Johnny Skeptic

However, I do not need to mention hurricanes in my future arguments.

Oh it is much more than one percent. You certainly cannot back up your claim. As far as I recall, in the U.S., every year it is over 5%, possibly a good deal higher. If I still do not have Kosmin's and Lachman's book, I will order a new copy and check on the percentages. If a loving God exists, there are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that every year the percentage of women who he convinced to become Christians would be a good deal higher than the percentage of men who he convinced to become Christians. Small differences would be expected if a loving God exists, but not over 5% regarding the same sex every year.

My questions are not fallacious. Comparisons are very valuable as evidence. It is certainly reasonable for me to discuss how things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. Christians frequently compare how things would be if Jesus did not rise from the dead. They use many comparisons to justify their position. The next time that I see Christians do that, do you recommend that I tell them "But possible answers can go on and on, so it's basically a futile attempt to provide you with them since they will not lead to the 'true' answers to your fallacious questions"?

A much smaller percentage of elderly skeptics become Christians than younger skeptics. A loving God would not discriminate against elderly skeptics because he would not have any interest in a person's age. A much larger percentage of younger Christians become skeptics than elderly Christians. It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that every year, a much higher percentage of younger Christians give up Christianity than elderly Christians. A loving God would not discriminate against younger Christians because he would not have any interest in a person's age.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, the preceding evidence would not be strange at all, and in fact, would be expected. It would be counterproductive for a God who supposedly wants people to believe that he exists to frequently mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that the Gospel message would be spread entirely by humans according to the frequently grossly inefficient means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period. After Christianity was founded, people who lived closer to Palestine had a much better chance of hearing the Gospel message than people who lived far away from Palestine. This presents a problem for Christians because a loving God would not show favoritism based upon geography. It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that a God who wanted to reveal himself to people would go out of his way to mimic the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists. If the God of the Bible exists, he only wants people to hear the Gospel message if another person tells them about it. That would be utterly absurd if the God of the Bible exists, but it would be quite natural if he does not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that food would be distributed entirely by humans. 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 along with non-Christians.

Why do Christians suppose that 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. That is utterly absurd if the God of the Bible exists, but it would be quite natural if he does not exist. If God does exist, it is quite odd that he mimics the ways that food would be distributed if he did not exist.

False religions must by necessity start in one place. A true religion could easily start all over the world at the same time. If there had been 1,000 only begotten Sons of God instead of only one only begotten Son of God, and if all 1,000 of the only begotten Sons of God had stayed on earth after they rose from the dead, and had continued to perform miracles, it would have been easier for Christians to attract new converts to Christianity, and the Christian church would be larger than it is today. My arguments are reasonable since historically many people have accepted all sorts of outlandish relgions based upon much less convincing evidence than the evidence that I mentioned.

Another problem for Christians is that there is not a consistent Christian position regarding heaven and hell. If fundamentalist Christians are right, God endorses eternal punishment without parole. Revelation 14:8-11 say "And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

If those verses mean that hell will be an awful place for some people to be for eternity without parole, no decent man would be able to accept a God like that.

Mark 14:21 says "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born."

What will God do to that man that will make him wish that he had never been born? Whatever it is, I would never accept a God like that.

If God did not intend for the preceding Scriptures to be taken literally, he should have said so.

What is God trying to accomplish that he is not able to accomplish without refusing to protect women from rapists, and without refusing to give food to starving people?

Many Christians argue that God's thoughts and ways are different from our thoughts and ways, but that is not a good argument since deists use the same argument. Why is the existence of the God of the Bible any more probable than the existence of the God of deism? It is a question of how probable it is that a God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, but often goes out of his way to try to convince them that he does not exist by frequently mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist, and discriminates against some groups of people in predictable ways. I believe that the best conclusion is that religious beliefs are primarily or solely determined by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. If that is not true, and the God of the Bible exists, he would easily able to eliminate a lot of doubt confusion if he wanted to. I am not aware fo any good reasons why a loving God would not want to.

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, obviously, Christians would not argue that God's thoughts and ways are different from our thoughts and ways. Therefore, Christians are not consistent since they would reject the same quality of evidence that they now accept. On the other hand, I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone to heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim are true. Following are some of the reasons that I do not accept the Bible now:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

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

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there we have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, Christians will only accept promises that they believe will ultimately benefit them. Christians have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interests.

What evidence is there that it is more fair, just, reasonable, and right for the God of the Bible to rule the universe than any other being? Any being can arbitrarily claim that he is good and perfect, and that it is more fair, just, reasonable, and right for him to rule the universe than any other being, but why must his claims be true?

If another supposed God showed up, and claimed that he was the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and created a new planet in order to demonstrate that he is powerful, proved to your satisfaction that he was benevolent, and took over control of the earth, and asked you to accept him, and said that he would send you to hell if you did not accept him, what would you do? If you would accept him, if he left the earth and another supposed God showed up and asked you to accept him, what would you do?

I do not mind if a moderator wants to transfer this post to the GRD Forum.

itsamysteryhuh

If any Christians use fallacious questions, then you should tell them about it. You can't be biased when it comes to logic.

Your questions are basically "what if this or that" without 100% proof or lack of proof of that which your "this or that" is based on (the existence of God).


I basically said "one percentage is always going to be higher than the other percentage." I did not say it would be one percent higher.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to itsamysteryhuh: You are obviously biased since you object to me discussing how things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist, but you do not object when millions of Christians do the same thing and discuss how things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist. An excellent example of a Christian discussing how things would be if the God of the Bible does not exist is James Holding's 'The Impossible Faith.' You can find the article at Holding's web site at tektonics.org. Holding has said that that is his flagship article. He discusses 17 factors that essentially ask "If the God of the Bible does not exist, how do you explain this?"

It would be impossible to conduct good religious and scientific research without studying comparisons regarding how things would be if a given postulate is false. Your claim that my questions are fallacious is false. You have no doubt used comparisons yourself many times. C.S. Lewis' 'Lord, Liar, or Lunatic' is a good example of comparisons regarding the existence of Jesus.

Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Consider the following from the cover:

Billy Graham:

"Based on the most extensive survey ever conducted of religion in America, 'One Nation Under God' delivers surprising revelations about the religious beliefs, practices, and affiliations of Americans, and about the complex dynamics of a country that is paradoxically among the most religious and the most secular on earth."

"'One Nation Under God' is quite possibly the most comprehensive and thoughtful profile of contemporary American religious life in print."

John Cardinal O'Conner

"'One Nation Under God' comes as not surprise, either in content or in quality of research. Its authors have demonstrated their objectivity, their professionalism, and their openness so frequently in the past, that for them to have produced a work of lesser value would have disappointed all who have come to rely on their data and their integrity, as have I. This book will disappoint no one interested in facts or their implication for our country."

"Seymour P. Lachman is the University Dean for Community Development at the City University of New York. Barry A. Kosmin is a sociologist at the CUNY Graduate School."

Obviously, Kosmin and Lachman did not intend for skeptics to use their book against Christianity, but that is what I am doing. Consider the following:

You are not making any sense. Everyone knows that whether a God exists or not, no percentages would ever always be the same regarding any kind of research. My point is that if the God of the Bible exists, you need to explain why he predictably and consistently has a good deal more success convincing American women to become Christians than he has convincing American men to become Christians. If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is reasonable to assume that the predictable discrepancies are due to genetic and sociological factors.

Now I will discuss age

Based upon the statistics, if the God of the Bible exists, he predictably and consistently has a good deal more success convincing elderly Christians not to give up Christianity than he has convincing younger Christians not to give up Christianity, and a good deal less success convincing younger people to become Christians than he has convincing elderly people to become Christians.

Consider the following:

If the God of the Bible does not exist, all of the preceding evidence would not be strange at all, and in fact would be expected due to predictable and consistent genetic and sociological factors. It would be counterproductive for a God who supposedly wanted people to believe that he exists to frequently mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists. It is not impossible that such a God exists, but it is not reasonable for people to believe that such a God exists unless better evidence becomes available that he does exist. If such a God exists, he has not nearly done everything that he can do try to convince people to believe that he exists. For instance, if there had been 1,000 only begotten Sons of God all over the world instead of only one only begotten Son of God, it is reasonable to conclude that the Christian church would be larger than it is today. That is a reasonable argument because historically, many people have accepted all kinds out outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than 1,000 only begotten Sons of God performing miracles all over the world, and rising from the dead. False religions by necessity must start in only one place. A true religion could, and would start in many places all over the world so as to attract the greatest possible number of followers.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that the Gospel message would be spread entirely by humans according to the frequently grossly inefficient means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period. After Christianity was founded, people who lived closer to Palestine had a much better chance of hearing the Gospel message than people who lived far away from Palestine. This presents a problem for Christians because a loving God would not show favoritism based upon geography. It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that a God who wanted to reveal himself to people would go out of his way to mimic the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists. If the God of the Bible exists, he only wants people to hear the Gospel message if another person tells them about it. That would be utterly absurd if the God of the Bible exists, but it would be quite natural if he does not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that food would be distributed entirely by humans. 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 along with non-Christians.

Why do Christians suppose that 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. That is utterly absurd if the God of the Bible exists, but it would be quite natural if he does not exist. If God does exist, it is quite odd that he mimics the ways that food would be distributed if he did not exist.

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. The only kinds of benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits.

False religions must by necessity start in one place. A true religion could easily start all over the world at the same time. If there had been 1,000 only begotten Sons of God instead of only one only begotten Son of God, and if all 1,000 of the only begotten Sons of God had stayed on earth after they rose from the dead, and had continued to perform miracles, it would have been easier for Christians to attract new converts to Christianity, and the Christian church would be larger than it is today. My arguments are reasonable since historically many people have accepted all sorts of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than the evidence that I mentioned.

Another problem for Christians is that there is not a consistent Christian position regarding heaven and hell. If fundamentalist Christians are right, God endorses eternal punishment without parole. Revelation 14:8-11 say "And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

If those verses mean that hell will be an awful place for some people to be for eternity without parole, no decent man would be able to accept a God like that.

Mark 14:21 says "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born."

What will God do to that man that will make him wish that he had never been born? Whatever it is, I would never accept a God like that.

If God did not intend for the preceding Scriptures to be taken literally, he should have said so.

Many Christians argue that God's thoughts and ways are different from our thoughts and ways, but that is not a good argument since deists use the same argument. Why is the existence of the God of the Bible any more probable than the existence of the God of deism? It is a question of how probable it is that a God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, but often goes out of his way to try to convince them that he does not exist by frequently mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist, and discriminates against some groups of people in predictable ways. I believe that the best conclusion is that religious beliefs are primarily or solely determined by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. If that is not true, and the God of the Bible exists, he would easily able to eliminate a lot of doubt confusion if he wanted to. I am not aware of any good reasons why a loving God would not want to.

If the Bible said that God will send everyone to hell, obviously, Christians would not argue that God's thoughts and ways are different from our thoughts and ways. Therefore, Christians are not consistent since they would reject the same quality of evidence that they now accept. On the other hand, I would not accept the Bible even if it said that God will send everyone to heaven for the same reasons that I do not accept it now, but I would hope that the claim are true. Following are some of the reasons that I do not accept the Bible now:

1 - The Gospel writers were anonymous.

2 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

3 - The Gospel writers almost never claimed that they witnessed miracles.

4 - The Gospel writers almost never revealed who their sources were.

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

6 - It impossible to be reasonably certain how many people saw Jesus after he supposedly rose from the dead.

7 - Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons for anyone to assume that it was any different back then.

8 - I would still question why God injures and kills people and innocent animals with hurricanes. Unlike you, it is not my position that doing some good things justifies injuring and killing people and innocent animals, or setting up circumstances that cause people and innocent animals to be killed.

9 - I would still question God's desire to send skeptics to hell for eternity without parole.

10 - As much as I would like to rubber stamp everything that God does in order to go to heaven, my morals are not up for negotiation, and I am not able to do anything about that. The only possible solution for me would be if God explained to my satisfaction why he does what he does. It is my position that a loving God, a God who I would admire and accept, would provide me with explanations for his behavior before I made up my mind whether to accept him or reject him, especially if spending eternity in heaven and hell were at stake.

So there we have it. While my beliefs would be consistent no matter what the Bible promised, Christians will only accept promises that they believe will ultimately benefit them. Christians have replaced logic and reason with emotional perceived self-interests.

What evidence is there that it is more fair, just, reasonable, and right for the God of the Bible to rule the universe than any other being? Any being can arbitrarily claim that he is good and perfect, and that it is more fair, just, reasonable, and right for him to rule the universe than any other being, but why must his claims be true?

If another supposed God showed up, and claimed that he was the one true God, but not the God of the Bible, and created a new planet in order to demonstrate that he is powerful, proved to your satisfaction that he was benevolent, and took over control of the earth, and asked you to accept him, and said that he would send you to hell if you did not accept him, what would you do? If you would accept him, if he left the earth and another supposed God showed up and asked you to accept him, what would you do?

If you decided that you wanted to protect John Smith from being attacked by his enemies because John Smith was your friend, would you injure or kill him? Of course you wouldn't, which invites the question "If God wanted to protect Jews from their enemies, why did he sometimes injure or kill them with storms and harmful microorganisms? With parasites alone, God has killed more people than all of the wars in history, and he has done so indiscriminately without any regard for a person's worldview. It is utter nonsense for anyone to assume that God would protect Jews from being injured or killed by humans, but not from being injured or killed by anything else.

ible

i wanted to make a small point regarding the skeptic's position:

i don't claim to be a fundamentalist christian, but i would think that most (or some?) christians would say that God gives everyone a chance to accept him as lord. i understand one of your complaints with christendom is then, how can God send people to hell for not accepting him, since he should have made his power known completely?

imagine a universe where this kind of God exists: God brings everyone into his keeping for eternity, regardless of what they believed in this life. i.e., the good God gives everyone enough chances for people to accept him. God forgives them their sins against him and against humanity, and then everyone lives happily ever after, in good relationships with each other and God.

what i think is missing from this universe is choice. if God gives everyone enough chances to accept him, so that everyone is saved, doesn't that mean that no one had a choice otherwise? a God-created universe that has a heaven and hell is one where free will is possible. [edit] the alternative universe is one in which some "higher power" forces us to become his people, which has the sound of 1984. [/edit]

my interpretation of hell is that God gives people a choice to conform to ways that are not his own, which in the end are self-destructive practices. [edit] i.e., "fornications" with the lady of babylon--symbolic, i think, of lusting after other gods in life besides longing for God. [/edit] the fire and brimstone is when God makes our metaphors reality, and shows us the true nature of what evil we were seeking, when instead throughout our lives we should have been seeking God.

Johnny Skeptic

How can everyone get saved since the Devil has more evidence about God than anyone else does and is not saved?

If God showed up and was willing to answer questions, if he did not give some reasonable explanations regarding why he makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, and why he punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5, millions of people would reject him no matter how much other evidence he would be willing to provide. Not only that, that there is not a necessary correlation between power and good character, and that goes for God too. The Bible writers were not in any position to judge God's character.

If the Bible said that God will send every to hell, you would reject the same quality of evidence that you accept now because of your emotional perceived vested interest in the eventual outcome of your beliefs.

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.

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.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

Did everyone who was provided with that evidence become a follower of Jesus? Obviously not, which means that your comment "If God gives everyone enough chances to accept him, so that everyone is saved, doesn't that mean that no one had a choice otherwise?" is not valid.

In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples when about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles. It is quite odd that with all of the miracles that Jesus had performed, and with his post-Resurrection appearances, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, that there was a need for even more confirmations? Obviously, you faith argument does not work. If anything, believers would need LESS confirmations than unbelievers would. "O ye of little faith" contradicts the many miracles that Jesus and the disciples supposedly performed. Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly content to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.

I would never accept a God who played favorites regarding who he provided the best evidence to.

But as I showed in my previous post, the best evidence indicates that the God of the Bible does not exist. What you propose is the existence of a God who frequently mimics the ways that things would be if he did not exist, which invites dissent instread of discourage dissent, and needlessly undermines his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists, and, as I proved in some of my previous posts, discriminates against men, elderly skeptics, and younger Christians, and discriminates against people based upon geography, and only wants people to hear the Gospel message if someone else tells them about it, and only wants people to have enough food to eat if another person gives them enough food to eat. No rational person would accept a God like that. The odds against the existence of a loving God who acts like that are astronomical. If a God exists, he might be good, evil, amoral, mentally incompetent, or a benevolent but inept bungler who failed in his attempt to create a much better world than the world that he created.

I suggest that you reread my previous post.

ible

You mistake my post, I think. I was arguing, in a hypothetical universe where everyone was saved, no one would have free choice. I don't believe in that universe, as your example of the devil cleverly illustrates.

i think the bible makes sense through the biblical understanding of history (i'm referencing primarily God's creation of earth and the story of the garden of eden), which is markedly different than the evolutionistic perspective. the problem of evil and suffering is understood in the bible as being brought on by a choice of humankind, tempted through an evil spiritual being. God made things good, but through humanity evil was brought into the world and infected it. the world is ruled not by the rightful king, but by the tyrant satan. i think God does give a reasonable explanation for evil--we brought it on ourselves, but God will wipe evil away when he returns as the rightful king. [edit] i also think that the way God speaks about evil things, though, like in the verse you mention, is to show that he exercises authority even though evil is afoot, and we can trust in him to lead us through our trials. [/edit] through the evolutionary perspective, God seems to be a tyrant, created by man to oppress others. and that is how some people abuse God, as some christians have done in the past. if it makes you feel any better, Jesus sends every false christian to hell. (Matthew 7:21)

i understand the importance of clearing away the tyrants out of our hearts and minds, governments and what not. but it's important to know who is the real tyrant and who is the real king. our devotions bring us closer to one or the other. neither heaven nor hell is a democracy.

whether we like it or not, we live with the sins our parents commit, and some people end up following in the footsteps of their parents, whether it's an addiction to alcohol, gambling, sex, or whatever. it may be contradictory, but the opposing view to Exodus 20:5 is found in Exekiel 18 (specifically v. 4). in my opinion, a satisfactory resolution of the two passages is to view ourselves as people who may follow too easily the sin of our ancestors (because we were raised in their "house"), but who will be judged by our own deeds.

i don't think about heaven or hell too much. i just try to figure out what God wants me to do. i know that the expression of my deepest longings and greatest happiness will be effected through fulfilling the purpose my Creator gave to me.

Again, I think you misread my post. I was suggesting a hypothetical universe, not one that I believe in.

if we start from the axiom that God gave us free will, it is clear that some of us will reject the evidence, regardless of how good it is, as you said earlier in your post:
in effect, you argue that the God of the bible cannot be loving, for one reason because he is exclusive, he acts unequally towards people (in particular favor of the Jews or the Christians), but why should we all be treated equally, when we are all different? if God appeared to everyone equally and in the same way, that would be boring. if we start from the axiom that God made us each unique and for a purpose, we see how we fit into society and especially his kingdom in different ways. it isn't a democracy in heaven. God knows our talents and strengths, worries and weaknesses, and will put us to good work. some are meant to be teachers, others disciples, etc.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to ible: I still stand by my position that the best evidence indicates that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' Consider the following from the cover:

Billy Graham:

"Based on the most extensive survey ever conducted of religion in America, 'One Nation Under God' delivers surprising revelations about the religious beliefs, practices, and affiliations of Americans, and about the complex dynamics of a country that is paradoxically among the most religious and the most secular on earth."

"'One Nation Under God' is quite possibly the most comprehensive and thoughtful profile of contemporary American religious life in print."

John Cardinal O'Conner

"'One Nation Under God' comes as not surprise, either in content or in quality of research. Its authors have demonstrated their objectivity, their professionalism, and their openness so frequently in the past, that for them to have produced a work of lesser value would have disappointed all who have come to rely on their data and their integrity, as have I. This book will disappoint no one interested in facts or their implication for our country."

"Seymour P. Lachman is the University Dean for Community Development at the City University of New York. Barry A. Kosmin is a sociologist at the CUNY Graduate School."

Obviously, Kosmin and Lachman did not intend for skeptics to use their book against Christianity, but that is what I am doing. Consider the following:

You are not making any sense. Everyone knows that whether a God exists or not, no percentages would ever always be the same regarding any kind of research. My point is that if the God of the Bible exists, you need to explain why he predictably and consistently has a good deal more success convincing American women to become Christians than he has convincing American men to become Christians. If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is reasonable to assume that the predictable discrepancies are due to genetic and sociological factors.

Now I will discuss age

Based upon the statistics, if the God of the Bible exists, he predictably and consistently has a good deal more success convincing elderly Christians not to give up Christianity than he has convincing younger Christians not to give up Christianity, and a good deal less success convincing younger people to become Christians than he has convincing elderly people to become Christians.

Consider the following:

If the God of the Bible does not exist, all of the preceding evidence would not be strange at all, and in fact would be expected due to predictable and consistent genetic and sociological factors. It would be counterproductive for a God who supposedly wanted people to believe that he exists to frequently mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists. It is not impossible that such a God exists, but it is not reasonable for people to believe that such a God exists unless better evidence becomes available that he does exist. If such a God exists, he has not nearly done everything that he can do try to convince people to believe that he exists. For instance, if there had been 1,000 only begotten Sons of God all over the world instead of only one only begotten Son of God, it is reasonable to conclude that the Christian church would be larger than it is today. That is a reasonable argument because historically, many people have accepted all kinds out outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than 1,000 only begotten Sons of God performing miracles all over the world, and rising from the dead. False religions by necessity must start in only one place. A true religion could, and would start in many places all over the world so as to attract the greatest possible number of followers.

Would you like to claim that if there had been 1,000 only begotten Sons of God all over the world instead of only one only begotten Son of God that not even one extra person would have become a Christian over the next 2,000 years? If so, I will tell you that historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than 1,000 only begotten Sons of God.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that the Gospel message would be spread entirely by humans according to the frequently grossly inefficient means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period. After Christianity was founded, people who lived closer to Palestine had a much better chance of hearing the Gospel message than people who lived far away from Palestine. This presents a problem for Christians because a loving God would not show favoritism based upon geography. It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that a God who wanted to reveal himself to people would go out of his way to mimic the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists. If the God of the Bible exists, he only wants people to hear the Gospel message if another person tells them about it. That would be utterly absurd if the God of the Bible exists, but it would be quite natural if he does not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that food would be distributed entirely by humans. 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 along with non-Christians.

Why do Christians suppose that 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. That is utterly absurd if the God of the Bible exists, but it would be quite natural if he does not exist. If God does exist, it is quite odd that he mimics the ways that food would be distributed if he did not exist.

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. The only kinds of benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits.

False religions must by necessity start in one place. A true religion could easily start all over the world at the same time. If there had been 1,000 only begotten Sons of God instead of only one only begotten Son of God, and if all 1,000 of the only begotten Sons of God had stayed on earth after they rose from the dead, and had continued to perform miracles, it would have been easier for Christians to attract new converts to Christianity, and the Christian church would be larger than it is today. My arguments are reasonable since historically many people have accepted all sorts of outlandish religions based upon much less convincing evidence than the evidence that I mentioned.

Another problem for Christians is that there is not a consistent Christian position regarding heaven and hell. If fundamentalist Christians are right, God endorses eternal punishment without parole. Revelation 14:8-11 say "And there followed another angel, saying, Babylon is fallen, is fallen, that great city, because she made all nations drink of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

If those verses mean that hell will be an awful place for some people to be for eternity without parole, no decent man would be able to accept a God like that.

Mark 14:21 says "The Son of man indeed goeth, as it is written of him: but woe to that man by whom the Son of man is betrayed! good were it for that man if he had never been born."

What will God do to that man that will make him wish that he had never been born? Whatever it is, I would never accept a God like that.

If God did not intend for the preceding Scriptures to be taken literally, he should have said so.

Many Christians argue that God's thoughts and ways are different from our thoughts and ways, but that is not a good argument since deists use the same argument. Why is the existence of the God of the Bible any more probable than the existence of the God of deism? It is a question of how probable it is that a God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, but often goes out of his way to try to convince them that he does not exist by frequently mimicking the ways that things would be if he did not exist, and discriminates against some groups of people in predictable ways. I believe that the best conclusion is that religious beliefs are primarily or solely determined by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. If that is not true, and the God of the Bible exists, he would easily able to eliminate a lot of doubt confusion if he wanted to. I am not aware of any good reasons why a loving God would not want to.

What you are proposing is the existence of a God who frequently mimics the ways that things would be if he did not exist, which invites dissent instread of discourage dissent, and needlessly undermines his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists, and who discriminates against men, elderly skeptics, and younger Christians, and discriminates against people based upon geography, and only wants people to hear the Gospel message if someone else tells them about it, and only wants people to have enough food to eat if another person gives them enough food to eat. No rational person would accept a God like that. The odds against the existence of a loving God who acts like that are astronomical. If a God exists, he might be good, evil, amoral, mentally incompetent, or a benevolent but inept bungler who failed in his attempt to create a much better world than the world that he created.

Johnny Skeptic

Oh I think that you do. I believe that you are much more excited about enjoying a comfortable eternal life than you are with anything about this brief. If Jesus had said that people will become dust in the ground forever, you certainly would have much less interest in the Bible than you do now.

Paul says that this life is nothing compared with the joys of heaven. Are you aware that the New Testament says that Paul had a vision of heaven, and said that is was so wonderful that he would rather be in heaven, and only wanted to stay on earth to help people?

Consider the following Scriptures:

1 Corinthians 13:9-12 For we know in part, and we prophesy in part.
But when that which is perfect is come, then that which is in part shall be done away. When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.
For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

Revelation 7:16-17 They shall hunger no more, neither thirst any more; neither shall the sun light on them, nor any heat. For the Lamb which is in the midst of the throne shall feed them, and shall lead them unto living fountains of waters: and God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes.

If you were quadriplegic, blind, and mute like Vincent Humbert of France was, you would definitely be interested in getting to heaven as quickly as possible.
Humbert wanted to die. He asked then President Chirac for an exemption to the French laws that prohibit euthanasia and physician assisted suicide. Chirac refused and here is what happened according to Sabine Grant in a post at the MF&P Forum:

ible

please don't assume what i think or believe, mr. skeptic. yes i believe in heaven, yes, i want to be there. but on a day to day basis, that isn't what guides me. [edit] you're right, though. if jesus said people become dust in the ground forever, it would mean most christians would have to work from a different beliefs foundation. they are christians because they believe Jesus rose again, and that gives hope, has meaning in the face of suffering. what do you tell people to hold on to during suffering? that their existence is meaningless and they will become dust in the ground forever? [/edit]

i would appreciate it if you didn't assume what i'm going to argue, either. you have plenty of wonderful copy-pasted arguments, and i addressed your position on hell, and in your last post you re-pasted your argument. you don't appear to have understood my argument, so apparently you did not read my post carefully. i would like to know if you understand and/or consider any arguments beside your own, mr. skeptic. i'll briefly restate:

if there is a supreme being (as the Bible assumes), and he made everyone accept him and go to heaven (by making everyone conform to a certain way of practices), then free choice would not exist. this is the sort of nightmare you get in 1984, when big brother is conditioning the main character to love his country. if there is a personal God, then there must be a hell for free will to exist.

i just feel that vengeance exists in the heart of man (please tell me if i'm wrong), and Christianity tells us to let God avenge. c.s. lewis argues that if we know a man who goes to his grave, thinking that the world is his oyster, laughing while he oppresses the people around him, why should we expect him to go to heaven? i think the correct reaction to this man, if we met him in this life, would be outrage (tempered by forgiveness?). how could he pay for his misdeeds, the people he hurt, etc.? as a christian, the only way for him (for anyone) is Christ, who paid for everyone's misdeeds. the man just has to hold on to Christ.

i also addressed this in my post, by saying that we are treated unequally because inequality is the basis of the universe. some humans are more intelligent, more athletic, more musical than others. not that that gives us any reason to oppress others, nor that christians or jews themselves are any of these, but that's the way things are.

having 1000 sons of God seems a little bit like roman mythology. Christianity understands the trinity, not the 1002-ity. only one perfect human had to die for the sins of all. if you have a hard time accepting the presence of evil in the world, Christianity says that God suffers with you, since Christ suffered and died.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to ible: My favorite arguments are as follows:

There is excellent evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' The authors provide a lot of documented evidence that shows that geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age significantly and consistently influence what people believe. I would like to add time period to that list because it also make a big difference what century a person is born in.

Consider the following from the cover:

Billy Graham:

"Based on the most extensive survey ever conducted of religion in America, 'One Nation Under God' delivers surprising revelations about the religious beliefs, practices, and affiliations of Americans, and about the complex dynamics of a country that is paradoxically among the most religious and the most secular on earth."

"'One Nation Under God' is quite possibly the most comprehensive and thoughtful profile of contemporary American religious life in print."

John Cardinal O'Conner

"'One Nation Under God' comes as not surprise, either in content or in quality of research. Its authors have demonstrated their objectivity, their professionalism, and their openness so frequently in the past, that for them to have produced a work of lesser value would have disappointed all who have come to rely on their data and their integrity, as have I. This book will disappoint no one interested in facts or their implication for our country."

"Seymour P. Lachman is the University Dean for Community Development at the City University of New York. Barry A. Kosmin is a sociologist at the CUNY Graduate School."

Obviously, Kosmin and Lachman did not intend for skeptics to use their book against Christianity, but that is what I am doing. Consider the following:

If the God of the Bible exists, Christians need to explain why he predictably and consistently has a good deal more success convincing American women to become Christians than he has convincing American men to become Christians. If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is reasonable to assume that the predictable discrepancies are due to genetic and sociological factors.

Consider the following:

Based upon the statistics, if the God of the Bible exists, he is predictably and consistently much more successful at convincing elderly Christians not to give up Christianity than he is at convincing younger Christians not to give up Christianity, and predictably and consistently much less successful at convincing elderly skeptics to become Christians than he is at convincing younger skeptics to become Christians. If the God of the Bible does not exist, the predictable and consistent statistics make sense.

Consider the following:

If the God of the Bible does not exist, all of the preceding evidence would not be strange at all, and in fact would be expected due to predictable and consistent genetic and sociological factors. It would be counterproductive for a God who supposedly wanted people to believe that he exists to frequently mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists. It is not impossible that such a God exists, but it is not reasonable for people to believe that such a God exists unless better evidence becomes available that he does exist. If such a God exists, he has not nearly done everything that he can do try to convince people to believe that he exists. For instance, if there had been 1,000 only begotten Sons of God all over the world instead of only one only begotten Son of God, it is reasonable to conclude that the Christian church would be larger than it is today. That is a reasonable argument because historically, many people have accepted all kinds out outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than 1,000 only begotten Sons of God performing miracles all over the world, and rising from the dead. False religions by necessity must start in only one place. A true religion could, and would start in many places all over the world in order to attract the greatest possible number of followers, and to discourage dissent, doubt, and confusion instead of needlessly inviting dissent, doubt, and confusion.

If there had been 1,000 only begotten Sons of God all over the world instead of only one only begotten Son of God, it is reasonable to assume that the Christian church would be larger than it is today. That is because historically, many people have accepted all kinds of outlandish religions based upon a lot less convincing evidence than 1,000 only begotten Sons of God.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that the Gospel message would be spread entirely by humans according to the frequently grossly inefficient means of communication, transportation, printing, and translation of a given time period. After Christianity was founded, people who lived closer to Palestine had a much better chance of hearing the Gospel message than people who lived far away from Palestine. This presents a problem for Christians because a loving God would not show favoritism based upon geography. It is much too convenient, coincidental, and improbable that a God who wanted to reveal himself to people would go out of his way to mimic the way that the Gospel message would be spread if he did not exist, thereby undermining his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists. If the God of the Bible exists, he only wants people to hear the Gospel message if another person tells them about it. That would be utterly absurd if the God of the Bible exists, but it would be quite natural if he does not exist.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, it is to be expected that food would be distributed entirely by humans. 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 along with non-Christians.

Why do Christians suppose that 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. That is utterly absurd if the God of the Bible exists, but it would be quite natural if he does not exist. If God does exist, it is quite odd that he mimics the ways that food would be distributed if he did not exist.

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. The only kinds of benefits that anyone could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits. Today, it appears that that is the way that things are.

It is a question of how probable it is that a God exists who wants people to believe that he exists, but frequently undermines his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists by predictably and consistently mimicking many of the ways that things would be if he did not exist, and discriminates against some groups of people in predictable and consistent ways. I believe that the best conclusion is that religious beliefs are primarily or solely determined by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. If that is not true, and the God of the Bible exists, he would easily able to eliminate a lot of doubt confusion if he wanted to. I am not aware of any good reasons why a loving God would not want to since refusing to provide more evidence cannot possibly benefit him or anyone else.

What Christians are proposing is the existence of a God who frequently mimics the ways that things would be if he did not exist, which invites dissent instead of discourage dissent, and needlessly undermines his attempts to try to convince people to believe that he exists, and who discriminates against men, elderly skeptics, and younger Christians, and discriminates against people based upon geography, and only wants people to hear the Gospel message if someone else tells them about it, and only wants people to have enough food to eat if another person gives them enough food to eat. No rational person would accept a God like that. The odds against the existence of a loving God who acts like that are astronomical. If a God exists, he might be good, evil, amoral, mentally incompetent, or a benevolent but inept bungler who failed in his attempt to create a much better world than the world that he created.

I do not believe that a moral God would set up a world where what a person believes is determined primarily or solely by geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, age, and time period. What would be the purpose of that?