christ-on-a-stick

If that title seems a bit like gobbledy-gook, bear with me...

I am often perplexed by the fact that many theists make positive and concrete statements assigning particular characteristics to their God. I.E., perfectly just, merciful, righteous, etc.

However, when it is pointed out that according to this God's alleged "revelation" (Scriptures), its actions are often directly in conflict with the generally accepted definitions of these words, the standard response is an appeal to God's "ineffability", as in "His ways are not our ways", "He moves in mysterious ways", "Our human minds cannot comprehend him", etc.

My question is this: If this God is truly beyond our human understanding , how then can we possibly make ANY definitive statements about its character, especially based on
ancient "third-hand" writings riddled with inconsistencies?

I've heard quite a bit from the more honest Xians here, "I don't know" and "God has his reasons", usually in response to what seem to be glaring examples of God acting in contrast to his purported characteristics.

However, it strikes me even moreso then that it is absurd to make positive, absolute truth-claims about an entity that cannot be relied upon to be consistent, and when demonstrates inconsistency automatically is given the special quality of ineffability. If we can't "know" or understand why God's actions in the Bible contradict his supposed nature, how can we "know" that *any* of the Bible's claims are true?

Spaz

I wish somebody could explain it, but there's never an answer. They use [insert holy book here] to say what god is, but the book itself never explains why. Most people that hold on to the belief simply don't ask and ignore when others do, it's easier to believe that way. The day I started asking questions about christianity was the day I started losing christianity. There are no answers within the religion, just more questions. If people would just look at religions from a historical viewpoint they'd have all their answers, but instead they delude themselves in fantasy.

I hope that made some kind of sense, I know it didn't answer anything but that's how I felt about it and gave it a bump

Psycho Economist

You're right. It can't be resolved. Hence their going on and on about "having faith". You insist on believing the two contradictory suppositions are both true and that somehow means they can both be true.

After all, God transcends puny human logic.

christ-on-a-stick

Would this topic get more play in another forum? Are the theists that frequent this forum unable or unwilling to touch it?

Magus? Badfish? Gemma? spurly (wherefore art thou, spurly?) Anyone?

CaptainOfOuterSpace

Like many fundie friends have told me,

"Your mind is too scientific to understand."

Wish I could help more.

fishbulb

christ-on-a-stick:

Magic.

You see, the Bible reveals the truth about God. That this is true is obvious to anyone. Well, anyone with faith. If you don't see how the Bible must be the source of truth, then clearly you lack enough faith to see things as they really are.

You might point out that the Bible as it exists today is very different than the documents from which it is derived, and you might argue that translations, redactions, edits, and the wholescale removal of entire books from the Bible might render it less accurate today than it was when God first moved the hands of the original scribes who wrote it. But this is a silly objection. Surely you can see that God would never have allowed any of the original meaning of the work to be lost in translation or editing. In fact, the Bible needs to be edited and updated from time to time so as to be properly understood by people of the current age. You can rest assured that not only God's official English version, but also all of the approved translations of the Bible contain no errors of fact or ommission.

You might retort, however, that the Bible contradicts not only what we observe but also itself. This is a foolish argument, because anyone can see that parts of the bible are figurative. You might ask how can one tell which parts are to be taken literally and which parts figuratively, but this too is a dumb question. It is blindingly obvious which parts are meant to be taken figuratively; your question only shows that you have no faith and you have not read the Bible with an open mind.

What's that you say? Why do some Christians think certain parts of the Bible are to be read literally even though other Chrisitans say it should be read figuratively? It always angers me when atheists make this claim, because they are clearly lumping true Christians together with every infidel, pagan, and Satanist who calls themselves Christian. If you aren't going to be honest but instead mischaracterize the lies of false Christians as true Christian thought, there is little hope for having an intelligent discussion with you.

That's how.

christ-on-a-stick

fishbulb, are you channeling a True Christian or WHAT? That was almost *too* good... *eyes fishbulb suspiciously*

mike_decock

That was a little *too* good. I was formulating retorts while I was reading it.

-Mike...

Tarnaak

KUDO's Well Said FishBulb

yguy

I smell a troll.