Riverwind

Why sure, I can help you. It all has to do with your faulty interpretations of everything in the Bible. Think like a Christian and all will be resovled.

It's a Christian thang...you wouldn't understand. LOL

Johnny Skeptic

You are wasting your time criticizing my interpretations of the Bible since everyone already knows that all skeptics criticize fundamentalist Christians' interpretations of the Bible. Propaganda and personal remarks are not useful. What you need is do is to discuss issues. Are you willing to discuss issues?

Do you have any idea why God kills babies and innocent animals? Isn't that a fair question? Don't you have any Scriptures to quote regarding these issues?

In your opinion, what is God trying to accomplish? I am willing to consider your answers, and many other people who visit this thread will too.

The bottom line is the character of God. What evidence do you have that God is perfect, and has never done anything that is wrong?

Vexen Crabtree

It would only make sense to say that Jesus came to save mankind if Jesus actually appeared to *every human being*, rather than some mostly illiterate Hebrews. Only a bafoon of a god would leave it to human writers to chronical its great scheme for mankind, knowing full well that mistanslations, cultural interpretations and early power struggles between proto-Christians would result in a mixture of edited truths and passed-on myths being incorporated into a Bible.

No, if Jesus was the son of God, he would have appeared to everyone and explained in a universal language what was going on. This is what a universal god would have done; the God of the New Testament is a limited god invented by Greek writers re-interpreting Greek and Hebrew pagan myths. That's why Jesus rose at all - because other classical god-men also rose from the dead.

So I agree with Minimalist who said above: "Actually the most probable explanation is that none of it ever happened and it was all invented later on."

Riverwind

Sure. But only if you discuss some issues related to your own views.

First let me ask you a few questions. Can you point to the set of morals that say killing babies and animals is a 'bad' thing? From an atheistic standpoint, what is a 'bad' thing? Finally, I take it for granted that you are likely a Democrat, so don't your morals already say that it is fine and dandy to kill babies? So, on what basis do you criticize God, whose ultimate reasons you could not even hope to understand as a mere mortal (given that you take his existence for granted, which you don't, so the point is moot and makes it very difficult for you to argue along these lines anyway).

Oh, and speaking of propaganda...you're one to talk.

Johnny Skeptic

Why do you assume that I am an atheist? I am an agnostic. The set of morals that I am referring to is the set of morals that that are in the Bible. This is the Biblical Criticism and History Forum, you know. One of the Ten Commandments says "Thou shalt not kill." When God kills babies, has he not broken one of his own rules? If God is not obligated to keep his own rules, then he is not obligated to tell the truth, right? How is telling lies any worse than killing babies?

I prefer the Democratic party, and I am undecided on the issue of abortion.

On what basis do you refuse to criticize God, and upon what basis do you presume to know that all of his actions and allowances are necessary towards the achievement of worthy goals? How is killing babies necessary towards the achievement of worthy goals?

You still need to tell us what you believe God is trying to accomplish. For some strange reason you do not want to discuss that issue.

Regarding the existence of God, why do you suppose that God refuses to show up and speak a new galaxy into existence? If he did, surely some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Many people are not convinced that there is any being in the universe who is able to speak a new galaxy into existence. Historically, many people accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than that.

Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not.
But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

According to those Scriptures, personally witnessing miracles FIRSTHAND was convincing to many people. If you want to convince people to believe that you exist, and what you want them to do with their lives, requiring faith is definitely counterproductive.

If a God exists, an excellent case can be made that he is mentally incompetent. Even Attila the Hun did not kill people who loved him along with his enemies. Sometimes God kills people discriminately, like he did when he killed all of the firstborn males in Egypt, and sometimes he kills people indiscriminately, like he did when he killed people with Hurricane Katrina. Indiscriminate killing is sufficient evidence of mental incompetence. God frequently runs beserk like a bull elephant that is out out control.

You don't by any chance have any evidence that everything that God does is fair and just, do you? You certainly would not assume that anyone other than God is perfect, but why not? The Bible writers were most certainly not in any position to judge anyone's perfection. How can imperfection judge perfection? Even if God showed up in person and claimed that he is perfect, that would only be his own artibrary opinion, and he would need to explain why he kills babies. If he did, are you sure that you would accept his explanation no matter what it was?