Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 02-23-2008, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Nope, I will not allow you to manipulate me. If you refuse to directly reply to my arguments, I will refuse to directly reply to your arguments. Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would more Jews would have accepted Jesus? Please answer the question yes or no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Basically you want prophecy to be a SCRIPT which any false prophet could follow and proclaim him/herself to be the messiah, how absurd.

Ok, my hypothetical scenario has the following predictions:

1 - The messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom.

2 - The messiah would heal people.

3 - The messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days.

4 - Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine.

5 - Herod would become the King of Judea.

Now how in the world is a false prophet supposed to fulfill all of those predictions? In addition, predictions 4 and 5 do not have anything to do with the messiah. If Micah had made all of those predictions, are you going to tell us that that one single extra person would have become a follower of Jesus? Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

You do realize there is other messianic prophecy in the Old Testament besides Micah 5:2. You are arguing that one single verse would describe the entire history of the messiah which is absurd.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-23-2008, 02:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Nope, I will not allow you to manipulate me. If you refuse to directly reply to my arguments, I will refuse to directly reply to your arguments. Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would more Jews would have accepted Jesus? Please answer the question yes or no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Basically you want prophecy to be a SCRIPT which any false prophet could follow and proclaim him/herself to be the messiah, how absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Ok, my hypothetical scenario has the following predictions:

1 - The messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom.

2 - The messiah would heal people.

3 - The messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days.

4 - Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine.

5 - Herod would become the King of Judea.

Now how in the world is a false prophet supposed to fulfill all of those predictions? In addition, predictions 4 and 5 do not have anything to do with the messiah. If Micah had made all of those predictions, are you going to tell us that that one single extra person would have become a follower of Jesus? Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You do realize there is other messianic prophecy in the Old Testament besides Micah 5:2. You are arguing that one single verse would describe the entire history of the messiah which is absurd.

Nope, I will not allow you to manipulate me. If you refuse to directly reply to my arguments, I will refuse to directly reply to your arguments. Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would more Jews would have accepted Jesus? Please answer the question yes or no.

If all messianic prophecies had been as clear and detailed as my hypothetical prophecies are, there would not have been any confusion at all regarding who Jesus was. It is an utterly absurd notion that a God exists who is not able to inspire prophecies that would convince everyone to believe that he can predict the future. A person who would try to sell the idea that a God exists who is not able to convince everyone to believe that he can predict the future would try to sell ice to Eskimos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Nope, a God who treated everyone well would attract a lot more followers than the God of the Bible has attracted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

There was this guy that claimed to be God and during his life it is claimed that he fed thousands, healed many people, and cast many demons out of people as well as personally telling them how they could inherit eternal life.

The people he visited ended up having him crucified.

So I'm not buying the "nicer God = more followers" argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yup, Yeshua choose the way of the Cross however he was tempted to not go that route and basically "turn stones into bread" and "give a sign IF he was the Son of God."

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, surely more Jews would have accepted Jesus. There is no way that you will be able to convince any rational person to believe that God was not able to inspire Micah to write Micah 5:2 in ways that would have caused more Jews to accept Jesus.

Ksen said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

So I'm not buying the "nicer God = more followers" argument.

How utterly absurd. Is that supposed to mean that the God of the Bible is not able to attract a lot more followers than he has attracted? Do people not vote for presidents based upon benefits that they believe candidates will provide for them if they are elected? Are you not a Christian because you believe that God has provided you with benefits in this life, and will provide you with benefits in the next life?

Logically, if the only supposed God who had ever showed up had created and maintained a world that was much easier for humans to live in, he would have attracted a lot more followers than the God of the Bible has. I suppose that you do not believe the saying that says "You can catch a lot more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."

Please be advised that I will not allow you to manipulate me. If you refuse to directly reply to what I post, I will refuse to directly reply to what you post.

I will save this post as a Microsoft Word file in order to make it easy for me to cut and paste any arguments that you conveniently refuse to reply to.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-23-2008, 05:14 PM

Message to arnoldo: If a God exists, wouldn't an excellent way for him to communicate with people be to telepathically communicate the same messages to everyone in the world? I would be much more likely to accept a supposed God who did that, and so would many other people.

Please reply to my previous post.

arnoldo · 02-23-2008, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If a God exists, wouldn't an excellent way for him to communicate with people be to telepathically communicate the same messages to everyone in the world? I would be much more likely to accept a supposed God who did that, and so would many other people.

Please reply to my previous post.

The most excellent way for God to communicate to people is through other people.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-23-2008, 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If a God exists, wouldn't an excellent way for him to communicate with people be to telepathically communicate the same messages to everyone in the world? I would be much more likely to accept a supposed God who did that, and so would many other people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The most excellent way for God to communicate to people is through other people.

Obviously not since three fourths of the people in the world do not believe that he exists.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the only way that the messages in any religious book can be spread is by human effort.

If Pat Robertson used the world media to accurately predict when and where a natural disaster would occur, is it your position that not any skeptics would become Christians as a result?

Johnny Skeptic · 02-23-2008, 06:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would more Jews would have accepted Jesus? Please answer the question yes or no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Basically you want prophecy to be a SCRIPT which any false prophet could follow and proclaim him/herself to be the messiah, how absurd.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Ok, my hypothetical scenario has the following predictions:

1 - The messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom, not an earthly kingdom.

2 - The messiah would heal people.

3 - The messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days.

4 - Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine.

5 - Herod would become the King of Judea.

Now how in the world is a false prophet supposed to fulfill all of those predictions? Predictions 4 and 5 do not have anything to do with the messiah. If Micah had made all of those predictions, are you going to tell us that that one single extra person would have become a follower of Jesus? Historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that. In addition, Nostradamus and Edgar Cayce attracted a lot of followers based upon a lot less convincing evidence than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You do realize there is other messianic prophecy in the Old Testament besides Micah 5:2. You are arguing that one single verse would describe the entire history of the messiah which is absurd.

Which prophecies are those? If all messianic prophecies had been as clear and detailed as my hypothetical prophecies are, there would have been much confusion regarding who Jesus was. It is an utterly absurd notion that a God exists who is not able to inspire prophecies that would convince most people to believe that he can predict the future. A person who would try to sell the idea that a God exists who is not able to convince most people to believe that he can predict the future would try to sell ice to Eskimos.

If Pat Robertson used the world media to accurately predict when and where a natural disaster would occur, is it your position that not any skeptics would become Christians as a result?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Nope, a God who treated everyone well would attract a lot more followers than the God of the Bible has attracted.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

There was this guy that claimed to be God and during his life it is claimed that he fed thousands, healed many people, and cast many demons out of people as well as personally telling them how they could inherit eternal life.

The people he visited ended up having him crucified.

So I'm not buying the "nicer God = more followers" argument.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Yup, Yeshua choose the way of the Cross however he was tempted to not go that route and basically "turn stones into bread" and "give a sign IF he was the Son of God."

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, surely more Jews would have accepted Jesus. There is no way that you will be able to convince any rational person to believe that God was not able to inspire Micah to write Micah 5:2 in ways that would have caused more Jews to accept Jesus.

Ksen said:

Quote:

Originally Posted by ksen

So I'm not buying the "nicer God = more followers" argument.

How utterly absurd. Is that supposed to mean that the God of the Bible is not able to attract a lot more followers than he has attracted? Do people not vote for presidents based upon benefits that they believe candidates will provide for them if they are elected? Are you not a Christian because you believe that God has provided you with benefits in this life, and will provide you with benefits in the next life?

Logically, if the only supposed God who had ever showed up had created and maintained a world that was much easier for humans to live in, he would have attracted a lot more followers than the God of the Bible has. I suppose that you do not believe the saying that says "You can catch a lot more flies with honey than you can with vinegar."

By the way, since I will save this post as a Microsoft Word file, please be advised that it will be quick and easy for me to repost any arguments in this post that you conveniently refuse to reply to.

arnoldo · 02-24-2008, 08:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: If a God exists, wouldn't an excellent way for him to communicate with people be to telepathically communicate the same messages to everyone in the world? I would be much more likely to accept a supposed God who did that, and so would many other people.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

The most excellent way for God to communicate to people is through other people.

Obviously not since three fourths of the people in the world do not believe that he exists.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, that explains why the only way that the messages in any religious book can be spread is by human effort. *

You obviously have no understanding of the christian theology you are *attempting to attack*. According to christian theology, or mythology if you prefer, Christianity did not start by human effort. God himself became man and visited the planet 2000 years ago. Next according to christian theology God sent the Holy Spirit to establish his church on earth to spread the gospel. Since you don't understand this concept consider the sun. The sun gives forth light which also produces heat. The light which you can see and the heat which you can feel is the essence of the sun. Since I don't want to be accused of preaching I won't quote scripture where Yeshua told his disciples after the resurrection to wait in Jerusalem for this Peson who would empower them to spread the Gospel (thus your argument that only human effort spread the gospel falls to pieces) At least make an effort to understand the theology you are attacking. Maybe you can start another thread that it is absurd that christians believe in a Trinity or something along those lines.

*As long as you keep making wild claims I will continue responding to them

Johnny Skeptic · 02-24-2008, 08:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You obviously have no understanding of the christian theology you are "attempting to attack."

Please stay on topic. The opening post says the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would more Jews would have accepted Jesus?

Please answer the question. I will not discuss anything else with you unless you answer the question yes or no. If you wish to make some other comments, that will be fine, but only if you answer yes or no. I will not allow you to manipulate me and insist on whose questions get answered, and which issues get discussed. Evasiveness is a sign of weakness. The undecided crowd is not impressed with evasiveness. This is my thread. If you do not wish to discuss what I want to discuss, you should not be making any posts in this thread.

I refer you to my thread at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthr...01#post5172401 at the GRD Forum that is about the existence of the God of the Bible. My favorites arguments against fundamentalist Christianity are in that thread. I also refer to you to my recently revised Internet essay at www.johnnyskeptic.com.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-24-2008, 09:10 AM

Message to arnoldo: I refer you to my post #40 in a thread that I started at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=237212 at the GRD Forum that is titled 'Why would a God make only disputable predictions?' I showed where you contradicted yourself.

Although I have told you on a number of occasions that I will no longer allow you to manipulate me by insisting on choosing whose questions get answered, and which topics get discussed, you are still trying to do that. Please be advised that that will not work. If you will not directly reply to my arguments, I will not directly reply to your arguments. Your approach to debating is not fair. If we disregarded all of the posts that you have made at the IIDB that were not direct replies to arguments that skeptics made, that would be a large percentage of your posts.

Possibly your biggest problem regarding all of the arguments that you make in various threads and forums is that you have never come up with any reasonable motives regarding why God does what he does. Why would a God make 100% disputable prophecies when he could easily make 100% indisputable prophecies? Why would God create chimps, and when he created humans exactly copy 50% of the chimp genome, thereby creating lots of doubt and confusion, sometimes among conservative Christians? Why would God mimic a naturalistic universe in many ways? If the universe is naturalistic, all of the messages in all religious books would be spread entirely by humans. In response to that argument, you said that Jesus started the spread of the Gospel message, but that does not have anything to do with my argument that if the God of the Bible DOES NOT exist, all of the messages in all religious books would be spread entirely by humans. Do Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God? If God had invented a cure for a disease in 50 A.D., would he have told Christians to take thousands of years to give the cure to everyone in the world who had the disease? If the universe is naturalistic the only way that humans would be able to obtain enough food to eat would be through human effort.

It will be interesting to see how many of my arguments you conveniently refuse to directly reply to even though this is my thread, and how many ways you will try to use to divert attention to questions and issues of your own choosing. Please be advised that such attempts will not work. You do not mind directly replying to an argument if you believe that you have a good reply to make. It is only when you know that making a direct reply would embarrass you that you refuse to directly reply to arguments. That is called cherry-picking, aka evasiveness.

Johnny Skeptic · 02-25-2008, 08:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

You obviously have no understanding of the christian theology you are "attempting to attack."

Please stay on topic. The opening post says the following:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Micah 5:2 says “But thou, Bethlehem Ephratah, though thou be little among the thousands of Judah, yet out of thee shall he come forth unto me that is to be ruler in Israel; whose goings forth have been from of old, from everlasting.” If Micah had predicted that the messiah would rule a heavenly kingdom instead of an earthly kingdom like Micah misled the Jews to believe, and had predicted that the messiah would heal people, and that the messiah would be crucified, buried, and rise from the dead in three days, and that Pontius Pilate would become the Roman governor of Palestine, and that Herod would become the King of Judea, would more Jews would have accepted Jesus?

Please answer the question.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-23-2008, 05:14 PM	#43
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: If a God exists, wouldn't an excellent way for him to communicate with people be to telepathically communicate the same messages to everyone in the world? I would be much more likely to accept a supposed God who did that, and so would many other people. Please reply to my previous post.

02-24-2008, 09:10 AM	#49
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	Message to arnoldo: I refer you to my post #40 in a thread that I started at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=237212 at the GRD Forum that is titled 'Why would a God make only disputable predictions?' I showed where you contradicted yourself. Although I have told you on a number of occasions that I will no longer allow you to manipulate me by insisting on choosing whose questions get answered, and which topics get discussed, you are still trying to do that. Please be advised that that will not work. If you will not directly reply to my arguments, I will not directly reply to your arguments. Your approach to debating is not fair. If we disregarded all of the posts that you have made at the IIDB that were not direct replies to arguments that skeptics made, that would be a large percentage of your posts. Possibly your biggest problem regarding all of the arguments that you make in various threads and forums is that you have never come up with any reasonable motives regarding why God does what he does. Why would a God make 100% disputable prophecies when he could easily make 100% indisputable prophecies? Why would God create chimps, and when he created humans exactly copy 50% of the chimp genome, thereby creating lots of doubt and confusion, sometimes among conservative Christians? Why would God mimic a naturalistic universe in many ways? If the universe is naturalistic, all of the messages in all religious books would be spread entirely by humans. In response to that argument, you said that Jesus started the spread of the Gospel message, but that does not have anything to do with my argument that if the God of the Bible DOES NOT exist, all of the messages in all religious books would be spread entirely by humans. Do Christians consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God? If God had invented a cure for a disease in 50 A.D., would he have told Christians to take thousands of years to give the cure to everyone in the world who had the disease? If the universe is naturalistic the only way that humans would be able to obtain enough food to eat would be through human effort. It will be interesting to see how many of my arguments you conveniently refuse to directly reply to even though this is my thread, and how many ways you will try to use to divert attention to questions and issues of your own choosing. Please be advised that such attempts will not work. You do not mind directly replying to an argument if you believe that you have a good reply to make. It is only when you know that making a direct reply would embarrass you that you refuse to directly reply to arguments. That is called cherry-picking, aka evasiveness.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.