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!

[chrispalasz]

Response to Tigerlilly:

antediluvian: good word. 8) This is a new one to me.

anacryonistic: I don't know what this word means. I couldn't find a listing for it, so I'm not sure you spelled it correctly. Could you fill me in, please?

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.

Do you have anything similar to this for anything in your life?
Could somebody convince you that you don't exist?
Could somebody convince you that you never had a father?
Could somebody convince you that the world is flat?
Could somebody convince you that a square circle exists?
Could somebody convince you that one plus one equals three?

Do these things qualify under that bubble of protection shield? Why or why not?

they know that faith alone is silly.

I agree with you, here. Faith alone is silly... but that's the captivating beauty of it! The silliness (if that's a word... well it is today) of man is the Wisdom of God. That's not a direct quote from the Bible... you'd have to replace "silliness" with "foolishness", but I still believe they are analogous. 8)

If there is no protective (blech) God, they have no salvation, no motivation to do good, no reward

I don't serve God for reward. I do not fall into that particular part of your analysis. I serve Him out of love, and nothing more.

Tigerlilly: Sincerely, I really appreciate that last post. It has been a rewarding insight into your perspective, and I value that. Thank you very mch.

[Tigerlilly]

anacryonistic: I don't know what this word means. I couldn't find a listing for it, so I'm not sure you spelled it correctly. Could you fill me in, please?

Yea. It is spelled kububbled =D

anachronistic

I don't know why I typed the other thing.

Antediluvian is a cool word though. There are lots of cool words, but no one uses them.

Do you have anything similar to this for anything in your life?
Could somebody convince you that you don't exist?
Could somebody convince you that you never had a father?
Could somebody convince you that the world is flat?
Could somebody convince you that a square circle exists?
Could somebody convince you that one plus one equals three?

1. None of these defy the Principle of Parsimony

2. They all have clear empirical evidence for them,

3. They all PASS the test of Falsifiability or they pass the test of positivist verificationism. Your's does not, therefore it's a meaningless, unnecessary concept.

I don't have to consider things which have no empirical, logical background and fly in the face of the logic/scientific community. There has yet to be 1 logical argument for the existence of the christian God. All others have already been debunked.

If somehow they could logically, empirically show that I never had a father (which is impossible unless I had one of those new, radical procedure sto birth me (which didn't exist during my birth), then I would accept that one, however.

I agree with you, here. Faith alone is silly... but that's the captivating beauty of it! The silliness (if that's a word... well it is today) of man is the Wisdom of God. That's not a direct quote from the Bible... you'd have to replace "silliness" with "foolishness", but I still believe they are analogous.

Good. We agree that faith is silly. Silly things are useless in a serious debate. The wisdom of God is silly, because it's nonsensical; this is not because we can't understand it. TO say that is a mere rhetorical, unprovable linguistic trick people use to attack the person, rather than the logical argument. I believe it's a form of ad hominem where you attack the source. THe same would be evident if I were to say catholics cannot understand my writings because they don't possess the magic spirit of Logicsus, therefore we have no logical common ground. It's an unprovable attack statement. You could never falsify it or verify it. It's useless.

The only thing we have to go on is standard logic and Empirical evidence. If God cannot stand up to that--well, too bad. It's not because we are stupid. God gets far more wrong.

I don't serve God for reward. I do not fall into that particular part of your analysis. I serve Him out of love, and nothing more.

You love him because he gives you something at the end. There is no other reason. Christianity is based on a reward/punishment system. That's pretty much official. THere's no reason to love God outside of having eternal "bliss" at the end. He does nothing good, he commites atrocious acts--heinous acts.. and is the epitome of an ego-tripped meglomaniac.

[chrispalasz]

Tigerlilly: There are lots of cool words, but no one uses them.

Well, I'm glad you're a pioneer. If nothing else... I can increase my vocabulary by debating with you.

Tigerlilly: I don't have to consider things which have no empirical, logical background and fly in the face of the logic/scientific community. There has yet to be 1 logical argument for the existence of the christian God. All others have already been debunked.

But all of those debunks have been debunked, which leaves all of the Christian arguments standing with nothing to attack them. 8) :2gun: :D/ {|=

Tigerlilly: The only thing we have to go on is standard logic and Empirical evidence. If God cannot stand up to that--well, too bad. It's not because we are stupid. God gets far more wrong.

So... you can continue to use what you possess to determine for yourself whether or not God exists. I will continue to use what I have to determine for myself whether or not God exists. You will remain an Atheist because of that. I will remain a Christian because of that. What else is there?

I feel as though I possess something that you do not possess which allows me to know that God does exist. Do you feel the same thing (only reversed) about me?

Tigerlilly: You love him because he gives you something at the end.

This is not true. I love God because God is good. I love God in a greater capacity when He is good to others more than I love Him when He is good to me.

Tigerlilly: There is no other reason.

This is not true, or I would not love God - because you're reason is not my reason. If you can't accept that, you are only deceiving yourself.

Tigerlilly: Christianity is based on a reward/punishment system. That's pretty much official.

You surprise me by trying to capture Christianity with such a statement. As a Christian, I can say with certainty that you are far off the mark.

Tigerlilly: THere's no reason to love God outside of having eternal "bliss" at the end.

I can't even contemplate what eternal bliss feels like... how could I love God for that??? Nobody can contemplate it. Similarly, as I've said before, nobody can contemplate Hell either. That's where and that's why your reward/punishment theory fails. Most people, including yourself, aren't afraid of Hell because they can't imagine what it could be like.

[bernee51]

But all of those debunks have been debunked, which leaves all of the Christian arguments standing with nothing to attack them.

I'd be interested to see the arguments rather than the opinion GL as to how the "debunking has been debunked. There are no logical arguments thay you, as a TC (TM), have put forward in support of the existence of your god.

Tigerlilly: The only thing we have to go on is standard logic and Empirical evidence. If God cannot stand up to that--well, too bad. It's not because we are stupid. God gets far more wrong.

I feel as though I possess something that you do not possess which allows me to know that God does exist. Do you feel the same thing (only reversed) about me?

All you have that an atheist does not have GL is faith in the existence of your god. Nothing more nothing less. I

This is not true. I love God because God is good. I love God in a greater capacity when He is good to others more than I love Him when He is good to me.

And how do you feel when he is cruel to others GL?

You surprise me by trying to capture Christianity with such a statement. As a Christian, I can say with certainty that you are far off the mark.

There are no rewards for being a TC, no punishments for not?

What other reasons are there for you GL?

[chrispalasz]

bernee51:

Do I need to answer your questions? Or can you answer them for me? I think (I may be wrong) that we have come to a point where we can look past some of these petty comments to see where the real discussion should be taking place. My discussion with you is at a far different place than it is with others, like Tigerlilly for example. I've simply discussed with you more frequently.

If you want to have a discussion about certain issues... I would be more than happy to oblige... but I'm not sure what you are hoping to gain by backtracking down these paths we've been on.

Anyway, let me know what you think. I'll give it a go if you feel it's necessary.

[bernee51]

I would agree GL that we have touched on these issues and, in our particular 'relationship', perhaps should be able to go beyond.

However I do believe that when you make unsubstantiated, if not downright dishonest, comments I can reserve the right to address them ... thus the questions I asked of you.

Comments such as this, for instance....

"But all of those debunks have been debunked, which leaves all of the Christian arguments standing with nothing to attack them."

I still do not know how you can, with a straight face, make such a claim. It is simply not true.

kind regards

[chrispalasz]

bernee51: I would agree GL that we have touched on these issues and, in our particular 'relationship', perhaps should be able to go beyond.

However I do believe that when you make unsubstantiated, if not downright dishonest, comments I can reserve the right to address them ... thus the questions I asked of you.

Comments such as this, for instance....

"But all of those debunks have been debunked, which leaves all of the Christian arguments standing with nothing to attack them."

I still do not know how you can, with a straight face, make such a claim. It is simply not true.

kind regards

I can't say it with a straight face. I admit that I was toying around with my response. I was trying to make a point. Let me explain what that point was, in case you can't see it:

If you examine my reply, think about all the things that you find wrong with it. Now understand this: Everything that you find wrong with my reply, I also find wrong with the claim that I was replying to. And that was the purpose of my reply, to show that it was a useless and unwarranted claim that was delivered through one perspective.

Seriously. Let's take a look at this. The entire reason we are debating in a forum like this is because there's something to debate. Two worldviews are butting heads; people have different perspectives. A Christian may make an argument that you don't know how to answer. An Atheist may then make a counterargument. Of course you're going to agree with the Atheist argument, hands down. My point is that, no Christian argument is going to win you over.

There has yet to be 1 logical argument for the existence of the christian God. All others have already been debunked.

This comment is as good as the fact that my favorite color is green. It's a perspective. It doesn't carry over to everyone. It's not a universal fact. Some may FEEL that it's true... but that in no way makes it true. This type of comment is deserving of the following response:

But all of those debunks have been debunked, which leaves all of the Christian arguments standing with nothing to attack them.

Plus a bunch of happy emoticons afterward.

[The Happy Humanist]

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.

You are correct; I no more want to know Jesus than you want to know Santa Claus, and for the same reason. I say this in the sense of wanting to know him the way you know him. I do wish to know whether or not Jesus actually walked the earth, and whether or not there is a God. Currently, based on my reading here and elsewhere, I have to tentatively conclude that there is not.

There was a time, I assure you, when I wanted what you allegedly have, a relationship with God. For whatever reason, I was denied this.

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.

I understand what you are saying. You have had the benefit of an internal experience that I and my ilk have not had. I'm sure, then, that you can understand why we question the whole faith thing the way we do. Without the benefit of this experience, we are forced to fall back on logic and skepticism, and exactly the line of questioning with which I have barraged you. In light of your "advantage" in this situation - which you yourself describe as "unlike anything anybody has ever experienced" - is it so hard for you to comprehend the difficulty we have believing the seemingly contradictory rhetoric, the apparent mental contortions you people go through in order to reconcile things like "Absolute Good and Mercy" vs. "Eternal Damnation"? Are these not questions you yourself would ask, had you not had the "experience"? And would you not further ask, "Why would God create skepticism in some people, and then deny this experience to them"?

And now we come to a question that goes to the heart of the problem, the disconnect between believers and skeptics: Which came first, your Faith or your Experiencing the Holy Spirit? When you yourself took the prayer challenge, or whatever it was you did to open yourself to God or the Holy Spirit, were you already a believer? And is that a requirement for such an experience?

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.

What is the nature of this evidence? Are you speaking of the evidence of your own "experience"? Or is there something objective that we have missed?

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.

Same question.

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.

Well, yes, except for those places where History doesn't support what the Bible says...but that's another topic.

As to everything in existence pointing to God, I could just as easily say everything in existence points to Murray. There would be no way to refute it. What you are in essence doing is shooting an arrow at the side of a barn, then drawing a bullseye around it. If you want to find God in everything, you will, no matter what.

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?

Probably not...unless you are willing to examine the possibility that you are wrong, and that your personal experience may not be grounded in reality so much as in your indulgence of the "will to believe." For my part, I assure you, I am ready, willing and able to be shown the error of my ways. All I ask is that it makes sense.

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?

Who are we to question God's motives? Whatever he does is Good, remember? Gotcha again.

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).

If so, He'll have to be patient...and a little bit more sensible.

I hope you believe me when i say that I question myself all the time with challenges.

Now you've got me curious, what form do these challenges take? What questions do you ask of yourself, and what answers do you arrive at? Be prepared to show your work.

[chrispalasz]

Hi Karl, welcome to the discussion

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

Purely a philisophical matter, not a theological one. Out of the realm I care to discuss in. What is not out of the realm that I care to discuss would be, "did God create evil?" - maybe that could be a new thread.

Karl wrote:

(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?

The understanding of Holy Scripture doesn't come without divine intervention. Let me help to reconcile these passages which you feel you have correctly discerned the meaning of.

The "evil" in Isaiah 45:7, if you read the context, is not the evil of sin but it is the evil of punishment. Those being punished regard their punishment as evil. In the Bible, in the Old Testament, there are many references to God's Just Punishment that are described as evil. This passage does not help those that would like to say that God is not good. Most translations use the word "disaster" or "calamity" instead of evil. KJV is one of the very few versions that translate that passage as evil.

In light of this, it is then not hard at all to understand Proverbs 14:22 which suggests those that devise evil err. Those that devise sinful evil do, in fact, err.

In Habakkuk 1, the prophet is complaining to God that He is acting too slow. Even the prophet does not always understand God's actions. Even prophets sometimes question God. Even prophets sin... they are human. In Habakkuk 1:13, he does not deny the true nature of God... yet still addresses Him with accusing words. This does not make his words true. Obviously God can, in fact look at evil, or wrong-doing. He, however, does not approve of it.

Karl wrote: 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:

Quote:
(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!

I have already explained Habakkuk 1:13 to you, which answers your last comment here. Isaiah 44:2 shows that God created everyone. Psalm 51:5 shows that everyone is born in sin. This is due to the fall of man, started by the sins of Adam and Eve; so everyone is born into sin.

Karl wrote: 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?

These verses are part of Holy Scripture and are God breathed. They show God's authority and righteous judgement over all. This violence that is in the Bible, as well as other violence in the Old Testament, is justified by God's omniscience. He knows everything. He knows what we have done wrong, He knows what we are doing wrong, and He knows what we will do wrong.

Violence is not wrong; unrighteous violence is wrong. These passages may be disgusting to you because you do not trust in Jesus Christ. If you seek a relationship with Jesus Christ, you will most certainly aquire the trust for God that I have. That trust goes so far as to cover all actions that may appear to be violent and evil. Knowing that God is good by knowing Jesus Christ and having the Holy Spirit inside of me... I know His actions are justified. I have faith in this by His Word alone.

Karl wrote:

(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?

All of the errors in the Bible have nothing to do with its teaching or its theology. They are mere spelling and grammer errors. The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of the one and only Perfect God and was written through imperfect men. The message is perfect, and it is loud and clear. The authority by which I make this claim is not my own authority; it is the authority that Jesus Christ, Son of God holds. It is also firmly supported by the Bible.

Karl wrote: 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.

What we have here: an unsupported claim. You wouldn't accept one from me; and I won't accept one from you, or this guy.

Karl wrote: (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.

I am unnaware of anyone having found the source materials of the gospels. Please enlighten me. There is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than there is evidence that Homer existed, Lucretius existed, Pliny existed, Plato existed, Demosthenes existed, Suetonius existed, Thucydides existed, Euripides existed, Aristophanes existed, Livy existed, Tacitus existed, Aristotle existed, Sophocles existed, and Socrates exited. I'm sure there are more than that. Are you saying, by quoting this man, that none of these people existed because there is not enough evidence? If you are saying that any of these men did exist, but that Jesus of Nazareth did not exist, I will have to ask you to tell me why that is.

Karl wrote: (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."

How does this passage speak towards your claim?

Karl wrote: 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

First of all, why do you think the author of Daniel would lie about historical data? That makes no sense. The Bible is very reliable and accurate, and so is the Book of Daniel.

RESPONSE:

Fourth, there is strong archaeological confirmation of some of the historical characters found in the Book of Daniel. King Belshazzar was thought to be unhistorical by liberal critics. Secular history records Nabonidus as the last king of the Babylonian Empire. However, later discoveries of cuneiform tablets revealed that Nabonidus shared his reign with his son Belshazzar.96 Liberal scholars also rejected the historicity of Darius the Mede, but recent scholarship has identified Darius the Mede with an ancient govenor of Babylon named Gubaru. It has also been shown that Darius was probably not a personal name; rather, it was a title of royalty (such as Caesar was for the Romans).97

For more:
http://www.biblicaldefense.org/Research ... bility.htm
OR http://www.biblicalstudies.org.uk/article_daniel.html
Also, the Book of Daniel must be dated accurately:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/qwhendan3b.html
Tons more on Daniel: http://www.tektonics.org/af/danieldefense.html

Karl wrote:

(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.

You are mistaken, but this is a popular objection. Here is the link to a very clear, concise, and interesting explanation. Somebody was trying too hard to find holes in the Bible. Easily explained, check it out:
http://www.christian-thinktank.com/quirinius.html

Karl wrote:
There is also no extra-biblical corroboration anywhere of the alleged slaughter of infants by Herod.

And there is a very good reason as to why there is no extra-biblical corroboration of the slaughter of infants by Herod.
http://www.carm.org/questions/massacre.htm

Karl wrote: 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.

This prophecy is for the second coming of Christ. The prophecy was not fulfilled because the second coming has not happened yet. Sorry to dissapoint you, but it's probably better that it hasn't been fulfilled yet.

Karl wrote: 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.

Definately debatable. Some say yes, some say no. Here are two sources that say yes.
1. http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/Book1.html
2. http://www.kent.net/DisplacedDynasties/Book2Index.html

Karl wrote: 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.

RESPONSE:

"I would like to add that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt as Ezekiel prophesied. Not even Nebuchadnezzar claimed that."

In reply, we may note that our sources for this period are very sparse, and the best that can really be said is that there is no positive evidence that Nebbie took Egypt as prophesied. Extant records DO indicate that Nebbie did indeed conquer Egypt - whether he took them into captivity and left Egypt desolate for 40 years is neither proven nor disproven by our sources. However - it is known that it was Nebbie's policy to deport peoples from conquered lands (as he did with Judah), and there is a 33-year gap between the time that Nebbie attacked Egypt and the time that Cyrus defeated Babylon. Allowing either for rounded numbers or time to return to Egypt, we have a possible span into which we could see those 40 years. Therefore, for lack of evidence, this prophecy cannot be judged a priori a failure.

A clipping from an article at http://www.tektonics.org

Karl wrote: 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.

RESPONSE:

All the prophecies of Ezekiel about Tyre have come true: Nebuchadnezzar destroyed the mainland city of Tyre; Many nations were against Tyre; Alexander made her a bare rock and threw debris into the water to make the causeway; fishermen now spread nets over the site; (there is a city of Tyre today, but it is located down the coast from the original Tyre) the old city of Tyre has never been rebuilt, even though a great freshwater spring are located at the site, providing 10,000,000 gallons daily. It is still an excellent site today but has never been rebuilt, although many have tried. All seven of the predictions came true in the minutest detail.
http://www.quiknet.com/~dfrench/evidence/prophecy.htm

Karl wrote: "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)

Well this is a low blow, seeing as how the statement you provided that was made by Jesus is incredibly vague... yet the works of Jesus that you took from the Bible are very specific. In fact, Christians today do many of the works that Jesus did - and more, just as He said. We bring the gospel to the Gentiles. That is an extraordinary work that Jesus did not do.

Furthermore... in response to this quote:

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

It's too bad that you've never seen believers do these works. Maybe if you had, you would repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Would you?

Karl wrote: INCONGRUITY

Karl, a skeptic's misinterpretation of the Bible in no way equates to Biblical incongruity. Please allow one who has the Holy Spirit to interpret.

Karl wrote: 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?

From the first two verses we see that everyone is a sinner. What Jesus is saying in Matthew 9:13 is that he did not come to this earth to tend to the needs of people that didn't think they needed healing. He refers to them as the "righteous", not because they actually are righteous, but because they do not believe they are sinners. Jesus came to call sinners. He came to call people that know that they are evil and have broken God's law. There is no incongruity and there is no mistaking what Jesus meant by his words.

Karl wrote: 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.)

Allow me to help you with this one also. Ezekiel is clearly talking about sin and spiritual death. 2 Samuel is talking about physical death... two completely different things. Everyone will suffer physical death, but only those that oppose God will suffer spiritual death.

Karl wrote:
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.

It is a blessing from God that He did not send His angels to do all of the work. God blesses us Christians by allowing us to do His Holy, Righteous, Divine Good work for Him! The feeling of knowing that living my life, I am actually doing the work of God... it's absolutely amazing.

What happens to people that don't hear the gospel? I don't know. We can only speculate on such issues. To be honest, I don't need to know. It doesn't bug me because I know God is Good and Faithful and He will not unjustly punish anyone.

Karl wrote: 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.

This is very true. I agree.

Karl wrote: 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.

You sound just like my dad. He shares this belief with you. Obviously, I do not. I am quite certain that, by God's merciful Grace, Christainity is the Truth.

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.

Karl wrote: 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.

Such claims do demand extraordinary proofs. There is nothing more extraordinary than God Himself, the Holy Spirit, by which Christians know that our Faith is Truth.

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.

Karl wrote: 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.....

I've read enough material by skeptics. It's not likely that I'll pick this one up, but I may skim through it. Thanks for the link. You seem to have looked deeply into these misguided claims about Christianity... have you ever looked deeply into Christainity from a Christian's perspective though? It's a life changing experience.

[Tigerlilly]

I am unnaware of anyone having found the source materials of the gospels. Please enlighten me. There is more evidence that Jesus of Nazareth existed than there is evidence that Homer existed, Lucretius existed, Pliny existed, Plato existed, Demosthenes existed, Suetonius existed, Thucydides existed, Euripides existed, Aristophanes existed, Livy existed, Tacitus existed, Aristotle existed, Sophocles existed, and Socrates exited.

Prove this using facts.

The understanding of Holy Scripture doesn't come without divine intervention.

Copout statement: Translation--No one but a true christian may understand the Bible, which is a nonsense rationalization.

What we have here: an unsupported claim. You wouldn't accept one from me; and I won't accept one from you, or this guy.

There is very little evidence that Jesus even existed outside of faerie tales. At least Plato directly wrote stuff. What did JEsus write? All his existence relies on is heresay from other people who were his supposed "disciples."

Where's the burial site? Where's his first hand writings? WHere is his body? What DNA is there? Do we got photos? Do we have living relatives? Is there any real evidence or product of his being other than word of mouth?

What if a bunch of people called themselves the disciples of Granny. Granny wrote nothing, but the disciples say he did. It's most likley a very nice faerie tale invented by philosphers who had nothing better to do.

First of all, why do you think the author of Daniel would lie about historical data? That makes no sense. The Bible is very reliable and accurate, and so is the Book of Daniel.

The Bible is far from accurate: I will post a hilarious example:



Apparently you go the opposite direction to go where you want, in the Bible. Great inerrancy and reliability. They can't even do basic directional skills, much less historical accuracy.

This violence that is in the Bible, as well as other violence in the Old Testament, is justified by God's omniscience. He knows everything. He knows what we have done wrong, He knows what we are doing wrong, and He knows what we will do wrong.

THere's no credible evidence he knows everything. It's all heresay. Being all-knowing doesn't logically justify anything anyway. You are going from an IS to an OUGHT, which is the naturalistic fallacy.

Just because he is all power does not logically imply he ought to engage in violance because he knows. You cannot go from what is to what ought to be for something to be right/wrong.

God would have to use two or more ought premesies behind his arguments to justify it. All power and all knowledge doesn't delineate right/wrong/ justification.

These passages may be disgusting to you because you do not trust in Jesus Christ.

That even sounds absurd. to serial killers. YOu don't need to "trust" someone to know that something's wrong, sounds wrong, or is silly and evil. Here's an example?


You don't see serial killers' actions as disgusting because you don't trust them.

If you replace Jesus with serial killers, you get teh same argument, and it's just as silly. I don't, however, need to know they are disgusting through trust. THere are things called OBJECTIVE ETHICAL theories, which do this for me.

All of the errors in the Bible have nothing to do with its teaching or its theology. They are mere spelling and grammer errors.

They are more than that. Spelling, Grammar, Cartography, Directions, Logic, HISTORY. If the Bible is the word of God, there shouldn't be grammatical errors, logical errors, scientific contradictions, poor cartography and crappy directional skills.

Is God a moron? People aren't even that stupid. I know you can't go south to go north. What fool doesn't know that?

The authority by which I make this claim is not my own authority; it is the authority that Jesus Christ, Son of God holds.

There really is no son of God. Jesus is God, so they are really one and the same. That's like me dividing into two people simultaniously and saying he's my son.

And trusting that it's right because the Bible or Jesus say so is the appeal to Authority Fallacy.

What we have here: an unsupported claim. You wouldn't accept one from me; and I won't accept one from you, or this guy.

As to Biblican History, it's wrong about a lot of things, including the life of Herod, the famous "path" of Jesus, as well as the details about Pilotes. It's also with no foundation for all of Exodus. It's ludicrous.

It's too bad that you've never seen believers do these works. Maybe if you had, you would repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Would you?

So now you are appealing to something that's physically/ logically impossible--mircale workers. If you have to believe in something that has no evidence..that's not good.

Karl, a skeptic's misinterpretation of the Bible in no way equates to Biblical incongruity. Please allow one who has the Holy Spirit to interpret.

So the only people who can critique it fairly are the ones who believe it. That's like saying no one can criticize communism because they're not a communist. No one except those inspired by the divine knoweldge of the almighty Stalin or Lenin or Marx may understand this triumphant work!

It is a blessing from God that He did not send His angels to do all of the work. God blesses us Christians by allowing us to do His Holy, Righteous, Divine Good work for Him!

Basically, God procrastinates and shouves his workload onto his minions and slaves--the christians, and they feel blessed that he gives them the work.

Wow. Can I let you do my homework and then you can be blessed? Shucks, if it's that easy to get fools to do stuff...

I am actually doing the work of God... it's absolutely amazing.

Translating now: *beebdoobeeb beeb beeb* I am actually being a slave of God...it's absolutely amazing!

What happens to people that don't hear the gospel?

They live normal, happy, free lives and they don't go insane.

It doesn't bug me because I know God is Good and Faithful and He will not unjustly punish anyone.

HAHAHAHHAHAHAHHAHA. I am sorry. I just crapped my pants that was so funny. God and justice don't even go together. It's an oxymoron.