Freethought & Rationalism Archive

aa5874 · 11-12-2006, 12:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Would you deny that you have also been negligent also? It seems that you want to do that which pleases yourself and then have God negate all the bad things that happen because of what you do. However, if you really want God to offset the evil that you do, won't He have to put you in a jail cell so that you cannot do any harm to anyone? Do you want to be in jail where you will not be happy or do you want to be free to do those things that bring happiness to youself even where your happiness sometimes means that others will suffer?

According to the Bible, the God of Moses took thousands of years to work out a salvation plan for the Gentiles. This God cared only about his chosen people. These chosen people, according to the Bible, were ordered to kill and destroy other people just because He said so.

Now, is this God negligent, genocidal or stupid? According to the Bible, He is all three. It took Him thousands of years to kill His Son and that could have been done on the seventh day, but due to negligence, stupidity and thirst for genocide, He went to sleep on that day.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-13-2006, 07:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

What do you mean by allows? He allows people to make moral choices and harm other people only in the sense that he made us capable of moral choice. Do you want to give up your moral choice?

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

I am talking about God, not humans. If preventing people from starving to death is a worthy and beneficial goal, God most certainly would not leave it all up to humans. He would be involved in preventing people from starving to death himself. He would not tell believers via James that if a man refuses to feed hungry people that he is vain and his faith is dead and deliberately withhold food from starving people.

We have laws against negligence. Surely you approve of those laws. God is negligent, but you approve of his negligence. Why is that?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Would you deny that you have also been negligent also?

No. I have been negligent, and God has been negligent. We are both in the same boat. The difference between me and God is that if I was able to feed all of the hungry people in the world, I would, but God won’t. Is it your position that God has never been negligent in any way?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

It seems that you want to do that which pleases yourself and then have God negate all the bad things that happen because of what you do.

Hurricanes are bad things when they injure and kill people. I did not create hurricanes. If I was able to prevent hurricanes from occurring, I would. Wouldn’t you? If I was able to heal all of the sick people in the world, I would. Wouldn’t you? I am not suggesting that the world should be perfect. Humans need some obstacles and difficulties to overcome in order to develop good character and to appreciate good days. As some Christians have noted, if bad things did not exist, humans would not be able to appreciate the good things that exist. Hurricane Katrina was most certainly not necessary in order for people to develop good character and to appreciate good days. If it was, why don’t you pray for a hurricane to go where you live?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

However, if you really want God to offset the evil that you do, won't He have to put you in a jail cell so that you cannot do any harm to anyone? Do you want to be in jail where you will not be happy or do you want to be free to do those things that bring happiness to yourself even where your happiness sometimes means that others will suffer?

There is no evidence that God is not evil. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, but there is no credible evidence that Paul could have known whether or not Satan is an angel of light, or whether or not God is an angel of light. The odds are no better than even that God is who the Bible says he is. Jesus said in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. Logically, a commitment like that is not possible based upon no better than even odds.

By “a jail cell”, you mean hell. If God does not want skeptics to end up in hell, he is easily able to provide them with additional information that would cause some of them to end up in heaven instead of hell. Since God refuses to do this, rational minded and fair minded people have no choice but to reject him. God does not derive any benefits from refusing to help more people avoid going to hell. If some people will go to hell because of God’s negligence, they most certainly will not derive any benefits from God’s negligence. Do you deny that God is easily able to provide some people with additional information that would cause some of them to end up in heaven instead of hell?

The bottom line is this: No loving, moral God would ever depend completely upon humans to ensure that everyone had the knowledge of the truth, and had food, shelter, clothing, and medical needs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Bible is available to all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

No it isn't. It never has been and never will be in this life. Hundreds of millions of people have died without hearing the Gospel message because God deliberately withheld it from them. No amount of human effort could ever let everyone know about the Gospel message. This was especially true in the first century A.D.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

This world produces enough food to feed everyone, yet people still die of starvation. This world has the resources to provide health care to everyone, but people still die because they have no doctor. Will you claim otherwise?

But no amount of human effort can prevent God from creating hurricanes and injuring and killing people with them. Hurricanes frequently destroy food and medical supplies.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

The Bible exists and is available to everyone in the world,.......

How about in 75 A.D.?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

…….yet not everyone has a copy, and not all those who have copies read it. There are reasons for this. One primary reason is that God has given the Johnny Skeptics of the world the freedom to withhold the Bible from others. It is true that God could intervene to prevent the Johnny Skeptics from doing this. It is true that God could snap His fingers and save everyone. He chose not to. God created a system in which He gave the Johnny Skeptics of the world the freedom (and power) to determine whether they would tell others about God. As you state, it is not a good system, but would you want God to force you to do those things that you did not want to do and override your desires with His own or would you want to be free to do as you please?

No, I want God to love people enough to intervene himself in order to keep them from going to hell. If keeping people out of hell is a worthy goal, it is a worthy goal for humans and for God. It is illegal to possess a Bible in Saudi Arabia. If John Smith lives in Saudi Arabia, and wants to read the Bible, and is deprived of being able to read the Bible, if he would become a Christian if he read the Bible, wouldn’t he deserve to go to heaven? If I had more information, I might become a Christian.

If you have children, if they were drowning, you would try to save all of them, not just some of them. In addition, you would not be willing that any of your children not hear the Gospel message.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

How can the Bible be available to all when you claim that God chooses who he will reveal himself to?

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Two different things here. One is availability and the other is use. A person can have a book on calculus but if he never reads it and never invests the time to understand what he reads, he will never understand calculus. Similarly, a person can have a Bible but if he never reads it and never invests the time to understand what he reads, he will never understand what it says. God has chosen to reveal Himself to those who seek Him. Not everyone seeks God.

But most people want to be as certain as possible how the universe got here, which means that most people are seeking to be as certain as possible whether or not a God exists, and if a God does exist, which God, and what he wants us to do with our lives. God is easily able to do much more than he has done to provide more information about these issues.

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

Your argument is that people go to extraordinary efforts sometimes to keep people from reading the Bible and learning that they have sinned and are accountable to God for that sin. They do not know that they can cry out to God for forgiveness.

All this because God has given people the freedom to do that which they want. I think your argument is that God should not allow people to be free with regard to issues of salvation.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

No, my argument is that since God is willing that some will perish, when he could easily prevent some people from perishing by providing them with additional information that they would accept if they were aware of the information, rational minded and fair minded people are not able to will themselves to accept him. No man can fairly be held accountable for rejecting information that he would accept if he was aware of the information…

Quote:

Originally Posted by rhutchin

A man can be held accountable for his actions regardless of whether he knows about God.

And whose fault it that? Romans 5:12 says “Wherefore, as by one man sin entered into the world, and death by sin; and so death passed upon all men, for that all have sinned.” God caused a sinful nature to be transmitted to all successive generations after Adam and Eve, thereby ensuring that everyone must sin at least some of the time. You can’t get away with claiming that God did not create the conditions by which a sinful nature was transmitted to all successive generations after Adam and Eve. Today, if God were to provide additional information to skeptics, some of them would become Christians who were not previously convinced. Those skeptics would then not be accountable, but God wants them to be accountable. It is a question of how much God loves people, how merciful he is, how much he wants people to become saved, and to what extent he is willing to go that skeptics are not willing to go.

Why does God discriminate against amputees? He sometimes heals other people, right? Why does God kill babies and innocent animals?

rhutchin · 11-13-2006, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Doug Shaver

rhutchin
God has given the Johnny Skeptics of the world the freedom to withhold the Bible from others.

Doug Shaver
OK. Let's imagine I want to read the Bible but Johnny won't let me.

Why is God letting Johnny do what he wants to do but not letting me do what I want to do?

Don't know. However, I think there is a verse (but I can't recall it right now) that says something to the effect that God allows evil men to have their way in order to prepare them for judgment.

rhutchin · 11-13-2006, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by lamberthml

The Tanakh and the Testament are both inextricably flawed in history and :wave:

one cannot believe in their miracles unless one is gullible. Their morality is flawed, so one has to rely on what we find good or bad as the thread on humanist morality demonstrates . God's hiddenness provokes much philosophical debate. I find God is so hidden that He does not exist! The thread the definitive refutation of the free will argument demonstrates that God is of limited imagination . No amount of biblical citation lets God off the hook!Johnny wins hands down!:angel: :notworthy: Rhutchin just cannot fathom logic!:banghead: :huh:

You are allowed your personal opinions. When you put together a logical defense of your opinions, let me know and I will try to fathom it.

rhutchin · 11-13-2006, 09:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gamera

rhutchin
The video is factual. It is providing a truthful account of the actions that occur. You are noting, correctly, that we may misinterpret what is happening because we can lack context. If a person is recorded as praising God, then the video is accurately recording that event. What we may be missing is the additional factual information that he is doing so because another man holds a gun to his head. We can have truth (e.g., a verse in the Bible) but lack context to understand properly that truth.

Gamera
Since you can't see outside the frame or behind the man, to say it is 'factual' is meaningless. It could be the man is a puppet that looks like a man. Or that a movie is being made in which a man is making a confession of Allah, while gun men force him, so that not only is the confession not factual, but the forced confession is fake.

You're always limited to the frame, a perspective, and hence you never can tell what the facts are. All you can say is that the video purports to be about this or that. And that's all you can say about any text.

I think we can do better than that. A video is an accurate accounting of that which has been recorded. There may be additional information that a person needs to understand the video, but that information conveyed by the video can be regarded as accurate. Even in your example, the confession is accurate -- the person did, in fact, make the confession. All you have done is to say that additional information (the unseen gun at his head) contribute to our understanding of why the person made the confession. The existence of additional information does not change the fact that a man made a confession; it only changes how we understand that confession.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-13-2006, 07:28 PM

Message to rhutchin: Do you intend to reply to my post #402?

Johnny Skeptic · 11-13-2006, 08:03 PM

Message to rhutchin: For some people, how much time they have to accept Christianity is the determining factor. Some people die when they are 20 years old. Some people die when they are 90 years ago. Some skeptics who die when they are 20 years old would have become Christians if they had lived longer. If God is fair, skeptics who died when they were 20 years old who would have become Christians if they had lived longer have nothing to worry about.

Johnny Skeptic · 11-13-2006, 10:08 PM

Message to rhutchin: Today, are you aware of any evidence that tangible benefits are not entirely distributed at random according to the laws of physics? If God distributes tangible benefits, are you aware of any evidence that he distributes them with regard for a person's needs and worldview?

rhutchin · 11-15-2006, 10:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Today, are you aware of any evidence that tangible benefits are not entirely distributed at random according to the laws of physics? If God distributes tangible benefits, are you aware of any evidence that he distributes them with regard for a person's needs and worldview?

My personal experience is that the things I have received in my life are not randomly distributed to all people.

rhutchin · 11-15-2006, 10:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: For some people, how much time they have to accept Christianity is the determining factor. Some people die when they are 20 years old. Some people die when they are 90 years ago. Some skeptics who die when they are 20 years old would have become Christians if they had lived longer. If God is fair, skeptics who died when they were 20 years old who would have become Christians if they had lived longer have nothing to worry about.

Every person has until the last minute of life to admit their sin and ask God for forgiveness. What is unknown is when that last minute will come -- whether in 20 years or 90 years or whatever.

11-13-2006, 07:28 PM	#406
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	2 Peter 3:9 Message to rhutchin: Do you intend to reply to my post #402?

11-13-2006, 08:03 PM	#407
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	2 Peter 3:9 Message to rhutchin: For some people, how much time they have to accept Christianity is the determining factor. Some people die when they are 20 years old. Some people die when they are 90 years ago. Some skeptics who die when they are 20 years old would have become Christians if they had lived longer. If God is fair, skeptics who died when they were 20 years old who would have become Christians if they had lived longer have nothing to worry about.

11-13-2006, 10:08 PM	#408
Johnny Skeptic Banned Join Date: Jun 2005 Location: Florida Posts: 19,796	2 Peter 3:9 Message to rhutchin: Today, are you aware of any evidence that tangible benefits are not entirely distributed at random according to the laws of physics? If God distributes tangible benefits, are you aware of any evidence that he distributes them with regard for a person's needs and worldview?

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.