and as a side note….. i left some out in question 4
When people call themselfs intellectuals they place them self on a higher level than th regular people. I think that those people would be more like christians in your last topic that close their ears and yell because they would not like to think that their lives are not in their control. They are prideful enough that they came up with a new system in which they are the smartest and most influential people in the universe.

Why would God create humans as inquisitive creatures and then punish us for that same quality that He gave to us? I am referring to the story of Adam and Eve, wherein humans are cast out of paradise because Adam and Eve ate the fruit.

My knowledge of the Bible is a little shaky, so please correct me if I’m wrong on any account. (I plan to read it when I have time to devote to it, perhaps in the summer.)

Question Two: Why is life valuable when it continues forever (after death)? Because we were made in Gods image. Since you asked for a christian to answer we can say this. Our lives were made by some one and he took the time to creat us. By creating human life in his image we see that it is important. we would be disrespecting God by destroying his image. What about War? The diference between killing in war and killing not in war is that war is a event that has to happen. the world is fallen and in our fallen nature war must exist. In the bible it says “there is a time for peace and a time for war” that is the main reason that i believe that war is ok.

Question Three: Why do amputees receive no miracles?

In the bible its says that if you have faith like a mustard seed then you can move mountains. I have looked at this and allways thought that this is not true. I have faith but some how it is not good enough. In the bible all the miracles were done by Prophets, Jesus, or the apostles and i just believe that our generation has been sucked of all its faith. I dont know why God does not reach down to help people like amputees but i believe that since we feel sorrow towards them then the one whos image we were created in must feel the same sorrow. It was not his idea to creat sin. He knew that it would happen but he let it. I dont know why he does not enforce his will on everyone. that way there would be no sin, no pain, not problems, but that kind of relationship does not appeal to him. Back to the question if God had his way there would be no sin, pain, or problems, he lets us make the choices and because we are in a sinfull world things happen. Pain happens, but why no miracles after the pain? I dont know. Good question

Question Four: Why are intellectuals more inclined to be atheist?
Brilliant people can make mistakes too. =p Albert Eginstin, wrong spelling, has a quote on why he was an atheist. I might get a word or two wrong but it goes “How can a god who clames to be loving let us go though sin”. he was saying why did god not tell us how bad sin was in the garden. If you adam and God comes to you and says heres what hate is. How could he understand something that he has not experienced before.

I am not the best debater and i dont know everything so i might have some gaping holes in my thoughts….

Give me a bit, I’ll get back to you

Q3: As I said, I am not trying to disprove God. I am trying to make you think. Whether God has to heal someone or not is beside the point; Christians claim he do, and it is from there my argument forms. What you have done is just repeat a premise.

Q4: If you look at my comment to you from March 31, you’ll see that I’ve posed you a question that you have not answered yet.

The simple fact of the matter is that God doesn’t have to heal anyone, and the fact that he doesn’t is not viable evidence that God does not exist.

4:

I was not attempting to explain HOW the elite change their opinions, only that they do indeed change, and simply because the scholarly elite believe a certain way does not automatically make it correct.

Q4: I do not believe that you have addressed the issue relevant. You have not explained HOW the intellectual elite change their opinions; instead, you have only given an example of a change. I shall be interested to hear your explanation of this.

Honestly there can be no one final explanation for this, as no one can truly presume to speak for God. The simplest is that he simply does not want to. Why? It is impossible to say. I for one see a difference between a handicap (such as an amputee) and a person afflicted with malignant cancer. Another very possible explanation is that the amputee simply has no faith that he will be healed. How many amputees would you say seriously even stop and consider praying that their limb regrow? I would venture none.
(Yes, I do know that is a lame explanation)

Question 4:

Intellectual environment 250-350 years ago: All colleges are run for the sole purpose of educating ministers and the clergy, government is controlled by raging religious leaders, who dictate societal norms in every aspect of a citizen’s life. Dissenting educated men, even those of the same faith like Roger Williams, founder of Rhode Island, are banished from the country or colony. There has always been an intellectual elite, and their views shift from era to era, the only thing that remains the same is their treatment of anyone that disagrees with the accepted belief at the time. (Galileo anyone?)

I will, however, defend my questions three and four.

Q3: Your rebuttals are besides the point, and only excuse God in some cases, but don’t answer my question in its entirety. You say that God works in subtle ways—well what a coincidence then, that the subtle things are the ones most easy to fake, and the obviously visible things are the hardest to fake. Surely, the difficulty of the issue should not be an obstacle for an omnipotent God?

Q4: It is odd that the only example you can find of a religious environment is one that existed nearly 2,000 years ago. It is also odd that since these 2,000 years ago, human development has occurred at an astonishing rate, in tact with the growth of disbelief in God. Furthermore, your argument that the intellectual elite are biased against Christians does nothing but prove my point: for no matter their behaviour, the existence of an intellectual elite is precisely what I am arguing for. If I am incorrect, how do you propose this intellectual elite came about?