How do you know God is the good guy?

[The Happy Humanist]

In another thread, I was told that true morality is found by following God. God, we are told, is the source of absolute morality, the final arbiter of good and evil in the universe.

How do we know this? How do we come to assume that God's good is really good? Sure, we are told as much by the Bible. But it's one thing to accept the Bible as God's word...but what if he's lying?

What I'm asking is, what is it about God that makes you so sure he's the good guy, the one you should be following? And how can you trust your instincts in this regard, when you believe he is the source of your moral compass in the first place? Would it not be possible for a Supreme Being to plant a moral compass in you that automatically registers his words as "good", no matter what?

So? Discuss!

[The Happy Humanist]

Fact: You just stated that God is omniscient; literally.

Dictionary.com says:
om-nis-cient ( P ) Pronunciation Key (m-nshnt)
adj.

Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

n.
1. One having total knowledge.
2. Omniscient God. Used with the.

Fact: Humans do not know everything.

If a being that knows everything compared to a being that does not know everything is not smarter... by what do you measure how smart a being is?

I have already demonstrated that omniscience is impossible, even in a deity. See the thread on Murray.

but I know I want it because I trust God's Word, and He is 100% reliable; He hasn't let me down yet.

So the tsunami wasn't a let down for you? Sure was for us....

[Tigerlilly]

Fact: You just stated that God is omniscient; literally.

I stated what you believe he is. I don't believe it. Yes. It's a fact I stated that God is supposedly omniscient. I pointed out that the fact that God is wrong and fallible a great many times shows he's not really omniscient.

Fact: Humans do not know everything.

Fact: Neither does God. God is, in fact, wrong on many occasions. He gives us the propaganda that he's "omniscient.' And as someone said, true omniscince is impossible. You can also not have an omniscient being that is also omnipotent [/B]

If a being that knows everything compared to a being that does not know everything is not smarter... by what do you measure how smart a being is?

He really doesn't know everything He
s wrong most of the time. He only uses propaganda to beef up his own image, thus aiding in the development of his ego and the fufillment of his desire for recognition.

He's not omniscient, but he is said to be and pretends to be. Saying and being are different things. His actions speak louder than the propagandistic words.

Was that a type-o? If you meant to type omnipresent... then why is it that you acknowledge God being omnipresent and omnipotent, but not omniscient?

I don't believe it's possible for him to be omniscient or omnipotent, especially at the same time. I am just reporting what most people think or what his propaganda (the Bible) says.

The bible is like one of those Nazi Hitler Youth Posters. I wants you to think the subject is majestic and ueber, but it's just a fascade ment to instill wonder and primitive astonishment.

I wrote above: Could a toddler hope to decifer quantum mathematics? Neither could we hope to decifer God. Now, you might hope to dismiss this comparison on the grounds that toddlers don't have enough developed mental reasoning skills; but my comparison would still stand because my claim is that compared to God, our mental reasoning skills are that of a toddler.


What kind of chances would a toddler have of questioning quantum mathematics and putting up a good argument or finding an error? No need to answer this question. The answer should be obvious to all.

This is easy. If we look at the facts, God is wrong compared to Human knowledge and he's illogical. It doesn't matter how OLD or powerful you are. He is not above the laws of nature and logic. HUmans understand both of these concepts. God apparently does not, however, since he and his Bible show woefully inaccurate information and total sophistry.

Compared to God, our mental reasoning isn't that of a Todler. GOd is just so unbelievably incompetent that it's really mindboggling. His creations are horribly flawed, his sense or morality is inferior to Humanism, and his science and logical faculties elude even the most moronic human.

What kind of chances would a toddler have of questioning quantum mathematics and putting up a good argument or finding an error? No need to answer this question. The answer should be obvious to all.

This is all a very nice Red Herring. It has nothing to do with the problem that it's logically impossible for something to be omniscient as well as both omniscient and omnipotent. The relative inteligence of someone has nothing to do with these rules. They are objective.

Your analogy also detracts from the Crux of the Issue. There is no evidence that Humans are infantile compared to GOd. THere is credible evidence, however, that God's knowledge is infantile to Humans.

In the same way that we can never accurately fathom Hell... we can never accurately fathom Heaven either. I don't really know what Heaven will actually be like... but I know I want it because I trust God's Word, and He is 100% reliable; He hasn't let me down yet.

His word is 100% reliable, even though there is no counter-perspective, you only get one point of view, God is wrong most of the time, and his existence is logically flawed....

He never let you down. Malarky. He lets millions down, but people make convenient excuses for it because they aren't usually intelligent enough to call a spade a spade. God, if he were real, would be a dipdunk.

Think of it like this. ANything good happens you praise God for doing for you. You have no responsibility and praise for yourself. HE does everything, except what you deem as "bad." There's no self-pride, no self-worth--no maturity.

Something goes wrong--it's god's plan, but he doesn't do it.

Something goes right--God did it! Woo hoo! He never lets me down!

God is the Father of all True Christians. I do insist on parent-child analogies.

Most likely a "No True Scotsman Fallacy."

PostPosted: Wed Jan 12, 2005 8:40 pm Post subject:
Quote:
jimspeiser: Invalid. We are attempting to assess the probability of God's existence, using the only tools we have, logic and common sense. It is out of bounds for our purposes to posit that such a being is so much smarter than us that he can defeat our common sense.


It's not invalid. My logic and common sense has proposed this notion and I whole-heartedly believe that it is true. It's contradictory for you to declare that we're going to discuss the existance of a being that has such an attribute and then for you to say that discussing His attributes is "out of bounds for our purposes to posit such a being."

Essentially you are saying: Let's talk about the probability of God's existence... but let's not discuss what His existence is.

Do you want to discuss God, or do you not want to discuss God? Make a decision.

It's invalid because the very notion of what God supposedly is, is idiotic. It's just rhetoric and propaganda. It's illogical. God IS illogical as an entity.

Quote:
jimspeiser's: Plus: The simple act of creating a universe full of sentient creatures does not give the creator absolute license to do as he pleases with that universe.

Why not?

Because it's an illogical conclusion that might makes right. It's a fallacy. This isn't that hard. Something isn't right or wrong depending on how much power you have to enforce it or how much bigger you are compared to joe schmoe.

Just because you have the power and you created something doesn't logically lead to the fact that you can do with it whatever you please. I could create an entire program of completely sapien/sentient AI, but that (if and when possible) would not give me the right to delete them all and kill them.

Jesus Christ had it.

Jesus was God dressed up to look like he wasn't, so that he could spread more propaganda. It's the equivilent of a dictator playing dress-up at halloween and tooting his own horn. Three pats on the back for God. No one saw him comming!

[potwalloper.]

Greenlight311 wrote

You could go on. But if what I suggest is correct, and God is in fact infinately smarter than humans (saying that He exists), then you really have no way to deduce the answer to these questions... or any question, unless God tells you.

Could a toddler hope to decifer quantum mathematics? Neither could we hope to decifer God. Now, you might hope to dismiss this comparison on the grounds that toddlers don't have enough developed mental reasoning skills; but my comparison would still stand because my claim is that compared to God, our mental reasoning skills are that of a toddler.

I'm afraid your analogy does not stand. Toddlers do not have the ability to apply logic and therefore cannot be in any way analogous with sentient beings that can.

This smacks of the old Christian chestnut "I cannot explain God in logical terms so...er...er...er - oh yes - she must be so complicated that I can't understand her. Phew I thought my faith was about to pop like a balloon there"

potwalloper: On the basis of common sense I'm afraid God comes out as being a few olives short of a pizza.

And this is a conclusion a toddler might draw from a parent that makes a just and logical decision.

Bearing in mind that toddlers lack logic and as such will be unlikely to draw any conclusions in a logical sense I am at a loss to see how this can in any way be a valid comparison.

Now if you have such a low personal opinion of yourself that you think of yourself as no more than a toddler in logical terms I can live with that.

potwalloper: Only an innately evil creature would knowingly create such abject misery.

... because you say so?

Because common sense says so. "I created you to rot, burn, drown, die of disease and suffer indescribable misery - I love you, honest I do..."

potwalloper: A good point and that is why I feel that the principle of the one-sided presentation of information is more likely than an innate need to believe. However, we have already seen that God is less than perfect - perhaps the predisposition to belief also had a design fault (as does just about everything else about humans) and therefore does not work properly...

From a non-Christian perspective, then perhaps. Or... from a non-Christian perspective, perhaps Christians are correct, and perhaps those flaws actually are caused by sin...

If we accept omniscience then God would have known all of the events that were to occur throughout the life of the universe before she created anything. As such she will have known about sin and the consequences of same and yet went on to create the universe as it is anyway. Ergo God created sin...simple really.

potwalloper: Love everyone please (oops you drowned in my Great Flood so can't - oh well... )

It's a bit funny that you bring this up... because you and so many others never drowned in any flood, yet you still reject God. Wouldn't that make you living proof that God's judgement is Just? If He had let those people live... they might live their entire lives as you live yours now.

Well...rejecting God assumes that there is a God. As there is no God I have not rejected anything other than an illogical concept (in the same way that I do not accept the invisible pink unicorn scenario, or Santa).

So God's judgement is just...

...you will presumably tell that to the 150,000 people who died in the recent Tsunami? Or to the 1,000 children who will die today of starvation? Or to the children who were born with Aids? Or to the person with cancer. "God's judgement is just, honest, it really is. You are suffering but there is a reason for this. I don't know what the reason is but honest there really is. Oops you are dead - oh well, not being a Christian you'll burn in the fires of hell for all eternity even though you were a decent chap in life. Like I said God's judgement is just..."

potwalloper: My wife and I created my son. If I murdered him today would you say it was right? Of course it would not. However using your logic how can it be wrong for me to take away something that I created?

By the grace of God your wife was able to have a child. You did not play the part in that creation that you would like to think you did. In fact, it was God that wove your child together in your wife's womb (figuratively speaking).

Perhaps that explains why the Earth moved...

The principle of God's creation not being able to do anything without her allowing it to happen is an interesting one. If we accept this then we must also accept that God is culpable for every evil act that has ever occured throughout the history of mankind. Failure to act to prevent suffering when this lies within your locus of control makes you culpable.

God allows the things that happen to happen. He does not commit the evil Himself. He is not evil.

At the most, God is culpable of letting Evil succumb to Supreme Justice.

You haven't answered the point here I'm afraid...failure to act when this lies within your locus of control makes you culpable.

Autonomy cannot be mitigated - you are either autonomous or you are not. As you are describing it the principle of free will falls I'm afraid.

I don't know what your point is here and I'm not even quite sure what you're saying.

If humans do not have free will then original sin cannot be deemed to be a valid concept...

A. God is perfectly Good. I know this to be a fact.
B. God is completely sovereign. I know this to be a fact.

I see - this is the perfectly good that allows so much misery, this is the perfectly good that is contradictory in concept, this is the perfectly good that will send you to hell for a situation she created...sound rather imperfect to me I'm afraid.

I would be interested to know the factual basis for your statements - and please don't bother quoting the bible - the bible ain't fact it's fiction.

potwalloper: Indeed making sex the key driver in human behaviour and then telling people it is sinful would be a great laugh (which appears to be what God did if we accept the Christian worldview).

Let this example that you have provided stand out in bright letters. Let the missapplication stand out as well. If sex were sinful... Christians wouldn't be reproducing. This is just one of the many examples where you take the Christian Worldview and you bend it to how you want it to look, then deceivingly state it as if it were a fact. Let me tell you plainly: it does your view no justice.

I'm not married... but if and when I do get married - my wife and I will most definately glorify God by having sex.

So when my wife and I had our son before we were married it was not a sin? Phew, I thought that my seat in hell was surely booked ("cancel that asbestos suit will you...")

So masturbation is not a sin? Pornography is not a sin? Gay sex is not a sin? Having an orgy is not a sin? Wow - perhaps I should go to church, maybe it's more interesting than I thought...!

potwalloper: The concept of heaven as described by Christians does come across as both boring and rather patronising. I do not get pleasure from blindly obeying the will of others (God included). "Sit in heaven (where there is no sin) and worship God for all eternity". Since sinful activities appear to be the ones that stimulate the pleasure centres in humans this would not seem to be the most pleasurable experience I can envisage.

Now if heaven were described as "sit in heaven and experience multiple orgasms into all eternity" then it may seem a rather more attractive proposition.

It is likely, of course, that all of the interesting people will be in hell rather than heaven - perhaps if one wants some meaningful interaction hell may be a better proposition.

If that's your choice... it speaks for itself. I object to you making it, but I can do nothing about it other than share the gospel of Jesus. When you need Him in your life... just send me a PM. I'm open 24 hrs.

[/quote]

I'd rather go to hell I'm afraid...

[chrispalasz]

potwalloper wrote: So when my wife and I had our son before we were married it was not a sin? Phew, I thought that my seat in hell was surely booked ("cancel that asbestos suit will you...")

So masturbation is not a sin? Pornography is not a sin? Gay sex is not a sin? Having an orgy is not a sin? Wow - perhaps I should go to church, maybe it's more interesting than I thought...!

You said sex is a sin. I said it is not.

This is true, yet again you are trying to deceive with your words.

Premarital sex (adultery), masturbation, pornography, orgies (I assume you mean sex with multiple partners), gay sex, these are all sins.

Having sex with your wife is not a sin. Therefore you cannot correctly state that having sex is sinful.

Otherwise... feeding your children is sinful/wrong too because you can't feed them poison or broken glass.

[potwalloper.]

potwalloper wrote: So when my wife and I had our son before we were married it was not a sin? Phew, I thought that my seat in hell was surely booked ("cancel that asbestos suit will you...")

So masturbation is not a sin? Pornography is not a sin? Gay sex is not a sin? Having an orgy is not a sin? Wow - perhaps I should go to church, maybe it's more interesting than I thought...!

You said sex is a sin. I said it is not.

This is true, yet again you are trying to deceive with your words.

Premarital sex (adultery), masturbation, pornography, orgies (I assume you mean sex with multiple partners), gay sex, these are all sins.

Having sex with your wife is not a sin. Therefore you cannot correctly state that having sex is sinful.

Otherwise... feeding your children is sinful/wrong too because you can't feed them poison or broken glass.

The vast majority of people who have sex in this world are not married under the auspices of a Christian God. Billions of people. If their sex (which is unmarried) is sinful then sex (in the main) is sinful.

If I got married whilst engaged in sexual intercourse at which point would it stop being a sin I wonder? When he said "kiss the bride"? Would I have committed half a sin in this instance? Or does it only become sinful at the point of ejaculation? Would I have to rush to sign the register to save myself from sin (ooops, too late - sorry father...send me the dry cleaning bill)

It seems that the Christian view of non-sinful sex is rather narrow when considered against the broad spectrum of sexual behaviour in humans.

[hannahjoy]

The vast majority of people who have sex in this world are not married under the auspices of a Christian God. Billions of people. If their sex (which is unmarried) is sinful then sex (in the main) is sinful.
It seems that the Christian view of non-sinful sex is rather narrow when considered against the broad spectrum of sexual behaviour in humans.

If by "sex" you meant most but not all sexual behavior, why didn't you say so at first? Your original statement, by not qualifying "sex", implies that , according to the Christian worldview, all sex is sinful - which you know is not the case.

Indeed making sex the key driver in human behaviour and then telling people it is sinful would be a great laugh (which appears to be what God did if we accept the Christian worldview).

[The Happy Humanist]

jimspeiser: Invalid. We are attempting to assess the probability of God's existence, using the only tools we have, logic and common sense. It is out of bounds for our purposes to posit that such a being is so much smarter than us that he can defeat our common sense.

It's not invalid. My logic and common sense has proposed this notion and I whole-heartedly believe that it is true. It's contradictory for you to declare that we're going to discuss the existance of a being that has such an attribute and then for you to say that discussing His attributes is "out of bounds for our purposes to posit such a being."

Essentially you are saying: Let's talk about the probability of God's existence... but let's not discuss what His existence is.

And I say it is invalid for almost precisely the same reason - because it is an attempt on your part to short-circuit the discussion. Debates such as this must take place on some common ground, and our only common ground is logic. You continue to insist that no matter what objection anyone raises to the "logicalness" of God, he is so powerful and intelligent that he can overcome any objection, because "He's God." This is a backhanded attempt to "trump" any objections we raise - or could possibly raise. This was my purpose in bringing Murray into the discussion - to show that anyone can invent a super-being as a trump card. (Not that I invented Murray, understand )

Try the Prayer Challenge: http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... php?t=1087

And what will this demonstrate?

jimspeiser's first point: plus, if you insist on parent-child analogies,

God is the Father of all True Christians. I do insist on parent-child analogies.

If you consider yourself such a child in comparison to God, then I submit that, like a child, you are too naive to decide for yourself whether it is right to follow God. He could be leading you right down the primrose path to annihilation, and you would go willingly, child-like, innocently, to your own destruction.

jimspeiser's first point: how about the father that dutifully tells his children not to drink, smoke, take drugs, or act unkindly towards people...while he's out selling crack on the streets. See why God-as-parent analogies don't work?

Well... that parent would know exactly WHY drinking, smoking and taking drugs would be harmful for the child, then. Right?

Ah. So you're saying God has done all these things and is speaking from experience, right?

jimspeiser's: If he invests his creations with sentience and a sense of morality, he has to -expect- to be bound by that same morality and subject to its edicts, especially if he wishes to be worshipped as the source of it. To create innate morality in humans and then purposely go about -appearing- to defy it, is a game more worthy of a satanic entity than an omnibenevolent God.

He did create humans with that sense of morality. Adam and Eve had it... and they were decieved by Satan. Jesus Christ had it.

Thus proclaimeth Greenlight.

That's what the Christian message is. Lay down your arms... you're being deceived by The Enemy. Your battle is not with Christians and it is not with God... it is with Satan's deceit. Take the Prayer Challenge.

[/quote]

My battle is not with Christians, with God, or with you. It's with Christian thinking. The Christian Theology is like Teflon. It's self-protecting, it has a shield against every piece of logic thrown at it. It can never be shown to be wrong. And that is exactly why every adherent should examine it in minute detail, from inside and out. Because, despite its appearance of invincibility, it could still be wrong. The problem is, you will never know.

[Tigerlilly]

The most prolific problem with Christians is their antideluvian attitude toward the world. They are almost anacryonistic. The just are off in nevernever land beyond their own time.

They got the "bubble of protection" which swirles around them, and they are encased within this little shield, and nothing you say can turn them off or short circut their power supply.

No matter what you say, they will come up with seemingly inane replies about how logic doesn't work and science is bogus, yet they, at the same time (quite double-handedly) try to use logic and science to prove their faith, because they know that faith alone is silly.

They full-well understand that there is no difference between believing in God and believing in the Easter Bunny of Heaven, yet they will never let on to this, because it has negative consequences. If their God doesn't exist, they have nothing toward which they can look. If there is no protective (blech) God, they have no salvation, no motivation to do good, no reward

They don't have the inner strength to reach up and grab the tourch of self-control and brandish it without that little thing called God eating away at the back of their minds, acting like their SuperEgo, keeping their deep, dark desires in check.

God is their parole officer and lifeguard. This is why, no matter what logical arugment you come up with and no matter what science you bring to the table, they will just dismiss it as "you are too childish to understand God."

[Karl]

(jimspeiser - Thu Dec 23, 2004 7:49 pm)
".....How do we know this? How do we come to assume that God's good is really good? Sure, we are told as much by the Bible. But it's one thing to accept the Bible as God's word....."

This is of course, the entire issue. How can biblegod be "good" and yet "create evil"?

(GreenLight311 - Wed Jan 05, 2005 5:06 am)
".......Also - I cannot say with certainty whether God created Evil as Evil or whether God created the being and then it became Evil......"

I'd say it was the former, as per this:

(Isaiah 45:7 - KJV)
".... I make peace and CREATE EVIL: I the Lord do all these things."

Of course, it's tough to understand what is going on in Isaiah 45:7 after we read this:

(Proverbs 14:22 - KJV)
"Do they not ERR that DEVISE EVIL? but mercy and truth shall be to them that devise good."

or this:

(Habakkuk 1:13 - KJV)
"Thou art of purer eyes than to BEHOLD EVIL and CANST NOT LOOK ON INIQUITY...."

Even the EVIL that biblegod himself creates?

According to this:

(Isaiah 44:2 - RSV)
Thus says the LORD who made you, who formed you from the womb and will help you....

and this:

(Psalm 51:5 - KJV)
Behold I was SHAPEN IN INIQUITY and in sin did my mother conceive me....

biblegod creates only sinners in the womb (forms and shapes them "in iniquity"), even though according to Habakkuk 1:13, biblegod can "not look on" iniquity!

IMO, the following verses are not the "word" of any deity:

(Numbers 31:17/18 - KJV)17 Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. 18 But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.

To me, these verses are disgusting (in the same manner we find the child sex abuses that are occasionally going on in Indonesia in the aftermath of the tsunami), as is the other violence in the OT. How can this be the "word" of a "good" God?

(GreenLight311 - Thu Jan 13, 2005 1:30 pm).....Premarital sex (adultery), masturbation, pornography, orgies (I assume you mean sex with multiple partners), gay sex, these are all sins.....

By what authority do you make this claim? The bible? How can a demonstrably errant text be the "divinely inspired" "word" of "perfect" biblegod?..and....how can you base any dogma upon such a text? I'll give you some examples:

ABSENCE OF EVIDENCE FOR BIBLICAL "HISTORY"

(Norman F. Cantor - 'The Sacred Chain' - page 51)
The first millennium of Jewish history as presented in the Bible has no empirical foundation whatsoever.

(Harold Leidner - 'The Fabrication of the Christ Myth')
The gospel story is an artificial, non-historical work. It has been fabricated from source materials that can be identified and traced to their incorporation in the gospels. There is not a particle of hard evidence that "Jesus of Nazareth" ever existed.

(Magnus Magnusson - The Archaeology of the Bible Lands - BC, page 76)
"The Bible writers projected backwards into time the kind of political rivalry that was happening in their own day (6th c BC) in order to explain that rivalry and perhaps justify the Israelite position over current border disputes."

BIBLICAL HISTORICAL ERROR

(Daniel 5:2 - KJV)
"Belshazzar, whiles he tasted the wine, commanded to bring the golden and silver vessels which HIS FATHER NEBUCHADNEZZAR had taken..."

Belshazzar was the son of Nabodinus and not Nebuchadnezzar.

(Daniel 5:31 - KJV)
"And Dairus the Median took the kingdom...."

The conquerer was Cyrus the Persian and not Dairus the Mede. A good article on the errancy of Daniel can be found at: http://www.infidels.org/library/magazin ... nie96.html

(Luke 2:2 - KJV)
(And this taxing was first made when Cyrenius was governor of Syria)

(Matthew 2:1 - KJV)
1 "Now when Jesus was born in Bethlehem of Judea in the days of HEROD THE KING.....3 When Herod the king had heard these things...

Herod died in 4BCE (see http://www.encyclopedia.com/html/h/herod.asp) and Quirinius was in power at 6 CE., a gap of 10 years, making the gospel text historically impossible as far as both of them happening at once. There is also no extra-biblical corroboration anywhere of the alleged slaughter of infants by Herod. A good article on the Quirinius issue by Richard Carrier can be read at: http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/ ... inius.html

FAILED PROPHECIES

Isaiah predicts the Nile will dry up:

(Isaiah 19:5 - RSV)
And the waters of the Nile will be dried up, and the river will be parched and dry;

The Nile has never stopped flowing and thus has never dried up.

Ezekiel predicts that Egypt will be uninhabited for 40 years:

(Ezekiel 29:10/11 - KJV)
10 "Behold therefore I am against thee, and against thy rivers, and I will make the land of Egypt utterly waste and desolate, from the tower of Syene even unto the border of Ethiopia." 11 "No foot of man shall pass through it, nor foot of beast shall pass through it, neither shall it be inhabited forty years."

Egypt has never been uninhabited by man or beast for a period of 40 years.

Ezekiel predicts that Nebuchadnezzar will conquer and plunder Egypt:

(Ezekiel 29:19 - KJV)
"Therefore thus saith the Lord God; Behold I will give the land of Egypt unto Nebuchadnezzar king of Babylon; and he shall take her spoil and take her prey; and it shall be the wages for his army."

Nebuchadnezzar never conquered and plundered Egypt.

Ezekiel predicts that Tyre will never be rebuilt:

(Ezekiel 26:14 - KJV)
"And I will make thee like the top of a rock: thou shalt be a place to spread nets upon; thou shalt be built no more: for I the Lord have spoken it, saith the Lord God."

Tyre is a thriving metropolis today and Lebanon's 4th largest city. You can read more about Tyre here:http://souwar.yaacoub.com/index.php?template=tyre The page includes a brief history and some pix.

"Jesus" predicts that believers will do the miraculous "works" that he does, and more...:

(John 14:12 - KJV)"Verily, verily I say unto you, He that believeth on me, the works that I do shall he do also; and GREATER works than these shall he do; because I go unto my father."

Here is a list of some of the aformentioned works:(Some WORKS of "Jesus" - compiled from the "gospel" stories)

"Jesus" restores a deformed limb to normal:

(Luke 6:6/10 - KJV)
6...and there was a man whose right hand was withered. 10 And looking round about upon them all, he said unto the man, "Stretch forth they hand." And he did so: and his hand was restored whole as the other.

"Jesus" restores life to the decomposing body of a man who was dead for four days:

(John 11:17/43/44 - KJV)
17 Then when Jesus came, he found that he had lain in the grave four days already 43 And when he thus had spoken, he cried with a loud voice, "Lazarus, come forth." 44 And he that was dead came forth....

"Jesus" does food multiplication, feeding 5,000 after having starting out with only 5 loaves of bread and two fish:

(Mark 6:38/42/44 - KJV)
38 He said unto them, "How many loaves have ye?" And when they knew, they say "Five, and two fishes". 42 And they did all eat, and were filled. 44 And they that did eat of the loaves were about five thousand men.

"Jesus" heals 10 people at once who had leprosy:

(Luke 17:12/14 - KJV)
12 And as he entered into a certain village, there he met ten men that were lepers, which stood afar off. 14 ...and it came to pass that as they went, they were cleansed.

"Jesus" has total command over the forces of Nature:

(Matthew 8:24/26 - KJV)
24 And behold there arose a great tempest in the sea, insomuch that the ship was covered with the waves: but he was asleep. 26 ...Then he arose and rebuked the winds and the sea and there was a great calm.

"Jesus" turns water into wine:

(John 2:7/10 - KJV)
7 Jesus saith unto them, "Fill the waterpots with water." And they filled them up to the brim. 10 ....but thou hast kept the good wine till now.

"Jesus" reattaches a severed body part without surgery:

(Luke 22:50/51 - KJV)
50 And one of them smote the servant of the high priest, and cut off his right ear. 51 And Jesus answered and said, "Suffer ye thus far." And he touched his ear and healed him.

I have never seen believers do these works, as per John 14:12, such as rasing the dead, stopping hurricanes, etc.

INCONGRUITY

RO 3:23 - "..all have sinned and come short of the glory of God" and IS 64:6 "..all our righteousnesses are like filthy rags" (NKJ)---contrast these two with:
MT 9:13 - " ...I did not come to call the righteous, but sinners to repentance" (NKJ)
....implying that some are not sinners, but are indeed righteous...who are these?..how did they get righteous?...no "filthy rags", huh?

Is the following the work of a "good" God?

(Ezekiel 18:20 - KJV)
.....The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:....

...VERSUS...

(2 Samuel 12:14 - KJV)....Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, THE CHILD also that is born unto thee SHALL SURELY DIE."

The Ezekiel and 2 Samuel verses above are in direct contradiction. Additionally, the Ezekiel passage applies to "Jesus" as well, since he would have allegedly died for the sins of his alleged mother Mary, and her alleged father (who would have been "Jesus'" grandfather on his mother's side.)

WHY DIDN'T EVERYONE HAVE BIBLES?

(Luke 2:10 - KJV)
"And the angel said unto them, Fear not: for, behold, I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to ALL people."

Since as per Christian dogma, no one can "be saved" by works, wouldn't it have been very easy for the "angel" to pop in over in the Western Hemisphere and give the same "good tidings" to the Natives of the Americas in their own languages, rather than having all of those "heathen savages" "go to hell" while waiting centuries for Columbus, etc. to get here? And was the slaughter of the Aztecs by Cortez "Godly" behavior? If biblegod wanted "all men to be saved" so badly, the Native American peoples, etc. should have all had bibles already when the Europeans got here.

******************************************************************
As I have said before, everyone has the right to practice whatever religion they want to, or to practice no religion at all if that is what they choose. I see Spirituality as an Internal Process, the Evolvement and Development of the Divine within, and I see it as being the same for everyone, regardless of religion. This Process is exclusive of religion which is merely an external framework (e.g. tradition, observances, ritual, dogma) in which Spirituality is supposed to Operate.

While I can appreciate verses of admirable Philosophy in the bible, such as "love your neighbor as yourself", etc., when it comes to such exclusionist claims as "the true religion", defining "sin", "the only way to be saved", and "inerrant word of God", such claims demand extraordinary proofs in order to be considered valid, and thus worthy of acceptance as per said claims. A "perfect" God, should be able to deliver a book that is perfect historically, archaeologically, logically, textually and prophetically, via the alleged "divinely inspired" writers and scribes.

A good book on biblical Esotericism and its Pagan roots is 'Who is This King of Glory?' by the late Dr.Alvin Boyd Kuhn viewable and readable on line at: http://members.tripod.com/~pc93/kuhn.htm Esotericism and Allegory in Myth and Religious Drama are one thing. Claiming said Myth and Drama as literal "fact" and "history", and constructing legalistic exclusionist dogma upon said literalist "interpretations" of those texts is another.....

K

[chrispalasz]

Response to jimspeiser:

And I say it is invalid for almost precisely the same reason - because it is an attempt on your part to short-circuit the discussion.

All debates have an end. The end is the truth. The truth which is the end to this debate, which I don't believe you seek, is to know Jesus Christ for yourself. Ultimately, He is the Truth and He can provide the answers. Correct me if I'm wrong about you not wanting to know Jesus Christ.

In another thread, I was told that true morality is found by following God. God, we are told, is the source of absolute morality, the final arbiter of good and evil in the universe.

How do we know this?

We know this through God, the Holy Spirit, who is Jesus Christ. That is how we know this.

How do we come to assume that God's good is really good?

There is a false assertion in this question. There is no assumption in knowing that God's good is really good. We know that God's good is really good because of the conviction we have. We are spoken to through the Holy Spirit. From the point when we recieve the Holy Spirit, we know that it is the Truth. As I've stated before, it is very hard to explain this knowledge because it comes from God and it is unlike anything anybody has ever experienced. It would be like trying to explain sound to a deaf person or trying to explain taste or smell to a person that has none. It can only be done by relating it to other things, so clearly it's explanation has limits.

Sure, we are told as much by the Bible. But it's one thing to accept the Bible as God's word...but what if he's lying?

The World likes to tell us that He's lying... once we hear the Holy Spirit speak - we compare what He says to everything that we've experienced in lives, all the facts, all our observations, and all of history. Those things only corroborate His testimony of the Truth. However, if you have not heard Him speak... you cannot possibly corroborate these things to His testimony. So, you should first seek to hear what He has to say to you personally.

What I'm asking is, what is it about God that makes you so sure he's the good guy, the one you should be following?

I think I've covered this, since it is just a rephrasing of the above.

And how can you trust your instincts in this regard, when you believe he is the source of your moral compass in the first place?

Let me ask you: How can you ever trust your instincts on something? The way I see it, the evidence that supports the Christian view and the Holy Spirit is far greater than any evidence that supports an instinct of anything else.

Would it not be possible for a Supreme Being to plant a moral compass in you that automatically registers his words as "good", no matter what?

Anything is possible, right? We can only discern what is true. In this case, there is a lot to support Christianity being the One Truth. In fact, there is more evidence to support the Christian Truth than there is evidence of anything else in existance.

What I am talking about is the conviction of Christians. Everything in existance points to God. Everything is according to the order in which He established things. God tells us that the Bible is His Word. The Holy Spirit testifies to that. The Bible, God's Word, tells us all about life, how to live, and about history and the future. History suppots what the Bible says, which supports what the Holy Spirit says.

On top of that we have our personal life experiences. Jesus' promises to His people are being fulfilled all the time, continuously, and we see that too.

Debates such as this must take place on some common ground, and our only common ground is logic.

I agree. Our only common ground is logic. I don't mean any offense by saying this, but I do not believe you have what is needed to hold such a debate. Two Christians could hold this debate because we all have the common ground that is necessary for understanding the answer... however you lack the Holy Spirit.

This must be the problem then. I suppose there isn't a point in continuing?

Try the Prayer Challenge: http://www.debatingchristianity.com/for ... php?t=1087

And what will this demonstrate?

If you give your life to Christ, this will bring us to the common ground that is necessary for continuing this debate. 8)

If you consider yourself such a child in comparison to God, then I submit that, like a child, you are too naive to decide for yourself whether it is right to follow God. He could be leading you right down the primrose path to annihilation, and you would go willingly, child-like, innocently, to your own destruction.

A) Why would He do that?
B) I do admit to being like a child in comparison to God... but I will be bold and say that every human being, including you, shares this trait with me. The only difference is that you are not His child (at least not to my knowledge... at this point in your life. I could be wrong. Maybe God is your Father and He is patiently waiting for you to repent? I hope that's the case).

Ah. So you're saying God has done all these things and is speaking from experience, right?

Nope. I'm saying God defined these things. Being the Supreme Creator, He has the ability to do that. You're the one that made the inadiquate analogy... not me. I'm sorry the scenarios don't fully parallel one another.

My battle is not with Christians, with God, or with you. It's with Christian thinking. The Christian Theology is like Teflon. It's self-protecting, it has a shield against every piece of logic thrown at it. It can never be shown to be wrong. And that is exactly why every adherent should examine it in minute detail, from inside and out. Because, despite its appearance of invincibility, it could still be wrong. The problem is, you will never know.

That is respectable... but what about the truth? Just for an instant, let's separate this particular point of mine from religion. In any sense, can the truth about something be wrong? By definition, no. The truth cannot be wrong or it would not be truth. The truth of anything can be shown to be false... but only in a false and deceiving way, right? So, it is your belief that Christianity could still be wrong. I hold that Christianity could not ever possibly be wrong.

I hope you believe me when i say that I question myself all the time with challenges. I have not blindly accepted Christanity and my testimony speaks on my behalf. Every day I wake up, I'm a Christian again. I wish I could say that I realize it like new every day... but that might be at the sacrifice of me denying it and then rerealizing it as the Truth. I can say that I'm pretty sure God wouldn't find that to be Just.