the right religion

[Agnostic75]

Two threads already exist on it and I have posted on it in detail in others but at least give me the link to yours.

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/154618-tyre-prophecy.html

Please make a post in that thread.

As Dr. Richard Carrier has noted, the Gospels are not reliable historical sources since if supernatural beings exist, evil supernatural beings could have performed miracles, and predicted the future, and deceived humans, etc. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and deceives many people. Unfortunately for Paul, if evil supernatural beings exist, Paul had no way of distinguishing good ones from evil ones, of determining which ones were more powerful, or of even determining that any good ones exist.

Surely chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. There are not any doubts whatsoever that if all Christians had been raised in predominantly Muslims countries, and knew about the Bible, the majority of them would have become Muslims. Research has shown that gender is also an important factor regarding which world views people choose. In most, or all cultures, women are a good deal more likely to become theists, and creationists.

There are also not any doubts whatsoever that if today's skeptics had the same kinds of tangible evidence that people did during the time of Jesus, some of them would become Christians. You have claimed that God is not obligated to provide any more evidence than he does today according to his purposes, but that is not the main issue. The main issue that is that skeptics living today who would become Christians if they had the same evidence as people did during the time of Jesus are not rejecting God, they are only rejecting less convincing evidence than people had during the time of Jesus, and would accept the same evidence that people had during the time of Jesus.

You have claimed that God does not punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and destroys them, but three of your gurus, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and Thomas Aquinas, disagree with you, and so does the Southern Baptist church. If Craig, Zacharias, and Aquinas are right, that is a good reason why people should reject the God of the Bible since no moral God would punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and without offering all of them at least equal evidence.

What fair, worthy, and just goals does God have that he cannot achieve without killing people, and innocent animals with hurricanes?

Why does James tell Christians to give food to hungry people since God has refused to give food to millions of people who died from starvation, including some wonderful Christian people?

You frequently discuss morality. What problems with morality do Christian Scientists have? Are you promoting morality in general, or only Christian morality?

You have said that the Bible is not confusing, but it definitely is confusing. For example, the story of the flood in the book of Genesis is confusing, and that is why millions of Christians disagree about it. If the story is not confusing, then please state what happened, or if nothing happened, and the story was intended by God as an allegory.

The story of Adam and Eve is also confusing since it indicates to millions of Christians that Adam and Eve did not have any genetic predecessors when they probably did. One study shows that 99.86% of American experts accept macro evolution. If those experts accepted creationism, you would definitely use that as evidence in debates. If the Bible said that macro evolution is true, there is no way that you would claim that all of macro evolution has problems. That proves that your claim that all of macro evolution has problems is based primarily, or solely, on faith, not upon biology.

Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Creationism tends to appeal to women, and people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

 

[1robin]

http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/religious-debates/154618-tyre-prophecy.html

Please make a post in that thread.

As Dr. Richard Carrier has noted, the Gospels are not reliable historical sources since if supernatural beings exist, evil supernatural beings could have performed miracles, and predicted the future, and deceived humans, etc. Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and deceives many people. Unfortunately for Paul, if evil supernatural beings exist, Paul had no way of distinguishing good ones from evil ones, of determining which ones were more powerful, or of even determining that any good ones exist.

I have posted in that thread. Carrier is wrong here. The Bible gives methods for determining what source a spiritual being is from and also provides the influence of the Holy Spirit which leads into ALL truth. He is of the type of scholar known as redactionist or revesionists and originated in Germany. It is the assumption that God can't have revealed anything revelatory and then the examination begins. It is a conclusion in search of a premise.

Surely chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. There are not any doubts whatsoever that if all Christians had been raised in predominantly Muslims countries, and knew about the Bible, the majority of them would have become Muslims. Research has shown that gender is also an important factor regarding which world views people choose. In most, or all cultures, women are a good deal more likely to become theists, and creationists.

This is a repeat. I have already suggested Craig's book on the unevangelised and Christianity is the most universal theology in human history. Even if geography determined belief (which it does not) that does not mean a belief is invalid. This is a genetic fallacy.

There are also not any doubts whatsoever that if today's skeptics had the same kinds of tangible evidence that people did during the time of Jesus, some of them would become Christians. You have claimed that God is not obligated to provide any more evidence than he does today according to his purposes, but that is not the main issue. The main issue that is that skeptics living today who would become Christians if they had the same evidence as people did during the time of Jesus are not rejecting God, they are only rejecting less convincing evidence than people had during the time of Jesus, and would accept the same evidence that people had during the time of Jesus.

You are assuming God's primary goal is the maximum number of Christians by any means necessary. Why? If you carry that out to its conclusion why did he not make us all robots with no choice? It may be his goal to provide each individual with a certain level of evidence that meets his intentions. It has been suggested that as miracles became more widely known and cumulative that their necessity was diminished. It is obviously not God's goal to overwhelm everyone with evidence. There exists no other record of miracles even fractionally comparable with the Bible. In what way was God insufficient? You must prove that he intended or was obligated to do more but didn't. You must have a standard to judge by first. Where is it? This also was a repeat.

You have claimed that God does not punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and destroys them, but three of your gurus, William Lane Craig, Ravi Zacharias, and Thomas Aquinas, disagree with you, and so does the Southern Baptist church. If Craig, Zacharias, and Aquinas are right, that is a good reason why people should reject the God of the Bible since no moral God would punish skeptics for eternity, without parole, and without offering all of them at least equal evidence.

That is like refusing a Polio shot because it stings. Only atheistic rationales are that screwed up. Why deny the solution because of the problem? I am obligated to Christ not Craig or Aquinas. Why is that even mentioned? Am I responsible for every Christian doctrine any Christian believes? Whatever Hell actually is not known with any certainty or comprehensively enough resolve any issue about God by. This also was a repeat.

What fair, worthy, and just goals does God have that he cannot achieve without killing people, and innocent animals with hurricanes?

Why is anything you do not like unjustified? Why not get rid of sickness, poverty, or anything else inconvenient. What you like is not the standard by which God allows things or not. Freewill means choosing badly, choosing badly leads to suffering personally or corporately. Suffering leads to knowledge. I do not like hurricanes either but I do not think what I like is the arbiter of truth. You are simply stating the problem of evil in a hundred ways. I have answered it enough.

Why does James tell Christians to give food to hungry people since God has refused to give food to millions of people who died from starvation, including some wonderful Christian people

What food is there to give unless God gave it first. Who cares about method if the agency and source is God?

You frequently discuss morality. What problems with morality do Christian Scientists have? Are you promoting morality in general, or only Christian morality?

Repeat. Without God no objective moral foundation exists at all for any group to practice. Without him morality is an illusion. That is far more important than bickering over which group gets it the rightest.

You have said that the Bible is not confusing, but it definitely is confusing. For example, the story of the flood in the book of Genesis is confusing, and that is why millions of Christians disagree about it. If the story is not confusing, then please state what happened, or if nothing happened, and the story was intended by God as an allegory.

The lesson behind the story is about as simplistic as possible whether allegory or literal. The message is evil causes suffering and that evil will and is being judged. A 5 year old understands the lesson behind it.

The story of Adam and Eve is also confusing since it indicates to millions of Christians that Adam and Eve did not have any genetic predecessors when they probably did. One study shows that 99.86% of American experts accept macro evolution. If those experts accepted creationism, you would definitely use that as evidence in debates. If the Bible said that macro evolution is true, there is no way that you would claim that all of macro evolution has problems. That proves that your claim that all of macro evolution has problems is based primarily, or solely, on faith, not upon biology.

I most certainly would claim it has problems even if the Bible said it was true. Unlike the natural though God is the answer to many problems as a matter of faith. Everything the Bible says has problems and just as often God is the solution. Natural law does not have that options and so problems are a lot more of a handicap.

Michael Behe, Ph.D., biochemistry, says:

"For example, both humans and chimps have a broken copy of a gene that in other mammals helps make vitamin C. ... It's hard to imagine how there could be stronger evidence for common ancestry of chimps and humans. ... Despite some remaining puzzles, there’s no reason to doubt that Darwin had this point right, that all creatures on earth are biological relatives.” The Edge of Evolution, pp 71–2.

Yet he believe in God. If physicists are used as evidence for atheism why are biologists not for theism? Inconsistency. BTW his argument did not solve a single "problem" I have ever mentioned.

Creationism tends to appeal to women, and people who have less education, and people who have lower incomes.

This is like the tenth time you have posted this. It is slightly offensive, it is a fallacy, and is also irrelevant. People with less education have spent less time being told that macro-evolution is true. Brainwashing works regardless of whether what is being taught is true. The most exposed are the most affected. For this to be relevant you would have to show that those with equal knowledge and equal lack of preconceptions mostly went with a certain conclusion.

 

[Agnostic75]

I have posted in that thread. Carrier is wrong here. The Bible gives methods for determining what source a spiritual being is from and also provides the influence of the Holy Spirit which leads into ALL truth. He is of the type of scholar known as redactionist or revisionists and originated in Germany. It is the assumption that God can't have revealed anything revelatory and then the examination begins. It is a conclusion in search of a premise.

Absolutely not. I thought of that argument myself years before I read that Carrier made it. Logically, if powerful supernatural beings exist, there is no way that puny, imperfect, fallible humans could determine which supernatural beings are good, and which are evil, or even that any good supernatural beings exist.

You have said that fulfilled prophecies are one of the reasons why the Bible is true, but aside from the probability that there are probably not any, if good and evil supernatural beings exist, you cannot reasonably prove that they cannot predict the future, and that they did not inspire Bible prophecies.

Logically, there is not a necessary correlation between having power, and being good. A supposed God can be good, evil, or amoral.

This is a repeat. I have already suggested Craig's book on the unevangelised and Christianity is the most universal theology in human history. Even if geography determined belief (which it does not) that does not mean a belief is invalid. This is a genetic fallacy.

Geography most assuredly does sometimes determine belief. That is irrefutable because of the fact that if all Christians had been raised by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, and knew about the Bible, which many Muslims in those countries do, many of them would have become Muslims. If you insist on claiming otherwise, I will start a new thread on this issue at the Religious Debates forum since it has more members, and more readers than this forum does. No rational person would claim that geography does not largely determine acceptance of Islam in Iran.

The belief is invalid since the Bible indicates that God is fair, and loving, but God is not fair, and loving since he refuses to provide at least equal evidence to everyone, and causes all kinds of unnecessary confusion, including threatening people with eternal punishment without parole by using questionable human proxies instead of directly, audibly, and tangibly communicating with everyone in the world himself.

Since geography can often determine what people believe, that is a very poor, often ineffective means for a fair, loving God to use to communicate with people when he could easily directly communicate with everyone in the world.

You have said that the Bible is not confusing, but it definitely is confusing. For example, the story of the flood in the book of Genesis is confusing, and that is why millions of Christians disagree about it. If the story is not confusing, then please state what happened, or if nothing happened, and the story was intended by God as an allegory.

The lesson behind the story is about as simplistic as possible whether allegory or literal. The message is evil causes suffering and that evil will and is being judged. A 5 year old understands the lesson behind it.

For many Christians, it is very important what happened, not just what the message is. The texts do not clearly say what, if anything happened, and that has caused lots of unnecessary confusion among millions of Christians.

You are assuming God's primary goal is the maximum number of Christians by any means necessary. Why? If you carry that out to its conclusion why did he not make us all robots with no choice? It may be his goal to provide each individual with a certain level of evidence that meets his intentions. It has been suggested that as miracles became more widely known and cumulative that their necessity was diminished. It is obviously not God's goal to overwhelm everyone with evidence. There exists no other record of miracles even fractionally comparable with the Bible. In what way was God insufficient? You must prove that he intended or was obligated to do more but didn't. You must have a standard to judge by first. Where is it? This also was a repeat.

You are not making any sense since Jesus established the standard, and God changed it later by refusing to provide at least equal evidence for all generations of people.

That is like refusing a Polio shot because it stings. Only atheistic rationales are that screwed up. Why deny the solution because of the problem? I am obligated to Christ not Craig or Aquinas. Why is that even mentioned? Am I responsible for every Christian doctrine any Christian believes? Whatever Hell actually is is not known with any certainty or comprehensively enough resolve any issue about God by.

If you are right, that makes your arguments much worse than they already are since that means that God has threatened people with unknown possible eternal consequences through questionable human proxies. Eternal punishment without parole under any circumstances is immoral, and unfair, and is much more so if everyone does not have at least equal evidence.

Since almost any atheist would love to have a comfortable eternal life, which means a certain kind of eternal life, you are not making any sense. Atheists reject the existence of all Gods, including impersonal, non-bossy Gods, not just the God of the Bible, so your arguments about atheists not wanting the God of the Bible to tell them what to do is ridiculous.

Why is anything you do not like unjustified?

Unfairness, a lack of equal opportunity, and possible eternal punishment without parole, are unjustified, not just because of what I said, but because what I said is intuitive, and appeals to fairness, common sense, logic, and reason.

Why not get rid of sickness, poverty, or anything else inconvenient.What you like is not the standard by which God allows things or not. Freewill means choosing badly, choosing badly leads to suffering personally or corporately. Suffering leads to knowledge. I do not like hurricanes either but I do not think what I like is the arbiter of truth. You are simply stating the problem of evil in a hundred ways. I have answered it enough.

But all of the destruction that God causes is not necessary to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals. Much less destruction could still achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals. Providing enough food for everyone to eat would not prevent God from achieving any fair, worthy, and just goal.

Why does there need to be any suffering at all? Since God knows who will get saved, why didn't he bypass this existence and create the hereafter, thereby eliminating a lot of needless suffering?

Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and die. They do not gain any useful knowledge.

Why does God harm innocent animals?

I most certainly would claim [that macro evolution] has problems even if the Bible said it was true.

Absolutely not, your objections to macro evolution are based primarily on faith. That could easily be proven if you would be willing to debate some experts at Physics Forums, but you have refused to do that since you know that you are only a dabbler in biology. You are just bluffing since you know that none of your opponents at these forums are experts.

Unlike the natural though God is the answer to many problems as a matter of faith.

If faith is all that matters, one person's faith is just as good as another person's faith. If science matters, it indicates to the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts, that Adam and Eve, if they existed, had genetic predecessors, contrary to what the texts indicate if the writer intended for the story to be interpreted literally. Surely nothing practical would be gained for humans, or for a God, for a fair, loving God to inspire a book as confusing as the Bible is.

Everything the Bible says has problems and just as often God is the solution. Natural law does not have that options and so problems are a lot more of a handicap.

I am not talking about natural law, I am talking about theistic evolution versus creationism, and about the Bible being unnecessarily confusing about those issues if a God inspired it. Whatever problems theistic evolution has, creationism has far more problems. In fact, the entire Old Testament has problems as far as all supernatural claims are concerned.

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Second, after God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

 

[Agnostic75]

Everything the Bible says has problems and just as often God is the solution. Natural law does not have that options and so problems are a lot more of a handicap.

Is God the solution for heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, hurricanes, tidal waves, and earthquakes?

Please reply to my previous post.

 

[metis]

Is God the solution for heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, hurricanes, tidal waves, and earthquakes?

In reference to your list above, the irony is that if one takes the position that God created all, then God is not "the solution" but the problem. To me, this doesn't necessarily translate out to there not being a god or gods, but it does seem to indicate that conventional Abrahamic beliefs are missing something, even though I do not profess to know what that "something" is.

 

[FearGod]

Is God the solution for heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, hurricanes, tidal waves, and earthquakes?

Please reply to my previous post.

This is to show us his strength and our weakness.

Can you stop an earthquake or a hurricanes from coming.

 

[1robin]

Logically, if powerful supernatural beings exist, there is no way that puny, imperfect, fallible humans could determine which supernatural beings are good, and which are evil, or even that any good supernatural beings exist.

I did not say we could though I believe we can. I said GOD supplied the methods to determine it.

You have said that fulfilled prophecies are one of the reasons why the Bible is true, but aside from the probability that there are probably not any, if good and evil supernatural beings exist, you cannot reasonably prove that they cannot predict the future, and that they did not inspire Bible prophecies.

I did not say it is evidence the Bible is good, I said true and from the supernatural. You keep using one argument in another context. Claiming 2500 prophecies are wrong is just hyperbolic nonsense.

There are test for truth and probably tests for Goodness and they are almost exclusive.
Logically, there is not a necessary correlation between having power, and being good. A supposed God can be good, evil, or amoral.

Geography most assuredly does sometimes determine belief.

That is not what you said and not true anyway. It is also a repeat and a fallacy. How did you do all that in one sentence.

That is irrefutable because of the fact that if all Christians had been raised by Muslims in predominantly Muslim countries, and knew about the Bible, which many Muslims in those countries do, many of them would have become Muslims. If you insist on claiming otherwise, I will start a new thread on this issue at the Religious Debates forum since it has more members, and more readers than this forum does. No rational person would claim that geography does not largely determine acceptance of Islam in Iran.

Irrefutable facts are not followed by if this then that and maybe the other proofs. There is no proof but Christianity has flourished even when persecuted by the most powerful empires on Earth that were over 95% other faiths. Christianity overcomes all barriers. It exploded in a nations without a single Christian in it on the death of it's leader. How is that geographic?

The belief is invalid since the Bible indicates that God is fair, and loving, but God is not fair, and loving since he refuses to provide at least equal evidence to everyone, and causes all kinds of unnecessary confusion, including threatening people with eternal punishment without parole by using questionable human proxies instead of directly, audibly, and tangibly communicating with everyone in the world himself.

That is like a kid who got spanking stomping off to his room thinking the parent that has infinite more knowledge than him is unfair and does not love him. Fairness, love, justice, etc.... must be placed into the context of purpose and in an equation with a creature that is entirely corrupt. You have claimed that God could not be morally evaluated and then condemned him in the same post.

Since geography can often determine what people believe, that is a very poor, often ineffective means for a fair, loving God to use to communicate with people when he could easily directly communicate with everyone in the world.

Find the verse that says that all people will be given equal evidence or opportunity or that revelation will be dispensed fairly. In fact what verse are you using for this fair argument in the first place?

For many Christians, it is very important what happened, not just what the message is. The texts do not clearly say what, if anything happened, and that has caused lots of unnecessary confusion among millions of Christians.

What people consider important does not determine what is. Since no one in 4000 years has known or could but billons have believed it is not all that important after all.

You are not making any sense since Jesus established the standard, and God changed it later by refusing to provide at least equal evidence for all generations of people.

What standard? He did not treat every one equally.

If you are right, that makes your arguments much worse than they already are since that means that God has threatened people with unknown possible eternal consequences through questionable human proxies. Eternal punishment without parole under any circumstances is immoral, and unfair, and is much more so if everyone does not have at least equal evidence.

God gave a life we had nothing to do with creating. We chose it to reject the creator. He takes what was always his back and we receive what we chose. That's horrible. We demand the right to take lives we did not create, who never harmed anything, and chose nothing, on the basis of what we chose. Then that morally insane individual condemns God.

Since almost any atheist would love to have a comfortable eternal life, which means a certain kind of eternal life, you are not making any sense. Atheists reject the existence of all Gods, including impersonal, non-bossy Gods, not just the God of the Bible, so your arguments about atheists not wanting the God of the Bible to tell them what to do is ridiculous.

Repeat. Humans have consistently lost everything only to hurt others. We are known for nothing if not cutting off our own noses.

Unfairness, a lack of equal opportunity, and possible eternal punishment without parole, are unjustified, not just because of what I said, but because what I said is intuitive, and appeals to fairness, common sense, logic, and reason.

What a boring world you would have created. This for the hundredth time is a false optimization argument that if actually carried out and not stopped at some arbitrary place would only allow identical God's to be created. It also would not account for corporate judgments.

But all of the destruction that God causes is not necessary to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals. Much less destruction could still achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals. Providing enough food for everyone to eat would not prevent God from achieving any fair, worthy, and just goal.

How do you know a single thing you claimed?

Why does there need to be any suffering at all? Since God knows who will get saved, why didn't he bypass this existence and create the hereafter, thereby eliminating a lot of needless suffering?

The same reason a parent allows a stubborn child to suffer. I know longer entertain what knowing the future means arguments.

Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and die. They do not gain any useful knowledge.

Yes, and every one else can as well. They also go straight to Heaven. Let's stop that by all means.

Why does God harm innocent animals?

They are his and I am not him. You are denying the solution because you do not like the problem. Do you do that with immunizations?

Absolutely not, your objections to macro evolution are based primarily on faith. That could easily be proven if you would be willing to debate some experts at Physics Forums, but you have refused to do that since you know that you are only a dabbler in biology. You are just bluffing since you know that none of your opponents at these forums are experts.

I am done with evolution for now. I just do not care and am bored to death.

If faith is all that matters, one person's faith is just as good as another person's faith. If science matters, it indicates to the vast majority of experts, including the majority of Christian experts, that Adam and Eve, if they existed, had genetic predecessors, contrary to what the texts indicate if the writer intended for the story to be interpreted literally. Surely nothing practical would be gained for humans, or for a God, for a fair, loving God to inspire a book as confusing as the Bible is.

There is not one thing in that paragraph that makes sense.

I am not talking about natural law, I am talking about theistic evolution versus creationism, and about the Bible being unnecessarily confusing about those issues if a God inspired it. Whatever problems theistic evolution has, creationism has far more problems. In fact, the entire Old Testament has problems as far as all supernatural claims are concerned.

Partial DE is confusing to me. Is that because it is imperfect or invalid or because of me?

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Tell that to the 3 out of every four people in history that have thought he made perfect sense.

Second, after God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

Whatever conditions or arrangements were justified before the fall were not after.

 

[1robin]

Is God the solution for heart disease, cancer, obesity, global warming, hurricanes, tidal waves, and earthquakes?

Please reply to my previous post.

Yes, he trumps all evil and will eliminate it in the end all together. Hope your there to see it.

 

[1robin]

In reference to your list above, the irony is that if one takes the position that God created all, then God is not "the solution" but the problem. To me, this doesn't necessarily translate out to there not being a god or gods, but it does seem to indicate that conventional Abrahamic beliefs are missing something, even though I do not profess to know what that "something" is.

God is truth, sin is the denial of that truth, destruction is it's consequence. Whatever it's source we are it's cause. Whatever it's cause or source only God is the solution.

 

[Agnostic75]

Edit: Deletion of duplicate post.

 

[Agnostic75]

Logically, if powerful supernatural beings exist, there is no way that puny, imperfect, fallible humans could determine which supernatural beings are good, and which are evil, or even that any good supernatural beings exist.

I did not say we could though I believe we can. I said God supplied the methods to determine it.

And I said that "logically, if powerful supernatural beings exist, there is no way that puny, imperfect, fallible humans could determine which supernatural beings are good, and which are evil, or even that any good supernatural beings exist."

You against a powerful, evil supernatural being would be no contest at all. Such a being would easily be able to deceive you unless a more powerful good supernatural being prevented him from doing it, and you cannot provide any credible evidence that such a being exists.

You are merely appealing to your emotional self-interest. The Bible appeals to many people primarily because of their emotional self-interest. If there were ten Gospels instead of four, and they all said that God will send everyone to hell for eternity without parole, few people would believe the claim, certainly nowhere near the number of Christians that are in the world today, and most people would try to discredit the claim, and would hope that it is wrong. That proves that William Lane Craig's "multiple, independent attestations" argument is not valid.

Today, if a powerful being showed up, and claimed that he was God, but not the God of the Bible, and demonstrated that he had vast powers, and instantly created a large building, would you believe his claim that he is God? If not, why not? What evidence reasonably proves that a being is God?

 

[Agnostic75]

You have said that fulfilled prophecies are one of the reasons why the Bible is true, but aside from the probability that there are probably not any, if good and evil supernatural beings exist, you cannot reasonably prove that they cannot predict the future, and that they did not inspire Bible prophecies.

I did not say it is evidence the Bible is good, I said true and from the supernatural. You keep using one argument in another context. Claiming 2500 prophecies are wrong is just hyperbolic nonsense.

You have definitely said that many fulfilled prophecies indicate that a God inspired the Bible. Why can't evil supernatural beings accurately predict the future as a means of deceiving many people? Paul says that Satan masquerades as an angel of light, and deceives many people. How could Paul have distinguished good supernatural beings from evil supernatural beings?

There are tests for truth and probably tests for Goodness and they are almost exclusive.

No test would be reliable if evil supernatural beings are more powerful than good supernatural beings are. You have not reasonably proven that any good supernatural beings exists, let alone good ones.

 

[Agnostic75]

Surely chance and circumstance largely determine what people believe. There are not any doubts whatsoever that if all Christians had been raised in predominantly Muslims countries, and knew about the Bible, the majority of them would have become Muslims. Research has shown that gender is also an important factor regarding which world views people choose. In most, or all cultures, women are a good deal more likely to become theists, and creationists.

I have already suggested Craig's book on the unevangelized and Christianity is the most universal theology in human history. Even if geography determined belief (which it does not) that does not mean a belief is invalid. This is a genetic fallacy.

But easily millions of non-Christians who live in countries that are not predominantly Christian have had substantial contact with Christian missionaries, have watched Christian television, have listened to Christian radio, or have read Christian literature, have Christian friends, and Christian relatives, and have rejected Christianity. Such extensive contact with Christianity, which as you said "is the most universal theology in human history," easily qualifies as being evangelized, and easily qualifies as being accountable.

South Korea is one of the most heavily evangelized countries in the world. It has excellent education, and excellent media, and has the largest single Christian church in the world by far. About 29% of South Koreans are Christians. A much higher percentage of Americans are Christians, which proves that geography sometimes determines what people believe. From a Christian perspective, few non-Christians living in South Korea would not be accountable for their unbelief. There are not any doubts whatsoever that some of those non-Christians would have become Christians if they had been raised in the U.S.

Surely the Apostle Paul gave up proselytizing to many people who knew far less about the Bible than many South Korean non-Christians do, and believed that those stubborn people were accountable for their unbelief even if they had died on the same day that he left them.

Find the verse that says that all people will be given equal evidence or opportunity or that revelation will be dispensed fairly.

Equal opportunity is one of the hallmarks of democracy, love, and fairness, and is intuitive for most humans. Few people would approve of a Texas holdem card playing competition where everyone did not start with the same number of chips.

The Bible shows that many people accepted Jesus partly because of the miracles that he performed. If that is true, if those same people had been transported at birth to the future, had been raised in the U.S. by Christian parents, and did not see God perform any miracles like the miracles that Jesus performed, it is probable that at least some of them would not have become Christians. Different circumstances often produce different results for the same people. That is just plain old common sense.

The NIV basically says in the book of Acts that the disciples went about performing miracles in order to confirm the Gospel message. Now that was after the Holy Spirit had come to the church, and after Jesus had performed many miracles in many places, including "throughout all of Syria" according to the book of Matthew, and there were thousands of still-living, firsthand eyewitnesses still around, but God still provided additional evidence of tangible miracles in order to help people become saved. There are not any good reasons why a loving God would want to change a system that worked quite well to get his church started.

Today, people who reject Christianity and would accept it if they had the same evidence that Jesus provided back then are not rejecting ?God, they are rejecting a lack of sufficient evidence of the same kind that God already provided for many other people.

But all of the destruction that God causes is not necessary to achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals. Much less destruction could still achieve any fair, worthy, and just goals. Providing enough food for everyone to eat would not prevent God from achieving any fair, worthy, and just goal.

How do you know a single thing you claimed?

How do you know that God could not achieve any fair, worthy, and just goal if he gave everyone enough food to eat? If hurricanes are necessary in order to God to achieve some of his goals, what goals are those, or do you not have any idea what God's goals are? If hurricanes are beneficial for people, why do people try to avoid them? AIDS would not exist if God had not created a virus that infected primates, and the virus was probably accidentally transferred by a doctor via a vaccine to some gay men who had hepatitis. Animals have transferred a number of viruses to humans.

If God is ultimately in control of everything, you should be very happy since homosexuality, abortion, atheism, and everything else that you do not like will one day not be problems. After all, Paul said that the cares of this world are nothing as compared with the benefits that will come in the next life. How can you have much joy when you spend so much of your life attacking things?

You have criticized homosexuality, and atheism a lot, but if the Bible is true, the majority of people who will not have eternal life will be heterosexual theists, so if you convinced some atheist homosexuals to give up homosexuality, and atheism, from a Christian perspective, they will ultimately not be any better off if they do not become Christians. Your time would be much better spent if you did not discuss homosexuality, and atheism, and spent that time promoting the Bible since acceptance of the Bible would be much more effective at reducing homosexuality, and atheism, than reducing homosexuality, and atheism would be at convincing people to become Christians. Attacking people, or attacking what people do, is a very poor means of promoting Christianity, and turns lot of people off, and is largely considered to be judgmental whether it is or not. Very few people give up smoking cigarettes because people attack them, or their habit. Rather, they respond best when they are provided with better alternatives. However, I approve of your current approach since it is good for skepticism.

 

[Agnostic75]

The God of the Bible cannot exist since it would not make any sense for God to ask people to love him since he can only do good things. In another thread, you said that God did not have to create humans, but that is not a good argument. First of all, Craig, Moreland, and Aquinas basically said that God is the greatest possible being, and cannot improve. That means that God's nature compels him to always do the best possible thing, and creating humans was one of the best possible things that God has done. God must not only do good things since that is his nature, but he must also do particular good things. Otherwise, all good things would be equal, but of course, they are not all equal. Refusing to do good things would be against God's nature.

Tell that to the 3 out of every four people in history that have thought he made perfect sense.

That is an example of the fallacy of "argumentum ad populum," which Wikipedia says "is a fallacious argument that concludes a proposition to be true because many or most people believe it. In other words, the basic idea of the argument is: 'If many believe so, it is so.'"

What you said has nothing whatsoever to do with what I said. When I make good arguments that you know are difficult for you to refute, you often refuse to directly discuss what I said at all, and make a ridiculous reply that does not address my arguments. What I said is very logical for the reasons that I gave. You have not said anything that adequately refutes what I said. I used arguments from some of your own gurus to support my arguments, and the Bible itself says that God is perfect, and cannot lie, and that his nature is unchanging.

You have claimed that God did not have to create humans, but he certainly did since that was part of his nature, and he has to always act according to his nature. Even sinful, fallible, imperfect humans are often compelled by their conscience to do good things, not only good things, but particular good things. An omnibenevolent God would be far more compelled by his conscience to do good things, including particular good things. Surely God must always do the best possible good thing since all good things are obviously not equal.

At another forum, I posted a Youtube video at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PDT7uuccR-s of William Lane Craig claiming that God has free will. Did you watch it? Craig's evidence was absurd, and illogical. Craig spent most of, or all of his time claiming that no outside power could force God to do anything, but none of my arguments has anything to do with that, and I have not disputed that, and that has to do with God's omnipotence, not with his benevolence, which requires him to always do good things. The main issue is quite obviously what is inside of God, not what is outside of God.

Second, after God created humans, his nature also required him to provide many things for them, such as food, eternal life, and keeping his promises, so creating humans alone was not a good thing without those other things. Some babies are born with serious birth defects, suffer a lot for a few days, and then die. Merely being born would not be helpful to those babies if God did not provide them with anything else.

Whatever conditions or arrangements were justified before the fall were not after.

Justification is irrelevant to the valid argument that God has always had to do the best possible thing before, and after the fall. God had to create humans since he always has to do the best possible thing. Even if he didn't have to create humans, after he created them he definitely had to make some kinds of provisions for their survival, and well-being. John 3:16 says that God sent Jesus to the earth because he "so loved the world," and the Bible says that angels rejoice when people get saved. Such love by an omnibenevolent being must by necessity be manifested not only by doing good things, but also by doing specific good things.

Logically, no being is admirable if he does not have the option not to be admirable, and must always do what he does. Morality has no meaning without choice. Choice implies options. God never chooses to do good things since he must always do good things. The notion that an omniscient, omnibenevolent being would ask people to love him is preposterous, and illogical since that would be deceptive, and an omnibenevolent being would not be able to be deceptive. A God might exist, but surely not the God of the Bible.

 

[Muffled]

Ok. Let's go with that analogy.

But, first, the Bible is 2,000 year old. It's more like an outdated Thompson map guide with roads that don't exist anymore, roads missing, and it's for Palestine, but I want to go to New York!


I tried it for 30 years, and the reason why I left Christianity was that it didn't guide me or my family to go through the problems we had. We felt lost. And we tried for many years.

If you have to go to city and use an outdated map and you try it for years and years and you never get to the city but end up in the desert or in the ocean... what would you do? Get a new map!

It is best for you. That's the key. It works for you. It didn't work for me at the end. It did for many years, but then things happened and it didn't work anymore. Hence, we had to follow our hearts.

So in the end, it really comes down to you and how you work it. The Bible probably works for you because you can interpret it on a subjective level to fit your life. But if you get into a situation where the Bible can't map it for you, you're still on your own.

I believe God is eternal. Physical maps change but the spiritual map stays the same. So if your eyes are on Israel and not on God, no wonder you think it doesn't apply to you.

I believe that is because it is supposed to guide one to a personal relationship. A person who has Jesus as Lord does not need problems solved. It may very well be the problems that God wants.

I would find someone who has used the map to get to the city and ask their advice.

I believe that must be the answer that Jesus died on the cross because He only loves me and nobody else.

I beleive, I am never on my own. My life doesn't belong to me; it belongs to Jesus because I have given it to Him.

 

[Muffled]

Great! That's exciting. A contest to see who knows more about God. What fun.

Do you want to write the first message... or me?

Yeah. I guess I'm just not a follower. But I have always looked for someone who knows more about God than I do and have never met such a person. I don't even know how I would recognize such a person. How can you tell if someone knows more about God than you do?

I believe this isn't easy. Now if someone claims to be a mehanic and knows how to fix my car I might believe him if the car ends up fixed and I have no trouble believing the person knows more about cars than I do. However if a mechanic tells me I have an oil leak I might be skeptical and have my oil changed somewhere else to verify it. I might not know more about cars but I know enough to keep from being bamboozled. At any rate I beleive a person who knows his Bible well and gets his prayers answered must know God pretty well.

This probably is best done in PM and I will start.

 

[Muffled]

Except that is not the regards we are using Pure in.

If you want better. Religion that is accepted as pure and faultless...or Pure and genuine, or pure and holy.

Also it's the peacemakers...who will be called children of God...the meek who will inherit the earth, and of course blessed are the poor in spirit for theirs is the kingdom of heaven.

Shrug...but Jesus was just talking mainly to his disciples.

I beleive I can say that I have not practiced pure religion but I definitely am practicing the right religion.

 

[AmbiguousGuy]

I believe this isn't easy. Now if someone claims to be a mehanic and knows how to fix my car I might believe him if the car ends up fixed and I have no trouble believing the person knows more about cars than I do. However if a mechanic tells me I have an oil leak I might be skeptical and have my oil changed somewhere else to verify it. I might not know more about cars but I know enough to keep from being bamboozled. At any rate I beleive a person who knows his Bible well and gets his prayers answered must know God pretty well.

But I deny that the Bible is a good place to learn about God. In fact, I believe that those who follow the Bible too closely will be confused about God.

So how do we resolve the question of how to know God?

This probably is best done in PM and I will start.

As I told you in PM, I don't do PM. Please go ahead and post a new thread here.

 

[FranklinMichaelV.3]

I beleive I can say that I have not practiced pure religion but I definitely am practicing the right religion.

Then James would not agree that you are practicing the right religion.

 

[metis]

God is truth, sin is the denial of that truth, destruction is it's consequence. Whatever it's source we are it's cause. Whatever it's cause or source only God is the solution.

I would suggest that, whether one is a theist or not, we are the solution. We have to deal with what we're dealt and not expect a god or gods to bail us out. To me, the value of prayer is that it gives us the opportunity to contemplate the best and most moral path of action.