Freethought & Rationalism Archive

arnoldo · 01-22-2008, 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Yes, and you and everyone else too. If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and were raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in was predominantly Buddhist, what would the odds have been that you would have heard about the God of the Bible? The correct answer is "zero." .

God doesn't only reveal himself through a book but through nature, in a person's heart, or through other people. How do you know there were no Jews in China in 205 B.C.(before Christ), or that the Chinese never traveled to the middle east? Have you ever heard about the lost tribes of Israel? The Jews did scatter to all the nations,right? How do you know that the correct answer is zero? Can you list any sources on how you reached your conclusion?

Sheshonq · 01-22-2008, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Yes, and you and everyone else too. If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and were raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in was predominantly Buddhist, what would the odds have been that you would have heard about the God of the Bible? The correct answer is "zero." .

God doesn't only reveal himself through a book but through nature, in a person's heart, or through other people.

1. Says who? You? Where is the proof that this happens?

2. Through nature? Then why are there hundreds of different pantheons of different gods?

Quote:

How do you know there were no Jews in China in 205 B.C.(before Christ), or that the Chinese never traveled to the middle east?

You are the one claiming that all people have heard. Its your job to prove that something like this happened.

Quote:

Have you ever heard about the lost tribes of Israel?

Yes, among other myths.

Quote:

The Jews did scatter to all the nations,right?

No, that's your claim.

Doug Shaver · 01-22-2008, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Imagine you are drowning and God drops you a lifesaver yet you refuse to accept it because the lifesaver doesn't conform to your belief-system.

Imagining such a thing is no problem. Thinking that it has anything to do with reality is the problem.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2008, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Yes, and you and everyone else too. If you had been transported at birth back to China in 250 B.C., and were raised by Buddhists, and the community that you lived in was predominantly Buddhist, what would the odds have been that you would have heard about the God of the Bible? The correct answer is "zero."

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

God doesn't only reveal himself through a book but through nature, in a person's heart, or through other people.

Not where the Gospel message is concerned. There is not any credible historical evidence that God ever told one single person about the Gospel message. Regarding book, many people who lived during Old Testament times never saw a book, and wouldn't have been able to read a book even if they had one. Regarding nature, that is an utterly absurd argument. How in world can nature tell people how to live their lives?

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

How do you know there were no Jews in China in 205 B.C.(before Christ), or that the Chinese never traveled to the middle east? Have you ever heard about the lost tribes of Israel? The Jews did scatter to all the nations, right? How do you know that the correct answer is zero? Can you list any sources on how you reached your conclusion?

It doesn't matter. No one who died in China in 50 A.D. had heard the Gospel message, at least as far as we know. We know for certain that some people died today who did not hear the Gospel message, especially natives who live in remote jungle regions. '

It is much too convenient that for thousands of years, geography has frequently decided who gets to find out about the God of the Bible.

It is interesting to note that in the U.S., every year, the percentage of women who become Christians is much higher than the percentage of men who become Christians. There is no way that a God would be that predictable. In addition, there is no way that a loving God would discriminately against men by making sure every year that a lot more women become Christians than men. The best conclusion is that the God of the Bible does not exist.

Do you consider the spread of the Gospel message to be more important than the spread of a cure for cancer? If so, why doesn't God?

No God who wanted to reveal himself to people would mimic the ways that things would be it he did not exist, thereby encouraging dissent instead of discouraging dissent, and needlessly undermining his attempts to convince people to believe that he exists.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, we would expect to find the following:

1 - Elderly skeptics would be much less likely to become Christians than younger skeptics would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against elderly skeptics, and mimics the way that things would be if he did not exist.

2 - Elderly Christians would much less likely to become skeptics than younger Christians would, which is the case.

3 - Younger skeptics would be much more likely to become Christians than elderly skeptics would, which is the case.

4 - Younger Christians would be much more likely to become skeptics than elderly Christians would, which is the case. If the God of the Bible exists, he discriminates against younger Christians.

There is no way that a God would be that predictable, and mimic the ways that things would be if he did not exist. The odds against that would be astronomical.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, all food would be distributed entirely by humans. If God does not exist, that explains why all distribution of food is done by humans. If God does exist, then he is more concerned with HOW people get enough food to eat than he is with THAT people get enough food to eat, and with mimicking the way that food would be distributed if he does not exist. No loving, rational God would ever act like that.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributed at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs, requests, or worldview. No one could ever ask God for any tangible benefit and be assured that he would receive it. The only kinds of benefits that a person could ask God for and expect to receive would be subjective, unconvincing spritual/emotional benefits.

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2008, 12:27 AM

Message to arnoldo: Why don't you trust the prophecies that are in other religous books?

Consider the following:

http://www.infidels.org/library/maga.../992front.html

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The article in this issue on the Tyre prophecy referred to Ezekiel's promise that Nebuchadnezzar would be "given" Egypt as compensation for his failure to take Tyre as the prophecy had predicted, but when the ensuing prophecy against Egypt is analyzed, it becomes clear that it failed too. In a four-chapter tirade against Egypt, Ezekiel said that Yahweh would give Nebuchadnezzar Egypt as "wages" for the labor he had expended on Tyre in an unsuccessful siege (29:19-20). The devastation of Egypt was to be complete. The land would be an "utter waste and a desolation" from Migdol (in the north) to the border of Ethiopia (in the south). So thorough would the devastation be that "neither foot of man nor foot of beast would pass through it, and it would be uninhabited for 40 years and the Egyptians scattered among the nations (29:9-12). At the end of the 40 years, Yahweh would gather the Egyptians back to their country from where they had been scattered, but Egypt would forever be "the lowliest of kingdoms" (v: 15). It would never "exalt itself above the nations" and would not "rule over the nations anymore" (v:15).

Needless to say, none of this ever happened. There are no historical records of a 40-year period when Egypt was so desolate that neither animals nor humans inhabited it, and the population of Egypt was never scattered among the nations and then regathered to its homeland. It's political influence has fluctuated through the centuries, but there has never been a time when it could have been considered the "lowliest of kingdoms." No self-respecting biblicist, however, would allow minor details like these to deter him in his insistence that the Bible is inerrant, so all sorts of attempts have been made to show that this is not a prophecy failure.

The fulfillment is yet future: Some inerrantists admit that this prophecy has not been fulfilled, but they insist that it will be someday. This explanation ignores some rather explicit language in the prophecy. It began with Yahweh telling Ezekiel to "set [his] face against Pharaoh king of Egypt" and "to prophesy against him" and to say, "Behold I am against you, O Pharaoh, king of Egypt" (29:2-3). Specific language is also directed to "Pharaoh king of Egypt" in 30:21-22, 25; 31:2, 18; and 32:2, 31-32. Furthermore, the prophecy was very clear in stating that this desolation of Egypt would be done by Nebuchadnezzar, who would be "brought in to destroy the land" and to "fill the land with the slain" (30:10-11). Needless to say, the rule of the pharaohs ended in Egypt centuries ago, and Nebuchadnezzar has been dead even longer, so if the total desolation of Egypt and scattering of its population did not happen in that era, it is reasonable to say that the prophecy failed. Inerrantists, however, are not reasonable when the integrity of the Bible is at stake, so some will go so far as to say that even though the rule of the pharaohs has ended, it will be restored someday, at which time Yahweh will bring about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy, possibly by a ruler who will come from the same region as Nebuchadnezzar.

Although seriously proposed by some inerrantists, this "explanation" is such a resort to desperation that it hardly deserves comment. It makes Yahweh a petty, vindictive deity who will punish Egyptians in the distant future for something that their ancestors did, and it makes possible the explanation of any prophecy failure in any religion. Believers in the prophecy could simply say that even though it has not yet been fulfilled, it will be "someday." That type of "logic" may impress biblical fundamentalists, but rational people will see it for exactly what it is--desperation to cling to belief in prophecies that have been discredited by time.

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view. By rationalizing that plain language in the Bible was actually "figurative," they are able to convince themselves that the prophecy was fulfilled. (2) Other proponents of the figurative view number themselves with the futurists. They accept that the prophecy was obviously predicting a total devastation of Egypt, and they admit that this has not happened yet. They use the figurative argument to explain away not the descriptions of destruction but Ezekiel's references to Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaoh's of Egypt. To them, it doesn't matter that Nebuchadnezzar and the pharaohs are long gone, because they contend that these were only "figures" or "symbols" of the rulers who will be in power when Yahweh finally brings about the fulfillment of Ezekiel's prophecy against Egypt. This "explanation" of the prophecy is really no better than the one that sees a futuristic restoration of the Egyptian pharaohs and Babylon's former empire. It reduces the god Yahweh to a petty, vindictive deity who will punish future Egyptians for what their ancestors did. It's most obvious flaw, however, is that it resorts to unlikely scenarios to try to make the Bible not mean what it obviously says. In rather plain language, Ezekiel predicted a total destruction and desolation of Egypt that would last for 40 years. It never happened, and no amount of rationalization can make that failure a success.

No matter how you interpret those Scriptures, you cannot reasonably prove that Ezekiel did not intend for his audience to believe that God would give Egypt to Nebuchadnezzar, and that Ezekiel did not make a mistake.

There is no way that a loving God would inspire prophecies that would invite dissent thousands of years later when he could have inspired them in ways that would have discouraged dissent thousands of years later.

spin · 01-23-2008, 01:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

When the writer doesn't know too much about the subject, all sorts of errors occur.

So is your theory that those Jews would look at historical events, such as Tyre being destroyed, forge a prophecy about it, and then show it to their fellow Jews and pretend that they wrote the prophecy before the event happened? That really doesn't make much sense. Would you be impressed if for example the day after 9/11 someone handed you a manuscript of the prediction of 9-11? I don't think so. Anyway since that Jewish manuscripts contain errors, according to your point of view, wouldn't that cause the Jews to totally disbelieve the prophecy. From the Tyre example I suppose your arguing that's where it was added “the many nations part” in order to cover up the mistake. Why wouldn't they have simply just put in the name of Alexander to give absolute proof the prophecy is correct? Do you have evidence of various revised prophecies of Ezekiel? If so can you list your sources?

Even mediaeval histories are full of errors. What is your problem?

spin

spin · 01-23-2008, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Minimalist

Quote:

Imagine you are a Jew suffering persecution in a foreign land with no homeland.

Why, if they were being so badly persecuted, did so many elect to remain in Babylon?

We even have records of two important Jewish families running financial enterprises, the Egibi and the Murashi, both leaving substantial business transactions on tablets for us to see. They were certainly happy to remain and continue to be wealthy.

spin

Sheshonq · 01-23-2008, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Quote:

Originally Posted by spin

When the writer doesn't know too much about the subject, all sorts of errors occur.

spin

So is your theory that those Jews would look at historical events, such as Tyre being destroyed, forge a prophecy about it, and then show it to their fellow Jews and pretend that they wrote the prophecy before the event happened? That really doesn't make much sense.

By the time Ezekiel made the prophecy, it was too hard to retract it - he delivered the prophecy to way too many people who remebered it.

So he "modified" it (or perhaps to use a fundie term, 'reinterpreted it') after the failure to conquer Tyre.

Quote:

Would you be impressed if for example the day after 9/11 someone handed you a manuscript of the prediction of 9-11? I don't think so.

Bad example. 9/11 happened in a matter of six hours. The siege of Tyre took 13 years to run its course.

Quote:

Anyway since that Jewish manuscripts contain errors, according to your point of view, wouldn't that cause the Jews to totally disbelieve the prophecy.

That depends upon whether they were smart enough or educated enough to spot the errors. Some of the errors are only knowable to from hindsight.

Quote:

From the Tyre example I suppose your arguing that's where it was added “the many nations part” in order to cover up the mistake.

Reading problems again?

The 'many nations' refers to the many nations that composed the army of Babylon.

Quote:

Why wouldn't they have simply just put in the name of Alexander to give absolute proof the prophecy is correct?

Because by the time of Alexander, the Ezekiel prophecy had been floating around for 300 years and changing it would have been conspicuous.

Any more easy questions that you could answer yourself, given 10 seconds of thought? :rolling:

Darklighter · 01-23-2008, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Quote:

Originally Posted by Farrell Till

The prophecy was figurative in its meaning: This "explanation" may take two forms: (1) Some contend that this prophecy was fulfilled but that critics of the Bible have not recognized it because they have interpreted literally what Ezekiel conveyed in figurative language. They quibble that he meant only to say that great damage would be inflicted on Egypt and that this was done when Nebuchadnezzar invaded Egypt in 568/7 B. C. The fact that total devastation of Egypt obviously didn't happen at that time (or any other time) doesn't matter to those who hold to this view.

I agree with you but from what I know about Egypt, for someone insisting on inerrancy, its actually worse than that. Because, as far as I know, that period of 568 B.C.E. is recorded as a relativly peaceful time in Egypts history. Their records don't record a devastation from Babylon, or even a battle what so ever.

I know it's not 'scholarly' but it gets the point across... From Wikipedia:

Quote:

From 664 BC Egypt was ruled by client kings established by the Assyrians, establishing the Twenty-Sixth Dynasty. Psamtik I was the first to be recognized as the king of the whole of Egypt, and he brought increased stability to the country during a 54-year reign from the new capital of Sais. Four successive Saite kings continued guiding Egypt successfully and peacefully from 610-526 BC. By the end of this period a new power was growing in the Near East: Persia. The pharaoh Psamtik III had to face the might of Persia at Pelusium; he was defeated and briefly escaped to Memphis, but ultimately was captured and then executed at Susa, capital of the Persian king Cambyses, who assumed the formal title of Pharaoh.

Although, apparently they did try (unsuccessfully) to help out their Jewish buddies to the north, no mention of an attack by Neb. during this 'peaceful' period. The didn't run into trouble untill the Persians (not Medo-Persians) came to power. Neb. himself says he went down to attack Egypt, but there is no other historical evidence to back up whether or not he actually did. Also, if Neb did attack Egypt and they were able to repel his attack with minimal loss (since apparently there was no major loss during this period), certainly this would have given them bragging rights. Regardless, it looks like he didn't recieve "wages" (at least nothing substantial) from Egypt either. :huh:

Johnny Skeptic · 01-23-2008, 11:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Anyway since that Jewish manuscripts contain errors, according to your point of view, wouldn't that cause the Jews to totally disbelieve the prophecy.

I am sure that many Jews did disbelieve the prophecy, especially if the "many nations" part of the prophecy was not in the original prophecy, and since "a king of kings" failed to defeat Tyre. No rational person would claim that a king of kings would invade Tyre, go down its streets, and tear down its towers, and fail to defeat Tyre.

If the God of the Bible does not exist, the defeat of Tyre is easily explainable. Everyone knows that island cities are much more difficult to defeat than mainland cities. Kingdoms rise, and kingdoms fall. There is nothing unusual about that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

From the Tyre example I suppose your arguing that's where it was added “the many nations part” in order to cover up the mistake.

Why yes, just like you would do if you debated a Hindu about a similar prophecy. You certainly would not assume that all prophecies in other religious books were written before the events.

Quote:

Originally Posted by arnoldo

Why wouldn't they have simply just put in the name of Alexander to give absolute proof the prophecy is correct?

Because many Jews had already read the previous version.

You do not know when the Tyre prophecy was written. You do not know whether or not it was revised. You do not know how many Jews knew about it before it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar was not going to be able to defeat Tyre. It is reasonable to assume that the "many nations" part of the prophecy was added after it became apparent that Nebuchadnezzar was not going to be able to defeat Tyre. If it was, all that Ezekiel would had needed to do in order to cover up his mistake would have been to claim that God had given him an additional revelation.

If God really wanted to strengthen the faith of Jews, and provide indisputable evidence of his existence and power to all non-Jews, he could easily have accomplished that by showing up in person and destroying Tyre quickly like he destroyed Sodom and Gomorrah.

Even if God chose the Jews to be his chosen people, I would never accept him because I do not believe in favoritism.

Some Christians will use faith as an argument, but that does not work. Consider the following Scriptures:

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.

Regarding those Scriptures, faith is Jesus' words alone was not enough to convince some people to become followers of Jesus.

In the NIV, the book of Acts basically says that the disciples when about confirming the message of his grace by performing miracles. It is quite odd that with all of the miracles that Jesus had performed, and with his post-Resurrection appearances, and the presence of the Holy Spirit, that there was a need for even more confirmations? Obviously, you faith argument does not work. If anything, believers would need LESS confirmations than unbelievers would. "O ye of little faith" contradicts the many miracles that Jesus and the disciples supposedly performed. Jesus supposedly criticized Thomas for wanting tangible evidence that he had risen from the dead, but yet Jesus was perfectly content to perform miracles before some stubborn skeptics who were not convinced by his words alone.

If it was fair an reasonable for God to provide those people with tangible, firsthand evidence, it would also be fair and reasonable for God to provide people with that kind of evidence today. So much for the faith argument.

Logically, if a God exists, and wanted to convince people to believe that he exists, he would either 1) publically and tangibly display his power in front of everyone in the world, or he would 2) exclusively use spiritual/emotional evidence, which millions of liberal theists believe is the case. No rational God would ever use limited tangible, firsthand evidence since he would know that that would invite dissent instead of discourage dissent. He would know that if one only begotten Son of God and 500 eyewitnesses was convincing evidence, 1,000 only begotten Sons of God and 500,000 eyewitnesses all over the civilized world would be much more convincing evidence. False religions by necessity must start in one place. A true religion could, and would start in may places all over the world. There would be no possible advantages for a God or for anyone else for him to start a religion in only one place. Doing that would serve only to needlessly invite dissent instead of discourage dissent, and would limit the number of people who would accept him.

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

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.