Ignostic Morgan

:wave: :huh: :notworthy: TOHow, as Richard Dawkins and I want to know,can the mind of God keep up with all the matters in the polyverse and also hear from billlions of people in thousands of languages?He must have some complex mind! How can one know if He is limited or unlimited? How can He be three in one? Why would He play favorites by choosing twelve tribes ? How can He be the same god as that of any other religion when He is His son in one and has no son in others ? Why Yahweh over Bhrama who is" multi-une?" Why say that the image of God is better in the Testament over in the Tanakh wehn Yeshua states that he and Yahweh of the latter are the same as some maintain? But is God really in the Testament triune or really unitary as John Hick and other Christian scholars maintain? Errantists are just as faith -based as inerrantists. A priest @ Explore Faith maintains that the compilers of the two creation stories were not literalists but just wanted to show that God is the Lord of creation . I think they were literalists and thought they could rationalize their two stories as do inerrantists of today. If one really uses reason,she would reason that there is nothing left to those scriptures as they have bad morals over all and are phony history and there religious significance is nil. No rational being wants worship . Why does God hate amputees?:notworthy: to Johnny.:Cheeky: to the fundies :huh: :huh:

Ignostic Morgan

the first to was inadvertent and their religious significance, not there Errancy is no more credible than inerrancy.

Johnny Skeptic

All Scriptures will be from the KJV unless otherwise noted.

Although an excellent case can be made that the God of the Bible does not exist, for purposes of this post I will limit my comments to saying that today, it is reasonable to conclude that tangible benefits are distributed without any regard whatsoever for a person’s worldview, or for their needs (the rich keep getting richer, and the poor keep getting poorer regardless of their worldview, and people die of disease regardless of their worldview), which gives many people the impression that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics. This is hardly a scenario that any being would cause to happen, or allow to happen, who was trying to prove to people that he exists, and that he is loving.

If I believed that the God of the Bible exists, I would reject him. He 1) says that killing people is wrong, but kills some of his most devout and faithful followers with hurricanes, or allows them to be killed with hurricanes, which as far as I and many other people are concerned is exactly the same thing, 2) makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, 3) punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed, reference Exodus 20:5, 4) ordered the death penalty for a Jew who killed a Jew, but not for a Jew who killed a slave, reference the Old Testament, 5) killed Ananias and Saphira over money, reference the New Testament, 6) could easily have prevented the U.S. Civil War by telling Jefferson Davis, a Christian who was President of the Southern Confederacy, that slavery is wrong, 7) tells people to be merciful, but endorses unmerciful eternal punishment without parole, and 8) refuses to reveal himself to some people who would accept him if they had sufficient evidence to their satisfaction that he exists.

If ANY being other than God committed THE VERY SAME ATROCITIES against mankind that God has committed, most Christians would reject him. If God told lies, most Christians would reject him. How is telling lies any worse than the atrocities that I mentioned?

2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish, meaning not even one single person. That is obviously a lie since God could easily provide additional evidence that would cause some people to become Christians who were not previously convinced.

If a being came to earth, claimed to be Jesus, and demonstrated that he had vast powers, as far as I know, since any being might be an imposter, it would be impossible for any being to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he is Jesus. If such a being showed up, I would be neutral regarding his claim that he was Jesus, but human nature being what it is, many people would believe his claim (many people have accepted outlandish claims based upon much less evidence, so my argument is most certainly valid), in which case if he was Jesus, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. From a Christian perspective, wouldn’t that be a good thing? If not, I would certainly like to know why not.

Lest some Christians claim that today, we have the Holy Spirit as evidence, 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.” Acts mentions a number of other tangible miracles that the disciples performed. In addition, today, unlike it supposedly was back then, there are not ANY eyewitnesses around who saw Jesus perform many miracles, and who saw him after he rose from the dead. Surely there was much less need of any additional confirmations back then than there is today. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 4:24 And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them.

Matthew 14:14 And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

Johnny: Now readers, do you not find it to be quite odd that with all of that evidence, AND the presence of the Holy Spirit, that God provided even MORE confirmations? The writer of the book of Acts did not do Christians any favors by writing that miracles continued to be performed after the Holy Spirit came to the church. Jesus criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet God supposedly provided plenty of tangible confirmations AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church.

Ok, back to my discussion about a being coming to earth who claimed to be Jesus. I would ask him lots of questions about God’s many questionable actions and allowances. If I was satisfied with his answers, and if he agreed to provide me with a comfortable eternal life, I would accept him even though I could not be reasonably certain who he was. Revelation 21:4 says "And God shall wipe away all tears from their eyes; and there shall be no more death, neither sorrow, nor crying, neither shall there be any more pain: for the former things are passed away." That is the prize that many if not most Christians are hoping to receive, and I do not blame them. I want that too, but I couldn't care less who provided it as long as it was available. Neither would most Christians, although they are not aware of it at this time. If a man has cancer, and a cure is available, he most certainly does not care who provides him with the cure.

If I was not satisfied with the being's answers, I would not be able to will myself to accept him. No rational minded and fair minded man can will himself to love a being like the God of the Bible.

Matthew 14:14 says “And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick.” We need a lot more compassion like that today. If ANY being came to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, and prevented natural disasters from occurring, he would be greatly appreciated by everyone. If such a being started a new religion, I assume that it would become the largest religion in history.

Humans quite naturally place great emphasis upon good physical health. No one who has very poor physical health is able to enjoy life, especially if they have untreatable pain. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure ALL diseases. Whenever a prevention or a cure for a disease is found, ALL Christians rejoice.

I am not suggesting that humans should not have any problems and obstacles to overcome. No loving human father would try to remove all problems and obstacles from the life of his son. Humans need some difficulties and challenges to deal with so they can develop good character. However, I am not aware of any evidence that you have to seriously injure or kill a man, or allow him to starve to death, in order to help him develop good character.

If the God of the Bible exists, at best, he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. Even Attila the Hun did not injure and kill some of his most devout and faithful followers, or allow them to be injured and killed. Of course, the best evidence indicates that the God of the Bible does not exist.

rhutchin

What does your rambing have to do with 2 Peter 3:9? Start a new thread and reduce the above to some specific arguable points if you want people, including me, to respond.

Ignostic Morgan

Rhutchin cannot fathom that his god does not want all .Johnny shows that in detail. It must tear Rhutchin up that harldly one else here thinks he has a case! He does not even know his scriptures in context as Johnny constantly shows . Faith keeps one in serivitude .

rhutchin

It seems that even you cannot figure out what it has to do with 2 Peter 3:9.

Johnny Skeptic

A new thread??????? My word, you have tried to refute my arguments about the detestable nature of God for over a year at three forums, but to no avail. You have conveniently vacated a number of threads in your inept attempts to refute my arguments, including recently in a thread at the EofG Forum that YOU started that is titled 'Loving God no matter what'. Why won't you go back to that thread that YOU started and reply to my most recent arguments?

My previous post in this thread has plenty to do with 2 Peter 3:9. The verse clearly says that God is not willing that any should perish. If God is willing that some will perish, that alone is sufficient grounds for people to reject him, but there is a lot more evidence than that. In my previous post, I said:

Just as a loving human father would save all of his children from drowning if he was able to, a loving God would not be willing that any should perish.

Are you aware that some of the most loving, kind, helpful, and generous people in the world are non-Christians?

Are you confident enough of your arguments to reply to all of this post? I assume that you are not. Your arguments have gotten ridiculously easy to refute.

Do you remember that at the EofG forum you said that a person can test God by honoring his parents and by tithing, and that there is empirical evidence that God is good? I would enjoy having further discussions with you at the EofG Forum regarding those absurd claims. I assume that you are hiding out at this forum because you know that most readers are not interested in your arguments. You are well aware that you have more opponents at the EofG Forum than you do here.

May I ask if you have a loving relationship with God, and if so, why? May I also ask you why today, God has gone out of his way to make it appear that tangible benefits are distributed entirely at random according to the laws of physics?

Now will you please tell us why you believe that 2 Peter 3:9 belongs in the Bible? Who chose which writings became the Bible, and were there any disagreements over which writings became the Bible? The Bible is most certainly not inerrant. I have asked you to discuss inerrancy on numerous occasions at this forum, and at the EofG Forum, but you have always conveniently refused to discuss it because you do not want to embarrass yourself. About two weeks ago you told me to start a new thread on inerrancy, but surely you were well aware that at time there were ALREADY two threads on inerrancy on page 1. Many of your arguments depend lock, stock, and barrel upon inerrancy, and yet you refuse to defend it because you are not nearly as confident of your arguments as you pretend you are.

Your approach to debating is to try to outlast your opponents in the hopes that undecided readers will assume that you have won. Well, my life expectancy is about 15 years, and if I live for at least another 15 years, I do not plan on leaving the Secular Web.

rhutchin

OK. You have an opinion.

Do you have any logical argument for applying 2 Peter 3:9 universally and not in the restricted sense imposed by the context of 2 Peter 3? If not, you can believe anything you want and it does not mean anything beyond yourself.

Johnny Skeptic

In your opening post in this thread, you quoted me as saying the following:

I have never argued that God is not willing that any should perish, only that 2 Peter 3:9 says that God is not willing that any should perish. It is obvious that God is willing that some will perish. That is sufficient reason on its own for rational minded and fair minded people to reject him. In fact, rational minded and fair minded people are not able to will themselves to accept the God of the Bible. If God told lies, you would not be able to love him, and yet you ask people to love a God who has committed many atrocities that are much worse than lying. God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11. He punishes people for sins that their ancestors committed. He kills babies and innocent animals. He has no interest in the tangible needs of humans.

I have asked you on numerous occasions to defend inerrancy, but you always refuse to defend it? Why is that? You argue about what 2 Peter 3:9 means, but you have not provided any credible evidence at all that it belongs in the Bible.

Ignostic Morgan

:banghead: To defend inerrancy one has to fantacize and to rationalize the horrors and the contradictions with itself and with science and history.It takes faith the I just say so of gullibility to love the scriptures. I t takes the faith of a child not exposed to reality to believe all that nonsense.Believers should take a reading course to learn to read in context. In context. Why does God hate amputees? Rhutchin:banghead: :banghead: :huh: should go to Theology Web where his like are in abondance.For us sensible folk there are also IIDB,Skeptics S ociety forum and Center for Inquiry . The Society's library and Talk Reason are invaluable sources . :wave: