mata leao

Johnny Skeptic says "skeptics are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads COMPLETELY(emphasis mine) free of coercive influences".....does that include Dr. Anthony Flew, author Anne Rice, David Hawkings, ?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: Regarding suffering, you asked me how much less suffering I would prefer. Well, no natural disasters would be a good start.

The Bible does not come anywhere close to answering the questions that I want to have answered, and that many other skeptics want to have answered. Following are some important questions that the Bible does not come anywhere near close to answering:

Why does God ask that skeptics become Christians without first allowing them to ask him a lot of questions and get answers for them?

Why does God allow the degree of suffering that he allows?

Why is God opposed to making daily personal appearances to everyone?

Why is God opposed to salvation by merit?

Why did God wait so long to send Jesus to the world?

Why hasn't Jesus returned to earth yet?

I suggest that you query the internet for miracles that are claimed by religious people who are not Christians, including unusual healings that are claimed by atheists and agnostics. Many atheists and agnostics are much better off physically than many Christians are, so your argument is patently absurd.

Are you saying that humans have one standard of consistency, and that God has another standard of consistency? In order for you to accurately state that God is not inconsistent, you would first have to state what inconsistentcy is as it applies to God. What kind of behavior by God would you deem to be consistent, and what kind of behavior by God would you deem to be inconsistent? We humans can only judge consistency according to our own understanding. According to my understanding, God allowing natural disasters in unjust, and it is not inconsistent with some of the good things that are attributed to him.

I never said no suffering. What I want is much less suffering. Isn't that what you want too?

I am sure that you already know that agnostics are not reasonably certain how the universe and humans were created. The only reason that I oppose the Bible is because a sizeable percentage of fundamentalist Christians misuse it to oppose physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and same sex marriage.

Let me put is another way. If a person claiming to be Jesus appeared and created a large building out of thin air in front of millions of people, at least we would have lot more evidence than we do now. Regarding "If He did appear, how would anyone verify his identity," how would you verify his identity?

Ok, where does the Bible explain why God allows natural disasters?

What other ways are there?

I never asserted that good things and bad things are distributed by chance, but the Bible asserts that certain good things and certain bad things are not distributed by chance. Therefore, since the Bible writers made those assertions, and since I did not make any assertions, I ask you again, what evidence is there that tangible good things and bad things are distributed by God and not by chance?

Based upon what evidence?

What criteria were those?

What other reasons are there? Regarding "that might be the ultimate reason," is it your position that might makes right? If you answer is yes, if eventually a being other than the God of the Bible shows up and sends everyone to hell, would you still say that might makes right? The universe is old, vast, and complex. Who know how many advanced alien races might exist and what their powers might be? The God of the Bible might actually be a weakling compared to other beings.

Who has the right to determine what is fair?

No natural disasters would be a good start.

What do you mean by quantify? Anyone knows that's Hurricane Katriana caused a lot of suffering, and that cancer often causes a lot of suffering.

A personal consultation with God would be the only kind of evidnce that I would deem to be acceptable. If I would not be able to verify his identity, then neither would you.

As an agnostic, it is not my position that I disbelieve what Christianity maintains, but you said that you believe what Christianity maintains. So, what evidence do you have that God ever promised eternal life to believers? I am willing to agree that we do not know the correct answer one way or the other. Are you?

What evidence is there that God is omniscient?

So all of the people who were killed by the Bubonic Plague deserved to die, right?

One much simpler option would have been to instantly cause all of the bad people in the world to become dust in the ground.

And bad can come from it too. I do not know of anyone who would like to become like the Frenchman who I told you about named Vincent Humbert, who was quadriplegic, blind and mute, in order to find out how many good things would happen as a result. You might as well say that good could come from a plague that caused everyone in the world to become incurable sick and non-productive.

How is that? Are natural disasters avoidable?

[quote=bfniii] Because it's a flawed idea. No amount of finite works warrants an infinite result.A perceived meritorious, fulfilling life is by no means a guarantee that Christians will one day enjoy a comfortable eternal life.

[quote=bfniii] Definitely not true for the same reason. If for no other reason, the true Christian can look back on a life of positive influence and morality.

What I said is definitely true. It is a fact that skeptics believe that they have nothing to lose if they become Christians and it turns out that they were wrong. It is also a fact that Christians believe that if they became skeptics and it turns out that they were wrong, they will spend eternity in hell. Simply stated, skeptics perceive no risk in being wrong if they convert to Christianity, but Christians perceive risk in being wrong if they convert to skepticism.

This conclusion is certainly correct for the above stated reasons.

mata leao

maybe God has some questions for Johnny Skeptic: turn about is fair play!

1.Why is johnny skeptic sitting comfortably drinking beer in redington shores and not working with my missionaries and the secular Doctors without borders overseas to help my sick children?

2. Why is johnny skeptic sitting behind a keyboard when right at this moment in downtown Tampa we have a severe shortage of Big Brothers willing to help coach nightime basketball for boys with no fathers?

3. why is johnny skeptic spending all of his time attacking Me (God) instead of feeding the hungry, healing the sick, comforting widows and orphans?

there is an old saying: Obedience first, and then come the miracles!

spin

Further to Johnny Skeptic's questions regarding suffering,

Why hasn't god told the Jews that they are no longer his chosen people? (They are apparenly labouring under the false impression that they still are, aren't they?)

Why has god made so many false starts? the garden of eden, the flood, the exile, Jesus and the jumping of ship to the gentiles, and now we are apparently waiting for a second shot by Jesus.

Surely if this god person was all that crash hot, he'd know what he was doing in the first place and get it right from the beginning, rather than all this fucking about over several millennia, wouldn't you say? Every false start means waiting and/or suffering.

If god is perfect, why did he choose to put humanity through this massive test bed of tortures? Why not just pick the exemplars that he knew would be worthy and simply create them and save all the rigmarole?

Why, if he is perfect, does he want select humans anyway? (Let's not have the crap about sharing the fruit of his greatness with them.)


spin

Johnny Skeptic

I made a lengthy post a few minutes ago, but following is a brief and simple argument that is possibly my best argument:

The Bible does not explain why God chooses to allow as much suffering as he does in the world, and why he cannot achieve his purposes with less suffering. Human proxies presuming to speak for God via the Bible have not come anywhere close to adequately dealing with these issues. I challenge bfniii to cite Scriptures that he claims explain why God chooses to allow as much suffering as he does in the world, and why he cannot achieve his purposes with less suffering. I also challenge bfniii to tell us how he would identify Jesus if he returns to earth.

mata leao

you just said "human proxies" are "inadequate" so why are you asking us?(human proxies).....1. Gods ways are not our ways 2. The wise will understand 3. Our lives on earth are like that of a blade of grass(extremely short) compared to eternity 4. Identify Jesus: the nail scarred hands, he will come in the clouds, his flock will know him, he will speak to them and they will hear him......

John A. Broussard

I can make no sense out of this post.

Would you please explain it in somewhat more detail.

Thank you.

Johnny Skeptic

Good point. That is why we need God to make a personal appearance and clear up these matters. Bfniii asked me how we can quantify suffering, but it is not incumbent upon skeptics to quantify suffering. The God of the Bible has already done that by doing what he does, and by allowing what he allows, and I want him to tell me (and other skeptics) why he chose his means of quantifying suffering.

Revelation 21:4 says "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away."

Bfniii said that if Jesus made a public appearance, skeptics would not be able to recognize him, and that some skeptics would claim that Jesus was a hallucination. Well, hallunications cannot be photographed, and there has never been a hallunication that has been viewed by everyone in the world at the same time, or even by one million people in the same place at the same time.

The point is, how could Christians recognize Jesus?

Is your position that might always makes right, or that might only makes right when whoever runs the universe will provide you with a comfortable eternal life? Do you have any evidence that the God of the Bible created the universe, and that there are not any other beings in the universe of equal or greater power?

mata leao

Johnny, you are close to coming back to your faith. Get off the internet for awhile, walk in the cool Tampa Bay air and look at the night sky ...make a deal with Jesus, that you will find a way to help feed the hungry, heal the sick, and comfort the oppressed this year, and you will find your personal epiphany from God. Other beings? maybe, but none of them sent their only begotten Son to die for you , either.

Johnny Skeptic

All of the human effort in the world would not adequately feed all of the hungry people, heal all of the sick people, and comfort the oppressed this year. Only God could adequately do that, and obviously he does not have any interest at all in doing so.

Regarding "Other beings, maybe, but none of them sent their only begotten Son to die for you, either," why do you assume that no other being sent their only begotten son to do the same thing that Jesus did? What evidence do you have that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, never sinned, and died for the sins of mankind? Even if Jesus rose from the dead, why should anyone believe that his shed blood and death actually remitted the sins of mankind.

I would appreciate it if you would reply to my previous post. For your convenience, and for the convenience of other readers, here it is again: