wiccan windwalker

angra, medically speaking, how many days after a boy is born are his antibodies the highest? his blood clotting index? Think like a Hebrew! think outside the box my friend!

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: You have claimed that I have refused to do what God told me to do, but that is not true. The Bible writers told me what to do, not God. If God really wants everyone to know what he wants them to do, and if he loves everyone, and if he wants as many people as possible to avoid going to hell, he would show up in person, tangibly, and tell everyone what he wants them to do.

No loving God would ever do anything that he did not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or in the future. If the God of the Bible exists, he could not possibly have anything whatsoever to lose by clearly revealing his existence and his will to everyone, in person, tangibly, and the people who would accept him if they had additional information would have much to gain. That is the only kind of God that decent people are able to accept. You can’t convince anyone to love you by threatening them. That is why Pascal's Wager does not work.

God endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole. I would never do that. If mercy is anything, it is forgoing eternal punishment without parole even when justice, in this case, God's justice, demands it. Otherwise, mercy is meaningless.

The Bible is a hateful book. Consider the following Scriptures:

Revelation 14:9 And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand,

10 The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb:

11 And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name.

Revelation 9:1 And the fifth angel sounded, and I saw a star fall from heaven unto the earth: and to him was given the key of the bottomless pit.

2 And he opened the bottomless pit; and there arose a smoke out of the pit, as the smoke of a great furnace; and the sun and the air were darkened by reason of the smoke of the pit.

3 And there came out of the smoke locusts upon the earth: and unto them was given power, as the scorpions of the earth have power.

4 And it was commanded them that they should not hurt the grass of the earth, neither any green thing, neither any tree; but only those men which have not the seal of God in their foreheads.

5 And to them it was given that they should not kill them, but that they should be tormented five months: and their torment was as the torment of a scorpion, when he striketh a man.

6 And in those days shall men seek death, and shall not find it; and shall desire to die, and death shall flee from them.

Mark 14:21 The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born.

Such vicious hatred could only have come from the mind of man.

You have claimed that God is fair, but you cannot reasonably prove that God is fair to everyone. As a Calvinist, you believe that God chooses who he will reveal himself to. That is favoritism. Favoritism is not fair, especially unexplained favoritism. It is not likely that a loving God would reveal himself to skeptics who he knows will not accept him, and refuse to reveal himself to some skeptics who he knows would accept him if they had additional information.

If you have children, if they were drowning, would you be willing that any of them perish, or would you try to save all of them?

Who do you hold accountable for the Irish Potato Famine? Is it your position that only perfect people deserve not to starve to death? If God allowed all of the imperfect people in the world to starve to death, no one would be left alive. Ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, genetically or in some other way, God has ensured that everyone must commit sins at least some of the time. Otherwise some people would be perfect with no need of becoming saved.

It is an absurd notion that a loving God would tell Christians via James that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead, and refuse to feed hungry people himself. James told Christians to feed people, not righteous people. Obviously, God is a hypocrite. One of the best ways to convince an unrighteous man to become righteous is to give him food if he is hungry.

God created hurricanes and locusts, both of which destroy food supplies. No loving God would create hurricanes and destroy food supplies and kill people with them.

He who is best able to help people is most culpable of refusing to help people. Since God is much better able to help people than anyone else, he is much more culpable of refusing to help people than anyone else. True love will always provide help when those who ought to provide it refuse to provide it. Since God refuses to provide help when it is not available from any other source, rational minded and fair minded people have no chioce but to reject him.

Is it your position that hurricanes selectively seek out unrighteous people to injure and kill? What is your definition of a righteous man? Are you a righteous man? If bad things happen to a man, does that prove that he is unrighteous?

From a fundamentalist Christian perspective, after Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, by genetics or by some other process, God has passed a sinful nature on to all successive generations, thereby ensuring that everyone must commit sins some of the time. Otherwise, some people would be perfect, and the Bible most certainly does not say that it is possible for anyone to be perfect in this life. So, is it your position that God punishes people for committing sins when he has ensured that everyone must commit sins some of the time?

If God were mentally incompetent, how would he act any differently than he acts now? No mentally competent man helps AND kills people, including babies.

Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

Although Pascal tried to bait people into COMPARING Christianity to other worldviews, the verses that I quoted do not invite a COMPARISON between Christianity and other worldviews. Rather, they demand the assumption of a PROBABALITY and an EXPECTATION that God is who the Bible says he is. However, there is not any evidence at all that it is probable that God is who the Bible says he is. Do you deny this? Logically, it is not possible for a man to love a God with all of his heart, soul, and mind unless he has sufficient evidence that it is probable that God is who the Bible says he is. If God is evil, would you say that it is probable that he would not be able to deceive you? Of course you wouldn't. If a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible, he might always tell the truth, he might always tell lies, or he might sometimes tell the truth, and sometimes tell lies. Your task is to determine which is the case, which of course you cannot do.

Since the Bible cannot stand on its own merit without being compared with other worldviews, it is not worth accepting.

The best decisions are the best informed decisions. Science and education provide better informed decisions. Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution in the part of the 1800's, advances in science and education have closely paralled a growing lack of interest in religion. Today, even some evangelical Christians geologists admit that a global flood did not occur. Young earth advocates have become increasingly scorned by leading scientific organizations. Historically, 100 years is a very short time. During the last 100 years, dramatic changes have taken place regarding how people feel about religion. If current trends continue, in another 100 years, there will be much less interest in religion than there is today. What I am getting at is that the jury is still out. There is a lot of information that we do not yet have that we need to have in order to make better informed decisions.

What are the chief factors that determine religious beliefs? Some of the answers can be found in Kosmin and Lachman's 'One Nation Under God'. The authors provide a lot of documented evidence that shows that in the U.S., the chief factors that determine religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. Those factors are entirely secular, and do not indicate divine involvement of any kind. Now why in the world would a loving God go out of his way to make it appear to millions of people that the chief factors that determine religious beliefs are entirely secular?

If the God of the Bible exists, either he is never involved with the distribution of tangible benefits, or he is sometimes involved with the distribution of tangible benefits, in which case no one would be able to determine when he does that. If the former, then no particular person should ever expect to get a specific tangible benefit from God. If the latter, then God frequently distributes tangible benefits to people are not in greatest need, including some evil people who never become Christians, and frequently withholds tangible benefits from people who are in greatest need, including some of his most devout and faithful followers.

God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5. 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 the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. In the U.S. Civil War, God stood idly by and allowed Christian to kill Christian, and brother to kill brother. God allowed Christians to conquer the largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion, an empire that was conquered by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property.

Many skeptics are loving, kind, and forgiving people. It would be out of character for them to reject a loving human, or a loving God. Human oversight is a good thing. Without it, there would be anarchy in society. Divine oversight would be much better than human oversight if it was fair. It is already well-established that God is not fair. If God’s chief desire is the save the elect, there is most certainly no need for him to beat up the elect with hurricanes, plagues, and starvation. Now rhutchin, in your opinion, what is God’s chief desire(s)?

The Bible says that God is loving. Since the best evidence indicates that that is not true, it is a virtual certainty that he does not exist. If he does exist, no decent person is able to love him.

djrafikie

I'm gonna jump in here with my own comment.. there is not a 50/50 chance of there being or not being a god. I can find lots and lots of things which are not god. Things which may "show" the prescence of god are only that if you BELIEVE them to be so, they actually don't have any particular solid attributes which make them seem in some way "godlike". In fact, nobody can even agree on what those percieved attributes shoule be, so even trying is a complete and utter waste of time.
There is a nil percent chance that god REALLY exists or can be PROVEN to exist (and books do not count as evidence, I could go and write a really convicing one tommorow, and intentionally fabricate throughout), and a 100% certanity that many people completely believe he does.

I rarely try with the "god is evil" or "if he was evil" argument, because the argument is pure fantasy, and as such has no real boundries. A good philosophical argument has some form of established boundry, thats why arguing with fundies is so exausting, they are not and cannot be philosophers in any real sense. You cannot conduct a thought experiment with a fundie because they lack the ability to think about the question in a philosophical manner (those who do do not remain fundies!!).

The bible has no merit, other than as a very old text, the more recent forms which people do purchase have sod all value as they differ from the original so extensively, but they do reflect some social changes...

When I use it in study I either use it when referring to social change, lingual shift or political change. The truth of the content is irrelevant, the changes within it are. The degree of change within the content seriously compromises any valid claims regarding it being the "word of god". The bible has historically been used as an instrument of oppression, and a political tool, it has kept a few rich, and many others poor. All of this clap-trap about "burning in hell" NEEDS to be in there, otherwise it is'nt much bloody good as an instrument of oppression now, is it?

Either way, I get really good results and my tutor loves my work, so what I say has to be fairly sound.

I'll spare you the in depth lingual commentry and historical commentary, or maybe I'll let someone else post a thread about (it if people are likely to be interested). Message me the thread number if you do and I will happily launch into discussion, as that is my specific academic field.

Johnny Skeptic

Well of course the odds are not 50/50 that God is who the Bible says he is. The odds are surely much less than 50/50. My position is that at best, the odds are no better than 50/50 that God is who the Bible says he is. Jesus said that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. A commitment like that requires the belief that it is PROBABLE that God is who the Bible says he is. Odds of no better than 50/50 do not indicate probability.

djrafikie

Well, the bible would have to be accurate to the orginal texts in any way, and I can prove fairly easily that from 700Bc there are glaring issues. Before that... well, it's patchy at best.

So the percentage falls.....

rhutchin

OK.

OK. Each of us has faith in that which we believe. At least one of us will be wrong.

You believe in your god; I believe in my god. Is that not the point of the Wager -- that a person will always believe in something.

djrafikie

Totally ignoring pascals wager, there is an equal chance that we are all partially wrong and partially right.

There you are completely correct, faith is very individual, and can be discussed, but because of it's individuality (and occasionally duality) must be accepted for what it is.

rhutchin

Science is science. It is observation and experiment. It takes hypotheses and develops an empirical test to validate or falsify. Creation science develops hypotheses based on information found in the Bible. That does not mean that it is not science. Those who espouse evolution do the same. They form hypotheses based on their beliefs. Astronomers do the same, whether they come from a Biblical perspective or a non-Biblical perspective.

Much of science is undertaken to prove that the observable universe could exist without a “god” to create it. The evolutionists hypothesize that a single cell could evolve into the variety of animals that exist today. They are looking for a mechanism to accomplish this and have yet to find one. Scientists still do not have a mechanism to create the first living cell. Astronomers are looking for a way for the universe to come into existence. The current hypotheses is the big bang, but that is losing support as more is learned about the universe. Lot of theories about the universe without a god to create it, but no reliable mechanism to do it. As far as I can tell, the inability of science to discover mechanisms to explain how the universe exists as we observe it supports the existence of God as the only possible cause of the universe.

Capital punishment is a legitimate punishment for sin. I don’t see a difference between stoning and hanging. If a person limits himself to the OT, then he would use stoning (especially in the manner described in the OT). If a person follows the OT/NT, then the governing authorities carry out punishment and they can hang, stone, or use another means to carry out capital punishments.

If you claimed to be an alien and convinced certain individuals to also believe and follow you and write books about what you did, then I don’t see much difference between that and what we find in the Bible. That basically is the basis for Mormonism.

Give it context. What does it have to do with your impending death and the events that will unfold after you die? Even weak evidence for the truth is better than strong evidence for that which is not true.

Are you arguing against the Garden of Eden outcome? I don’t know where you are going here or what your point is. While you do not judge the scenarios to be realistic (a good assessment based on the character of people), nonetheless, if people did choose to obey God, I see no reason why a Garden of Eden situation would not be the result.

Then what are you choosing to do?

rhutchin

Pascal’s Wager does not apply here. Regardless, with respect to belief in God, it seems to me that a person is either right or wrong. How do you see a “partially wrong or partially right” outcome. You lost me.

Agreed. I think we can add that the person’s faith is based on truth or on nothing.

djrafikie

I can list reasons why this can be the case. Man A: believes that murder is never right. Man B: believes that stealing is never right. Man B: observers homicidal manic imprison a family and then starve them, he shoots homicidal manic and kicks next doors window in, he emerges with a loaf of bread and a glass of water for the youngest child.

They were all partially right and partially wrong. All had morally sound ideals/actions.



No, faith doesn;t need to be based on truth, frequently it is far from impossible to prove otherwise. you can prove that the BASIS for the faith is (or MAY BE) untrue, but the faith itself is a personal thing, and cannot be simply "removed" or switched off. Therefore it must be accepted as it is.