aa5874

Again the Bible contradicts you. We should have more than text.

Jesus, according to the Bible, came so that we can see the works of the Father and instructed his disciples to make the works of the Father visible.

John 14:12, 'Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that believeth on me the works that I do shall he do also, and greater works than these shall he do, because I go unto my Father'.

And, I see now why you claim we have only text, because you say he died 2000 years ago, but the Bible claims he was resurrected 2000 years ago, hence I need more than text.

Johnny Skeptic

The Gospel message most certainly depends lock, stock, and barrel upon the existence of Jesus, and the belief in Jesus. Consider the following Scriptures:

Matthew 1:20-21 But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name Jesus: for he shall save his people from their sins.

John 3:16 For God so loved the world, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.

Mark 9:23 Jesus said unto him, If thou canst believe, all things are possible to him that believeth.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

Mark 16:16 He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that believeth not shall be damned.

John 3:36 He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life: and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him.

1 Corinthians 15:14-18 And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished.

Johnny: Now will you dare to argue with Paul and claim that heaven is not a place, and that there is not life after death?

You cannot possibly have a relationship with someone who does not exist. It is a fact that God does not wish for everyone to know that he exists, and what he wants them to do with their lives. It all gets down to trust. Without more information that I have at this time, I will not trust any being who says that killing people is wrong, but hypocritically kills people himself, who makes people blind, deaf, and dumb, reference Exodus 4:11, punishes people for sins that their grandparents committed, reference Exodus 20:5, told Jews to kill any Jew who kills a Jew, but told Jews to only punish a Jew who kills a slave, reference the Old Testament, killed Ananias and Saphira over money, reference the New Testament, kills people with hurricanes, including some of his most devout and faithful followers, and babies, and innocent animals, allowed hundreds of millions and frequently distributes tangible benefits to those who are not in greatest need, while frequently withholding tangible benefits from those who are in greatest need, giving many people the impression that God indiscriminately distributes tangible benefits without any regard whatsoever for a person’s worldview.

Trust must be EARNED, not merely DECLARED in ancient texts. The simple truth is that there is not any particular tangible blessing that a Christian can expect to receive from God. Hundreds of thousands, if not millions of Christians have died of starvation. Would you call food a necessity of life?

The actions and allowances of the God of the Bible indicate that if he exists, at best, he is bi-polar and mentally incompetent. No mentally competent being helps AND kills people, including some of his most devout followers, and babies, and innocent animals.

Do you have excellent evidence that God told the truth when he (supposedly) said that Christians will go to heaven? Luke 10:25-28 say "And, behold, a certain lawyer stood up, and tempted him, saying, Master, what shall I do to inherit eternal life? He said unto him, What is written in the law? how readest thou? And he answering said, Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with all thy heart, and with all thy soul, and with all thy strength, and with all thy mind; and thy neighbour as thyself. And he said unto him, Thou hast answered right: this do, and thou shalt live." Logically, a commitment like that would not be possible without excellent evidence that it is much more probable that God is not a liar than that he is a liar. You do not have anywhere near that kind of evidence. If God is a liar, if he is omnipotent and omniscient, it would be impossible for anyone to discover that he is a liar with a reasonable degree of certainty if he did not want anyone to know that he is a liar. One of the perks of being omnipotent and omniscient is that you can accomplish whatever you wish to accomplish. You believe the powerful good and evil supernatural beings exist. If they do exist, your problem is that you do not know which group is most powerful, which group tells the truth, and which groups tell lies.

Regardless of what heaven is, or how a person gets there, there is not sufficient evidence that the Bible tells the truth about heaven, and about a lot of other issues that I could bring up.

If the God of the Bible exists, he might have answers to a lot of questions that rational minded and fair minded people would accept, but based upon the information that we now have, rational minded and fair minded people have only two choices, to conclude that the God of the Bible does not exist, or that if he does exist, his character is suspect, and he must be rejected.

Angra Mainyu

Could you please explain the flaw in my logic?
If you can, I’m listening.
If you can’t, why would my logic be considered naïve?

If you mean that one could find flaws in other texts as well, I’d actually agree with that. But then again, no one here claims those texts are free of contradictions, or that they refer to actual deities.

That may be the issue to you, but that doesn’t seem to be the issue to the poster I was addressing in my reply. He said,
Since I was responding to his arguments, I think it’s reasonable for me to try to show errancy, by means of showing inconsistency or factual error.

Since you don’t make the same claim, I wouldn’t use the same argument to reply to your posts.
As I said before, discerning contradiction or factual errors would definitely affect the alleged inerrancy of the Bible.


I disagree with the premise.

I’ll address that later in this post, but that aside, my question is: howcan you think that that is a real (i.e., God-backed) choice?

Someone could argue that another religious text – one that doesn’t consider that Jesus is God – also give them a “choice”. Now, either Jesus is God, or He isn’t. So, the two choices cannot be real, available ones.

Of course, we could find n arbitrary "choices", incompatible with each other.

So, how do people know that the “choice” argued for in the Gospel, is actually a choice, in terms of connection to a true deity?


I can only criticize the Gospel as interpreted by X (whoever X is, and as long as I know their position). My critique of the Gospel is adequate for the Gospel interpretation I’m criticizing.

As for yours, I’d still need more info, so that’s why I’m asking.

For instance, you said you don’t know or care about what happens in the afterlife. So, I’d ask why you don’t care. If God tortured people for eternity, that would be a reason for concern, especially if you can be one of the damned (I have the impression that, according to at least some other Christians, you’d be as good a candidate for barbecue as I would ).

So, my question is: do you think it’s possible that people will have to endure eternal torture in Hell, without possibility of mercy or redemption?
If so, would you find God’s actions acceptable?

I don’t know what makes you think I think in the same way of a particular group of Christians. But again, if I want to criticize the position of some Christians, I have to make arguments adapted to their beliefs, not to yours.

Still, while your position seems extremely different from that of most Christians, I think there remain some similarities, so I can still try to ask questions that might lead you to “their” issues. :devil3: (e.g., the Gospel isn’t the only part of the Bible. Do you think that God engaged in the actions explained in the OT? ).

Alternatively, your answers might show a very different set of beliefs – though the inclusive definitions of Christianity I proposed would include you too, so no need for complaints.

So, I’m trying to find the similarities between your position and what you’d call a naïve one (many of the differences are already obvious).

Someone could argue, “He has. That’s what the Quran is about.”

The point is that the choice is not known, because it’s not possible to tell, based on the available evidence, that the option comes from God.

Then why are we arguing here?
I was talking about an empirical verification about the source of the offer, which doesn’t exist.

As for being a loving or self-serving person, I’d argue that it doesn’t require embracing the Gospel. If you think it does (but with no evidence), I’d ask whether you think that only people who embrace the Gospel in a non-naïve manner (i.e., people with your beliefs) can be loving people.

What about the rest of the world (people who lived and the past and those living today)?

Are all humans not-loving, with the exception of a few people who, with no evidence, believe that the Gospel is the word of God and embrace it in their non-naïve form?

Again, I have to adapt my arguments to the ideas of my interlocutor, if I want to challenge said ideas.

Good point, but since they claim it’s inerrant (whatever that is), and they say that finding errors would prove it’s not inerrant, why not finding errors?
I know, chances are they’d never accept any evidence of errors, but I can always read their answers and try to figure how they manage to believe their own claims, which is much of what I’m trying to do here.
However, no one tries to argue that Shakespeare’s imaginary characters are real, or that the characters representing real people are actually divine (or even accurate, for the most part).

While much of your beliefs seem to be different from those Christians you call “naïve”, you still make some of the claims they do (e.g., existence of the God of the Bible, divinity of Jesus Christ).

So, I think at least part of your arguments can be criticized as theirs can.

If you find your interpretation of the Gospel meaningful, you could just as well try to live by those principles. However, my question regards how and why you’d assume the existence of the Christian God.
Why would a moral code need a divinity to back it?

The same question.

How do you manage to believe that said God exists?

Incidentally, I’d point out that that would be the same God of the OT.
In addition, part of the message of the Gospel is profoundly immoral, if you consider their references to Hell. But I’m guessing you probably rule out those parts of the Gospel.

How do you discern between the message of the Gospel and the unacceptable parts of the Gospel, that must be ignored?


But if a person doesn’t believe in God, they cannot accept God’s love, can they?

So, it would appear that if the Gospel is about God’s love (not only about being a loving person), belief in God is required.

Btw, do you believe in God (in the sense that He’s an actual person, capable of interacting with the world at will, omnipotent, etc.)?

Angra Mainyu

Not only literalists, but Catholics too.
Still, I’m curious about your assertion that Hell isn’t mentioned in the Gospel message.

How do you separate the message from the rest of the Gospel (e.g., the parts that mention Hell, and what’s the reason for doing so?

Btw, what translation of the Bible do you prefer?

Perhaps I misread, but I’m under the impression that at least part of the function of the Gospel in your interpretation, is open to the same criticism as the arguments of others.

I would reject Shakespeare’s Richard III as a historically accurate account of Richard III.

That doesn’t mean I would find it meaningless and reject it as a text; I can enjoy and find meaning in fictional stories as well, regardless of how much they resemble the life of a group of real people. In fact, when it comes to history, it may be just impossible to have an accurate account.

Nevertheless, I would reject a claim that the characters in fictional stories exist in the sense you or I exist. I don’t reject the Iliad or the Odyssey, but I’d reject a claim that the deities portrayed in those stories exist, as I’d reject claims of existence of the God of the Quran or the Bible, or of the divinity of Jesus (which would require God’s existence).

As for the message of the Gospel - considered as a work of fiction, even if connected to historical events - , it depends on what kind of interpretation one makes. It’s difficult to me, because the text was written by several authors, and they had different ideas at times. I’d say that some parts of the Gospel may be appealing to me, but others are not. In short, it would depend of what message you have in mind.

Still, rejecting the bad parts, I have no problem with the good parts of the Gospel (which is an intentionally very naïve statement ).

If I try to read the Gospel in context (context being the whole Bible, in any of their versions), honestly it doesn’t really make much sense to me.
I’m rather questioning claims about existence.

Ok, that sounds much better than the shorthand.

May I suggest that the shorthand can cause some confusion?

But part of the “acceptance” seem to entail belief in theological propositions (if that’s not the case in your interpretations, well, I’ll probably know if you answer the questions I ask on these posts ).


You kind of lost me here. What’s the text doing, but what the interpreters are doing?
Again, those arguments aren’t about your position, so there should be no problem here.

I think that’s a debatable but reasonable philosophical position.

I agree there are difficult issues involved, but I’m not trying to challenge that position of yours here.

Instead, my disagreement would be with a claim that Jesus (or Socrates, or Odin, for that matter) exists – and by that, I don’t mean existence in our minds (obviously, they exist in that sense), but as people (or divinities with some cool superpowers) that can act out their will.

Would you still claim that such God exists, and is good?

Well, the writer of the text said a lot of things.

Whether Jesus did the same is another matter…not that it really matters, as long as divinity isn’t claimed.

Johnny Skeptic

How do you know what Jesus said? Are you an inerrantist? Do you have any idea how the New Testament Canon was put together centuries after the authors had died? As far as I know, the anonymous Gospel writers never claimed that they heard anything Jesus said, and they never claimed that they saw Jesus perform a miracle.

1 Corinthians 15:14-18 say "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not. For if the dead rise not, then is not Christ raised: And if Christ be not raised, your faith is vain; ye are yet in your sins. Then they also which are fallen asleep in Christ are perished."

Now will you dare to argue with Paul and claim that heaven is not a place, and that there is not life after death? In the Gospels, Jesus mentioned hell 15 times, and you most certainly cannot prove that he was not talking about a place, and about eternal life. As compared with eternity, this brief, temporal life is a mere speck in time. Some babies die when they are only a few days old, some of whom God kills. In addition, God kills some people with hurricanes. So, we know that God most certainly is not interested in having a relationship with everyone in this life. During the first century, for some strange reason he was only interested in having a relationship with people who lived in close proximity to the Middle East. How do you explain this?

It is interesting to note that God is much less willing or able to have relationships with people who live in Muslim countries than from countries where Christianity is the predominant religion. This is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist. When mere humans can frequently determine where God is able to have a relationship with people, there is a rat in the woodpile somewhere.

Johnny Skeptic

Message to rhutchin: Do you believe that the Roman Catholic Bible is inerrant?

Consider the following from a Christian web site:

http://www.the-highway.com/inerrancy1_Gerstner.html#1

We could compose a book many times the size of this one consisting merely of fervent and eloquent evangelical appeals to the Bible itself as the proof of its own inspiration. Some three thousand times the Bible does make this claim for itself. “Thus saith the Lord” is a veritable refrain of the Scriptures. No book in the history of literature has made such frequent and moving assertions of its divine origin. Because of this remarkable characteristic of the Scriptures many have almost unconsciously concluded that the Bible is the Word of God.

Johnny: If the original Bible was inerrant, what evidence do you have that the copies of manuscripts that we have today are the same as the originals? Liberal Christians have enough sense to know that a person can be a Christian without believing that the Bible is inerrant. Gamera will tell you this. If it has been proven that a witness at a court trial has told a lie, the rest of the witnesses' claims are not automatically considered to be lies.

Some Christians defend the Resurrection without making any reference to the Bible. Do you agree with them that a good case can be made for the Resurrection without making any reference to the Bible?

It is interesting to note that God is much less willing or able to choose the elect in Muslim countries than in countries where Christianity is the predominant religion. This is exactly what rational minded people expect would be the case if God does not exist. When mere humans can frequently determine where God is able to choose the elect, there is a rat in the woodpile somewhere.

Angra Mainyu

Gamera,

I’ve been considering your arguments, and I think that there may have been a misunderstanding. Hopefully, the following might help resolve that:

When you mention the text, and my critique of it, you seem to be working on the assumption that I’m trying to post a critique of the Gospel as piece of literature.

However, that’s not what I’m trying to do. I’m criticizing a religion, and its set of beliefs about life, the world, etc. My arguments are thus based on the tenets of said religion (a religion that has the same name as yours, but doesn’t appear to be the same religion, in my view ).

A possible way of challenging a religion is to take part of its claims, and from them derive a conclusion that contradicts other claims, or that contradicts facts accepted by the believer on non-religious grounds. In particular, if there’s a claim of logical consistency and factual inerrancy of a text (when interpreted “literally”, whatever that means), then a way of challenging those arguments (not perhaps the most effective one, but a possible one) would be to show inconsistency or factual inaccuracy in the text, interpreted in precisely such manner (which isn’t necessarily a good interpretation of the text as a piece of art; but it’s the alleged one).

Granted, someone could always adjust their interpretation to allege that there’s no contradiction, but in order to do that, they’d have to seriously stretch their idea of literalism, and I’m interested in the “how” (i.e., how do they believe that?).

But the text itself is secondary. If I were debating with a Catholic, I’d use the Catechism of the Catholic Church instead, or better yet, I’d just ask what they believe. The text becomes more important when, to that question: (what do you believe?) their answer puts a lot of weight on a particular (in this case, literal) interpretation of a particular text.

However, if I tried to analyze the text myself and then post a comment about its message (that is, my interpretation of it), someone could argue that I’m not criticizing Christianity by what it purports to be doing, but my own version of Christianity. And given that by “Christianity” they would mean “what I understand as Christianity”, they would have a point.

Still, there are other ways of criticizing a religion, so targetting a text is usually just one of several possible approaches.

I hope that helps clarify my position.

rhutchin

If we only include only the OT and NT parts, yes. I have not heard the the rest should be considered inerrant.

I tend to like Gerstner. He says that the Bible is not inerrant because it says it is and then argues that the Bible is inerrant because of what it says. I don't see much of a distinction -- although I like his points, and I think he makes a stronger case for inerrancy than otherwise.

Liberal Christians accept the idea that the Bible in not inerrant because this allows them to ignore those parts to which they object. If someone accepts the entire Bible as inerrant then they must submit to everything the Bible says because it would be the specific instruction from God. It is true that one lie does not make everything a person says to be a lie, but how is a person to know what part is a lie and what part is the truth. If you are a liberal who calls himself a Christian, your response is, I will accept as truth those things that I want to be true and I will reject as lies those things that I do not want to be true. A foundation of belief with the consistency of jello.

How would anyone even know about the resurrection without having first read of it in the Bible? I do not know how an argument can be made for the resurrection without some reference to the Bible.

If God were not willing to elect people, there would be no Christianity. The world might be populated by Muslims, Hindus, and the rest but no Christians. It could be that there would be only agnostics. If Total Depravity is true as the Bible says, it would be a very different place if God did not save people.

rhutchin

Not exactly. My argument is that if a person does not become a Christian, God will not allow them into heaven. This is the philosophy that my buddy Pascal endorsed.

Julian

No, not the elect. This statement is in relation to the 'scoffers' mentioned earlier, the ones who cannot understand why the coming hasn't happened. He tries here to explain why the problem perceived by the scoffers is not really a problem. The ὑμᾶς (plural you) in the text is a generic term, you read into it what is not there, which puzzles me since the text seems quite clear. Where is the coming? Well, he is waiting to give you more time so that you can be better. The earlier text implies a correlation between ungodly (ἀσεβής) and ruin, which is to be expected but not at all what Gamera's understanding is.

Julian