rhutchin

If you want to get up to speed on textual criticism, you could start here--

http://www.ntgateway.com/resource/textcrit.htm

Johnny Skeptic

What kinds of questions are you talking about?

rhutchin

OK. Such people have made their decision. Let them live with it and assume the risk of having been mistaken about God.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: You claim that God chooses to reveal himself to people who he wishes to reveal himself to. If that is true, them I am virtually certain that he has not revealed himself to me. I will not accept evidence that God supposedly personally revealed to Moses, Abraham, Noah, David, Mary, the disciples, the Bible writers, and the 500 people who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. If God really wants to reveal himself to me, and if he is loving, he will do whatever it takes to convince me that he exists, and what he wants me to do. I will only accept PERSONAL revelation and TANGIBLE evidence, NOT revelation and tangible evidence through third parties. Third parties might lie, or they might be mistaken. The people who I mentioned were all sinners, and as such all fell short of the glory of God, so none of them were any more worthy or deserving of receiving personal revelation and tangible evidence than I am. I will not, and I cannot, endorse favoritism. If God wants to punish me for not being able to endorse favoritsm, and for expecting to receiving answers to some of my questions, that is his choice, but I do not have any choice in the matter. That is why Pascal's Wager does not work. It is not possible to love any being based upon threats. The most important and necessary issue is CHARACTER. No one can possibly love any being who he does not believe has good character, so reasonable proof that a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible only gets us to first base.

Actually, you are representing God’s position, and your position, not mine. While God is willing that some will perish, (I actually agree with you that that is the case. I have just been arguing, along with the majority of the Christians, that some Scriptures say that God is not willing that any should perish.), and while God endorses unmerciful eternal without parole, I am not willing that anyone perish without having the opportunity to know the truth, and I do not endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole.

The lack of a provable contradiction that meets your satisfaction most certainly does not mean that the Bible is inerrant. Plenty of murderers have been set free even though there testimonies were errant. Millions of Christians believe that the Bible is not inerrant. Is it your position that those people are not going to heaven? In court trials, if a witness is caught telling a lie, that never means that everything else that he claims is automatically considered to be a lie.

It most certainly is not up to skeptics to reasonably disprove inerrancy. Rather, it is up to Christians who believe that the Bible is inerrant to reasonably prove that the Bible is inerrant. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to trust the Bible. No intelligent, moral being would needlessly inspire the writing of a book as confusing as the Bible is. For the better part of 2,000 years, the vast majority of Christians endorsed slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women. Now whose fault was that? Aren't Christians supposed to get wisdom when they ask God for it?

That is false. As I have said on numerous occasions in many threads at three forums, the real issue comes back to whether or not rational minded and fair minded people are able to will themselves to accept a God’s whose character is questionable.

If Jesus returned to earth and healed all of the sick people in the world, some people would become Christians who were not previously convinced. No man can fairly be held accountable for refusing to accept a message from a being who he would accept if he knew that the being exists. Some skeptics find the Gospel message to be appealing, but are uncertain that the God of the Bible exists. You obviously do not have any problems loving a God who opposes people not for what they know, but for what he says they OUGHT to know. You obviously do not know the difference between IGNORANCE of a truth that is UNKNOWN, and REJECTION of the truth that is KNOWN.

Lest you claim that if Jesus returned to earth and performed miracles all over the world, no one would become a Christian who was not previously convinced, I will tell you that modern magicians would not have any trouble at all going to some remote jungle regions in the world and convincing at least a few natives that they had supernatural powers, and were Gods.

Humans place great importance on physical health. Christian doctors are trying to prevent and cure ALL diseases. There is great rejoicing among everyone, including Christians, when preventions and cures for diseases are discovered. ANY being who healed all of the sick people in the world, whether a human being, an alien, or a God, would be greatly appreciated. Trust must be EARNED, not merely DECLARED in copies of ancient records. Helping people in TANGIBLE ways, not just in SPIRITUAL ways, helps to gain their trust and confidence that you have their best interests at heart. As it is, Exodus 4:11 says that God makes people blind, deaf, and dumb. Exodus 20:5 says that God punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed. Even in the New Testament, God killed Ananias and Saphira over money. The texts say that as a result, great fear spread among the people. It is much too much of a coincidence that the issue was over money and not something else. The Bible says that killing people is wrong, but God frequently kills people. Hypocrisy is sufficient ground to reject any being. If God has no interest in keeping his own rules, he should not expect rational minded and fair minded people to love a being who is a hypocrite. If God wishes to punish rational minded and fair minded people for refusing to accept his numerous detestable actions and allowances, that is his choice, but rational minded and fair minded people do not have any choice in the matter. If God has the right to be a hypocrite, then he also has the right to be a liar, right?

If you can convince me that injuring and killing people with hurricanes, or allowing people to be injured and killed in hurricanes, and refusing to clearly tell people that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women are wrong, are in any way beneficial to God, and to mankind as a whole, I might be willing to become a Christian.

I am only interested in accepting a God who will look out for MY best interests, and EVERYONE ELSE’S best interests, not HIS OWN best interests. In the U.S., we believe in a government of the people, for the people, and by the people. You believe in a government of God, by God, and for God. Such a government is arbitrary, tyrannical, and dictatorial.

Some non-Christians are more loving, kind, generous, and forgiving than the typical Christian is. It would be out of character for them to reject a loving God if they knew that he exists.

It is interesting to note that God is much less willing or able to choose the elect from Muslim countries than from countries where Christianity is the predominant religion. This is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist. When mere humans can frequently determine where God is able to choose the elect, there is a rat in the woodpile somewhere.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 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." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

Pascal's Wager, aka risk assessment, does not work regarding Luke
10:25-28. The verses DO NOT say that "taking a position in favor of the Bible is infinitely better than taking no position at all". It says that in order for a man to become saved, he must love God with ALL of his heart, soul, mind. That is completely different from taking a position that a person should love God with ALL of his heart, soul, and mind on the off chance that he exists, and that he has good character. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light. How did Paul know that? Why can't God be masquerading as an angel of light too? Are you going to tell us that it is infinitely more probable that Satan is masquerading as an angel of light than it is that God is masquerading as an angel of light? As far as I know, the odds no better than equal that Satan is masquerading as an angel of light, and that God is who the Bible says he is. Logically, equal odds CANNOT convince a rational minded person to love God with all of his heart, soul, and mind. You need a preponderance of evidence, and you don't have it. Hence, you lose.

rhutchin

The Biblical evidence for this position is more excellect than all the evidence that Johnny Skeptic has been able to muster to support the contrary position.

Looks, to me, like a case of user error in the application of the Wager.

rhutchin

If you think you have been slighted, you can petition God for redress.

Unfortunately for you (and assorted other sinners), you are not God.

I agree. It doesn't hurt the claim though.

I think we've been here already.

Johnny Skeptic

But I have not argued a contrary position, although you have argued an affirmative position. My position is that the odds are no better than even that Satan is masquerading as an angel of light than they are that God is masquerading as an angel of light. There is no way that Paul could have known whether Satan or God is masquerading as an angel of light. If you wish to love a being with all of your heart, soul, and mind based upon no better than even odds, be my guest, but please do not ask rational minded people to do that.

Johnny Skeptic

That is false. I will not accept evidence that God supposedly personally revealed to Moses, Abraham, Noah, David, Mary, the disciples, the Bible writers, and the 500 people who saw Jesus after he rose from the dead. If God really wants to reveal himself to me, and if he is loving, he will do whatever it takes to convince me that he exists, and what he wants me to do. I will only accept PERSONAL revelations and TANGIBLE evidence, NOT revelations and tangible evidence through third parties. Third parties might lie, or they might be mistaken. The people who I mentioned were all sinners, and as such all fell short of the glory of God, so none of them were any more worthy or deserving of receiving personal revelation and tangible evidence than I am. I will not, and I cannot, endorse favoritism. If God wants to punish me for not being able to endorse favoritism, and for expecting to receive answers to some of my questions, that is his choice, but I do not have any choice in the matter. This is why Pascal's Wager does not work. It is not possible to love any being based upon threats. The most important and necessary issue is CHARACTER. No one can possibly love any being who he does not believe has good character, so reasonable proof that a supernatural being inspired the writing of the Bible only gets us to first base.

While God is willing that some people will perish, willing to hypocritically kill some of his most devout and faith followers after he said that killing people is wrong, something that even Attila the Hun would not have done to his own devout and faithful followers, to make people blind deaf and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, to punish people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5, to kill Ananias and Saphira over money, reference the book of Acts, even under a supposedly “better covenant”, reference the book of Hebrews, to endorse unmerciful eternal punishment without parole after telling people to be merciful, and to refuse to reveal himself to people who would accept him if they knew that he (supposedly) exists, I am not willing to commit any of those detestable actions, and yet you call me totally depraved. It is you who are totally depraved.

Following are some examples of what rational minded people expect would be the case if the God of the Bible does not exist:

1 - Most or all modern evidence of God’s specific existence and will would be spiritual, not tangible.

2 - Tangible benefits would frequently be distributed to those who are not is greatest need, and frequently withheld from those who are in greatest need, just as is now the case regarding humans and animals, and exactly what would be the case if tangible benefits were distributed at random according to the laws of physics.

3 - No particular Christian could ever expect to receive a specific tangible blessing from God.

4 - The Bible would be written in ways that would frequently confuse even devout and faithful Christians.

5 - Supposed miracles performed by Jesus would by necessity have been witnessed by only a fraction of one per cent of the people in the world. After all, too many eyewitnesses spoil the broth of deception. If a few thousand eyewitnesses was a good thing, then surely five million eyewitnesses in locations all over the world would have been much better. In court trials, the more eyewitnesses, the better.

6 - For many centuries the vast majority of Christians would not know that slavery, colonization, and the subjugation of women is wrong. A loving God would surely have clearly told Christians that those detestable practices are wrong. Well-known skeptic Bible scholar Dr. Robert Price told me that in the first century, when the vast majority of Christians endorsed slavery, some Sophists and Stoics opposed it. Now who in the world told those Sophists and Stoics that slavery is wrong?

7 - Significant moral and social advances would have preceded Christianity, while Old Testament Jews still killed their own parents for working on the Sabbath Day. Some examples are a version of democracy, from the Greeks, and a version of the Golden Rule, from Buddha.

8 - A decrease of interest in religion would be directly proportionate to advances in science and education, just as is the case today. More and more Christian geologists, including more and more evangelical Christian geologists, would say that there was not a global flood, which is exactly the case that we have today.

9 - To a great extent, Muslims would largely be able to prevent God from choosing the elect from Muslim countries.

Whether we have four Gospels, or one Gospel, or 5,000 copies of copies of ancient manuscripts, or 5 copies of ancient manuscripts, the evidence in the Bible must be compared to what kind of world we live in TODAY, to the availability of God TODAY, and to the significant advances in MORALITY and DECENCY that humans have made, advances that the God of the Bible is frequently diametrically opposed to if he exists. The best conclusion is that he does not exist. If he does exist, no decent person can will himself to love a God who at best is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. No rational, loving being would sometimes injure and kill his most devout and faithful followers, and babies, and innocent animals.

Angra Mainyu

As you said earlier,
The “decision” (or rather conclusion) is based on the info available to each person. That means that Pascal’s wager is unavailable - from your own argument, it follows that the only available “choice” is the one your info leads to, or rather, one’s analysis of the info.

I’ve already replied to that and some of your other contentions in much more detail in post 163

Those aren’t “theories”, but beliefs based on no evidence.

We observe that people live and seem to need a living body – including, of course, a brain – to exist. We also observe that people die, and there’s no sign of movement or intelligence or anything after that. The default conclusion is that death is the end of human existence – and of the existence of any other animal or living creature.

Making an exception for humans based on no evidence at all doesn’t seem to be a sound position. Someone else could simply come up with a different claim, with that criteria.

Still, if you go as far as to admit that you don’t know what happens after death, how can you say that there’s a God (I’d say monster) that would torture billions of people (actually, more) for eternity, and that that’s ok?

Please notice that you’re this “choosing” that even though you don’t know.




The risk is zero, as is zero the risk that they’d be sent to Tartarus.
The point is that a set of beliefs for which there’s no evidence, is not more likely to be true than any fictional story that the Greeks (or any of us, for that matter) can concoct.

Incidentally, were there any risks, you’d be assuming the risk that the God that punishes theists existed. Not to mention the God of Islam, the God of a different branch of Christianity (e.g., a God that only saves people who speak in tongues), etc.

None of us has the background to debate every specific aspect of science. It’s simply impossible for a person to learn so much in a lifetime.

So, we have rely on what scientists, based on a proven method, conclude. Without that, our world wouldn’t work: for instance, there could be no reason to make any devices (since we wouldn’t know whether or how they’d work), in many cases it wouldn’t be possible to resolve a crime was committed, or to investigate an accident, etc.

Judges, governments, company owners, they don’t need to know exactly how things work, but it’s reasonable to accept the findings of science because, well, science does work.The method has been proven effective, and the knowledge is available to others (even if not to everyone) who can learn and verify the claims for themselves, at least in some of the cases they’re interested in (no one can learn everything, but you - potentially, at least - can study something you like).

Granted, mistakes are made in science too (though they tend to be corrected eventually). However, and as long as a theory is accepted in science, I think it wouldn’t be a sound position to reject it with absolutely no proof to the contrary – that's particularly clear when it comes to theories that have been widely accepted for such a long time, and which no one has ever been able to debunk.

Based on the information available to you (to the extent you’ve explained that in this thread), I think rejecting geology and evolution is a clear error. So, you base your conclusions on the info available to you, but your reasoning is faulty, in my view.

Incidentally, even if evolution were wrong, the Flood wouldn’t make sense for a variety of reasons. And that's only one example of things in the Bible that don't make sense.

My point is: there’s no Biblical evidence, as far as I could tell.
There’s geological evidence, there’s fossil evidence, DNA evidence, etc. But there’s no evidence for the Flood (for example).

The total lack of evidence supporting the claim, hurts it – actually, it destroys it.