Johnny Skeptic

But if an evil God exists, he has everybody fooled because we can’t be certain whether or not he exists.

There aren’t any problems at all with item 2. Inconsistency creates confusion, and that would please an evil God. An evil God would not necessarily care what people believed about him.

An amoral God could not possibly define morality. A web definition for the word “amoral� is “The term amoral is distinct from the terms moral and immoral, and simply refers to the state of lacking any moral characteristics. An amoral act is not morally good nor is it morally bad - it simply is. An amoral man is one who has no conception of morality or moral judgments. Babies, for example, are amoral.�

And the talking donkey that the Old Testament mentions is quite satisfactory to some believers, right?

I do not have any idea whatsoever what you are talking about. The distribution of good things and bad things in the world provides good evidence that if a God exists, he is amoral. Inconsistency is what would most describe an amoral God, and that is just what we have in the world today. Goods things are sometimes distributed to those who are in greatest need, but frequently, good things are not distributed to those who are in greatest need.

Several days ago, I started a popular thread at the GRD forum that is titled 'Why can't God be amoral?' You can get a lot of extra competition if you participate it that thread, including from two moderators who are making posts. I suggest that you participate in that thread.

Helpmabob

Hi Johnny - Christ dying on the cross was without a doubt the act of a God full of goodness.

If God was evil, we might as well all give up now. There would be absolutely no point in anything. Nothing could be sensibly discussed; there would be chaos. On the contrary, I see order and certainty in the world travelling at 65,000mph through the universe. Time is short.

Johnny Skeptic

How do you know that God is not evil?

Obviously, many atheists disagree with you. The present is sufficient for them because that is all that they believe that they have. If God wishes for them to believe otherwise, there is most certainly not anything preventing him from showing up and clearly revealing himself to everyone. I am an agnostic.

If God is evil, he could easily have created the universe and order. In addition, why can't God be amoral? How would an amoral God act any different than the God of the Bible? Exodus 4:11 says "And the Lord said unto him, Who hath made man's mouth? or who maketh the dumb, or deaf, or the seeing, or the blind? have not I the Lord?" In addition, God killed unborn children in Sodom and Gomorrah and Tyre.

Zenaphobe

I am curious, how would one go about spotting an error in the Bible?

What could be constituted as an error?

Is there some method which could be used by a Christian to identify an error?

In my experience, the concept of inerrancy is generally accepted prior to the believers investigation of the texts, and then, whatever would be seen as an error to the uninitiated is readily explained using special pleading and ad hoc explainations, ie. apologetics.

The same can be said about Mormons and their texts, Muslims and the Koran, or any other group which believes its scriptures are the truth.

Inerrancy is a presupposition. Hand a person a Bible and let them study it thoroughly without coaching, and they couldnt possibly come to the conclusion that it is the work of a god who wants to communicate a coherant message to his creations.

Just for arguments sake, even if it were inerrant, you still have no means to determine its correct interpretation.

Zen

Johnny Skeptic

Revelation 22:18-19 say "For I testify unto every man that heareth the words of the prophecy of this book, If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in this book: And if any man shall take away from the words of the book of this prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and out of the holy city, and from the things which are written in this book." If tampering with the texts were not possible, there would have been no need for the warnings. Regarding "God shall take away his part out of the book of life," isn't that talking about Christians?

Today, and even more so centuries ago, it would be a simple matter for some skeptics to rewrite parts of the Bible, take it to some remote jungle regions, and pass it off as "the real thing."

Helpmabob

Hi Johnny - What point is there to any discussion whatsoever if God is evil? I could refute every single point on this froum with 'but if God is evil you are probably wrong'. There would be no point to anything. All existence would be futile. But as we can clearly see, this is not the case. It's a big timewasting 'if'.

Steven Avery

You know, I ask the same type of question to higher critics, lower critics, redaction critics, source critics, etc. How would they ever be able to recognize an inerrant Bible. e.g. One where the claims of the authors are simply true ?

Shouldn't folks realize and acknowledge when they are using methodologies for which errancy is a presupposition ?

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

pharoah

It doesn't take any special methodology to spot errors in text. If one portion of the text says "X" and another portion says "NOT X" then you know that you've spotted an error. You apply this common sense approach to every other book that you read other than the Bible. Why is that? Why shouldn't we also assume that the Koran or the Book of Mormon is inerrant until proven otherwise? Their apologists can certainly also explain away any apparent textual difficulties.

Steven Avery

Pharoah, you really miss the gist of my questions.

Very frequently the errors or contradictions that are claimed are nowhere near the "X" type you point out. Often they are claimed after carrying a baggageful of the source, redaction and textual criticisms perspectives.

"Since this was redacted, since this was written in the 2nd century, yada... that shows how wrong/absurd/inaccurate is a/b.c"

At least a little forthrightness would say "well, I have already presumed forgery/redaction etc. in coming to this new accusation and conclusion".

There is a similar schema in using the error-laden Duckshoot Text. Telling believers that they are wrong to use the historic Bible and look at all these errors in the modern error-laden version we will kindly supply you.

And if you want to discuss supposed X/not X issues that is fine.
Related but different discussion.

Keep in mind that the BoM and the quran have a fundamental problem. They are claimed to be built off the Tanach and the NT, yet the islamists claim those are corrupt, while the lds folks have a similar theory of mistranslation. Their own base falls.

This destructive dissonance places morman and islamist apologetics in a whole nother ballgame than those who claim that God's word is pure from Genesis to Revelation.

Also I was asking how someone mired in the milieu of the criticisms would ever be able to see and accept an inerrant text. It seems intrinsically impossible, and that presupposition should be honestly recognized when those criticisms are insisted upon.

If it is right for the believer to state and acknowledge their lens, it is similar right for the skeptic who has accepted paradigms of suspicion as their a priori base to also so acknowledge.

Shalom,
Steven Avery
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Messianic_Apologetic

Zenaphobe

Let me see if I understand,

Are you saying that all examinations of the Bible should start with a default position of inerrency because its authors claim their writings are true?

Should this be the case with all writings?

When I look at the Zand-i Vohuman Yashttext-http://www.avesta.org/mp/vohuman.htmlshould I assume it free of error and put the burden of proof on the critic to prove otherwise?

Is the burden of proof on the critic? Or, does the Zoroastrian have the burden to show his sacred text is inerrant?

Would it not be reasonable to assume errancy reguarding all texts presented for examination, and let the burden of proof fall on those who assert inerrancy?

If this is not the case, would you please list the holy books which we should assume to be inerrant till proven otherwise.

Thanks.