Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to ksen: Why do you suppose that God has more success getting people to accept him in the U.S. than in Syria?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Message to ksen: Why do you suppose that God has more success getting people to accept him in the U.S. than in Syria?

Originally Posted by ksen

Why should I suppose that?

Originally Posted by ksen

What I do suppose is that God is 100% successful at whatever he determines to do.

Originally Posted by ksen

I suppose that God is successfully saving all of those he has determined to save no matter what their location.

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Because it is well-known that the children of Muslims in Syria usually become Muslims. It is also well-known that the chief determining factor regarding which worldview a child eventually chooses is the worldview that his parents have. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled "One Nation Under God." The authors provide a lot of documented research that shows that in the U.S., the primary factors that determine religious beliefs are family, geography, race, ethnicity, gender and age. If the universe if naturalistic (I am not saying that it is), that is exactly what would be expected, in other words, that religous beliefs would be determined primarly by entirely secular factors. One issue that Kosmin and Lachman discussed was the fact that a much higher percentage of women in the U.S. become Christians than men. If the universe is naturalistic, that is exactly what we would expect to find because women are more emotional than men are.

Originally Posted by ksen I suppose that God is successfully saving all of those he has determined to save no matter what their location.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

Since you are an inerrantist, in my opinion, it would be a waste of time for you and I to discuss anything other than inerrancy at this time since most or all of your arguments depend upon the Bible being inerrant.

Originally Posted by ksen

You are inviting me to a discussion, so what's your claim?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

Do any inerrantists wish to make a case for inerrancy or not? By "inerrant," I mean accurate representations of the originals except for copyist and scribal errors.

Inerrancy is an appeal to emotions, not to evidence. Inerrantists have created a God who acts like they want him to act regarding inerrancy, but when it comes to the issue of God killing people with hurricanes, they have not created a God who acts like they want him to act. That inconsistency is suspect, and hypocritical.

Originally Posted by rhutchin

How about providing an example from the Bible that you think does not support the idea that the Bible is inerrant.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

In the thread that is titled "Christianity is not good enough," I said the following:

"I finally figured out yesterday why you always refuse to discuss inerrancy. You were hoping that I would claim that the Bible is inerrant, in which case I would need to defend my claim. Please be advised that he who asserts first must defend first. That is the way that it works in court trials. Court trials begins with INITIAL, PRIMARY assertions. People who makes them are plaintiffs. They make initial, primary assertions against defendants. It is up to plaintiffs to reasonably prove their case, not up to defendants to disprove plaintiffs' cases. If a man claimed that he had a flying pig, that would be an original, primary assertion. It would not be up to anyone to reasonably disprove his claim. It would be up to him to reasonably prove his claim. The Bible is full of initial, primary assertions from cover to cover, starting with the first verse in the Bible, which says "In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth." It is no more up to skeptics to reasonably disprove that assertion than it is up to you to reasonably disprove deism."

"Inerrancy is an INITIAL, PRIMARY ASSERTION. Therefore, skeptics who question it are responding to a PREEXISTING, INITIAL, PRIMARY ASSERTION by inerrantists, and to INITIAL, PRIMARY ASSERTIONS by the Bible. The logical and fair conclusion is that it is up to inerrantists to defend inerrancy, not up to skeptics to reasonably disprove it. Some Christians do originate defenses of inerrancy. I respect them a lot more than I respect you. Notapadawan, who is a Christian, is preparing a defense of inerrancy that he will post at the BC&H Forum in a few days. Will you participate in that thread when he starts it?"

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

So, do you wish to defend your initial, primary assertion that the Bible is inerrant or not? Or, do you wish to defend the initial, primary assertion that God created the heavens and the earth (reference Genesis 1:1) or not?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

So, do you wish to defend your initial, primary assertion that the Bible is inerrant or not? Or, do you wish to defend the initial, primary assertion that God created the heavens and the earth (reference Genesis 1:1) or not?

Originally Posted by ksen

Nice try yourself. Would you care to point out where I first asserted that the Bible is inerrant in this discussion?

Originally Posted by Johnny Skeptic

As an inerrantist, anytime that you use the Bible as evidence you are making an initial, primary assertion that the Bible is inerrant. If you do not wish to start arguments by using the Bible as evidence, what would there be to discuss? Surely you are not suggesting that it is up to me to reasonably disprove everything that the Bible says, as well as everything that all other religious books say. Genesis 1:1 is analogous to an initial, primary assertion by a plaintiff in a lawsuit. In both cases, he who asserts first must defend first.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

As an inerrantist, anytime that you use the Bible as evidence you are making an initial, primary assertion that the Bible is inerrant. If you do not wish to start arguments by using the Bible as evidence, what would there be to discuss? Surely you are not suggesting that it is up to me to reasonably disprove everything that the Bible says, as well as everything that all other religious books say. Genesis 1:1 is analogous to an initial, primary assertion by a plaintiff in a lawsuit. In both cases, he who asserts first must defend first.

Originally Posted by ksen

I believe you were the first to start demanding Bible verses as proof of anything. Therefore to me it looks like you are doing the claiming.

Originally Posted by ksen

Something doesn't look quite right when you demand certain items for evidence and then when you are given them you then demand that the person who gave you what you asked for all of a sudden start defending the evidence YOU initially asked for.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

.......a man cannot acknowledge and obey God unless God reveals himself to him in ways that are specifically designed to convince each invidividual according the individual's own unique requirements of evidence. Many times, evidence that will convince one person will not convince another person. People become Christians for many different reasons. Some are convinced partly by evidence at the BC&H Forum. Others are convinced partly by science. Even if the Holy Spirit is always involved, so are other factors. It is the other factors that God is guilty of not providing skeptics who would accept him if he provided them with evidence that met their unique, individual needs. You might call it "customized" evidence. That is the kind of evidence that a loving God would provide. No loving God would send anyone to hell for eternity without parole. Rehabilitation is a more worthy goal than eternal retribution.

A moral and fairminded man would not be able to accept a God who is corrupt like the God of the Bible is even if God revealed himself to him. Any moral, fairminded man has a right to object to a God who refuses to provide evidence to some people that they would accept if they were aware of it. No man can fairly be sent to hell for eternity for refusing to accept evidence that he would accept if he was aware of it.

Originally Posted by JohnnySkeptic

As an inerrantist, anytime that you use the Bible as evidence you are making an initial, primary assertion that the Bible is inerrant. If you do not wish to start arguments by using the Bible as evidence, what would there be to discuss? Surely you are not suggesting that it is up to me to reasonably disprove everything that the Bible says, as well as everything that all other religious books say. Genesis 1:1 is analogous to an initial, primary assertion by a plaintiff in a lawsuit. In both cases, he who asserts first must defend first.

Originally Posted by ksen Something doesn't look quite right when you demand certain items for evidence and then when you are given them you then demand that the person who gave you what you asked for all of a sudden start defending the evidence YOU initially asked for.