Seems like you’ve shifted from "these people were wicked and had to be killed to “Well, you don’t know that their children wouldn’t have grown up to be bad!” That seems like a concession that some of the people who were kiled were not threatening or wicked or garbage and that your initial wording wasn’t supportable.
And there’s that story of the children who are mauled to death for making fun of a prophet, for example. Oh, the slaughter of the firstborn children in Egypt.
So it was OK for Moses and Joshua to commit genocide repeatedly, because if they hadn’t done it, then something YHWH said to Abraham hundreds of years before might have been wrong? And that’s the morally preferable action in your morality?
Yeah, funny sense of morality we atheists have.
But you’ve said that the knowledge of God is only given to those who truly seek it. If you don’t have Godly morality until you are spiritually born again, how do you correctly identify it?
It’s sort of like saying in order to be granted a measuring tape, you first need to find a piece of wood exactly 4.158 inches long. You need the granted tool in order to earn the worthiness to be granted the tool, and so on.
Thank you for proving my point, in Acts 7 they yelled so as not to hear. Jesus did know what He was speaking of when He said that they have eyes but never seeing and ears but never hearing.
This is what Jesus said when asked for a sign:
Do you really think you can make a demand of God?
Do you really think lack of evidence is a point in your favor?
Well, let’s see.
I’m afraid there’s a problem with your reading of the Bible; namely, it outright says who it is that’s going to fulfil the prophecy being made, and it’s not Alexander, it’s Nebuchadnezzar (presumably this one, given the dates of Ezekiel’s and his lives match up, but of course it could be any future Nebuchadnezzar). The prophecy also declares that the city shall never be rebuilt, which it has, and exists to this day.
This of course doesn’t necessarily make the prophecy false - perhaps sometime in the future, another Nebuchadnezzar will come and destroy the place, leaving nothing but ruins for all time. But Alexander’s explicitly not the guy who did it - the prophecy is far too specific for it to be him.
??? Now I’m confused. I thought the book of Daniel was specifically all about Alexander, and post-dated so as to appear to be a prophecy.
An old college chum of mine refused to believe that there was a modern Lebanese city of Tyre. I showed him photos, and he insisted they weren’t really of Tyre, but some other city. Now that’s faith!
I don’t think that matches up, either. I confess i’m purely going by Wikipedia (and, obviously, the Bible) on this, but Daniel appears to have been born around 6-7 BC; that’s several hundred years after Alexander, not to mention Nebuchadnezzar. Assuming a Christian viewpoint that Daniel is the writer of the Book of his name, it outright wouldn’t have been a prophecy because it had happened before his time anyway.
GEEPERS’ cite is Ezekiel, anyway.
He didn’t make a demand on god. He made a demand on you. You don’t look like a god to me. What does god need with a message board ? :).
You asserted that god still miracled people up all sneaky like, including people with missing limbs or confined to wheelchairs, but that when he did so then all previous knowledge and memory of the illness was wiped from the minds of unbelievers in a puff of cognitive whiplash.
Fine.
Sooooo… do you have any shred of evidence for this anywhere in the current world and material reality ? That’s what **runner pat **was after, I believe.
I mean, in the age of cellphone cameras, you’d think even if people got mindwiped of the years their mates spent in wheelchairs they’d figure something was amiss. And what of the miracled themselves ? Wouldn’t they scream in frustration that dammit, not only did they spend 20 years in this stupid wheelchair, but now they walk just fine but people call them liars when they say they were in a wheelchair before ?
Oh and @Trans Fat Og, you’re welcome.
Murder AND kill ? Man, those Midianites did not fuck about :D.
ETA: Also, the idea of free will clashes with the notion that even god could have known how those innocent children would have turned out, doesn’t it ?
don’t kid yourself - they did that too.
Atheists are still bringing up these tired old arguments? Can you be a little more original? All these examples have been throughly debunked by Christian apologists time and time again. A simple google search will reveal this.
The atheist approach to the Bible is grossly unfair. They don’t even consider the cultural behavior of the time.
Why don’t you answer questions posed to you?
Don’t you think it’s not honest debating to constantly change the subject?
Atheists have issued argument after argument to you in this thread and you ignore them and change the subject time after time.
Also, the reason the bible is savage is it was written during a savage period of our world. That’s why it should be regarded as history, not a moral guide.
Why do I have to be original? They’re not writing new books of the Bible.
There’s no question that these things happen in the Bible. What you’re describing is rationalizing and making excuses, not debunking. It’d be one thing if I was making a mistake in how I represented a story, which would be an actual error - but I’m pretty sure I did do that. Now how about backing up your scientific and historical claims?
Emphasis mine.
Ah-hah!
So your subconscious betrays you, and you admit that you made an error. That proves that not only is there a deity, but it is only the deity that the OP worships and not any other deity, neither.
QED!
(That is the kind of thread this is, right? The OP still hasn’t answered my requests for defining whatever his/her thesis is…)
Miracles are for the believer, not the non-believer. That is what Jesus meant when He said you people demand a sign (miracle) none will be given (you are non-believers so you can’t perceive them so don’t expect them), but only the sign of Jonah, in other words become a believer then you can see them or you will die because you don’t believe you can live.
With a God in total control of space and time, matter and energy etc. it is well within His ability to have evidence excluded from the non-believers world. And it is exactly because the non-believer is a non-believer that God allows this. The non-believer lives in the world he/she believes exists which includes no miracles. All the technology and cameras in the world can never outdo God preserving your right to live in a reality without any evidence of Him
And Jesus even seemed disappointed about some not seeing the miracles, disappointed in the results. Jesus could only get a message through in parables some times. And yes it is also personally frustrating at times as well. I believe Jesus was overjoyed when His decipels realized who He was and He could talk openly with them.
Oh, and what does God need with a starship, um messageboard, well he created the dam thing so He must have some use for it 
I didn’t change the topic, you guys did. This has NOTHING to do with my OP, and I said from post one, I don’t expect any atheist to EVER agree with me, or ANY Christian. It’s not going to happen. It doesn’t mean that Christians can’t answer the tough questions. It means atheists have demonstrated time after time that they are incapable of giving any Christian one bit of credit.
I’ll give ya one up though. At least you regard the Bible as history. The hardcore will say it is all myth.
As accurate history, it’s not. Very few events have been corroborated, and many seem suspiciously inflated. As a record of how some ancient people thought, it’s probably not far off.
Yet atheists claim the Bible is just a book of myths. You can’t have it both ways.
The fact is that these topics have been discussed endlessly. Obviously, atheists have rejected the opinions of top Bible scholars so it’s really a waste of time for me to try and justify God’s actions to you.
You said you wanted to debate. The amount of evidence you have provided wouldn’t convince someone about bigfoot. Much less, the sentient, universe-creating spirit that cares if you eat bacon.
Well, it has a place in history. In that the Western World has rotated around the book. So it matters. Much of what it says didn’t happen however. There was no Exodus. There was no talking snake. So it’s of little value as a primary historical source, but it has played a role in history.
You, however, certainly seem unable to convincingly do so.
Your complaints over the shifts from your topic are also somewhat hard to swallow, considering that Lobo is right and you’ve consistently changed the topic every time one of your arguments is shown to be fallacious, erroneous, poorly thought out, etc…
Now, one more time, what exactly is the thesis you want to debate? I’ve asked you more than once, and you don’t seem interested in actually stating and defending it. If it’s the bit about ‘why God doesn’t heal amputees’ then we can probably call it a day as your arguments have been shredded on that count. If you’ve got some other thesis you’d like to present, you should probably do so.