Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

If your attitude and approach are so effective, why don't Ben C. Smith and Andrew Criddle use it? Why don't Billy Graham, and Gary Habermas use it? The correct answer it, because they know that whenever God is attacked, the best way to defend God is not by attacking the attacker, but by defending God.

Attacking the character of skeptics will never get you anywhere unless you have credible evidence that back up your assertions. You ought to know that when you attack skeptics, that is not defending God. If you wish to present a credible defense of God's actions and allowances, just SAYING that skeptics are evil and wrong is the wrong approach. You need to reasonably prove WHY they are wrong instead of criticizing them for WHAT they do. I have discussed some evidence on numerous occasions that you have consistently and conveniently refused to reply to even though I have posted it on numerous occasions. Here is a summary, in some cases a reposting of some of the arguments that you have either refused to reply to completely, or refused to continue discussing when you knew that you were in trouble. We shall see how long you will be willing to discuss the arguments.

1 - In the thread on the Tyre prophecy I mentioned that God had broken his promise to give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar as a compensation for his failure to defeat Tyre. You said that you would get around to it, but you didn't even though I asked you to do so on numerous occasions. If that had been an argument that you thought was easy to refute, you certainly would have discussed it. Here it is again:

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html



At the very least, the evidence is unnecessarily confusing and poorly stated.

2 - I have posted these arguments on numerous occasions. As far as I know, you have never replied to them.







But as far as I know, you did not reply to any or all of those arguments. If you did, I did not read them. If you did, please restate what you said, or summarize what you said, state a new reply. Please reply to everything that I said in that post. "Over and over again" certainly did not happen regarding those arguments.

3 -



I just checked several pages of posts, and you did not reply to those arguments.

4 -



As far as I know, you did not reply to those arguments. If you did, please restate or summarize what you said, or state a new reply.

5 -



That is a good example of your rudeness and your evasiveness. Do you call that discussing? Regarding assessing the character of any being, motives are everything. Unless you can come up with some sensible reasons why God predicts the future, you lose. You and I once had a brief discussion about why God predicts the future in another thread, possibly in the thread on the Tyre prophecy. I remember that you said that God predicted future to strengthen the faith of Jews, and that I said that that was not likely because when Nebuchadnezzar failed to defeat Tyre, who Ezekiel had called "a king of kings in Ezekiel 26," that would have weakened the faith of Jews, not strengthened it, especially since it took hundreds more years for Tyre to be defeated by Alexander. Why didn't Ezekiel mention Alexander? Wouldn't that have strengthened the faith of Christians?

Why did God essentially turn his back on everyone except for the Jews during Old Testament times?

6 -



On the contrary, I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 30 years.



I was not previously aware that you had replied to those arguments, so let's discuss them now. You said:



But that does not refute my arguments. I said:



Under that scenario you certainly would not trust and love God. I proved that my beliefs would be consistent whether the Bible said that I would go to heaven or hell, and that you will only accept the Bible if you believe that God will send you to heaven. Hypothetical arguments are excellent tools for revealing invalid arguments. Christians frequently use hypothetical arguments when they feel that is suits their purposes to do so. C.S. Lewis' "Lord, Liar, or Lunatic" is a good example.



You obviously did not understand my arguments. Let me try again. If the New Testament said that the same number of eyewitnesses saw Jesus injure and kill people with supernatural power, and that Jesus said that God will send everyone to hell, you would reject the same quality of evidence that you accept now because of your emotional perceived self-interest. On the other hand, as I told you before, "I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim was true."

I have proved that is it not actually the EVIDENCE that you find to be convincing, but what the evidence PROMISES. Therefore, your apparent interest in evidence is obviously a masquerade. On the other had, what I find to be convincing is what the evidence IS, not what the evidence PROMISES.

You were quite right that:



It also takes faith to believe that President Bush is not an alien, but believing by faith that President Bush is not an alien is not an issue, is it?

7 - Here are some arguments that I have used at the General Religious Discussions forum:





Following are some of the things that we would expect to find if the God of the Bible does not exist:

a - Biblical history would have started in one small geographic region instead of in many geographic regions.

b - No prophecy would be indisputable. For instance, there would not be any prophecies of the exact dates of the occurrences of hurricanes or volcanoes, or the exact dates of the births of famous historical characters.

c - The Gospel message would be spread entirely by humans according the the prevailing secular means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period.

d - Since religion has a lot to do with emotions, and since women are generally more emotional than men are, the percentage of women who are Christians would be higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is at least the case in the U.S. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled "One Nation Under God." Billy Graham endorses the book on the cover or on one the inside pages. The book is well-documented. The authors show that the primary factors that influence religious beliefs in the U.S. are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. The evidence shows that in the U.S., the percentage of women who are Christians is much higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. I forget what the exact percentage is, but I can find it is I need to. As far as I recall, the percentage difference is over 7%. It is important to note that every year, the percentage of women who are Christians is higher than the percentage of men who are Christians. That is quite suspicious. Either God discriminates against men, or he does not exist. If he does exist, it is quite odd that he would choose to mimic the percentages of women and men who would become Christians if he did not exist, meaning that since it is well-known that women are more emotional than men are, from a biological perspective, it is to be expected that the percentage of women who become Christians would be higher than the percentage of men who become Christians, and that the percentages would be fairly consistent year after year.

The authors show that elderly people are much less likely to change their worldview than younger people are. This means that elderly skeptics are much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics are. Either God discriminates against elderly skeptics, or he does not exist. If he does exist, it is quite odd that he chooses to mimic the way that age would influence what people believe if he does not exist.

e - If the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, worldview, or requests. No one could ask God for a tangible benefit and be assured that he would receive it. The only kinds of benefits that anyone could ask God for would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits. Today, there is good evidence that that is the case.

f - James says that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead, and yet millions of people have died of starvation because God refused to give them food, many of whom were devout and faithful Christians who asked him for help, but were forced to die slow, painful deaths by starvation.

Why do you suppose God inspired James to write that? It could not possibly have been because he wanted people to have enough food to eat. What we have here is a situation where God only wants people to have enough food to eat if other people give them enough food to eat. This means that God is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT they get enough food to eat. Now that is utterly absurd if God exists, but it would be quite natural if God does not exist. If God does exist, it is quite odd that he mimics the ways that food and other tangible benefits would be distributed if he does not exist.

You love to talk about the past, but what kinds of contemporary tangible evidence do you have that the God of the Bible exists, and that he is loving?

g - If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that the Bible would invite dissent instead of encourage dissent. If God exists, he could easily have inspired the Bible writers to write much more clearly than they did. For instance, the Nebuchadnezzar issue that I mentioned could easily have been written more clearly. In addition, Ezekiel could have mentioned Alexander. Further, the events at the tomb could have been written more clearly.

h - If Jesus rose from the dead, why did he make some personal appearances? In addition, why did he greatly limit the number of people who he appeared to?

8 - Ok, now let's discuss the character of God. Assuming for sake of argument that a God inspired the Bible, it is my position that there is not any credible evidence that God is not able to achieve fair, worthy, and just goals without injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes. If you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it.

After Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, God caused animals to start killing each other. That was wrong, and it was needless.

Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. How does that help anyone?

Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed. That is wrong.

God killed Ananias and Sapphira over money. That was wrong, especially since Paul criticized the Corinthians for doing things that the Gentiles did not do, but still called them brothers. It is much too convenient that God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. The texts says that as a result fo the deaths of Ananias and Saphira fear spread around the countryside. Fear of what? Obviously, fear of not giving enough money to the church.

God killed animals with the flood. That was wrong, and it was unnecessary for the achievement of any fair, worthy, and just goals. If God caused the flood in order to get rid of all of the evil people, he would not have needed to use a global food to do that, especially a flood that modern geology has proved never happened. Even some evangelical Christian biologists have stated that a global flood did not occur, and that it is counterproductive for some Christians to claim that a global flood occurred.

If you claim that God wanted to test Noah's faithfulness, I will tell you that the texts do not say that. They say that God's reason for causing the flood was to get rid of all of the evil people in the world. God could have tested Noah's faithfulness in thousands of other ways, AND without injuring and killing innocent animals.

God killed babies at Sodom and Gomorrah and Egypt.

God has never showed up to mediate disputes regarding what books belong in the Bible. That is wrong. If God exists, there was no need for the Protestant Reformation, and for the books of the Roman Catholic Bible that Protestants call the Apocrypha. God should have showed up in person and mediated disputes about what books belong in the Bible.

Why did God allow Christians to conquer the largest empire in history by far under a single religion by means of persecution, murder, and theft of property?

Why did God empower a vicious Devil to help him terrorize mankind?

With parasites alone, God has killed more people than all of the wars in history. That was wrong, and it was needless.

The Bible says that God is merciful, but that is false because God endorses eternal punishment without parole. That is good evidence that God is immoral, or that he does not exist.

I previously said:

The issue of God's motives deals with all of his motives, not just his motives for predicting the future. If you cannot come with sensible reasons why God does what he does, I will tell you that you lose for the following two reasons:

The lack of sensible motives for God far outweighs any supposed historical evidence that you have posted. For instance, if a religious or a secular book said that one hundred eyewitnesses saw a man count one hundred grains of sand just to prove that he was able to count one hundred grains of sand, that would not be a credible historical claim because there would not be a sensible motive for a man to do that. In addition, if a religious or a secular book said that a man had the power to create food, and out of compassion gave food to some people, but only on several occasions, that would not be a credible motive for a man do that since if he feed some people on several occasions out of compassion, he would also want to give everyone in the world enough food to eat. Christian medical researchers try to discover cures for diseases. When they are successful, they want as many people as possible to have access to the cures. The New Testament says that one at least one occasion, Jesus fed people out of compassion. Since God has refused to give food to millions of people who died of starvation, with no apparent benefits for himself of for anyone else, Jesus could not possibly have given food to anyone out of compassion. True compassion is not limited, and it does not play favorites. If two loving parents have 15 hungry children, and the parents have enough food to give to all of their children, they certainly give food to all 15 of their children, not just to some of them.

I invite you to participate in a thread at the GRD Forum that is titled "Justifying Biblegod's Atrocities." The link is http://www.iidb.org/vbb/showthread.php?t=230295.

In conclusion, I challenge you to state one single fair, worthy, and just goal that God is not able to achieve without indiscriminately injuring and killing people and innocent animals with hurricanes. I also challenge you to produce credible evidence that everything that God does is right.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

This argument that these countries set up Israel to support prophecy, is not only stupid but false. How can you support something and hate it too?

Originally Posted by Wikipedia

Foreign Office,
November 2nd, 1917.

Dear Lord Rothschild,

I have much pleasure in conveying to you, on behalf of His Majesty's Government, the following declaration of sympathy with Jewish Zionist aspirations which has been submitted to, and approved by, the Cabinet:
"His Majesty's Government view with favour the establishment in Palestine of a national home for the Jewish people, and will use their best endeavours to facilitate the achievement of this object, it being clearly understood that nothing shall be done which may prejudice the civil and religious rights of existing non-Jewish communities in Palestine, or the rights and political status enjoyed by Jews in any other country".

I should be grateful if you would bring this declaration to the knowledge of the Zionist Federation.

Yours sincerely,
Arthur James Balfour

Originally Posted by sugarhitman[/quote

Will you tell me that the wars over this land, and the condemnation of Israel by the world are all done to support the Bible?

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

At the same time the Bible is being attacked by these same Global Government pushers in their home countries?

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Critics like to complain that there is not enough or no evidence to support the Gospels (but yet they believe island Tyre was sieged by Nebby which there is no history to back this claim) heck much of history of anything is incomplete or non-existent. It takes faith to believe in secular history as well as Biblical history for the simple fact NONE OF US TODAY WAS THERE TO WITNESS THESE HISTORICAL EVENTS (unless the critics have a time machine, which I seriously doubt).

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

It takes faith to believe in secular history as well as Biblical history for the simple fact NONE OF US TODAY WAS THERE TO WITNESS THESE HISTORICAL EVENTS (unless the critics have a time machine, which I seriously doubt).

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

5 - Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from John.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

I said years AFTER the Balfour Declaration not during it. The White Paper came afterwards, as well as the British attempts to prevent Jewish immigration. Although I do believe the author of the Balfour Declaration was sincere, Britain did not honor it. Transjordan was given this land that was promised the Jews.

Note: These measures called for a joint Jew Arab country. Not a restoration of 'Israel'. The Jews fought for control of this land and gave back to it its original name....'ISRAEL' :wave:

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Wow! You must have spent hours writing this (or you are one fast typer)!

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

No longer will I respond to your questions by posting within an already titled thread.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Because you have accused me of "evading" but the fact is I have more than once responded to you but you have disregarded my responses and then asked me the same thing again!

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Writing, typing are not those things I consider to be fun but work. I don't enjoy retyping something I have already typed.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

So I will respond to your questions by creating a new thread, so you can easily find my response (and that others can see that I am not evading you, why should I?

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

I believe 100% in the Bible and nothing can shake it....NOTHING).

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from John.

Originally Posted by Deus Ex

I always thought Matthew and Luke borrowed a good deal from Mark. John seems to be a total rewrite of the script.

Originally Posted by sugarhitman

Critics like to tell us that Israel was setup to prove bible prophecy by Britain and other Christains allies. What a stupid arguement.