Kosh

That's not an accurate statement.

Your recommendation was for more than the cannonicity of the bible, and this is why I posted the links for trashing his apologetics.

Nice try though.

HoosierGuy28

Cipher Girl,

Sorry, I was trying to give you the biblical perspective of why evil exists. I take it you're asking why does it still exist, so I'll try to address that.

Because of the apostasy of Adam, the seed of man was also corruptued. If you refer back to my first response where I mentioned the "protoevangelion" in Genesis 3:15, you will see that the Seed it refers to is that of the woman, not of the man. This is where we first see the promise of the First Coming of Christ.

Evil still exists in the world because of the curse and because the promise of the restoration of all things will not occur until after the Second Coming.

Now why does God not end evil right now?

Because man chose it. I would call this something like a gathering. We have free will and we must chose Christ. It's probably something similar to a parent who allows the child to make necessary mistakes.

Now after reading this, you're probably thinking this doesn't seem fair. But this is the beauty of it all. When we exercise our free will and accept Christ, we are also baptized with the Holy Spirit. This is also known as the "Fire Baptism".

Of course, someone becoming a Christian doesn't exempt them from doing wrong. Again, they must exercise their free will so that they can experience what is called the "fruit of the Spirit".

Now at this point, I'm sure you really understood this or else I've got you really really confused.

If this is confusing, just let me know and I'll attempt to give you a less technical answer.

Thanks again,

Joel

HoosierGuy28

Kosh,

You jump to conclusions rather quick. Buffman's original question involved the canonicity of the Bible. If I mention it also addresses other issues, that doesn't change his initial question. Also, when I say "deals with cristicism of Christianity" that includes the Canon, as you should know considering you read the book.

But to trash it, that would require it to have come up with some substantial evidence that would prove the book to be invalid, which from what I read of the critique, it clearly failed to do. Just because someone attempts to write an argument against a book, doesn't validate the argument. They would also need to demonstrate a knowledge that goes beyond that of the author of the book. Of course, I'm sure you'll come back with a response about how great you think it was, but that would just validate the point I am making.

Joel

Kosh

That's an interesting thing to say considering you admitted that didn't read much of the critique. How do you know he didn't demonstrate knowledge beyond McDowells?

I also note that you sidstepped DigitalDruids questions concerning the depth of your comparative religions studies. Did you just take a class in it?

Tell ya what, why don't you start another thread regarding the McDowell apologetics and the critique. In that thread, you can refute the critique and demonstrate where the knowledge/logic is lacking.

Thanks for you answers.

(BTW, don't stick your toungue out at me again. That's something my 5 year old does when he realizes he's lost an argument)

sakrilege

I would like to second this suggestion.

Susan

Stephen T-B

Joel, I am not now asking any questions - merely making a point; I expect you’ll skip over most of this, but perhaps not everyone will...

For compelling reasons you are able to believe in the Christian god and the reliability of the Bible as a record of real events.
In the absence of those compelling reasons, I don’t.
Thus far there is a kind of equivalency, but from here on it ends.
I can speculate as to why you are able to suspend disbelief and regard the Bible as entirely credible, my speculation being that you yearn for certainties: certainty of immortality; certainty that your life has meaning and certainty that a supernatural, all-powerful being loves, guides and looks after you.

I am comfortable with that, and I hope that your beliefs deliver what you ask of them.

(What I do not want is that you should require me or my children to share those beliefs, nor that the organisation which represents your beliefs should assume the right to instruct me and my children in its morality, nor impose its beliefs on the education system is such a way as to substitute Faith for Knowledge.)

You can speculate as to why I do not regard the Bible as even remotely credible, your speculation being that I have sinned and closed my heart to the truth of God’s revelations; that I have surrendered my soul to Satan - or, perhaps, that I have been cruelly misled. In any event, I am condemned to damnation, and because of the evangelising mission which yiu believe Jesus has entrusted you with, your duty is to enlighten me so that I may see the error of my ways, repent and be saved.

In other words, while I tolerate your belief, you cannot tolerate my un-belief. That is the real difference between us

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Stephen T-B ]</p>

Cipher Girl

Brian63

You said
I usually try to use words as they are defined. Agnostic means without knowledge and atheist means without a god.

You also said
But isn't pointing out others rudeness also rude? Oh my, am I being rude?

Joel
No, you are still missing my point. Since many christians define god as all knowing, all powerful, and all good, how can evil exist on the world? Since evil does exist (I've shown an example) that either 1)god cannot have these three attributes at the same time or 2)god does not exist.

So you would let a child stick his hand in a pot of boiling water so he would "learn" not to do it again? Severe consequences for a minor lack of knowledge? Going to an everlasting hell because of lack of evidence in order to believe something? I guess this is another example proving my point. In this instance god is certainly not "all good", if he exists at all.

So why should I become a christian?

I guess we are certainly on two different wavelengths. I would have to perform too many mental gynnastics and rationalization in order to become a believer. That's just not me.

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Cipher Girl ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Cipher Girl ]</p>

Mageth

HoosierGuy28:

To daemon's post: Sorry, HG, but apparently you've misunderstood the fallacy. You claimed that billions of people believe in the supernatural, therefore this should be evidence of its existence. This does not logically hold true, as such a proof would be argumentum ad numerum.

You responded: Not at all. It was suggested as an indicator, so it was a completely valid statement.

Nope, you're trying to redefine what you actually said. It's still an argumentum ad numerum.

Here are your original words:

Billions of people acknowledge that God exists, so that in itself should be an indictator of His existence, or at the bare minimum that should tell you that some supernatural deity or deities exist.

Upon analysis, the second half of the sentence virtually says that "billions of people acknowledging" should "at the bare miniumum" be accepted as proof that some supernatural deity exists(it "should tell you that [it] exist[s]", not it "suggests" or some softer claim).

Now you do use the word "indicator" in the first half of the sentence (please explain how an "indicator" is not "evidence".) But when we dissect the sentence, it appears that you meant the first half ("Billions of people acknowledge that God exists, so that in itself should be an indictator of His existence") to be a stronger argument than the second half (which beings with "but at the bare miniumum"). So in the first half of the sentence, it appears you are arguing that it proves God with a capital G (as in your version of a deity).

(edited to add: I got a little carried away there in my enthusiasm. Simply put, even granting that you were claiming "billions of people" just as an "indicator", it's still an argumentum ad numerum!)

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: Mageth ]</p>

Amazon

Hi, Joel.

This time, I have an actual question.

How can the Christian God be all-knowing, and still grant us free will?

To elaborate,
Either he knows how our lives are going to turn out, or he doesn't. If he doesn't know, he's not all-knowing. If he does know, then our lives are pre-ordained, and there is no free will.

I'll even help out here. Do you believe that each person has a myriad of choices and God knows what all those life choices are and what each consequence will be? If so, how can he not know which choice we will make, if he is all-knowing?

If he is all-knowing, and therefore knows how each life will turn out, why would he doom any person to hell for a living in a way he already knew would lead to hell? Isn't that sadistic and
evil (certainly not all-loving)?

I only really need the first question answered.
Thanks!

DigitalDruid

Joel,
Thanks for your response.

That is my point too! Since it is beyond human capacity we should not make claims that require such impossible effort to back up by your own standard. That is why while scientists say there is no life on the moon (based on reasonable evidence they have), there is yet no consensus scientific claim about existence of life elsewhere in the universe. The later is at present beyond human capabilities. So the honest thing to do is not make ANY claims in that regard.

I am not denying the difficulties you mention in studying large number of religions. But the conclusion you reached require just such an effort by your own standard of true understanding (going to the sources and reading in entirety). I did not invent that standard - it is yours. It only means the conclusion (superiority of Christianity) was based on partial analysis by your own standard or you had to (of necessity) use a lesser standard. I am not saying you were biased. But I am saying the study falls short of your own standard.

This too implies your comparative study is incomplete. How can you rule out that some of these religions might turn out to be the superior one?

In general the amount of research one has to do is related to what is it that you are trying to find out. One can come up with a set of criteria and compare two Christian denominations and list and rank the findings and (hopefully) come to a conclusion. That is a reasonable approach (it would be interesting to know on what basis the set of criteria were chosen though). But to do the same for all religions based on your standard is well night impossible as per your own admission. Yet you say:
(A) So either you used a lesser standard or your analysis was partial in my view. I am not saying it was biased. Isn’t that so?

This was my question. But the bulk of you response - that you recognize the good points of other religions, or that you "didn't say anything negative about Buddhism" during your presentation on Disney movies are not relevant for my question. I do appreciate your tolerance of other religions. Those aspects are not in question as far as I am concerned.

My only question was (A) and (A) alone. I would appreciate you give a response to (A) alone.

I would just reiterate one more question I have from my earlier post (I implied it but did not pose as a question):

Jesus cursed a fig tree. So it is reasonable to assume that the fig tree did something it should not have done. So the fig tree must have had freewill. Right? My question is: based on your knowledge and interpretation of the Bible, what other kinds of plants , insects, birds, fish etc. have freewill? Or is it that THAT fig tree alone had freewill apart from humans? If so, why? I am at a loss.

Again thanks for your response.

Regards

[ October 24, 2002: Message edited by: DigitalDruid ]</p>