bfniii

if you accept for the sake of argument that there was a Jesus, then you accept the biblical account because there is no other account. otherwise, dismiss Jesus altogether. which is it?

wait, i made no claim. i responded to your claim. furthermore, i asked a question which was how such a thing, the alleged "tangible" evidence or God's compassion, could be quantified one way or the other. additionally, the original question i asked was in regards to the problem you have with amount of suffering God allows. how much suffering should God be permitted to allow?

according to the bible, several ways.

oh yeah? by what standard do you make this statement?

and who would these people be?

since the above premises remain in question, so does this conclusion.

if you accept the God of the bible, even for the sake of argument, then you must accept that it claims He is all-good and all-knowing. if that's the case, then the misunderstanding is your perception of the biblical account.

and what do you do when these injunctions are at odds with each other?

could you point out the bible verses where these actions are endorsed?

admirable people and causes to be sure. fortunately, all of these ideals are endorsed by christianity and carried out by christians.

and just as often in good ways. what's the point?

and when tribes are in conflict?

these types of testimonies are abundant. what problem do you have with them?

the defense and explanations you request are in the bible. if you have some conflicting information, bring it forward.

elvis didn't give his life in the service of others. there's one big one. there are quite a few others, but only one is needed to debunk the analogy.

the majority of what you list are miracles. you can claim what you like about them, but it is merely opinion.

they say otherwise to what?

no i would not and you are out of place by making such a statement.

yes for multiple reasons.

this is an inherently faulty statement. "if the suffering is severe enough" constitutes tautology.

degree of suffering is relative. the important factor about suffering is the fact that it exists. amount is irrelevant to the discussion.

to confound atheists and agnostics.

what is God's purpose for what?

the evidence is in the bible.

the purpose of natural disasters or more pointedly, suffering.

there's that phrase again, "right to die". it's an absurd statement because everyone is going to die, it's just a question of when. what you mean to say is he had a right to commit suicide. no one has the right to commit suicide. everyone has the ability. having the ability doesn't make it right.

why would you expect the opposite? the point was that good can come from disaster or suffering.

since when is suicide dignified?

we've already discussed this. my answer hasn't changed. i'm sorry you have such a low standard that you can't see value is those people or their lives.

the point i was making is that the amount of suffering is relative to the individual. the amount has nothing to do with the purpose in it.

a flawed analogy. even if society gives people the right to be assisted in suicide, that doesn't make it right.

nothing in that statement was intended to provide evidence of purpose so your response was amiss. people don't seek suffering because it would be absurd to do so. however, good can come from suffering.

and on what basis do you make such an assertion? how would you quantify such a statement?

no assumption is necessary. the proof is in the bible.

apologetics is defense of the christian faith. it has nothing to do with the pointless exercise of quantifying a phantom "greater need of miracles today than in the past".

ah. now we get to the crux. you are expecting burning bushes and parted waters. why must God provide the same kinds of miracles today as back then?

why do you find it important that people agree on what constitutes a miracle? why is that important?

people disagreed back then too. some people thought Jesus' power originated from satan.

people believed back then, just as they do now, that God is active in tangible ways in our lives. what would give them such an idea?

and allowing them to make landfall doesn't make God immoral. the statement carried out to it's logical conclusion would imply that there be no suffering. why should there be such a place?

fortunately, God does not love people in that way because if He did, He would be our equal. it seems that He loves us more than we can currently comprehend.

how do you know? you seem to be saying we deserve to live in a world without suffering. well, that's heaven and it's ridiculously easy to get there.

but God is consistently loving. He has consistently provided atonement for us despite the fact that we consistently don't deserve it. this allows us to consistently find purpose in suffering.

i repeat, email any church that had evacuees.

this is a flawed statement. you are implying that people left christianity because of the hurricane which is not true. they left because of the suffering caused by the hurricane. big difference. other people became christians despite the suffering. i'm sure there has been a time in your life that through suffering, you learned a valuable lesson.

without a doubt. fortunately, we can still benefit from suffering even though we can't always prevent it. it's human nature to want to avoid suffering and that's why people pray to be exempt from it. however, i think those same people would be honest enough to admit that it's not a realistic request nor is it in our best interests.

not according to the bible

in that case, you're missing the point of the bible

the reasons i cited were derived from the bible

no need to. your requirement is a false expectation. there is no reason to expect the same kinds of miracles that occurred back then. second, miracles do still occur according to many people.

the ones in the bible

this remark is not only ad hominem, but you are unable to quantify it. some christians are trouble, some are not. neither has anything to do with christianity whatsoever.

the ones making that claim don't do so under the auspices of christianity.

you don't know that my agenda is bible based. all you know is that i have represented the christian position from misconception here in these forums, and there is alot of it.

by interfere, i take it that you are telling christians not to exercise their right as americans to lobby for legislation that reflects their beliefs, as you do. if so, that's hypocritical

part of the article said that. the source it cites does not say that.

i was unaware of that. the fact that some people have decided to take a critical position to ezekiel does not constitute a loss.

and you have no more ground than anyone trying to date any writing from antiquity

does that anyone include you? if so, your case is no stronger than anyone else's.

this is confounding. you brought the date into question from the beginning.

since ezekiel was written in antiquity, any general point we are making applies to ezekiel specifically.

so if you believe alterations were made, who made them and when?

bfniii

you mean "more than the ones provided in the bible".

reasonable is subjective

could you elaborate on what you mean by consent?

thank goodness. humans are flawed, contradictory and vagarious.

unless there were an important reason to allow suffering. one that was paramount to the human experience.

but christians claim that God does interact with us on a daily basis.

Johnny Skeptic

You mean more than the ones provided by the Bible authors, don’t you? Hearsay evidence in courts of law is bad enough, but human proxies presuming to speak for God is patently absurd. What explanations are you talking about that apply to natural disasters?

And faith is not subjective?

What I meant was that before skeptics choose to worship a self-proclaimed ruler of the universe, it is fair for them to request a good deal of personal discussions with such a ruler.

Now you’ve got it. That is why we need God to explain these things to us IN PERSON, or at the very least make a personal appearance and tell us to be patient and that all things will be revealed in due time, and more than once every two millennia (I will count the life of Jesus as an appearance, although we do not really know he said) I might add.

Consistency is what best indicates love and compassion, and the God who is depicted in the Bible is not like that. He needs to explain his inconsistency IN PERSON.

All that you are after is a comfortable eternal life, nothing more, and ultimately, you couldn't care less who provides it as long as it is available. If you had cancer, would you care who provides you with a cure if a cure were available? Of course not. Truly, while the God of the Bible is replaceable, eternal comfort is most certainly not replaceable.

I asked you if you oppose a terminally ill person's right to choose the timing and the means of his death by means of physician assisted suicide. Did you answer my question? If so, what was your answer? If not, then please answer my question.

Which is why God should tell us that himself IN PERSON. Why do you assume that there is a sufficient reason for natural disasters? What evidence do you have that God is good in tangible ways?

If you are referring to spiritual/emotional evidence, that evidence is subjective. This applies to all other religions as well. If you are referring to tangible evidence, which is the most convincing and least subjective kind of evidence, please post your tangible evidence.

Regarding tangible evidence, in the New International Version of the Bible, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite tangible evidence of Jesus' power.

More tangible evidence comes from Acts 14:3 and Matthew 14:14. In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." In the NIV, Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably to those in greatest need, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "are not" aware of God's supernatural power. Therefore, we don't have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then.

Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

Some Christians claim that skeptics are predisposed against miracles, but I don't know of any skeptic who would object to anyone, a claimed God or an alien, being available to help us with our many burdens

Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." In order to make my point more clear, the New International Version translates the verse as "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of "the message of his grace" that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to bfniii: This post if a follow-up to my previous post. Regarding my argument that it is fair for skeptics to require that God show up IN PERSON and answer a lot questions prior to their deciding whether or not to worship him, historically, the Christian Church itself would have dramatically benefitted from God making frequent personal appearances and answering a lot of questions. Consider the abuses of the Roman Catholic Church that could hav been avoided. Consider the Protestant Reformation, which tore Europe apart with hatred and wars. Even today, there are a lot of hard feelings between Protestants and Catholics. Some Protestants believe that Roman Catholics will not go to heaven, and vice versa.

Consider the following:

Elaine Pagels: For nearly 2,000 years, Christian tradition has preserved and revered orthodox writings that denounce the Gnostics, while suppressing and virtually destroying the Gnostic writings themselves. Now, for the first time, certain texts discovered at Nag Hammadi reveal the other side of the coin: how Gnostics denounced the orthodox. The 'Second Treatise of the Great Seth' polemicizes against orthodox Christianity, contrasting it with the 'true church' of the Gnostics. Speaking for those he calls the sons of light, the author says: '...we were hated and persecuted, not only by those who are ignorant (pagans), but also by those think they are advancing the name of Christ, since they were unknowingly empty, not knowing who they are, like dumb animals.'"

Larry Taylor: How does this apply to the story of Jesus? Simply that all of the early critics are dead. Skeptical opinions were banned. Christian opinions, other than those of the establishment, were banned. Books were destroyed, and later, heretics were burned.

Microsoft Encarta Encyclopedia 2002:

By the 3rd century Gnosticism began to succumb to orthodox Christian opposition and persecution. Partly in reaction to the Gnostic heresy, the church strengthened its organization by centralizing authority in the office of bishop, which made its effort to suppress the poorly organized Gnostics more effective.

In his book titled ‘The Religious Quests of the Graeco-Roman World,’ Christian author S. Angus, Ph.D., D.Lit., D.D., says the following:

“No one could have dreamed that the Christians, who had themselves suffered so much from persecution and protested so vehemently against the injustice and futility of persecution, would so quickly have turned persecutors and surpassed their Pagan predecessors in fanatical savagery and efficiency, utterly oblivious of the Beatitude of the Divine Master (Matt. V. 10, 44, 45). It became ominous for subsequent history that the first General Council of the Church was signalized by bitter excommunications and banishments. Christians, having acquired the art of disposing of hostile criticism by searching out and burning the objectionable books of their Pagan adversaries, learned to apply the same method to the works of such groups of Christians as were not in power or in favour for the time; when this method proved unsatisfactory, they found it expedient to burn their bodies. The chained skeleton found in the Mithraic chapel at Sarrebourg testified to the drastic means employed by Christians in making the truth conquer otherwise than by the methods and exemplified by the Founder. The stripping and torture to death with oyster-shells in a Christian church and the subsequent mangling of limb from limb of Hypatia, the noblest representative of Neo-Platonism of her day, by the violent Nitrian monks and servitors of a Christian bishop, and probably with his connivance, were symptomatic and prophetic of the intolerance and fanaticism which Christianity was to direct throughout the centuries upon its disobedient members and troublesome minorities until the day – yet to dawn – when a purer, more convincing because more spiritual, Christianity gains ‘the consent of happier generation, the applause of less superstitious ages.’�

The largest colonial empire in history by far under a single religion was conquered by Christian nations by means of persecution, murder and theft of property. The victors often warred among themselves for the spoils of victory. Few Christians would favor the United States embarking upon colonial conquests at this time, but if every Christian who is alive today had been transported at birth back to 1650 A.D., when colonial conquests were widely accepted by Christians, and had been raised by Christian parents who favored colonization, there should be no doubt whatsoever that the majority of them would have favored colonial conquests.

Consider the fact that for about 90% of the time since Christianity was founded, the vast majority of professing Christians believed in slavery and the subjugation of women. Jefferson Davis was the president of the Southern Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War. He was a Christian. He said that the Bible condones slavery. God could have showed up and easily settled the matter, but he didn't. Why not?

Fallen man needs direct help from God in order to avoid various groups of Christians ending up having to interpret Scripture for themselves. You yourself have stated that human understanding is subjectvie and flawed. Even Job, the most righteous man on earth at the time, and John the Baptist, whom Jesus said was the greatest man who ever lived or would live, made some bad choices. God supposedly straigtened Job out, IN PERSON. I am not sure if God straightened out John the Baptist in person.

When the U.S. Supreme Court order busing decades ago, the state of Virginia closed down the public school system so that white children would not have to go to school with black children. That is understandable due to the fact that Virginia has a high percentage of fundamentalist Christians.

Believe it or not, about ten years ago, a gay couple in Texas were arrested for having sex in the privacy of their own home. Again, that is understandable because Texas has a high percentage of fundamentalist Christians. The gay couple sued the state of Texas, and eventually the Supreme Court ruled in favor of the gay couple, in the process striking down anti-sodomy laws in Texas and 12 other states, predictably all states with high percentages of fundamentalist Christians. The other 47 states had previously stuck down their anti-sodomy laws by means of legislative and judicial actions. Most of the states were Southern Bible Belt states. The two exceptions were Utah and Idaho, both of which have high percentages of fundamentalist Christians. Wherever you go in the world, no matter what the religion, fundamentalists are always trouble. By the way, are you a fundamentalist Christian? What church do you attend?

Some years ago, the Southern Baptist Convention aplogized to black people becuase of mistreatment of black people by Southern Baptists, which, by the way, did not come anywhere near eliminating racial bigotry among Southern Baptists.

Suffice it ti say, even though fundamentalist Christians consider skeptics to be their enemies and main adversaries, a world with only professing Christians would by no means be a jolly place, thanks to God's "hands off" approach to dealing with humans and perennial absentism as the millennia continue to pass.

bfniii

well, there is more than that.

the bible doesn't depict prophets as merely speaking for God.

the fact that
1. God has provided salvation thus inherently adding meaning to any benefit or suffering incurred in this life
2. job is a good example of how reasons 1, 2, and 4 from post #289 are derived.

you're defending your position by attacking another which is a logical fallacy. the point is, you claimed your statement was valid because it was "reasonable" which is a subjective assessment.

christians believe they get those dicussions but you mean a different type than that. you mean burning bushes and parted waters. i have asked you why such things are necessary for these people to not deconvert. even if that did happen, people still wouldn't believe which was the case in regards to Jesus. besides, there are inherent problems with the occurrence of such an event. therefore, it's unreasonable to expect/request it.

great. these appearances have happened. what else do you require?

according to your mistaken impression

there is only inconsistency in your interpretation.

i did answer but it was buried in that long response. i am opposed to it because it is wrong.

no assumption. clear reasons have been provided.

we've been over this. examples of miraculous type events are plentiful. i understand you don't accept them.

this is a meaningless statement because there is no way to objectively and empirically measure such an event. therefore, your expectation that such evidence be objective is equally meaningless

you misunderstand. this passage is not referring to the miracle itself, but the desire to believe in such. the desire to know God. the key word is not miracle, but believe.

no they do not. they refer to the attitude of the reader.

we get it, you just don't accept it.

so what? what does that indicate?

how do you know there wasn't someone, somewhere praying about any particular healing which precipitated it?

this is an absurd statement. you have no means to quantify such a statement nor have you answered the question i have asked you regarding who "those in greatest need" are.

this is your belief, nothing more.

since your premises are in question, these conclusions are too.

that is blatant hurling the elephant. the conclusion in no way follows from the premises. at best, these limited premises yield that we misunderstand the intentions behind His actions. it would take much more than the above premises to reach this conclusion (in fact, it's impossible for humans to reach this conclusion).

this is not totally accurate. celsus writes that Jesus may have been a charlatan or "magician". obviously, there were people during Jesus' time who held the same belief.

this is not totally accurate. the reason why is because some people, particularly atheists, don't acknowledge anything supernatural. this is the contemporaneous equivalent to denying Jesus' divine authority. they both have the same result.

not that this is important in any way.

people did disagree. what's the point?

i assume you are trying to make the case that there is no reason to believe it happened because it was unattested. if that were the only passage in the bible, you might have a case.

it's understood which obviates point #3 as well.

what reason do you have to believe it might have been?

there is no less evidence than for any other thing written in antiquity.

is it important for this one miracle to have been widely accepted? what is widely?

but it sure happened in Jesus' time. what makes you think it would be any different today? i'll obviate any responses you might give: it wouldn't be any different. the reason why is because people haven't changed in the respect that some accept the existence of the supernatural, some do not.

Johnny Skeptic

What appearances during say the last 1500 years? I require evidence that God is consistently good, and I will only accept it if he appears to me IN PERSON and provides answers to my questions that I deem to be acceptable. My first question would be about hurricane Katrina. Hearsay evidence regarding what God’s views are IS NOT acceptable.

If heaven, hell, and all of eternity are actually at stake, surely skeptics are entitled to much more evidence than you have provided. Logic dictates that the greater the stakes, the greater the evidence must be. This is true court trials. In civil trials, death or life imprisonment are not at stake. A simple majority vote by the jury is sufficient to convict a suspect. In murder trials, since death or life imprisonment are at stake, a unanimous vote by the jury is required. The O.J. Simpson trial is a good example. He won his murder trial, but he lost his civil trial, I think by a unanimous vote.

I will reply to the rest of your post in another post.

bfniii

God did show up and people killed Him. why do you think it would be any different today? it wouldn't.

if God appeared to you personally or even a group of people, it would be called a hallucination.

the flaw in this line of thinking is that any amount of legislation can suppress religious belief. the catholic church is not responsible for the disappearance of early christian critcism, the lack of explanatory power of the criticism is responsible. no matter how effective the catholic church had been, the criticism would have survived if it were ineluctible. it existed and christianity not only responded to it in the form of works by the early church fathers, but survived it.

this is not an accurate representation of christianity. there were some people who abused their position of influence. but on the whole, christianity has been the source of much good and service. the decisions of those few were more politically motivated than religiously motivated. even so, they still weren't able to stop the protestant reformation. the point is, nothing can stop an idea, except that idea itself. if gnosticism or any objection to christianity had been so efficacious, no one or group would have been able to stop it.

the most important point to glean from this is that the actions of a few misguided people were precipitated by motives other than the original directives of christianity, and the author is correct in saying so. this becomes not so much a criticism of christianity itself, but how people can twist even the most noble of enterprises.

1. from where do you get the figure 90%
2. even if it was 100%, that just means 100% of christians are not correct on the issue.

apparently, He did because we now no longer have slavery in this country. He just didn't settle this issue when or how you think He should have.

what you propose negates the whole purpose behind individuality and is hypocritical to your stated cause. we are to seek and discover what christianity means to us personally, not be dictated to by an institution or inflexible deity, which is ironically what you take issue with regarding christianity. fallen man gets help from God, you just don't like the degree to which we get it (you feel like it's not enough). you seem to think we don't get help because God doesn't appear in olympian fashion only to have us acquiesce out of fear or compulsion. this would not be help from God, it would be dictatorial. explain why your standard should be implemented. well, i already know the answer. it has, at least in part, to do with the amount of suffering in the world which brings us back to God's compassion or lack thereof.

even if you could definitively show that christians in va at that time were directly responsible for shutting down the schools for that reason, it doesn't mean that they were doing so for christian reasons.

not all people characterize God's approach as hands off.

this email was mainly focused on the bad things that a small percentage of christians have done in an effort to discredit christianity. christians are admitted sinners. in fact, it's a prerequisite to becoming a christian. furthermore, becoming a christian does not make one free from wrongdoing. the ongoing process of reconciliation is one of the virtues of christianity. even though christians do go astray sometimes, they are still capable of being redeemed. stating that christians have done bad things is stating the obvious. there is no substance to such a statement. you are merely affirming what christianity and christians have already acknowledged.

bfniii

as i said, testimonies of this kind are plentiful

and how would you know such a thing? let me guess, no suffering. i told you, that's heaven. don't forget we had it in the garden of eden too and chose to lose it.

if such an appearance happened, it would be a hallucination.

i've already given you what the alleged word of God says regarding that.

once the canon was completed, there was no need for any biblical style miracles to occur. we have everything we need right now to make the descision regarding our eternality. what you want is hypocritical. you want the ability to have freewill to reject being subordinate to God, but not reaping the consequence of such a choice. furthermore, you want a world where there is no suffering. that's easy but you don't like the choice that has to be made to get to heaven. what's even more hypocritical is that you claim humans want eternal comfort and don't care who it comes from because it's the greatest desire. well, it's available yet you criticize the path to get there. if it was so important to you as you say, you wouldn't be taking the chance you are now.

Johnny Skeptic

Please give me some examples.

Who said “no suffering�? I most certainly didn’t. My position is that humans judge how loving and compassionate a person is based upon his consistency. God is not consistent. If a human had the power to prevent natural disasters from harming humans and did not do so, he would immediately be ostracized from society, and possibly even sent to prison.

And why should anyone believe that?

Upon what evidence do you base that assertion? If Jesus made an appearance, and if he allowed millions of people to touch him, and if photographs were taken of him, and if audio recording were made of his words, that most certainly would not be a hallucination.

Where does the Bible state why God needs natural disasters in order to carry out his purposes? At any rate, I will not accept the testimonies of human proxies who presume to speak for God.

What do we have? What evidence is there that tangible good things and bad things are distributed by God and not by chance? What evidence is there that the canon is the word of God? Regarding the letters of Paul that were chosen to be in the canon, what indiciates that they were anything more than ordinary letters not unlike other letters that Paul sent to various churches?

I am not at all opposed to human oversight and divine oversight that I consider to be fair. Without human oversight, there would be anarchy in society. Divine oversight is fine as long as it is fair. Might DOES NOT automatically make right. Any being with enough power can appoint himself as dictator of the universe, but that does not mean that he is good simply because he says that he is good.

That is false. I have never said that I want a world with no suffering. What I want is a world with a lot less suffering. So do most other people.

What choice is that?

After you die, wouldn’t you accept a comfortable heaven from a being other than the God of the Bible if it appeared that the God of the Bible does not exist?

First of all, I do not believe that there is sufficient evidence that such a path is available. Second of all, we do not really know that God ever promised eternal life to anyone. That is a problem that has resulted from human proxies presuming to speak for God. Third of all, even if I did believe that the God of the Bible exists, I would not worship him without first getting answers from him IN PERSON to the following questions that I deemed to be acceptable:

1 - Why did you order the killing of babies?

2 - Why did you order the killing of people who worked on the Sabbath day?

3 - Why did you order the killing of people who cursed at their parents?

4 - Why did you use a global flood to get rid of all of the bad people in the world?

5 - Why do you allow some people to become quadriplegics.

6 - Why don’t you allow salvation by merit?

7 - Why have you never been available for detailed question and answer sessions in person?

8 - Most of all, why do you require belief in Christianity before you answer the preceding questions, and a lot of other questions as well?

It appears to me that it is you who are taking a chance. Most Christians believe that if it one day turns out that Christianity is a false religion, they have nothing to lose by believing in Christianity. Such is definitely not the case. There are many possibilities, but the following possible scenario should do: Assuming for the sake of argument that intelligent design is reasonably possible, a benevolent God exists who chooses not to reveal himself to humans until after they die. At a certain time in history, he will judge humans according to their merits. Humans who are judged as having lived acceptable lives will be sent to a version of heaven, and humans who are judged as having lived unacceptable lives will be sent to a version of hell. The group of humans who will end up in hell will include any Bible believers throughout history who rubber stamped all acts and allowances that were committed by the God of the Bible that he (the other God) deems to be unacceptable, such as ordering the killing of babies and allowing natural disasters.

Since the God of the Bible chose not to reveal his specific existence and will to the majority of humans for many centuries, including to many humans even during the last 100 years, this scenario is certainly a viable theory if we assume that intelligent design is a reasonable possibility.

Christians are not free to follow the evidence wherever it leads, but skeptics are. From Christians' point of view, if they became skeptics and it eventually turns out that the Bible is true, they will spend eternity in hell. On the other hand, from skeptics' point of view, if they became Christians and it eventually turns out that they will become dust in the ground, they will be no worse off than before they became Christians. Therefore, skeptics are free to follow the evidence wherever it leads completely free of coercive influences.

bfniii

query the internet for miracles.

i have responded to this already. God is not inconsistent. our perception is.

you say you haven't advocated a world with no suffering and then state how unjust suffering is. these two points are contradictory.

because some people find merit in what the bible says. what do you believe? you seem to argue against christianity alot for an agnostic.

precedent.

every one of your examples is subject to some skeptic claiming that all of that was faked or people were manipulated somehow or everyone had indigestion. what good would photos or recordings be? if He did appear, how would anyone verify his identity? ask for His social security card?

the contemporaneous equivalent of this did happen and the result was quite different than what you claim it would be.

i find that this request underscores a double standard. people who are similarly inclined will go to any length to be critical and skeptical of the bible, but would be so gullible as to believe your hypothetical "snake oil salesman" appearance .

i didn't say "needs". i said allows. big difference.

fortunately, that's not the only way to interact with God.

let's use a process of elimination. what evidence is there that it's chance?

apparently, christians believe God has told them this.

because it met certain criteria that other books did not.

the bible/christianity does not maintain that God is good only because He says so. that might be the ultimate reason, but not the only one.

the key to that response is "that I consider to be fair". perhaps what you consider to be fair is mistaken.

so it's the degree to which suffering is allowed. you want less. how much less? how do we quantify suffering?

romans 10:9

there isn't? how much or what kind of evidence do you require?

well, we know what christianity claims God promised. what reason do you have to disbelieve what christianity maintains?

no problem has resulted. it's a question of what a person is inclined to believe.

do you honestly believe that an omniscient creator killed underserving people? if you answer that those people didn't deserve to die, then we're not talking about the same God.

what other way should He have used?

now this is a question i would like to ask God myself. i understand that good can come from it. but it seems to me that this situation is avoidable.

because it's a flawed idea. no amount of finite works warrants an infinite result. furthermore, if it were the case, the motivation behind the actions would become twisted as with the pharisees; doing good works for the wrong reasons.

He is. the bible. it has all the answers a person needs to know.

because otherwise, the answers don't make sense. which is precisely the case.

i can think of tons more questions to ask. christians don't purport to have all the answers nor do they understand all of God's creation. having questions is normal.

unsupported assumption

so you believe that God would allow people to go to hell after He allowed them to be deceived as to His real motives? somehow, i think a supernatural creator would have a higher moral standard than that. besides, i have already pointed out two flaws in works-based religion.

the problem with this statement is that God HAS revealed Himself.

i disagree. true christians lead a meritorious, fulfilling life. christians find that every facet and aspect of life has meaning, including suffering. this is not the case for non-christians.

definitely not true for the same reason. if for no other reason, the true christian can look back on a life of positive influence and morality.

this conclusion is certainly incorrect for the above stated reasons.