intoxicated, you would probably claim that the son had been provided with sufficient information, but you most certainly would not claim that if the father saw his son try to drive when intoxicated that the father should not still tell his son not to drive when intoxicated. It is called love and compassion.

Human effort alone could never let everyone know about the Gospel message. In the first century, it is not likely that anyone who lived in China could have known about the Gospel message unless God told them about it, and history has shown that God has little or no interest in telling people about the Gospel message himself. If God provided me with additional evidence, I might become a Christian.

If the Bible is true, then I am refusing to tell people about the Gospel message out of ignorance, not out of intent. On the other hand, God refuses to tell some people about the Gospel message out of intent. This makes God much more culpable than I am.

9 - God endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole. If mercy is anything, it is forgoing eternal punishment without parole even when justice, in this case, God’s justice, requires it. Otherwise, mercy is meaningless.

10 - No loving, rational being, whether a human or a God, ever intentionally does anything without the hope of benefiting himself and/or someone else at present, or in the future. It has not been reasonably established that God derives any benefits whatsoever from making people blind, deaf, and dumb. It is most certainly not necessary to make a man blind, deaf, and dumb in order to convince him to become a Christian. In fact, one of the best ways to convince a man not to become a Christian would be to make him blind, deaf, and dumb. It most certainly is not necessary to allow a man to starve to death in order to convince him to become a Christian. If God had always provided all of the hungry people in the world with food, and had always told everyone, tangibly, in person, that he was the source of the food, the Christian church would surely be a lot larger than it is today.

11 - In the Old Testament, God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. In addition, the New Testament does not clearly oppose slavery, even though it easily could have if God exists. If it did, the world would be a much better place in which to live in.

Now you can claim that I have not provided sufficient evidence of atrocities that God has committed against mankind if you wish, but rational minded and fair minded people know that if the God of the Bible exists, he is either evil or mentally incompetent. Under our legal system, many of God’s actions and allowances are punishable by life imprisonment or death. If telling lies is wrong, it is wrong no matter who tells lies, including God. If refusing to feed hungry people is wrong, it is wrong no matter who refuses to feed hungry people, including God. If killing people is wrong, it is wrong matter who kills people, including God. Hypocrisy is wrong no matter who is a hypocrite, including God. Are you actually going to tell us that telling lies is worse than killing people and allowing people to starve to death when you have plenty of food?

JPD

That there is no Biblical God. Please get this to sink in so that we don't have to go over this again. He's one of a number in the running for those who like that sort of thing in their lives. Unfortunately he needs to work on his PR a bit. You obviously find him to be all that you're looking for in a God. That's great for you. In your mind you know that he knows that we find his concept repellent. Has he communicated this to you? Of course he knew this right from the outset yet went ahead and presented humans with what he obviously knows will not wash with everyone. So he knew he would fail with certain people. And it isn't our failure - its his. He knows the kind of evidence that would work for each of us - discussing it with you would be totally pointless since for all you know we're lying.

JPD

So you're going to control the other variables then yes? Please describe exactly how you are going to ensure this. I mean, this needs to be done properly doesn't it? The hypothesis would be that any differences would be due to the effectiveness of prayer. Should the prayer group have a worse experience will the result be accepted or will excuses be scratched around for?