The God of Convenience

[Lek]

You're right, it doesn't.

It says it about 4 times.

Have you not read it?

Give me some verses and I'll comment.

[robvalue]

Check out this http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

Sorry I was being a bit snarky. Long day. But check it out.

[Lek]

Check out this http://godisimaginary.com/i1.htm

Sorry I was being a bit snarky. Long day. But check it out.

First of all, all the examples in the article are directed at believers, so these promises are to those who are his followers. According to scripture, a follower of Christ is one who seeks only to do God' will, and we are instructed to pray according to his will. God doesn't listen to the prayers of those who really don't want to accept his will.

(1 John 5:14New King James Version (NKJV)
14 Now this is the confidence that we have in Him, that if we ask anything according to His will, He hears us.)

In the following quote from your article Jesus is referring to God as our loving Father and he is saying "ask and you will receive."

(In Matthew 7:7 Jesus says:
Ask, and it will be given you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. For every one who asks receives, and he who seeks finds, and to him who knocks it will be opened. Or what man of you, if his son asks him for bread, will give him a stone? Or if he asks for a fish, will give him a serpent? If you then, who are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father who is in heaven give good things to those who ask him!)

Receive what? What any loving father would give--what is best for you. If I ask for a tank or a rocket launcher, will he give it to me? Probably not. If I have incurable cancer and I ask to be cured, he might have a plan for me here and heal me or it might be time for me to go home. A loving father always gives a child what he feels is best.

(In John chapter 14, verses 12 through 14, Jesus tells all of us just how easy prayer can be: "I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it." [ref])

The above is another quote from the article. For one thing h said they may ask for anything "in his name". When we speak in the name of someone, we are speaking for him. Again, we are asking as he would. It's as if Jesus is asking the father for us. What is greater - to move a mountain or to save a soul? Jesus brought the message to the Jews. The apostles would carry the message to a much greater number of people as well as perform miracles among them. Jesus was also speaking to this disciples at this time and not to the people as a whole.

I'm not going to comment on every single reference in the article, but the same facts apply to all. Do you think that God really meant that if I asked God to move Mount Everest and place it in Ecuador, that he would do it - just because? These were real people having a discussion. What meaning would they have gotten from the conversation?

[Esquilax]

I do believe that Plato existed based on the evidence that we have for that assumption. We don't have better evidence for the existence of Plato that we do for Jesus. You claim that the writers we attribute to the books of the new testament are not the actual writers. Why should be assume that the 1,300 year or older copies of Plato's works were actually written by him?

... Because we don't have any indication that they were written by someone else. Meanwhile, we have the history of the church, indicating where the epigraphs of the new testament come from; the content of the books themselves never mention the author's name, and we know that the traditional epigraphs were added later since the Gospels aren't even mentioned by name until about 150 AD. Furthermore, we actually know who popularized the idea that the Gospels were written by the apostles; it was bishop Papias, several centuries after Jesus' death. Once again, you're attempting to make a comparison that isn't even remotely valid.

Why not? We have unexplained healings now. Why couldn't Jesus have the done the same thing then?

Once again, unexplained does not mean god, or even supernatural. How many times do you need the argument from ignorance fallacy explained to you?

No. Your're wrong about that. Some church historians attribute them to someone else. I'm aware that it appears that the synoptic gospels relied on other sources for information, but that doesn't mean that they weren't written by the named authors. Many authors rely on other sources.

Mhmm, but when we actually know that even the earliest Gospel was penned 30 years after Jesus died, and we don't even have an early manuscript of it until around 120 AD, and we know that the epigraphs were added later, the simple answer is that we only have evidence that the claims to authorship are manufactured, and not truthful accounts.

If you think that all christian historians agree with you, read the introductions to the books of the new testament in the New International Version and the New American study bibles. These bible translations were accomplished by teams of qualified bible scholars and historians.

I didn't say all, but then again you don't need complete consensus for this kind of determination. The fact is, historians agree that the authorship of the four gospels is unknown, and there is no evidence to verify that the claimed authors, who we know were added later and don't appear in the oldest manuscripts or historical records of the time, were in fact the real authors, while there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

Stop arguing from convenience, Lek. If you had any evidence you would have presented it by now.

Did they have to? The early church carried along that knowledge, just they carried along the gospel message.

Yes, they had to: I think it's pretty important that if you're going to argue for a claim you think specific people made, that they actually make that claim themselves. I'm surprised you think that the "early church," by which you actually mean the church at least a century later, is more fit to speak for these authors than the authors themselves.

If it's supernatural, natural science is inadequate to verify it.

Why? Because you say so? Because it's convenient for your argument?

We've given science a chance to decide if there was a natural cause for the healing of individuals, which they didn't find, and we've determined that these people did have faith and prayed for healing. We don't have any instruments to detect the power of God working in them. Based on that and other countless other testimonies to the power of God, I'll accept it. You need more so you won't. Okay.

Yes, we already know you'll accept an argument from ignorance when it suits your argument, and that the rest of us understand that it's a fallacy. But let me ask you this: a muslim is sick, he prays to Allah, and when he recovers science doesn't know why. Do you take this as evidence that Islam is true, and Allah actually healed him?

If not, why not? It's precisely the same as your argument here. Don't dodge by saying you're unaware of any examples like this, or anything like that: just answer the question. If a mystery and prayers to Jesus is evidence, to you, for god, then isn't the same thing also evidence for other gods? Miracle healing isn't a claim unique to your religion, you know; if all you're going on are arguments from ignorance, by what right to you accept the christian accounts and dismiss all the other ones, from all the other religions, throughout history?

Special pleading?

[dyresand]

Lek... here is something to think about....
There is a person in the hospital going into surgery and you were the surgeon.
You do a great job and fix the guy or gal up and you visit the room with the doctors.
The guy thanks only god for healing him or her wouldn't you be a slight bit pissed off since god didn't play a role
in his recovery when the only 2 people in room that actually helped?

[Lek]

... Because we don't have any indication that they were written by someone else. Meanwhile, we have the history of the church, indicating where the epigraphs of the new testament come from; the content of the books themselves never mention the author's name, and we know that the traditional epigraphs were added later since the Gospels aren't even mentioned by name until about 150 AD. Furthermore, we actually know who popularized the idea that the Gospels were written by the apostles; it was bishop Papias, several centuries after Jesus' death. Once again, you're attempting to make a comparison that isn't even remotely valid.

So Papias who lived two to three generations after Jesus died was less able to identify the authors of the gospels than we are today? Papias could have had access to parents or grandparents of Jesus' contemporaries. So tell me why Papias wasn't qualified to determine who wrote the gospels? Here is Papias' own statement concerning his methods of gathering evidence. I'll go with Papias.

I shall not hesitate also to put into ordered form for you, along with the interpretations, everything I learned carefully in the past from the elders and noted down carefully, for the truth of which I vouch. For unlike most people I took no pleasure in those who told many different stories, but only in those who taught the truth. Nor did I take pleasure in those who reported their memory of someone else’s commandments, but only in those who reported their memory of the commandments given by the Lord to the faith and proceeding from the Truth itself. And if by chance anyone who had been in attendance on the elders arrived, I made enquiries about the words of the elders—what Andrew or Peter had said, or Philip or Thomas or James or John or Matthew or any other of the Lord’s disciples, and whatever Aristion and John the Elder, the Lord’s disciples, were saying. For I did not think that information from the books would profit me as much as information from a living and surviving voice.

Once again, unexplained does not mean god, or even supernatural. How many times do you need the argument from ignorance fallacy explained to you?

Since we experience unexplained events to this day, we can't say that Jesus didn't have the power to perform miracles. You may not believe it, but that doesn't mean it didn't happen. Until I've been convinced otherwise I'll accept the testimony of the church fathers who were so close to the time of Jesus.

Mhmm, but when we actually know that even the earliest Gospel was penned 30 years after Jesus died, and we don't even have an early manuscript of it until around 120 AD, and we know that the epigraphs were added later, the simple answer is that we only have evidence that the claims to authorship are manufactured, and not truthful accounts.

If we know that the earliest gospel was penned 30 years after Jesus' death, then it obviously could have been written by an eyewitness.

I didn't say all, but then again you don't need complete consensus for this kind of determination. The fact is, historians agree that the authorship of the four gospels is unknown, and there is no evidence to verify that the claimed authors, who we know were added later and don't appear in the oldest manuscripts or historical records of the time, were in fact the real authors, while there is plenty of evidence to suggest otherwise.

You seem to be saying that your historians and scholars are smarter than mine. Since there is no consensus, that means you're historians are right. You agree that there is disagreement among historians and then you say that you don't need complete consensus to make the determination. You make these big statements as if you are unarguably right.

Yes, they had to: I think it's pretty important that if you're going to argue for a claim you think specific people made, that they actually make that claim themselves. I'm surprised you think that the "early church," by which you actually mean the church at least a century later, is more fit to speak for these authors than the authors themselves.

I think that the authors are more qualified to speak for themselves, but obviously they didn't give their names. Someone wrote them and whoever they were didn't mention their names. They must not have felt compelled to tell who they were. If Mark didn't write the Gospel of Mark, then why didn't the "real" author tell who he was?

Yes, we already know you'll accept an argument from ignorance when it suits your argument, and that the rest of us understand that it's a fallacy. But let me ask you this: a muslim is sick, he prays to Allah, and when he recovers science doesn't know why. Do you take this as evidence that Islam is true, and Allah actually healed him?

Yes.

If not, why not? It's precisely the same as your argument here. Don't dodge by saying you're unaware of any examples like this, or anything like that: just answer the question. If a mystery and prayers to Jesus is evidence, to you, for god, then isn't the same thing also evidence for other gods? Miracle healing isn't a claim unique to your religion, you know; if all you're going on are arguments from ignorance, by what right to you accept the christian accounts and dismiss all the other ones, from all the other religions, throughout history?

It's a subject that's very interesting to me. God can heal anybody, including atheists. God knows the hearts of us all.

Special pleading?

You and your "special pleading".

---

Lek... here is something to think about....
There is a person in the hospital going into surgery and you were the surgeon.
You do a great job and fix the guy or gal up and you visit the room with the doctors.
The guy thanks only god for healing him or her wouldn't you be a slight bit pissed off since god didn't play a role
in his recovery when the only 2 people in room that actually helped?

We were discussing people who were healed and medical experts and scientists could not determine how the person was healed. There were no doctors to thank for the recovery. The people had prayed to God for healing and thanked him for it.

[abaris]

So Papias who lived two to three generations after Jesus died was less able to identify the authors of the gospels than we are today? Papias could have had access to parents or grandparents of Jesus' contemporaries. So tell me why Papias wasn't qualified to determine who wrote the gospels? Here is Papias' own statement concerning his methods of gathering evidence. I'll go with Papias.

That's because you obviously don't know how records were created at this time in history. History had a very different connotation than it has today and it's not as if Papias was like a contemporary hack going out interviewing people and applying the check recheck routine.

Add to this, that it was an age of miracles and believers in whatever supernatural and you get the picture. These records don't stand as evidence by todays standards.

[Lek]

So Papias who lived two to three generations after Jesus died was less able to identify the authors of the gospels than we are today? Papias could have had access to parents or grandparents of Jesus' contemporaries. So tell me why Papias wasn't qualified to determine who wrote the gospels? Here is Papias' own statement concerning his methods of gathering evidence. I'll go with Papias.

That's because you obviously don't know how records were created at this time in history. History had a very different connotation than it has today and it's not as if Papias was like a contemporary hack going out interviewing people and applying the check recheck routine.

Add to this, that it was an age of miracles and believers in whatever supernatural and you get the picture. These records don't stand as evidence by todays standards.

Give me a break! No I don't get the picture. You probably believe the Greek and Roman historians well enough.

[abaris]

Give me a break! No I don't get the picture. You probably believe the Greek and Roman historians well enough.

Nope, I don't. And that's because I actually studied history at university. And the first thing they teach you there is to always question your sources and their agenda. Which is also true for Greek and Roman authors, which were always out to paint the picture of some golden age, that in reality didn't exist. We're talking about an age when otherwise reasonable roman generals were asking their augurs about the outcome of a battle, so why should I take anything the Romans say at face value?

[Lek]

Give me a break! No I don't get the picture. You probably believe the Greek and Roman historians well enough.

Nope, I don't. And that's because I actually studied history at university. And the first thing they teach you there is to always question your sources and their agenda. Which is also true for Greek and Roman authors, which were always out to paint the picture of some golden age, that in reality didn't exist. We're talking about an age when otherwise reasonable roman generals were asking their augurs about the outcome of a battle, so why should I take anything the Romans say at face value?

Well said.