Johnny Skeptic

But if the God of the Bible does not exist, that is exactly what we would expect to find. If he does not exist, we would expect that no one would ever hear about the Gospel message unless another person told them about it, which is exactly what the case is. If God exists, since he refuses to tell anyone about the Gospel message himself, this means that he is more concerned with HOW people hear about the Gospel message than he is with THAT people hear the Gospel message. That does not make any sense. No rational God would go out of his way to mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby inviting dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his intent to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

We would also expect to find that the primary, if not the only factors that determine what people believe would be geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one of the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age, to which I would like add time period. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it if I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is a good deal higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. If the God of the Bible exists, no one would be able predict what his success rates would be by sex. In addition, if the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against men by convincing a smaller percentage of them to become Christians.

We would also expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and mimics the way that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case.

We would also expect to find the following:

Food would be distributed entirely by humans. James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person that his faith is dead, indicating that God does not want anyone to starve to death, but God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

The New Testament says that on one occasion, Jesus fed hungry people out of compassion. There is no way that that happened. A truly compassionate person who wanted some people to have enough food to eat would certainly not limit his compassion to people who lived in Palestine.

Obviously, your convenient "God frequently uses men and nations for his own purposes" argument is fraudulent, and is exactly what would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist.

Yes, and you and everyone else too. If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and were raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in was predominantly Buddhist, what would the odds have been that you would have heard about the God of the Bible? The correct answer is "zero." Today, what are the odds that a devout, Southern Bible Belt, fundamentalist Christian couple's son will become a fundamentalist Christian as compared with the odds of a son who is raised by Muslim parents in a remote region of Afghanistan becoming a fundamentalist Christian?

If the God of the Bible does not exist, what are the odds that a much lower percentage of elderly skeptics would become Christians than younger skeptics, and that a much larger percentage of younger skeptics would become Christians than elderly skeptics, and that a much smaller percentage of elderly Christians would become skeptics than younger Christians, and that a much larger percentage of younger Christians would become skeptics, all of which are the case today? The correct answer is 100% because it is well-known that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldviews than younger people are. There is not way that a God could be as predictable as the God of the Bible is, and that God would frequently mimic the way that things would be if he did not exist, thereby needlessly encouraging dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and undermining his attempts to convince people to believe that he exists.

By the way, cutting and pasting arguments that you continue to conveniently refuse to reply to is quick and easy, especially since I keep them as Mircrosoft Word files. Thanks very much for helping to build my confidence by being evasive, and thanks very much for showing the undecided crowd that you know that you cannot successfully refute my arguments.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: I invite you to participate in a thread at the MF&P Forum at http://iidb.infidels.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=234658. The title of the thread is 'Argument that the Christian God is evil.' Please be advised that the issue of the character of God is just as important as the validity of the Biblical historical record, meaning that if you cannot adequately defend the character of God, the Biblical historical record is irrelevant. No one disputes that President Bush exist, but lots of people do not believe that he has good character. So, you are wasting your time at this forum if you do not also intend to debate the character of God at the MF&P Forum, or at the GRD ?Forum.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to arnoldo: The partition of Palestine is a bona fide example of a self-fulfilled Bible prophecy. If Jewish and Palestinian history had been reversed, and Palestinians had been persecuted by Hitler and other parties instead of Jews, there is no way that the U.N. would have granted Palestinians control of Jerusalem and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got. Logically, if the Partition of Palestine was not a self-fulfilled prophecy, under my hypothetical scenario, the U.N. would have been consistent, and would have granted the Palestinians control of Jerusalem and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got, but as you know, under that scenario, such would definitely not have been the case, and the reason would have been the Bible. Of the 33 governments that voted in favor of the partition, 32 are predominantly Christian. The only non-Christian government that voted for the partition was Russia. At that time, Russia was joyfully getting lots of aid from the U.S. for rebuilding purposes, and was certainly not interested in contesting the wishes of the U.S. and 31 other countries.

Incredibly, you would have people believe that the Bible did not have anything to do with the Partition of Palestine, and that no other religious books have anything to do with how people act.

Do you still wish to claim that the Bible did not give Jews and Christians any incentives at all to endorse the Partition of Palestine when the Israeli Declaration of Statehood says "ERETZ-ISRAEL (the Land of Israel) was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books. After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim (immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation) and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood," and when 32 of the 33 governments that voted for the Partition of Palestine were predominantly Christian, and when 12of the 13 governments that voted against the Partition of Palestine were non-Christian, and in the case of the Greek government, nominally Christian. The Partition of Palestine was essentially Christian nations against non-Christians nations, and the Christian nations had the most military power. All that it takes to occupy land is power.

spin

Still, "holding" is a quibble with English. "Possession" is a more correct translation of )XZH. As a perpetual possession, this so-called prophecy has been falsified when it wasn't a possession for nearly 2000 years.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

No it isn't.

You certainly cannot be referring to Genesis 17:8, which requires that Jews occupy ALL of the ancient land of Canaan. Today, Jews do not occupy anywhere near ALL of the land of ancient Canaan. Following your same line of reasoning, if the Jews occupied one square mile of Palestine, that would be a fulfillment of prophecy. Jews cannot possibly have restored a nation that even you admitted they never had since you said that they have never occupied all of the land of Canaan. Now how in the world do you know that Jews have never occupied all of the land of Canaan? Many Christians claim that Jews have occupied all of the land of Canaan.

That is easily explained by the facts that the partition of Palestine is a self-fulfilled prophecy, and that the Middle East has the largest oil reserves in the world. If the Arab-Israeli conflict was happening in the middle of a remote Australian desert that had few natural resources, most nations would not care about the conflict.

The partition of Palestine is a bona fide example of a self-fulfilled Bible prophecy. If Jewish and Palestinian history had been reversed, and Palestinians had been persecuted by Hitler and other parties instead of Jews, there is no way that the U.N. would have granted Palestinians control of Jerusalem and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got. Logically, if the Partition of Palestine was not a self-fulfilled prophecy, under my hypothetical scenario, the U.N. would have been consistent, and would have granted the Palestinians control of Jerusalem and a grossly disproportionate amount of land per capita like the Jews got, but as you know, under that scenario, such would definitely not have been the case, and the reason would have been the Bible. Of the 33 governments that voted in favor of the partition, 32 are predominantly Christian. The only non-Christian government that voted for the partition was Russia. At that time, Russia was joyfully getting lots of aid from the U.S. for rebuilding purposes, and was certainly not interested in contesting the wishes of the U.S. and 31 other countries.

Incredibly, you would have people believe that the Bible did not have anything to do with the Partition of Palestine, and that no other religious books have anything to do with how people act.

Do you still wish to claim that the Bible did not give Jews and Christians any incentives at all to endorse the Partition of Palestine when the Israeli Declaration of Statehood says "ERETZ-ISRAEL (the Land of Israel) was the birthplace of the Jewish people. Here their spiritual, religious and political identity was shaped. Here they first attained to statehood, created cultural values of national and universal significance and gave to the world the eternal Book of Books. After being forcibly exiled from their land, the people kept faith with it throughout their Dispersion and never ceased to pray and hope for their return to it and for the restoration in it of their political freedom. Impelled by this historic and traditional attachment, Jews strove in every successive generation to re-establish themselves in their ancient homeland. In recent decades they returned in their masses. Pioneers, ma'pilim (immigrants coming to Eretz-Israel in defiance of restrictive legislation) and defenders, they made deserts bloom, revived the Hebrew language, built villages and towns, and created a thriving community controlling its own economy and culture, loving peace but knowing how to defend itself, bringing the blessings of progress to all the country's inhabitants, and aspiring towards independent nationhood," and when 32 of the 33 governments that voted for the Partition of Palestine were predominantly Christian, and when 12 of the 13 governments that voted against the Partition of Palestine were non-Christian, and in the case of the Greek government, nominally Christian. The Partition of Palestine was essentially Christian nations against non-Christians nations, and the Christian nations had the most military power. All that it takes to occupy land is military power.

Regardless, no loving God would enourage dissent when he could easily discourage dissent by making indisputable prophecies that would benefit believers and unbelievers.

Jack the Bodiless

I will again point out that you have STILL not provided any "prophecy" (i.e. future prediction) of this. There is no reason whatsoever to assume that stuff written around the time of the Babylonian Exile refers to anything other than the Babylonian Exile (or the earlier Assyrian Exile). Furthermore, even if we accept the fundie dating for the allegedly-older books (and why should we do so?), there is STILL no reason to interpret these as anything other than "prophecies" of the Assyrian/Babylonian Exiles, because nothing in the text is telling the reader to skip those.

33 pages later, we are STILL WAITING for an actual specific "prophecy" of the modern re-emergence of Israel!

Why is this?

What could be more on-topic for this thread than providing the actual prophecy?

xaxxat

Why is there no prophecy about the U.S. government propping up Israel with financial and military aid? Seems to me that the U.S. has done more for Israel then Yahweh has...

arnoldo

Take a look at the Book Of Revelation for a picture of the overthrow of various nations and economies and the effect it has upon Israel. In the OT Israel frequently relied on the strength of Egypt rather than faith in the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob.

Jack the Bodiless

Why don't you cite chapter and verse?

arnoldo

Sorry Rev 16:10-11

Caird calls the last three plagues a “triad of political disaster - internal anarchy, invasion, and irreparable collapse"
“Judgment may produce a carnal repentance - a repentance that is of the flesh, and after the manner of the sinful nature of men. In this repentance the depravity of the heart remains the same in essence, though it takes another form of showing itself. Though the man changes, he is not savingly changed: he becomes another man, but not a new man. The same sin rules in him, but it is called by another name, and wears another dress. The stone is carved into a more sightly shape, but it is not turned into flesh. The iron is cast into another image, but it is not transformed into gold. This carnal repentance is caused by fear. Does not every thief repent of robbery when he is convicted and sent to jail? Does not every murderer repent of his crime when he stands under the fatal tree?”(Spurgeon)