Johnny Skeptic

But if you are able to reasonably prove that God can predict the future, what does that have to do with reasonably proving that God has good character? Logically, there is not a necessary correlation between the ability to predict the future and good character. If I could predict the outcome of all of the national, state, and county political elections in the U.S. ten years in advance, would you conclude that I had good character? Of course not. If you want to convince people to become Christians, you will have to do a lot more than convince them that God can predict the future. I do not admire powerful beings. I admire moral beings. God is not a moral being.

spin

I've never claimed to be an atheist, Helpmabob.

I don't agree with the first two of these and the third is simple acceptance of the status quo at the time of writing the relevant biblical sections. Religion reacts to the world it is in and in the world of the religion of the time slavery was a fact of life, so the religion accommodated. Idiots 150 years ago who read the bible as the word of god believed that the bible sanctioned them to be slave owners.

Read the archives and you'll find that I think the bible is a great collection of traditions. The biggest problem is the idiots who ignorantly read it today. How the fuck can they ever expect to know what the bible says without knowing anything about the context in which it was written?

That's not much of an effort to understand the bible, is it Helpmabob?

No, your quote is not a prophecy. It's called ass-covering. It helps idiots feel content in their sty of ignorance: we might be idiots, but god is for the idiots, not the wise; the wise are too smart for their own good!!! Yeah, sure. Believe it. Don't learn anything. Be content. In the sty.

Vanity of vanities. All is vanity.

Not prophecy, as I said. Lots of things said in the past can be applied. Socrates complained about the unthankful youth of his day... prophecy, no, but perhaps just as relevant. You have a strange idea about prophecy.

Let's face it: the average atheist is less likely to vote for the current washington swine, bless the lord, without any disturbance of conscience regarding all the people who had needlessly died in Iraq, or who live in the hell it has been made today. The atheist is less likely to be in such a frenzied mess as to write lurid email to congressional pages. The atheist is less likely to harass your sexuality while having illicit sexual relations on the side. So which is more moribund?


spin

Gullwind

I'm not extrapolating God's whole nature from these verses, just his feelings on slavery. Tend to generalize a bit, don't you?

So many examples of God telling his people to treat their slaves decently, and none saying that slavery is immoral. Why isn't it valid to say that God, who is supposed to have inspired the bible, does not feel slavery is immoral?

And could you please provide some examples of the conditions under which buying and taking slaves was beneficial to all?

By the way, you still haven't answered why you personally feel that slavery is immoral, since you obviously did not get that from the bible?

I do consider myself an atheist, although I'm hardly eminent and still working on wise.

I'd just like to point out that I never said that the bible encourages slavery. I said that it never says that its wrong, which you have agreed with.

Jack the Bodiless

Helpmabob:
Nope, those were merely examples of what I just mentioned: "merely verses picked out (often regardless of context) beacuse they are reminiscent of your view of Jesus".
No, you have not "illustrated" or "picked out" these things.

What I'm asking for is really very simple. A single clear, unambiguous and verifiable prediction. Not just vague waffle regarding Messianic expectations that Jesus allegedly fulfilled, according to his followers.
There is, as yet, no "Biblical prophecy" to rebut.
"...Now coming true before our eyes"? Where is your evidence that humans now are any more stupid than they were previously... or that God is responsible? The only example that springs to mind is the growth of creationism, which now seems to be in check, not getting much worse at the moment: if anything, it's had some setbacks recently.

Helpmabob

This thread is not about proving that God exists and has a good character, although we probably all have an opinion on those matters. I don’t agree either that prophecy is solely about predicting the future. It is essentially anything written or spoken by man on behalf of God. It covers ‘past’ future prediction, such as the destruction and rebuilding of Jerusalmem written of by Jeremiah as well as ‘future’ future predictions such as the Second Coming in Revelation. It encompasses such things as the prefiguration of Jesus in Isaiah and Zechariah, wonderfully revealed in the gospels of the New Testament. And as you superbly highlighted previously, all of the myriad biblical promises of God to His people are part of the revealed prophetic realm. And much, much more…

I see that you operate an ‘eclectic’ system. If, as I suspect, it’s one that excludes God, and anything that cannot be seen, then it’s basically an atheistic outlook.I agree that we should not forget how old the Bible is and how times have changed. But I know from experience that it has relevance today. It may even be better to read ‘ignorantly’ than to not read at all, as ignorance might be lifted as one reads.I think there is no way of knowing that what I have quoted here is not entirely pertinent to the situation. It seems like a reasonable explanation for the inability of ‘the wise’ to refute the words of God is that God has spoken these words through Paul. In that respect, it is indeed prophetic. This is what I like so much about the Bible – it is relevant today and prophetic today.That may appear so, or even be so in certain cases at least. If atheists are without sin, let them cast the first stone I say.Still atheism. There’s no life there. You suggest the world would be a better place without any acknowledgement of God’s sovereignty. That man’s wisdom and morals would operate the world better than God does.

It doesn’t crop up in my life or society, so I have not exercised my mind or discernment in this area. But the Bible gives an indication of the attitude that should be taken where a benefit has been perceived by all: But your slave may not want to leave. He may love you and your family and be content to stay.[Deuteronomy 15:16]. It all basically boils down to ‘love God’ and ‘love your neighbour as yourself’.
No, they are definitely prophetic, even if you cannot comprehend, appreciate, believe or scientifically prove or disprove any of them. In short, they exist and operate independently of you, Jack.I have shown examples, but you are obstinately refusing to accept for one of the reasons mentioned above. That is not what the prophecy says. It says that God will destroy wisdom and frustrate intelligence. There is no detail that this will be uniform or targeted in any particular time or space frame. Look at how man in his ‘wisdom’ has searched the universe but will never see to the edge of the universe. Watch as man tries to create a new human soul, but fails to breathe life into even the most basic of animal.
Only God knows these things. We should be working with God rather than sidelining Him.Come on Jack – examine the alternatives. There was no purpose in creation except that which God instituted. The universe didn’t just decide to create itself.

Johnny Skeptic

I never said otherwise. I am an agnostic. However, since human intelligence is so limited, it is a reasonable possibility that the universe is naturalistic. We haven't even found a cure for the common cold. At any rate, if the God of the Bible exists, he has chosen to refuse to ever show up in person and demonstrate to everyone that he is able to convert energy into matter, and without any apparent or stated benefits whatsoever to himself or to mankind.

However you define prophecy, it is about God's power. I am not interested in God's power. I am only interested in his character. If God does not have good character, I do not care how much power he has. There is sufficient evidence that God does not have good character. 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any will perish. That is a lie. God deliberately withholds information from some people that would cause them to become Christians if they were aware of the information. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. God punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed. In the Old Testament, God ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave. God frequently injures and kills people with hurricanes, with no apparent benefits to himself and to mankind. What does God have against amputees? He frequently heals people who have other health problems, right? Why does God allow people to starve to death? James says that if a man has food and refuses to feed hungry people, he is vain, and his faith is dead? What does that say about God's character?

Today, it seems to me that all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according the laws of physics, which is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist. If God distributes tangible benefits, he frequently does so indiscriminately without any regard whatsoever for person's needs or worldview. If that is the case, it calls God's character into question, including that he has gone out of his way to make it appear to millions of people that all tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according the laws of physics. There is in fact no tangible neccessity of life that any particular person can ask God for and expect to receive. Any loving human father who is a theist is concerned with the spiritual AND tangible needs of his children. That is what true love is all about.

God deliberately withheld the Gospel message from hundreds of millions of people who died without hearing it. It is not likely that a loving God would tell his followers to spread a message that he refuses to spread himself, knowing in advance that human effort alone would never come close to letting everyone know about it.

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." It is not likely that a loving God would be that unmerciful. In addition, it is not likely that a loving God would endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole. If mercy is anything, it is about forgoing eternal punishment without parole even when justice, in this case God’s justice, requires it. Otherwise, mercy is meaningless.

Revelation 14:9-11 say “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.” Between those Scriptures and Mark 14:21, no more vicious, hatred, unmerciful, and unforgiving words have ever been written. Regarding Revelation 14:9-11, it is not wonder that Martin Luther did not believe that the book of Revelation belonged in the Bible. Of course, no one has any idea which writings comprised the original Bible, how many disagreements there were over which writings to include in the New Testament Canon, and how many errors and contradictions our current Bibles contain.

Regarding the miracle healings that Jesus supposed performed, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. Why do you assume that is was any different back then?

Most of the fundamental claims of Christianity did not involve any eyewitnesses. There were no human eyewitnesses to the creation of the earth and Adam. No human witnessed the conception of Jesus by the Holy Spirit. No particular person who knew Jesus had sufficient evidence that he never committed a sin. No one has sufficient evidence that Jesus’ shed blood and death actually remitted the sins of mankind. The issue of prophecy does not reasonably prove any of those claims. No loving God could possibly derive any benefits whatsoever from refusing to show up, tangibly, in person, and demonstrate that he can predict the future. It is fact that mankind does not derive any benefits whatsoever from being uncertain whether or not God can predict the future. It is quite difficult to determine whether God wants to reveal or conceal his existence, power, and will.

Since moral skeptics are loving, kind, considerate, and forgiving, and oppose murder, lying, theft, and a host of other immoral practices, it would be out of character for them to reject any loving human, or any loving God.

Why do you suppose that moral atheists, agnostics, and non-Christian theists reject Christianity? I do not object to oversight. Without human oversight, there would be anarchy. I am not opposed to divine oversight if it is fair. Hurricanes and starvation are not fair. I am certainly not opposed to miracle healings being available for the good of mankind. All non-Christians are willing to discuss various issues with God if he wants to show up, tangibly, in person, and be available to answer questions about his character. As it is, all that we have is a one-sided Bible where not any arguments at all from contemporary opponents are allowed. For instance, when ancient Egyptians first learned about the uncorroborated Old Testament claims about the Ten Plagues, I am quite certain that they immediately rejected the claims because they knew that they were not true. If the plagues occurred, they would have been the news story of the millennia. The stories would have been recorded by historians all over the Middle East. If the plagues occurred, and news about them was recorded by a number of historians, why did God allow only the Bible’s account to be preserved? The Old Testament says that the Philistines were aware of the plagues and as a result were afraid of the Jews, so no Christian can claim that news of the plagues did not leave Egypt. In addition, it is well-known that oral traditions are carried from generation to generation for many centuries. However, there couldn’t have been any oral traditions regarding the plagues because if there were, some of the oral traditions would surely have been written down, and would be available today. In addition, if there was a global flood, and Noah’s descendants repopulated the earth, why aren’t there any surviving records about the repopulation outside of the Bible? Why did most or all of Noah’s descendants who moved away from the Middle East reject the God of the Bible and never write about him, at least as far as we know? This is quite strange.

Either the God of the Bible does not exist, he exists and is mentally incompetent, or he exists and is a monster. Take you pick. Even Attila the Hun did not kill his own followers, but God sometimes seriously injures and kill his own followers, and babies, and innocent animals.

If I had enough power, I could run the world much better than God does. I would not run a world OF the people, or BY the people, but I would run a world FOR the people, ALL of the people. I am much more loving, merciful, kind, and forgiving than God is. If I had enough power, I could easily prove it.

Gullwind

But you have made a choice about it. You said you couldn't think of a circumstance where you would feel justified in owning a slave. That's a moral judgment, arrived at without (and in spite of) the bible. Congratulations!

As for the quote, I'm sure you are aware that the vast majority of slaves were not slaves by choice, and would not have wanted to remain so if given the choice. Simply giving them their freedom and a wage if they wanted to continue working for you would certainly be better for them, even if they were content to remain as slaves. Are you saying that the extremely rare circumstance where a slave was content to be a slave justifies slavery overall?

Johnny Skeptic

Message to Helplmabob: At the GRD Forum, you said:

If the Holy Spirit alone is sufficient, why do you need the Bible? If the Holy Spirit alone is sufficient, why does Acts 14:3 say "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." The verse refers primarily or partially to tangible confirmations that were given AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church. For some people, spiritual evidence AND tangible evidence are much more convincing than spiritual evidence alone. Do you not find it to be quite odd that further tangible confirmations were provided when thousands of eyewitnesses were still around who had seen Jesus perform miracles, and hundred of eyewitnesses still around who had seen Jesus after he rose from the dead, and the presence of the Holy Spirit? Jesus scolded Thomas for asking for tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet God provided more tangible evidence to confirm "the message of his grace" even after the Holy Spirit had come to the church. Why is that?

Please reply to my post #286.

Jack the Bodiless

Helpmabob:
They are not "definitely prophetic" just because YOU say so. Or even just because the BIBLE says so (though, in most cases, it doesn't even say so). You seem to be admitting that no "provable" prophecy exists in the Bible. So, where's the evidence that the Bible is true?
Nope, you haven't shown a single "provable" example. Will you make up your mind on this? If there's a simple example of a verifiable prophecy in the Bible, which ISN'T just "vague waffle regarding Messianic expectations that Jesus allegedly fulfilled, according to his followers"... where is it? Why can't you provide it?
I see no evidence that God has "frustrated" these ambitions: merely that we haven't yet reached that stage in our technological development. But we have effectively "seen to the edge of the Universe" (astronomers have seen the afterglow of the Big Bang), and we're already "breathing life" into new organisms that never existed before (thanks to genetic engineering), and we'll probably create an entirely synthetic life-form pretty soon now.
Biblical creationism has been disproved, therefore, some alternative must be correct. We know that biological evolution is correct (confirmed by obervation), and theories regarding the formation of the Universe are being developed.

Helpmabob

One must be omniscient, omnipresent and omnipotent to produce in men the biblical prophecies we are considering here. Power is part, but it is symptomatic of protracted myopia to assert that it goes no further.

You presume that I assume. Of course, there were people ‘back then’ who disputed Jesus’ ability to perform miracles and even His divinity – that’s what lay behind the crucifixion. Still others, though disbelieving in miracles, asked for a miraculous sign, yet none was given on demand. In both these respects, nothing has changed. It is for this very reason that the Bible and the prophecies remain alive and relevant today more so even than your daily newspaper.

You’re not the first to cry unfair: “I have noticed in this world a serious injustice is done” [Ecclesiastes 6:1].

But there were > 500 witnesses of the resurrected Christ - someone risen from the dead!

1. The Bible reveals Gods character and purpose.
2. The Holy Spirit, inter alia sheds light on the Bible.

Can you understand these things on a conceptual level?

Probably not.

It is not just because I say so. And they are not definitely unprophetic, just because you say that they are not. You cannot reasonably deny this.

You cannot offer disproof to same level of proof that you demand. Otherwise you would already have done so. As historical documentation goes, the Bible is universally acknowledged as being irrefutably correct, but that is a topic for another thread I’m sure.

You are woefully misled. The Word of God is not ‘peddled for profit’: it’s neither an entertainment magazine nor a science journal. Two disciples thought they were asking something ‘really very simple’ when they asked Jesus if they could sit one at His left and the other on His right in heaven. They had not grasped the magnitude of what they were asking. You are the same.

Look harder or differently. Jack the scaling of the technological pinnacle is as impossible as earthly perfection – neither will ever be reached. Consider the rich man who keeps on working harder and harder. The more money he gets the harder he works. He never has enough. Never. And somewhere on some level he remains empty.

Case study - Roman Abramovic: £10bn in his trousers; a nice wife and a highly successful football team. And he’s not happy.

That was prophesied long ago in Ecclesiastes as it happens: If you love money you will never be satisfied. [Ecclesiastes 5:10]

Believe me I am impressed by the science (I love it) but I am not impressed by the claim that science has it in the bag. ‘Life’ is not being generated in the laboratory– it is being mutated, although I don’t deny that some good will result. Still some believe – you only have to look at the fools who are having their heads cryogenically frozen so that one day they can have everlasting life.

I don’t necessarily go for a 6-day creation and I consider it highly likely that God has utilised some form of evolution in the creation process.

However, that doesn’t explain the purpose. What do you think is the purpose of the initiation of the universe and life on earth Jack?

Why? I’m all ears: I’m not asking for any ‘proof’; merely a succinct opinion.