Draygomb

Did you ever take a look at the names Rexella and Jack Van Impe? In classic literature the devil's minions are always unveiled by their names.

Rexella - That's Rex as in King and Ella meaning the female form. So Rexella means Queen.

Jack - Means Rogue or Scoundrel and he is married to the queen which makes him The Scoundrel King.

Van Impe - Van meaning the leading element of an army and Impe (the old spelling of Imp) is a small childlike demon. So Van Impe is the leading element of an army of small childlike demons.

So, Jack Van Impe the leader of the TV Evangelists is The Scoundrel King of the leading element of an army of small childlike demons.

Go Figure

MikeG

Excellent! Here are a couple of other things I thought of when reading the list:

4b: The small handful of chosen toys can't agree on what the correct religious doctrine is, each authoring contradicting belief systems.

4c & 7: Science and philosophy seem to be the best tools for acquiring Knowledge (knowledge = consistent and rational ideas & facts), yet somehow these systems are "off limits". To be saved in many religions requires us to abandon reason (same thing as #7).

Marduk

I agree with Wyrdsmyth , if this was all true it would be quite depressing, not to mention how disappointing it would be the discover that the universe was run in such a way. It is not a very comforting thought, I often wonder why so many theists seem to think it is.

Theli

Wyrdsmyth.
I think that if this were to happen, the result would be masshysteria. I mean, how would the christians react?
(If one brand of religion were to have their beliefs proven by such an evidence, that religion would probably try to use it to force their beliefs on other religions.)
Not to mention, the muslims. I don't think they are prepared to instantly leave their beliefs.
In your text above you only mentioned sceptics, but I think they would play a very small part in the events.

[ February 12, 2002: Message edited by: Theli ]</p>

GunnerJ

LOL! Yeah... they'd be the most surprised of all to find out that all that Jesus bunk was true!

sir drinks-a-lot

Personally, I think it would be painfully easy for god to get any athiest to believe in him. A giant face appearing in the sky over New York City saying "Here I am!", etc.

I still don't understand any of the reasons theists give for god choosing not to make his exsistance obvious. They will answer that it is obvious and that we, as Atheists, are oblivious. Well, that just begs the question: Why doesn't he make it more obvious? It would, as I have said, be painfully easy to do so.

How many Atheists would remain disbelievers if god did something really spectacular and obvious?

JerryM

When theists ask what it would take to make me a believer (this seems to be a popular proselytizing tactic), I like to answer them in terms of their own theology. God gives us a degree of free will to make choices. But nothing can happen which is contrary to God's will. So if it's part of God's ultimate plan that I should become a believer, then he will arrange events so that this will occcur. And if I never believe, then it was never meant to be. So it really makes no difference what anyone says or does, or what evidence may or may not exist. If God means it to happen, it will. They usually won't argue with this.

Mageth

On a related note, theists are fond of saying "god answers prayers" and giving many examples of such "miracles." Yet most of the theists I know do backflips to explain why some prayers are answered and some are not. There is a category of "unacceptable" prayers that most theists think are asking god too much, such as raising the dead, regrowing severed limbs, repairing severed spinal cords, parting of the sea, and miraculously providing suitcases full of money. For some reason they think that, by performing obvious, spectacular miracles, god would be destroying the need for faith and circumventing our free will, even though the bible is chock full of supposed examples of such "miracles."

Mageth

JerryM:

A good rendition of calvinism. There are theists on this board (e.g. Theophilus) who would no doubt agree with you on that.

Tercel

They won't argue with this if they're Calvinists since you're just outlined a basic tenent of their theology. I'm an Arminian, not a Calvinist, so I'm going to argue.

You say:
<strong>God gives us a degree of free will to make choices. But nothing can happen which is contrary to God's will.</strong>
I would say: Yes - nothing can happen contrary to what God ultimately wills, him being omnipotent and all.
But what happens when God has wills that have the potential to conflict? eg Say he wants you of your own free choice, to choose to trust him, or love him or whatnot.
If God does give you free will, then you might choose not to do these other things that God want's you to do. It is impossible to force someone to do something freely by definition. All the omnipotence in the world cannot magic away such a problem. So as long as it remains God's will that we have free will, then there are limits of what God can make us do. Arminian theology teaches that God, through his grace, brings us all to the point where we can freely choose to either accept him, or reject him. He respects our choice and will not force us into anything. He wants us to accept him, but he wants us to voluntarily accept him, not be forced to do so.

I hope that clarifies things,
Tercel