John A. Broussard

Nope. It's not torture. People who drown others are just having fun. The people who were drowned really enjoyed the procedure.

C'mon, bfniii, surely you aren't the monster you are picturing yourself to be.

John A. Broussard

Got it.

God killed all those bablies because their hearts were "only evil all the time." and "all the people [including the babies and the unborn] had corrupted their ways."

Doesn't it bother you, even a little bit, to believe that a newborn baby is evil, that it's ways are corrupted?

I have a great deal of difficulty understanding how your mind works.

bfniii

you seem to be suggesting that there is a limit God should ascribe to. what is this limit?

in what way is genetic programming responsible for compassion?

the argument is the same for anyone. how is the christian God unjust for allowing suffering?

this doesn't address the point. what good is altruism or selfishness?

you state in post #169 "Regarding God’s allowances, how about the Bubonic Plague and the recent tsunami in Asia? Did the plague and the tsunami benefit anyone in any way? Of course not."

this stands in stark contrast to the present statement.

you ask how you would communicate with such a person and then give an example of that person communicating.

since this isn't the only person of those circumstances, his attitude isn't ecumenical. i'm sure that you are aware of people in that situation who have a different attitude.

the why. why is God barbaric for allowing suffering?

why shouldn't they?

the next sentences don't address my point. human fathers should not allow their children to suffer. likewise, neither should God. the fallacy here is in holding God to human abilities. God may have the ability to provide meaning in suffering that humans would not.

just because they're different, doesn't mean they don't exist.

what is love? what is common decency?

my experience has been the opposite.

email any church that had evacuees.

people are afforded the opportunity to help those in need

some victims say they are better off now than ever.

unless purpose can be found in them

He must have a reason not to

so people's opinions on the matter differ.

the second half of post #324

bfniii

i personally don't want anyone killed. but my opinion isn't the issue because i don't control anyone's fate. everyone is going to die. the question becomes when should a person die? why should these people have not died when they did?

no reason is specified, but slavery is likely. that's generally what happened with war prisoners.

bfniii

you didn't answer the question. define torture.

bfniii

if God is omnipotent, isn't He equipped to determine whether babies deserve to go to heaven and to get them there?

Johnny Skeptic

The texts say that Jesus healed people because he had compassion for them. First of all, there is no evidence at all that Jesus ever healed anyone. Second of all, there is no evidence that God is compassionate in tangible ways today either.

Genetics is not one of my specialties, but there are some skeptics in the creation/evolution forum who can answer your question.

As I said before, “My objection is the DEGREE to which God allows the Devil to attack humans.� The Bubonic Plague, the recent tsunami in Asia, and Hurricane Katrina are good examples of God’s lack of compassion and protection.

It feels good for me to be a moral person, so that is the way that I act. In addition, cooperation among humans and animals contributes to the well-being of humans. Since I am an agnostic, I do not make assertions how the universe and humans got here.

The supposed goodness of God is in fact the very foundation of the entire Bible. The supposed goodness of God is best exemplified in John 3:16. The topic of the goodness of God is even more important than the topic of the Resurrection. I question the goodness of God in my thread that is titled ‘Apologists assume too much about the nature of God.’ I suggest that you visit that thread and make a post there. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and said that he died for the sins of mankind, would you worship him based solely upon that evidence? Of course you wouldn’t, but yet you do not have any more evidence than that to defend Christianity.

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] No one at this forum has ever stated that “no good can come from natural disasters.�

Let me put it a different way. Do you have any evidence that the advantages that result from natural disasters are greater than the disadvantages that result from natural disasters? In other words, is it your position that the more natural disasters, the better?

Regarding “Now will you please tell me how in world I could communicate with such a person?,� if you go back and reread my previous post, you will see that that question was regarding a hypothetical person who was quadriplegic, blind, and deaf. I said that a real person named Vincent Humbert was quadriplegic, blind, and mute. He was not deaf, and he obviously was able to communicate with French President Chirac in some fashion.

Do you believe that Vincent Humbert had a right to die? Regarding my hypothetical example of a person who was quadriplegic, blind, and mute, what possible ancillary could come from that? Would you want to live in such a condition?

I didn’t ask you about other people. I asked you about Vincent Humbert. Everyone is an individual. What some people can tolerate and bear, other people cannot tolerate and bear. Are you opposed to physician assisted suicide?

Because if they do, they will miss out on a lot on wonderful ancillary advantages, that is, the people who didn’t die from natural disasters, many of whom were the sole income providers in single parent homes.

I will be happy to consider any evidence that you have that they do exist. Do you have any? The New Testament says that is was obvious to both sides that Jesus had supernatural powers, although the Pharisees believed that his powers came from Beelzebub. Today, it IS NOT obvious to both sides that God is good in tangible ways.

Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." In order to make my point more clear, the New International Version translates the verse as "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." It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of "the message of his grace" that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus.

Regarding Jesus, a good example of his love would have been if he had healed people because he had compassion for them, but there is not any evidence at all that he ever healed anyone. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that is was any different back then? An example of God’s love would have been if he had caused Hurricane Katrina to go into the Atlantic Ocean and dissipate. Common decency, whether regarding God or humans, is the same as love. A loving human father would not prevent his son from being harmed in any way, but he most certainly would try to prevent him from driving under the influence of alcohol.

What do you mean?

What I need is names and e-mail addresses of people who became Christians as a result of Hurricane Katrina. Since you claim that God allows hurricanes, why should Christians ask his protection from hurricanes? Since you claim that God allows cancer, why should Christians ask God protection from cancer?

Does that include young children who lost their parents, and people who were injured and who will never walk again? If a poll were conducted in New Orleans among 100,000 people, and if the question were “Is your life better or worse because of Hurricane Katrina,� how many people do you think would say “better off�? I assume that not even 100 people, which would be 1/10th of 1%, would respond “better off.�

Unspecified and unstated purposes are not acceptable. If a presidential candidate did not explain his purposes in great detail to the satisfaction of voters, and IN PERSON, he would never be elected. You assume that there is a purpose, but you do not have any evidence whatsoever that backs up your assumption. God’s track record is very poor. Just take a look at the world and see for yourself.

If God does have a reason not to, then he should make a personal appearance and tell us so, or at the very least make a personal appearance and tell us to be patient and that the answers will be revealed in due time. The nature of God, both past and present, is much too questionable to accept for a host of reasons. God’s continued absenteeism for a number of millennia, and I suspect for many more millennia, has served only to create dissent instead of discouraging dissent.

Wikipedia is YOUR source, and it DOES NOT accurately date the Tyre prophecy. Consider the following from your Wikipedia article that I quoted and commented on in a previous post:

So, YOUR OWN SOURCE has refuted your arguments. Would you care to try again?

Ok, let’s take a lot at part of post #324:

I am not as much interested in “what� was written down regarding the Tyre prophecy as I am interested in “when� it was written down. So, what in antiquity is true do not have anything whatsoever to do with the dating of the Tyre prophecy. Although most skeptics claim that the Tyre prophecy did not come true, that is not my approach. My approach is that without accurate dating, the prophecy is useless.

bfniii

let's get more basic. who is Jesus?

this is opinion. i'm sure you know people who disagree with you. how would either side be quantified?

if you aren't prepared to support your statement, perhaps you shouldn't make it.

in what way? how does God lack compassion by allowing these events?

and what do you base your morals on? where do they come from? who inspires you morally?

i beg to differ. the nazis sure would have wanted your cooperation in exterminating the jews. would you give it to them? animals often kill their own kind to preserve their dominance. where is the cooperation there?

it seems to me that agnosticism is unable to show that:
1. God is incapable of revealing Himself to us in a way we would understand
2. God has chosen to not reveal Himself.

i don't totally agree with this. it's hard to reduce such a gestalt to one simple point.

this borders on reductio ad absurdum. there are several marked differences between Jesus and elvis. furthermore, your use of the word "if" implies a haphazard addition of circumstances to elvis' life which allows you to pick and choose elements to add or not add. therefore, to state there is no more evidence to defend christianity is highly spurious.

it's ridiculous to try to quantify results of a natural disaster. either there is suffering, or there is not. alot of suffering to one person is not much to another. therefore, degree is subjective. concordantly, there either is purpose in such events or there is not. it's not a case of more purpose or less purpose.

any good or suffering that comes from a disaster is irrelevant to any alleged inherent purpose of the disaster.

no, they're just a part of life. there is good that comes from them and there is suffering. but neither of those has anything to do with the purpose.

i was aware of that. being able to communicate with such a person is irrelevant to their situation yielding any good.

"right to die" is ridiculous. everyone is going to die. how is an inevitability a right? it's a question of timing.

i have stated that i am positive you are aware of such people and that there is good that comes from it.

what i want is irrelevant to reality. would a famous athlete or head of state want to live in my present condition? probably not. condition is relative to the person.

you asked about both.

not sure what this has to do with the current topic. i think it's like anything else, it can be and has been abused.

this is a strawman. i was responding to the statement that no good can come from disasters or people becoming handicapped.

obviously, no one wants these things. but they are inevitable. however, that does nothing to prove that there isn't purpose in such things.

there is evidence of miracles but not proof. evidence is a specific instance of an example; such as john doe being healed from cancer. but even an example as tangible as a spontaneous healing can be dismissed as a random occurrence even if science can't provide a reasonable explanation. therefore, evidence abounds as examples are quite common. some sound kooky, some don't.

proof of miracles is impossible.

you're right. what's the point?

and this "fact" is based on what? how would you quantify such a need?

you gave an example of what would have been love. the bible claims this situation happened but you say there is no evidence for it. what would constitute evidence to you?

why is that important?

do you have a reason to believe it was not different back then?

that is completely ridiculous. why even bother allowing the hurricane to exist in the first place? why would anyone think that God was responsible for that?

i'm not quite following this. did you mean to say that a loving human father would prevent his son......?

i've got news for you, there are some fathers who teach their kids all kinds of evil things and they think they are doing something good. start with the nazis.

as i said, i have not heard of one person who left christianity. i have heard of people becoming christians.

what i gave you is of equal value but of more quantity. the people i refer to were in shelters and have since moved on. since i did not know i would be asked for that information, i didn't collect it at the time. fortunately, any church that had evacuees will be able to corroborate the claim. they may even be able to provide you the information you require.

there's no harm in asking, but i think most people know it could be them that suffers. prayer is not really designed to get out of things, but to get through things.

what difference would it make if it were 99%? if even one person suffers, there is suffering. again, suffering has nothing to do with purpose.

on the contrary, i have provided reasons.

what i see is apparently diametrically opposed to what you see.

the bible claims, and christians believe, that has been done. the question is how many more appearances you require.

according to you.

not all people see God as absent.

according to whom?

it does not refute my argument. it shows when the prophecy was written according to the sources that are cited. what you claim is that there is more than one opinion on the authorship of ezekiel.

my question remains; how do we know anything about antiquity? how does anyone know when any writing from antiquity was written?

Johnny Skeptic

The supposed historical character who is depicted in the Bible, a character whose existence I accept for the sake of argument. Now then, what about some evidence that Jesus healed people.

If you have evidence that Jesus healed people, I will be happy to discuss it. Lee Merrill tried to prove that God uses his power in tangible ways today, but it appears that he has given up on his attempts to do so.

It is important to note that during the time of Jesus, the texts says that that “both sides� were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers, but the Pharisees said that Jesus’ power came from Beelzebub. Today, both sides “are not� aware of God’s supernatural power regarding tangible miracles.

The best thing for you to do as the claimant is to produce your evidence and we will discuss it.

I think that we were discussing naturalism, but since I am agnostic, I do not promote naturalism, nor do I reject it.

Bfniii: What way? How does God lack compassion by allowing these events?[/quote]

How does God lack compassion? What evidence is there that he “has� compassion in tangible ways today, or that he “ever� had compassion in tangible ways? Good things and bad things are not distributed in a manner that indicates divine intervention, and they are frequently not distributed to the people who need them the most. This suggests that if the God of the Bible does exist, he is amoral, and that he does not directly participate in peoples’ lives in tangible ways today, and that the same was probably true in the past.

As an agnostic, my position is that we do not know. However, I do not have any problem at all conceding the existence of the God of the Bible for the sake of argument, but with some notable exceptions regarding his questionable character.

I aspire to the “do good, and do not harm to others� philosophy of life. If I had lived 4,000 years ago, my philosophy of life might have been much different. For about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, the vast majority of Christians favored colonization, slavery, and the subjugation of women. If you had been a Christian say 1700 A.D., that most likely would have included you. The largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property.

People in the 1800’s who supported the abolition of slavery, the abolition of colonization, and who supported the right to vote for women.

Cooperation can be used in good ways and bad ways. Christians have often cooperated in bad ways. Without cooperation, most humans, and many animals species, would not survive. Humans discovered long ago that tribalism is absolutely necessary for food gathering, mutual protection, etc.

I will be happy to consider any evidence that you have that is good in tangible ways today, or that he ever has been good in tangible ways.

I did not ask for one simple point. Just produce your evidence that God is good in tangible ways today, and that he was good in tangible ways in the past. The Bible asserts that God is loving, that he is good, and that Jesus healed people, so it is up to you as the claimant to defend and explain those assertions.

Which differences are those?

The words “if,� “haphazard,� and “spurious,� adequately describe the claims that God is loving, that God is good, that Jesus healed people, that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, that Jesus was born of a virgin, that Jesus never sinned, that Jesus died for the sins of mankind, and that he will one day return to earth.

Most of the people in New Orleans say otherwise. So would you if a tornado killed all of your family and friends, destroyed all of your property and possessions, and caused you to become quadriplegic, blind, and mute, like the Frenchman named Vincent Humbert who I told you about in one my previous posts. Do you opposed physician assisted suicide�

A lot of suffering for one person is always much suffering to another person if the suffering is severe enough, such as severe cases of multiple sclerosis or cerebral palsy.

What is God’s purpose?

Your assertion is irrelevant unless you can produce evidence what God’s unproven purpose and motives are.

Whose purpose?

My point was that Vincent Humbert had right to die, and he was denied that right by French President Chirac. I do not know of any Christian in New Orleans who asked God to send a hurricane there, but I know of plenty of Christians who did not want a hurricane to go there.

Well obviously timing is what physician assisted suicide is about, the right to choose not only the timing of one’s death, but the right to die a peaceful, dignified death. Do you oppose physician assisted suicide or not?

What I meant to say was quadriplegic, blind, and deaf, not quadriplegic, blind, and mute. What possible good could result during such a person’s lifetime? My point is that I support the right of the individual to choose his diet, his religion, and the timing and means of his death if he is in a physical state of health that precludes enjoying a reasonable quality of life is his own opinion.

Now you’ve got it. Vincent Humbert’s condition was such that he wanted to choose the timing and means of his death, and he deserved that right, as does everyone else.

But in cases where it is not abused, do you oppose it? Teenage drivers often abuse the right to drive. Do you suggest that laws be passed to prevent teenagers from driving?

Nor does it prove that there is purpose to these things.

What I am asking for is evidence that Jesus healed people, and that God heals people today. Today, healings, regarding both humans and animals, are not distributed in ways that indicate a purpose. You assume that God’s purposes are for the benefit of mankind, but you do not have any reasonable proof that backs up that assertion.

The point is, we need the same kinds of evidence that people supposedly had back then, but we don’t have any.

Bible apologetics is largely based upon logic, reason, and evidence, right?

The same kind of evidence that the texts say was available to “both sides� back then.

It is quite important because people back then were not any better able to ascertain what constitutes a miracle healing than Christians are today.

No. Do you have any reason to believe it was different back then?

Well, the Bible says that God created everything, so that includes hurricanes, and by implication that God determines where they go.

[quote=Johnny Skeptic] Common decency, whether regarding God or humans, is the same as love. A loving human father would not prevent his son from being harmed in any way,

[quote=bfniii] I'm not quite following this. did you mean to say that a loving human father would prevent his son......?

Yes. If God does not love people like decent people love people, I do not want any part of him.

[quote=bfniii] I've got news for you, there are some fathers who teach their kids all kinds of evil things and they think they are doing something good. Start with the nazis.

I said “a loving human father.� A loving God would provide a lot more protection for mankind than he does. God’s protection is not indicated, at least not in ways that indicate that his compassion is consistent. Consistency confirms motives. Inconsistency do not confirm motives.

I read were a number of Christian pastors gave up Christianity as a result of the recent tsunami in Asia.

Where is your evidence? I have not read of one single case of a person becoming a Christian because of Hurricane Katrina. I am not interested in people becoming Christians because of human kindness from Christians. After the events of 9/11/2001, the Jehovah’s witnesses helped victims a lot with food, shelter and clothing. Their national headquarters is near the twin trade towers in New York City. What I want is evidence of people becoming Christians because
God created natural disasters.

I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years, and I observed fundamentalist Christians asking for God’s protection on numerous occasions. Christian athletes often ask for God to prevent injuries for themselves and for their opponents. Is preventing tragedies not a lot more desirable than trying to recover from them?

All of your arguments depend upon your concept of what the nature of God really is, but you do not know God well enough based upon your own personal experiences, and based upon historical records, to have a good understanding of what God is really like.

Whose purpose? I am not aware of any God who has clearly stated and explained what his purposes are but I “am� aware that throughout the millennia, no God has ever showed up and clearly stated and explained what his purposes are.

But you do not have the authority nor the ability nor the qualifications to speak for God.

Obviously. What skeptics require is the same kinds of evidence that the texts say was available to “both sides� during the time of Jesus. I can elaborate in greater detail if you wish.

Which appearances are you talking about?

Just so you know what my purposes are, I couldn’t care less what people believe, but I do care what they do. My main topics of interest are physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and same sex marriage. I do not oppose religion, in general, or Christianity in particular, but I do oppose fundamentalist Christianity in particular because fundamentalist Christians are the chief opponents of physician assisted suicide, homosexuality, and physician assisted suicide. Wherever you go in the world, no matter what the religion, fundamentalists are always trouble. Fundamentalist Christians claim that they believe in “live and let live,� but most of them really don’t. I debate a lot at the General Religious Discussion Forum. We skeptics have retired many a Christian regarding social issues.

So, please feel free to believe whatever you wish, but please do not attempt to interfere with the rights of other groups of people who do not agree with your Bible based agenda.

According to the article. It said that some historians believe that Ezekiel did not write all of the book of Ezekiel, which suggests a reasonable possibility that someone other than Ezekiel wrote parts of the Tyre prophecy, and during unspecified years.

It is often reasonably possible to date approximately when some historical events occurred, but it is often not reasonably possible to date when records of the events were first recorded, or whether or not alterations of the events occurred at later dates. Possible alterations to the Tyre prophecy is where you lose hands down.

Unlike most skeptics, I am not questioning the historical events of the Tyre prophecy. All that I am questioning is the dating of the prophecy.

The authorship of the Tyre prophecy is not nearly as important as the dating of the Tyre prophecy, and neither the writer of the Wikipedia article nor anyone else can reliably determine when the Tyre prophecy was first recorded, if all of it was recorded at the same time, what was stated when it was first recorded, and whether or not later alterations occurred.

I am contesting what happened in antiquity regarding the events that are recorded in the Tyre prophecy. I am contesting the dating of the prophecy.

I ask you the very same question. I am not trying to accurately date the Tyre, but you are, so do it. Often, we cannot accurately date when certain writings in antiquity were written (just ask any competent historian and find out for yourself), but we are not talking about antiquity in general. We are talking about the Tyre prophecy in particular. It is completely impossible for anyone to accurately date the Tyre prophecy, and it is completely impossible to reasonably prove that alterations were not made at later dates.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: I wrote and posted my previous post last night. It is quite lengthy. Our posts have become unnecessarily long. I suggest that you disregard my previous post and reply only to this one.

Regarding the nature of God, maybe he has explanations that I will accept regarding his actions and allowances, but maybe he doesn’t. Pending personal explanations by God regarding a number of his actions and allowances, it is most certainly reasonable for me and other skeptics to withhold our decisions whether or not to worship him. Fully informed consent is the best and most reliable kind of consent.

You claim that God is loving and compassionate, but his love and compassion are not consistent in accordance with love and compassion as understood by humans. If a human father chooses to provide food for his son, then he most certainly would prevent a natural disaster from injuring or killing his son if he were able to do so.

The question is, do those being ruled by a self-proclaimed dictator of the universe have the right to consult with their ruler on a daily basis, with the ruler making daily appearances in person? Of course they do. Might DOES NOT automatically make right.

Regarding physician assisted suicide, do you oppose a terminally ill person’s right to choose the timing and the means of his death?

Regarding the dating of the Tyre prophecy, for easier reference I just made a post about that issue in the thread that is titled ‘A simple invalidation of the Tyre prophecy.’