Apologists assume too much about the nature of God

[Johnny Skeptic]

Christians claim that God is perfect, but Isaiah 55:8 says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." You cannot possibly claim the perfection of someone whose thoughts and ways you are unaware of.

Comfort is the desired goal of Christians completely irregardless of who provides it. They would welcome a comfortable eternal life from any being, perfect or imperfect.

Matthew 14:14 says "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick." We need compassion today just as much as people did back then, so where is Jesus or the Holy Spirit?

The Bible claims that there is tangible evidence of God’s power thousands of years ago, but what tangible evidence is there of his power and involvement in the lives of humans today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention, calling into question claims that miracles occurred thousands of years ago.

[gtgauvin]

Confirmation bias. A stand-up comic I watched once years ago mentioned sports figures thanking god for their successes, mentioning that no one ever said "Yeah, we were doing OK, until Jesus made me fumble!"

[Johnny Skeptic]

Confirmation bias. A stand-up comic I watched once years ago mentioned sports figures thanking god for their successes, mentioning that no one ever said "Yeah, we were doing OK, until Jesus made me fumble!"

Now that is really good. Thanks very much.

[GakuseiDon]

The Bible claims that there is tangible evidence of God’s power thousands of years ago, but what tangible evidence is there of his power and involvement in the lives of humans today?
I'm not sure whether this is really relevent to this forum. Perhaps you may get a better response if you posted this on the GRD one?

[Johnny Skeptic]

I'm not sure whether this is really relevent to this forum. Perhaps you may get a better response if you posted this on the GRD one?

I have something much more detailed than this in the GRD forum, but I like the extra competition that I hope to get in this forum as well. My topic is suitable for this forum since it is the Biblical Criticism and History Forum. I quoted two Scriptures. They don't have anything to do with history, but they do have something to do with Biblical criticism since the Bible claims that God is good. In my opinion, the goodness of God is the most important topic of all. John 3:16 is the best known Scripture in the Bible, and its talks about God's love, which is essentially the same as his goodness. We need to know whether or not God is actually loving, and that is impossible to know unless he shows up in person, answers a lot of questions and demonstrates his goodness. If Jesus did rise from the dead, we don't know why. All that we have is the Gospel's writers word for what he said while he was on earth.

As you know, the Theology Web allows quite a lot of latitude in its Apologetics 301 Forum. I doubt that you have ever complained about it.

[GakuseiDon]

Fair enough. My answer, then, is that the Bible doesn't provide any tangible evidence of God's power and involvement in the lives of humans today.

[Prairie Star]

God is said in the Bible to be the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him...

And yet, if ever I have known honest and wholly made searches of God, devoted to the pursuit, diligent to look in the vastness of the universe, in all the corners of their own hearts, no stone left unturned...it is the seeking skeptic, the atheist...

This seems a strange thing to me, cos it is the professing believer that is claiming the reward of God found...yet I am not always too sure what the believer has truly found. And the search made smacks of being short-sighted and on the surface. :confused:

What of a God that people ascribe love, truth, and righteousness to? A God whose mercy is said to endure forever? A God who by The Book at least is responsible for atrocities done to many people groups...destroying those that are said to be held in His steadfast love and that it is His will that none perish...don't even those who say they know Him best nowadays give Him credit for their own agenda when successful...those agendas of war, hatred, intolerance, inordinate competition?

Hmmm, to the character of God. If we are to diligently seek God, then we cannot make excuses for Him. When He doesn't answer. When His ways conflict with the essential character He is said to possess. And surely The Church has that same inconsistent demonstration as the God served.

I have these questions about God, and when I felt I needed the guidance of another in faith, I was totally discouraged from the journey by Christians.

It was pretty much discounted as rebellion, this desire to know God truly and more for allowing these hard questions to surface, where prayers could be stated in truth, like the worship song: I want to know you more...

If God is said to be our shelter, why do those who claim to know Him so well attempt to cover for Him, make excuses for Him, try to shutdown the search of a heart that craves truth? What does God have to hide?

Or is He stuck in the chimney, and the reindeer on the roof are getting nervous? :huh:

Love,
PS

[Joan of Bark]

A relevant quote from the NIV: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good -- except God alone." Mark 10-18

Was Jesus telling the truth? If so, Christians cannot claim Jesus was good. (And is not modesty just another form of lying?)

[jonesg]

Confirmation bias. A stand-up comic I watched once years ago mentioned sports figures thanking god for their successes, mentioning that no one ever said "Yeah, we were doing OK, until Jesus made me fumble!"


Thats because only a screwed up athlete would think to blame God for their own failure, so don't expect to hear it too often, it should be a demonstration to you that people with a concept of God tend to be more evenly balanced.
I guess you miss the obvious .

[Prairie Star]

How is this the obvious jonesq? :confused:


Thats because only a screwed up athlete would think to blame God for their own failure, so don't expect to hear it too often, it should be a demonstration to you that people with a concept of God tend to be more evenly balanced.
I guess you miss the obvious .

If God gets the credit when one excels, why does He not also get His name attached to the failures in that believer's life? :huh:

I don't get it...please state the obvious plumb line I somehow am not seein'.

Love,
PS

[Hedshaker]

If God gets the credit when one excels, why does He not also get His name attached to the failures in that believer's life? :huh:


Simple. He does, but God moves in mysterious ways and when things go pear shaped it must be for a greater good which our finite minds can't comprehend.

I thought everyone knew that :rolleyes:

Orbit

[jfryejr]

Thats because only a screwed up athlete would think to blame God for their own failure, so don't expect to hear it too often, it should be a demonstration to you that people with a concept of God tend to be more evenly balanced.For one athlete to succeed, another athlete must lose. If not by god's doing, then by whose?

[Johnny Skeptic]

If God gets the credit when one excels, why does He not also get His name attached to the failures in that believer's life?

Simple. He does, but God moves in mysterious ways and when things go pear shaped it must be for a greater good which our finite minds can't comprehend.

I thought everyone knew that.

If God moves in mysterious ways, let him say so himself. All that we have is Isaiah's word for it.

Why do Christians pray for healing instead of trusting God to work things out in his mysterious ways? So the Bubonic Plague and the recent Tsunami in Asia were for the greater good, eh? Why would you pray for a safe journey when God might have a serious traffic accident in mind for you in order to teach you something, or maybe he just wants to kill you?

What tangible evidence is there that God is working in people's lives today? Why do you assume that God is good? All that we have is the Bible writer's word for it, and there is no evidence at all that any of them ever met God. If God were to show up and answer some questions, then we would have something to talk about, but human proxies claiming that they are speaking for God is a preposterous notion. If your best friend told you that he was speaking for God, would you believe him?

[Nightson]

Simple. He does, but God moves in mysterious ways and when things go pear shaped it must be for a greater good which our finite minds can't comprehend.

I thought everyone knew that :rolleyes:

Orbit

Yeah, jeez, don't you people read Candide, if you have, you know everything works out for the greater good. :p

[jonesg]

How is this the obvious jonesq? :confused:



If God gets the credit when one excels, why does He not also get His name attached to the failures in that believer's life? :huh:

I don't get it...please state the obvious plumb line I somehow am not seein'.

Love,
PS

I'll repeat.... because most people aren't seriously screwed up.

Don't let the implications keep you from the facts.

[jonesg]

God is said in the Bible to be the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him...

And yet, if ever I have known honest and wholly made searches of God, devoted to the pursuit, diligent to look in the vastness of the universe, in all the corners of their own hearts, no stone left unturned...it is the seeking skeptic, the atheist...


Love,
PS

The atheist might be a seeker but diligence implies honest seeking and theres little of that in atheistic defiance.

"in all the corners of our hearts"

Try the knees. The knees.

[Wads4]

For one athlete to succeed, another athlete must lose. If not by god's doing, then by whose?

Nice-very poetic.

[Cross Examiner]

Christians claim that God is perfect, but Isaiah 55:8 says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." You cannot possibly claim the perfection of someone whose thoughts and ways you are unaware of.
The thoughts and ways of atheists are not my thoughts and ways. Yet it is false that I am 'unaware of' the thoughts and ways of atheists.
Comfort is the desired goal of Christians completely irregardless of who provides it. They would welcome a comfortable eternal life from any being, perfect or imperfect.
Irregardless? You mean regardless or irrespective, right? Anyway, I am a Christian and I aim to hold rationally justified belief irrespective of what 'comfort' (or any other psychological carrot for that matter) a belief may or may not provide. So the statement above is untrue.
Matthew 14:14 says "And Jesus went forth, and saw a great multitude, and was moved with compassion toward them, and he healed their sick." We need compassion today just as much as people did back then, so where is Jesus or the Holy Spirit?
I agree. We need compassion today no less than yesterday. In fact, I believe one ought to be compassionate. That is, I hold that the human being as a moral agent has an objectively real moral duty to act compasionately, especially if the agent is a member of the body of Christ (i.e., the worldwide church of God). On the other hand, if we are mistaken and there is no God then I see no reason to think moral statements like 'one ought to have compassion for others' have any ontological implications at all much less that they imply real moral duty. Which is to say that without God, I find insufficient cause to believe moral statements even may be true or binding.
The Bible claims that there is tangible evidence of God’s power thousands of years ago, but what tangible evidence is there of his power and involvement in the lives of humans today?
I think God intends that, for better or worse, the church is to be His 'tangible' presence for the time being. There is, of course, plenty of evidence to suggest the church is extant and active in the world.
An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention, calling into question claims that miracles occurred thousands of years ago.
Absent specifics, or even as much as an unambiguous truth-claim, one is hard pressed to know how the seemingly miraculous and the distribution thereof is in fact completely explained by an appeal to the 'laws of physics'. I must say I doubt this critical angle will prove at all fruitful but I'm always in the mood for a surprise or three.

[Mageth]

The atheist might be a seeker but diligence implies honest seeking and theres little of that in atheistic defiance.

So you're saying atheists don't "honestly seek"? :rolleyes:

BTW, I'm an atheist, and "defiance" has nothing, nillo, zilch, zero, nada to do with my being an atheist.

Honest seeking is exactly what led me to the position of atheism (lacking belief in God).

"in all the corners of our hearts"

...one finds blood.

Try the knees. The knees.

You seem to have some sort of anatomical fixation.

BTW, I tried the "knee" thing for 40 years or so. I got nothing, nillo, zilch, zero, nada.

[mindovermyth]

Originally Posted by jonesg
"Thats because only a screwed up athlete would think to blame God for their own failure, so don't expect to hear it too often, it should be a demonstration to you that people with a concept of God tend to be more evenly balanced." (bold by MoM).

Original question still stands.

Pls inform me (if you care to) whether following statement would be logically consistant with your view:

Only a screwed up athlete would think to credit God for their own success.

[Autonemesis]

The atheist might be a seeker but diligence implies honest seeking and theres little of that in atheistic defiance.

"in all the corners of our hearts"

Try the knees. The knees.

In other words, ignore reason, and blindly submit. But most importantly and before and above all else, submit. SUBMIT.

Or more formally, the argument succeeds only when you assume the consequent.

Weak.

[Johnny Skeptic]

The atheist might be a seeker but diligence implies honest seeking and there's little of that in atheistic defiance.

"in all the corners of our hearts"

Try the knees. The knees.

That is not a valid argument. In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

The three references do not make any mention of prayer, but rather refer to tangible evidence of God's power and compassion. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeabley tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

[Amaleq13]

Irregardless? You mean regardless or irrespective, right?

As painful as it might be to some, the word is recognized in many modern dictionaries. IIRC, it was officially declared a legitimate word a few years ago. Besides, it is generally considered poor form to attack the spelling or grammar of one's opponent unless one is wearing a Grammar Police sock puppet.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Fair enough. My answer, then, is that the Bible doesn't provide any tangible evidence of God's power and involvement in the lives of humans today.

Why thank you. Such a concession is rare among fundamentalist Christians. Aside from what the Bible provides, what you personally believe to be the case today regarding God being "tangibly" involved in peoples' lives?

[jemand]

I don't think people are supposed to answer for God. I come to that conclusion after reading the story of Job. His friends make up all sorts of excuses why Job's suffering isn't God's fault. However, when God finally does show up, he says what these friends said misrepresented him. It is only Job, with his repeated questions, who was accepted.

I think it is a sin to put God's name to one's personal political or military agenda. This is, I believe, the thrust of the third commandment which says not to take the name of the Lord in vain. God will not hold guiltless those who commit attrocities in his name.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I don't think people are supposed to answer for God.

But that is exactly what the Bible writers did. God has never made any public statements to everyone in the world, or to even 0.0000001% of the people in the world.
If people are not supposed to speak for God, then let him show up and speak for himself IN PERSON, not through human proxies. Hearsay testimony testimony has little credibility in court trials. How much more so should we not trust human proxies who presume to speak for God?

The followers of other religions could use your same argument against you. They could tell you that people are not supposed to answer for their gods.

I come to that conclusion after reading the story of Job. His friends make up all sorts of excuses why Job's suffering isn't God's fault. However, when God finally does show up, he says what these friends said misrepresented him. It is only Job, with his repeated questions, who was accepted.

That's what the writer of the book of Job said, but why do you believe him?

I think it is a sin to put God's name to one's personal political or military agenda. This is, I believe, the thrust of the third commandment which says not to take the name of the Lord in vain. God will not hold guiltless those who commit atrocities in his name.

If you opposed laws against same sex marriage and against physician assisted suicide, then I agree with you. The chief opponents of same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide are fundamentalist Christians.

[Thomas II]

A relevant quote from the NIV: "Why do you call me good?" Jesus answered. "No one is good -- except God alone." Mark 10-18

Was Jesus telling the truth? If so, Christians cannot claim Jesus was good. (And is not modesty just another form of lying?)

Also,wasn't Jesus saying here that HE IS NOT GOD?
I think it's pretty clear that he was saying "Hey,don't go around saying that I am good because only God is completely good, and I am not god,so don't go around saying that..." Basically that was his point,wasn't it?

[Johnny Skeptic]

Also,wasn't Jesus saying here that HE IS NOT GOD?

I think it's pretty clear that he was saying "Hey,don't go around saying that I am good because only God is completely good, and I am not god,so don't go around saying that..." Basically that was his point,wasn't it?

Jesus aside, what evidence is there that God is good?

[jemand]

But that is exactly what the Bible writers did. God has never made any public statements to everyone in the world, or to even 0.0000001% of the people in the world.
If people are not supposed to speak for God, then let him show up and speak for himself IN PERSON, not through human proxies. Hearsay testimony testimony has little credibility in court trials. How much more so should we not trust human proxies who presume to speak for God?


I think there is a difference between recording a personal experience, and presuming to speak/answer for God. A lot of the Bible is written by people who are basically just writing down their life's story. I think most everyone goes through life trying to do the best possible job of living they can do, and by reading about someone else's mistakes you might learn how to do better yourself.

You'll probably ask me then why pick the Bible. I think the Bible writers did have a genuine experience with God that moved them to write, but I also believe that that experience was clouded by their personal culture and biases, and the fact that they had to explain themselves using human language, which may not be able to convey much of the truth about God.

I think that personal conscience, in those who have one, is perhaps how God choses to talk to people most of the time.


If you opposed laws against same sex marriage and against physician assisted suicide, then I agree with you. The chief opponents of same sex marriage and physician assisted suicide are fundamentalist Christians.


I oppose legislating morality, precisely because I think the reason God doesn't show up and speak publically is because God wants to give people the freedom to believe, OR disbelieve. It sure would be possible for God to come to America and run the country, and pass laws against same sex marriage or physician assisted suicide or whatever else. However, I think I probably would be considered a fundamentalist Christain because I believe the Bible is true. I believe that by faith though, and can't prove it.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I think there is a difference between recording a personal experience, and presuming to speak/answer for God. A lot of the Bible is written by people who are basically just writing down their life's story.

There is no external what their life story was regarding claims of the supernatural.

I think most everyone goes through life trying to do the best possible job of living they can do, and by reading about someone else's mistakes you might learn how to do better yourself.

Fine, but that doesn't enable us to reliably determine what happened thousands of years ago, and it doesn't help us to reliably determine whether or not God is active in tangible ways in peoples' lives today. What evidence do you have that God was good 2,000 years ago, and that he is still good today?

You'll probably ask me then why pick the Bible. I think the Bible writers did have a genuine experience with God that moved them to write,

Why is that?

but I also believe that that experience was clouded by their personal culture and biases, and the fact that they had to explain themselves using human language, which may not be able to convey much of the truth about God.

That assessment actually helps my arguments.

I think that personal conscience, in those who have one, is perhaps how God choses to talk to people most of the time.

Does that apply to Muslims and Hindus as well who are aware of the Gospel message and have rejected it?

[Thomas II]

Jesus aside, what evidence is there that God is good?

Wait,answer my question first...Wasn't Jesus saying there that he was not God?

Regarding your question, "good" or "bad" are relative terms that would not apply to a god who is said to transcend the relative world. I don't have a concept of the religious god. To me to say that god is good is like saying
the law of gravity is good...In itself it is neither good nor bad. It simply is.
Some see that neutrality as "good" because at least it has no bad intentions.

[jemand]

There is no external what their life story was regarding claims of the supernatural.

I really don't understand that.


Fine, but that doesn't enable us to reliably determine what happened thousands of years ago, and it doesn't help us to reliably determine whether or not God is active in tangible ways in peoples' lives today. What evidence do you have that God was good 2,000 years ago, and that he is still good today?

I don't think it's possible to empirically prove or disprove the existance of a good God. Several years ago I came to this conclusion and assumed that there was a God, and have lived my life acording to this fact. Therefore, any evidence I've come across to support the supposition that God is good is really just begging the question. But I think any kindness there is in humans is just a reflection of the goodness of God.


Why is that?


Why the Bible? Partly because the prophecies it contains were fulfilled in the way it said they would be. Partly because it contains a lot of good common sense stuff. Partly because I haven't come across anything better yet.

(Originally Posted by jemand
but I also believe that that experience was clouded by their personal culture and biases, and the fact that they had to explain themselves using human language, which may not be able to convey much of the truth about God.)

That assessment actually helps my arguments.

confused again, sorry. Which argument does this help?


Does that apply to Muslims and Hindus as well who are aware of the Gospel message and have rejected it?

I believe God will judge everyone according to what they did with the amount of light they were shown. Yes, many Muslims and Hindus are aware of the Gospel, rejected it, and still are guided by their conciences. I think this is evidence that God has not rejected them. Many Christians twist the Gospel so much that it's no wonder people don't want to have anything to do with it. An eternally burning hell being an example.

[jonesg]

God is said in the Bible to be the rewarder of those who diligently seek Him...

It was pretty much discounted as rebellion, this desire to know God truly and more for allowing these hard questions to surface, where prayers could be stated in truth, like the worship song: I want to know you more... PS


I don't suppose the consistent answer to most atheists, "its your defiance" , catches your attention.

Your questions are expressions of defiance and nothing less.
And not getting the answers you demand you can say "see I'm right".

If you're so right, why not just get on with your life then and forget all this nonesense, or are you waiting with the reindeer...on the roof and full of doubt.?

[Johnny Skeptic]

Why the Bible? Partly because the prophecies it contains were fulfilled in the way it said they would be.

Please give me two examples of prophecies that were made and fulfilled in the Old Testament.

Partly because it contains a lot of good common sense stuff.

So do some other world views.

Partly because I haven't come across anything better yet.

I believe that agnosticism is better than any other world view. Historically, the vast majority of people have followed all sorts of religions because they want to have a well-defined reason for living in this life, and because they want to eventually enjoy a comfortable eternal life. Belief in religion has emotional benefits, but the benefits are not based upon logic and reason.

I believe God will judge everyone according to what they did with the amount of light they were shown. Yes, many Muslims and Hindus are aware of the Gospel, rejected it, and still are guided by their consciences. I think this is evidence that God has not rejected them. Many Christians twist the Gospel so much that it's no wonder people don't want to have anything to do with it. An eternally burning hell being an example.

A good conscience indicates good works. Are you saying the good works guarantee salvation? What tangible evidence do you have that God was good in tangible ways 2,000 years ago, and that he is still good in tangible ways today?

[jemand]

Please give me two examples of prophecies that were made and fulfilled in the Old Testament.

Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

This is exactly what happened, when the Persians came to Babylon, they diverted the river and walked directly into the city. The gates were not shut as they should have been, the king before him was partying. Then Cyrus did give the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.

Another example could be Daniel’s prophetic vision, predicting the fall of Babylon, the rise of Medo-Persia, then Greece, then the Romans. This takes some symbolic interpretation though it is rather clear.


I believe that agnosticism is better than any other world view. Historically, the vast majority of people have followed all sorts of religions because they want to have a well-defined reason for living in this life, and because they want to eventually enjoy a comfortable eternal life. Belief in religion has emotional benefits, but the benefits are not based upon logic and reason.

What benefits does agnosticism offer?


A good conscience indicates good works. Are you saying the good works guarantee salvation? What tangible evidence do you have that God was good in tangible ways 2,000 years ago, and that he is still good in tangible ways today?


I don’t think good works necessarily guarantee salvation. I think a Christian who is saved will automatically do good works, not to earn salvation, but because of it. In the same way, I think anyone who is truly following the light they have been shown will be kind to others and “do good works� not necessarily to “earn salvation,� but because it is a natural consequence of seeking salvation.

[Johnny Skeptic]

A good conscience indicates good works. Are you saying the good works guarantee salvation? What tangible evidence do you have that God was good in tangible ways 2,000 years ago, and that he is still good in tangible ways today?

I don’t think good works necessarily guarantee salvation. I think a Christian who is saved will automatically do good works, not to earn salvation, but because of it. In the same way, I think anyone who is truly following the light they have been shown will be kind to others and “do good works� not necessarily to “earn salvation,� but because it is a natural consequence of seeking salvation.

You didn't answer my question. What evidence do you have that God was good in tangible ways 2,000 years ago, and that he is still good in tangible ways today?"








Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

This is exactly what happened, when the Persians came to Babylon, they diverted the river and walked directly into the city. The gates were not shut as they should have been, the king before him was partying. Then Cyrus did give the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.

Another example could be Daniel’s prophetic vision, predicting the fall of Babylon, the rise of Medo-Persia, then Greece, then the Romans. This takes some symbolic interpretation though it is rather clear.


What benefits does agnosticism offer?




I don’t think good works necessarily guarantee salvation. I think a Christian who is saved will automatically do good works, not to earn salvation, but because of it. In the same way, I think anyone who is truly following the light they have been shown will be kind to others and “do good works� not necessarily to “earn salvation,� but because it is a natural consequence of seeking salvation.

[Wads4]

"Christians assume too much about the nature of God "

Christians assume too much when they assert that there is such a person.

[Wads4]

"Isa 44:28 That saith of Cyrus, He is my shepherd, and shall perform all my pleasure: even saying to Jerusalem, Thou shalt be built; and to the temple, Thy foundation shall be laid.
Isa 45:1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut;

This is exactly what happened, when the Persians came to Babylon, they diverted the river and walked directly into the city. The gates were not shut as they should have been, the king before him was partying. Then Cyrus did give the decree to rebuild Jerusalem.

Another example could be Daniel’s prophetic vision, predicting the fall of Babylon, the rise of Medo-Persia, then Greece, then the Romans. This takes some symbolic interpretation though it is rather clear.

But if all of this was written up AFTER the events, "in order that the prophecies might be fulfilled",-then it would not be prophetic after all would it? Apparently this happened all the time. Another example was Jesus riding into Jerusalem on an ass and a colt, the foal of an ass, in order that the OT prophecy in Zechariah 9:9 would be fulfilled.
I ask you which is more likely: that the so-called prophets used this literary trick of backwards revision, or that they all were clairvoyant?

"

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to Jemand:

I still need for you to provide evidence that Jesus helped people in tangible ways, and that God is good in tangible ways today. Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite “tangible� evidence of Jesus’ power.

More “tangible� evidence comes from Acts 14:3 and Matthew 14:14. Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.� Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

[jemand]

Have you taken the time and work to provide the "tangible" evidences of God's goodness 2,000 years ago? If so, thanks. If what you posted isn't enough, what more do you want?

As for today. Well, first off, who says God only gives "tangible" good things to his followers? Jesus didn't always ask first whether someone believed before he gave them a "tangible" benefit. In fact, that physical benefit in many cases probably preceded a reordering of the life and priorities in the recipient, and afterwards they began to believe. Not always though.

So, if I said all unusual healings are evedence that God is good would you be happy? I doubt it. Is the fact that I'm alive a tangible benefit? I would say yes. The fact that I can think? I would say yes again. There's a whole lot that I see in the world and in my life that I consider as coming from a benevolant God. However, as I stated before, I think this is due in part to my assuption that God exists. If I did not think God existed, I would see the world in an entirely different light.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Have you taken the time and work to provide the "tangible" evidences of God's goodness 2,000 years ago?

What evidences? Please quote book, chapter and verse.

As for today. Well, first off, who says God only gives "tangible" good things to his followers?

Who says that he gives tangible things at all today? If God does not exist, then it is to be expected that the only available blessings would be spritual, otherwise stated emotional. All other religions that claim tangible benefits from their Gods are in the very same boat.

Jesus didn't always ask first whether someone believed before he gave them a "tangible" benefit. In fact, that physical benefit in many cases probably preceded a reordering of the life and priorities in the recipient, and afterwards they began to believe. Not always though.

My position is that there isn't any evidence at all that Jesus performed any miracles at any time.

So, if I said all unusual healings are evedence that God is good would you be happy? I doubt it. Is the fact that I'm alive a tangible benefit? I would say yes. The fact that I can think? I would say yes again. There's a whole lot that I see in the world and in my life that I consider as coming from a benevolent God. However, as I stated before, I think this is due in part to my assumption that God exists. If I did not think God existed, I would see the world in an entirely different light.

The odds are far greater that very unusual things WILL sometimes occur than they are that they WILL NEVER occur. In fact, the very best example that I can think of of a miracle would be if very unusual things NEVER occurred. The only possible way that such a scenario could possibly occur would be if a powerful being prevented very unusual things from occurring.

Would a loving God cure a man of cancer and then choose to allow the very same man to have a serious traffic accident that would prevent him from ever being able to walk, work, or ever enjoy playing with his children again? Of course not, but things like that frequently happen.

Jemand, your arguments fail mainly because the texts says that even Jesus' enemies acknowledged that he had supernatural powers, but that his powers came from Beelzebub. Jesus made sure that both sides knew that he had supernatural powers. He didn't ask people to believe his soley based upon faith. Today, the enemies of Christianity DO NOT acknowledge the existance of supernatural powers. In other words, the texts say that it was noticeable to Jesus' friends AND enemies that he had supernatural powers. We deserve to have noticeable evidence of God's supernatural power today as much or more than people did back then.

Very unusual things sometimes happen to animals. How do you account for those very unusual things?

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite “tangible� evidence of Jesus’ power.

More “tangible� evidence comes from Acts 14:3 and Matthew 14:14. Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders.� Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of “the message of his grace� that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus. Today, in court trials, it is often difficult to reliably establish what happened just weeks before, even sometimes with the testimonies of supposed eyewitnesses, let alone reliably establish what happened thousands of years ago based up second and third hand testimonies.

The question needs to be asked, "Would Jesus appearing to 10,000 people with disparate world views instead of appearing to 500 of “the brethren,� reference 1 Corinthians 15:6, have helped the spread of Christianity, hindered the spread of Christianity, or not made any difference at all? Obviously, the first choice is the best answer. If Christianity is true, if choice number one had actually been the case, a lot more people would end up in heaven and a lot less people would end up in hell.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I would appreciate it if some Christians would give their opinions regarding my opening post.

[jemand]

Well, I think you and I both agree that it's really dificult to prove what did or did not happen 2,000 years ago. You've quoted many verses that to me sound like they support the idea Jesus handed out tangible benifits.

As for today, like I said before, I think a lot of things are "tangible benifits" that you regard as just normal, par for the course so to speak. Such things would be, the fact that I can think to respond to your post, the ability to see, hear, taste, etc. The fact that I have enough to eat. I honestly believe God has been working in my life. Like I said before though, if I didn't believe God existed I could see everything I see now just exactly as it is now, and see absolutely no evidence of God's existence. You have to believe to see it, in my opinion.

[Lazarus Nichodemus]

Comfort is the desired goal of Christians completely irregardless of who provides it. They would welcome a comfortable eternal life from any being, perfect or imperfect.

Johnny, what "Christians"? All christians? Some Christians?...

"Atheists just want to abolish moral rules and have anarchy ensue." Not an accurate statement of Atheists

My favorite statements about a culture always start with an absolute that lumps the whole culture together. Maybe you haven't noticed but not all christians are carbon-copies of one another. Perfect example; I don't want Pat Robertson, Jerry Falwell, Benny Hinn or any other over the top radical being the face of Christianity for me.

To the rest of your statement. Just for clarifiction "Christians would follow Barney the purple dinosaur if he were promising eternal security" I'm assuming that is the thesis of your argument.

Just as we discussed previously that is a statement based on opinion and conjecture. Your factual information comes from what source?

My life up to date as not been exactly comfortable, but even if I continued to exist in my present state (ups and downs, health issues, loved ones dying etc...) for eternity I would be content. Now maybe eternal life is what I'm after whether it's comfortable or not. But after close evaluation of my life, if I were to live it over again and follow God's principles for living; my life would still be better than what it has currently been. John 10:10 "The thief comes to kill and destroy. I come to give you life and that you may have it to the full". See your argument might hold up if eternal comfort is all that God promised but he promised so much more. The New Testament is littered with verses that proclaim the joy of living for God. While atheists chew up the bible looking for discrepancies and contradictions, they miss the point. It is about so much more than just eternal security. Unfortunately many Christians do as well. That's why Robertson, Falwell, and Hinn are way they are today.

Missing the forest for the trees.

Sincerely
L.N.

[Lazarus Nichodemus]

Jesus aside, what evidence is there that God is good?

The evidence that he is bad? Tsunami's, Hurricanes, Loved ones dying.

From an individual perspective those things are horrible, but that assumes that individual lives would have been better had they not happened.

Someone dies in a car crash, but is an organ donor. Your beloved Uncle needs a Heart transplant; because of the victim he lives. Certainly from an individual perspective someone wins and someone loses. But the question is does God operate the world like a cosmic game of Craps? Or is there a bigger picture that we can not see?

Sincerely,
L.N.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Well, I think you and I both agree that it's really dificult to prove what did or did not happen 2,000 years ago. You've quoted many verses that to me sound like they support the idea Jesus handed out tangible benifits.

Which tangible benefits were those? Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to assume that it was any different back then. Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, the texts do not make any mention that anyone other than Jesus saw the miracles. None of the anonymous Gospel writers claimed to have seen the miracles. We know that the claims were made at least second hand, and it is entirely possible that they were made third hand or fourth hand. The first mention of the feeding of the the 5,000 in print appeared in the book of Mark. It was written about 70 A.D., but no one knows when it was first released. When it was released, it is entirely possible that the claim was widely rejected.

It is quite important to note that the texts say that the Pharisees acknowledged that Jesus had supernatural powers, but that his powers came from Beelzebub. In other words, both sides had ample evidence that Jesus had supernatural powers. Today, both sides "do not" have ample evidencve that God has supernatural powers, and that only he possesses supernatural powers.

As for today, like I said before, I think a lot of things are "tangible benifits" that you regard as just normal, par for the course so to speak. Such things would be, the fact that I can think to respond to your post, the ability to see, hear, taste, etc. The fact that I have enough to eat.

That is not evidence. Some people cannot respond to my post, see, or hear. In addition, decades ago I read that 10,000 people in the world died of hunger every day, and that half of the people in the world went to bed hungry every day. What about hurricane Katrina and the recent tsunami in Asia? What about the Bubonic Plague? Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" No loving God would do such things to people.

Today, there is every indication that good things and bad things are not distributed equitably to those in greatest need, and that they are distributed according the laws of physics. Regarding Hurricane Katrina, rich people were much better able to escape the consequences of the hurricane than poor people were. Many poor people did not have enough money to travel elsewhere, but rich people simply left town. Rich people can easily repair or rebuild their homes, or move to an area where hurricanes are less frequent. Rich people also have much better educational opportunites, and they have access to much better medical care. In short, God favors the rich, and he has turned his back on the people who are poor.

I honestly believe God has been working in my life.

In what tangible ways? Spiritual and emotional experiences are subjective, and the followers of many religions claim beneficial spiritual and emotional experiences.

Like I said before though, if I didn't believe God existed I could see everything I see now just exactly as it is now, and see absolutely no evidence of God's existence. You have to believe to see it, in my opinion.

What is your belief based upon?

[Johnny Skeptic]

Message to Lazarus Nicodemus: Following is my entire mini-essay from my web site at www.johnnyskeptic.com, except for the conclusion of my mini-essay, which is not necessary for me to post. I suggest that we take each chapter one at a time. Of course, anyone else is welcome to join in.

1. Is God good?

Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would not become a Christian unless God first answered a lot of questions to my satisfaction. For instance, I would like for him to explain some of his questionable actions and allowances in the Old Testament, some of his questionable allowances in the world today, such as allowing tsunamis, hunger and plagues, why he gives humans such a brief amount of time to accept him, why he doesn't provide more proof of his existence, and why Jesus hasn't returned to earth.

Regarding hurricane Katrina, as usual, God favors the rich. The people who are best able to deal with Hurricane Katrina are people who are well off financially. People who could afford to travel simply left the area. Poor people who lost their homes or had their homes damaged are much worse off than people who have adequate financial resources to pay for the damage or rebuild their homes. The same argument also applies to people who are able to afford adequate medical treatment, college educations and a host of other advantages that are available to people who are well off financially. Is there really a loving, compassionate, protective God out there? It doesn't look like it.

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite "tangible" evidence of Jesus' power.

More "tangible" evidence comes from Acts 14:3 and Matthew 14:14. Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

When confronted with difficulties like the ones that I mentioned, Christians frequently refer to Isaiah 55:8. The verse says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." The problem for Christians here is that in order for the verse to make any sense, Isaiah would had to have known what God thoughts and ways are in order to know that they are different from our own, which of course he didn't. If I had been alive back then, I would have asked Isaiah "How do you know that?" His response might have been "God told me so."

We have only the Bible writers' word for it that God is good. That simply will not do. Hearsay testimony is by no means the best evidence in court trials. How much more so should we not trust human proxies claiming to speak for God? If God's thoughts and ways are actually different from our thoughts and ways, even if he does not want to discuss his thoughts and ways at this time, at the very least he needs to tell us that himself in person so as to discourage dissent rather than to encourage dissent.

Regarding God's questionable actions, one need look no further than the following examples:

Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Regarding God's allowances, how about the Bubonic Plague and the recent tsunami in Asia? Did the plague and the tsunami benefit anyone in any way? Of course not. Did the plague and the tsunami benefit God is any way? Of course not. Should God offer us more protection that he does? Of course he should? Would any loving human father protect his children from plagues and tsunamis? Of course he would.

It seems to me that Christians must claim that whatever God does defines what is good as it applies to his conduct, even when his conduct is contrary to current legal standards and standards of social decency.

2. Miracles.

It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "are not" aware of God's supernatural power. Therefore, we don't have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then.

Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

Some Christians claim that skeptics are predisposed against miracles, but I don't know of any skeptic who would object to anyone, a claimed God or an alien, being available to help us with our many burdens

3. Where is God today?

Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." In order to make my point more clear, the New International Version translates the verse as "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of "the message of his grace" that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus.

Regarding the claims of 1) the feeding of the 5,000, 2) the feeding of the 4,000, 3) the numerous healings performed by Jesus, 4) the 3,000 people who became Christians after hearing teachings by Peter, 4) Matthew 4:24, which says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them," 5) 1st Corinthians 15:6, which says "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep," and 6) the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, if the claims were true there would have been no need for confirming "the message of his grace" with tangible signs and wonders.

4. Is the spread of the Gospel message really necessary?

During most of the past 2,000 years, the Gospel message has been spread by foot, horse, mule and boat, or in other words spread by humans at a pace that makes a Galapagos tortoise seem like a race horse by comparison. Over a number of centuries, hundreds of millions of people have died without ever having heard the Gospel message. Such being the case, why was it necessary for anyone at all to hear the Gospel message? I am well aware that in response many Christians will run right back to Isaiah 55:8, in which case I will remind them of my previous comments "The problem for Christians here is that in order for the verse to make any sense, Isaiah would had to have known what God thoughts and ways are in order to know that they are different from our own, which of course he didn't. We have only the Bible writers' word for it that God is good. That simply will not do. Hearsay testimony is by no means the best evidence in court trials. How much more so should we not trust human proxies claiming to speak for God? If God's thoughts and ways are actually different from our thoughts and ways, even if he does not want to discuss his thoughts and ways at this time, at the very least he needs to tell us that himself in person so as to discourage dissent rather than to encourage dissent."

5. The major factors that account for religious beliefs.

Historically, the vast majority of humans have always had a penchant for dreaming up all sorts of religions in order to satisfy their desire for a comfortable eternal life. This desire has caused many people to defend religions that are much more unbelievable than Christianity is, clearly testifying to the human desire of obtaining eternal comfort.

No disrespect intended, but Christians are just like trained seals looking for a reward of fish from their trainers. Seals in the wild with abundant food supplies would never be interested in performing tricks for humans. If humans were able to provide for themselves a comfortable life at this time that indicated to them that it would be eternally comfortable, I am quite certain that only a relative handful of people would be interested in religion.

Although Christians vigorously defend the claim that Jesus rose from the dead, the claim is definitely incidental to their desire of obtaining a comfortable eternal life. Eternal comfort is the desired goal, not so much how it is obtained. Any of a number of means of obtaining it would be deemed equally acceptable.

Truly, as far as Christians and other religious minded people are concerned, all roads lead to eternal comfort, and if an extra-terrestrial being one day provides eternal comfort for some people, to them his identity would be of no importance whatsoever.

Barry A. Kosmin and Seymour P. Lachman wrote a book titled 'One Nation Under God.' Billy Graham said "'One Nation Under God' is quite possibly the most comprehensive and thoughtful profile of contemporary American religious life in print."

The authors cite a substantial amount of documented research that shows that geography, family, race, ethnicity, gender and age are major factors that accounts for religious beliefs.

Consider the following from page 210:

"A Gallup Poll that inquired into one key measurement - how important a role people say religion plays in their own lives - showed that women (66%) are far more likely than men (48%) to attach great importance to religion, and that men (18%) are more than twice as likely as women (8%) to say that it is not very important to them. Age differences are also significant. Less than half of those under age 30 (46%) say that religion is very important to them, whereas among those who are 50 and older, 70% consider religion of great importance in their lives."

Kosmin and Lachman's research does not indicate supernatural factors at work, but rather the natural factors of geography, family, race ethnicity, gender and age, the very same factors that account for the spread of all other religions.

6. Skeptics "are not" opposed to being told what to do within certain parameters.

The vast majority of skeptics favor oversight from humans. They know that without human oversight, there would be anarchy in society. As far as oversight from God is concerned, skeptics would deem that to be acceptable as well depending upon what that oversight entailed. Regarding the Old Testament, skeptics quite rightly consider it to be unacceptable that people were put to death for working on the Sabbath Day or for cursing their parents. Regarding the New Testament, skeptics quite rightly consider Revelation 14:9-11 to be unacceptable. The verses read "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

Eternal vengeance, and the holy angels and the Lamb (Jesus) watching people suffer, can only mean one of two things, either that a hateful human religious bigot dreamed up the texts, or that the God of the Bible is the mostly utterly detestable being in the entire universe as compared with current human standards of decency, morality, love and forgiveness.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Following is my revision of my opening post:

All Scriptures are from the King James Version of the Bible unless otherwise noted.


1. Is God good?

Even if I believed that Jesus rose from the dead, I would not become a Christian unless God first answered a lot of questions to my satisfaction. For instance, I would like for him to explain some of his questionable actions and allowances in the Old Testament, some of his questionable allowances in the world today, such as allowing tsunamis, hunger and plagues, why he gives humans such a brief amount of time to accept him, why he doesn't provide more proof of his existence, and why Jesus hasn't returned to earth.

Regarding God's questionable actions in the Old Testament, god told Moses:

Exodus 31:14 Ye shall keep the sabbath therefore; for it is holy unto you: every one that defileth it shall surely be put to death: for whosoever doeth any work therein, that soul shall be cut off from among his people.

Leviticus 20:9 For every one that curseth his father or his mother shall be surely put to death: he hath cursed his father or his mother; his blood shall be upon him.

Exodus 4:11 And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?

Regarding God’s questionable allowances in the world today, what about hurricane Katrina? As usual, God favors the rich. The people who are best able to deal with Hurricane Katrina are people who are well off financially. People who could afford to travel simply left the area. Poor people who lost their homes or had their homes damaged are much worse off than people who have adequate financial resources to pay for the damage or rebuild their homes. The same argument also applies to people who are able to afford adequate medical treatment, college educations and a host of other advantages that are available to people who are well off financially. Is there really a loving, compassionate, protective God out there? It doesn't look like it.

Logically, there is no automatic correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead, the ability to predict the future, and goodness.

In the New International Version of the Bible, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite "tangible" evidence of Jesus' power.

More "tangible" evidence comes from Acts 14:3 and Matthew 14:14. In the NIV, Acts 14:3 says "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders." In the NIV, Matthew 14:14 says "When Jesus landed and saw a large crowd, he had compassion on them and healed their sick."

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably to those in greatest need, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

When confronted with difficulties like the ones that I mentioned, Christians frequently refer to Isaiah 55:8. The verse says "For my thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lord." The problem for Christians here is that in order for the verse to make any sense, Isaiah would had to have known what God’s thoughts and ways are in order to know that they are different from our own, which of course he didn't. If I had been alive back then, I would have asked Isaiah "How do you know that?" His response might have been "God told me so."

Christians often claim that skeptics don’t want God telling them what to do, but skeptics "are not" opposed to being told what to do within certain parameters. First of all, the vast majority of skeptics favor oversight from humans. They know that without human oversight, there would be anarchy in society. Second of all, the vast majority of skeptics would approve of oversight from God if they deemed such oversight to be fair. Regarding Revelation 14:9-11, skeptics quite rightly deem such oversight to be unacceptable. The verses read "And the third angel followed them, saying with a loud voice, If any man worship the beast and his image, and receive his mark in his forehead, or in his hand, The same shall drink of the wine of the wrath of God, which is poured out without mixture into the cup of his indignation; and he shall be tormented with fire and brimstone in the presence of the holy angels, and in the presence of the Lamb: And the smoke of their torment ascendeth up for ever and ever: and they have no rest day nor night, who worship the beast and his image, and whosoever receiveth the mark of his name."

Eternal vengeance, and the holy angels and the Lamb (Jesus) watching people suffer, can only mean one of two things, either that a hateful human religious bigot dreamed up the texts, or that the God of the Bible is the most utterly detestable being in the entire universe as compared with current human standards of decency, morality, love and forgiveness.

God’s reluctance to show himself clearly beyond any doubt serves only to encourage dissent, rather than the much better option of discouraging dissent.

2. Miracles.

It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "are not" aware of God's supernatural power. Therefore, we don't have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then.

Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

Some Christians claim that skeptics are predisposed against miracles, but I don't know of any skeptic who would object to anyone, a claimed God or an alien, being available to help us with our many burdens

3. Where is God today?


Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." In order to make my point more clear, the New International Version translates the verse as "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of "the message of his grace" that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus.

Regarding the claims of 1) the feeding of the 5,000, 2) the feeding of the 4,000, 3) the numerous healings performed by Jesus, 4) the 3,000 people who became Christians after hearing teachings by Peter, 4) Matthew 4:24, which says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them," 5) 1st Corinthians 15:6, which says "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep," and 6) the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, if the claims were true there would have been no need for confirming "the message of his grace" with tangible signs and wonders.

4. Is the spread of the Gospel message really necessary?

During most of the past 2,000 years, the Gospel message has been spread by foot, horse, mule and boat, or in other words spread by humans at a pace that makes a Galapagos tortoise seem like a race horse by comparison. Over a number of centuries, hundreds of millions of people have died without ever having heard the Gospel message. Such being the case, why was it necessary for anyone at all to hear the Gospel message?

5. Conclusion.

Considering both the nature of the world we experience and the nature of the God depicted in the Bible, rational humans should reject the claim th Bible is the divinely inspired word of a perfect, good, loving deity. Likewise, rational humans should reject the fundamental claims of Christianity as unsupported by reason and evidence.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Like I said before though, if I didn't believe God existed I could see everything I see now just exactly as it is now, and see absolutely no evidence of God's existence. You have to believe to see it, in my opinion.

Not in opinion of the New Testament. In the NIV, John 10:37-38 say "Do not believe me unless I do what my Father does. But if I do it, even though you do not believe me, believe the miracles, that you may know and understand that the Father is in me, and I in the Father." The verses cite "tangible" evidence of Jesus' power.

Even "after" Jesus died, and even "after" the Holy Spirit had come to the Chruch, "Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders," reference Acts 14:3.

We need compassion in tangible ways today just as much as people did back then. Where is tangible evidence of God's power and compassion in tangible ways today? An unusual healing can happen to anyone, not just to Christians. In the world today, there is every indication that tangible good things and bad things are not distributed equitably to those in greatest need, and that they are distributed according to the laws of physics, not by divine intervention. Therefore, it is reasonable to conclude that 1) God used to be compassionate in noticeably tangible ways but is not interested in being compassionate in noticeably tangible ways today, or that 2) he never was compassionate in noticeably tangible ways, or that 3) he does not exist.

It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "are not" aware of God's supernatural power. Therefore, we don't have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then.

[jemand]

That is not evidence. Some people cannot respond to my post, see, or hear. In addition, decades ago I read that 10,000 people in the world died of hunger every day, and that half of the people in the world went to bed hungry every day. What about hurricane Katrina and the recent tsunami in Asia? What about the Bubonic Plague? Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" No loving God would do such things to people.

Today, there is every indication that good things and bad things are not distributed equitably to those in greatest need, and that they are distributed according the laws of physics. Regarding Hurricane Katrina, rich people were much better able to escape the consequences of the hurricane than poor people were. Many poor people did not have enough money to travel elsewhere, but rich people simply left town. Rich people can easily repair or rebuild their homes, or move to an area where hurricanes are less frequent. Rich people also have much better educational opportunites, and they have access to much better medical care. In short, God favors the rich, and he has turned his back on the people who are poor.


I believe that there is a cosmic struggle going on between God and Satan, and evil things are from the devil, not God. Sure God could stop bad things from happening, but Satan has challenged God's character and method of government, and said anyone ought to do whatever they want to do. If God were to have destroyed Satan at once, people would have believed Satan because they hadn't seen the difference between the two methods of government. When Adam and Eve sinned, they turned this world over to the devil, but God still helps in some instances. In the end, when everyone has made a descision either for God or Satan, God will make everything right.

Okay, you ask for tangible benifits God has given me. I'm going to college free because of a merit-based scholarship and I honestly believe God gave me the ability to get that. I'll also probably get busy and not be able to post often though.

This is cliche, but I've heard it said that while people wonder why God doesn't help, God wonders why people don't care.

[Johnny Skeptic]

I believe that there is a cosmic struggle going on between God and Satan, and evil things are from the devil, not God.

Based upon what evidence? Why can’t God be evil and the Devil be good?

Sure God could stop bad things from happening, but Satan has challenged God's character and method of government,

That is what the Bible writers said, but how do know that what they said is true? That is the problem when a God speaks through human proxies instead of speaking directly to people himself.

and said anyone ought to do whatever they want to do.

That is ridiculous. All skeptics favor human oversight. They know that without human oversight their would be anarchy. Skeptics would not object to divine oversight either if it were reasonable.

If God were to have destroyed Satan at once, people would have believed Satan because they hadn't seen the difference between the two methods of government. When Adam and Eve sinned, they turned this world over to the devil, but God still helps in some instances. In the end, when everyone has made a decision either for God or Satan, God will make everything right.

Are you saying that “the Bible says so� is all of the evidence that you need?

Okay, you ask for tangible benefits God has given me. I'm going to college free because of a merit-based scholarship and I honestly believe God gave me the ability to get that. I'll also probably get busy and not be able to post often though.

Some skeptics have the same advantages. Are you saying that the Bubonic plague, the recent tsunami in Asia and Hurricane Katrina are tangible benefits? The fact that tangible benefits are often not distributed to those in greatest need is good evidence that the God of the Bible does not exist. If life happened by chance, what would we expect to find regarding the distribution of tangible benefits? The correct answer is, exactly what we see in the world today. Good things and bad things happen to people no matter what their world views are. Some skeptics have much better health and much better education and jobs than most Christians do. Surely you will agree that luck determines who wins lotteries. Why can’t all of life be a lottery?

This is cliche, but I've heard it said that while people wonder why God doesn't help, God wonders why people don't care.

Why people don’t care about what? There is no evidence that God ever helped anybody. Regarding miracle healings, today, millions of Christians disagree as to what constitutes a miracle healing. There are not any good reasons at all for anyone to believe that it was any different back then.

Regarding the feeding of the 5,000, which is mentioned in Matthew, Mark, Luke and John, Christians have some problems. Consider the following:

1 - The texts claim that the disciples were aware of the miracle, but no mention is made that the crowd was aware of the miracle.

2 - The anonymous Gospel writers did not claim that they personally witnessed the miracle.

3 - The Gospel writers did not reveal their source(s), which might very well have been third hand or fourth hand.

4 - There is no evidence when the claim was first made.

5 - There is no evidence that the claim was widely accepted.

Some Christians claim that skeptics are predisposed against miracles, but I don't know of any skeptic who would object to anyone, a claimed God or an alien, being available to help us with our many burdens

Acts 14:3 says "Long time therefore abode they speaking boldly in the Lord, which gave testimony unto the word of his grace, and granted signs and wonders to be done by their hands." In order to make my point more clear, the New International Version translates the verse as "So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders."

It is a fact that there is much more need today of tangible confirmations of "the message of his grace" that can be reasonably attributed to God than there was in the 1st century with a supposed veritable plethora of eyewitnesses being available to offer first hand accounts of miracles, including the resurrection of Jesus.

Regarding the claims of 1) the feeding of the 5,000, 2) the feeding of the 4,000, 3) the numerous healings performed by Jesus, 4) the 3,000 people who became Christians after hearing teachings by Peter, 4) Matthew 4:24, which says "And his fame went throughout all Syria: and they brought unto him all sick people that were taken with divers diseases and torments, and those which were possessed with devils, and those which were lunatick, and those that had the palsy; and he healed them," 5) 1st Corinthians 15:6, which says "After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep," and 6) the coming of the Holy Spirit in Acts 2:4, if the claims were true there would have been no need for confirming "the message of his grace" with tangible signs and wonders.

It is important to note that the texts say that "both sides" were aware that Jesus had supernatural powers. Matthew 12:24 says "But when the Pharisees heard this, they said, 'It is only by Beelzebub, the prince of demons, that this fellow drives out demons.'" Today, both sides "are not" aware of God's supernatural power. Therefore, we don't have nearly the "evidence" today that people with "varying" world views supposedly had back then.

There is no logical correlation that can be made between the ability to rise from the dead and goodness. If Jesus actually did rise from the dead, all that that proved was that he had the ability to rise from the dead, nothing more. If Elvis Presley rose from the dead and said that he died for the sins of mankind, would you worship him based solely upon that evidence? Of course you wouldn’t.

[jemand]

Based upon what evidence? Why can’t God be evil and the Devil be good?


Um.... I kinda define God as being good and the Devil being evil, so I really don't understand how God could be evil and the devil be good, because I'd still call the good one God and the evil one the Devil, and they don't switch back and forth, because completely evil or good beings wouldn't switch like that.

And as for "everyone" knowing lack of oversight leads to anarchy, how do they figure this out? Only by experience. If there weren't any bad experiences, people wouldn't know what anarchy would do.

I think I've said before that what the Bible says is good enough for me. I've said before that you can't prove stuff like the existence of God, you have to just assume it, or believe it by faith (same thing, really.)

I don't know why, but it seems like God prefers working through people. God's people are the ones who are supposed to be helping other people, but too many are apathetic. God also for some reason does not want to remove all doubt to his existence.

[Johnny Skeptic]

Um.... I kinda define God as being good and the Devil being evil, so I really don't understand how God could be evil and the devil be good, because I'd still call the good one God and the evil one the Devil, and they don't switch back and forth, because completely evil or good beings wouldn't switch like that.

My point is that there is no evidence at all that the God of the Bible is good in tangible ways today, or that he ever was good in tangible ways. There is no evidence at all that Jesus ever healed anybody, or that he fed 5,000 people with a few loaves of bread and a few fish. Please go back and reread my previous post where I showed that the evidence that we have today that God is good in tangible ways is not nearly what it supposedly was during the time of Jesus and the disciples. Jesus and the disciples provided tangible evidence of God's power. If faith is really all that belief is about, then why did Jesus need to tell a group of hardline skeptics that if they wouldn't believe upon his words, to believe upon the miracles that he performed, and why did the disciples need to go about confirming "the message of his grace" by performing tangible signs and wonders, and why did Jesus need to appear to anybody after he rose from the dead?

And as for "everyone" knowing lack of oversight leads to anarchy, how do they figure this out? Only by experience. If there weren't any bad experiences, people wouldn't know what anarchy would do.

My point is that skeptics do not object to human or divine oversight as long as it is just in their opinions. You have the very same opinion yourself regarding human oversight. You approve of it, but only within certain parameters. The Bubonic Plague, the recent tsunami in Asia, and Hurricane Katriana, are not good examples of a God who cares about humanity. Allowing such things are not neccesary in order for a loving God to carry out his purposes. If you quote where Isaiah said that God's thoughts and ways are different from our own thoughts and ways, I will tell you that the only way that Isaiah could have known that would have been if he had shared God's thoughts and ways so that he could have made a proper comparison. If God does not wish to explain himself more fully, he should at the very least show up in person and tell everyone on earth to be patient, and that all will be revealed in due time. Hearsay evidence is bad enough in court trials, but human proxies speaking for God is a preposterous notion. Rational minded people will simply not trust human proxies who presume to speak for God, no matter what the religion.

I think I've said before that what the Bible says is good enough for me.

The followers of other religions, and Deists as well, make the same faith based arguments that you do. What makes your faith any more believable?

I've said before that you can't prove stuff like the existence of God, you have to just assume it, or believe it by faith (same thing, really.)

Same as before.

I don't know why, but it seems like God prefers working through people.

Yes, people who had tangible powers, meaning Jesus and the disciples. Would you care to state a case for Christianity without making any mention of tangible powers?

God's people are the ones who are supposed to be helping other people, but too many are apathetic.

Many non-Christians are very helpful people. In addition, other than Jesus, Moses, Abraham and Paul are probably the most important people in the Bible, and God contacted all of them directly, not through helpful people.

God also for some reason does not want to remove all doubt to his existence.

Proof beyond all doubt would be nice, but the proof that we already have has convinced only one fourth of the people in the world to become Christians. How do you account for this? Hundreds of millions of the followers of other religions who are aware of the Gospel message believe in intelligent design, miracles, love, kindness, divine oversight and a comfortable eternal life. What evidence have they missed?