Johnny Skeptic

But God knew that for about 1800 years, most Christians would misinterpret what the Bible says about slavery, and refused to do anything about it. Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that if the God of the Bible exists, he could easily have cleared up the misinterpretations. God's negligence did not provide him any benefits, and mankind most certainly was worse off because of it.

God also refuses to protect women from rapists, and yet you have the audacity to talk about love. One million people died of starvation in the Irish Potato Famine because God refused to give them food, in spite of the fact that God told Christians via James that if a man refuses to give food to a hungry person, he is vain, and his faith is dead. Obviously God is an uncompassionate hypocrite.

If God does not exist, all tangible benefits would be indiscriminately distributedly entirely at random according to the laws of physics without any regard for a person's needs or worldview. Do you call that love? How is that scenario any different than the scenario that we have today? A loving God would be concerned with peoples' spiritual AND tangible needs, but obviously you are not aware of that.

The world that we live in today does not indicate the presence of a loving God. If God does not exist, it is to be expected that the only kind of benefits that anyone could ever ask God for and receive would be subjective spiritual/emotional benefits.

spin

An axe to grind is your claim. He makes a relatively simple analysis. Deal with it. Attacking the witness is not a suitable approach, especially when you have no real reason to do so.

Pull the other one. You know what it plays.

Oh, so you're not talking about the early church at all.

So you'll forget about your previous statements on the subject.


spin

spin

Stop joking, Gamera. Paul is no sign of a well educated person. He even has difficulty writing. You're just suffering from a painfully obvious case of wishful thinking.


spin

Johnny Skeptic

What about the best educated and most intelligent people today? 93% of the members of the National Academy of Sciences (NAS) are not Christians. It has become increasing rare for Christians to win Nobel Prizes in the sciences. Stephen Hawking is considered by many people to be the top physicist in the world. He is not a Christian. Marilyn Savant has an IQ of 230, the highest IQ ever recorded. She is not a Christian. I am pretty sure that people who have Ph.D.'s tend to be less interested in religion. I am also pretty sure that if extensive tests were conducted regarding the SAT's and religious beliefs, the results would dramatically show that the top 5% of students tend to me much less interested in religion. I am certain that the chief factors that determine religious beliefs in the U.S. are entirely SECULAR. Kosmin and Lachman wrote a book that is titled 'One Nation Under God.' The authors provide a lot of documented evidence that shows that in the U.S., the chief factors that determine religious beliefs are geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender, and age. That is much too much of a coincidence for any logical person to assume that God has anything to do with religious beliefs.

If God does not exist, it is to be expected that the Gospel message would be spread entirely by humans effort according to the prevailing means of transportation, communciation, printing, and translation. Such grossly inefficient means caused hundreds of millions of people to die without having the opportunity to hear the supposedly most important and helpful message in human history. Obviously, Jesus never gave the disciples the Great Commission, and the spreading the Gospel message has never been one of God's top priorities.

Doug Shaver

Excuse me? "Paul" = "the early church"?

I don't think so.

Gamera

I do. Paul was writing in the 50s or 60s CE. That's early church by any standard.

Gamera

Oh, nonsense. Paul shows extensive knowledge of Jewish and Hellenistic learning, he quotes Greek poetry, he was probably trilingual, he was clearly brought up in the philosophical controversies of the day, including virtually every religious tradition of the Mediterranean area, and understood and digested them in his writings. His vocabulary shows an interest in legal, tax and business concepts.

Comparing Paul to Tacitus or Josephus, one can only conclude he had a broader education and more subtle intellect.

Let me suggest that you have romanticized classic pagan intellectual history, which was spotty and often lowbrow at best. Reading Aristotle is often an ordeal in banalities and whacky prejudices.

Gamera

[QUOTE=spin;4037030]I guess I were a fourth century historian and you were comparing my works with Julian's, you might have a point, but of course, that pure fancy on your part. Why is it you have trouble sticking to the point and arguing issues, and must always deviate into personal attacks. The fact remains, Julian has an axe to grind and any body who even pretends to know his background knows. So worrying about my axes is rather silly. But I guess when you can't rebut facts you're stuck with personal attacks

Of course, add to the fact that Julian was centuries removed from the early church and your arguments looks even more silly.

rlogan

Paul is also the source of the Mayan Calendar and stonehenge.

ynquirer

Watch the news. The source of the Mayan Calendar and Stonehenge is the tandem Constantine the Great - Eusebius.