God botherers, I want your opinions.

[djet]

THose are pretty funny. Hehe I liked the one "And there were also two other malefactors."

 

SHould be: "And there were also two other, malefactors."

 

I don't really see these as flaws of the BIble, as much as flaws of man.....

[apowerr]

I don't really see these as flaws of the BIble, as much as flaws of man.....

Right, and the Bible is of man!

[QuietOC]

See here for many documented flaws in various bibles.

Who is arguing about unflawed translations? There is even minor questionable areas in our critical Greek manuscripts--though most modern books have considerably more errata. Also these areas are well documented in our modern critical editions, so someone with even rudimentary understanding of textual criticism can make an informed choice about which reading he/she thinks most likely. The better noted English translations will also note the more significant variants.

 

The Bible also presents human flawed viewpoints accurately, as in Samuel saying, "God does not change his mind" to King Saul and then the narrator of 1 Samuel stating that God changed his mind about Saul. None of this has any relevency on the truthfulness of the Bible.

 

It is a fully human book and divine revelation. Any God capable of creating space-time can hardly be considered unable to communicate with a race of insignificant temporal beings existing in that space-time. Employing the means of such insignificant creatures (through causal determinism) to communicate, is hardly inconcievable either. I'm not sure we have to limit divine revelation especially to this book. Definitely a number of significant people in it seem to have other sources of divine revelation--of course these may just be those oral myths that have already been mentioned.

[Maxintosh]

I don't really see these as flaws of the BIble, as much as flaws of man.....

Let's approach this from a different angle.... In your opinion, what is the main purpose of the bible?

 

It is a fully human book and divine revelation.

That is a contradictory statement.

 

Any God capable of creating space-time can hardly be considered unable to communicate with a race of insignificant temporal beings existing in that space-time.

Even if God wasn't able to communicate directly with us he would still be able to create a remedy so that God could communicate. The fact that God hasn't yet directly communicated with us speaks volumes Who knows, maybe it's just not time yet I'm not sure I want to be around to hear that 'conversation'. Religion has put so many words in Gods mouth over the ages, and killed so many innocent people in his name, that you just have to know he's not going to be happy. Let's hope God zaps just the religious people, because they are the ones who perpetuate the problem

[djet]

The Bible is written by man, inspred by God.

[Maxintosh]

The Bible is written by man, inspred by God.

It doesn't matter what their "inspiration" was, it was still created in their imaginations.

 

For example; I could write a book about you inspired by this thread, and we both know that it would be 99% wrong. Now add the additional complexity to write about a omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent being that no man can transcend or possibly understand. Our human language is impotent for such an undertaking.

[Alessandro17]

The fact that God hasn't yet directly communicated with us speaks volumes Who knows, maybe it's just not time yet

 

Maybe it doesn't matter, maybe God is not supposed to communicate directly with human beings. Or maybe God communicates in different ways?

[QuietOC]

That is a contradictory statement.

No, it isn't. The Bible is a fully human book that is divine revelation.

 

Christians also hold that Jesus was fully human and divine. Any view that has not held this has historically been declared heretical. You may assume that humanity and divinity are mutually exclusive, but Christians must not.

 

It is pretty simple to see how this is possible if/since determinism is true. The determined Creator of determined space-time merely has to determine his determined creatures to write a determined book. Both God and the determined creatures determine the words. You could say ultimately the determination rests on God. Thus any book could be divine revelation, every book could be divine revelation, or even no books could be divine revelation--the Creator of space-time gets to choose within the determined limits of himself.

 

Now it is abundantly obvious that not all books are divine revelation--conflicting views about God being any obvious problem. But I don't see any reason for one to assume that no books are divine revelation--unless, perhaps, God told you so.

[Maxintosh]

maybe God is not supposed to communicate directly with human beings. Or maybe God communicates in different ways?

I agree. All good possibilities

[Alessandro17]

You may assume that humanity and divinity are mutually exclusive

 

Personally I assume the opposite: every human being is divine: the Self (Atman) and the Whole (Brahman) are identical.

[Maxintosh]

No, it isn't.

Yes, it is. It's completely contradictory!

 

The Bible is a fully human book that is divine revelation.

Lets' break this down into bite-sized pieces since you seem to be stuck talking in circles.

 

"The bible is a fully human book". Yes this is correct.

 

"and divine revelation." This is pure speculation at best. God didn't write one word of the bible. God is simply being used as an excuse. Anyone who has read this thread knows that now it's getting redundant, as this has already been covered many times over already.

 

 

Christians also hold that Jesus was fully human and divine.

Christians can claim anything that they want, that doesn't mean squat in the real world.

 

I'm sure a large percentage of the population would admit that as a child they beieved in Santa Claus, but that doesn't make him real

 

Alessandro17 is correct. I have seen humans create things that just 100 years ago people would have thought it only possible for a god to achieve. The technologies used in the Kepler spaceborne telescope is a perfect example. Science holds the answer, not the bible.

[djet]

When I said what I said previous, you took it as a human would.

 

God basically used humans to write his word.

 

"In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God."

[Maxintosh]

God basically used humans to write his word.

Hmmm.... I want to make ants believe in me, so I'll use ants in any way that I please just so that they will be forced to honor me.

 

Gee.. that almost makes God sound like a pimp

 

If an omnipotent God wanted to communicate with us, he wouldn't need to go though ANY other parties to do it. It's just convenient for you to believe that he did, so that you don't question anything taught to you.

[QuietOC]

Hmmm.... I want to make ants believe in me, so I'll use ants in any way that I please just so that they will be forced to honor me.

If you created those ants, you could use them as you say, and/or you could determine them to freely choose the choices you have determined for them. You really haven't thought through determinism. God has created people who at least currently do not honor him. Perhaps though in the sum total of space-time, there is honor to God because he makes them like that. 

 

If an omnipotent God wanted to communicate with us, he wouldn't need to go though ANY other parties to do it. It's just convenient for you to believe that he did, so that you don't question anything taught to you.

 

This is like the question, can God make a rock too big for him to move? If God can create logical contradictions then not only can he create such a rock, he can, in fact, move it! It is more likely that since God has created a logically cohesive, causally

deterministic space-time, he has choosen to interact with us within the means of that space-time.

 

The Bible tells us to question everything we are taught--especially anything we are taught about God. Because we believe in the authority of the Bible, we must especially question our understanding of it. And I hardly see how it is more convinient to believe in something you say is self contradictory. In the words of Flannery O'Conner, "It is harder to believe than not to."

[djet]

I'm going to take a quote from C.S. Lewis' Mere Christianity. I sorta feel like this humanizes God a little too much, but it gets the point across.

 

"Now if we had not fallen, that would be all plain sailing. But unfortunately we now need God's help in order to do something which God, in His own nature, never does at all - to surrender, to suffer, to submit, to die. Nothing in God's nature corresponds to this process at all. So that the one road for which we now need God's leadership most of all is a road God, in His own nature, has never walked. God can share only what He has: this thing, in His own nature, has not. But supposing God became a man - suppose our human nature which can suffer and die was amalgamated with God's nature in one person - then that person could help us. He could surrender His will, and suffer and die, because He was a man; and He could do it perfectly beause He was God."

 

This goes along with God speaking through men to give His word.

 

Also he says, ".... HIs statement to us of certain quite unalterable facts about His own nature."

 

Yes, God could have boomed out in his mighty voice across the earth His word, but that's not what he chose.

[Maxintosh]

If you created those ants, you could use them as you say

Ahh... so your god sees people as property. Which brings us back to the pimp analogy...

 

can God make a rock too big for him to move? If God can create logical contradictions then not only can he create such a rock, he can, in fact, move it!

So you're saying that your god failed at creating such a non-movable rock, or that your god has the human ability to be in denial. All the more reason not to believe in a god such as that.

 

The Bible tells us to question everything we are taught

LOL Apparently bible readers are glossing over that passage. Anyone with a high school education and a little bit of common sense can see more holes in the bible that a woolen sweater at a moth fest.

 

Because we believe in the authority of the Bible, we must especially question our understanding of it.

That's just a fancy way of saying that you've convinced yourself of the ridiculousness contained inside it. This is the same process that 5 year olds go through when they are told about Santa Claus or the Easter Bunny. The difference is that most 5 year olds grow up and use common sense to realize that those stories can't possibly be true.

 

Yes, God could have boomed out in his mighty voice across the earth His word, but that's not what he chose.

Again, you're speaking for God and assuming that God had a need to chose. God doesn't need mans help to do anything. Suggesting that he does is an insult to God.

[QuietOC]

Ahh... so your god sees people as property. Which brings us back to the pimp analogy...

Well, Maxintosh = god of the analogy I was using. I was using your assumptions not mine.

 

So you're saying that your god failed at creating such a non-movable rock, or that your god has the human ability to be in denial. All the more reason not to believe in a god such as that.

Yes, I was arguing from the absurd, and, you agree, good!

 

Apparently bible readers are glossing over that passage. Anyone with a high school education and a little bit of common sense can see more holes in the bible that a woolen sweater at a moth fest.

Show us any hole. Is it too much to ask?

 

I don't buy that you are rejecting the Bible through logical deduction, since you haven't offered any relevant facts that would lead anyone to question its integrity. You have mentioned some facts about it, but they are all facts that agree with its content. So, if anything they argue in support of its integrity. So, why are you so against the Bible? What has this human collection of literature done to you?

 

So, here is the oral tradition from the Deuteronomist who seemed to be quite aware of and oppossed to religions of human invention.

 

Only be careful, and watch yourselves closely so that you do not forget the things your eyes have seen or let them slip from your heart as long as you live. Teach them to your children and to their children after them. Remember the day you stood before the LORD your God at Horeb, when he said to me, "Assemble the people before me to hear my words so that they may learn to revere me as long as they live in the land and may teach them to their children." You came near and stood at the foot of the mountain while it blazed with fire to the very heavens, with black clouds and deep darkness. Then the LORD spoke to you out of the fire. You heard the sound of words but saw no form; there was only a voice.

...

You saw no form of any kind the day the LORD spoke to you at Horeb out of the fire. Therefore watch yourselves very carefully, so that you do not become corrupt and make for yourselves an idol, an image of any shape, whether formed like a man or a woman, or like any animal on earth or any bird that flies in the air, or like any creature that moves along the ground or any fish in the waters below. And when you look up to the sky and see the sun, the moon and the stars—all the heavenly array—do not be enticed into bowing down to them and worshiping things the LORD your God has apportioned to all the nations under heaven.

...

Ask now about the former days, long before your time, from the day God created man on the earth; ask from one end of the heavens to the other. Has anything so great as this ever happened, or has anything like it ever been heard of?

The much latter commentary in the sermon to the Hebrews:

 

You have not come to a mountain that can be touched and that is burning with fire; to darkness, gloom and storm; to a trumpet blast or to such a voice speaking words that those who heard it begged that no further word be spoken to them, because they could not bear what was commanded: "If even an animal touches the mountain, it must be stoned." The sight was so terrifying that Moses said, "I am trembling with fear."

...

See to it that you do not refuse him who speaks. If they did not escape when they refused him who warned them on earth, how much less will we, if we turn away from him who warns us from heaven?

 

So, Christians believe God has spoken at specific historical instances. The hearer's duty was to remember and communicate that experience accurately to those who came after them. What they heard was a limited, but real expereience of God's communication. The unlimited communication of God was realized in the person of the Son of God who is also the Son of Man--who lived here and spoke with us face to face, who is alive, and will return here someday.

[Maxintosh]

Show us any hole.

Would be a whole lot easier and quicker for both of us if you would just scientifically document any part of the bible. Create the world in only 7 days.... water to wine.... feed hundreds of people with only one or two fish.... anything? If you can't do that, then that would be a hole

Christians believe God has spoken at specific historical instances.

Again, christians can believe in whatever they want, but it DOESN'T make it true.

What they heard was a limited, but real expereience of God's communication.

Should be easy for you to scientifically document that it was God that they communicated with. Let's see it.

who lived here and spoke with us face to face

See above

[QuietOC]

If an omnipotent God wanted to communicate with us, he wouldn't need to go though ANY other parties to do it.

Scientifically document this belief of yours!

 

Comparing your belief and mine, mine has the difficult of dealing with specifics of a historical record, while yours asks nothing of you.

 

Christians have documentation. It might not be written in the way you want.

 

Would be a whole lot easier and quicker for both of us if you would just scientifically document any part of the bible. Create the world in only 7 days.... water to wine.... feed hundreds of people with only one or two fish.

Didn't someone give that Arthur C. Clarke quote about how sufficiently advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic? How about thinking of these as natural technological feats by an advanced being. You can believe they didn't happen, but you can't believe they couldn't happen.

[Maxintosh]

Scientifically document this belief of yours!

That's easy.

 

omnipotent |ämˈnipətənt| adjective: having unlimited power; able to do anything.

 

while yours asks nothing of you.

Sure it does. It asks that the person has common sense.

 

It might not be written in the way you want.

Oh you mean something that's been proven or documented. Yeah, I guess I'd file that with the rest of the fairy tales in the library.

 

advanced technology is indistiguishable from magic?

If they did then they'd be wrong. Magic has the ingredient of illusion.

 

Religion is about illusion, not God.

[QuietOC]

omnipotent |ämˈnipətənt| adjective: having unlimited power; able to do anything.

God is limited by his own nature, which includes how he has chosen to interact with his space-time creation. Even the term "power" seems to imply that he is a part of space-time with some quantity of energy. Christian have used terms like omnipotent to refer to God, but many scholars are questioning whether this god of (Greek) philosophy has much in common with the God of the Bible.

[Maxintosh]

God is limited by his own nature

Maybe the christian God is limited, but the God that I know is not.

 

many scholars are questioning whether this god of (Greek) philosophy has much in common with the God of the Bible.

Well, I know the 'god' of the bible is made up of mans imagination, so that's not saying much.

[QuietOC]

Maybe the christian God is limited, but the God that I know is not.

Well, that's because your God doesn't exists except as some vague idea in your head.

 

All real persons are limited by who they are. Only imaginary ideas can be considered limitless, but with more thought you will certainly find them rather insignificant in reality. So keep your omnipotent god who hasn't talked (and never will.)

 

Who but a fool would make his own god

 

This is what the Lord says—Israel’s King and Redeemer, the Lord of Heaven’s Armies:

"I am the First and the Last;

there is no other God.

Who is like me?

Let him step forward and prove to you his power.

Let him do as I have done since ancient times

when I established a people and explained its future.

Do not tremble; do not be afraid.

Did I not proclaim my purposes for you long ago?

You are my witnesses—is there any other God?

No! There is no other Rock—not one!”

[Maxintosh]

Well, that's because your God doesn't exists except as some vague idea in your head.

Gee that's funny, I didn't know that "some vague idea" had the power to change my life

[apowerr]

Well, that's because your God doesn't exists except as some vague idea in your head.

I'm not saying that your or Maxintosh's God is false or nonexistant, but how is your God any different? Maxintosh could write a book with gold pages about his God. God is a personal thing and different to everyone. It's quite ignorant to say your God for which there is no evidence is legit, while his is just a thought.