rhutchin

Basically, you are saying that all historical evidence is pretty worthless. I agree. A person cannot always believe what they read in the newspaper that records yesterday's history. Human testimony may be weak evidence, but it is accepted in courts of law, so it has some validity.

My position is that the Bible provides evidence of events that occurred over a period of time that encompassed about 10,000 years. It may be weak evidence, but that does not mean that it is not providing essentially true accounts. A person cannot deny that a man who called himself, Jesus, lived in the first century. Whether this man was whom he claimed to be may be disputed but cannot be false just because you don't want to believe it. You personally do not have to believe anything the Bible says, and you can do so for a variety of sound, logical reasons. Nonetheless, that does not make the Biblical accounts false.

rhutchin

Because all people must die one day and the Bible claims that all sinners (including the sexually immoral) will be denied entry into heaven. A person does not have to believe it, but he should pay attention to it (a least enough so that, when he stands before God, he doesn't whine and cry about God not doing enough to convince him of that truth).

Which just means that you do not understand risk assessment. People make decisions. Some decisions are significant and the impacts of making a wrong decision may be great. People naturally seek to reduce the risk of making wrong decisions. You seem to have a hard time grasping this.

Johnny Skeptic

The Bible is useless as evidence for the simple fact that even if God were to show up in person, my arguments would be exactly the same unless he answered some questions to my satisfaction. God has poor character. Decent people are not able to love a God who does not have good character. So, you are wasting your time trying to use the Bible as evidence.

rhutchin

I think the story of the potato famine involves more than you have gone into. It is true that a million people died. It is also true that those who might have helped did not. It is the Christianity, or lack thereof, of those who could have helped that might be investigated. It could be that those who served God were among the million or so who left Ireland for Canada and the US, among other places. Today, God has provided the world with sufficient resources to feed everyone, just as He has provided the resources to tell everyone about the Bible. At the same time, God gives people the freedom to be cruel. Johnny Skeptic complains about the potato famine but he does not complain about the freedom God has given him that allows him to ignore the problems of others.

rhutchin

You may have determined that the Bible is "useless" as evidence only because you don't understand what it says. Regardless, the Bible is still "evidence" as the term is normally defined.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Pascal's Wager is fraudulent. It invites COMPARISONS. That was the bait that Pascal used to try to lure people into his illogical trap. Pascal was not aware that Luke 10:25-28 invalidate his arguments. The verses say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live."

The verses do not invite a COMPARISON. They in fact demand the assumption of a PROBABALITY that God is who the Bible says he is. However, there is not any evidence at at that it is probable that God is who the Bible says he is. Logically, it is not possible for a man to love a God with all of his heart, soul, and mind unless he has sufficient evidence that it is probable that he is who he is alleged to be. Do you believe that it is probable that God is who the Bible says he is? If so, why?

Since the Bible cannot stand on its own merit without being compared with other worldviews, it is not worth accepting.

James 5:16 says "Confess your faults one to another, and pray one for another, that ye may be healed. The effectual fervent prayer of a righteous man availeth much." Healed of what? What is your definition of a righteous man? Are you a righteous man? If a man's prayers do not avail much, does that mean that he is not righteous?

Johnny Skeptic

But I am not denying the historical evidence. I am denying the Biblical claim that God is good. I am certainly able to understand that the Bible says that God is good. What exactly about the Bible do I not understand?

Regarding "Regardless, the Bible is still 'evidence' as the term is normally defined", I agree, at least in some cases. The Bible provides sufficient evidence that God is evil, or mentally incompetent. I suggest that we debate your evidence that God is good.

The Evil One

No, there is physical evidence, which is significantly stronger than human testimony.

For example: digging up a 2000 year old battlefield is stronger evidence for a battle than the fact that some 2000 year old text says there was a battle. We would treat a battle for which we had the latter as only tentatively establsihed, if that. We would treat the former as very solidly established.

I never said ti didn't. I just said it was poor, weak evidence unless supported by other evidence. Now apparently you agree with me. good.

The courts, if they are functioning, do not rely on unsupported human testimony. They will always try to back it up with either physical evidence or additional lines of independent testimony.

What I'm saying is that a just court will require more to convict you of, say, theft, than just one person's word that they saw you steal something. Unsupported human testimony is evidence but alone it is too weak to compel belief.


Of course this is a logical possibility, but one cannot infer from the fact that X is a logical possibiltiy that it is therefore reasonable to beleive X. It is unreasonable to rely on weak evidence on the grounds that it is logically possible that the weak evidence is giving an accurate picture.

Do you actually read this forum? Lots of people deny this. In fact they're probably in the majority here.

Myself, I take the position that it is impossible to know whether or not a man who called himself Jesus lived in the C1 (except in the sense that Jesus was a really common name back then). The evidence is too weak to come to any kind of conclusion on this question.

When have I ever said that? I have said that the Bible cannot be taken as true because it is weak evidence! It has nothing to do with wanting to believe!

I would dearly love to believe that there is a human soul and it is eternal and there is perfect justice in the hereafter. I don't believe that because the only evidence ever produced in support is weak, weak, weak.

JPD

Being Christian is no guarantee of being a good or a helpful person, just as being of another faith, or having no faith at all, is no guarantee of being a bad or an unhelpful person. But the key point here is that PEOPLE - not God - could have been in a position to help.

(Yawns)...and the Quran...and the Zoroastrian Bible....and so on. So what? Once people are aware of the implications of the "difficult passages" (which is as close as you come to say that the Bible isn't all its cracked up to be) then it loses something essential in their eyes. And the only mechanism you have to try to keep the bubbling questions under control is to attempt to instill fear in people. Your Biblegod is no better than a hitman who mentally tortures people. And your Biblegod knew that the text he permitted to be created would be dismissed by many. His intention from the beginning must have been to doom people (whom he would have known in advance would come to that understanding). What a worthless moron.

God is good because he allows cruelty? Um...just remind me how God - who is nothing but good in your eyes - is good for permitting people to be cruel to each other?

Johnny Skeptic

Yes, remind yourself of that the next time you waste precious time watching a football game. If the God of the Bible exists, I am wasting my time out of ignorance, but you are wasting your time out of intent. Therefore, you are much more culpable than I am. God has the freedom not to ignore the problems of others, does he not? Are you really going to claim that fallen, sinful, imperfect humans are able to sufficiently provide for everyone's needs?

Actually, it is God's character that might be investigated. How do you suggest that people avoid God's killer hurricanes? Is it your position that God has made it possible for the world to become a Garden of Eden if everyone acted like they should act? If so, I find your position to be quite strange because ever since Adam and Eve ate the forbidden fruit, somehow, whether through genetics or through some other means, God has ensured that everyone commit sins at least some of the time, meaning that it is impossible for anyone to always acts like they should act. Otherwise, Jesus would not have been the only perfect man. Even Job and John the Baptist were not free of serious problems. In the NIV, Job 1:1 says "In the land of Uz there lived a man whose name was Job. This man was blameless and upright; he feared God and shunned evil." Matthew 11:11 says "I tell you the truth: Among those born of women there has not risen anyone greater than John the Baptist; yet he who is least in the kingdom of heaven is greater than he." God convinced the Devil to attack Job in a number of awful ways in spite of Job's excellent character, so why do you suggest that if people act right, God will treat them right? In spite of John the Baptist's excellent character, he was persecuted, and he was executed by King Herod, so again, why do you suggest that if people act right, God will treat them right? Now surely you will not claim that you act better than Job and John the Baptist did.

John 9:1-3 say "As he went along, he saw a man blind from birth. His disciples asked him, 'Rabbi, who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind?' 'Neither this man nor his parents sinned,' said Jesus, 'but this happened so that the work of God might be displayed in his life.'" That is an example of a man being born blind who did not sin, and his parents did not sin, so your argument about people who do not act right who God for tangible blessings should not expect God to do what they ask does not work regarding John 9:1-3. This leaves you with the insurmountable problem of determining which people do not get their prayers answered because of their sins, including yourself.

James 2:15-24 say “Suppose a brother or sister is without clothes and daily food. If one of you says to him, "Go, I wish you well; keep warm and well fed," but does nothing about his physical needs, what good is it? In the same way, faith by itself, if it is not accompanied by action, is dead. But someone will say, "You have faith; I have deeds." Show me your faith without deeds, and I will show you my faith by what I do. You believe that there is one God. Good! Even the demons believe that - and shudder. You foolish man, do you want evidence that faith without deeds is useless? Was not our ancestor Abraham considered righteous for what he did when he offered his son Isaac on the altar? You see that his faith and his actions were working together, and his faith was made complete by what he did. And the scripture was fulfilled that says, "Abraham believed God, and it was credited to him as righteousness," and he was called God's friend. You see that a person is justified by what he does and not by faith alone.”

James 2:15-24 most certainly does not mean that people who have extra food should provide food only to people who have good character, so your argument about the character of the one million people who died in the Irish Potato Famine, most of whom were Christians, doesn’t work.

Out of compassion, some Christian missionaries in third world nations provide food for non-Christians. Surely you approve of this. Providing food for hungry people is an excellent way to gain their love, admiration, respect, and acceptance. The same goes for God, but since he is a hypocrite, he is content to let some people starve to death.

While many Christians have starved to death, many evil people who never become Christians have plenty to eat, and many animals have plenty to eat. How do you account for this? Does God care more about evil people and animals than he cares about Christians?

Paul scolded the Corinthians for doing some things that even the Gentiles did not do, but he still called them brothers. In Galatians 6:10, Paul says “Therefore, as we have opportunity, let us do good to all people, especially to those who belong to the family of believers.” I assume that part of what Paul meant was that Christians should feed hungry people without first trying to determine whether or not they were acting like they should act.

Matthew 15:32-38 say “Jesus called his disciples to him and said, ‘I have compassion for these people; they have already been with me three days and have nothing to eat. I do not want to send them away hungry, or they may collapse on the way.’ His disciples answered, ‘Where could we get enough bread in this remote place to feed such a crowd?’ ‘How many loaves do you have?’ Jesus asked. ‘Seven,’ they replied, ‘and a few small fish.’ He told the crowd to sit down on the ground. Then he took the seven loaves and the fish, and when he had given thanks, he broke them and gave them to the disciples, and they in turn to the people. They all ate and were satisfied. Afterward the disciples picked up seven basketfuls of broken pieces that were left over. The number of those who ate was four thousand, besides women and children.”

I assume that it is not your position that everyone in the crowd had good character.

The New Testament teaches that Christians should help people IN SPITE of their faults, not withhold helping people BECAUSE of their faults. God should practice what he preaches.

So, if providing food for hungry people even when they have faults, which actually includes everyone, is a good and worthy goal, it is good for humans and for God. In this life, human effort alone will never be able to feed all of the hungry people in the world. In addition, in this life, human effort alone will never be able to let everyone sufficiently know the rules for going to heaven. Of course, you will claim that God treats everyone fairly, and that he has provided everyone with sufficient information, but that is true only if God is not willing to do everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. If God is not willing to do everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell, decent people are not able to love him. If God exists, three fourths of the people in the world are not aware of it. If he exists, he is easily able to convince many if not most of those people that he exists. God could not possibly have anything to gain by refusing to do everything that he can to convince everyone that he exists, and that he has good character. It is a matter of how much God wants to keep people from going to hell, which appears to be not much. If God exists, skeptics refuse to tell people about him of out ignorance, not out of intent. God refuses to provide some people with information out of intent, not out of ignorance. Therefore, God is much more culpable than skeptics are.

If God provided me with more evidence of his existence, and answered some questions to my satisfaction about his character, I might become a Christian. I am not able to love a God who is not willing to do everything that he can in order to convince me that he exists, and that he has good character.

Why does God discriminate against all amputees, at least as far as we know? He doesn’t discriminate against everyone who has cancer, right?

If God exists, he is a being who has demanded that if people want to avoid going to hell, they must accept his arbitrary rules, and his frequently detestable and unnecessary conduct. If God’s chief goal is to save the elect, much of what he causes and allows does not contribute to that goal in any way. No loving, rational being ever does anything that is not intended to help himself, or someone else, at present, or in the future. It has not been reasonably proven that allowing people to starve to death benefits God or mankind.

God’s actions and allowances indicate that he is evil, or mentally incompetent. No mentally competent being helps people and kills people.