Johnny Skeptic

How do you define the word "transmission"? What does transmission have to do with the motives of the New Testament writers, the motives of the early church fathers, and most importantly, the motives of God, meaning the issues of why did the New Testament writers writers what they wrote, why did the early church fathers writers what they wrote, and why did God inispire the Bible? Regarding and human, or any God, motives are everything.

If a God exists, and wanted to communicate with humans, how would he probably try to accomplish that goal? I assume that he would communicate the same messages telephathically or verbally to everyone in the world, thereby tending to discourage dissent instead of encouraging dissent.

You will no doubt say that you do not want to discuss God's motives, but please be advised that neither you nor any other Christian became a Christian without first considering God's motives. You have said that you are more interested in patristic studies than you are interested in Biblical criticism and history, but your interest in patristic studies is surely primarily if not solely based upon the motives of the early church fathers, meaning that your position is surely that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the early church fathers would not have had any reasonable motives for writing what they wrote. In addition to your interest in the motives of the early church fathers, you also have to be interested in the motives of God since you believe that one of God's motives for sending Jesus to the world was to save people from their sins, and that it was that motive that accounted for the motives of the early church fathers to write what they wrote.

You will not be able to get away with claiming that your interest in patristic studies and other ancient literature is entirely academic, and that the motives of God and the early church fathers do not have anything to do with why you make posts at this forum.

What kind of God would use questionable copies of copies of ancient texts to communciate with humans when he could easily telepathically or verbally send the same messages to everyone in the world, thereby tending to discourage dissent instead of inviting dissent?

Johnny Skeptic

Of course not, and surely you already know that that is not my position. If that was my position, then my position would also be that there would not be any religious books unless there was a god, but you already know that that is not my position either. Anyone who has just a modest amount of common sense knows that my position is that a loving, rational God would not inspire a book like the Bible, or like any other religious book.

Are you saying that a loving, rational God would use copies of copies of written records as a primary means of communcating with humans, and that he would inspire a book like the Bible?

Jeffrey Gibson

I have no idea.

But if the issue is establishing what authors of ancient texts meant/what ancient texts "say", then bringing "god's intentions" into play, let alone the question of what a particular sort of god would or would not do, is a red herring.

Why do you keep doing it?

Jeffrey

Johnny Skeptic

Since your viewer profile says that you are an agnostic, I find your comment to be quite odd. Fortunately, people who have rejected the Bible and all other religious books are aware that is would be very unlikely for a God to use copies of copies of ancient texts as a primary means of communicating with humans.

If the most important issue for conservative Christians was what the New Testament writers meant, without any regard for their motives, and without any regard for why God inspired them to write what they wrote, I would agree with you, but few if any conservative Christians who make posts at this forum do so without any regard for the motives of the New Testament writers, and the motives of God, meaning entirely for academic reasons.

In the NIV, 1st Corinthians 15:17-19 say "And if Christ has not been raised, your faith is futile; you are still in your sins. Then those also who have fallen asleep in Christ are lost. If only for this life we have hope in Christ, we are to be pitied more than all men." No conservative Christian who believes those verses would ever be interested in Biblical criticism and history, and/or in the writings of the early church fathers, entirely for academic reasons. You are obviously unaware that Roger Pearse's unstated position is that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the Gospel writers would not have written what they wrote, and the early church fathers would not have written what they wrote. That has to do with motives. It would be impossible for a person to become a Christian without considering and approving of the motives of the Gospel writers, and most importantly, without considering and approving of the motives of God. If a God exists, his motives are everything.

Roger has said that his primary interest is patristic studies, not Biblical cricitism and history. I believe that he hopes to trick some unwary, naive, misinformed people into believing that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the early church fathers would not have written what they wrote.

Amaleq13

Shouldn't you expect an agnostic to say "I have no idea." to any question about God?

squiz

I often wonder at the mental gymnastics that must be needed by those who continue to see the bible as a guide to life, while admitting the fallibility thereof.

The trick with some appears to be to focus on the details and not to ask such big picture questions.

2-J

You have this completely wrong, and I'm an agnostic as well.

How do you know how God would act?

A standard response from theists to the 'why doesn't God just reveal himself to all of us personally?' question is to say that he doesn't want to take away our free will. Sounds reasonable enough to me. Coming to God, coming to faith is then something of a challenge.

So it's explicable enough. Is God's stance in this case morally justifiable? That's a separate question and a full answer might see us debate metaethics till the cows come home. Again, the standard answer would be that nobody would be thrown into hell unless they'd had a fair crack of the whip (i.e. had had genuine chances to come to love God and had thrown them away).

And as a side issue, we have the corollary that God would not let his holy texts be significantly corrupted. You may argue (and maybe with good reason) that the Bible has been corrupted and changed its meaning. The mainstream church would simply deny that. The Bible is the inspired word of God and God would not - has not - permitted any degree of corruption significant enough to distort His meaning.

Anyway to sum up, the idea that God might choose to communicate through texts and brief appearances is a consistent one. It may not be morally justifiable, that would depend on many things, including perhaps the punishments involved in not believing in Him.

Sheshbazzar

That it is "unlikely....." is completely wrong? then it is the opposite, "it IS likely for a god......" that must be right?

Seems that if a loving, caring, god was really interested in human welfare, and desired to "save" the maximum numbers of souls, that he would endeavor to communicate as clearly and unambiguously as possible the fact of his existence, and clear up any confusions or differences that might arise over the interpretation of his communications.
As it is, these old texts and how they are interpreted is fraught with confusion of interpretations and infighting even among those who attempt to "believe" them.
So much so that these Holy Books, if they are the production of god, must have been composed with the intention, not of saving the maximum amount of humanity, but rather with ensuring that the maximum amount of humanity would be condemned and destroyed. And this is gods "love" of man?
Apparently he had no problem with speaking, and appearing directly to many Biblical figures, all the way from Adam up through John of Revelation, but now is not willing to speak a word or put in an appearance to advise or save a single soul?
Makes His alleged "love" for all men to appear to be somewhat of a farce.

2-J

To even make a statement about its likelihood is wrong, was my point. We don't have any relevant information to determine its likelihood. There are many possible justifications for God - yes, even a omnibenevolent God - choosing to only communicate with the human race remotely. I gave one such justification.

The central line of attack to such an argument is to argue that God isn't acting morally (and thus isn't the God of classical theism at the very least, even if he is omniscient, omnipotent, etc, has all the other traditional properties). But this raises all kinds of metaethical questions. Many of those with faith are well prepared to say things like 'man's ways aren't God's ways' or 'human good isn't the same as God's good' or 'we can't appreciate God's plan, being finite' which neatly sidestep any accusation that God isn't acting morally by 'human standards'. Yet others would dispute that your analysis of the ethics involved (such as the idea that it is most perfectly good to use the most expedient method to save the largest number of souls) is even right.

The issue quickly centres around the definition of 'good' no matter how you approach it. But a brief survey of the terrain should have demonstrated that it is unlikely to faze most with faith that God chooses not to contact us all directly, and equally that an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent (at least according how most theists would define benevolence) might choose not to contact us all directly.

Johnny Skeptic

But no rational person would argue that an omnibenovolent God does not have good character since an omnibenovelent God would by definition have to have good character.

Of course, and that is my position.

But Christians opponents are well-prepared too.

But many Christians have given up Christianity, and many people will continue to do so. In addition, although I have helped to convince some Christians to give up Christianity, my main intended audience is not dedicated Christians, but the undecided crowd, the nominal Christian crowd, and those of the skeptic crowd who might become interested in Christianity in the future.

In my opinion, skeptics who insist upon opposing Christianity only by debating Biblical criticism and history and discount the additional advantages of philosophical arguments are missing the boat. I assume that the majority of people who give up Christianity, or who refuse to become Christians, do so because of philosophical arguments. not because of arguments that pertain to Biblical criticism and history. Some skeptics' interest in Biblical criticism and history is entirely academic. That is fine, but very few if any conservative Christians' interest in Biblical and patristic texts is entirely academic, and that includes Roger Pearse. Roger's unstated position is surely that if Jesus did not rise from the dead, the early chuch fathers would not have written what they wrote. That position is by necessity indirectly linked, but nevertheless linked to God's motives for sending Jesus to the earth, for inspiring the Bible, and for using written texts as a primary means of communciating with humans instead of telepathically or verbal giving the same messages to everyone in the world, thereby tending to discourage dissent instead of needlessly inviting dissent.

Simply stated, if a God inspried the Bible, his motives are everything, and no Christian who is honest will dispute that.