Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Dave to Anna, no godly foster care program?

Expand Messages
  • Dave Wave
    ... God having foreknowledge of what people will be like when they grow up, where does the bible say that God foresaw that these babies would grow up and
    Message 1 of 198 , Jan 8, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      > b) God could foresee that these
      > > babies would grow up and become just like their
      > parents
      >
      > First, where does the bible say that God foresaw
      > that these babies
      > would "grow up and become just like their parents"?
      >
      > A: God can foresee everything, so of course also
      > what these babies
      > would become like. God is all knowing, for God one
      > day is like a
      > thousand years, in the way that he is a and o, he is
      > the beginning
      > and the end. He can look into the future. Try to
      > prove that this
      > isn¡¦t so. That is your job.

      God having foreknowledge of what people will be like
      when they grow up, where does the bible say that God
      foresaw that these babies would "grow up and become
      just like their parents"? Indeed, how do you know
      that god believed they would only grow up to be like
      their parents? Did you read that in the bible? Or
      are you using desperation-apologetics to make the
      ancient savage god of the Hebrew tribe more pallatable
      for non-ANE audiences?

      > c) if he
      > > let
      > > them live, there would be even more evil people to
      > tempt also other
      > tribes to perform child sacrifices and other evil
      > habits.

      How do you know that god knew there would be more evil
      in letting them live? Just because god knows a
      child's future doesn't automatically guarantee that
      the child will be evil. Please document your
      assertion that god killed the babies because he knew
      letting them live would merely result in more evil.

      > That excuse could be used today to justify killing
      > all militant
      > atheists, like me, who seek to rid the world of
      > Christianity. But
      > since you don't want your reasoning to be used
      > elsewhere as a check
      > for consistency, your excuse here doesn't count.
      >
      > A: And that¡¦s why I keep telling you that human
      > beings may NOT play
      > God and eliminate people. This is a job for God
      > only.
      >In the Bible
      > he used the Hebrews as his tools, but then he made
      > sure to show them
      > plenty of signs so that there was no doubt about
      > that he spoke to
      > them about his will.

      Why do you assert that God showed the Hebrews "plenty
      of signs so that there was no doubt about that he
      spoke to them about his will"...when you admit you
      have no proof?

      How do you expect me to "refute" you, when your
      position is nothing but a bunch of baseless assertions
      that you confidently refuse to give proof for? When I
      said I can refute the bible and Christianity, I
      obviously meant the bible and Christianity. I never
      said I could refute an assertion that was never based
      on evidence to begin with. You learn that stuff your
      first day in Philosophy 101.

      then again, I refute you by noting that you admit you
      have no proof upon which to base your assertions,
      therefore you have NOT proven your arguments from the
      bible, against my arguments, because you are the first
      to admit that you arguments are nothing more than
      unprovable assertions.

      Whether you ever claimed you could prove something or
      not is irrelevant to the fact that you do indeed USE
      THE BIBLE to "respond" to me. Well, is your use of
      the bible also nothing but a bunch of assertions since
      "we cannot prove our distant past"? If so, why do you
      bother giving me something that has no proof? Missed
      the bus?

      > Also the Canaanites knew what
      > was coming. I
      > showed you what Rahab said for instance. Try to
      > prove all this
      > wrong. That is your job.

      You are wrong if you think it is my "job" to prove the
      bible wrong. I don't believe EVERYTHING in the bible
      is an utter falsehood from start to finish. There are
      lots of historical accuracies in the bible. What I
      intend to prove wrong is YOUR particular justification
      of ancient Hebraic infanticide. I don't have to prove
      the bible wrong, all i have to do is demonstrate that
      your faith in the bible rests upon nothing, because
      you can't prove your distant past. You already
      admitted that, so then why you choose to respond with
      the bible when you don't believe it can be proved in
      order to actually SUPPORT your use of it, and why you
      use the bible in such a shallow cavalier way as that,
      remains a mystery. You go around quoting a book to
      people when you acknowledge that nothing in it can be
      proven. why are you doing this on a list that is
      concerned with biblical APOLOGETICS? Are you just
      bored or what?

      >
      > d) who
      > > would take care of the babies if all the adults
      > were eliminated by
      > > God, and when the Hebrews couldn't take care of
      > them all?
      >
      > Didn't god make water gush from a rock when the
      > Israelites exodused
      > to the desert and had no water? ----
      >
      > A: Dave, if you view the OTHER reasons I list (why
      > do you view the
      > list as though one reason must be used as the sole
      > one exclusively?)
      > then you have plenty of reasons to see why God not
      > choose to do
      > that.

      Let's take your excuses one at a time, to insure as
      much as possible that the discussion doesn't get
      cluttered with 60,000 different ideas.

      You ask who would take care of the babies if god
      didn't kill them, and I reminded you of that
      convenient artifice that desperate apologists make use
      of as much as they can, when they are in a tight spot
      and can't reason their way past a skeptic's logic,
      namely: God can do miracles. If god can make water
      gush from a rock, and liberate the Israelites from the
      powerful Pharaoh via a series of miracles, then god
      obviously doesn't have a problem with finding adequate
      Israelite foster care services for the innocent babies
      and children of the Amalakites which he ordered
      slaughtered.

      so please reply to this single point, and we will
      progress through each of your individual excuses one
      by one to assess their probable level of veracity.
      What's wrong with taking it slow and investigating
      your rebuttals to me one point at a time?

      > If you read for instance b) and c), well in
      > fact ALL other
      > reasons, you would see that God had reasons enough
      > to eliminate the
      > kids too.

      We will soon see! But answer the foster care problem
      first. You can appeal to cumulative properties of
      your whole case if you wish, but you shouldn't do so
      until you have thoroughly examined it and made sure
      that each of your excuses are valid.

      The Canaanites were evil due for
      > environmental reasons and
      > for biological reasons. Just like environment and
      > genes affect
      > people today.

      You get that from the totally biased account given by
      the bible. Why are you citing the bible, if you and I
      agree that it cannot be proven? You say I promised to
      DISprove the bible?

      I wasn't talking in absolute terms like you
      fallaciously understand proofs or disproofs. I didn't
      mean that I could force you to change your mind
      totally. I meant that I could supply arguments to
      show that many Christian beliefs involving the bible
      are more probably false than they are true. But
      seeing as you don't even have a basic epistemological
      framework from within which to even understand what
      constitutes proof and evidence in the first place, I
      can understand what frame of mind you must have been
      in when you saw me come to this group and offer debate
      challenges to any Christian.

      > A: You may regret that you claimed the Bible
      > contains errors or
      > inconsistencies because you don¡¦t seem to be able
      > to prove the Bible
      > wrong.

      Now that I know you fallaciously think that proof has
      to be absolute (a standard of proof not accepted by
      any historian or bible scholar on the face of the
      earth), yes, it is most unfortunate that you should
      have such a wrongful state of mind when you read
      challenges from bible skeptics.

      > I¡¦ve never claimed I could prove it so the
      > burden of proof is
      > on you.

      I accept that, but I'm just curious, why do you attend
      an apologetics group, if you don't think the bible's
      record of the distant past can be proven? Sat in the
      chair before you wiped off all the super-glue?

      > You can solve your problem with telling me
      > that you were
      > wrong to be able to list clear Biblical errors.

      I admit that it is stupendously stupid to think that
      anybody could prove an error in the bible with the
      kind of absolute clarity that you fallaciously demand.


      > If
      > you say that you
      > trust Evolution to be true, then I wouldn¡¦t have a
      > problem with
      > that, but of course I would list the inconsistencies
      > one by one.

      Why not one at a time? What is your malfunction
      regarding overblowing your opponent with long lists?
      DO you think that sheer volume will make something
      become true?

      > If
      > you told me Evolution is a fact, then the burden of
      > proof is on you
      > and not on me.

      You are way too interested in bringing evolution into
      a discussion where it doesn't belong; you constantly
      taunt me with requests to prove evolution, when the
      discussion was never about evolution in the first
      place....which tells me you are more than likely a
      fundamentalist Christian parotting a list of
      "evidences" you got from your pastor or bible teacher
      or creationist website, which you instantly found
      compelling and unanswerable. You list them one at a
      time, and when we go through them one at a time, you
      will discover that you need slightly more education on
      evolution than you can get from some guy named Ham at
      a website called "AnswersInGenesis.org"


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    • Michael Hamblin
      ... Dave, it s quite simple: my observation is correct, and your argument is fallacious. There is no shame in correcting an honest mistake and moving on - some
      Message 198 of 198 , Jan 28, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        On Sat, 28 Jan 2006, Dave Wave wrote:

        > [snip wild handwaving, mouth foaming]

        Dave, it's quite simple: my observation is correct, and your argument is
        fallacious. There is no shame in correcting an honest mistake and moving
        on - some people might even see it as a sign of wisdom and maturity. But a
        proud and arrogant fool refuses correction.

        ---
        Michael Hamblin michaelh@...
        7815 McCallum Blvd Apt 17201 http://www.michaelh.com/
        Dallas, TX 75252-6801 Home Phone: 972-733-3357
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.