Message of the Bible

P e t e rI think we can see the problem here. Asgara and others are asking for independant verification of God's existence seperate from the bible while you are showing us independant verification of the existence of belief in God seperate from the bible.If I were to get a book from a university on evolution and claim that a section of that book is proof of the claims that are made within the book you would not allow that to be the sole basis of agreeing with the book would you? You would follow up and check out to make sure that the lines of resoning within the book have evidence seperate from the claims made.Nor would you allow the opinions of people who support the claims made be given as evidence that the claims are true correct?In the same way we ask that independant evidence of the biblical God be shown in other books seperate from those shown in the bible.You cannot use testimony of people as sole evidence either since people have many different ways to be in error.

---

"The Puritans. Our ancestors. People so uptight the English kicked them out. How fucking anal do you have to be for the English to say 'get the fuck out!'"
~~ Robin Williams

Ok WT,I accept this as your view. Basicaly, whatever god says god does, and it is right. And it dosn't matter what he says or does, cuz it's right now matter what.That's the gist if it.Now, If I may ask you a final question. I promiss, this is the only one I want answerd, I won't pester you anymore.If god is omnipotent, and all powerfull, why does he choose to exact these awfull punishments at all?Certainly an all powerfull, all mighty god, capable of doing anything, can devise a non-violent and peacefull solution to the error of his creations ways. Wouldn't you agree?So dosn't all this bloodshed seem silly?I mean, if god is all powerfull, then he dosn't need any blood shed to accomplish what he wants. He can do it anyway he wants. Right?So, it follows, that he wants to go the violent, sadistic, and murderous route. I mean, he must actually desire to do it this way. Since he's god, all other options are open to him. So why does he insist on hurting people?This question is open to anyone who can adress it. Perhapse I will start a topic on it.

Interesting, by faith do you accept the evidence of those statistics as accurate?I'd have a hard time establishing that evidence as true.Does appear though most have faith in God of some type.

Yes, of course it isn't. Just as testimony for Santa Claus isn't evidence of Santa Claus. Sorry, "Yes it is!" doesn't count as a rebuttal. You need to explain why you're credulous enough to take people's testimony at face-value, when no other reasonable person seems content to do so. No, it doesn't. Merely that some people think that Santa Claus exists.What a world of credulity you must live in! Apparently you're willing to take all testimony at face-value. Let's get rid of the criminal justice system! All we have to do is ask them if they committed a crime or not. It's self-evident that the majority of people are not Christians, but:

quote:

---

Christianity 1.9 billion 33.0%
Islam 1.1 billion 20.0
Hinduism 781 million 13.0
Buddhism 324 million 6.0
Sikhism 19 million 0.4
Judaism 14 million 0.2
Baha'ism 6.1 million 0.1
Confucianism 5.3 million 0.1
Jainism 4.9 million 0.1
Shintoism 2.8 million 0.0

---

from Top Ten Organized Religions of the World, 2005As you can see, Christians are only 33% of the world's believers. The majority of humans are non-Christian. Surely this is not a surprise to you? Then maybe you can explain what you meant when you said: Then please make an effort to communicate better. I can hardly be blamed if you're unwilling/unable to effectively communicate eactly what it is you're trying to say.

You are not pestering me, but I do you feel you only want answers that conclude what you already have concluded.Your views of God and His judgements are defective because they refuse to recognize the truth, which is the lack of any understanding of the seriousness of sin.To you everyone is innocent minding their own business getting murdered by God for absolutely no reason at all.You refuse to even acknowledge a context that each individual event happens in.You are only interested in debaters concluding your initial biased proclamation that God is a murderer and a sadist. You never have said one additional thing adding to or taking away from your starting statement.You argue in a perfect circle : God is a murderer because that is what I read in the Bible, and anyone who says different is closing their eyes, because God is a murderer, and anyone who doesn't see it is blind, because God is a murderer.....etc.etc.Dr. Scott quoting Carlisle : "the greatest of all sins is to be conscience of no sins"The Bible clearly teaches that the penalty of sin is death. Sin is defined as falling short of the standard of perfection as revealed in God's law.Until this is understood as truth, you and others of your persuasion are deceived by your sins into believing that sin is not sin after all. This is the absolute worst effect of sin, its ingredient to make you believe something that isn't true.When I read the O.T. I see a God who, because of Christ, has been much more merciful to me than I deserve. I could of been judged like those sinners but God MAKES you see the value of His Son in that WE have not received like treatment. We receive mercy LITERALLY FOR CHRIST'S SAKE. This is the only reason people like you get away with your ridiculous criticism of God.

First, your omniscience question/point.How could God know what a person is going to do before they do it ?Because He reads their mind and its intent. He is God and He has that power.Then what about that exception I argued ?That exception is in the specific arena of, to trust God or not trust Him. In this exact context, God does not know what a person will do UNTIL they actually do it. God could predict, but that is irrelevant. If He were to pre-judge a person before they do what they actually do, then this person could truthfully say "but I didn't/did do it".
God has to wait until a person clearly "reveals their hand" before He can ascertain if they do or do not trust Him. This is true because mankind are not robots, we have free will. We have the freedom to make a choice. God wants us to freely choose to trust Him when we have the freedom to do otherwise. Until we make this choice, He does not know for certain either way. This is why we are on trial, the trial exists to test our faith.You question why anyone should fear God ?Why wouldn't anyone with a brain not fear God ?It is simply the smart thing to do.If you fear God, then you want to make Him happy, faith is what makes God happy. (Hebrews 11:6)" well I don't want to fear God..."It is your choice.Answer to question # 1 : You misunderstood, it is Satan who sees the punishment as unfair, not God.God UNDERSTANDS Satan's feeling, but He doesn't agree. Do you understand the difference ?Question # 2: The reason why God chose a book is because He fully realizes that any other method utilized would result in His message being lost. A book appeals to everyone who can read. This is why the first thing ever printed on a printing press was His book. Books contain information that an author wants to proclaim.Basic theology declares this circle : The Eternal Word/Logos (Jesus) became the Living Word (His birth/life) who became the Spoken Word (the gospel preached) who becomes the Indwelt Word (His Spirit in us) who then became the Written Word (the Old and New Testaments).The Bible is God's protected account of what He wants known. Built into the Written word is the claim that only a called person of God can reveal what it means. God intentionally tied Himself to the error prone ways of a man/woman as the method by which He will speak to each individual person. God speaks through the Preacher, and a lot of bad ones have made a lot of people throw the baby out with the bathwater.Next question : God intentionally does not create any intelligent being that does not have free will. If He wanted robots then He would of created robots that do not have the ability to do otherwise.Satan CHOSE to rebel when he could of not chose to rebel. God values FREEDOM just like we do. God wants free people to freely choose to trust/love Him.

God can neither be proven or disproven.Every philosopher on either side of the issue already knows this to be true.IF God could be proven, then this would negate the terms of God before He promises to prove Himself to anyone. These terms are for a person to demonstrate an act of faith upon a promise uttered in His word.God can be deduced from what is made that a Creator made it. Romans declares this. The inability of certain people to make this deduction is the subject I have exstensively argued in other topics.

WT, Pot calling the kettle black I'd say. Not everyone, and no. I am appaled at the punishment, and fail to see how it fits the crime. How is killing babys, and forcing women into marrige a just punishment for any crime? WT, takeing the context of the origional story in question. We have a tribe of people, who have not heard of god for ages, then they are wiped out by another tribe with no warning, only a proclimation of divine inheritance.But, as you say, let us not repeat ourselves...I understand your belife, you say whatever god does is the right thing. It dosn't matter what it is, if he comands it, it's good.So if god commands murder, its good. If he commands lies, its good. If he commands abduction and forced marrige/servitude/rape, it's good.I understand that you view this as just due to our fallen nature, etc. I understand your theology.Now, I would like you to adress the very direct quetion in my last post. It's basically what boils down to my whole problem with the thing, and perhapse I am blind to something.But I understand that god is supposed to be all powerull.Why must an all powerfull god resort to violence, pain, etc. When he has every other option in his grasp.Could he not just as easely solved all these problems using non-violent methods? After all, he is God, he must have had such methods at his disposal.So why, a god having all options open to him, would choose the violent, murderous, and vengefull path, over the peacefull path?

That may be. On the other hand, a reasonable person can deduce that, if God exists, then God is either all-powerful or moral, but not both.A powerless God is pointless. An amoral God is not worth worshipping. But since even humans can cause things to be made without specific acts of creation, we can conclude that not everything need have a creator.

quote:

---

God can be deduced from what is made that a Creator made it.

---

But only by accepting a prior set of assumptions. Using another set of assumptions, it can be deduced from the universe as we know it that God does not exist.

quote:

---

The inability of certain people to make this deduction is the subject I have exstensively argued in other topics.

---

Was this where you were arguing that a person's non-belief in God is punishment for that person's non-belief in God?

Hi, thanks for the reply OK, can you support this statement, where does the Bible ‘claim’ this? I still don’t believe you, but for the purposes of this thread I will ‘assume’ that the Bible is the word of God. Fine, no problem. I see nothing at all in that post to negate my belief that the Fall is nothing more than folk-lore, I see plenty to support my belief though. All you are doing is using one myth to support another myth These are parts of the definition of what God is, if He isn’t all of these things then He isn’t a God. This is very convenient for your interpretation of course, however, it is impossible for a God to not know anything, you can have your one exception but it proves that the God of your Bible does not exist. This should be interesting since it comes from a theologian who thinks that God can be omniscient AND not know that something was going to happen.Again I will ‘assume’ that your theology is accurate, however, I would suggest that you really do take a basic theology course at a local college or other educational establishment because in reality your theology needs an awful lot of work to improve it. The following explanation is really not even basic theology, it is Sunday school theology for 5 years olds. Sorry to be so blunt, but if you are going to talk about theology then you need to raise the standard of your explanation a little.But on with the show. OK, omniscience exception number one?God should have known that Lucifer would rebel against Him, if he didn’t know then this is the first exception, if He did know then it was part of God’s plan as he allowed it to continue.Where does the Bible say that Lucifer was given free-will? I take it that you are on about Isaiah 14? If so, I do not see where the rest of your information comes from.In fact, could you give scriptural references to support this story about Lucifer/Satan? God suddenly decided He had had enough! This is omniscience nullifying example two. God would know that some time in the future he would ‘suddenly decide’ yet He still ignored the problem, must be part of God’s plan I take it? Any scriptural references to support your ‘theological’ musings?I have heard your explanations when I was at Sunday school 30 years or so ago, I am now 40 and these very over-simplified explanations have no place in an adult debate. What I would like to see you doing is employing some type of theological methodology to support these children’s tales.I personally would like to examine these texts with you in a more formal theological discussion. Rather than just assuming that your story validates the Bible I think that we both could learn a lot from sharing ideas on such things as (since the Bible appears to be your only source of literary evidence) literary criticism, form criticism, source criticism, textual criticism, and perhaps some philology. Even if you do not wish to discuss your texts in this manner, I do suggest that you employ some of these techniques as they would help you to make much stronger arguments to support your beliefs.For example, you state that ‘But Lucifer, (now called Satan)’ and you leave it at that, you do not say why the sudden name change. What do the names ‘Lucifer’ and Satan’ mean, is there a reason for the name change, when, in a literary context, would the name change have happened, does the Bible explain the name change, why do you attribute many different things to Lucifer yet there only one reference to Lucifer in the entire Bible (Isaiah 14:12)?There are many problems with your ‘basic theology’ you need to start employing real theological methodologies if you really so wish to understand the Bible.I will skip almost all of the rest of your ‘Fall’ explanation as I am familiar with it anyway. Omniscience nullifying example number three.Sorry but this is pure nonsense, this makes the God of the Bible into a nothing. ‘God does not know for certain’! Come on WT this is not the message of the Bible at all, you are making it up to try and get God off the hook so to speak. God is guilty of horrendous atrocities against mankind, and you are making things up to try and prove God’s innocence and your explanation is not remotely connected to the Bible. You keep proving that the God of the Bible does not exist. Omniscience nullifying example number four! Sorry but you appear to have no idea what a God is. Again, your God is not the God of the Bible. You keep proving that He is not omniscient, you are the first Christian I have met that claims this. I was a Christian until I was 20, attended church a couple of times a week, sunday school, bible classes, and Honours degree, almost a master of theo, and have met countless Christians and not a single one would accept your belief that there is something that God cannot know. Your idea of God contradicts what a God is. Why should I fear Him, the relationship is supposed to be built on love and trust. You make it sound like a threat. You do know that God let this little play run its course, He has a very sick and twisted mind this God of yours, of course your God is not the God of the Bible. This is wild. Your God is not omnipotent either, what exactly is it that you are following? Creating trust in a human has nothing at all to do with God’s omniscience, God should still know EVERYTHING, if He doesn’t then He isn’t a God. Omniscience is a quality that is characteristic of God, it means that He has total knowledge, your God is not a God at all. You cannot pick and choose what you want, I will concede that the God of the Bible is not omniscient, no problems at all, the reason I concede it is because it supports my belief that there is no such thing as God. God is a character that was dreamed up by man, and your example just supports this. This is the message contained in your perverse imagination, it is nowhere to be found in any Bible.The message of the bible is:God created the universe and everything in it, it was all good and God was pleased with it. One of God’s creations, man, spoiled this golden age by disobeying the one rule that God had given to them, they ate from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. As a result, the bond between man and God had been broken, the trust was taken away, God then banished mankind from the garden that He had created for them. However, all is not lost. God provided a way for Man to reconcile himself with God. He sent his only begotten Son to suffer for mankind, to suffer and die on the cross so that whosoever believes in him should not perish, but have everlasting life.That is the message of the Bible. Now you know.Brian.

WT The idea of trusting a father in heaven whom you must fear because he actually loves you depsite him being a jealous God strikes me at the least as to be walking in realm of the mad.Just my opinion of course.

---

"I am not young enough to know everything. "
Oscar Wilde

I haven't read all of Asgara's posts in this topic or the one asking for independant verification, but the one I did read at the beginning of this topic and responded to, Asgara asked for "ANY" evidence.Perhaps you could supply the post where Asgara asked for independant verification to help clear up this problem.I'm more inclined to see those evidences I posted as that which serves as evidence as opposed to "independant verification of the existence of belief in God seperate from the bible". Also, I used some bible verses as evidence.One of the definitions of

---

Evidence;Your basis for belief or disbelief; knowledge on which to base belief.

---

Correct. However I'm not supplying proof, I'm supplying evidences. Chances are the technigues or technical jargon I would need to employ to verify those evidences would be beyond my capabilities or desires. Incorrect. There is always the possibility that those claims are true. Not until proven false could I not allow those claims. That shouldn't be a problem, try going to a christian book store. Basically I'd have to disagree. Always remember, just because there could be error about doesn't rule out truth is there also.There are occasions when all you have is testimonies.Testimony;1 A solemn statement made under oath

​

2 An assertion offering firsthand authentication of a fact

​

3 Something that serves as evidence
1 John 5:10

​

He that believes on the Son of God has the witness in himself; he that does not believe God has made him a liar, because he has not believed in the witness which God has witnessed concerning his Son.

Actually, the post you responded to was a response to WT saying that no matter how much evidence we were shown of god's existence we would still not believe. I asked for "any" evidence of god's existence. All you have given me is evidence of people's beliefs in gods existence, not the evidence that led them to this belief.In a court of law, if Sally said John committed the murder of Ed and the ONLY "evidence" of this is Sally's say so, it won't wash. If the court cannot find evidence of John's existence, no birth record, no ssn, noone who has ever seen John, except for Sally's assertions, then the court is not going to let be entered as evidence of John's culpability.

---

Asgara
"An unexamined life is not worth living" Socrates via Plato

Ned? Bump? I'm genuinely curious.[This message has been edited by crashfrog, 01-11-2004]