John A. Broussard

Are tsunamis also part of god's handiwork? How about ebola when it devastates an African village?

Earthquakes, hurricanes, volcanic eruptions?

Do these declare the glory of god?

I'm looking forward to your answer.

jakejonesiv

I notice you don't offer a shred of proof with the above assertions.

How do you know God is sovereign, and did all those other things without apealling to the authority of scripture? That would be circular reasoning.

Jake Jones IV

rlogan

That was hilarious.

Thanks! I needed a good laugh.

:wave:



Thank you for that Detering article, jakejonesiv. This would have helped in an earlier discussion on Paul. I may resurrect that discussion after finishing the article.

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, I ask lots of questions, just as you have probably done to the followers of other religions, and probably to other Christians before you became a Christian. Asking questions is the key to learning, and refusing to answer them indicates evasiveness, weakness, and uncertainty. I have found these traits to be common among fundamentalist Christians whenever they get into trouble. Their motto is "If a Christian does not want to embarrass himself in a debate, all that he has to do is to quote Scripture as a diversionary tactic."
You most certainly have not hestitated to reply directly to a number of posts that other skeptics have made, and often in considerable detail.

You said that God is sovereign. How do you define sovereign? You didn't even come close to adequately replying to any of my comments except to call upon the Bible to be its own witness. Let me try again, one point at a time:

1 - Since at least most of the New Testament writers did not give any indication whatsoever that they were writing Scripture, how in the world could other people reliably make declarations that even the writers themselves didn't make?

2 - Surely there were many writings that were not included in the New Testament canon that you would have found to be appropriate if they had been included in the canon.

3 - It seems to me that what you are saying is that "anything" that appeared in the canon would be God's word because it appeals to your emotions that God wouldn't allow anyone to tamper with Scripture, but we know full well that that has already happened on a number of occasions.

4 - How could the people that put the canon together have known that they hadn't made any mistakes? How did they decide which writings to accept and which writings to reject?

5 - Why were any discussions necessary in the first place if they already knew what should have been included in the canon?[/quote]

Regarding seeing God's handiwork on a beautiful fall day, does that includes seeing the devastation of Hurricane Rita? If the God of the Bible exists, he created Hurricane Rita and diverted it to New Orleans. From a Christian perspective, hurricanes do not create themselves and go wherever they want to go. Since I am an agnostic, I do not have any trouble with the possibility of intelligent design, but if the God of the Bible exists, I most definitely question his character. If he exists, he has to be bi-polar. Good evidence of this is that God enjoys usually curing the common cold, but he was not in the least bit interested in protecting the people of New Orleans from Hurrican Rita. He doesn't prevent rich people from becoming rich, but he frequently prevents people who live in poverty from obtaining the tangible necessities of life. Decades ago I read that 10,000 people in the world died of hunger every day, and that half of the people went to bed hungry.

Just like Andrew Criddle, Roger Pearse, and Gakusei Don, you know a lot about apologetics, but all of the apologetics in the world cannot adequately defend the questionable nature of God. There is no logical correlation that can be made between the abilities to rise from the dead and predict the future, and goodness. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and claimed that he died for the sins of mankind, would you believe him? Of course you wouldn't, but for some reason you believe that Jesus did. Why is that? If a risen Elvis Presley predicted what the stock market would close at a week in advance, would you worship him? Of course you wouldn't. Do you have any non-Biblical, non-Christian evidence that Jesus healed people, preferably first hand evidence or second hand evidence? I doubt it. Do you have any documented clinical evidence that God performs miracle healings today? I doubt it.

You have been making lots of posts in various threads, but I think that what would be best is for you to start a new thread and discuss why you became a Christian. What particular Scriptures and experiences led you to become a Christian? Beliefs are only as reliable as the foundations upon which they are built. You can reply in this thread if you wish, or you can start a new thread.

Steven Avery

Ahh, there you err. One learns from experience how it is when certain folks ask a laundry-list of questions, and you get used to that from a lot of different environments (not just skeptics).

And I see how on my simply defacto asking you to reflect on the nature of the dialog, how you are throwing out to me a bunch of questions, you immediately become an accuser, and a psycho-babble analyst as well. You can do better.

And I wonder about the sense that comes forth when you ask your questions... are they meant in any sincerity, or as part of a political maneuver. Ask a ton of questions in a way that really would take an essayist with an hour or two to respond well, and then when this is not done.. start with the barrage of accusations.

Below you simply repeat your puppy-to-bear questions. Well, whenever I see something that really seems germane and sincere I will be happy to dialog. Conjecturing "what if their were other books in the Bible" or "explain every dynamic how God guided the canon and prevented other books not from Him" just doesn't have much relevance to me.

All our time is limited, and I am not on this forum to satisfy your self-indulgence, only to have real sharing and dialog. I sort of enjoy the chiding when there is a barrage of posts from skeptics and gnostics .. some of them may really be interested in sharing from their heart and listening closely, seeking to hear the voice of the Lord in the scriptures, in the midst of their cacophany of inquiries.

As for hurricane Katrina, not only does it rain .. all our lives and assets are like dust in the wind.. and none of us should think our breath even tomorrow or even today is assured.

And yes, catastrophes come forth, whether from HAARP weapons, sabatoge or simply improper design and maintenance off his levee defence systems, the ineptitude in heeding warnings properly, or even if it is just an overwhelming force of nature.

Matthew 5:45
That ye may be the children of your Father which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just and on the unjust.

And yes, that can even be a lot of rain, or He can allow towers to fall.

Luke 13:4
Or those eighteen, upon whom the tower in Siloam fell, and slew them, think ye that they were sinners above all men that dwelt in Jerusalem?

Although I do not know these men well, I consider this the nicest compliment I have received on this forum. Andrew always writes with clarity and directness and humility, Roger is one of the finest gentlemen on the web, he probably considers himself far from being involved in apologetics, but he has done some of the most incredible integrity scholarship that I have ever seen, and Gakusei, from what I have seen here, only a bit so far, posts very well. Thanks.

In addition I have sort of explained to you that WHY I accept the Bible and the Messiahship of Jesus would be something of a testimony type of writing. And more, it came forth in a visceral and experiential way when I realized a need to be cleansed and cried out to Messiah. Correlating that with all your "why, why, why.." questions is something that I can try to work on, but not on the level of short, pat answers.

Well, I'll consider your suggestion. It has some appeal, but also could be duked with hazards, in the sense that a lot of folks here might really just use such a discussion as a basis for scoffing and mocking. This is a common motif on these threads, and I could ruminate a bit about the spiritual base of those types of responses. Suffice to say for now, at least I have an obligation to decide what venues appear right for what types of discussions.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
Queens, NY
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Johnny Skeptic

Scoffing and mocking? Oh please. What could possibly be more scoffing and mocking than fundamentalist Christians telling some very loving and decent skeptics that they deserve to go to hell? I believe that you are using potential scoffing and mocking as an excuse not do defend your beliefs. I was scoffed at, mocked at, and called names by Christians at the Theology Web for a number of months, but I cared enough about defending my beliefs to stay there until I was banned on some trumped up charges. My questions were fair, and I was polite. You have been prefectly willing to reply to posts in great detail until the questions get difficult for you to deal with. You know perfectly well that you believe that the choosers chose what writings to include in the New Testament canon by faith and by faith alone, but you won't admit it. There were many other writings that were rejected, and you have never stated why they were rejected.

Yes, venues that you believe will not embarrass you. You have overlooked a very important point. You have next to no chance of convincing any skeptic at this forum that any of your major arguments have merit. The undecided crowd are who you have the best chance to convince, and there are a good deal of them out there who never make posts but read the posts. They no doubt would like to know why you became a Christian. It appears that you have a persecution complex, or possibly you don't but are using it as an excuse not to answer my questions. You have a life of Riley here at this forum as compared with the disciples and other early Christians, and yet you complain about scoffing and mocking. If you start a new thread and state why you became a Christian, I promise that I will be as polite as I can possibly be. In fact, I will go overboard not to offend you. How about it? You can always withdraw if you feel that you have been mistreated, and your opening post will still be around for other people to read and/or discuss even if you vacate the thread.

Probably most of the posts that you have made in various threads are views that you arrived at subsequent to becoming a Christian. Why you became a Christian is a much more important issue because that issue was the foundation for the posts that you are making at this forum. Beliefs are only as good as the foundations upon which they were built. I was a fundamentalist Christian for over 35 years, and I became a Christian by faith alone. So have hundreds of millions of other people, possibly including you. I have noticed that fundamentalist Christians are notorious for passing faith off as apologetics. This happens a lot at this forum. The problem with apologetics is that all of the apologetics in the world cannot adequately defend the questionable nature of God. That is why the most scholarly Christians at this forum usually avoid discussing the nature of God. That includes Andrew Criddle, Roger Pearse, and Gakusei Don. Lee Merrill and bfniii have given it a try, but it appears that they have lost interest in defending the nature of God any longer, or at least for the time being. At best, God is bi-polar and often dangerous to humans. A good example is that he usually is quite willing to cure the common cold, but he was quite willing to create Hurricane Rita and send it to New Orleans when he could easily have diverted it into the open ocean. You would never accept such inconsistency and lack of compassion from a human who had the ability to prevent natural disasters from going ashore but refused to do so, and you tolerate such behavior from God only because you believe that he will give you a comfortable eternal life, although there is not any evidence at all that he has ever made a public statement that he will provide believers with a comfortable eternal life.

Why does God have the right to determine what is right and wrong, what rewards are proper for believers, and what punishments are proper for unbelievers? Does might always make right, or only when the most powerful being in the universe has promised you a comfortable eternal life BY PROXY. Would you object if God eventually punishes unbelievers in ways that you deem to be barbaric by current human standards (hurricane Katrina is barbaric enough), or is your own personal comfort and self-interest all that you care about? I already know that you will refuse to answer my questions, but at least readers can see that I have very good arguments that most Christians will refuse to answer. I compliment the Christians who are willing to discuss the nature of God. It is the most important topic that there is for Christians and skeptics to discuss, even more important than the Resurrection. There is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and claimed that he died for the sins of mankind, would you believe him? Of course you wouldn't, but for some reason, you believe that Jesus did, even though that claim is completely unveriable except by faith, as are the claims that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, and never sinned. It is interesting to note that there is not any credible non-Biblical, non-Christian evidence that Jesus ever healed anybody. Today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why should anyone believe that it was any different back then?

Nice Squirrel

Aye. Thou should useth tyne Authorized Version when thouest conversate at the tabernacle. I beseech you. Words hast neverth changed their meanings likest the seasons. Beist thou gay and takest thyn faggots to maket for the maid tolight for the lord cometh to our bedchamber tonight.

Johnny Skeptic

The matter of the formation of the New Testament canon is quite simple. There were hundreds if not thousands of writings to choose from, few if any of which were original. If it had been obvious which writings to choose, there would have been no need for a lot of discussions that must have taken weeks or months, and there would have been no need to have so many choosers. How did the choosers know that they were choosing exactly which writings God wanted them to choose? Did the choosers claim that their choices were God's choices, or is it reasonably possible that they were merely trying to choose writings that they thought would be beneficial to Christians? I believe that the latter is the case. If I am wrong, some of the scholarly types at this forum will correct me.

Julian

I should point out here that many people on this board do not share Johnny's viewpoint on this.

I personally find many of the scholarly christian posters on this board to be excellent contributors and not at all apologists.

Especially, the (sort of) newcomers like Ben Smith, Roger Pearse and Stephen Carlson have been especially welcome. Andrew Criddle always display excellent and deep knowledge in his posts.

Julian

Johnny Skeptic

What did I say that you disagree with? Maybe I misunderstood what apologetics is. What is your definition of apologetics? Instead of apologetics, let's use the word "scholarly." Andrew Criddle, Roger Pearse, and Gakusei Don are quite scholarly, are they not? The main problem that scholarly Christians have is that all of the scholarship in the world cannot adequately defend the questionable nature of God. Even if Christians were able to read and memorize all of the books ever written about Christianity, the same would still be the case. Even if Jesus did rise from the dead, God's nature is questionable, and there is not any credible evidence at all that Jesus was conceived by the Holy Spirit, was born of a virgin, never sinned, and that his shed blood and death actaully remitted the sins of mankind. There is not any credible non-Biblical, non-Christian evidence that Jesus ever healed anyone. The Bible writers do not even come close to adequately explaining why God does what he does, and why God allows what he allows. This problem is the unfortunate result of God speaking to mankind only through human proxies instead of speaking to mankind himself in person. The writings of human proxies can easily be questioned, misinterpreted, and misunderstood, which is exactly the situation that has existed for two thousand years.

Now then, where are the scholarly Christians? Will they reply to my arguments, or are they only interested in contesting scholarly skeptics on hundreds of issues without ever addressing the nature of God, which is in fact the most important topic that Christians and skeptics can discuss? A historical Jesus, or even a supernatural Jesus, is not nearly enough evidence to convince billions of non-Christians who question God's actions and allowances even if he exists. There is no logical correlation that can be made between power and goodness. Christians need to reasonably prove that God is good, and they need to explain why he has the right to rule. Can scholarship accomplish this? Of course it can't.

May I ask what if anything you are trying to convince Christians of at this forum, and what you tell people who you personally know about Christianity?