Quote Originally Posted by God-free View Post
It surprises me to find, on a Christian site, that God needs to be defined by me so that you can know who/what I’m talking about.
This is your OP, and it is you who began to use the term, "God". Therefore, it is up to you to define the terms of the debate, otherwise no LOGICAL discussion is possible.

It should be obvious that I’m talking about the anthropomorphic God of the Bible who, I strongly suspect, was created according to the manners and customs of the authors,and was given extraordinary powers intended to astonish and amaze.
It should be obvious that you do not know the God of the Bible. If you want to discuss Him as He reveals Himself in the Bible, I will be happy to accommodate you; on the other hand, if you want to vacuously pontificate your nonsense, you will have the forum to yourself.

You said, “…an armed robber who is also a human being…has the purpose in mind to do harm to another human being.”
That’s an incorrect representation of the OP.
Originally Posted by God-free [IMG]http://www.waltermartin.com/forums/images/****ons/viewpost-right.png[/IMG]

1.) An armed robber approaches you. He puts his gun to your head and says he wants your money. If you give it to him, he'll let you live. If you don't, he'll shoot you.
In the face of what you originally stated (second quote) your first quote above is stating a condition contrary to fact.

The robber and God each have the same purpose (i.e. to reach a desired goal).
You seem not to be able to remember nor learn from your errors of logic because you repeat them again. That is because by the very definitions of God, and man, they occupy different realms.

Both, the robber’s and God‘s, threats to do harm are the coercive tool they’re using to compel the person to comply.
More apples and lug nuts


There is no relevant moral difference between the two scenarios. If you think otherwise, please explain what you think the difference is.
I did, but you did not comprehend what I posted.

Of course it’s not based in reality! It’s based on the God character depicted in the Bible. If you want to talk about over inflated egos, I’ll be happy to do that in another thread. Perhaps we could start by discussing the notion many theists seem to have that the entire universe was created just for them. Now, THAT’S something someone with an over inflated ego would believe.
Again, this is more evidence of your failure to learn from the grevious errors I pointed out because you are creating another strawman argument.

Please provide me with a demonstrably valid reason to take these verses seriously.
Ah! Yes. this is the "prove to me..." canard. BOTH of us know that this is a simple ruse to say that you are "rational" when in fact we both know that because you have hardened your heart to such an extent that there is nothing in the universe that would cause you to believe that there is indeed a God, and that He has revealed Himself in the Bible.

That’s your opinion and you’re welcome to it. In reality, atheists are as capable of humility as anyone else. They simply won’t humble themselves to anyone’s notion of a deity without reasonable justification.
The Bible speaks of what you said there in a precise manner. Surely, there will be a time when you will bow your knee before Jesus Christ:
.
Philippians 2:8 And being found in fashion as a man, he [Jesus Christ] humbled himself, and became obedient unto death, even the death of the cross.
9 Wherefore God also hath highly exalted him, and given him a name which is above every name:
10 That at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth;
11 And that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father
.
This is meaning that every thing that ever lived from frogs to donkeys, and beyond will bow to Jesus. My point being that if you think that you are smarter than a frog or a donkey, you have the opportunity to bow now at the name of Jesus Christ willingly, or later on, at the judgment seat, you shall be compelled to kneel. The reason for that compelled kneeling is that there is no other name than that of the Lord Jesus whereby anyone can be saved, and your failure to do so on earth will result in that compelled kneeling, followed by a painful eternity.

As a result, your irrational and sop****ric argumentation is a perfect example of what Paul stated in Romans:
Romans 1:22 Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools,
23 And changed the glory of the uncorruptible God into an image made like to corruptible man, and to birds, and fourfooted beasts, and creeping things.
24 Wherefore God also gave them up to uncleanness through the lusts of their own hearts, to dishonour their own bodies between themselves:
25 Who changed the truth of God into a lie, and worshipped and served the creature more than the Creator, who is blessed for ever. Amen.
26 For this cause God gave them up unto vile affections: for even their women did change the natural use into that which is against nature...
.
And here is the reason why you cannot really understand the things of God. Scripture calls you "spiritually blind".
.
2 Corinthians 4:3 But if our gospel be hid, it is hid to them that are lost:
4 In whom the god of this world hath blinded the minds of them which believe not, lest the light of the glorious gospel of Christ, who is the image of God, should shine unto them.
.
For one reason or another, you seem not like the Scriptures that I posted because you neglected to respond to them. That is your choice, BUT in my posting them, you will never have the excuse before God to say, "No one ever told me the truth about Jesus Christ!!" I did exactly that.

So far, your argumentation consists of logical errors and rhetorical nonsense. It is void of any facts. I ask you have you EVER looked at the internal consistency of the Bible in an honest manner? Really, I guess not because you have surrounded yourself with an impenetrable wall of resistance whereby you decided in advance that you will reject everything that has any spiritual value. Are you aware that there are many former atheists who have decided to take an honest look at the internal consistency of the Bible and found that what the Bible says about itself is internally consistent?

One of those former atheists was Simon Greenleaf, a Law Professor at Harvard, who wrote the still-used rules for admittance of evidence in the United States Federal Court. Beginning with that framework, he applied the Rules of Evidence to the accounts in Acts and the Gospels of the resurrection from the dead of Jesus Christ. He wrote a book about that called An Examination of the Testimony of the Four Evangelists:by the Rules of Evidence... Amazon has it for free if you have a Kindle; otherwise it is less than $10.00 if you go onto the linked website.

I urge you to consider reading that, then make an informed decision. As of now, all your objections are rhetorical blathering, and have nothing to do with any facts. If you wish to continue in your pompous bombast after reading that, it is your choice, but if you wish to be rational about your reasons for rejecting the stringent rules of evidence that are applied to the resurrection, you will need to come up with a stronger reason than, "I do not like that." to over rule the great evidence for the resurrection that Greenleaf presents from only the Bible.

By reading that book, you have nothing to loose; however if you choose to not read the book, and reject out-of-hand the evidence of the Resurrection of Jesus then your objections will be noted as not consistent with facts, and that your continued objections shall be noted as the pompous blathering of a person who is not in touch with facts, but prefers living in his own castle in the air.