rhutchin

In this case, God does require faith. I suspect that God does it this way so that a person will know that it is not what he personally does that saves him but that which God does.

So, what rules has God broken?

It is not possible to believe in God except by faith. From a rational perspective, this universe could not exist without a god to create it (at least, there is not a natural law of which man is aware that could cause it). In Romans 1, Paul explains that all people are aware of God. Your point, I think, is that all people are not aware that Jesus Christ is God. Unfortunately, a person can be sentenced to death for breaking a law of which he is ignorant.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Since risk assessment is one of your favorite arguments, let's discuss that issue. Risk assessment is of course a fraud. You can never convince anyone to love you based upon threats alone. Virtually all skeptics are pleased that we know that beneficial microorganisms (rewards) and harmful microorganisms (risks) exist. So, it is quite natural that if there are actually rewards and risks associated with accepting Christianity, especially where eternity is involved, all skeptics would surely want to know about it.

In the first century, it is probable that no one who died in China had heard the Gospel message. That happened because God deliberately withheld the Gospel message from those people. This means that there was no way that Jesus gave the disciples the Great Commission. Human effort alone is a poor means of spreading the supposedly most important and helpful message in history. The Gospel message was spread by the grossly inefficient prevailing means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation, which is exactly what was to be expected if God does not exist. If you discovered a cure for cancer, if you we able to immediately provide it to everyone in the world, would you do so? Do you believe that spreading the Gospel message is more important than discovering and disseminating a cure for cancer?

Where is God today in tangible ways? What tangible benefits can you ask God for and be assured that you will receive? If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs or worldview. Do you have any evidence that today, God discriminately distributes tangible benefits? Surely you must be aware that many people who never ask God for tangible benefits have much better health and finances than people who ask God for tangible benefits. Some Christians ask God to heal them, but are you aware of any amputees who have asked God to give them a new limb? I assume that most or all amputees know better than to ask God for a new limb. Do you believe that God heals people today? If so, why does he discriminate against amputees?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: May I ask why you believe that the Bible is inerrant? Please visit my new thread that is titled 'Some problems for inerrantists'. You have asked me to start a thread on inerrancy, so now that I have done that, you need to visit that thread and discuss inerrancy. If you do, I will post lots of arguments on inerrancy, including some arguments by Farrell Till.

Angra Mainyu

I just want to let rhutchin and others know that some of the posts have been moved to this thread, where we can continue the debate on evolution/creation.

Johnny Skeptic

Not always. 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. (KJV)

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. (KJV)

John 10:37-38 Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father. (NIV)

But it is not necessary for God to require faith in order for him to let people know that what he personally does saves them, not what they do. It is a fact that that message would be best communicated to everyone by God himself, tangibly, in person. Will you agree with me that God provides information to some people who he knows will reject it, and withholds information from some people who he knows will accept it if they are aware of it?

[quote=JohnnySkeptic] If God exists, it is a fact that he sometimes breaks some of his own rules. If it is moral for God to break some of his own rules, then it is moral for him to break all of them if that is what he wants to do, right?

[quote=rhutchin] So, what rules has God broken?]

God refuses to protect women from rapists, with no possible benefits for himself or for anyone else. That is an example of negligence. We have laws against negligence. I assume that you approve of them. The Bible teaches that husbands and wives should not be negligent towards one another’s needs, which surely includes tangible needs, but God is negligent towards many of mankind’s tangible needs.

James says that if a man refuses to give food to a brother or sister, he is vain, and his faith is dead, and yet, one million people died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine, although God could easily have given food to those people, most of whom were Christians. God refused to give food to those people, with no possible benefits to himself of to anyone else. Therefore, God is vain, and he is a hypocrite. If giving food to hungry people is a worthy goal for humans, it most certainly is also a worthy goal for God.

God deliberately withholds information from some people that would keep them from going to hell if they were aware of it, with no possible benefits for him or for anyone else.

The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God has killed lots of people, including some of his most devout and faithful followers, and babies.

God kills people with hurricanes. From a Christian perspective, there is no such thing as a natural disaster. If God created the earth, then he created the weather too. Surely it is not your position that hurricanes create themselves and go wherever they want to go.

If God heals people, he always discriminates against amputees. Why is that? You have said that people should ask God for help, but are you not aware that it would be useless for an amputee to ask God for a new limb?

If there are rewards and risks associated with accepting Christianity, surely all skeptics would want to know about it. There is no other possible conclusion. Virtually all skeptics are pleased that we know that beneficial microorganisms (rewards) and harmful microorganisms (risks) exist. So, if there are actually rewards and risks associated with accepting Christianity, it is quite natural that skeptics would want to know about it, even much more so than wanting to know about the existence of microorganisms since the rewards and risks regarding accepting the Bible involve eternity.

Ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, by genetics or by some other means, God’s has ensured that everyone must commit sins at least some of the time by passing down a sinful nature to all successive generations. Otherwise, some people would be perfect and would not need to become saved.

Today, if God distributes tangible benefits, it is quite odd that he does so in exactly the same manner that we would expect if he does not exist. If God does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person’s needs or worldview, and the only benefits that a man could ask God for and be assured that he would receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits. How is that scenario any different from the scenario that we have today?

If God were mentally incompetent, how would he act any differently that he acts now? The correct answer is, not any differently at all. No mentally competent being helps people AND kills people, and provides food for people AND allows people to starve to death. If God exists, at best, he is mentally incompetent.

It is most certainly possible to believe in intelligent design without any faith at all if God were to show and create a new galaxy. If God did that, will you agree with me that some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced? If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, which Christian doctors are trying to do, will you agree with me that some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced?

Aside from the fact that 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences disagree with you, since I am agnostic, I do not rule out a reasonable possibility of intelligent design.

Please present your evidence that a anyone living in the U.S. has ever been sentenced to life in prison or death for breaking a law that he was not aware of.

If God is loving, he would provide much more evidence than he has provided, which would result in more people going to heaven, and fewer people going to hell. It is a question of how badly God wants people to go to heaven, and not to hell.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Please reply to my previous post.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you intend to reply to my post #695? Perhaps you are busy. If so, I assume that you will reply to it when you have time.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: I invite you to participate in a thread that I recently started yesterday at the GRD Forum. It is titled 'Requiring faith is counterproductive if you want to let people know that you exist'. The link is at http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=190587. Gakusei Don is participating in that thread. It is quite popular. There have already been 415 views, and 69 replies.

French Prometheus

Disturbing image replaced with link


(Yes that's Mao on the left, in front of a table full of delicious food).

Sorry, Prometheus, that first image was just a little bit strong for this forum. I replaced it with a link.

DtC, Moderator, BC&H

Johann_Kaspar

Water
Obviously you don't understand that indeed he could walk on the sea.

Who else, here?