rhutchin

There is documentation on God contained in the Bible. Whether you consider it reliable, testable, or traceable from God is another issue. You may simply misunderstand that which it says.

If you have documentation on aliens, then a person can investigate it and determinate its value. You are free to argue your belief in aliens as providing an escape from eternal torment. People can then consider your views against the Biblical views.

Sauron

No. there is a book that someone *claims* constitutes documentation on god. That is a far cry from your claim.

This is similar to your earlier claim that the "locals thought the snake was poisonous", when in fact, all we know is that the author(s) of Acts wrote that the locals believed so.

In both cases you are so used to casually assuming your conclusions, that you don't even see the logical flaw in your own statements.

I have no belief in aliens. I am merely correcting your assumptions about what constitutes documentation.

Still waiting, by the way:

If someon is presented with the Islamic view of hell, evaluates it, and rejects it -- is that rejection "irrational" and "emotion-based"?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

rhutchin

That may be true, but from what I have observed, people do not enjoy pain and if given the choice would definitely want to avoid eternal torment. I think you are unique in suggesting that you would not. I suspect you are taking that position to avoid the obvious response to my earlier question -- Is it in your self-interest to seek to avoid eternal torment?

Sauron

An interesting accusation for you to throw at someone else, considering this is the third time I have asked the following question -- with no response from you yet:

If someone is presented with the Islamic view of hell, evaluates it, and rejects it -- is that rejection "irrational" and "emotion-based"?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

Wayne Delia

And you have a hard time explaining what the proper context is. You've left it out entirely, which is a common evasive tactic of apologists. "You're taking it out of context!" without explaining exactly what the context is. As it turns out, your attempted explanation is based on a completely wrong impression of what the Bible says. You're not too familiar with the Bible, and embarrassments like this one are all too common with your apologetics:

Technically, that's correct, as Mark cannot be attributed as the author of the Gospel of Mark. The actual author is anonymous and unknown, and it is that author who tells us that it was JESUS who tells us that believers would have those magical powers. Turns out, those magical powers don't actually work.

No, it doesn't say that at all. In fact, here's what it says in the King James Version:

Mark 16 (KJV)
17And these signs shall follow them that believe; In my name shall they cast out devils; they shall speak with new tongues;
18They shall take up serpents; and if they drink any deadly thing, it shall not hurt them; they shall lay hands on the sick, and they shall recover.

Notice, if you are able to, that there is absolutely nothing in those verses that says anything about God working through anyone "on demand" (when called for). You're once again misrepresenting Jesus's words because you are way too proud and stubborn to admit you were corrected by the atheists.

What Jesus actually says in these two verses (if He actually said it at all) is that all believers would be able to perform those magical powers as a characteristic "sign" of the power of their belief. Clearly, if a person cannot drink poison, handle venomous rattlesnakes, or heal any illness, then that person is not a believer. Can you drink a pint of concentrated hydrosulfuric acid without harm? If not, then you're not a Christian, according to Jesus. But you aren't a Christian because you didn't qualify on two of the four Biblical criteria you posted by which one could be identified as a "True Christian."

WMD

Wayne Delia

You are correct that it has nothing to do with context, but there's also the "unfalsifiable" element that comes into play. In this case, it's sometimes called the "Super-Hero Shyness Syndrome." A Christian might claim to have all those powers, but is reluctant ("shy") to demonstrate those powers. In the same way, I can claim to know every fact about everything past, present, and future - I just choose not to share that information with anyone else. That would be just as impressive and just as effective as a Christian who claimed to have all those powers but refused to demonstrate them. But if the Bible authors tried to take that approach, I wonder why they didn't go whole hog and invent all sorts of made-up abilities Christians would have.

WMD

Wayne Delia

You're being incredibly inconsistent here (or, rather, "typically" inconsistent).

You're asking for a demonstration from the powerful alien that he should be able to demonstrate the powerful part.

I'm asking the same thing of your God, to demonstrate God's "powerful part" with a showing of the abilities Jesus promised that Christians would have in Mark 16:17-18.

Instead of stepping up with a demonstration, you're falling all over yourself with excuses that it's out of context, or that it's conditional, or that God only does that shit when He's called on to do so, in a manner which fits in with whatever God's plan might be, unless it's on a day which ends with "y" or it's rainy in Seattle.

As far as I'm concerned, your God is a fictional entity very similar to the concept here of the "powerful alien." Why is it OK for you to wait for a demonstration, for evidence, of the powerful alien's abilities, but the same standard doesn't apply for people who would put your God to the same test?

You are a hypocrite.

WMD

rhutchin

You can’t understand it and I can’t explain it to you.

I agree.

The key condition stated is “In my name…� To do something in the name of Jesus can be likened to doing something in the name of the President or the king and denotes acting on the authority of Jesus, the President, or the king. This is not true of everything that a believer does. No believer is perfect, so we have no reason to think that a believer is acting under the authority of Jesus all the time. If we use the Lord’s prayer for guidance, we can conclude that one acts under the authority of Jesus when they act to honor Him, build His kingdom, and do His will. When people do these things, we should expect to see the signs identified in Mark following them but not necessarily so, only as necessary.

rhutchin

All you get is the account provided in the Bible. Accept it or not; you choose...

rhutchin

It could go either way. It would depend on the basis on which the view is rejected. If there is a rational basis for rejecting it, then the rejection is rational. If not, then the rejection would not be rational.