Re: "10 questions that every intelligent Christian must answer"

[lost_ti_bon_ange]

For instance [of slavery],

Exodus 31:32 And the booty, being the rest of the prey which the men of war had caught, was 675,000 sheep, And 12,060 beeves, And 1,060 asses,

31:35 And 32,000 persons in all, of women that had not known man by lying with him.

(The correct source is Numbers 31:32, 35) The issue was whether this was "debt based" slavery or "non-debt". It was a "debt based" slavery.

This is a debt:
Me: “I would like to have that object you possess; how much do you want for it?”
You: “I want X amount for it.”
M: “OK, I agree to give you X amount for it, but I don’t have that much in my possession at this time. Can we make a payment arrangement?”
Y: “Fine. You give me Y amount over Z months to equal the sum of X and it is yours.”
M: “Cool.”

THIS is revenge - NOT a debt.
Me: “Hey You, come live like I do.”
You: “Sorry nope, my dad told me not to.”
M: (shakes naughty bits in front of you) “You can have this if you live like I do.”
Y: “Hell yeah!”
Your Pops to Me: I shall kill your family and you and own your 8 year old daughter as my property for the rest of my days for convincing my boy to live like you!”


It really bothers me how you try to turn revenge against another into a debt (something one agrees to) that the muredered and enslaved owed to the attacker. The Israelite's may have been tempted and failed to resist, but that is NOT the fault of those that tempted. For that matter, according to the story, it doesn't look like they even know the terms of the 'arrangment', let alone agreed to them!


*edit: resit to resist

[Graybeard]

Talk about cherry-picking. I give the entire context and then a source from descendants of those who actually wrote the passage so you can read and you first "snip" (interesting you admit to it) and then present a question based on a verse you yourself cherry-picked out of context. Why don't you read it from the beginning of 21?

Because your explanation does not include an apology for maintaining that non-debt slave holding is not supported by God.

On top of that, the reason that the women who had known a man were killed was a warped idea of genetics – once a woman had been sullied by a non-believer, the idiot bronze-age tribesmen believed that the influence of the first man would rest inside her and come out in future generations, regardless of whom the father was.

All together now..."if you beat your slave, and they die, you will be punished […] Does this contradict anything I previously wrote?

Does it have anything to do with non-debt slave holding?

[Ambassador Pony]

Are you serious!? Man...I'm convinced while some of you are willing to have an honest conversation, others just like to hear/read themselves talk/speak...with no substance; without using the quoted source (the scripture in context) to defend your argument. Some of you guys just say stuff with no proof but will wait for others to help them on their OWN point.

Yes and no. I find this whole discussion on the attributes of your imaginary friends on par with discussing a story book with a child. That you are an adult only adds another facet to the whole experience. Belief behaviour as it manifests itself in individuals like you is interesting, but a bit pathetic and troubling. If that upsets you, that's really too bad. 

Historicity provided an example of slavery that wasn't related to debt (debt as characterized by your earlier rationalizing analogy). Your subsequent analysis and excuse was not satisfactory. An objective FAIL. Your own estimation of it doesn't change that. Why not explain how it does not satisfy, you might ask? Why indeed.

In your mind, I can see how you really have one option, it must be the fault of those who think your contorted rationalization is faulty. Given the ridiculous lengths you will go to in order to work the narrative into your narrow delusion, I can only assume that the only way to reality for you is to discover it on your own, without much more than a few objective external prompts.

It's becoming pretty clear that you can twist anything to justify a tenaciously held belief for reasons outside of basic reason, or common sense (let me guess, you're partially a musical learner). I would not illogically attempt to use such tools to help you. Or, the character you are attempting to portray for forum amusement.

I waited for historicity to help me on my own point, eh? Another delusion added to the list.   

[screwtape]

Moabite women began infiltrating Israel. Using their sexuality, the Moabite women tempted Israel’s males to break the law [no idolatry; no fornication outside of marriage] by worship false gods and through whoredom, defiling the holy place...
<snip>
Because of this assault against the Law, ...

The women were the chief transgressors sent to destroy Israel from the inside using their own bodies.

I have to ask, are you out of your gourd?  Women infiltrating israel, trying to destroy it through idolatry and "whoredom"?  This is so preposterously stupid, I am at a loss for words.  How in the world does idolatry harm a country?  In what way was their alleged whoredom a national, existential problem?

And is it really their fault?  Why do you blame the women who tempted the jews and not the men who succumbed?   That is like blaming a rape victim for dressing too sexy. 

There is something seriously wrong with you. 

[Joshua]

Sorry to throw this conversation backwards a bit (after a few days of absence), but I promised Jeff a response (and then I’ll respond to you guys)…

Alright Joshua, then show me how to pray to Yah in the way you want, and I will see if it's true.  Or better yet, if you think you meet all of your own criteria, YOU do it and prove your point with a verifiable, repeatable, falsifiable test procedure.  Or best... find someone you think epitomizes and exemplifies ALL of your criteria and have them do repeated intercessory prayers and see what happens.

[...]

I don't worship any deity.  Nobody is stealing my worship.  I think all previously postulated god(s) are simply not real.

I already presented the “how”. This was the whole reason for your series of replies to me; to prove that my given stipulations weren’t needed [and BTW – it’s interesting that you mention a moment when I misspelled the word “stipulation” when you obviously (a) understood which word I meant and (b) actually referenced an earlier quote when I spelled it correctly in my post…so what was your reason in pointing it out, I wonder?].

You claim that there are specific requirements to be met by someone who prays that will enhance the possibility of receiving an answer to a prayer

No…you claim such; the premise that “prayer” (itself) is the source of the “answer” to it, which you argue doesn’t work – because you argue it works sometimes regardless of stipulations. No. I’m claiming that “prayer” is a communication tool to WHOMEVER you choose to communicate, and then I provided the means by which you communicate “to Yah”…and if you don’t “dial the right number” (stipulations) you can’t call to the person you desire, no matter how badly you want to (or think you are), right? This says NOTHING about "inaccessibility" but about the fact that there is but one way to get “to Yah”, just like there is an exact series of numbers to dial for any specific person’s phone in the entire world [acknowledging that people can get business lines, additional numbers tied to a phone, etc., but a number must be dialed "exactly": from beginning to end]. I guess you can argue that prayer “to yah” shouldn’t be this exact, but why do we readily accept such exactness when dialing each other's phone numbers (rather than saying “oh, the phone should know who I mean to call, so I expect it to make the right connection regardless of MY error in dialing”)?

…and all of this is merely to establish a communication “specifically with Yah”. Isn't it true that if you dial a wrong number you get someone/something else? Isn't this true?

Do you really think it's surprising that a religion that was formed amidst many, many other competing religions would have a phrase in it's holy book about other dieties who want to steal worship?

I dunno. I haven’t been talking about a religion, but about communication with Yah. I haven’t said one thing about any religion (maybe I should create a signature that says “I’m not part of a religion”).

How do you know that?  How can you possibly know my current standing with what you consider to be the most powerful being in the universe?

…Because you told me, yourself. You don’t believe in Yah at all (“you can’t dial the right number without the first digit”). This is the first step, so to say.

If you claim I can't pray to Yah, then how am I ever supposed to get to know Yah in the first place?  What does it take to know this Yah character you keep talking about?  And don't give me that wishy, washy "you have to ask with all your heart" bull, because I'm not a 5 year old.  I won't simply fall for that trick, where I either ask for the rest of my natural life, or I convince myself that this Yah character exists.  I need some sort of timeline.  How long do I "seek" Yah before I give up and am allowed to say "Nope, Yah isn't real."  I need some sort of way to know that I am "right" with Yah.  I'm not just going to take your word for it either way.  Obviously he's not someone that people know about.

Man…you paint yourself in a corner, dude (and from the votes it seems like most want to also): first you want a timeline for when you can “not believe in him anymore” assuming yourself to have initially taken a full plunge (even though, with this “timeline” business, one foot’s in the water while the other’s safe on the dock)…and then you don’t’ want anyone to tell you about him (much less me, even though you ask ME the question)…contrarily, you assume to know Yah to say it’s obvious “he’s not someone that people know about”, but how do you know this if you’ve admitted to not knowing him (rhetorical)?

Well, I’m not going to tell you about Yah...and I'm not going to give you some bubbly, feel-good message. If you believe Yah is all in my head, then I invite you to simply witness my character during my time on this forum; learn me. I use things we naturally understand to explain his character, because “…his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So [we] are without [any] excuse.” (Romans 1:20).

I’m not asking you to believe, but this exercise will – however - require you to open your mind (more so than it is currently). I mean…if Yah’s character is all in my head, then I - as a specimen or reflection - should be sufficient enough to understand Yah, right? The burden is still on me.
   

Joshua, please, you have got to start thinking a bit here. ...[

I AM thinking, Jeff. I think that's the problem with many of you; that you automatically associate "belief in a deity" with "non-thought" when such a belief is a conclusion of merely thinking in a different direction; coming to a different conclusion.

Belief in a deity comes from a neutral place of initial curiosity ("Is there a higher power or not?"), not a biased one ("there is a higher power, so I'm going to find proof..."). There are many who can explain the "how" to many things; the intricacies, and yet when asked to explain "why" they confuse "detailed functions" with "reasons for those functions"...and to make it worse, most stop there, assuming that the "how" IS the"why". Take over-the-counter medicines, for instance; there is no medicine that cures an underlying problem or disease. Medicines merely cure "simptoms" while the body works through the REAL problem...and we accept this, (why) because sadly we've been convinced to believe that a simptom IS a problem; that a "detailed function" is the "source of the function". No one can explain the "why"; the zero-point, initial reason for any of it...but we all know - for a fact - that there exists a "why" (somewhere), an initial starting point for these things, otherwise these things could not be.

I am asking you to respond directly and comment on what I am about to write, OK?  Don't dodge it, don't go around it, answer these questions honestly....

(continued in my next post)...

[Joshua]

Given the complete lack of verifiable evidence that any prayer has EVER actually been answered by an act of a supernatural entity...[

If we're going to tackle this question honestly, we must be fair with the initial assumption of a "lack of verifiable evidence". Will you agree that we can't base your question on this because (a) my side can be accused of evidence bias, while (b) your side can be accused of denial of evidence or choosing something that goes against the rules (i.e. "regeneration of amputations")? What possible evidence do BOTH sides agree to as being neutral? I could give my pieces of evidence but to you it's all heresay (I think that's the right term)...there isn't any evidence that is accepted by both sides so we can't base your question on this foundation. I'm not dodging but please be fair.

..., is it not possible that there is nothing out there that answers prayer in the first place?   Is it not possible that the "other" thing that you say answers my prayer is not a "thing" at all, and is nothing more than normal circumstances that happen to occur, and my prayer had no bearing at all on the outcome of what I prayed for?  And if that is possibly true, is it also not possible that all of your excuses and criteria are nothing more than the rationalizations that you have come up with to explain this scenario in detail, without having to give up your belief in your invisible surrogate parent?  Think about it, please.  I am talking possibilities here, not certainties.  Where does that logically fall apart for you?

Do you agree with my previous post that explains "prayer" as a "communication tool" (like a phone, and all similar rules that follow)? If so, will you agree that this line of questioning follows the wrong logical path as mapped out by your initial assumption, if your initial assumption is incorrect? Regardless, I understand your point, namely that "there is no possible deity that exists to whom to pray"...so we will attempt to prove OR disprove the possibility of this deity's existence.

We're going to take this a step at a time (and anyone else feel free to join in as I'm interested in your views as well)...

1. I am who I am...I exist

Questions: Do YOU exist right now? If so...how am I able to know this as verifiable truth? What proof is there that YOU exist, in my eyes and mind?

[Larissa238]

I exist, and you know this to be true because I'm communicating clearly with you. We speak the same language, and I am giving a coherent response to something you articulated. This message is proof I exist. There is no 40-year gap between my existence and the message being written, no myths involved with magical beings, and no way to construe what I'm saying into anything else.

[JeffPT]

Sorry to throw this conversation backwards a bit (after a few days of absence), but I promised Jeff a response (and then I’ll respond to you guys)…

I appreciate your time.

I already presented the “how”.

Yes, but I am calling them nothing but baseless assertions.  Just because you said a bunch of stuff about how you think you communicate with Yah, doesn't mean any of it is true. 

This was the whole reason for your series of replies to me; to prove that my given stipulations weren’t needed [and BTW – it’s interesting that you mention a moment when I misspelled the word “stipulation” when you obviously (a) understood which word I meant and (b) actually referenced an earlier quote when I spelled it correctly in my post…so what was your reason in pointing it out, I wonder?].

I thought it was funny in a Sarah Palin / G.W. Bush sort of way.  Like refudiate, or misunderestimated.  Nothing more.  I wonder why you felt the need to call me out on such a small issue.  All I did was put it in parenthesis.  That's not exactly making a federal case out of it. 

No…you claim such; the premise that “prayer” (itself) is the source of the “answer” to it, which you argue doesn’t work – because you argue it works sometimes regardless of stipulations.

Are you denying that prayer can sometimes "appears" to work regardless of meeting your stipulations? 

No. I’m claiming that “prayer” is a communication tool to WHOMEVER you choose to communicate, and then I provided the means by which you communicate “to Yah”…and if you don’t “dial the right number” (stipulations) you can’t call to the person you desire, no matter how badly you want to (or think you are), right?

If you want to use phone analogies here, that's fine.  Keeping with it, I simply say that you are using a toy phone.  When you call someone on a toy phone, you ALSO will not get the person you desire, no matter how badly you want to.  Or, what if nobody lived at the number you are calling?   

This says NOTHING about "inaccessibility" but about the fact that there is but one way to get “to Yah”, just like there is an exact series of numbers to dial for any specific person’s phone in the entire world [acknowledging that people can get business lines, additional numbers tied to a phone, etc., but a number must be dialed "exactly": from beginning to end]. I guess you can argue that prayer “to yah” shouldn’t be this exact, but why do we readily accept such exactness when dialing each other's phone numbers (rather than saying “oh, the phone should know who I mean to call, so I expect it to make the right connection regardless of MY error in dialing”)?

I get the analogy you are trying to make.  I think it's bad in this case, but I am honestly trying to see things from your side here.  Really I am.  And I give you a free pass with all the business line / cell line stuff too.  There really might be one specific phone line to talk to Yah.  And it might be possible that Yah is screening his caller ID and not picking up on people he doesn't want to talk to.  That is a possibility that I can't brush aside simply because it seems loony to me when speaking about an omniscient, omnipotent being (which it does).  All that being said...  You are proposing there is some sort of special hotline to Yah, and I am going to ask you some questions about it...

So let's say for the sake of argument that there IS a specific line you need to use to get to Yah.

A. How do you know that you are doing it right?
B. What criteria do you use to judge whether or not you are actually communicating with this Yah of yours? 
C. What evidence can you present that you are correct? Can you prove it? 
D. Who told you how to get to Yah and why is that information not readily available to everyone else?
E. Why would Yah make it so difficult to talk to him? 
F. If someone is trying desperately to communicate with Yah, wouldn't he know it?  And why would he consistently turns his/her back on them just because they are "dialing the wrong number"? 

…and all of this is merely to establish a communication “specifically with Yah”. Isn't it true that if you dial a wrong number you get someone/something else? Isn't this true?

Joshua, it just seems really stupid to me to think that the most powerful being in the universe requires us to jump through hoops for him just to give us a shred of attention.   

I dunno. I haven’t been talking about a religion, but about communication with Yah. I haven’t said one thing about any religion (maybe I should create a signature that says “I’m not part of a religion”).

Oh, so this whole thing is something you came up with on your own?  The OP was about 10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer.  Sorry, I assumed you were here to answer the 10 questions that every Christian must answer.  My bad.

…Because you told me, yourself. You don’t believe in Yah at all (“you can’t dial the right number without the first digit”). This is the first step, so to say.

But you do right?  And I assume you meet all the other criteria right?  Or at least, someone on this planet meets all your criteria, right?  All I am saying is if you really believe this stuff, prove it and I will believe you.  Prove that someone who meets all of your criteria can actually communicate with this Yah character.  And if you can't, why should I even remotely believe you at all? 

Man…you paint yourself in a corner, dude (and from the votes it seems like most want to also): first you want a timeline for when you can “not believe in him anymore” assuming yourself to have initially taken a full plunge (even though, with this “timeline” business, one foot’s in the water while the other’s safe on the dock)…

No Joshua.  That's not what I said at all.  You need to go back and read what I actually said.  What I said was that I am not going to ask "with all my heart" with an indefinite time line.  What that turns into is either deluding myself into believing in Yah, or I simply keep asking "with all my heart" until I die.  Here is an analogy to show you what I mean.

Say you and I are standing on the beach and you pick up a rock.  You look at it and you say to me, "If you say "fly away rock" with all your heart, then this rock will leap into the air and spin in circles."  So I say, "Alright!" and I say it... and say it... and say it.... over and over again.  When I look at you and say, "it's not happening", you simply say "you aren't saying it with all your heart!"  At what point in time am I allowed to simply say you are wrong? THAT'S what I mean.  If I am to believe you, then every time the rock doesn't fly away, it's MY fault.  I am trapped into saying "fly away rock" until either it flies away, or I die.  It's all a trick.  Like I said, I'm not 5.  I see the trick.   

and then you don’t’ want anyone to tell you about him (much less me, even though you ask ME the question)…contrarily, you assume to know Yah to say it’s obvious “he’s not someone that people know about”, but how do you know this if you’ve admitted to not knowing him (rhetorical)?

If I didn't want you to tell me about him, then I wouldn't ask.  But what I said is that I am not going to simply take your word as the truth without some sort of proof.  Is that really so hard to understand here?  If I told you about Blearf, would you simply take my word that everything I say about Blearf is true without any sort of proof? 

I say he is not someone that people know about because I don't hear anyone else claiming that a diety behaves like yours does. 

Well, I’m not going to tell you about Yah...and I'm not going to give you some bubbly, feel-good message. If you believe Yah is all in my head, then I invite you to simply witness my character during my time on this forum; learn me.

I'm trying.  And I don't want a feel good message...  I want the truth.  That's it.  I don't think you have it.  So far you are just like all the other people who come here and say stuff that they are unwilling (really unable) to prove.  Your character says nothing about whether this Yah character is true. 

I use things we naturally understand to explain his character, because “…his invisible attributes, namely, his eternal power and divine nature, have been clearly perceived, ever since the creation of the world, in the things that have been made. So [we] are without [any] excuse.” (Romans 1:20).

That is how ancient man envisioned God because they were ignorant.  They didn't know anywhere NEAR the amount of stuff we know today.  They believed that the earth was flat, that it was the center of the universe, that rain came from God, that thunder and lightning was Gods wrath, that earthquakes were God's rage, that burning sacrificial animals was pleasing to God, and so many other really stupid things.  Have you ever stopped to think that they were just flat out wrong?  Science explains how our world came to be about 4 billion years ago.  We have explanations.  Lots of them.  We don't need ancient thinking to carry us anymore.  We really know enough now to say that a diety was not required in order for our universe to exist.  So his eternal power and divine nature WERE perceived by an ignorant people in an ancient time, because they had no other explanations for the world around them.  This is 2011 now.  We have explanations.  And every time we learn something new about our universe, another nail goes into coffin of the God theory. 

I’m not asking you to believe, but this exercise will – however - require you to open your mind (more so than it is currently). I mean…if Yah’s character is all in my head, then I - as a specimen or reflection - should be sufficient enough to understand Yah, right? The burden is still on me.

If Yah is all in your head, then really, you would be the only one that understands Yah.  It seems this is exactly what's happening, doesn't it? 
   

Belief in a deity comes from a neutral place of initial curiosity ("Is there a higher power or not?"), not a biased one ("there is a higher power, so I'm going to find proof...").

This would be the case for very, very few people Joshua.  Belief in a diety can come from a variety of places, but natural curiosity is not usually where belief comes from.  Childhood indoctrination, peer pressure, the need for a surrogate parent, etc, etc.  When someone finds themself doing honest inquiry into the question "Is there a higher power", if they use the normal methods of determining truth (reason, logic and evidence from ALL available sources) then there is no possible way to come out believing in the Christian God.  I don't know about this Yah character you keep mentioning, but a reasonable, logical, non-faith based assessment of "Is the God of the bible true?" will result in a resounding no.   

There are many who can explain the "how" to many things; the intricacies, and yet when asked to explain "why" they confuse "detailed functions" with "reasons for those functions"...and to make it worse, most stop there, assuming that the "how" IS the"why".

The question of "why" is presumptuous.  All of this could simply exist as a function of a completely natural universe.  In that case, "why" is not an applicable question.  The universe simply is.   In all honesty, there doesn't need to be a "why". 

Take over-the-counter medicines, for instance; there is no medicine that cures an underlying problem or disease. Medicines merely cure "simptoms" while the body works through the REAL problem...and we accept this, (why) because sadly we've been convinced to believe that a simptom IS a problem; that a "detailed function" is the "source of the function".

As a member of the medical profession, (practicing physical therapist X 12 years) I can tell you right now that you are 100% wrong here.  Just look at any bacterial infection.  Bacterial infection is caused by an invasive bacteria that gets into our system and multiplies out of control, killing lots of cells in the area.  An antibiotic literally goes to the site and kills all the bacteria for us.  The actual problem is the bacteria.  The symptoms can be pain, swelling, heat, redness, etc.  The problem is the bacteria.  Antibiotics kill bacteria... the actual problem. 

Maybe you need to learn something about medicine before you go all "conspiracy theory" on everyone.  I will give you that many medicines only mask symptoms (you did spell it wrong twice, and btw, Sarah Palin would spell it simptoms too, lol... oh relax, I'm just having fun) but oftentimes masking the symptoms will allow someone to work through their problems easier and allow the body to heal.

No one can explain the "why"; the zero-point, initial reason for any of it...but we all know - for a fact - that there exists a "why" (somewhere), an initial starting point for these things, otherwise these things could not be.

Whether or not this satisfies your obsessive need to have the "why" question answered, I already explained to you that there doesn't need to be an answer to the "why" question.  But what do you mean by "initial starting point"?

If you are just talking about an infection, sure there's a "why". The "why" is the bacteria.  You got an infection because the bacteria got into your body.  I'm not sure if this is where you are going here, but let's follow this...  If you want to ask "why" did the bacteria get into the body, then you can say "because you got a cut".  If you want to say "why did you get the cut", then you can say I scraped it on a nail.  Then, then, then, then, creating an infinite regression of "why" questions that inevitably ends with the beginning of our universe and a being that you have invented (arbitrarily and without hard evidence) as the ultimate answer to the "why" question... and you named it Yah.  But why stop there?   This simply makes me want to ask "why does Yah exist?". Does Yah simply exist as the ultimate "why" answer?  If your answer is yes, prove it.  It all comes back to that, doesn't it? 

At some point, 14 billion years ago, our universe began.  That's what we do know.  That information does not, not for a single second, point to any specific or unspecific diety at all.  For all we know, our universe could have begun with the collision of 2 larger universes that exist in a giant cosmos FILLED with universes.  So you could say our universe exists because 2 large universes collided... and then you will want to say "why"? We simply have no more information to speculate on.  At that point, it is far better to say "I don't know" than to arbitrarily pick Yah as your starting point, don't you think?   

I too will split the response here...

[JeffPT]

If we're going to tackle this question honestly, we must be fair with the initial assumption of a "lack of verifiable evidence". Will you agree that we can't base your question on this because (a) my side can be accused of evidence bias, while (b) your side can be accused of denial of evidence or choosing something that goes against the rules (i.e. "regeneration of amputations")? What possible evidence do BOTH sides agree to as being neutral? I could give my pieces of evidence but to you it's all heresay (I think that's the right term)...there isn't any evidence that is accepted by both sides so we can't base your question on this foundation. I'm not dodging but please be fair.

All you need to ask yourself is how much and what type of evidence would it take for me to convince you that Zeus is real.  You should be quite skeptical of that claim.  I probably need that much.  So why don't you start there?   

What I am talking about is repeatable, measurable, evidence.  Something where you say "Jeff, if you do X, Yah will do Y every time".  In your post that I first responded to, it seemed like you were doing EXACTLY that.  It seemed to me that you were saying, "If you meet all these criteria, then Yah WILL talk to you."  Just prove it!  It shouldn't be that hard if it's true.  Just look at something like gravity.  You could say "Jeff, every time you drop a rock, it will fall toward the earth."  I could do that experiment.  It would prove gravity to me.  Really simple stuff.  If you don't have that, then I need some sort of evidence that an occurrence happened that defied the natural laws of the universe that could ONLY be done by Yah and no other diety.  Like if the "miracle on the Hudson" actually ended with a true miracle (like the Hudson river turned to concrete or something, and the word YAH was written all over the concrete). 

Do you agree with my previous post that explains "prayer" as a "communication tool" (like a phone, and all similar rules that follow)?

If you are saying that intercessory prayer is completely useless, then sure, I will agree with that.  Prayer could be a communication tool, sure.  The big problem, however, is then proving that you are actually communicating with said diety.  It just makes your job a lot harder if you ask me.  It would be much simpler to prove that you asked for something and Yah gave it to you. 

It's predictable though.  It's a lot easier to simply say prayer is a communication tool and then not have to prove it, than to prove that Yah actually did something for you. 

If so, will you agree that this line of questioning follows the wrong logical path as mapped out by your initial assumption, if your initial assumption is incorrect?

My initial assumption was that you believed praying to Yah was actually useful in some way, but only if you met your criteria.  While I did not think specifically of the way it was useful (communication or intercessory), if all you meant was that you have to meet all of your criteria to even communicate with Yah, then that is clear now. 

Regardless, I understand your point, namely that "there is no possible deity that exists to whom to pray"...so we will attempt to prove OR disprove the possibility of this deity's existence.

No, Joshua.  Close but not quite.   I absolutely (always have) concede that it is possible that there is a diety out there.  That is possible.  You don't have to prove that a diety is possible.  What I take issue with is your notion that not only is Yah real, but if you meet all sorts of unprovable conditions, then you can actually talk to it. 

I think you have it in your mind that I want nothing more than to prove you wrong... but all I want you to do is show the evidence that makes you think you're right.  I am highly skeptical of your beliefs, and contrary to what some people think, skepticism is a WONDERFUL thing.  It tends to weed out the crap.  People should be skeptical of all claims that can't be backed up with reasonably convincing evidence.     

We're going to take this a step at a time (and anyone else feel free to join in as I'm interested in your views as well)...

1. I am who I am...I exist

Questions: Do YOU exist right now? If so...how am I able to know this as verifiable truth? What proof is there that YOU exist, in my eyes and mind?

Jesus Christ man.  Do you think nobody has ever gone this route before?  Can we please not go here?  It's nothing but an annoying dead end.  If someone else here wants to take you on the nutty ride that is the philosophy around "how do you know I exist", then please do it, because I won't.  I've been here before with other people and it just gets stupid, and before long the original topic of discussion is lost.  We'll end up talking about the "Brain in a vat" and all sorts of dumb crap that I really don't care about.   

Look, I will grant you exist if you grant that I exist, alright.  I grant that you exist because I talk to you and you talk back, and I know that other people use computers and live on this planet.  It's pretty reasonable to assume you exist.  I will also grant that Yah exists if you can provide reasonable evidence that he talks to you (not that you talk to him, because yes, that could be all in your head)... and if you can't provide it, then I should be free to reject it, correct?  All I want you to do is prove that you can talk to Yah and Yah talks back if you meet all your criteria.  That's it.  If you have to delve into philosophy and existence, can you just admit up front that you can't prove your diety exists in the same way we normally prove that something exists?  Like the gravity example I used?  Or the Hudson river thing? 

You really think you can communicate with this Yah character.  I get that.  I don't believe you.  Not for a second.  Convince me I'm wrong.  If I told you I could communicate with Zeus if I met 3 unspecific criteria, what evidence would you expect me to present in favor of that position that would convince you that I was telling the truth?   

[JeffPT]

Take over-the-counter medicines, for instance; there is no medicine that cures an underlying problem or disease. Medicines merely cure "simptoms" while the body works through the REAL problem...and we accept this, (why) because sadly we've been convinced to believe that a simptom IS a problem; that a "detailed function" is the "source of the function".

As a member of the medical profession, (practicing physical therapist X 12 years) I can tell you right now that you are 100% wrong here.  Just look at any bacterial infection.  Bacterial infection is caused by an invasive bacteria that gets into our system and multiplies out of control, killing lots of cells in the area.  An antibiotic literally goes to the site and kills all the bacteria for us.  The actual problem is the bacteria.  The symptoms can be pain, swelling, heat, redness, etc.  The problem is the bacteria.  Antibiotics kill bacteria... the actual problem. 

Maybe you need to learn something about medicine before you go all "conspiracy theory" on everyone.  I will give you that many medicines only mask symptoms (you did spell it wrong twice, and btw, Sarah Palin would spell it simptoms too, lol... oh relax, I'm just having fun) but oftentimes masking the symptoms will allow someone to work through their problems easier and allow the body to heal.

You know what? I was just rereading this and saw that you said "over-the-counter" medicines.  Then you said "there is no medicine that cures... etc.  I guess I missed the OTC part. 

There are medicines that cure, but usually they are prescription based.  Depending on what you call OTC "medicine" that cures things, there are a couple I can think of.  Athlete's foot sprays like Tinactin.  Listerine mouthwash.  The symptoms of athletes foot are odor, wetness, itching, etc.  It's a fungus.  The spray kills the fungus.  It's OTC.  Listerine kills the germs that cause bad breath (which is the symptom) and thus cures the problem.  The germs just happen to come back with more food.

Just wanted to point out my mistake. 

Thanks.

[Joshua]

Yes, but I am calling them nothing but baseless assertions.  Just because you said a bunch of stuff about how you think you communicate with Yah, doesn't mean any of it is true.

...But that wasn't your question. You can't ask "how", and then judge the "how" as baseless assertions as if to disqualify the "how", only to ask "how" again (as if to conclude that such isn't good enough as an adequate method). What exactly is the goal here: To prove that there isn't a "how", or to prove that the "how" is ridiculous? Your judgement against "how" lends itself to the fact you accept that there IS a "how", you just don't agree with it, right?

I thought it was funny in a Sarah Palin / G.W. Bush sort of way.  Like refudiate, or misunderestimated.  Nothing more.  I wonder why you felt the need to call me out on such a small issue.  All I did was put it in parenthesis.  That's not exactly making a federal case out of it.

...just asking jeff...it seemed like a low blow or that you were trying to claim something about me to help your argument  .

Are you denying that prayer can sometimes "appears" to work regardless of meeting your stipulations?

 

Answer...

No. I’m claiming that “prayer” is a communication tool to WHOMEVER you choose to communicate, and then I provided the means by which you communicate “to Yah”…and if you don’t “dial the right number” (stipulations) you can’t call to the person you desire, no matter how badly you want to (or think you are), right?

If you want to use phone analogies here, that's fine.  Keeping with it, I simply say that you are using a toy phone.  When you call someone on a toy phone, you ALSO will not get the person you desire, no matter how badly you want to.  Or, what if nobody lived at the number you are calling?

I remember my aunts letting my little cousins play with their real landline phones (this is before mobile phones replaced them as the main means of comms.); and the child would pretend as if they were really talking to someone on the other line...of course, my aunt's would have a finger on the hook so that it wasn't in REAL use. But to the child, this REAL phone didn't - and wouldn't - seem like much more than a toy phone, right? That's not to say that the phone wasn't real, but it was improperly used, correct?

So let's say for the sake of argument that there IS a specific line you need to use to get to Yah.

A. How do you know that you are doing it right?
B. What criteria do you use to judge whether or not you are actually communicating with this Yah of yours? 
C. What evidence can you present that you are correct? Can you prove it? 
D. Who told you how to get to Yah and why is that information not readily available to everyone else?
E. Why would Yah make it so difficult to talk to him? 
F. If someone is trying desperately to communicate with Yah, wouldn't he know it?  And why would he consistently turns his/her back on them just because they are "dialing the wrong number"?

A. Because He promised to meet with you if you do it right...

B. Isn't this the first question rephrased?

C. What's the specific question: "correct in an answered prayer", or "correct in reaching Yah's presence" (because the two are not the same)?

D. Yah explains how to get to him (specifically) in the first 5 books of the Torah...not the bible per say; the Torah. And it is readily available to ANYONE who wants to know. The question is, 'will people take the time to read it to know?'

E. It's not difficult. It's a way of humbling us. Would you agree that this generation is a prideful, self-centered generation (on the whole); so full of ourselves and what we possess (from physical to mental), that even in our daily relationships with EACH OTHER (those we CAN see), we have this attitude of "what have you done for me to warrant ['my respect for you, reciprocation, etc']". Yah's method is not grievous, but it does contend with our selfishness, and in that we find difficulty.  "Can one let go of self?"

This method determines humility; who we set as "high" and who's "low"; who's master and who's servant; who's father and who's child; who's creator and who's creation. If it didn't matter "how" one came into Yah's presence, Yah would be no different than any other man-made deity (which only serve man's glory)...which is why I'm a lot frustrated at uneducated, supposed believers (called "christians") who've taken Yah's name [i.e. who say they represent Yah] in vain; spreading a false image without knowing or explaining the truth to others. This leads those like you to logically conclusion that Yah is yet another man-made deity.

We are meant to come to Yah in the way HE says to come to him BEFORE he makes his presence known. Only then can we ask for anything (within the rules he's established) so that HE and He alone is glorified.

F. The spirit cries out for the father. The spirit knows the truth. It's this dang flesh (carnal knowledge) that fights against and prevents it. The spirit - without words - says in truth and desperation, "Father. Please help me"...But the flesh says, "I'm going to pray to you only so you can prove to me that you exist, because otherwise..." Which prayer do you think he'll hear?

If one is desperately seeking his face, he will send someone to teach them the right way ( "hi!" wink, wink,  ). BTW - there's no reason for me to join this forum and put myself through all of this unless there was someone here who's spirit is - indeed - asking that very question. I'm under no delusion that my words are going to affect even 1/4 of the readers here.

Joshua, it just seems really stupid to me to think that the most powerful being in the universe requires us to jump through hoops for him just to give us a shred of attention.

Part of me can understand your viewpoint (as I still battle with selfishness), but another part of me truly understand why such would be so. Just think about it for a second as a concept:  The most powerful, perfect being, who's the "hub of the wheel", "Root of all branches", the source of all forms of creation, the one who's said to be "constant and unchanging" does not need to pursue us, because he's the center-piece. As a concept or perspective or equation...

Q. Which element is in motion; in flux; in the state of change? A.The Wheel...Branches...Variables...Creation.

Q. Which is at rest? A. The Hub...Root...The Constant...The Source.

It is our place to seek first, not his...such is humility.

Oh, so this whole thing is something you came up with on your own?  The OP was about 10 questions every intelligent Christian must answer.  Sorry, I assumed you were here to answer the 10 questions that every Christian must answer.  My bad.

lol, now I'm disqualified? This is not my doctrine...and you'd be amazed at how similar your response is with religious members I've talked to. I've been banned from other religious forums for the same accusation; for supposedly making up my own stuff, when it's there for all to read. No problem. But its interesting that you've been engaging me with discussion about "Yah". Through several of your posts, you obviously knew who I was talking about; who Christians incorrectly name, using some of the same defenses you use against them (I suppose). Remember you initially engaged with ME. Even still, if NO deity exists from your perspective, the discussion we've been having is still valid isn't it, even for "my" deity?

But you do right?  And I assume you meet all the other criteria right?  Or at least, someone on this planet meets all your criteria, right?  All I am saying is if you really believe this stuff, prove it and I will believe you.  Prove that someone who meets all of your criteria can actually communicate with this Yah character.  And if you can't, why should I even remotely believe you at all?

hehe, you ask as if your belief truly hinges on me, which both you and I know that it doesn't. Your belief hinges on you, not on another... "Prove to me..." Again, who's trying to move forward and who's trying to remain inert? Regardless, I doubt you'd believe me. BTW - I just talked to Bono over the phone...you say, "no you didn't"...I say, "yes I did"...you say, "prove it"...Then I say, "ok one sec.....[on phone for a while talking, hangs up].......see". Obviously I haven't PROVEN anything to you. What is the next logical step for YOU? What would YOU say next?

You'd probably say, "Give me His number and I'LL CALL MYSELF!"

I've given you the number to dial exactly as given...but just before you call you say, "this is stupid. Why should I have to call him. He should come to me. You call him and prove that you've talked with him...while you're at it have him visit me to prove to me that he exists, and that you've talked to him."

...can't you see something's wrong with this request (from all three perspectives)?

No Joshua.  That's not what I said at all.  You need to go back and read what I actually said.  What I said was that I am not going to ask "with all my heart" with an indefinite time line....[analogy]

...but aren't you also saying, "[you are] going to ask 'with all [your] heart' with a definite timeline"?

My point is, needing a way out, before you're in, is not exactly wanting a way in. Who exactly are you trying to fool? You can't fool the spirit (as in "your OWN spirit"). This isn't a game. Faith is baptism. Baptism is "full immersion"; full committment.

What position are we in to give a timeframe to Yah (back to the whole humility thing)...and even if I give a time frame....let's say a year...would you be willing to stop if it doesn't work?

I say he is not someone that people know about because I don't hear anyone else claiming that a diety behaves like yours does.

Sadly, I'll also agree with this...but it's the original message (in scripture) that was lost to religion.

I'm trying.  And I don't want a feel good message...  I want the truth.  That's it.  I don't think you have it.  So far you are just like all the other people who come here and say stuff that they are unwilling (really unable) to prove.  Your character says nothing about whether this Yah character is true.

I don't think people reading my words feel particularly good. You admitted it yourself. The things I'm saying are foreign to even the religions you're used to hearing. But again as far as proof, what say you about my scenario above?

If Yah is all in your head, then really, you would be the only one that understands Yah.  It seems this is exactly what's happening, doesn't it?

... meh...we'll see which seeds take hold. I'd be interested to be a fly on some member's walls.
   

]...  When someone finds themself doing honest inquiry into the question "Is there a higher power", if they use the normal methods of determining truth (reason, logic and evidence from ALL available sources) then there is no possible way to come out believing in the Christian God....[

...but the methods we use (reason and logic) are, themselves, intangible things and yet we believe - without a doubt - that they exist...and not because you have empirical evidence of them, but because of what is affected by them or through them. Can you prove to me that reason or logic exists?

The question of "why" is presumptuous.  All of this could simply exist as a function of a completely natural universe.  In that case, "why" is not an applicable question.  The universe simply is.   In all honesty, there doesn't need to be a "why".

Honestly...I don't believe you believe this at all (but I can't to prove otherwise). There is always a cause. The question "why" is as limited as the universe itself (at least by that much), and to say otherwise is to place yourself right smack in the middle of those "stupid" (your word) people of the past who you say couldn't explain anything. Even to say "natural universe" implies a cause and effect relationship. This is what I mean by "most people stop at the 'how'" so that they don't face the question "why". In other words, it's a cop out.

As a member of the medical profession, (practicing physical therapist X 12 years) I can tell you right now that you are 100% wrong here.  Just look at any bacterial infection.  Bacterial infection is caused by an invasive bacteria that gets into our system and multiplies out of control, killing lots of cells in the area.  An antibiotic literally goes to the site and kills all the bacteria for us.  The actual problem is the bacteria.  The symptoms can be pain, swelling, heat, redness, etc.  The problem is the bacteria.  Antibiotics kill bacteria... the actual problem.

 ...you kinda stole my thunder, jeff, with your correction on "over the counter" medicines...but I want to tackle this perscription side of medicine, specifically your example (if just to jab back).

...The body is (supposed to be) full of (good) bacteria, so such an invasion is by a specifically unwanted bacteria, which leads to the question, "why" was that bacterial allowed to invade the body when other bacteria (and antibodies) should be present to defend against it. The invading bacteria can not invade if there's no room in the cell, or if the cell is inhospitable to it (alkiline vs acidic). Your antibiotics TEMPORARILY solved the SIMPTOM of INVASION - by doing what the body was originally supposed to do on its own - but the PROBLEM is the lack of good bacteria and "friendly cellular environment", which leads to "why" is the body acidic rather than alkiline. Solve the REAL problem, doctor. Stop treating simptoms. 

----

I read all of the following posts you've added...and I probably should've read it as a complete thought before replying to each point individually. So I'll skip the rest and ask you to reply to what I've posted about my Bono scenario (since the concept keeps cropping up in your remaining replies).

Look, I will grant you exist if you grant that I exist, alright...[

"Why" don't you want to go there? lol! This isn't a "setup" for a dead end, Jeff. "Why"? Specifically what's the proof that you and I (and Larissa) exists?

Will you agree that "there is proof that we exist because we affect other things and other people in our world"? In other words, the proof is "The things we affect REFLECT our existence." You NEVER need to personally see me - and I, you - to understand that you and I (and Larissa) exist.

[...Man this post took long. Getting posts under the character limit is tedious.]

[DVZ3]

^^^ Wow, just wow Joshua.  That has to be the longest but weakest refute I've read here in a long time...  You can do better than that! I even gave you my direct extension!

Very disappointed,
God

[Larissa238]

As a member of the medical profession, (practicing physical therapist X 12 years) I can tell you right now that you are 100% wrong here.  Just look at any bacterial infection.  Bacterial infection is caused by an invasive bacteria that gets into our system and multiplies out of control, killing lots of cells in the area.  An antibiotic literally goes to the site and kills all the bacteria for us.  The actual problem is the bacteria.  The symptoms can be pain, swelling, heat, redness, etc.  The problem is the bacteria.  Antibiotics kill bacteria... the actual problem.

 ...you kinda stole my thunder, jeff, with your correction on "over the counter" medicines...but I want to tackle this perscription side of medicine, specifically your example (if just to jab back).

...The body is (supposed to be) full of (good) bacteria, so such an invasion is by a specifically unwanted bacteria, which leads to the question, "why" was that bacterial allowed to invade the body when other bacteria (and antibodies) should be present to defend against it. The invading bacteria can not invade if there's no room in the cell, or if the cell is inhospitable to it (alkiline vs acidic). Your antibiotics TEMPORARILY solved the SIMPTOM of INVASION - by doing what the body was originally supposed to do on its own - but the PROBLEM is the lack of good bacteria and "friendly cellular environment", which leads to "why" is the body acidic rather than alkiline. Solve the REAL problem, doctor. Stop treating simptoms. 

Sorry, as someone who knows a thing or two about biology, I just had to comment on this. There is no "room in the cell" for invading bacteria? (deleted insult). There is no such thing as "not having room in the cell." A cell can grow to accommodate bacteria, and there is tons of room in cells. They have cytoplasm for a reason. It's not like a cell's membrane is tightly wound against the nucleus, the mitochondria, the lysosomes, etc. The cytoplasm of the cell is kinda like a buffer... there is plenty of space inside cells. 

Second, you can have as many "good bacteria" in your body as you want. This is not going to stop "bad" bacteria from coming in. It's like you have a table with one layer of paper on it, covering the whole table. The paper would be the "good" bacteria and the table is your body. Just because the table is covered in paper doesn't mean that you can't put a piece of plastic on the table. The table can accommodate the plastic, and our body can accommodate more bacteria coming in.

Third, there are some bacteria that are both good and bad at the same time. My guts have a specific kind of the bacteria E. coli. My husband has his own kind of E. coli in his gut. If somehow some of my E. coli get into his gut, it can cause a conflict with the strain of E. coli he has in his gut, leading to diarrhea and nausea. Does this mean that my kind of E. coli is bad? No, because I need it and without it I couldn't digest food. So, a specific bacteria (like one single E. coli from my gut) can be either good or bad, depending on the situation.

Fourth, the cells in the body don't change their pH on a whim. If your blood pH deviates even a point or two away from 7.35, then you are in big trouble. (jargon deleted here). A cell doesn't just become more acidic or alkaline on it's own. So most of the cells in your body have the same pH, therefore the bacteria that get into your body can enter into most of the cells in your body with no problem. (there are some cells that are different, but even acid-producing cells in the body don't have radically different pH). So the vast, vast majority of the cells in your body are friendly to both good and bad bacteria.

So the "PROBLEM" is not "the lack of good bacteria and "friendly cellular environment."" There is no root "PROBLEM." Our body has defenses against bacteria, and sometimes bacteria get in our body and cause us harm. It's perfectly natural given that we intake bacteria all the time. Everything we put in our mouths is covered in bacteria. Infections happen. It's not a moral question.

*edit- fixed itallics*

[JeffPT]

But that wasn't your question. You can't ask "how", and then judge the "how" as baseless assertions as if to disqualify the "how", only to ask "how" again (as if to conclude that such isn't good enough as an adequate method). What exactly is the goal here: To prove that there isn't a "how", or to prove that the "how" is ridiculous? Your judgement against "how" lends itself to the fact you accept that there IS a "how", you just don't agree with it, right?

Joshua, you gave me the how.  I am not asking how anymore.  I am moving forward with the conversation here and saying that I acknowledge your claims for "how".  Now I am saying the "how" that you describe is nothing more than baseless assertions.  Move forward with me here and simply prove me wrong.  That's all you have to do. 

For now, I reserve my final judgement on whether or not your "how" actually works.  I am extremely skeptical as to whether or not you are actually speaking to your Yah.  I admit that, yes.  But if you can prove it, using reasonable evidence (again, enough that would satisfy you that I could talk to Zeus) I will acknowledge that your "how" really does work. 

No. I’m claiming that “prayer” is a communication tool to WHOMEVER you choose to communicate, and then I provided the means by which you communicate “to Yah”…and if you don’t “dial the right number” (stipulations) you can’t call to the person you desire, no matter how badly you want to (or think you are), right?

Alright, that's fine.  Then I will rephrase my question.   I will agree with the idea that you, Joshua, define prayer as a communication tool to whomever you choose to communicate.   Now you say here that if you do not "dial the right number" then you can't talk to whomever you choose to communicate.  I will grant you that this is one possible reason why so few people (I would claim no one) can speak with your Yah.  Perhaps only you, yourself can talk to Yah.  I don't know if anyone else has ever been able to speak with it, because like I said, this is not a version of God that everyone has been exposed to.   

But trade positions with me for a second.  Using your definition, if I prayed to Spegmorph the Lizard Dishwasher, then I am, in effect, attempting to communicate with Spegmorph.  There are lots of possible reasons that I can not actually communicate with Her, including the idea that I am not "dialing the right number".  Another, equally explanatory option for why I can't talk to Spegmorph could be that Spegmorph isn't real.  Do you disagree with that?  That would also fully explain why I can't talk to Spegmorph.   

Now, let's say I came to you and told you that I could communicate with Spegmorph if I met certain nebulous, vague and unprovable criteria first.  Does that claim deserve anyone's attention?  Hell yes it does, and I am not being sarcastic.  I should explore that option and ask questions about it, don't you think?  It is very possible that I know something you don't.  That's exactly what I am trying to do here with you and your claims about communicating with Yah.  The problem arises when trying to meet your criteria, however.  You've made it perfectly clear that I can't meet your criteria.  If I maintain a skeptical mind, then I have no hope, no chance.  So what is my next logical step?  If I can't meet it, tell me who can, and have them prove it.  Yet, you seem unwilling to do that.  What are you leaving me with here?  I have nothing to go on.  It's a dead end.  I am asking for proof, you aren't giving it, why would I conclude that Yah is anything more than a figment of your imagination?  Isn't that the most likely scenario?  I mean, SURE you could be right and I just can't meet your criteria.  But you aren't willing to provide proof, you aren't willing to show me who CAN talk to Yah, and you say I can't meet your criteria to do it myself.  What do you expect me to do here?   

I remember my aunts letting my little cousins play with their real landline phones (this is before mobile phones replaced them as the main means of comms.); and the child would pretend as if they were really talking to someone on the other line...of course, my aunt's would have a finger on the hook so that it wasn't in REAL use. But to the child, this REAL phone didn't - and wouldn't - seem like much more than a toy phone, right? That's not to say that the phone wasn't real, but it was improperly used, correct?

Nice story.  I already said you could be right and that we aren't dialing the right number (as I said, this seems a bit loony that the most powerful being in the universe will only talk to us if we jump up, spin around, do a backflip and stand on our heads).  But you seem to discount that it could also be a toy phone.  Or there really could be nobody on the other end of the line.   Logically speaking, why would you do that?   

A. Because He promised to meet with you if you do it right...

If the bible is a work of fiction, which I fully believe it is, then a fictional character in a book promised to meet with you if you do it right. 

C. What's the specific question: "correct in an answered prayer", or "correct in reaching Yah's presence" (because the two are not the same)?

Sorry for the lack of specificity.  Let me rephrase.  The specific question is... What evidence can you present that shows that you A. meet all the criteria you have outlined, and B. that you are actually communicating in any way, shape, or form with Yah? 

D. Yah explains how to get to him (specifically) in the first 5 books of the Torah...not the bible per say; the Torah. And it is readily available to ANYONE who wants to know. The question is, 'will people take the time to read it to know?'

And again, you say this stuff as if it's true.  I have read the bible.  Front to back.  Including all of the Pentateuch.  I see no evidence for anything you say, and I really have no reason to believe that any of Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Deuteronomy or Numbers are anything more than fictional tales and ancient religious laws that no longer fit our times.  And it's not just me here.  It seems that the vast majority of the world is also not seeing this Yah that you are seeing.  Given that information, is it more likely that you alone have found the secret meaning and the secret way to communicate with Yah, or that you are just another in a very long line of people who thought they had found the secret meaning, and are just as full of bull as the next guy? 

Nobody seems to agree with you Joshua.  And for good reason. 

E. It's not difficult. It's a way of humbling us. Would you agree that this generation is a prideful, self-centered generation (on the whole); so full of ourselves and what we possess (from physical to mental), that even in our daily relationships with EACH OTHER (those we CAN see), we have this attitude of "what have you done for me to warrant ['my respect for you, reciprocation, etc']". Yah's method is not grievous, but it does contend with our selfishness, and in that we find difficulty.  "Can one let go of self?"

No, I would not agree with you that this generation is a prideful and self-centered generation on the whole.  No I do NOT.  Now I am going to get a little personal, because I get so sick of you religious people coming in with all your "oh the world is so awful" bull shit.  It's very tiresome.  It must be terrible to go through your life thinking about how awful things are all the time.  You watch too much TV if you think the world is so bad.  Try turning it off once in a while and NOT listening to ANY of the media outlets that feed you ONLY bad stuff all day.  Of course you will think the world is bad if ALL YOU GET is negative news about the world.  OPEN your eyes.  Look around you.  There are good people EVERYWHERE.  The world is FULL of them.  This is an AWESOME time to be alive.  The future is wide open.  We have the power to make it what we want.  If you don't want to help, stay the hell out of our way.   

Some people are selfish.  There is nothing AT ALL wrong with being a little selfish once in a while.  If I work hard for something that I want, then I feel I am entitled to get it.  What's so bad about that?  I wanted a hybrid car.  I got one.  Is that so terrible?  I wanted a new laptop. I got one.  Call the selfish police!  I also give blood, I recycle in a state that doesn't require it, when people call out sick at my wifes job I volunteer to help her (AT A FREAKING CHURCH) because I love her and she needs me.  This world is loaded with good people.  If only we could get rid of all the people like you who just think the world is going to hell in a handbasket, maybe we could make this place a better one to live in.     

This method determines humility; who we set as "high" and who's "low"; who's master and who's servant; who's father and who's child; who's creator and who's creation. If it didn't matter "how" one came into Yah's presence, Yah would be no different than any other man-made deity (which only serve man's glory)...which is why I'm a lot frustrated at uneducated, supposed believers (called "christians") who've taken Yah's name [i.e. who say they represent Yah] in vain; spreading a false image without knowing or explaining the truth to others. This leads those like you to logically conclusion that Yah is yet another man-made deity.

Yah is yet another man made diety.  All of them are.  He's just your man made diety.  Your invisible friend, if you will.  Everything you say here is just the stuff you have come up with in your mind. 

Honestly, the reason that I engaged you when I did (after the first post you made that talked about criteria) was because in that post. you said if you do A,B,C,D, and E, you will be able to communicate with Yah.  I thought, "YAY That's darn near a falsifiable statement."  That's worthy of consideration.  Let's see if he can do it!  The problem is, you haven't proven anything.  Nothing at all.  Your criteria are super vague.  Nothing you say has any basis in the reality that we see around us.  It's just another failure. 

Long story short, if Yah is not real.... then everything you said about masters, servants, fathers, coming in to Yah's presence etc.... is all just words with no meaning whatsoever. 

We are meant to come to Yah in the way HE says to come to him BEFORE he makes his presence known. Only then can we ask for anything (within the rules he's established) so that HE and He alone is glorified.

That's a very interesting way to explain why so few people (none that you can prove) can come before Yah in the first place.  Just prove what you say for Christ sake.  My explanation is that there is no Yah at all, and that's why so few people (none) can come before Yah.  If you want to see exactly how I view these 2 sentences of yours... just substitute the word "Spegmorph" in place of "Yah", and you will see how ridiculous I viewed what you wrote here. 

But wait a minute here... here you say we CAN ask for anything (again surprise, surprise with specific rules) once we've met the rules?  Again, here is another semi-falsifiable statement.  If you can find someone, anyone at all, who meets ALL of your criteria, and plays by ALL the right rules, and they ask for something improbable 50 times and they get it all 50 times, then I will be well on my way to believing in your Yah.  Stop making it seem like the evidence I would require is unreasonable.  That is not unreasonable at all.     

F. The spirit cries out for the father. The spirit knows the truth. It's this dang flesh (carnal knowledge) that fights against and prevents it. The spirit - without words - says in truth and desperation, "Father. Please help me"...But the flesh says, "I'm going to pray to you only so you can prove to me that you exist, because otherwise..." Which prayer do you think he'll hear?

Useless words.  There is no such thing as a "spirit".  My brain fires neurons and I think, act, move, breath, eat, sleep... all of that.  You have set up some sort of duality that doesn't exist in reality.  Your body is all that you are.  There is no "spirit", no "soul".  They are nebulous concepts that are defined more by what they are not, than by what they are. 

To answer which prayer Yah will hear, the truth is neither one because Yah isn't real...  But I will play along and take a guess, although I really have no idea.  It's not my invisible sky man, it's yours.  You seem to be making this up as you go, so I will pick.... "Father please help me?"  Am I right? 

If one is desperately seeking his face, he will send someone to teach them the right way ( "hi!" wink, wink,  ). BTW - there's no reason for me to join this forum and put myself through all of this unless there was someone here who's spirit is - indeed - asking that very question. I'm under no delusion that my words are going to affect even 1/4 of the readers here.

Your words will affect anyone who reads them.  So will mine.  I can't speak for everyone here, but to me your words are nothing more than the usual stuff wrapped in a different package.   

But do you see what you did here?  You said "if one is desperately seeking his face, he will send someone to teach them the right way".  It's as if regular seeking isn't good enough.  That just doesn't make any sense at all coming from an omnipotent, omniscient being (I assume Yah is both, but I don't know for sure).

 I am desperately seeking the truth.  If Yah is the truth, then I am seeking that.  But I think truth should be sought with skepticism, not gullibility, else the real truth might pass by.  I see you coming here and your words are not even remotely convincing at all.  In fact, if it weren't so sad, it might be comical.  That's just being honest.  Now you may sit there and say "well, he's not really desperately seeking Yah, and he is just denying the obvious", but that's totally not it.  I am denying Yah because you have presented your argument with nothing more than assertions and claims.  I'm not gullible Joshua.  At least I don't think I am.  Certainly not with religions.     

Part of me can understand your viewpoint (as I still battle with selfishness), but another part of me truly understand why such would be so. Just think about it for a second as a concept:  The most powerful, perfect being, who's the "hub of the wheel", "Root of all branches", the source of all forms of creation, the one who's said to be "constant and unchanging" does not need to pursue us, because he's the center-piece. As a concept or perspective or equation...

Q. Which element is in motion; in flux; in the state of change? A.The Wheel...Branches...Variables...Creation.

Q. Which is at rest? A. The Hub...Root...The Constant...The Source.

/sigh.  The bottom line is this.  You aren't proving that you can communicate with Yah (at least you haven't yet.  I'm still waiting but not holding my breath).  You aren't proving that Yah exists.  All you are doing here is spewing stuff in an attempt to explain why Yah doesn't do this or that, when another, more obvious and better explanatory theory exists and is staring you right in the face.  Yah isn't real.  That could explain very well why Yah won't communicate easily with us, right?  The reason you are forced to say stuff like this is because there is no evidence at all that Yah is real... and you have to cover that up with something in order to maintain your delusion... so this is what you cover it up with.  Wheels, branches, hubs and crap. 

It is our place to seek first, not his...such is humility.

Either that or it's not real. 

lol, now I'm disqualified? This is not my doctrine...and you'd be amazed at how similar your response is with religious members I've talked to. I've been banned from other religious forums for the same accusation; for supposedly making up my own stuff, when it's there for all to read. No problem. But its interesting that you've been engaging me with discussion about "Yah". Through several of your posts, you obviously knew who I was talking about; who Christians incorrectly name, using some of the same defenses you use against them (I suppose). Remember you initially engaged with ME. Even still, if NO deity exists from your perspective, the discussion we've been having is still valid isn't it, even for "my" deity?

I am discussing "Yah" with you because that is what you've decided to name this god of yours.  It's simply being polite and not wanting to create a strawman argument that has forced me to use the term "Yah" in the first place.  The only reason I know who you're talking about is because that's what you keep saying. 

Did you ever think the Christians kicked you out for the same reasons the atheists are saying you're wrong (probably more respectfully and in a nicer way than the Christians)?  Because you're simply wrong?  You believe you are right.  I am just as adamant that you aren't.  When that happens, what do you do?  Look to the evidence.  I respect your right to think you are correct here.  You should respect mine, not dismiss it.  That's why I ask for evidence.  It's on you to provide it. 

And yes, this discussion is valid, even if it is "your" diety.  But the reason I am using some of the same defenses I use against Christians is because your god and the Christian versions (all of them) all suffer from the exact same problem.  An unbelievable lack of verifiable evidence.  You think yours is so different, but it's not. 

hehe, you ask as if your belief truly hinges on me, which both you and I know that it doesn't. Your belief hinges on you, not on another... "Prove to me..." Again, who's trying to move forward and who's trying to remain inert? Regardless, I doubt you'd believe me. BTW - I just talked to Bono over the phone...you say, "no you didn't"...I say, "yes I did"...you say, "prove it"...Then I say, "ok one sec.....[on phone for a while talking, hangs up].......see". Obviously I haven't PROVEN anything to you. What is the next logical step for YOU? What would YOU say next?  You'd probably say, "Give me His number and I'LL CALL MYSELF!"
I've given you the number to dial exactly as given...but just before you call you say, "this is stupid. Why should I have to call him. He should come to me. You call him and prove that you've talked with him...while you're at it have him visit me to prove to me that he exists, and that you've talked to him."

If you gave me his number, I would call him myself.  Why wouldn't I?  The same goes for Yah. 

My point is, needing a way out, before you're in, is not exactly wanting a way in. Who exactly are you trying to fool? You can't fool the spirit (as in "your OWN spirit"). This isn't a game. Faith is baptism. Baptism is "full immersion"; full committment.
...
What position are we in to give a timeframe to Yah (back to the whole humility thing)...and even if I give a time frame....let's say a year...would you be willing to stop if it doesn't work?

Another possible reason that I can't talk to Yah is because Yah doesn't exist.  You can say it's because I am not fully immersing myself, or that I'm looking for a way out, or I can't give Yah a timeframe... but all of those just cover up for the possibility (no, extremely high probability) that Yah just isn't real. 

I don't think people reading my words feel particularly good. You admitted it yourself. The things I'm saying are foreign to even the religions you're used to hearing. But again as far as proof, what say you about my scenario above?

I assume you are talking about the Bono thing?   I told you I would call Bono myself.  You're saying I can't do that.  So I'm saying "who can?" and you are throwing a fit about that too.   What other options do I have?   

... meh...we'll see which seeds take hold. I'd be interested to be a fly on some member's walls.

I think that would be a very traumatic experience for you. 
   

...but the methods we use (reason and logic) are, themselves, intangible things and yet we believe - without a doubt - that they exist...and not because you have empirical evidence of them, but because of what is affected by them or through them. Can you prove to me that reason or logic exists?

It's not about whether they exist or not.  We both know they do.  It's about how we apply them to our lives.  What I am saying to you is that you aren't applying the same reason and logical standards to your religion that you do to every other aspect of your life.  And when you do that, you aren't really looking for what's true.  But it's what you have to do in order to maintain your belief.  If you started looking at religion through the same reasoning and logic that you used in the rest of your life, you wouldn't believe in Yah anymore. 

Honestly...I don't believe you believe this at all (but I can't to prove otherwise).

Why, because you don't understand it? Ah wait, I think I see why you don't believe me..... below.

There is always a cause.

We are just mixing terms up is all.  Yes there is always a cause.  I thought you were posing the "why" in terms of a "reason" that the universe exists... as if it was put here for a purpose. 

You can backtrack any "why" question ever asked, all the way back to the beginning of the universe, but once you reach that spot, the thing that's different between you and I is that I don't claim to know why the universe came to be (although I believe it to be natural).  I can say "I don't know" because we have no evidence for what happened before the universe came to be.  It is you who put your foot down here and say "Yahdidit".  No evidence, no proof, just an assertion.  The reason I think it was most likely natural is because everything in our universe that we currently know,  has a natural explanation.     

The question "why" is as limited as the universe itself (at least by that much), and to say otherwise is to place yourself right smack in the middle of those "stupid" (your word) people of the past who you say couldn't explain anything. Even to say "natural universe" implies a cause and effect relationship. This is what I mean by "most people stop at the 'how'" so that they don't face the question "why". In other words, it's a cop out.

Oh, I do believe in a cause / effect relationship.  I just think that's ALL there is.  So "why does the universe exist?" is a question that I answer with "I don't know".  "How did the universe start?"  The evidence points to the big bang.  "Why the big bang?"  Hell if I know, but I'm pretty sure it was natural. 

...The body is (supposed to be) full of (good) bacteria, so such an invasion is by a specifically unwanted bacteria, which leads to the question, "why" was that bacterial allowed to invade the body when other bacteria (and antibodies) should be present to defend against it.

Because the skin (which normally prevents such an invasion by hostile bacteria) has been damaged, and may not have been fully exposed to that particular bacteria (and thus the proper antibodies were never developed by the immune system).  Or it might simply be that so many of the bacteria invaded that the body wasn't capable of making antibodies fast enough to keep up with the spread of bacterial growth. 

The invading bacteria can not invade if there's no room in the cell, or if the cell is inhospitable to it (alkiline vs acidic).

What are you getting at here? 

Your antibiotics TEMPORARILY solved the SIMPTOM of INVASION - by doing what the body was originally supposed to do on its own

No, the symptoms are heat, swelling, redness, pain, etc.  The problem is the bacterial invasion that your body can't stop.  (please stop writing simptom.  It's not funny anymore).   Much more often than not, the body does fight off bacterial infections.  That's why we don't need medicine for every cut we get. 

but the PROBLEM is the lack of good bacteria and "friendly cellular environment", which leads to "why" is the body acidic rather than alkiline. Solve the REAL problem, doctor. Stop treating simptoms. 

What the hell are you talking about?  This doesn't make any sense at all.  What good bacteria is missing?  What do you mean the friendly cellular environment is the problem? 
 

"Why" don't you want to go there? lol! This isn't a "setup" for a dead end, Jeff. "Why"? Specifically what's the proof that you and I (and Larissa) exists?

I didn't say it you were setting me up for a dead end.  I said it IS a dead end.  Philosophy, in this case, leads nowhere.  Getting into conversations about proving we all exist is far outside of what we need to do here. 

Will you agree that "there is proof that we exist because we affect other things and other people in our world"? In other words, the proof is "The things we affect REFLECT our existence." You NEVER need to personally see me - and I, you - to understand that you and I (and Larissa) exist.

I've seen too many of these Joshua.  Maybe you haven't but I have.  Maybe you would understand how many times I have seen the philosophy arguments go all over the place and end right where they started from.  I'm not going there.  I believe most of philosophy is a fools errand.  I usually back out of any discussion that goes in the direction of "How do you know I exist?"    Take it up with someone else. 

Either that or we can simply fast forward to where you want to go with it anyway.  You might say something like "just because you can't see Yah, doesn't mean Yah doesn't exist" and then you might follow that little number up with a "creation is the evidence that Yah exists, because His existence is reflected on the world".  To that I would argue "creation is only evidence of creation, it says nothing about how the creation came to be or who created it (presumptuous question again)", and you might come back with "if we see a watch on a beach", and I will roll my eyes about the fucking watch again.  No thanks. 

Just prove you talk to Yah, will you?  If not, stop trying, because it's just not cool. 

[kaboose]

i know this is an old topic, but i would like to think I'm a wise christian and can answer these.

"Why won't God heal amputees?"

well to be honest, no one can know. God has a plan for the universe marked down to every time you'll blink. There is a reason why not every amputee is healed physically, but i can't know that. but what i do know is the spiritual healing that come from tragic moments in our life. God gives us certain situations in our lives that pin us against the wall and ask us "What do I believe in at this pivot point of life?" i have had this situation in my life before as well. God isn't torturing us by removing our limbs, or making us being born without eyesight. He is trying to teach us something to lead us to eternal healing and life. I know a man who is a christian, wasn't a very strong one but still believed Jesus was the son of God and did in fact rise from the dead, and one day while hunting he fell from his perch in a tree about 30ft high. He fell on his back, his rib cage was smashed in, and many many bones were broken. He survived luckily and he was in the hospital for a while. He lost all feeling in one of his arms. Now his favorite hobbies were things like golf, and hunting and things you have to use your arms for, so he became severely depressed. He tried to figure out anyway he could get feeling back in his arm. The doctors didn't give him much hope, but he still tried different things. Nothing worked. He felt vulnerable. He felt like he couldn't do anything. He needed something. He looked towards God. God gave him strength. God gave him hope that God had a different plan in mind for him. Something that he could do with only one arm. Now you might think "That is not fair that one should lose an arm just because God wanted his to be closer", but that's not the case. It has more purpose than that. it helps us realize just how much we can't do on our own. Even Christians need constant help. We need God to help us. Now God weeps for all of the pain we are induced with. He understands how terrible things are. which is why He uses those moments to show you how much you are missing in life. Everyone needs more of what God has to offer. So to sum this all up "Why won't God heal amputees?" Simply because He has a more important plan for them in their life.


"Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people?"

Because we are not God. Everything must end except for God. But you see God never wants or even wishes for murder (abortion counts in this instance). That is the people, and sin that we blame for that. God takes people by natural death. Though, because of sin, God knows when and how we will die whether it be natural or not, so He created a plan accordingly for every single one of us.


"Why does the Bible contain so much anti-scientific nonsense?"

Well obviously because from a "scientific" standpoint, a lot of the bible is false. But God created science and the many things we can explore, but sin has twisted it so far that it has become a religion. Your religion. Satan is the king of lies and he took science and the explanation of the universe and shrouded the many things that we ignore to this day. There is in fact scientific proof that there is a god or intelligent being. Now for one all energy is eternal. There is no beginning or end to it, it is just always there. Now if you ever believed in the big bang theory, then you still have yet to answer the one question that so many cannot answer. "Where did the energy come from?". It had to of had a source. Something or someone outside of time and science itself. And here enters God or whatever you wish to call Him. Now that shows how there at least must be something outside of time watching over us, now how can i believe that this same being is watching over us constantly and loving us. The answer is simple. God created the heavens and the earth. He created a place for us to live and laugh and love people and help others and a place to go to after we die to live in the loving company of God, Jesus, and everyone who accepted Christ into their heart. But now that isn't very sciency. Well lets just take a closer look at all of creation verses say evolution. Now first off lets start with the big picture. the universe. It is a vast expanse full of planets and stars. Now lets dig a bit deeper to where that all effects us. Our solar system. hmmm well lets see. It has been proven that if earth had been formed any closer to the sun, then it would be uninhabitable, and if it were any farther away from the sun, then it would be uninhabitable. So for those big bang people, giant meteors randomly smashed into the right point? the exact right point? The only perfect point to sustain human life? huh. funny. well perfection can be achieved at an random time right? oh... wait. with that many factors? no. it can't be perfect. not by random happenings. For example if 1 trillion monkeys were left to type the Gettysburg address, would any of them successfully type that? nope. like straight up. so therefore something must have controlled the position of the earth. God perhaps? that's for you to decide. but let's dig even further. let's look at the rotations of the earth and the moon. now the moon is normally out when it's night and the sun is out when it's day. that's 24 hours in one day. kind of a random number, but yet it's insanely brilliant when you get down to it. People need at the most 9 hours of sleep to function for at least 15 hours. Is it just our bodies adapting to cycles? or is it literally that we were made the have to follow this. But how could evolution even bring that onto us? same for all creatures. we need sleep because of how our bodies function. we get sustenance through the day for energy, but that can only last so long. so if evolution were true, would we be able to adapt to a completely different sleep cycle? no. I'm not talking about moving into different time zones, but try living perfectly normal in a place with 30 hour days. you'll probably notice that you'll be completely exhausted come night time and your sleep isn't nearly as healthy. So thank goodness random chance produced that. well it didn't. God was there for that. and there are many more points, but I've kind of changed the topic a big on this question. But if anything this proves how much science applies to the bible.


"Every 'answered prayer' is actually a coincidence.  All scientific evidence supports this conclusion."

This evidence is what? Random integers thrown together and mashed till it comes up with the same conclusion? science can't prove how a car ran without vital car parts. This is a true story. A man in Europe drove all over the continent delivering bibles in his really cruddy car, and he was always praying that God would keep it running just a little further each time.  after the car had his some odd 400,000 miles it broke down. he took it into the body shop and left it there to be fixed.  The next morning he gets a call from the mechanic telling him that there was no possible way his car could have run. It was missing pistons, spark plugs, cords, and a few other things. The mechanic couldn't understand how he could have even gotten it to the body shop. Once the man turned off his car and left, the mechanic couldn't start it. So i ask science to prove how that is just a coincidence.



"How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?"

Simply because he has said in the bible that we should not have to see to believe, for we are blessed if we believe and do not see. see John 20:29 for proof. now obviously pretty much everyone has wanted to see Jesus or even prayed that He would appear, but the thing is that Jesus doesn't work that way. He wants to know how much we believe and trust in him. and if you can honestly have true heartfelt faith and be consciously thinking about John 20:29 and you ask for Jesus to appear, then I'm sure He would. but of course why do we want to see Jesus? because we want to see if we are right? or maybe because we want a hug. well you know Jesus just won't appear to anyone nowadays unless it's apart of God's plan. But why would we need Jesus to appear physically when He is 100% of the time by our side. The only reason would be out of doubt. and we can't have complete faith with doubt in our mind.

[Ambassador Pony]

I am in awe.

Just wow.

BM

[Anfauglir]

"Why won't God heal amputees?"

well to be honest, no one can know. God has a plan for the universe marked down to every time you'll blink. There is a reason why not every amputee is healed physically, but i can't know that......So to sum this all up "Why won't God heal amputees?" Simply because He has a more important plan for them in their life.

Kaboose, welcome to the forum!  I'd like to pick up on a couple of your points, if I may.

Minor point - the piece I've bolded above seems to imply that SOME amputees ARE physically healed - I'd be interested to see the evidence for that!

But the major point is not specifically whether or not amputees are healed per se, but rather as a commentary on the fact the it appears that the only times god will intervene in the world is in situations where the same result was quite possible through natural means - on the trivial level, you pray to find your car keys and then find them, for example.  On the higher level, that cancers mysterious go away, as do a whole host of other illnesses that can sometimes clear up by themselves, or as a response to the medication and treatment provided.  But human arms and legs never, ever, ever grow back.  THAT is the point of the question - that Yahweh never does anything that could not just as easily be the result of simple happenstance.

"How do we explain the fact that Jesus has never appeared to you?"
.....Jesus doesn't work that way. He wants to know how much we believe and trust in him. and if you can honestly have true heartfelt faith and be consciously thinking about John 20:29 and you ask for Jesus to appear, then I'm sure He would.....

A fairly good point - but my understanding from many Christians is that Jesus loves me more than anything, and would deeply love to have a relationship with me.  Now in the real world, anyone who displayed those two characteristics towards me, and who heard me say "y'know, I'd like to meet this person", would be in front of me shaking my hand in seconds.  But with Jesus, we are supposed to accept that a person who loves us, wants us to be saved, wants us to have a relationship with him....will nonetheless refuse to reveal himself (whether that be physically or otherwise).  Even when that one, simple action may be the single action that saves that person - me, for example - from eternal damnation.

That is - to me - the point of that question.  Reconciling the loving, caring Jesus who really wants to get to know me, with the Jesus who hides and will not reveal himself.  I simply cannot reconcile the two.

Anyhooo.....that'll do for now.  Looking forward to talking with you!

[kin hell]

i know this is an old topic, but i would like to think I'm a wise christian and can answer these.

dear kaboose, (without meaning to appear problematic or unwelcoming) I need to point out that this forum does not look favourably upon the  (no disrespect intended) "resurrection" of very dead threads.    The art of necromancy is not practiced here, no matter what horrors you may have heard attributed to atheists in general.

"Why won't God heal amputees?"

well to be honest, no one can know. God has a plan for the universe marked down to every time you'll blink.

dear kaboose (without meaning to appear argumentative or unwelcoming), I must point out that if an omnipotent and omniscient god has a plan (perhaps that should be spelt with a capital P) then it is not possible for free will to exist at all.

(Without wishing to appear heretical or unwelcoming), I would  suggest you have to consider that if we are all subject to a Plan that is god's Plan, then there is nothing whatsoever we can do that is not of god's Plan. 
Therefore there can be no free will whatsoever, because whatever action we do must be part of that Plan.

So by your logic, (without meaning to appear dismissive or unwelcoming at all), prayer is an absolute waste of time, because how can anything or anyone do anything to change god's Plan?
It is impossible to change god's Plan because for god to change his Plan would mean that either he had made a mistake that needed rectification (impossible), or that he just changed his mind and that his original Plan was not the right Plan after all.

So kaboose I welcome you to this forum, I hope you are strong and brave enough to stand up to the atheist "weather" that is probably coming your way given your lengthy presentation.

I should point out( while meaning no disrespect and without wishing to appear unwelcoming), that while you base your answers on the problematic idea that god has a Plan for us, then I feel no need to address any other of your points until you can clarify how free will can exist if your god has a Plan, and how can prayer possibly have the slightest effect if god already knows what the Plan is?


Anyway kaboose  welcome! and why don't you make an introductory post in the introduction thread, it is always good to get another theist on the forum.

I look forward to your reasoned reply re: the free will vs god's Plan paradox.

[screwtape]

unnecessary commentary removed.

[plethora]

Welcome to the forum Kaboose. 

I will address a few points that we not already addressed above.

There is a reason why not every amputee is healed physically, but i can't know that. but what i do know is the spiritual healing that come from tragic moments in our life. God gives us certain situations in our lives that pin us against the wall and ask us "What do I believe in at this pivot point of life?" i have had this situation in my life before as well. God isn't torturing us by removing our limbs, or making us being born without eyesight. He is trying to teach us something to lead us to eternal healing and life.

I understand that, having gone through a tragic event, people can find new ways to emerge positively from the experience and find new meanings in life.

However, I don't understand the purpose of a god allowing thousands of African children to live hungry, agonizing, disease-ridden lives for a few years and then let them die of starvation. What lessons does an innocent child learn from such a horrible life experience exactly?

What lessons do innocent children learn from natural disasters where they die horrible deaths (i.e. The Haiti earthquake, the Indian Ocean Tsunami, Hurricane Katrina, etc)?

---
About science... the scientific method is the most reliable method for determining what is real and what is not. Science does not have all the answers. It has helped us determine that the known universe had a beginning at an event we call the Big Bang. What, if anything, caused the Big Bang to happen is unknown.

There's nothing wrong with saying we don't know how something happened. Science endeavors to find the answer via the scientific method which demands evidence.
---

About the earth being in the right spot and evolution ...

I think you may be approaching this in the wrong direction, i.e. you are working backwards from a conclusion. The universe is almost entirely inhospitable to life as we know it. Very close to 100% of it. The earth itself supports life on only some of its surface some of the time. It is a known scientific fact that 99% of all species that ever evolved in earth have gone extinct. We are living on a knife edge that can easily go wrong and end all life on earth.

The observable universe is unbelievably vast. It is 92 billion light years across and 13.75 billion years of age. It has about 60 sextillion stars out there at the moment, half of them with planets. That's large enough and old enough to allow life to emerge at a microscopic level and have the opportunity over 3.5 billion years to evolve into the thin film that covers this tiny spec of dust we call Earth.

The universe is hardly designed for life. Rather, life has emerged despite the hostility of the universe, although it continues to suffer from species extinction and natural disasters.

I don't see how this can be considered an intelligent design by a god.

If life evolved here and evolved the way it did, it's because this was the only place/time it could have done so despite the universe being so inhospitable.

---

On the point of where 'energy' came from... we don't know. Perhaps energy always existed in some form or another and doesn't need to have been created.

Why must there have been a god to create the initial energy?

[velkyn]

Kaboose,

Your post is full of the usual bad arguments by Christains.  You claim that no one can know why God doesn’t heal amputees.  However,  Christains are quick to claim that they know all sorts of things about their god.  Isnt’ it convenient when you decide that on the hard questions, god magically becomes “mysterious”? 

I also find that your assumption that God must use harm and pain to “teach” people to be disgusting.  Why can’t your God not use such thing if it’s supposed omnipotent and omniscient?  Your god seems to be nothing more than a really powerful human brat that can’t do anything different than the humans that invented it.  As for your claim that someone “got Jesus” because they were hurt, why does your god then kill so many people without them getting anything if you want to claim all harm is just your god “teaching” people. Doesn’t he know when to stop? 

Your response to the “why is there so much anti-science nonsense in the bible” is a typical hypocritical one.  You use science everyday and you only attack it and try to ignore it when it shows your myths to be nonsense.  You also incredibly ignorant of the science you attack.  That’s convenient for you since you don’t actually have to learn about something that shows repeatedly that you are wrong.  It's sad when Christains must depend on repeating lies told to them to keep their religion.

[Ivellios]

Regarding the Anti-Scientific:Earthquakes: Do they happen when God shakes the "Pillars of the Earth?" How about instead of being a Flat Earth with Pillars, we have a sphere in the void of space[1] and Plate Tectonics? Plate Tectonic Theory[2] explains Earthquakes, Volcanoes and Tsunamis. No God needed. Is the Bible wrong? If you throw out BBT & Evolution, you really should toss the rest because the same methods used to determine the others is the same method used to determine BBT & Evolution. That's why: Bible <>[3] Science.

Freewill:
God3: I'm not going to Force you to follow my will by overriding your thought process.
Humans: Yay!
God3: You'll just have to use your Freewill to Choose to follow "My Plan!"
God2: My Plan!
God1: >.> <.< o.O THE Plan, or Roast in Hell Forever! BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!
Human: ****!
God2: Should we tell them that there are some we decided to send them to hell before they were even born, no matter what they do?
God1: HaHAHAAA! I already put that into the Bible!
God2: ****! I really didn't want to tell them that! Kinda contradicts the "All-Loving" aspect I wanted to market.
God3: Yeah, you would think it would give ammo to those who would say we don't exist and the Bible is a Lie.
God1: HaHAHAAA! As IF it were possible! Not believe in us? If they could ever kill weeds without killing the wheat or figure out how to measure the Heavens, but that's Impossible! I'll make sure to annotate it, so that if Humans ever figure it out, I'll deny everyone Heaven.
God2: How you intend to do that?
God1: My good friend Jeremiah!
God3: You said, "If," that contradicts our All-Knowing aspect... shouldn't we know that?
God2: Shhh! Don't tell them that either!
God1: Too late, I already did.
God2 & God3: ****!


But, now you're even saying every time we blink? Wow. Nice to know my entire life means just as much as Frodo's. He might have thought he had freewill, but he had no choice what-so-ever, but to do as JRR Tolkien wished. Plans suck.

1.	ie. no Pillars, no foundation
2.	that's right "Just a Theory" just like Electricity, Gravity, Evolution, BBT & Music to name few.
3.	mutually exclusive

[nogodsforme]

It has been proven that if earth had been formed any closer to the sun, then it would be uninhabitable, and if it were any farther away from the sun, then it would be uninhabitable.

I don't know who "proved" that the earth had to be at one precise distance from the sun, but the distance of the earth's orbit around the sun varies from 91 million miles in December to 95 million miles in July, with an average distance of 93 million miles.[1] So, in the course of one year, the earth moves four million miles closer and farther away from the sun. To give some idea of the scale, the earth is 25,000 miles around at the equator. Not exactly the kind of "fine tuning" you were taught in Bible class. Learn science stuff in a real text book or on the internet-- this info is not in the Bible.

1.	Yes, the earth is closer to the sun when we have winter in the northern hemisphere and farther when we have summer. The seasons are due to the tilt of the earth towards the sun's rays.

[kaboose]

i literally spent 5 hours typing a response to all of you, but this site erased it all. i will try to reconstruct it in the next couple days. i really do want to get back to all of you.

[JeffPT]

kaboose,

Before you go about writing your responses over again, please consider the following...

There are 7 billion people in the world.  Less than 2 billion of which believe in anything resembling the Christian God.  In other words, the vast majority of us don't buy it. 

The bible was written by men.  It is a collection of books thrown together by men, that has been copied and recopied by the hands of men who used the book to maintain some semblance of power for themselves.  We have no original copies of anything.  We don't know who wrote the gospels.  Though it mentions some places in antiquity that actually existed (as do Harry Potter books) archaeology does not support the vast majority of the claims of the bible.  There is no evidence that Jesus rose from the dead.  There is no evidence that he walked on water, fed the multitudes, or cast out demons.  They are all things written in a really old book.  Nothing more. 

You are massively undereducated in terms of science.  Your explanations betray a terrible lack of understanding and knowledge about the way our world works.  Science works, religion doesn't.  It's that simple.  When you understand science, God is no longer a useful explanation for anything.  Everything you said in your post that attempts to debunk science is wrong.  You have been fed bad information, and before you try and prove science wrong, you should understand what they are saying.  Especially about evolution, the solar system, and energy.  At least most of us have had the decency to read the bible before attempting to prove it wrong.  You should feel compelled to read what scientists are actually saying before you try to prove them wrong too.  What you have posted to us betrays the fact that you haven't done so.  It makes it look suspiciously like you've never read any of the arguments against Christianity from non-Christian sources.  Bad move dude. 

Let me give you an example of how a scientific understanding changes your world views.  Take lightning for example.  In the old days, people used to think it came from God.  They did not understand what else could be causing it, so they attributed it to an unseen force with some sort of will.  They did that with everything, so back then, it was much easier to be religious because there WERE no other explanations for things they didn't understand.  Flash forward a few thousand years.  Now, we understand lightning.  We know how it happens.  And when you have that understanding, you have one of those, "Oh, I get it!" moments and God takes a step backward as an explanation.  It's just not needed.  The more knowledge you obtain, the more "Oh, I get it!" moments you have, and the more steps God takes backward.  Pretty soon, once you've contemplated hundreds and hundreds of "Oh, I get it!" moments, God has taken so many steps back that you can't see him anymore.  And what you replace it with is an appreciation that everything we still have YET to understand, doesn't need God as an explanation either.  Honestly, that's just how it works.  If you had that knowledge, God would step away from you too. 

Finally, please understand this....  There are millions and millions of atheists out there.  What that should tell you is that there are giant swaths of people who believe they have really good reasons to disbelieve in God.  Many of them are the smartest people around.  Whether you like it or not, we DO have very good reasons to think that God is not real.  In that sense, you should not approach this website as if you have the truth.  You should approach it as if we actually might have something to teach you, as you probably think you have something to teach us.  Unfortunately for you, thus far you have not shown anything that we haven't seen a hundred times already.  If you want to get something from your time here, sit back and learn a few things about our views before you try to answer any more questions.  I hate to say it, but most of your answers are terrible.  I mean, really bad.  I'm not saying that to be mean, but seriously, a few glances at some scientific material would probably make you feel pretty embarrassed to have said what you did.

[Anfauglir]

i literally spent 5 hours typing a response to all of you, but this site erased it all. i will try to reconstruct it in the next couple days. i really do want to get back to all of you.

I'm guessing it's what has happened to me a few times - if your login period times out while typing, when you hit post it all vanishes into the ether!  You may want to try logging in with a longer expiry time (or "forever"), or ensuring you Ctrl+C all the text before hitting Post.  Good luck!

[kin hell]

i literally spent 5 hours typing a response to all of you, but this site erased it all. i will try to reconstruct it in the next couple days. i really do want to get back to all of you.

.......yes it has also happened to me. Very frustrating.

If I know I am about to create a long post, I write the entire thing in a word program/app  and once satisfied that I have what I want to post, I just copy and paste it into the forum post reply  box

I know a lot of people here are very interested in your responses to their comments so hopefully you will find it in your christian heart to make the effort to educate us all in good christian thunk.

[screwtape]

Good post, Jeff.

Let me give you an example of how a scientific understanding changes your world views.  Take lightning for example. 

I just want to add a little bit to this point.  xians for centuries thought lightning was used by god to mete out punishment on the wicked.  However, since churches were usually the tallest buildings in town, they usually bore the brunt of "god's wrath".  It was perplexing and no one could come up with a good explanation as to why god would so often smite the places dedicated to his worship.

Then, in the 1700s a guy named Ben Franklin invented the lightning rod.  Believe it or not this caused a huge theological controversy.  Think, Terry Schiavo.  Some people thought it this nifty little invention - which saved hundreds if not thousands of lives - was usurping god's will and refused to put them on churches.  Imagine that.  Eventually one of them saw it was a good idea and rationalized it thusly: the lightning rod itself must be the will of god.

So, if our colonial ancestors had the good sense to modify their silly religious beliefs to align with the latest science and technology, why can't you?  Why can you not make the leap and say, "if god wanted us to believe in literal creation, why is there so much evidence to make many people, all of them far smarter than me, conclude otherwise?" 

The problem, kaboose, is that you are making your proclamations in complete ignorance.  You are saying you, in your ignorance, know more than the experts, who actually study this stuff.

[Samuelxcs]

"Why does God demand the death of so many innocent people?"

There are NO innocent people.  All have fallen short of God's glory and deserve far worse a fate than any we could imagine.  Transgressions of God's laws and standards are anything but trivial.  These are not little things just because you wish to think them so.

The things that you claim make no sense simply make no sense to you.  That doesn't make them "insane."  What really does not make sense is your insistence upon making purely subjective personal assertions, and claiming them to be objective innate observations.

There are No innocent people? What would your definition of innocent be? Maybe someone that has never done anything wrong in their entire lives? Maybe someone who never uses bad words? Humans are apparently born with 'original sin' because of Adam and Eve, but that does not mean anyone else is a sinner. If a child is born the son or daughter of a very evil person, that does not automatically make that child a sinner or not innocent. We are all humans, a 'flawed' creation, but there are some innocent people. I don't know any innocent people where I live but I never use bad words or do horrible things.