JPD

There is no evidence that there is any risk associated as has been pointed out ad nauseum throughout this and many other threads. Should the truth arise through strangled logic it doesn't say a great deal about the entity responsible.
You seem to be under the impression that one can just choose what it is that one believes - this doesn't work for many individuals. If Biblegod is real he or she or it already knew this. We aren't lying to ourselves or trying to be difficult - we just don't believe things automatically on grounds of popularity, antiquity or claimed supernatural authority. Claims this great require some hefty evidence, not just what the words themselves state.

Johnny Skeptic

But what I said in that particular argument assumes for the sake of argument that the writers WERE speaking for God and not for themselves. I said:

Following are some of the many atrocities that God has committed against mankind:

God says via James that if a man has food and refuses to feed hungry people that he is vain and that his faith is dead, but God frequently refuses to feed hungry people. This means that God is vain, and that he is a hypocrite. He allowed one million people to starve to death in the Irish Potato Famine alone. You can choose to love a hypocrite if you wish, but decent people are not able to do that.

God says that it is wrong to kill people, but he frequently kills people, including some of his most devout and faithful followers. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own followers.

God is willing that some will perish, although if you have children, if they were in danger of drowning, you would not be willing that any of them drown. You would try to save all of them. Choice would not be possible given your principles and morals. Even more importantly, you would not be willing that any of your children not hear the Gospel message. Choice would not possible given your principles and morals. Given my principles and morals, it is impossible for me to accept a God who has established principles and morals, but has made a mockery of them himself on numerous occasions. If God told lies, you would not have a choice whether or not to love him. You would not be able to love him, and yet you ask people to love a God who has committed numerous atrocities that are much worse than lying is. Which would you prefer, that a man tell you a lie about his age, or kill you or allow you to starve to death?

Will you agree with me that God deliberately withholds information from some people who would become Christians if they were aware of the information? If I had sufficient power, it would be easy for me to convince everyone that I exist. In addition, if I had a message that I wanted people to have, I could easily let everyone know about the message by delivering it myself. Further, if I wanted to prove to everyone that I was loving and good, I could easily do that by healing all of the sick people in the world. Most of the people in the world would love and accept me. If I claimed that I was a God, I could start a religion that would become the largest religion in history. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure all diseases. So, there is no doubt whatsoever that if the God of the Bible exists, he deliberately withholds information from some people who would become Christians if they were aware of the information. No rational minded and fair minded man has a choice whether or not to love a God like that.

Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, not that he allows people to become blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, not that he allows people to be punished for sins that their ancestors committed. God killed babies at Sodom and Gomorrah. He did not allow them to be killed. God created hurricances, and he determines where they go. Surely you do not believe that hurricanes decide where they want to go. 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.

More accurately, God has given SOME people the freedom to determine their eternal destiny. As I said, “If the God of the Bible exists, he deliberately withholds information from some people who would become Christians if they were aware of the information.” Such behavior could not possibly provide any benefits to God, or to mankind.

rhutchin

You don't have to believe anything automatically. Do like any scientist would. Accept the Bible as a working hypothesis until someone proves that it is not true. Truth in science arises through observation and speculation about how things happened. As science discovers how things actually work, it discards those hypotheses that are shown not to explain this.

What has been pointed out on this thread ad naseum is that people do not believe that the Bible is true. What people refuse to accept is that the Bible cannot be proved false. That is enough to identify risk.

rhutchin

There is sufficient information in the Bible for anyone to seek salvation.

Johnny Skeptic

That is false. Hundreds of millions of people died without having heard the Gospel message because God refused to tell them about it. In addition, today, many people in the world live in areas where some people do not have access to the Bible. For instance, Saudi Arabia bans the possession of Bibles, and some people who live in remote jungle regions do not know anything about the Bible. Further, God deliberately withholds information that some people would accept if they were aware of the information. Such detestable behavior does not benefit God or mankind in any way.

Human effort alone could never let everyone in the world know about the Gospel message. Only God could do that, and obviously, he does not want to. That is sufficient grounds for people to reject him. In fact, rational minded and fair minded people to not have any chioce in the matter.

rhutchin

As you describe above, the problem is not that the information is not available, it is that people like Johnny Skeptic don't want people to have that information. Thus, Saudia Arabia works hard to keep its people from obtaining the information in the Bible.

The problem here is that God has given Johnny Skeptic the freedom to do that which he wants. Johnny Skeptic exercises the freedom God has given him to destroy people. You are getting your way; what is your complaint?

Jon Barleycorn

Not really -

Angra Mainyu asked :
Did God not command, in your opinion, the killing of homosexuals and blasphemers?
Should God’s command be obeyed?
What about democracy?


You replied :
If people want to be ruled by God, they would be subject to His commands. In a democracy, anyone with 51% of the vote can make his own laws.

That sounds pretty much to me like you advocate implemeting the death penalty for homosexuals & blasphemers at the very least. Or perhaps I misunderstood you?

JPD

Then by the same token saying that there is no risk stands as a valid "working hypothesis", but this isn't really how science works. You have hit the nail on the head with "observation" - God by its very (I don't really like to use this word because it doesn't really work in this context) "nature" is not available for testing. So saying that there is a risk is not really a testable statement. If there was a verifiable, demonstrable way in which the messages of the dead could reach us then that would be something that we could test. You haven't demonstrated that there is a risk that we should pay the slightest attention to - we can't take it seriously. Now if you feel that you have chosen a particular route in life because you believe this risk to be real, and because you wish to reach (because you believe in the existence of) heaven then please argue convincingly that you are not doing this because you stand to gain something from it, ie. that you are acting selfishly

In the 2 Peter 3:9 thread you have said that:

So are we back to the relentless tedium and moronic pointlessness of the elect? You have two modes only in these threads - Pascal's wager and the elect. The first can't be demonstrated to be a risk and the second demonstrates the brainlesness of the alleged creator. Why, then, would we pay Biblegod the slightest attention? I can't see a reason. If Biblegod exists and wishes to stick me in hell for having asked obvious and reasonable questions and not accepting the poor quality arguments of his followers, there's nothing I can do about it. Once again, and let's see if you can get this to sink in this time, WE CANNOT CHOOSE WHAT TO BELIEVE. You believe it and we don't - how hard is that to understand?

And because you have consistently failed to show that there is any risk at all we can't comprehend what the risk is that we "accept" - are you beginning to understand this yet?

Johnny Skeptic

God deliberately withholds information from some people that they would accept if they were aware of the information, so God is having his way. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept information that he would accept if he was aware of the information. God deliberately withholds food from some people who starve to death, so God is having his way. If you have children, and they were drowning, you would try to save all of them, not just some of them, so you would be having your way. If getting people saved is actually God's goal, he most certainly would not depend entirely upon some people wanting to tell other people about the Bible. If getting people saved is a worthy goal, then it is appropriate for everyone who is able to help achieve that goal, including God. If preventing people from drowning at a beach is a worthy goal, then it is appropriate for everyone who is able to help achieve that goal, including God. If preventing people from starving to death is a worthy goal, then it is appropriate for everyone who is able to help achieve that goal, including God. Whether salvation, or tangible needs, human effort could never even come close to adequately meeting those needs. True love is not selective, and it does not endorse favoritism. God has not empowered humans to tell everyone in the world about the Gospel message, to prevent hurricanes, and to prevent anyone from starving to death.

If I had enough power, it would be a simple matter for me to prove to everyone in the world that I exist, (for some unnecessary reason God does not want to prove to everyone in the world that he exists), and, unlike God, that I care about their spiritual needs AND their tangible needs. I would heal all of the sick people in the world, and I would prevent natural disasters. If I claimed that I was the one true God, I could easily start what would become the largest religion in history.

No loving God could possibly derive any benefits at all from refusing to prove to EVERYONE that he exists, what he wants them to do with their lives, and that he cares about them. It is a given that mankind does not derive any benefits at all from God's refusal to to prove to EVERYONE that he exists, what he wants them to do with their lives, and that he cares about them.

If the God of the Bible exists, he most certainly not interested in doing everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell.

myfishgrewlegs

Hello all. This is my first post, but I have been lurking here for a while. A couple of things in this thread inspired me to (finally) register. They are off topic from the OP but as this thread has covered considerable ground already, I hope that can be excused.

Back on page #6 in post #126, rhutchin said: One of the laws given to Moses in Leviticus 20:9 says, "For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall surely be put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him."
But in Luke 14:26, Jesus says, "If any man come to me, and hate not his father, and mother, and wife, and children, and brethren, and sisters, yea, and his own life also, he cannot be my disciple."

The way I read it, if you follow Jesus perfectly on this point, you are certainly violating one of the laws of Moses.

Also in post #238: rhurchin, why aren't you (or are you?) concerned about the risk you are taking by rejecting the idea that the Torah or the Qur'an, or any other "divinely inspired" book might be "telling the truth, despite the problem passages"?

On page 7 of this thread in post #157 Gamera said:
My KJV has that quote a bit different from yours: "For in Jesus Christ neither circumcision availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision; but faith which worketh by love." Not exactly what you said, but close enough, I suppose.

Gamera also said:
And in post #236 this:
I don't think Jesus got that memo:
In Matthew 10:35, Jesus says, "For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law."

Also in Matthew 19:29 Jesus says, "And every one that hath forsaken houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name's sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life."

And Luke 14:26, which I quoted above.

It sounds as though Jesus and Paul got their lines crossed somewhere.
So who has the higher authority? Quite the conundrum, eh?