Why are other civilizations ignored in the Bible?

[Ryantology]

It seems to me that if you are so despairing of the ills that exist in the world, you would not be sitting around waiting for a reason to do something about it.

Your god could solve every problem, ever, instantly, without any effort, but I bet you never say this to him in your prayers.

[pocaracas]

[Mr. Moncrieff]

It seems to me that if you are so despairing of the ills that exist in the world, you would not be sitting around waiting for a reason to do something about it.

Your god could solve every problem, ever, instantly, without any effort, but I bet you never say this to him in your prayers.

Don't challenge him.

Fucking hell.

[max-greece]

If you did which? The mosquito thing?

A spontaneous change in the nature of the female mosquito that suddenly moved it from spreading malaria to a fruit diet?

HELL YES!!!

---

Couple of things to add, just to make sure:

1. No tricks - you understand what I am asking for - a fundamental change in the nature of all species of mosquito such that they no longer spread malaria. Malaria becomes a dead disease. No more infections, no more dying from it - the whole 9 yards.
2. Have to ask this - if you could do this - why wait for me to convert? Surely the simple reduction in human suffering would be enough reason to do it anyway?

Suffice to say, do it, do it properly and I will Join you in worship at any Church you care to name. I will sing the loudest and go out and spread the word. I will be a model Christian. I will be tireless in my support.

If you are so concerned about human suffering as you seem to imply you are, why is it that you are waiting for some type of evidence or proof before you become a model Christian?

For what is it to be a model Christian but to be as Christ? One who cared for the sick and poor. One who loved and blessed His enemies and persecutors? One who always put other's needs before His own...

It seems to me that if you are so despairing of the ills that exist in the world, you would not be sitting around waiting for a reason to do something about it.

You essentially are saying: I will follow Christ and imitate His life and be a selfless self sacrificing person IF you prove this or that....

If you were indeed so heartbroken about people having river blindness and other numerous ills, you would not need a proof to persuade you to do something about it.

Now, calmly and with as much decorum as possible take everything you just wrote and shove it so far up your ass it tickles your throat

You are offering miracles in return for belief. I suggested one - one I cannot do, but your God could in the blink of an eye, apparently.

Yet - he doesn't. Why is this? Malaria has nothing to do with sin - its just another sickness that takes millions of people each year.

But you don't care about that - and nor does your God - all you want is to claim another person's freedom.

Jesus cared for the sick and the poor did he? - How many did he help in his lifetime? Don't be giving me that shit about saving souls - how many down here on earth? How much suffering did he actually alleviate during his lifetime? 10? 20? 50?

Pathetic! A loving God could have saved thousands, tens of thousands and more - and for fuck's sakes he owes us huge on that score.

If your aim was to bring me to your form of slavery - you failed.

If it was to introduce me to any single good thing about your religion - you failed.

If it was to make me remember, yet again, just how fucking horrific Christianity is - SUCCESS!!

Nice one! Thanks!

[pocaracas]

Remind me not to mess with the greek!

[max-greece]

Remind me not to mess with the greek!

[Esquilax]

You fail to take into account the background information accompanying the accounts of Christ's miracles.

Christ did not do one miracle and then say believe in Me. He did not do two miracles and say believe in Me. Or three or four.

I can't believe I have to point this out to you, but you've presented no reason to believe that Jesus did any miracles at all. I'm aware it claims so in the book that's all about him, but "being written in a book" is not evidence.

If I were a Jew living at that time and witnessed what Jesus was doing I could not justify not believing who He said He was.

Oh yes you could, and actually, you should. Now, I fully grant you that if you were alive and saw Jesus performing a supposed miracle, depending on the given example you'd have reason to believe you'd seen something extraordinary, but at that point you wouldn't have any reason to presume that the source of this was divine. Jesus could have been lying (maybe he was Satan in disguise!) or mistaken about the source of his power. You'd have to do further tests to know for sure.

Assumptions make an ass out of u, as they say. Stop making them in favor of things you want to be true.

With each miracle, the probability of it all happening via some naturalisitc explanation diminishes. Assuming the accounts are true it is more probable that the explanation for these occurrances is that Christ was actually who He said He was.

Not really; the best you could say is that it couldn't yet be accounted for by naturalistic means. I will fully grant that it would be okay to say that current naturalistic observations cannot explain Jesus' miracles, but that's a far cry from saying it's impossible naturally. See, I'm trying to avoid making unjustified leaps of logic so that I don't land in an incorrect conclusion, and I think I can clear up why with a comparison:

If a preacher for Thor came to see you one day and performed an identical set of miracles to the ones Jesus is claimed to have performed, and told you that he gained his power from the Norse gods, would you then conclude that the Norse gods are real and yours is not?

No? Why is that? Is it because you can see a distinction between the action, and the cause or source of that action?

That's what I would call step one on the investigative process for miracle claims.

Wanting evidence for claims of divinity is not wrong. It is right. But denying what is obvious is a matter of the will.

It isn't obvious to any of us: none of us were Jews that witnessed Jesus do anything, and so your reasoning falls on its face right away. Claiming that those of us here today are unjustified in disbelieving on those grounds would be ridiculous.

[Minimalist]

[discipulus]

[DeistPaladin]

I do not consider the gospel accounts to be "extremely sketchy second-hand claims."

If you do then that is fine.

This is not a matter of personal opinion. This is a matter of what we know. The Gospels are not "eye-witness accounts". At best, even if we go with the attributed authors who are established "by tradition", these are written by people who are following hearsay accounts.

Mark, who wrote the first Gospel and all others are based on his work, was a companion of Peter, who himself was not a witness to all the events related in Mark. We have hearsay on top of hearsay. Further, he wrote his account some four decades after the alleged events. Additionally, his work was altered over time. And this is your star witness.

Matthew lies repeatedly about what the OT says. I've quoted three whoppers he told in the first two chapters alone.

Luke was a companion of Paul, who only saw Jesus in a vision. The life story of Jesus is something Paul would have heard from others. Luke himself admits that he has compiled witness accounts to write his story, offering us anonymous hearsay.

John's Gospel, by all accounts the latest of all of them, features extremely advanced theology and tells a completely different story of a completely different Jesus.

Sorry but there's nothing here that would pass for a witness account in a court of law.

But I do want to agree with you on one thing. There does come a point where doubt is irrational. When the burden of proof has been met and there continues to be denial, it's the "skeptic" who is being unreasonable. Examples include those who claim to be "skeptics" about whether 9/11 was really done by terrorists, whether Obama was born in America, whether global warming is really happening or whether evolution explains the diversity of life.

Arguably, these are not really "skeptics", since they do hold belief systems without reason and against all reason. 9/11 Truthers, Tea Bagger Birthers, Climate Denialists and Creationists have their alternate ideas and their "skepticism" is born of a desire to hold those ideas.

Other examples of irrational doubt can be found in the Bible among the disciples of Jesus. The disciples continually acted like two dimensional dunces, obviously contrived characters used to build up suspense for Jesus' next miracle, like a background snare drum roll before a magician does a trick. It usually goes like this:

• Jesus: "I'm going to perform this miracle."
  
• Disciples: "But how is that even possible?"
  
• Jesus: "Oh ye of little faith." *performs miracle*
  
• Disciples: "Wow, that's amazing! Truly you are the Son of God!"
  
• Jesus: "I'm going to perform a miracle."
  
• Disciples: "But how is that even possible?"
  
• Jesus: "Oh ye of little faith." *performs miracle*
  
• Disciples: "Wow, that's amazing! Truly you are the Son of God!"
  
• Jesus: "I'm going to perform a miracle."
  
• Disciples: "But how is that even possible?"
  
• Etc.
  

My favorite was the Doubting Thomas story. Really, Tom? You saw Jesus raise the dead on three occasions. You heard Jesus tell you three times that he was going to be killed and would raise on the third day. You saw him killed just as he said would happen. You heard about him being raised just as he said it would happen. And you have doubts? Really?

These fictional examples of doubt are straw men of real skeptics for the Christians benefit. It's why you have your confusion about what skepticism is.

Skepticism is not an agenda. It's simply a realistic assessment that the burden of proof is not met.