Johnny Skeptic

But I already refuted your absurd arguments in my previous post. Here it is again, and since I know how evasive you typically are, I will repost it as frequently as necessary until you reply to all of it.

God has sinned, so he does not have the right to judge anyone. Decent people do not have a choice whether or not to love a God who has committed the numerous atrocities that God has committed against mankind. Your definition of the word "atrocity" is much different than decent peoples' definition. If God told lies, you would consider that to be an atrocity, but when it comes to God’s atrocities, many of which are much worse than lying is, you have somehow been able to abandon your principles and morals. A web definition for the word "atrocity" is "the quality of being shockingly cruel and inhumane". God is definitely shockingly cruel and inhumane. Consider the following:

1 - God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11.

2 - God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5.

3 - God killed babies at Sodom and Gomorrah

4 - God kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout followers. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own followers.

5 - God empowered a savage Devil to help him attack mankind.

6 - God is willing that some people starve to death even though he has food in abundance. In the Irish Potato Famine alone, one million people died of starvation, most of whom were Christians. It is probable that many if not most of the Christians desperately asked God to provide them with food, but to no avail. James says that if a man refuses give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. This makes God a hypocrite. Human effort alone could never feed all of the hungry people in the world, and human technology at this time is not able to prevent God’s killer hurricanes from seriously injuring and killing people, and destroying their property.

7 - Today, it appears that all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics. This is to be expected if God does not exist. If he does exist, then he frequently distributes tangible benefits to those who are not in greatest need, but frequently withholds tangible benefits from those who are in greatest need, and with no provable regard for a person’s worldview.

Do you believe that hurricanes do or do not operate in a random manner?

8 - God deliberately withholds information from some people who would accept it if they were aware of it. If God clearly revealed himself to everyone, no man could complain that he did not have adequate information, in which case no man would have any excuses. As it is, on judgment day, any man who has never heard the Gospel message who Jesus chooses to send to hell can rightly say that the rules were not clearly disclosed. In addition, on judgment day, any man who has heard the Gospel message and rejected it, and would have accepted it if he had had more information, can rightly say that he was treated unfairly.

In the thread on 2 Peter 3:9, you said “If God revealed Himself in the manner you are describing, then everyone would obviously become a Christian.” I replied “But you have said that the Devil knows that God exists, but has rejected God, so you have refuted your own argument. In addition, millions of decent people would not be able to accept God even if they believed that he exists.”

God is able to provide additional information that would convince some people to become Christians who were not previously convinced, which means that he is not nearly as loving and merciful as you claim he is. If a man tells his son on numerous occasions not to drive when intoxicated, you would probably claim that the son had been provided with sufficient information, but you most certainly would not claim that if the father saw his son try to drive when intoxicated that the father should not still tell his son not to drive when intoxicated. It is called love and compassion.

Human effort alone could never let everyone know about the Gospel message. In the first century, it is not likely that anyone who lived in China could have known about the Gospel message unless God told them about it, and history has shown that God has little or no interest in telling people about the Gospel message himself. If God provided me with additional evidence, I might become a Christian.

If the Bible is true, then I am refusing to tell people about the Gospel message out of ignorance, not out of intent. On the other hand, God refuses to tell some people about the Gospel message out of intent. This makes God much more culpable than I am.

9 - God endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole. If mercy is anything, it is forgoing eternal punishment without parole even when justice, in this case, God’s justice, requires it. Otherwise, mercy is meaningless.

10 - No loving, rational being, whether a human or a God, ever intentionally does anything without the hope of benefiting himself and/or someone else at present, or in the future. It has not been reasonably established that God derives any benefits whatsoever from making people blind, deaf, and dumb. It is most certainly not necessary to make a man blind, deaf, and dumb in order to convince him to become a Christian. In fact, one of the best ways to convince a man not to become a Christian would be to make him blind, deaf, and dumb. It most certainly is not necessary to allow a man to starve to death in order to convince him to become a Christian. If God had always provided all of the hungry people in the world with food, and had always told everyone, tangibly, in person, that he was the source of the food, the Christian church would surely be a lot larger than it is today.

11 - 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. In addition, the New Testament does not clearly oppose slavery, even though it easily could have if God exists. If it did, the world would be a much better place in which to live in.

Now you can claim that I have not provided sufficient evidence of atrocities that God has committed against mankind if you wish, but rational minded and fair minded people know that if the God of the Bible exists, he is either evil or mentally incompetent. Under our legal system, many of God’s actions and allowances are punishable by life imprisonment or death. If telling lies is wrong, it is wrong no matter who tells lies, including God. If refusing to feed hungry people is wrong, it is wrong no matter who refuses to feed hungry people, including God. If killing people is wrong, it is wrong matter who kills people, including God. Hypocrisy is wrong no matter who is a hypocrite, including God. Are you actually going to tell us that telling lies is worse than killing people and allowing people to starve to death when you have plenty of food?

Johnny Skeptic

Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

The verses do not invite a COMPARISON between Christianity and other worldviews. They in fact demand the assumption of a PROBABALITY that God is who the Bible says he is. However, there is not any evidence at at that it is probable that God is who the Bible says he is. Logically, it is not possible for a man to love a God with all of his heart, soul, and mind unless he has sufficient evidence that it is probable that he is who he is alleged to be. If God is evil, would you say that it is probable that he would not be able to deceive you? If a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible, he might always tell the truth, he might always tell lies, or he might sometimes tell the truth, and sometimes tell lies. Your task is to determine which is the case.

Since the Bible cannot stand on its own merit without being compared with other worldviews, it is not worth accepting.

Actually, using the Bible alone, a good case can be made that God is evil, or mentally incompetent.

James 5:16 says "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Healed of what? What is your definition of a righteous man? Are you a righteous man? If a man's prayers do not avail much, does that mean that he is not righteous?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you have any evidence that today, all tangible benefits are not distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics? While tangible benefits are frequently distributed to those who are not in greatest need, some of whom are evil people who never become Christians, they are frequently withheld from people who are in greatest need, many of whom are some of God's most devout and faithful followers. Since many animals live longer and healthier lives than some of God's most devout and faithful followers do, obviously, God cares about the tangible needs of some animals more than he does about the tangible needs of some of his most devout and faithful followers.

Establishing cause and correlation is frequently a tricky business, and Christians are notoriously inept at it. I challenge you to go to the EofG Forum and start a new thread that is titled 'Cause and correlation.' I predict that you will not accept my challenge.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: You made some absurd comments about the Irish Potato Famine. As usual, you tried to blame humans. How do you propose that humans avoid God's killer hurricanes, tsunamis, tornadoes, and earthquakes? Is it your position that God has made it possible for the world to become a Garden of Eden if everyone acted like they should act? If so, I find your position to be quite strange because ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, whether through genetics or through some other means, God has ensured that everyone commit sins at least some of the time, meaning that it is impossible for anyone to always acts like they should act. Otherwise, Jesus would not have been the only perfect man. Even Job and John the Baptist were not free of serious problems. In the NIV, Job 1:1 says "In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil." Matthew 11:11 says "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." God convinced the Devil to attack Job in a number of awful ways in spite of Job's excellent character, so why do you suggest that if people act right, God will treat them right? In spite of John the Baptist's excellent character, he was persecuted, and he was executed by King Herod, so again, why do you suggest that if people act right, God will treat them right? Now surely you will not claim that you act better than Job and John the Baptist did.

John 9:1-3 say "As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, 'but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'" That is an example of a man being born blind who did not sin, and his parents did not sin, so your argument about people who do not act right who God for tangible blessings should not expect God to do what they ask does not work regarding John 9:1-3. This leaves you with the insurmountable problem of determining which people do not get their prayers answered because of their sins, including yourself.

James 2:15-24 say “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

James 2:15-24 most certainly does not mean that people who have extra food should provide food only to people who have good character, so your argument about the character of the one million people who died in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians, doesn’t work.

Out of compassion, some Christian missionaries in third world nations provide food for non-Christians. Surely you approve of this. Providing food for hungry people is an excellent way to gain their love, admiration, respect, and acceptance. The same goes for God, but since he is a hypocrite, he is content to let some people starve to death.

While many Christians have starved to death, many evil people who never become Christians have plenty to eat, and many animals have plenty to eat. How do you account for this? Does God care more about evil people and animals than he cares about Christians?

Paul scolded the Corinthians for doing some things that even the Gentiles did not do, but he still called them brothers. In Galatians 6:10, Paul says “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” I assume that part of what Paul meant was that Christians should feed hungry people without first trying to determine whether or not they were acting like they should act.

Matthew 15:32-38 say “Jesus called his disciples to him and said, ‘I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.’ His disciples answered, ‘Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?’ ‘How many loaves do you have?’ Jesus asked. ‘Seven,’ they replied, ‘and a few small fish.’ He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was four thousand, besides women and children.”

I assume that it is not your position that everyone in the crowd had good character.

The New Testament teaches that Christians should help people IN SPITE of their faults, not withhold helping people BECAUSE of their faults. God should practice what he preaches.

So, if providing food for hungry people even when they have faults, which actually includes everyone, is a good and worthy goal, it is good for humans and for God. In this life, human effort alone will never be able to feed all of the hungry people in the world. In addition, in this life, human effort alone will never be able to let everyone sufficiently know the rules for going to heaven. Of course, you will claim that God treats everyone fairly, and that he has provided everyone with sufficient information, but that is true only if God is not willing to do 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. If God is not willing to do 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, decent people are not able to love him. If God exists, three fourths of the people in the world are not aware of it. If he exists, he is easily able to convince many if not most of those people that he exists. God could not possibly have anything to gain by refusing to do everything that he can to convince everyone that he exists, and that he has good character. It is a matter of how much God wants to keep people from going to hell, which appears to be not much. If God exists, skeptics refuse to tell people about him of out ignorance, not out of intent. God refuses to provide some people with information out of intent, not out of ignorance. Therefore, God is much more culpable than skeptics are.

If God provided me with more evidence of his existence, and answered some questions to my satisfaction about his character, I might become a Christian. I am not able to love a God who is not willing to do everything that he can in order to convince me that he exists, and that he has good character.

Why does God discriminate against all amputees, at least as far as we know? He doesn’t discriminate against everyone who has cancer, right?

If God exists, he is a being who has demanded that if people want to avoid going to hell, they must accept his arbitrary rules, and his frequently detestable and unnecessary conduct. If God’s chief goal is to save the elect, much of what he causes and allows does not contribute to that goal in any way. No loving, rational being ever does anything that is not intended to help himself, or someone else, at present, or in the future. It has not been reasonably proven that allowing people to starve to death benefits God or mankind.

God’s actions and allowances indicate that he is evil, or mentally incompetent. No mentally competent being helps people and kills people.

Please reply to my previous three posts.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: You have claimed that I have refused to do what God told me to do, but that is not true. The Bible writers told me what to do, not God. If God really wants everyone to know what he wants them to do, and if he loves everyone, and if he wants as many people as possible to avoid going to hell, he would show up in person, tangibly, and tell everyone what he wants them to do.

No loving God would ever do anything that he did not intend to benefit himself and/or someone else at present, or in the future. If the God of the Bible exists, he could not possibly have anything whatsoever to lose by clearly revealing his existence and his will to everyone, in person, tangibly, and the people who would accept him if they had additional information would have much to gain. That is the only kind of God that decent people are able to accept. You can’t convince anyone to love you by threatening them.

You have claimed that God is fair, but you cannot reasonably prove that God is fair to everyone. As a Calvinist, you believe that God chooses who he will reveal himself to. That is favoritism. Favoritism is not fair, especially unexplained favoritism. It is not likely that a loving God would reveal himself to skeptics who he knows will not accept him, and refuse to reveal himself to some skeptics who he knows would accept him if they had additional information.

Who do you hold accountable for the Irish Potato Famine? Is it your position that only perfect people deserve not to starve to death? If God allowed all of the imperfect people in the world to starve to death, no one would be left alive. Ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, genetically or in some other way, God has ensured that everyone must commit sins at least some of the time. Otherwise some people would be perfect with no need of becoming saved.

It is an absurd notion that a loving God would tell Christians via James that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. James told Christians to feed people, not righteous people. Obviously, God is a hypocrite. One of the best ways to convince an unrighteous man to become righteous is to give him food if he is hungry.

God created hurricanes and locusts, both of which destroy food supplies.
No loving God would create hurricanes and kill people with them.

He who is best able to help people is most culpable of refusing to help people. Since God is much better able to help people than anyone else, he is much more culpable of refusing to help people than anyone else.

Is it your position that hurricanes selectively seek out unrighteous people to injure and kill? What is your definition of a righteous man? Are you a righteous man? If bad things happen to a man, does that prove that he is unrighteous?

If God were mentally incompetent, how would he act any differently than he acts now? No mentally competent man helps AND kills people, including babies.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

Although Pascal tried to bait people into COMPARING Christianity to other worldviews, the verses that I quoted do not invite a COMPARISON between Christianity and other worldviews. Rather, they demand the assumption of a PROBABALITY that God is who the Bible says he is. However, there is not any evidence at at that it is probable that God is who the Bible says he is. Do you deny this? Logically, it is not possible for a man to love a God with all of his heart, soul, and mind unless he has sufficient evidence that it is probable that God is who the Bible says he is. If God is evil, would you say that it is probable that he would not be able to deceive you? Of course you wouldn't. If a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible, he might always tell the truth, he might always tell lies, or he might sometimes tell the truth, and sometimes tell lies. Your task is to determine which is the case, which of course, you cannot do.

Since the Bible cannot stand on its own merit without being compared with other worldviews, it is not worth accepting.

Joan of Bark

Have you READ the books of Exodus and Joshua? I don't love mass-murderers.

djrafikie

http://www.bl.uk/onlinegallery/ttp/ttpbooks.html

(select, pinnacle of anglo saxon art)

This includes part of the gospel of St.Matthew. (go to page nine)This is in Latin as were most books c700ad. Note: in between the lines "interlinear" (turn to the next page for a better look) is the anglo saxon translation from Latin, this smaller sribe hand is called insular minuscule.

The translation from Latin to anglo saxon was a tricky thing for those scribes, because there are sounds in english which latin does not have characters to represent, so they had to "borrow" some from futhorc (an older version of the english alphabet). The end result of which is that despite all of their efforts the translation to old english could not be 100% accurate. The situation has never really improved. Translations direct from hebrew to english don't really work either, we don't have comparative words for many of theirs, and subleties like "lay with" (literally, not to have sex, in the same bed) and "lay with" (for sex) are totally lost.

I'm trying to make a point here, although rather longwindedly. All of this argument is pointless if it is based on scriptures, as the english translations are inaccurate in the extreme. If you want to keep it moral then it works, but then you hit another problem.

Things that don't exist don't have morals.

(ohohoh, do have a closer look at the texts and listen to the audio, it's a lovely book and it is REALLY interesting, I've seen it, for real *grins happily*. God, I'm such a sad case.)

Johnny Skeptic

I suggest that you start a new thread and discuss your theories there. The purpose of this thread is to discuss the Bible as it is understood by the majority of Christians. Some Christians have made a case for Christianity without the Bible. One example is James Holding. His web site is at tektonics.org. Holding reads about two books a week, and his web site is quite impressive. He also argues from a Biblical perspective, but his admittedly flagship article, which you can find at his web site, is titled 'The Impossible Faith.' In that article, Holding argues that the RESULTS of Christianity reasonably prove that Christianity is valid. You will not find the article easy to refute using your approach. If you want to debate Holding, he debates at the Theology Web. If you go there, please be advised that it is predominantly Christian.

djrafikie

It does not state in the OP that this thread has a purpose summed up as "discussing the bible as it is understood by the majority of christians".

I am also uninterested in discussing a case for christianity without the bible as I find all such discussions fairly easy to pull apart and don't have much interest in them.

What I was attempting to do was compare christianity to itself, in effect pointing out that discussing the original post in the light of the scriptural quotation is a straw man, as the validity of the original scriptural quote is questionable anyway.
In effect any assertion made about god and how he may or may not make decisions is flakey at best, and therefore and argument can either be based on the history of the bible and the obvious changes (which are ergo, not the word of god anyway and not worth discussing in that context) or purely on moral rather than scriptural grounds.
Every argument I have seen regarding this goes NOWHERE, so I thought I would contribute by adding a little bit of solid information regarding the reliablility of the text being discussed.
Maybe the discussion will progress past throwing different bits of scripture at each other and pointificating on modern morals verus ancient moral systems and how god may or may not have "changed" because of the new teastament (blah blah, snore) until everyone gets bored and forgets all about it for another month.