JPD

What you mean is that your God doesn't have the power to restore a limb to a righteous amputee. Oh no, that's right - silly me, I forget - he could do if he really wanted to but he has a perfectly good reason (which only he may know - but yet you somehow know that only he knows) not to. That's great isn't it? When something good happens God was responsible. When something bad happens God let them die. Or they were praying for the wrong reason. Or they didn't really believe it. Biblegod doesn't reward THAT kind of prayer but he should reward THIS kind of prayer but if he doesn't then its the believer's fault and God has his reasons because God is good and fair.

Johnny Skeptic

I have a much better test than that. Let's find 100 amputees, 50 who are fundamentalist Christians and will agree to ask God to provide them with new limbs, and 50 who are skeptics who will agree not to ask God for new limbs, and see if there is a difference at the ends of their lives.

During the Irish Potato Famine, which was from 1845-1849, one million people died of starvation, most of whom were Christians. Surely many if not most of those Christians asked God to provide them with food, but to no avail. During those same years, many evil people in various parts of the world, including many evil people who never became Christians, and many of whom killed Christians, had plenty of food to eat. 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.

I asked you if you are a righteous man, but you did not answer my question. Why not? How do you suggest that we determine who is and who is not righteous? If there are any righteous people, how can they know that they are righteous?

Is it your position that if everyone was like you, the world would become a Garden of Eden?

JPD

I think I have an inkling as to what the nature of the response will be to this point. It will mention needing to examine the matter more closely to try to establish the degree to which they were Christian, and then the nature of the prayers themselves will need to be examined. Were they praying properly with all their hearts? Were they thinking impure thoughts about each other's bottoms at the time? Did God refuse to help them because he had the power of insight into the future wherein he saw them going astray from the true path since in their delight they forgot their saviour (yet he foresaw their starvation and deemed that preferable)?

Johnny Skeptic

Lots of people ask God to prevent crimes and hurricanes, but as far as we know, God is not willing to directly prevent cimes and hurricanes. Why don't you ask God to prevent hurricanes? Don't you believe in intercessory prayer? If you got cancer, or if you became a quadriplegic, would you blame yourself? Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. No loving being would make people blind, deaf, and dumb.

If you have children, and they were attacked by a bear, would you say that you should not be expected to intervene if not asked?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Romans 9:15 says "For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion." What does that Scripture mean? Does how a person acts have anything to do with it whether or not he receives God's mercy and compassion, or does God pick peoples' names out of a hat? Is God's mercy and compassion spritual, tangible, or both?

rhutchin

I started a New Thread with this -- God's Mercy and Compassion

Angra Mainyu

That’s what I was hoping for.

So, I agree: let’s forget the coin toss and focus on the evidence.

So, what’s the evidence?

What historical accounts?
It’s a book, and one with an agenda – or several, actually, as it has different writers.
You argue that it’s historically accurate. But then again, what’s the basis for such claim?
Science seems to disagree with that – nearly all biologists, paleontologists, archeologists and most historians would not consider the Bible to be factually accurate.

You previously mentioned the courts. Well, you cannot prove that the Bible is accurate, in a court of law. If that were not the fact, Creationism and/or ID would be considered science by scientists – and so, by the courts. That, however, is not the case.

It seems that the evidence does not support your claim. Do you have any other evidence - evidence that scientists, lawyers and judges have failed to see?

If so, I'd like to see that evidence.

Incidentally, I’m still not sure what your position is, with regard to the stoning thing. Some of your statements in that regard seem to contradict each other (see post 281, so I’d ask for clarification on that…

rhutchin

The evidence is still the historical accounts collected in the Bible. You may evaluate that evidence as you wish.

Science is science, whether one operates in the field of creation science or evolution science. Courts (specifically judges) are famous for the biases they wrap their opinions around.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Getting back on topic, why should anyone pay any attention to what the Bible says about homosexuality? If your answer has anything to do with risk assessment, and I expect that it will, I will be happy to demolish that argument just like I always do. Risk assessement in fact does not have anything whatsoever to do with whether or not a decent person is able to love the God of the Bible, or another human. No being can convince another being to love him based upon threats alone. If God exists, the ultimate issue is his character. Since God has poor character, decent people are not able to love him.

It appears that you have conveniently vacated yet another one of the threads that you have started. I am referring to your thread on God's mercy and compassion. It would be best if we debate God's character in that thread, but if you wish, I will debate that issue in this thread, or in any other thread of your choosing. God's questionable character is not logically defensible. Any human who did what God sometimes does and allows would be sent to prision for life, or sentenced to death. No matter how many posts you make, or how many years you spend trying to defend God's questionable character, you will never be able to adequately do it. You do not believe that God is mentally incompetent, but if he were, how would he act any differently than he acts now? No loving, mentally competent being helps AND kills people, but God does. The Bible is useless as evidence for the simple fact that even if God were to show up in person, my arguments would be exactly the same unless he answered some questions to my satisfaction. So, you are wasting your time trying to use the Bible as evidence.

The Evil One

No. You can't. There are accepted methods for distinguishing good and bad evidence and if you follow those methods honestly you have no choice about the result they yield.

There IS such a thing as objectively strong and objectively weak evidence. If you say that evidence is strong when in fact it is weak evidence, then you are objectively wrong.

Our ability to distinguish strong from weak evidence is not perfect but it is pretty darn good.

The Bible is not strong evidence. It is human testimony, and human testimony is weak evidence. Objectively so. So if you think the Bible is strong evidence, then you are objectively, demonstrably wrong. The strength of any given piece of evidence is NOT a matter of personal choice.

Not sure why I bothered typing all that out since I tried to make this point several times already and you keep on claiming that the strenght of evidence is a matter of personal choice. But hopefully all the lukers can see that this claim of yours has been utterly dmeolished.