Mujahid_Munafiq

I don't understand how you proved the bolded claim.

Why does a messenger need to be infallible in all aspects? Nobody is perfect, but certainly it would be better to trust a mathematician than a theologian when it comes to mathematics?

This is a matter of degrees of certainty. Being perfect in one aspect does not make something perfect in all aspects. People are not perfect. However, we do fall on a spectrum. For a physical example, just as some people break their bones, are prone to catch colds, etc. there are people who are on the other end of the spectrum thathave never broken a bone and never had a sick day in their life.

So, someone does not need to be perfect in every aspect in order to serve as a messenger. I can have perfect hair and imperfect everything else. And, there could be someone who is perfect in messengership but not so perfect in everything else.

ziffel

See, this is the problem. YOU are NOT infallible, but no one is telling us scripture IS infallible, except YOU, and other infallible people like you. That is Johnny's point. What evidence do you have that "scripture" is infallible? I have plenty of evidence that it's not.




Jopofu, that's called circular reasoning. You are telling us scripture is infallible and has the right to judge, because it says it does. Muslims say the EXACT same thing about their text, which I'm sure you deny. Does that help you understand our point? because a book says it's this or that, doesn't make it so. It's meaningless.



Says you.


Worn out Christian rhetoric. All meaningless without evidential support.

This is from 2nd Kings 2:23-24

"He [Elisha] went up from there to Bethel; and while he was going up on the way, some small boys came out of the city and jeered at him, saying, ‘Go away, baldhead! Go away, baldhead!’ When he turned round and saw them, he cursed them in the name of the Lord {YHWH}. Then two she-bears came out of the woods and mauled to death forty-two of the boys. From there he went on to Mount Carmel, and then returned to Samaria."

Can you please explain how YHWH displayed his mercy to those 42 children?

OldYgg

First point of course is that you know things about a dog but you don't know what it is to be a dog. Your knowledge of the dog is incomplete. You and I certainly know a lot about dogs - I've had dogs for 20 or 30 years. And they still do things that I don't understand. They still do things that surprise me.

No, it does not take a dog to know many things about a dog, but to truly know a dog you'd have to be one.

But that is far astray from the point.

The point is that your dog knows you and perhaps he recognizes you as a superior being. But your dog wouldn't be able to tell the difference between you and me and someone who is vastly superior to both of us like Albert Einstein.

But we have no garuntee that dogs think we are gods. Occasionally dogs bite their owners and I'm sure to most owners it is a complete surprise that they were bitten. These people may have thought they knew their dogs, but clearly they didn't.

Old Ygg

Johnny Skeptic

Christians can claim that the Bible says that God has the right to judge mankind all that they want to, but even if God showed up in person and declared that he has the right to judge mankind, that would only be his own arbitrary opinion. Arbitrary means subject to individual discretion, which is the same thing as might makes right. I challenge any Christian to reasonably prove that there is necessary correlation between power and good character.

If a being who wants to judge imperfect beings ought to be perfect himself, I challenge Christians to define the word "perfect" as it applies to God, and to provide reasonable proof that God is perfect.

God refuses to do everything that he can in order to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell. That alone is sufficient reason for people to reject him. If God's top priority is not to help ensure that as many people as possible go to heaven, and as few people as possible go to hell, it most certainly ought to be. What other top priority could a loving God possibly have? If Jesus actually suffered and died on a cross, was it not for the sole purpose of ensuring that whoever believed in him would have everlasting life? 2 Peter 3:9 says "The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some men count slackness; but is longsuffering to us-ward, not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." However, there is not any doubt whatsoever that God IS willing that some people perish or he would have done much more than he has to prevent it.

Is it God's intention to REVEAL his existence and will, or to CONCEAL his existence and will? If he exists, it seems that he is not able to make up his mind what he wants to do. He has allowed hundreds of millions of people to die without telling them about the Gospel message, so there is no way that spreading the Gospel message is one of his top priorities, and yet for some strange reason many Christians have made spreading the Gospel message one of their top priorities.

God tells some people about the Gospel message who never accept it, and he refuses to tell some people about it who would accept it if they knew about it. That is reason enough on its own for people to reject him. Actually, rational minded and fair minded people do not have any choice in the matter. They are not able to will themselves to love any being who has poor character.

Three fourths of the people in the world are not aware that the God of the Bible exists. Why is that? Jesus supposedly appeared to over 500 people after he rose from the dead. Why not 5,000, or 50,000, and why in only one small part of the world? To tease, to tempt, to tantalize, and to confuse, those are the agenda of the God of the Bible. Which is more useful if you want people to know that you exist and what you want them to do, FAITH or TANGIBLE FACTS? Consider the following Scriptures:

John 2:23 Now when he was in Jerusalem at the passover, in the feast day, many believed in his name, when they saw the miracles which he did.

[Johnny: Those were TANGIBLE FACTS, right?]

John 3:2 The same came to Jesus by night, and said unto him, Rabbi, we know that thou art a teacher come from God: for no man can do these miracles that thou doest, except God be with him.

[Johnny: Those were TANGIBLE FACTS, right?]

John 6:2 And a great multitude followed him, because they saw his miracles which he did on them that were diseased.

[Johnny: Those were TANGIBLE FACTS, right?]

John 10:37-38 If I do not the works of my Father, believe me not. But if I do, though ye believe not me, believe the works: that ye may know, and believe, that the Father is in me, and I in him.

[Johnny: The NIV translates the word “works” as “miracles”, and at least some of the miracles were TANGIBLE FACTS, right?]

1 Corinthians 15:6 After that, he was seen of above five hundred brethren at once; of whom the greater part remain unto this present, but some are fallen asleep.

[Johnny: Jesus’ appearance was a TANGIBLE FACT, right?]

Acts 14:3 So Paul and Barnabas spent considerable time there, speaking boldly for the Lord, who confirmed the message of his grace by enabling them to do miraculous signs and wonders. (NIV)

[Johnny: The verse suggests that there were at least some TANGIBLE FACTS, right?]

It is interesting to note that Acts 14:3 refers to events that took place AFTER the Holy Spirit came to the church. Now readers, why do Christians suppose that after all of the preceding evidence, INCLUDING the presence of the Holy Sprit, that God felt the need to provide even more tangible confirmations, only to leave us with precious few tangible confirmations today, including no surviving eyewitnesses?

It is said that you can catch more flies with honey than you can with vinegar. This truth obviously does not apply to people who become Christians. There is no doubt whatsoever that ANY powerful being who showed up and healed all of the sick people in the word would immediately attract a lot of followers, especially if his message was deemed to be acceptable, such as 1) promising salvation by merit, 2) not requiring faith, 3) providing tangible evidence of his existence, power, and goodness for everyone to see, thereby eliminating most doubt, and most religious wars, and 4) being available to have frequent discussions with everyone, tangibly, in person. If such a being started a new religion, it would quickly become the largest religion in history, and yet some Christians claim that it would be counterproductive for God to do anything more than he has already done. How utterly absurd.

Christians would be quite pleased if God healed all of the sick people in the world, but yet, they are quite content that God refuses to heal all of the sick people in the world. Do Christians actually have any opinions of their own? Apparently not. Some Christian doctors try to prevent and cure ALL diseases. God creates disease, but Christian doctors attempt to prevent and cure disease. God essentially says “I will create hurricanes and destroy houses with them”. Christians essentially say “Not if I and my hurricane shutters can prevent it”. What a ridiculous situation.

Now if God does not exist, it is to be expected that the only kind of blessings that anyone could count on would be subjective spiritual blessings, which of course the followers of all religions claim they receive. It is a fact that there is not one single tangible blessing that any Christian can expect to receive from God. Hundreds of thousands of Christians have starved to death, and many have died slow and painful deaths from disease. Many babies are born with serious birth defects, needlessly suffer a lot, and die a few days later. A good number of people have given up Christianity, or refused to become Christians, because of God's questionable character. The tangible lives of Christians and non-Christians are exactly the same, and the tangible lives of humans are not any different from the tangible lives of animals.

For Jesus to suffer and die on a cross and for God to kill people with hurricanes is a contradiction in terms. Any human who acted like that would be rejected by all rational minded and fair minded people. God essentially walks up to John Smith, says "I love you", and then kills John Smith with a hurricane. No one should accept a God like that.

Godless Wonder

Among the differences between the Christian and the atheist, one is not that the Christian doesn't judge God, for the Christian has merely arrived at a different verdict.

The Christian has, insanely, judged the God of the Bible to be good.

Biff the unclean

The argument appears to be that, not being perfect ourselves then we can’t judge God.
But this argument is based on the assumption of Gods perfection.
However we are not judging God to be perfect. Judging him to be imperfect would mean that our own short-comings would make us eminently suitable for the job. It takes one to know one after all.

Jupofu

My point in giving my relationship with my dog is this: My dog knows me as I know God. My dog obeys me as I obey God. I.e. My dog knows enough about me in order to know how to obey me--I make it known. I know enough about God in order to obey Him--He makes it known. I need not know Him fully (he is incapable of comprehending those attrbiutes of mine that are not necessary for us to have a right relationship), my dog need not know me fully--in order to obey. I need not know God fully (I am incapable of comprehending those attrbiutes of His that are not necessary for us to have a right relationship--in order to obey Him. What's wrong with this analogy? When you say "But we have no garuntee that dogs think we are gods." You don't know how right you are and how much Scripture agrees with you on that fact. God does not have any guarantee that we think He is God--In fact, He knows that most of us deny His name. Of course "Occasionally dogs bite their owners"--we are constantly "biting" God. "and I'm sure to most owners it is a complete surprise that they were bitten"--but, here is where the analogy disappears--to God, nothing is a surprise. He knows our every thought, He knows our every action, even before we do it. He knows us more than we know ourselves. Which brings me right into my next point: God knows the fate of all, even before they bring their fate to completion.

As an illustration: (1) One person, a non-Christian, now 30 yrs. old, will never choose to follow God, and will never be baptized--God already sees this in his future--God already knows that no matter how much He tries to save this man's life--he will not budge--but remain stubborn--thus sealing his own fate--God does not seal his fate--he has already done it. (2) Another person, a non-Christian, now 20 yrs. old, will choose to follow God, and will be baptized--God see this in his future and is very pleased. Now, both men are clearly sinners in need of salvation--but as the omniscient (all-knowing), omnipotent (all-powerful) God, He chooses to let His omniscience and omnipotence be proven by using these two attributes to the best of His ability while deciding what to do with these two men. He remains true to His word and wishes all to be saved (thus, the man who will allow God to save his life--by obeying God in Christian baptism--God does not lay a hand on). However, He already knows which man has chosen to follow Him, and which man has chosen to deny Him. Thus, by allowing the life, of the one whom He knows has already sealed his own fate, to be taken from him prematurely, He shows that He is God--without breaking His vow to seek and save the lost. No matter how much He seeks, no matter how much He tries to save--many will not budge--He knows just who those men are--and He shows (whom He knows will come to repentance and be saved) that He is God by making an example of the wicked (I repeat, the wicked who have already sealed their own lives). He HAS NEVER and WILL NEVER take the life of the innocent--instead, He uses the wicked (I repeat, who are wicked by their own choice despite God's efforts) to bring the saved to repentance. Only the guilty have been judged.

Another thing: as for II Kings 2:23-24. Where does it say that Yahweh took the lives of those 42 children. It may seem to imply that, and if it be so, then they must be in the category I have explained as the wicked--God knows that they have already sealed their own fates. But, it says a bear mauled them--stating a fact of life ever since sin entered the world: suffering and death--which Adam chose to bring into the world through deliberately disobeying God's command and choosing to sin--and it was by the devil's deceit Eve did this. Therefore, it may have simply been the devil's work that these 42 children died, not God's--it's not in His nature to allow the innocent to die, unless the devil or the man himself chooses this fate.

God wishes to save all--but the devil wishes to kill all. Thus, not all will be saved: in fact, the devil sadly claims the lives of most. Still, God knows every man's heart and thus, will judge justly every man. If Satan has a hold on a man's life, and God tries all in His power to save this man, it is still up to the man to let God save him or to remain with the devil, i.e. remain with death (possibly those children decided to remain with the devil even after God tried all in His ability to save them--without taking away their freewill to chose for themselves life or death--or possibly the devil got to them before God had the opportunity to save them in this life--but, knowing what would have become of them--is whether or not He admitted them into His eternal presence). Again, God knows everything--everything that is to become of a man: before the man either commits the crime or takes the path of righteousness. The innocent are NEVER taken from this life unto death--unless the devil takes his life--and even then God knows the man's heart--and knows what was to become of the man had Satan not prematurely claimed his life. God is all-powerful, but Satan, like man, has freewill to disobey his Creator--(and thus reaks havoc on mankind)--freewill is the only way that they can truly love Him, it is the only way that they can have a life--a life without freewill is worse than slavery, it is cold, hard, dead, machinery. The devil can only claim our physical bodies; God claims our spiritual bodies--based on whether or not we call unto His Son--it is ultimately our choice based on God's stipulations--Satan has no control over our souls.

Furthermore, in the end, Satan will be destroyed and the wicked will receive their just reward--and vice versa. In his book, Is God Really Fair?: Letters to a Young Christian, Dick Dowsett writes, "Now God, according to Jesus, did not 'design' hell for people. God’s heart has always been set on bringing people to Himself. Nonetheless, Jesus, the Son of Man, warned that He Himself would say from His glorious throne, 'Depart from me, accursed ones, into the eternal fire which has been prepared for the devil and His angels' (Matthew 25:41)." The accountable are held into account based on his own understanding, his own conscience, and his own seeking and adhering to the truth. However, not "all roads lead to Rome"--Christ is the only Way, the only Truth, and the only Light--no one will come to the Father except through Him--and if they truly seek Him, they will find Him--this is a promise!--man is without excuse for not finding God and simply claiming heaven (like the Pharisees) by living a good life or following the Law. God is continually working to save those (by grace) who are willing to be saved. But keep in mind, it is a battle between good and evil, God and Satan. God is more powerful, but Satan has reign over the earth, and the power to destroy. Which is why God so urgently commands His followers to seek out and save the lost--before Satan helps the man seal his own fate. So, whose side are you on? Life or death? "As for me and my house, we will serve the Lord"--Joshua.

Also, look into the books: The Plight of Man and the Power of God by Lloyd-Jones, Martyn and My Sin, My Salvation: Scripture and Science Series by Thompson, Bert if you are truly insterested in the truth.

Biff the unclean

The technical name for what is wrong is misanthropy

Angra Mainyu

God isn’t saying that. Theists (in this case, you) are saying that.

In other words, when a theist says, “it’s because God says so” (or something along those lines), the correct sentence would be, “it’s because I say that God says so”.

Even if a powerful being calling itself “God” existed, and even if that being – let’s call it God – appointed Himself as judge, set a law, etc., the theists would still be the ones arguing that God must be obeyed, that God is the legislator and judge, etc. But that would be no reason for other people to consider that entity and His laws acceptable.

That’s a Christian claim. I heard it too, but I see no reason to believe that. Even if the Bible had been written by a powerful entity making that claim, there would be no reason to believe Him.

In addition, ideas words like “perfect”, when used in a religious context, tend to be ill-defined and inconsistent. Someone would claim that God is “perfect”, and someone else can have a different idea of “perfect”.


As ziffel already pointed out, you are the one saying that Scripture is infallible and perfect; the argument has the same flaws as an argument that God is infallible and perfect, with no Scripture involved.



I disagree.

First, you’re saying that God created the world, but there’s no reason for me to believe that.

Second, having created the world wouldn’t give God ownership over it, or the right to rule – though He’d have the power to do so. People cannot be owned. Parents cannot torture and kill their daughters and sons. If an evil being created a Universe and created conscious beings, He would have the power to rule over them, but there’d be no reason for the created beings to consider that government legitimate.

I’m baptized already (I was brought up a Catholic), but that’s not the point.
That Jesus was human wouldn’t give Him the right to judge.

Plus, if Jesus were God, then your previous argument would be that He’d have the right to judge as a consequence of being the creator. So, this new argument would seem to contradict the previous one.

Wasn’t because He was the creator?

Anyway, you say He’s merciful and just. However, if He existed, and according to Scripture, He would engage in infinite torture, mass murder, etc. That is never just, and certainly isn’t merciful.

In fact, if He existed, I’d say He’d be more evil than any human criminal in history.

The idea of salvation itself would imply an evil God.

Salvation from what?

From the eternal torment God has prepared for people with different beliefs, and who will receive that punishment for their thought crimes.


Your dog cannot comprehend why it should follow your commands. It cannot think about that. It simply follows your commands. Sure, you could follow the commands of people, claiming that they are God’s. If God existed, you could follow His commands as well. But you’d still have no proof of that God being perfect or infallible.


But God’s victims would be more numerous than that, or than those of any human criminal.
Murder would be by no means His worse crime, as that would merely be the passage from one world to another – granted, after a lot of pain sometimes, but nothing compared to Hell.
If God wished to save all, He would, for He’s omnipotent.

In fact, there should be no need for salvation. Creating a universe with a Hell, would be evil.

Eternal torture would be an appalling crime – the ultimate crime, actually.

It’s not a just reward; not even for the worst human criminals – no one can commit a crime that would warrant that. Personally, I wouldn’t even send God to Hell, even if I think He’d be the worst possible evildoer, if He existed.

First, “perfect” isn’t well defined, so the claim is unclear.

Second, if a being isn’t infallible, her or his judgment is fallible – including the claim of infallibility of other being.

The mathematician understands mathematics.
Mathematics were developed by people, and are within reach of human understanding.
Also, it is possible – at least potentially – to learn mathematics and see for oneself.

On the other hand, the theologian isn’t perfect or infallible, and could not understand God, if God existed. Also, in that case, no one could study, understand God and verify the theologian’s claims.

Mathematics have been developed for centuries. People study them, so mathematicians can reach conclusions, correct one another, etc.

The same goes for, say, physics, biology, etc. In this case, scientists can observe the world, test their theories, etc.

On the other hand, theologians, scholars, etc., of different religions will make the most widely different claims. There’s no object of study – they can’t just take a look at God or the Gods (depending on the religion) and draw conclusions from their observations – or method they could agree upon.

“Perfect as a messenger” is also ambiguous. What do you mean by that?
At any rate, it’d be a fallible being claiming that a messenger is perfect as such. The claim would also be suspect – in practice, unsubstantiated.

Johnny Skeptic

If God has decided that he will be the judge, he ought to show up, tangibly, in person, and say so. Otherwise, it is logical for people to question his existence. If he has already done this, then he should do it again rather than create doubt and uncertainty. Even if God were to show up, I would still not accept him unless he adequately explained why he says that killing people is wrong, but kills people himself, including babies. If the God of the Bible exists, he is a hypocrite, a murderer, and a liar. He says that he will give wisdom to his followers, but the Christian church has been in utter disarrary for many centuries. Why didn't God clearly tell Christians that slavery is wrong in the first century? In the first century, a time when most Christians endorsed slavery, some Sophists and Stoics opposed slavery. Noted skeptic Bible scholar Dr. Robert Price told me that. Now how did some Sophists and Stoics know that slavery is wrong over 1800 years before most Christians knew that it is wrong?

No God who deliberately allows hundreds of millions of people to die without hearing the Gospel message has any business telling his followers to spread a message that he refuses to spread himself.