Question For The Christians

[bdp]

Let me know where and why you disagree with him.

 

LNC[/size][/font]

 

No.

 

Because you can't?

 

LNC

 

yeah, because I can't. I suck. You win. Feel better?

 

I've tried direct refutation with you and all I get is 'Nuh-uh.' I don't care, be as deluded as you want, you aren't going to listen to reason. Everyone but you can see how empty your 'evidence' is. I don't care.

[bdp]

1. Fuck NT scholars.

 

2. What 'eyewitnesses'? Who wrote the 'gospels'? What do we know about who they were? Who writes about them anywhere else in history? Nobody. The 'gospels' are the putting down on paper of oral traditions, nothing more.

 

3. "...and i would dispute you on that point..."

Oh, please do, I love seeing you get shot down by everyone on this site.

 

'...tis a flesh wound.'

 

It would help if you actually made an argument rather than tossing F-bombs and making assertions that have no backing. You are not showing any knowledge of Habermas' work, so I would suggest you read him to find the answers to your questions before trying to refute him with empty assertions.

 

LNC

 

2. What 'eyewitnesses'? Who wrote the 'gospels'? What do we know about who they were? Who writes about them anywhere else in history? Nobody. The 'gospels' are the putting down on paper of oral traditions, nothing more.

 

I notice you completely avoided this. Naturally. And I have read Habermas, much as you'd like to pretend I haven't. He's worthless - sorry if he impresses you, but that's the way it goes. Oh, and 'fuck.'

[bdp]

Habermas... is no light weight.

 

Uh, yeah, he really is.

 

And you earned your PhD from where? Could you point me to your peer reviewed work in this field? It is so easy to make these claims with the anonymity of a discussion board, but quite another to defend claims in scholarly writings and in debates as Habermas does. Even skeptics with PhDs in the field don't make the silly claims that you are. Sorry to be so blunt, but you only show your ignorance by making these statements.

 

To LNC: I believe you came here looking for genuine debate. I don't care for debate, it bores me. Just dismiss my posts, I'll stop posting, and you can carry on debate with Ouroboros and whoever else feels like humouring you. I don't feel like it and it's not fair for me to keep wasting your time and forum space with (the same) dismissals.

 

 

I think that would be best. Thanks for your consideration in doing so.

 

LNC

 

Seems I changed my mind. And no I don't have a PhD - so fucking what? PhD's don't impress me because I know how easy it is to get ANYTHING from ANY college without actually working for it. ANYONE with half a brain can shoot down Habermas - his very foundation and methodology is flawed and if you can't see that then YOU'RE the ignorant one. The fact that's he's 'defended' them does not mean they've never been refuted - they have. I suspect YOU'VE never read any of THAT. And I'm never sorry for being blunt, and I doubt you are either so don't patronize me. At all, ever again.

[bdp]

If 'jesus''s existence (and 'resurrection')is supposed to be an indisputable historical fact, then why can't the Lord God Almighty Habermas get 100% even from his own minimal base on even the minuscule handful of items he selected from the 'gospels'?

 

Also, why does someone have to be a 'new testament scholar' to have a valid opinion on whether or not 'jesus' existed? And if the NT is supposed to be like any other historical documents then why does anyone need a special degree to interpret or analyze them?

[bdp]

 

 

 

 

In that regard, there is a lot of evidence for Jesus' existence. Lincoln didn't cut down a cherry tree, neither do we believe did George Washington to whom the story is attributed.

 

 

Notice that LNC has made a leap from discussing particulars of Lincoln and Washington to positing mere existence to 'jesus.' We can sift out the apocryphal from Washington, a luxury the 'gospels' don't provide us. With Washington we have primary sources who knew the man - we know who is writing of him, we know who they are, how they related to Washington, if they knew him at all, how closely, and how reliable they are. We don't know who wrote the 'gospels,' if they were eyewitnesses to any of the alleged events, if they ever even met any 'jesus.' This is why the 'gospels' fail as historical documents and why Habermas' 'minimal facts' are worthless.

 

The story of Washington chopping down a cherry tree was invented by Mason Locke Weems. Who invented the story of 'Jesus' cursing the fig tree?

[Ouroboros]

It is more appropriate to look at what the scholars who are experts in the field think since they put their efforts into studying the specific area. Scientists aren't as interest in what all scientist think about their field, only what their peers (those who study their specific field) think. IOW, a particle physicist is not interested in what the biologist or geologist thinks about particle interactions, he is interested in what other particle physicists think. In this regard, we are interested in what NT historians think as they spend their time studying that specific field of evidence. BTW, just because a person is a NT historian doesn't mean that the person is necessarily a Christian. Many are not.

Still, historians are historians. If you claim that a non-Biblical historian has less skill to decide if an event in the Bible is historical or not compared with a Biblical historian, I think you're gravely mistaken.

 

 

No one made the claim that truth or facts are created by popular vote. So, why did you suggest that we included European secular historians? Did you think you would get more "votes" for your point of view? You are right, however, that historians look to the artifacts, whether written, fossil, structures, or other artifacts. In that regard, there is a lot of evidence for Jesus' existence. Lincoln didn't cut down a cherry tree, neither do we believe did George Washington to whom the story is attributed.

The popular vote comment comes from the idea of minimal facts, or whatever Habermas calls it. It doesn't matter if 70% of 90% or 10% of scholars agree to the "minimal facts" because they have to study those "facts" as historians, not as believers.

 

And there is not a lot of evidence for Jesus at all. I think the evidence points to a teacher who did exist, but the evidence does not point to a God's son individual. Read Bart Ehrman for instance. I know you disagree with him, but you disagree because you don't believe the same, not because of where the evidence leads you. He follows the evidence in a different path. A path that makes a lot more sense. He takes the evidence and can see that it's likely that a teacher/preacher existed, but his message and him as an individual was expanded upon. He became a myth and a legend. That is what the evidence points to. And that is how most historians do in in Europe and other parts of the world. Only Christian Bible literalistic historians take on this hard-core view of Jesus, God's son, the miracle worker, but historians in general do not.

 

You know this in your heart, but you keep on fighting against it. The more you study this, the more you will realize that you're fighting against yourself.

 

I don't know that any miracles were attributed to Alexander the Great, but maybe you know something I haven't seen in the literature.

I said, "...is that if Alexander did any miracles, historians don't jump on it..." It's a conditional argument. What do you not understand about an if-then statement?

 

Historians don't simply accept everything in the Gospels, they have to have reason to consider the story to be historical, such as, multiple attestation, plausibility, etc. The same standard is applied to other historical accounts as well. There is a science to historical analysis.

And many non-Christian historians accept Jesus as a teacher, based on the evidence, and disregard the miracle parts, just like they would in any other text from that time.

 

If you demand that historians accept the miracles in the Bible, but at the same time they should reject miracles in any other ancient text, it would be selective reading or interpretation. A miracle in the Bible isn't true because it is in the Bible, and all other miracles in other books are untrue because they're not in the Bible. The true and honest historian must either accept all or reject all.

 

The problem with your argument is that it is not just Christians who are NT historians and it is not that the Christians line up on one side of the argument and the non-Christians on the other. There is agreement from both on the minimal facts that Habermas presents.

About 70% agreement among the Biblical scholars.

 

If it's that low in those who are professional in the historical study of the Bible, I can only imagine how low it is if you include all non-Biblical historians. It's a very low number for being factual and evidential.

[Legion]

Paul, is this all you will ever be?

My fortune cookie says change is inevitable.

[Ouroboros]

I think you missed Habermas' point. It is not a popularity contest that he is engaged in, it is a survey of what the scholars conclude, assuming that they have used proper historical methodology in their research. I think that what you are assuming is that they are simply voicing their preferences rather than the results of their historical analysis, and that is a mistake. We trust that experts are doing their work in a methodical and conscientious manner and not simply giving an uninformed opinion.

I consider 10% being a rather high number for the group of disagreement. If the historical record was so obviously and definitely true and a fact, I would like to see less than 10% against. And we're only talking about Biblical scholars, not all historians.

 

So if we would conduct a study of all historians, would we end up with 20% for and 80% against? What would be your response if that happened? Would you de-convert based on the statistical number of historians who are against? Probably not. Because you do know that when the difference is this high, it is most likely because the evidence is interpreted arbitrarily.

 

If their work was methodical and conscientious the consensus would be higher. I think 10% is a high number of actual Bible historians (Christians) to be in disagreement.

 

When we look at 90% of the world's population, we are looking at preferences and opinions, not educated conclusions. Unless you believe that 90% of the population has studied the issue thoroughly enough to make an educated statement on the subject. In that case, then most of the world population believes that God exists, so would you then conclude that God exists?

The study was only directed to Christian Bible Scholars, was it not?

 

So are you saying that the study should either be as small and narrow as possible, or as large as possible?

 

Did he send this survey to German, French, Swedish, Finish, Italian, or Iranian historians? Historians, as in "not all human beings on Earth," but the part of the special field of people who study history and conduct the historical approach to all material in history. Duh!

 

You have misunderstood the ad populum fallacy and misunderstood Habermas' argument, so your conclusion is false. No one has argued for truth this way. If you want a fallacy to think about, you have committed a straw man fallacy. You have misrepresented the argument in order to more easily knock it down.

The minimal facts are obviously based on subjective views, not on solid knowledge.

 

If it was based on solid knowledge and testable research, Habermas would not have to prove his minimal facts by asking around at all. It doesn't matter if 10% or 100% consider a "fact" to really be a fact, if the fact is a fact in itself. Since 10% of Bible Scholars disagree with these facts being actual facts, it means that either those 10% are idiots, uneducated, unprofessional, or completely missing a large amount of evidence, if they are so wrong to disagree with the Habermas facts.

 

Facts are facts. If you have to ask around to check if a fact is fact, then most likely it is not a fact but based on opinion.

 

So no, you're wrong. It is based on popularity vote, not research.

[Ouroboros]

Paul, is this all you will ever be?

It will happen one day, but he has to stop fighting with himself.

 

He's not fighting with us. He's not fighting against opposite views. He's fighting against the arguments in his brain that he can't put to rest. One day, hopefully, reason will take over.

[Legion]

Paul, is this all you will ever be?

It will happen one day, but he has to stop fighting with himself.

 

He's not fighting with us. He's not fighting against opposite views. He's fighting against the arguments in his brain that he can't put to rest. One day, hopefully, reason will take over.

Very interesting take Hans. Very interesting.

[Guest Valk0010]

If I recall its about 70 percent that agree with the existence of the empty tomb, well, I guess that proves it, the other 30 percent can go piss up a rope, the tomb has been proven.

 

EDIT:Hope you notice the sarcasm there.

[Ouroboros]

And evolution is proven because more than 90% of evolutionary anthropologists agree about the fundamental minimal facts about evolution.

[Legion]

Hans, is the following statement true or false? Consensus does not imply correctness.

[Ouroboros]

Hans, is the following statement true or false? Consensus does not imply correctness.

Exactly.

 

The same goes for the minimal facts of Christianity. Evolution is proven through the evidence and the facts, not the agreement. It was a tongue-in-cheek post.

[Crazy Donna]

You say you have no animosity towards others, but your inability to recognise their versions of 'god', which differ to yours, as legitimate, is a key indication that you see them as inferior. You might think you see them as equals, but in real world application, you are unable to see their world views as legitimate, which is why you so strongly desire to convert them to your faith. Deep down, it is driven by an inability to accept the difference of others. You want everyone to be one homogenous group, subscribing to your arbitrary version of 'religion'. You only discuss religion (or in fact socialise with these people, I'm sure) in an effort to convert them. You are not genuinely interested in their world view, and only pay attention to it in order to find ways to undermine it and better attack it for your selfish desires, which are namely to convert them to your religion. While you're trying to coerce people into your world view, you cannot see them as equal, or perceive their religious viewpoints as legitimate. If you saw their worldview as legitimate, you would have no desire to convert them, because you would accept that their decision was final, and that it was not your right to interfere with them.

 

Whoa - hold the fort, CrazyD!

 

I most certainly am able to disagree with someone re: religion without any animosity, and I definitely regard all people as equal. Every human being that has ever existed - all were/are created in the image & likeness of God. The fact that I disagree with them re: the Nature of God, the basis for salvation, the Bible as God's word, etc does not in any way mean that I denigrate their humanity, their intelligence, their worth/value, their rights, their human sensibilities, etc.

 

I simply believe that people who are not Christians are mistaken about true religion. There is only one God of the universe >> to worship another god, or no god (though I believe we all worship something); well, that's simply an incorrect worldview. Can/should I stand idly by as I see people chase empty pursuits?

 

But, do Jews believe that Muslims worship the OT Jewish God, Yahweh? I think not. The Muslim god is so transcendent and aloof, as to be unapproachable and unknowable. The Muslim who hopes to be in paradise does not believe that he will ever see allah or be in allah's presence. And I say 'he' purposely, because many Muslims are unable to determine how the picture of paradise in the Qur'an applies to women.

 

But, as to God being so transcendent as to be unknowable and unapproachable, never to be seen by humans - note what Job said about 2000BC

 

25 For I know that my Redeemer lives,

and at the last he will stand upon the earth.

26 And after my skin has been thus destroyed,

yet in my flesh I shall see God,

27 whom I shall see for myself,

and my eyes shall behold, and not another.

My heart faints within me!

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Job 19:25–28). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

And I know that you're aware of the many passages in the NT where Jesus the Messiah and the Apostles refer to our being in God's very Presence when Christians pass from this life.

 

That I disagree with adherents of other religions and atheism - well of course I regard their beliefs as incorrect. All religions could be wrong, but not all religions can be right. Most religions are exclusive, promising salvation only to their own adherents (I believe Hinduism sees all things eventually emanating back to the Ground of Being).

 

But disagreement is just that - disagreement. No animosity, no rancor >> but pointed discussions? Absolutely. Polemical debate? Compare & contrast religions to determine correct from incorrect? Challenging wrong concepts of God and His revelation, love, grace, justice, mercy, sovereignty, etc >> this is a must.

 

Frank discussion about religion will reveal misconceptions and bring about understanding. Those searching for the true God will find Him, and those who have a relationship with God will be strengthened in their faith as they see the supreme nature of their God and His ways.

 

So, I am compelled to speak with others about religion - in a process that I hope is helpful for everyone.

The very fact that you DESIRE to CHANGE others is animosity. You should recognise that in yourself. Just because you've got something you think is fantastic does not mean that it is in other people's best interests to adopt your worldview. If you genuinely loved people and respected them, you'd quash your desire to convert them, because that desire does indeed come from a selfish place. You regard other beliefs as 'incorrect'. That is why you're driven to 'correct' them. This is a selfish urge. It satisfies you more than it helps them, because you go away thinking you've done the right thing, regardless of the impact your coercion has on others. When you approach people with the opinion that your beliefs are correct and that theirs are incorrect, that does indeed denigrate people. If you thought their worldview was worthwhile, you'd have no desire to change them, and that would mean you respect them. You cannot see them as equals because they don't share your worldview, and you only have two categories to put them in. The first is "People who haven't heard the 'good news'", and the second is "People who have heard the 'good news' and are choosing to 'rebel' against it". You lump people who simply don't believe in your worldview in with people who 'reject' it, because you have to ascribe some kind of blame to them. If you didn't have this animosity towards non christians of all varieties, you would have no desire to insist that they are 'rebelling', and instead you would be able to accept that they in fact simply do not believe in your god. You would be able to guage this subtle difference, but you refuse to because it makes you uncomfortable.

 

I'd say you don't know many muslims that well if you think 'their' god is aloof. They have an experience of 'god' which is just as rich as your own. You just feel a need to deny that, because it undermines the authority of your religion. Since you have no evidence to support the existence of your god, you need to cling to this kind of denigration in order to sell the authority of your own religion. Otherwise, such a denigrating statement would be unnecessary.

 

You sum up our understanding of christianity as 'wrong concepts'. I think you will find that the collective experience of this website will demonstrate a better conceptual knowledge of christianity than you are capable of. We have read the bible without blinkers on. We don't ignore the stuff that reveals god to be a malevolent monster in order to maintain a myth about him being loving and compassionate. We realised that it's all bullshit -- either your god is a liar or he doesn't exist. I'm saying he doesn't exist. Posting bible verses here does nothing for your case because it has no authority. You can post a verse about how great god is, but I can post one back showing how he's a malevolent monster.

 

Discussions are one thing. Seeking to change someone's private worldview because you think it is 'incorrect' is another thing entirely. And to presume that anyone who doesn't share your worldview is 'wrong' is the central pillar of animosity. You automatically assume you are right, even when evidence contradicts that, or when no evidence exists.

[Crazy Donna]

I believe that people who seek to worship this god are wasting their time. I am unable to believe in god, despite my best efforts. The fact that you continue to come here and spout your nonsense to me, and others on this site, indicates your total disregard for us. Not only do you consider us unable to make up our own minds about the existence of god.

 

I certainly believe that everyone can make up their own minds - this is evident.

 

 

No. If you believed that we were capable of making our own minds up about the existence of god, you would have no desire or reason to post here. You would cease posting, because you would be able to accept that we were capable of making our own minds up about the existence of god, and you would realise that it is neither your business what others believe, nor your place to barge in and tell them that they are 'incorrect'. So admit that, or cease posting and demonstrate your belief that people can make up their own minds. You can't have it both ways.

 

 

Believe me, regardless of your philanthropic desires to thrust this 'gift' upon is, we will continue to perceive it as poison, because we have examined it more closely than you have.

 

I think many ex-C's have studied deeply, but not necessarily moreso than many mature believers.

 

Even if god did exist, given what I have learned of him from the bible, I would not worship a monster like that. I am not being a 'rebellious' or 'insolent' lapsed christian. I am telling you that the character of god, as revealed in the bible, demonstrates him to be a monster, the opposite of what you believe him to be. I would have to be an immoral, self serving parody of a human being to praise a god who created me with the ultimate intention that I would burn in hell.

 

??? What makes you think that this is God's intention?

 

You are deliberately pretending not to understand this. I know you're not that stupid, so the alternative is that you are lying about your understanding of what I wrote.

 

If I don't believe in your god, and your god created me, KNOWING that I would not believe in him, and that as a result he would burn me for eternity in hell (because of my unbelief), then your god is a malevolent monster who created me for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of BURNING ME IN HELL for ETERNITY. If you're too stupid to follow that causal chain, maybe you shouldn't turn on your computer.

 

 

I thought long and deeply about the nature of god, the likelihood of his existence, and the likelihood of the miracles of the virgin birth, the creation, and the resurrection. Knowing what I know about the real world as a grown adult, it is patently obvious that these things are untrue. People do not come back to life after being dead for days. You cannot name somebody who has, with evidence to back it up. If someone was really dead, then decay would set in almost immediately. After several days, tissue damage and decay would be so severe that even if circulation and breathing were restored by artificial means, the tissue would be unable to live and regenerate again. Prove me wrong.

 

You are correct - people don't do these things, God does. They're called miracles - and by definition and historical evidence, the Biblical God is able to do anything His holy will desires.

 

Miracles, you say? So why don't we get miracles these days? Why do supposed miracles only happen to gullible, naive goat herders in the Bronze Age Levant? I demand you provide documented scientific proof of a 'miracle' occuring, where the laws of the natural universe are violated for the benefit of someone who prayed for it. I also demand evidence that this event actually occurred, with before and after shots, film footage, and a panel of independent scientific experts to verify it, with no vested interest in 'proving' a miracle took place. Anecdotal 'evidence' will not suffice.

 

I know miracles don't happen, because the laws of the universe are not violated for people just because they ask jesus nicely.

 

 

I am not going to read your books. I have read the bible. I have read countless books on christianity. Why should a few more suddenly change my mind? If the bible is such a great way of spreading god's message, why would I need to read other books to understand it?

 

With your eternal destiny in the balance, why would you not want to make a small investment of time, effort, and $$ to read a couple of books re: evidence for Christianity?

 

Because my eternal destiny is NOT in the balance. There is no afterlife. Why do you think making a threat of hell would encourage me to read your books? I don't BELIEVE in hell. I could tell you to read a book of my own under the threat that the First My Little Pony of the Apocalypse will send you for eternity to the Baddaginnie Model Train Expo. You probably wouldn't find that very compelling, in the same way I find your threat of hell to be uncompelling. Threats of imaginary places don't work on me. By the way, Baddaginnie actually is a real place. Googlemap it.

[Crazy Donna]

 

I do not believe there is a god, and even if you could prove to me that there was, I would not worship him, because he is a monster

 

I think you've touched on the real issue - it's not that we cannot believe in God - it is rather that we choose not to believe on God. It's a matter of our wills - not our intellects.

 

This is an insult and a lie. I do not believe in your god. I did not CHOOSE anything. If you HAD an intellect, you'd recognise that belief is not a choice. You are not able to make yourself believe in Santa, are you? Of course, you're too chicken shit scared of the consequences to try that little experiment, aren't you. I do not believe in your god. You have nothing to argue with and have to resort to childish insults on my character to try to support your arguments. Go staple your testicles to goat's hindquarters. Fuck off and insult someone else.

 

You deliberately overlook all the material in your precious magical book that demonstrates that your god, if he exists, is in fact a malevolent monster, which was my point. Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying "la la la" doesn't make that go away. If you had any integrity, you'd examine your precious book and recognise these failings in your god's character. You'd address THOSE things, rather than insulting people with your disgusting value judgements. But you can't address any of those things, so you deliberately try to brush over them. You are dishonest, and intellectually lazy. You don't want to address any of those issues, because you run the risk of finding that there IS no plausible explanation that reconciles the character of god as displayed in the bible with the feelgood christian character of god you are worshipping. If you could find a way to reconcile both of those things, you'd probably get a lot of converts. But you can't, because god is a human invention.

 

If you have to insult me by calling me a liar, you must be out of arguments. You should probably shut up now because you don't have anything else constructive to say. All you have left is saying that I 'choose' not to believe in your god, and thus by implication, that I am a liar. Go fuck yourself. It is truly pathetic that you have to resort to this. Out of everything else I wrote, you seize one thing and try to turn it to your advantage. I suppose you're so busy forcing your obnoxious beliefs on others that you're too busy to read the rest of our posts. I have stated EMPHATICALLY elsewhere that belief is not a choice, and that I did not choose to not believe. You disgust me.

[rayskidude]

The very fact that you DESIRE to CHANGE others is animosity. You should recognise that in yourself. Just because you've got something you think is fantastic does not mean that it is in other people's best interests to adopt your worldview. If you genuinely loved people and respected them, you'd quash your desire to convert them, because that desire does indeed come from a selfish place. You regard other beliefs as 'incorrect'. That is why you're driven to 'correct' them. This is a selfish urge.

 

Are you limiting this to religion? I mean, if someone in my family has an incorrect understanding about something - is it animosity on my part to correct them?

 

I'd say you don't know many muslims that well if you think 'their' god is aloof. They have an experience of 'god' which is just as rich as your own. You just feel a need to deny that, because it undermines the authority of your religion. Since you have no evidence to support the existence of your god, you need to cling to this kind of denigration in order to sell the authority of your own religion. Otherwise, such a denigrating statement would be unnecessary.

 

I am simply stating what Muslims have told me and and from reading Muslim theology. Have you spoken to a Muslim who believes that they will one day see allah in paradise? Have you spoken to a Muslim who is confident they will even be in paradise? Cuz when I asked them, Muslims replied, "Insh allah" > 'God willing'; or "it was written on my forehead (at birth)." > this is their version of predestination.

 

You automatically assume you are right, even when evidence contradicts that, or when no evidence exists.

 

Prove me wrong.

[rayskidude]

If I don't believe in your god, and your god created me, KNOWING that I would not believe in him, and that as a result he would burn me for eternity in hell (because of my unbelief), then your god is a malevolent monster who created me for the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of BURNING ME IN HELL for ETERNITY. If you're too stupid to follow that causal chain, maybe you shouldn't turn on your computer.

 

1. You're not dead yet, so hope remains.

2. The Biblical God has graciously provided salvation from sin, self, Satan, death, and hell thru Jesus the Messiah.

3. You are responsible to either accept this offer of God's grace; or you may reject, ignore, remain indifferent, etc.

4. What would you think of a child who treated their faithful parent with disdain? Do you think there should be appropriate consequences to this rebellious child? Which consequences this rejection brought upon him/herself?

5. Is any form of punishment appropriate for such behaviour?

6. Are you able to decide this matter for yourself, or are you at the mercy of 'biochemical pre-determinism?

[rayskidude]

I did not CHOOSE anything. If you HAD an intellect, you'd recognise that belief is not a choice.

 

Again, are you controlled by some kinda biochemical pre-determinsim? Is that why YOU did not choose?

 

You deliberately overlook all the material in your precious magical book that demonstrates that your god, if he exists, is in fact a malevolent monster, which was my point. If you had any integrity, you'd examine your precious book and recognise these failings in your god's character. You'd address THOSE things, rather than insulting people with your disgusting value judgements. But you can't address any of those things, so you deliberately try to brush over them. You are dishonest, and intellectually lazy. You don't want to address any of those issues, because you run the risk of finding that there IS no plausible explanation that reconciles the character of god as displayed in the bible with the feelgood christian character of god you are worshipping. If you could find a way to reconcile both of those things, you'd probably get a lot of converts. But you can't, because god is a human invention.

 

Are you referring to instances when God exercised His perfect holiness and justice upon sinful, wicked peoples? Or were the Canaanites and Amalekites just simple pastoral folk, minding their own business and treating all with loving fairness (kinda like the Hobbits in the Shire)- and then they were unjustly and unduly punished? Is that what we see in the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah?

[rayskidude]

First, you have to deal with the unfinished business between us.

Then, you have to obtain my agreement to re-open the Earth/Mars canyon issue.

Then, you have to admit the chicanery,lies and denial you indulged in there. (This is all recorded, but I can show you, if you've forgotten.)

Then, you have to detail every instance of these activities.

Then, you and I have to agree that you've admitted to and detailed every instance of lies, denial and chicanery.

Then, you have ask everyone in this forum for forgiveness, declaring that you practiced-to-deceive and behaved like a hypocrite - claiming to speak God's truth, when you were lying.

Then, you have to ask God's forgiveness for sinning in this way - not in private, but here in writing so that we can all see it.

Then, you have to promise us that you won't lie, dodge, deny or act in any kind of untruthful or devious manner again, anytime you post anything in this forum.

 

Then and only then, will I consider if you've earned my respect. Should the answer be, 'Yes', then I might consider writing your biography.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

BAA - as you've noted, I submitted at least two lengthy posts on flood geology > with the thought that similar phenomena may have formed the Martian NL canyon - as scientists have stated that flood hydraulics may very well have been involved in forming the Martian Chasma Boreale canyon; but in the end I stated that I did not know how the NL canyon was formed.

 

However, I have asked you more than once to provide your theory - and as of yet >> you've not had the 'nads to provide your ideas. Is this because you're clueless re: the formation of the NL canyon?

 

I am waiting.

[DesertBob]

...if someone in my family has an incorrect understanding about something - is it animosity on my part to correct them?

Perhaps not animosity, but other than your own minor children, it is impertinence on your part to decide what is correct for them or to assume the role of "corrector". Even with your children, you can't really dictate what they will believe or think. They are their own persons with their own personal responsibilities. You can influence them (although less than is commonly believed) and they are obliged to respect you by listening to your input, but at the end of the day, what they believe is still their personal affair.

[rayskidude]

The promise of miracle working power is made to all that believe.

Faith is the key to performing miracles, not what time period a person lives in.

 

Really? Where did you pick up this tidbit of information? As far as I can tell - both those statements are wrong.

 

And believers are now left with a watered down Holy Spirit that can’t empower them as promised.

The Holy Spirit of today is only a pale shadow of what it once was.

 

These statements reveal that you are unable to determine the relative power to perform various types of miracles.

 

The fact that God can intervene in the life of a rebellious, spiritually dead, self-worshipping, sinner-by-nature individual who is an enemy of God >> and from that individual God removes their heart of stone and replaces it with a spiritually alive heart of flesh; such that this person is now on a path to love God & others. This miracle of conquering the human heart is way beyond the simple overriding of physical laws as a sign of His power over nature.

[rayskidude]

You and end3 both claim to be in the special zone regarding spiritual knowledge, but the things you try to tell us are not convincing in the least bit. You should also back every single little thing you try to tell us about your sky friend with a bible verse, because it seems you like to make up stories about how your friend works. Granted you do use buybull verses from time to time, but there seem to be more than a tolerated amount of you griping about how gawd really meant this and not that and does this because of this, and so on. Back everything up with your buybull because that is the only tool you seem to have. Anything else is just you talking out of your ass.

 

43 But it shall not be so among you. But whoever would be great among you must be your servant, 44 and whoever would be first among you must be slave of all. 45 For even the Son of Man came not to be served but to serve, and to give his life as a ransom for many.”

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Mk 10:43–45). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

46 and said to them, “Thus it is written, that the Christ should suffer and on the third day rise from the dead, 47 and that repentance and forgiveness of sins should be proclaimed in his name to all nations, beginning from Jerusalem.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Lk 24:45–47). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

17 For God did not send his Son into the world to condemn the world, but in order that the world might be saved through him. 18 Whoever believes in him is not condemned, but whoever does not believe is condemned already, because he has not believed in the name of the only Son of God. 19 And this is the judgment: the light has come into the world, and people loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil. 20 For everyone who does wicked things hates the light and does not come to the light, lest his works should be exposed. 21 But whoever does what is true comes to the light, so that it may be clearly seen that his works have been carried out in God.”

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Jn 3:17–21). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

6 For while we were still weak, at the right time Christ died for the ungodly. 7 For one will scarcely die for a righteous person—though perhaps for a good person one would dare even to die— 8 but God shows his love for us in that while we were still sinners, Christ died for us. 9 Since, therefore, we have now been justified by his blood, much more shall we be saved by him from the wrath of God.

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (Ro 5:6–9). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

 

7 Beloved, let us love one another, for love is from God, and whoever loves has been born of God and knows God. 8 Anyone who does not love does not know God, because God is love. 9 In this the love of God was made manifest among us, that God sent his only Son into the world, so that we might live through him. 10 In this is love, not that we have loved God but that he loved us and sent his Son to be the propitiation for our sins. 11 Beloved, if God so loved us, we also ought to love one another. 12 No one has ever seen God; if we love one another, God abides in us and his love is perfected in us.

13 By this we know that we abide in him and he in us, because he has given us of his Spirit. 14 And we have seen and testify that the Father has sent his Son to be the Savior of the world. 15 Whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God. 16 So we have come to know and to believe the love that God has for us. God is love, and whoever abides in love abides in God, and God abides in him. 17 By this is love perfected with us, so that we may have confidence for the day of judgment, because as he is so also are we in this world. 18 There is no fear in love, but perfect love casts out fear. For fear has to do with punishment, and whoever fears has not been perfected in love. 19 We love because he first loved us.

 

The Holy Bible : English standard version. 2001 (1 Jn 4:7–20). Wheaton: Standard Bible Society.

[DesertBob]

4. What would you think of a child who treated their faithful parent with disdain? Do you think there should be appropriate consequences to this rebellious child? Which consequences this rejection brought upon him/herself?

Well clearly such a child should be roasted over a spit for eternity, and they'd have it coming.

 

Seriously, I think that a child who disdains his or her parents could have any number of reasons for doing so. Since you qualify the parent as "faithful" I take it we can eliminate abuse as a cause of disdain. That leaves us with things like normal teenage hubris, for example, which can be responded to in a ham-fisted, controlling way, which only feeds it, or in a more intelligent manner. I'm witnessing a drama like this right now with two A-student kids where the Dad can't cope with his kids individuation at all, and the mother is quite zen about it. The father uses shaming, yelling, and the like because that's what he grew up with. The mother simply is a pillar of confidence and lets it pass through her. She refuses to engage any drama the children try to lay on her. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to predict which parent is successfully engaging these kids.

 

This is just one example of how Christianity tends to turn these kinds of things into zero-sum games instead of dealing with them in the nuanced manner they deserve. It's as if they think their god was as insecure and clueless as the father in my example above. Even there, the father doesn't disown his children and turn them out onto the street and he certainly doesn't cast them into the outer darkness where this weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.

 

On a more personal note, my 31 year old daughter disdains me, a faithful parent as any ever was. She disdained me when she hit puberty and didn't automatically get a no strings attached free car like all her friends, and never really stopped. It's a character issue in her case -- she lacks empathy circuitry, which probably came from her mother, my first wife, who had the same problem. She sees everything in terms of what's in it for her, and she has no use for a father whose wallet is not open to her at all times without limits. Sure there are consequences to that. I don't let her abuse me or manipulate me and it limits our relationship and my relationship with my grandsons. But I'm not interested in punishing her. She's doing a great job of punishing herself. I would never in a million years disown her or close the door to any appropriate advance she'd make toward me.

 

If there were an omnibenevolent god I'm sure that would be his attitude towards me. I don't understand how you speak of a loving, caring god out one side of your mouth and then fancy that he wants to cast me into a lake of fire. I'm a mere human and have more sense and compassion for my own children than that. What makes it even more amazing to me is that my late wife was a Christian to the end and she was completely unthreatened by my deconversion. She said she had a dream in which she asked Jesus if I were still his. He laughed and said, "Bob has always been mine". That was how she saw it, and it makes perfect sense. Any god of love worth the name would have broad shoulders like that. The god you worship is a petty, vindictive, tin pot dictator.