My House Did not have a Builder (or did it?)

[brewer]

Going to ask again, if Leviticus outlines gods cure, and these are gods words, why is the cure still not being used, from that day to this? Is it that god is ineffective?

Or is it that this was a man made cure simply attributed to god?

Why did you post about current antibiotics? Trying to divert the subject yet again?

It obviously wasn't ineffective, since it I showed from various sources that it does work. And I showed the antibiotics that are used nowadays and their side effects, to point out that the prescription God issued was superior top it, since not only does it not have side effects, it actually treats the side effects the antibiotics we use today cause. I also showed that people used at least part of His prescription long after the biblical times, and there are even holistic doctors who encourage the use of either hyssop oil or cedarwood oil or both for various skin issues an other things, which sometimes even include leprosy (because it still is effective.) 
Now of course the modern medical industry doesn't want to associate themselves with that old, "archaic" method of dealing with sickness and disease. They want to be thought of as more intelligent in this age of the medical and scientific pseudo-renaissance. But just because there is an inferior alternative method of dealing with a certain disease, it doesn't mean that the one God gave was ineffective. I already proved that it was. 
And the reason I posted about the current antibiotics used for leprosy is to show their inferiority to the treatment God gave, because they have a multitude of side effects that His treatment doesn't have. And not only does the biblical treatment not have side effects, but it's been shown, and known, that at least the two main items, cedarwood and hyssop, both are used, or can be used to treat the very issues that are caused by the side effects of the antibiotics that are used today. 
I do think that some of the aspects of the actual method used are symbolic, but that doesn't mean that the elements used in it have no literal effectiveness against the disease. You can look it up for yourself that people used those two main elements to cure and treat leprosy for a long time after the times of Leviticus, and you can even find doctors who recommend it today. 
So the fact that the local hospital doesn't use the biblical cure has nothing to do with the effectiveness of the biblical cure.

bold mine

OMG, we've found a total idiot!

If gods treatment was so effective why did there continue to be leper colonies?

Please list the holistic doctors (any doctors) that advocate the biblical cure for leprosy. 

Please list the studies that indicate that the current antibiotic regimen to treat leprosy is inferior to cedarwood and hyssop.

You're delusional and have proven nothing.

[Dan Brooks]

I was thinking about this this morning on the way to the job site. What Whateverist was saying, or asking. Is there any type of evidence that I think would count as adequate justification for his believing in God. And I had told him that I don't know what type of evidence would suffice for that.
But then I thought about it this way. If someone were to try to convince me that Santa Claus was real, and they took me to the mall at Christmas time and said, "See? Look over there on that big chair. It's Santa Claus!" That wouldn't do a single thing toward convincing me that Santa Claus is real. 

See, I'm in a similar boat with gods - for different reasons, but I think you'll understand.  Like The Real Santa™, people take me to see their Real Gods™.  In both cases, I wouldn't need to comment on or from any notions of whether or not there is a santa or a god to know that the broken wretch they're pointing at is neither.

So I'm thinking that trying to convince someone who doesn't believe in God that God is real is kind of like taking them to the mall at Christmas time to show them Santa Claus. If it's already in the person's mind that God isn't real, it really doesn't matter what evidence is shown, it won't convince you in the least. A completely neutral mind may be able to at least accept the possibility, but a mind already convinced otherwise is not going to be persuaded, just like I couldn't be persuaded about Santa Claus.

That's certainly not what the fishers of men and all the "I used to be an atheist but now I know the truth" stories we see peddled here day in and day out are telling us.....

I don't know. What does anybody else think of this?

I feel like, if the above were conceptually true, then one of my favorite songs, amazing grace...would sound even sillier than it already does.  I think it's more likely that there has been a failure to convince a person than for the person in questions mind to have been somehow specifically defective in this area - such that they're completely immune to compelling demonstrations.  We know that's not true.  We know that humans beings are, in point of fact and directly to the contrary, susceptible even to the most ludicrous and false "demonstrations" of x y or z. 

I'd spend more time working on my delivery, and less time blaming the audience...if I were an apologist.  I definitely wouldn;t actively diminish the transformative nature and alleged power of coming to belief if I were a particularly christian apologist.  It would seem wildly cross purpose.  Rather than concede some shortcoming in my ability as an orator or educator, diminish the central event of the christian faith in a person's life?  The day they became convinced that god was real and that god was christ?  I'd have to be an awfully cynical believer.

Thank you for that very interesting response. I appreciate it. I do believe myself that really the only one who can prove God is God Himself. I guess I was trying to figure out the thought process of someone who doesn't believe. You know, what's going on psychologically. But I know there is a spiritual aspect to this. It's just interesting to me that there is enough evidence for God for some people to believe easily, and others see the evidence as suspect, but at least concede that there is a possibility, and others are so sure that God doesn't exist, that there is no type or amount of evidence that will convince them. And in a way, I don't think it's the fault of the apologist, or the unbeliever. I think the main problem lies with the spiritual aspect. The Bible, which I believe, says that the word of God is spiritually discerned, and that the natural man cannot discern or receive the things of the spirit. For someone who doesn't believe in anything supernatural or spiritual, they can't possibly believe that God exists, because He is necessarily spiritual and supernatural. Someone who believes in the existence of the spiritual and supernatural may believe in some god or another, but may not believe in the God the Bible tells us of. And there is a Spirit of God who convinces and convicts those who do believe, and confirms what is written in His word, and shows us the truth about all sorts of things, even in every day life. As it says, He shall guide you into all truth. 
So in a sense, it's pretty unfair to blame the unbeliever for their unbelief. God judged Israel for their unbelief, but He had already proven Himself to them, and they were stubborn and, as it says, stiffnecked. Just like we would be upset with someone if we proved a certain thing to them over and over again and they persisted in their unbelief. It also says that the times of ignorance God winked at, but now He calls everyone to repent. So I think if someone is going through their life in a state of ignorance to spiritual things, this won't so much be judged against the person. But it also says that without faith it is impossible to please God, and that we first need to believe that He is, and that H is a rewarder of them that diligently seek Him. So if someone has an open hand and an open mind, and honestly seeks to know if God is real, and looks for evidence of Him, and at the very least says to himself, Now this may be evidence for God. Then I think God will give him even more evidence. As Jesus said, To him that hath, more will be given. But if a person runs from the evidence and constantly rejects it and explains it away and persists in unbelief no matter what evidence is brought, then I think any evidence they have seen will become increasingly more irrelevant to them. As Jesus also said, To him that hath not, it will be taken away even that which he hath. 
If someone doesn't seek, why should he find? If he doesn't knock, why should the door be opened? 
I don't think anyone goes from unbelief to full knowledge and understanding of the the Bible instantly. I think the understanding comes little by little, after belief. And it may be quicker for some and slower for others. A good example of this was the man that was born blind, that Jesus healed. When Jesus healed him, he went about telling everyone what He did to him. And he said that Jesus had to have been from God because of what He did to him, but he still didn't know who Jesus was.  But later on Jesus found him again and said to him, "Dost thou believe on the Son of God?" And he said, "Who is he, Lord, that I might believe on him?" And Jesus said, "Thou hast both seen Him, and it is He which speaketh with thee." And he worshiped Him and said, "Lord, I believe." So now he didn't just know about Jesus, but he knew who Jesus was. There are lots of examples of this where someone is given a little knowledge, or evidence, and when they believe that, they're given more.
There are also examples, most prominently during Jesus' conversations with the Pharisees, where while Jesus was speaking, many believed on Him for His words, but yet the Pharisees persisted in their unbelief. Both the Pharisees and the standers by heard the same words, were given the same evidence, but some believed, and some didn't. So in that case, it wasn't the evidence that made the difference. There was another reason some believed and some didn't. You can also see this in Acts when Paul is preaching and hundreds believe at one time, and others don't believe, both having heard the same message. Why? It obviously isn't because of the message, or that the evidence in the message was lacking, because otherwise hundreds of people wouldn't have believed it. In these instances, I believe that God was the direct cause of their belief. Whether He caused the others not to believe, or simply didn't cause them to believe doesn't really matter. The result is the same. If there are two cookies left in the cookie jar, and you pick one out of there, you don't have to say, "I purposely reject that other cookie." But by default, you are rejecting that other cookie, at least at the moment, because of the fact that you chose the one and not the other. 
So then is it man's responsibility to believe? Or is it God's responsibility to make us believe? This is the conundrum. There is plenty of Scripture that tells us that we cannot believe on Christ unless God draws us to Him and makes us believe, and that faith itself is a gift of God, etc. But in looking at these verses, they all speak specifically of salvation, when someone goes from being at enmity with God, to being His child. We can't do this on our own. Only God can do that. But I think that God gives us general evidence, or as the Bible calls it, revelation, and specific evidence/revelation. Before someone comes to the point where they believe on Jesus Christ, which God has to do, they are offered more general evidence such as creation, testimony of others, etc. So the question is, I think, "What evidence has been presented to me, and what have I done with it?" 
That's not to say that God can't just sit someone down and shut them up all in one day. He definitely can and has done that too. I've heard plenty of testimonies like that, not to mention examples in the Bible. 
I grew up believing in God, so I never had that time where I lived for decades without a belief in Him and then one day I believed in Him. For me it was just a matter of going from believing He was real, to actually being saved by Him. So this whole concept of unbelief in someone who for me is obvious and real, is fascinating to me. That's why I brought up the Santa Claus thing, to see if maybe it could relate in some way. But then again, Santa Claus isn't a real person, who can prove himself to anyone. He's a completely made up character who nobody believes in except children whose parents have lied to them. And I think this is a problem in itself also. If a child's parents tell them that Santa Claus is real, and also that God is real, and the child finds out later that Santa isn't real, what are they going to think about God? Never seen Santa, never seen God either. Santa was a made up story, maybe God is a made up story too. I could definitely see that line of thinking taking place, especially as the child gets older and thinks more critically, and doesn't so easily believe what they're told. The older we get, the more evidence we need to believe something, especially if we already have a reason not to believe it. 
I don't at all want to be dogmatic in here. I know this isn't the place for that. I'm just trying to start conversations. I think everyone has reasons for what they believe, and what they don't.

[Pat Mustard]

...

Why should I read your wall of text when I know it's going to be bullshit?

Tl;dr down to a single paragraph, please.

[The Grand Nudger]

I guess I was trying to figure out the thought process of someone who doesn't believe.

The usual. You know how you feel when you think about all the other gods you don't believe in? That's what's going on here. Pretty much a non-event in your life, I imagine. Same here.

So then is it man's responsibility to believe? Or is it God's responsibility to make us believe? This is the conundrum.

Meh, not for me it's not.  If you wanna get the girl, you gotta put in the work.  

I grew up believing in God, so I never had that time where I lived for decades without a belief in Him and then one day I believed in Him. For me it was just a matter of going from believing He was real, to actually being saved by Him. So this whole concept of unbelief in someone who for me is obvious and real, is fascinating to me.

Polar opposite here...though I'm not so much fascinated by your having faith as I am about what you have faith in.  I like the stories.  The religions are useless.

 I think everyone has reasons for what they believe, and what they don't.

It's not the quantity that's lacking, it's the quality.

[Dan Brooks]

[GrandizerII]

Filthy rags ... falling short of Gods glory ... Jesus blood cleanses ... I understand all that, because Ive been there before. In fact, many of us used to be just as Christian as you are ... so again, youre not saying anything new. Im long past being convinced by just preaching.

[The Valkyrie]

You lost me at "hollistic 'doctor'".

[Simon Moon]

[Pat Mustard]

You lost me at "hollistic 'doctor'".

Well, holly needs doctors too!

[Cyberman]

IF God is the cause of the universe, and is therefore real, and that intelligent and powerful, would He not be able to see and hear you?

Why not? I bet "he" can leap tall buildings as well. The question isn't if "he" would or could, but whether "he" does. Establish that there's a 'there' there before running off about what it can and can't do. First catch your god.

Have you ever asked Him to reveal Himself to you? God is not like the gods of the myths with physical bodies etc. God is a spirit and is therefore invisible. So He isn't going to appear to your natural senses. He isn't going to knock on your door and say, "Hi, I'm God." God is spiritually seen and heard. 

So who or what wrestled with Jacob?