Helpmabob

It is prophetic, so it is correct.We’re not, generally, sad though are we? And not all prophecy has yet been fulfilled. Neither is a visual manifestation explainable to science a necessary part of the fulfilment of divine prophecy. So you can cross those three off the list of objections.But God’s nature and purpose can indeed to an extent be known. Although one can choose to hide from this if desired.[/QUOTE]Should I give up on you, Helpmabob?[/QUOTE]Dear spin, I had no idea that you were relying on me in any capacity[/QUOTE]

It should be.New nations are being created all the time. Consider Iraq, Macedonia etc. There are probably many more nations and peoples to come in the future, long after me and thee are long gone Johnny. They deserve a chance too.

Yes, fair enough.[/QUOTE]All 613 mizvot?[/QUOTE]Can I direct your attention to Psalm 119: http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/...119&version=31. As the longest chapter in the Bible, it emphasises the importance of the prophecy to the people of God.Some things remain to be fulfilled. He still has to return to earth. Whilst you may not believe this, I and many others do, and when He comes, there will be further final fulfilment of Biblical prophecy. I do not tend to praise Jesus because of the prophecy. It is primarily because of who He is.Yes, it can certainly be verified by God. That is the crucial thing. It can be verified also by myself and in a large part by my fellow Christians. Whether and how it can be verified by atheists, agnostics, humanists and nihilists I have no idea – I cannot speak for them.

[Law is the embodiment of unspoken morality. Without universal morality there is no foundation to worldwide law.GodYou don’t think that God would give us some sense of right and wrong is a good enough reason?I already answered this here: And now to investigate and understand the signs of the times, let’s have a look at the prophetic words of Jesus: Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. There will be earthquakes in various places, and famines. These are the beginning of birth pains. [Mark 13:8]. If you need convincing, just take a look around and see this one play out before your eyes.

spin

I have attempted to shake you about such naivite.

What you know is a function of how you know it. If you know something without having an objective means of knowing it, then that knowledge is false. You cannot objectively test this stuff you package as prophecy. You are like the serpent with its tail in its mouth: you can get nowhere.

Yes. The slave that likes being beaten is sad.

You don't know what is prophecy, what has been fulfilled, or what has been falsified.

Verifiability, objectively based verifiability, should be a foundation of your knowledge. Without it you know nothing.

They are not my objections. They are your protections.

You need knowledge that there is a god before you can consider other aspect of this entity. You may get the nature in your investigation of the existence, but it is existence which is the first hurdle you must objectively get over. Try as hard as one can, can you push the schizophrenic over that hurdle?

One of the necessities of communication is that you rely on your interlocutor to participate.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helpmabob: Even if God can predict the future, since there is not a necessary correlation between the ability to predict the future and good character, there are not sufficient grounds for anyone to become a Christian.

I make no apologies for objecting to a God who 1) says that killing people is wrong, but kills some of his most devout and faithful followers with hurricanes, or allows them to be killed with hurricanes, which as far as I and many other people are concerned is exactly the same thing, 2) makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, 3) punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5, 4) ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave, 5) killed Ananias and Saphira over money, reference the New Testament, 6) could easily have prevented the U.S. Civil War by telling Jefferson Davis, a Christian who was President of the Southern Confederacy, that slavery is wrong, 7) endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, 8) distributes tangible benefits without any regard whatsoever for a person’s worldview, which gives many people the impression that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics, and 9) refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they had sufficient evidence to their satisfaction that he exists.

If ANY being other than God committed THE VERY SAME ATROCITIES against mankind that God has committed, most Christians would reject him. If God told lies, most Christians would reject him. How is telling lies any worse than the atrocities that I mentioned?

2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish, meaning not even one single person. That is obviously a lie since God could easily provide additional evidence that would cause some people to become Christians who were not previously convinced.

If a being came to earth, claimed to be Jesus, and demonstrated that he had vast powers, as far as I know, since any being might be an imposter, it would be impossible for any being to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is Jesus. If such a being showed up, I would be neutral regarding his claim that he was Jesus, but human nature being what it is, many people would believe his claim, in which case if he was Jesus, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. From a Christian perspective, wouldn’t that be a good thing? If not, I would certainly like to know why not.

I would ask the being lots of questions about God’s many questionable actions and allowances. If I was satisfied with his answers, and if he agreed to provide me with a comfortable eternal life, I would accept him even if I was not reasonably certain who he was. Revelation 21:4 says "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." That is the prize that many if not most Christians are hoping to receive, and I do not blame them. I would want that too, but I couldn't care less who provided it as long as it was available. Neither would most Christians, although they are not aware of it at this time. If a man has cancer, and a cure is available, he most certainly does not care who provides him with the cure. If I was not satisfied with the being's answers, I would not be able to will myself to accept him.

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.” If ANY being came to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, and prevented natural disasters from occurring, he would be greatly appreciated by everyone. If such a being started a new religion, I assume that it would become the largest religion in history.

Humans quite naturally place great emphasis upon good physical health. No one who has very poor physical health is able to enjoy life, especially if they have untreatable pain. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure ALL diseases. Whenever a prevention or a cure for a disease is found, ALL Christians rejoice.

I am not suggesting that humans should not have any problems and obstacles to overcome. No loving human father would try to remove all problems and obstacles from the life of his son. Humans need some difficulties and challenges to deal with so they can develop good character. However, I am not aware of any evidence that you have to seriously injure or kill a man, or allow him to starve to death, in order to help him develop good character.

If the God of the Bible exists, at best, he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. Even Attila the Hun did not injure and kill some of his most devout and faithful followers, or allow them to be injured and killed. Of course, the best evidence indicates that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Gullwind

And what worldwide law would that be?

Assertion. Got any objective evidence of this?

A sense of right and wrong is quite easily explained as cultures develop. You haven't shown that supernatural intervention is necessary, much less that it occurred.

Repeating that it depends on circumstances does not answer the question of what specific circumstances would justify slavery. You said that absolute morality depends on circumstances. What specific circumstances would you, Helpmabob, feel justified in owning another human being as property?

It's been playing out the same way for a lot longer than the bible has been around. Did you have a point here?

Helpmabob

On the contrary. I have that plus I have revelation from God. I therefore have more wisdom and knowledge (particularly knowledge of purpose and prophecy) than I would have if I restricted myself to the narrow horizons and timescales that some rigidly insist upon. There is a foundation below that of scientific verifiability and that is of a restored relationship with the Creator of both me and science.I have knowledge of the presence of God and understanding of His character and purpose. And I like it. Anyone can have it. It’s free.

Obstacles are easier to overcome with God’s help.

I mean of course, the general acceptance of murder and theft as crime. If you can tell me where this is not so I’d be interested to hear. So this general acceptance can be considered a ‘worldwide law’. And it must have a common basis, because countries do not cooperate on such things for fun – they do it because there is a clear underlying worldwide moral foundation instituted by God.It follows reductio ad absurdum from above that only God could reasonably be responsible for putting this in place.I doubt that I would. There would certainly have to be a net benefit to the other person. And only if it was such that it provided someone with food and shelter in return for labour (on the basis that I was unable to afford to actually pay them), whereas otherwise they would be homeless and hungry, then that might be better for everyone. I would far rather see that society changed so that there was more equality and equal distribution of resources. Most importantly, I would seek God’s leading in the matter through prayer.

So I will come near to you for judgment. [Malachi 3:5].

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helplmabob: Is it your position that God is not able to do anything more than he has done to convince people to become Christians, or that he is not willing to do anything more than he has done to convince people to become Christians? If Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, do you believe that some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced?

Will you please tell us why God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, why he punishes people because of sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5, why he killed one fourth of the people in Europe with a bacteria (Bubonic Plague), why he killed Ananias and Saphira over money, and why today, he has gone out of his way to make it appear that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics? Are you aware that there is not any tangible need that you can ask God for and expect to receive? No Christian can expect God to provide him with food, shelter, clothing, good health, protection from serious accidents, education, or anything else. This is to be expected if God does not exist.

What evidence do you have that God is not bi-polar? If he is bi-polar, how would he act any differently than he is acting now?

What benefits does God derive from refusing to clearly reveal himself to everyone, tangibly, in person? What benefits does mankind derive from God's refusal to clearly reveal himself to everyone, tangibly, in person?

spin

You cannot separate yourself from the schizophrenic, when you pull this rabbit out of the hat. A revelation from a god is something that you cannot objectively verify, so you are taking a flight into unreason. You accept the notion of an escape clause here: your paranoia, sorry, your god, has given you special delusion, I mean, insight. Can you not see the problem with the unverifiable route that you are drowing in? Without that external verifiability you render yourself liable to the same unknowing that our schizophrenic is.

More unverifiable claims.

How can you verify that claim? You are still chasing your tail. It is not sufficient to think you know something. You have to have that external verification or you can never get past that thinking it's so, ie you are apparently caught in delusion.

By what means do you have that knowledge, that perception of the presence of god? And in answering this question, please don't chase your tail. What investigative means do you have to say how you know what you claim to know?

How do you know this god's character? I can understand someone reading a book of some sort, but that doesn't give understanding of character. You have to know the entity in order to know the character. How do you perceive this entity in order to know it?

Junkies tend to like their drugs.

So's paranoid schizophrenia. You have constantly failed to distinguish yourself from our schizophrenic.

You really are doing a poor job, especially if you are trying to witness to anyone. The one good thing about this though is that you can think your god appreciates your efforts despite your failures, so you can go away happy.

The paranoid schizophrenic also goes away happy. You see the world is closed. The delusion is sufficient and nothing can get in from the outside to disrupt this stable world, which has nothing directly to do with our common world.

And this notion of "common" is important, ie something that we share. Without others sharing in our experience of the world, we do not know the world. We are not part of it. We have no point from which to understand it. However, hiding in a god or other delusion protects us from understanding the world and all that that means.


spin

Gullwind

The general acceptance of murder can quite easily be explained by the realization that the society will not be improved by allowing individuals to kill other members of the society. No supernatural intervention required. Theft is not universally considered immoral, but the same elements apply as for murder in most respects. Again, no supernatural hints are necessary.

And other religions would say the same about Vishnu, Buddha, Thor, Zeus and the IPU. Why is the Christian god the only one who could do this?

You can provide food and shelter in return for labor without owning them as slaves. The bible says its okay to own slaves. Is this moral or not?

Helpmabob

It allows as many as possible to turn to Him, and allows faith, which take my word for it, is better. Try it out now for yourself, today, don’t delay.

I do have it though. Your educated and doubtless well-intentioned response here doesn’t reduce that knowledge at all. Perhaps it is easier and more honest for you just to say: 'Helpmabob, I don't believe/comprehend you'.?

Simply in and through the Holy Spirit, met in prayer and Bible study and choosing to live day by day in the light.

That’s a very confident and perhaps simplistic assertion. What particular verses had you in mind here?

God gives us thinkable brains and commands us to love others as ourselves as well as to generally keep the law (which currently forbids slavery), which we should first utilise before jumping to any conclusions drawn from a single Bible verse.

I think the Bible gives guidance on the treatment of slaves, but has nothing much on whether or not it is clearly moral or immoral. Although, specifically, the Bible condemns racial slavery as in the Israelites by the Egyptians (see the results in Exodus chapters 7 through 11). It is more concerned with the spreading of the gospel message of salvation, and promoting an environment in which that message can be heard and understood by all, in whatever circumstances they find themselves.

The gospel message is first and foremost. After that, is a certain parallel between the lesser importance attributed to specific rules on slavery and the profile of prophecy in itself. Prophecies such as: A voice of one calling: "In the desert prepare the way for the LORD; make straight in the wilderness a highway for our God. [Isaiah 40:3].

With: John replied in the words of Isaiah the prophet, "I am the voice of one calling in the desert, 'Make straight the way for the Lord.' " [John 1:23]

The point being that it is the person to whom the prophecy is pointing (John the Baptist), himself pointing to Jesus who is superior to the prophecy itself.

spin

Faith is not something to build a belief on. It is too gullible. Once you're there it is almost impossible for you to get yourself out from. It's just like heroin. Try it, you'll find out how good it is. But once you're there, how can you get back? If you abnegate your right to choose, then you are not yourself.

You have provided no way to know that you do. I have elicited from you so many times a means for you to show yourself how you can know and you have consistently either avoided the question or trumped up an insincere response.

If you can't objectively verify it, it's not knowledge.

Wishful thinking there, Helpmabob. It's easier for you to hedge, but it's more honest for you to answer how you can objectively know what you claim to know.

It wouldn't be day if you weren't in the light.

Your response did not try to answer my question. Would you like to try again? How do you know the entity in order to know the character? This is a question about your objective evidence that can allow you to know.

If you like, we can deal with your hedging: how do you perceive the holy spirit in order to know it? (You have to stop somewhere and face the question, don't you? You can't hedge recursively.) What is your objective means to perceive the holy spirit?? If you cannot perceive something in some manner, you cannot know of its existence.


spin