From God or about God?

[Elijah John]

This is a portion from a post I made on another thread. I thought it would be a good debate topic in and of itself.

Assuming there is a God, one can still consider that the Bible is not entirely from God, nor does it claim to be. It seems to me that a more reasonable way to look at it is to see the Bible as being about God, inspired by God.

Or more accurately, about an ancient people's encounter with the mysterious Divine, who they understood as "God".

That way, one can take the Bible seriously, but not literally. And not be compelled to defend everything contained within it's pages.

The only portions of the Bible that I recall that are even claimed to be from God are the Ten Commandments, (allegedly written by the finger of God Himself) and the prophetic utterances, which begin with the phrase ""Thus saith the LORD" and Jesus "verily, verily" statements.

To borrow a phrase from Hillel, "all the rest is commentary". Commentary and historical and cultural context.

So it seems to me that an entirely reasonable approach to the Bible, (if one is inclined to be a Bible-based Theist) is to view the Good Book not as infallible dictation, but as inspiration. Inspiration as a lover is inspired by his beloved to write love poetry.

That poetry doesn't come from the beloved, but rather it is inspired by the beloved.

And really, what is wrong with a believer picking the portions that resonate and ring true for them, and deriving Spiritual inspiration from those portions?

Who can argue with that?

After all, very few (except for some maniacs) are inspired by the verses which advocate stoning people to death, keeping or beating slaves.

But millions are inspired by the belief that there is a God, who commanded us to "love thy neighbor as thy self".

So for debate:,

Is Biblical literalism the only valid way to view the Bible? Is it the best way? Or can one derive Spiritual inspiration from a book such as the Bible even though one realizes it is not perfect.

Please justify your anwers.

[Elijah John]

Because ALL good comes from God, that is my Theistic premise, and my Theistic pov. And the Bible contains much that is good.

That theistic premise needs to be justified. Why should God get credit for my good deeds? And who takes credit for my evil deeds? Should God be thanked for all the good I do while I get blamed for all the bad I do?

Why is it so hard for you to fathom the possibility that the good in the Bible simply came from the minds of men?

The good contained therein, I attribute to the inspiration of God.

And what inspired the evil contained therein?

Now we're getting into the existance of God question. That is not necessary on every thread in this forum to address that issue as long as one goes on the assumption "for the sake of argument let us suppose there is a God, what then.."?

I don't have to justify my Theistic position, I have declared and admitted it. That is not the issue.

The issue implicit in the OP is that given (for the sake of argument) there is a God, is the Bible from God?

And what does that mean?

Dictated by God?

or inspired by God?

And what does inspiration mean?

Written under a kind of Divine trance?

Of written about God, inspired by ancient encounters with God.

If the latter, infallibility need not be an issue. If the first (dictation) is claimed, the Bible had better be perfect!

It is manifestly not perfect.

And the imperfections, the contradictions, absurdities and atrocities contained therein I attribute to the human ingredient in the Divine-human parnership it took to write the Bible.

Human contamination, ie bias and projection of human evil in some cases, attributed to God.

If there IS a God, and God is good, then all good ultimately comes from God, including the good that is in the Bible.

No you don't have to buy the premise that there is a God, but if you want to address the issue in the OP, you are being asked to accept His existence....for the sake of argument.

[Justin108]

Now we're getting into the existance of God question.

No, we're not. We can assume God exists without assuming all good necessarily comes from God. Unless your argument is that "everything comes from God" in which case, we have to conclude that all evil comes from God as well.

I don't have to justify my Theistic position, I have declared and admitted it.

Then what's the point of debate if all we need to do is declare a position without any justification for that position?

The issue implicit in the OP is that given (for the sake of argument) there is a God, is the Bible from God?

Yes, but you don't stop at this assumption. You make an additional assumption in stating that "all good comes from God". You then use this position to justify your belief that the Bible comes from God because it contains good.

I will grant you the assumption (for the sake of debate) that God exists, but not that God is necessarily good, nor that all good necessarily comes from God. Unless, as mentioned before, you insist that good must come from God since everything comes from God, but then you have to agree that evil comes from God as well (using the premise that everything comes from God). In which case, I can equally argue that "The Hammer of Witches" also comes from God as it contains evil (which, as established, comes from God as well)

And the imperfections, the contradictions, absurdities and atrocities contained therein I attribute to the human ingredient in the Divine-human parnership it took to write the Bible.

You have yet to provide an argument for why such a partnership exists.

If there IS a God, and God is good

You're adding assumption after assumption to make your argument work. First you ask us to assume, for argument sake, that God exists. I agreed to this. But now you're asking us to assume he's good as well. Why should we make this assumption?

[Elijah John]

I don't have to justify my Theistic position, I have declared and admitted it.

Then what's the point of debate if all we need to do is declare a position without any justification for that position?

Because we are not debating that particular question of the existence of God. I am merely making clear my pov and not assuming yours.

We are debating whether the Bible is from God or about God.

Now if you want to debate the nature of God, that is another topic, beyond the scope and intent of the OP.

But now you're asking us to assume he's good as well. Why should we make this assumption?

Because God is good, by definition. So all good ultimately comes from God. God is all-good, all-powerful, all-wise, etc...these are commonly held understandings of who God is.

If you want to debate a God who isn't all good, we would be debating a very..shall we say "obscure" god.

[Justin108]

Because we are not debating that particular question of the existence of God

For the umpteenth time, I am not debating whether God exists. I'm debating whether he had anything to do with the Bible. I am assuming, for argument sake, that God exists. Now explain to me why we should believe that he had anything to do with the Bible?

Now if you want to debate the nature of God, that is another topic, beyond the scope and intent of the OP.

You are making it part of this by using an assumption about God's nature as a key premise in your argument.

Your argument currently looks like this:
Premise 1: All good comes from God
Premise 2: There is good in the Bible
Conclusion: therefore, the Bible comes from (was inspired by) God

I am asking you to justify the first premise of your argument. How is asking you to justify your first premise of this debate "going off topic"?

Because God is good, by definition

By your definition perhaps. Others would define God differently

God is all-good, all-powerful, all-wise, etc...these are commonly held understandings of who God is.

Being commonly-held definitions does not make them universal definitions. Many believe God is evil

[Elijah John]

God is all-good, all-powerful, all-wise, etc...these are commonly held understandings of who God is.

Being commonly-held definitions does not make them universal definitions. Many believe God is evil

Sorry to disagree, you were trying to make God's existance part of the debate when you took me to task for declaring that I believe God exists. You accused me of not debating, but I reminded you then, that question was not part of this particular debate, so can we move on please?

Yes, it is not universal, but should we debate the nature of God based on a minority opinion?

You for instance, don't even believe in God yet are calling him "evil" aren't you?

I am saying, for those of us who believe in God, the overwhelming majority believe he is good, and is the source of all that is good.

Reminder, the question for debate is whether the Bible is from God, or about God.

The implication of the answer to that question addresses the issue of Biblical infalliblity. It need not be infallible if the Bible is about God, and a record of an ancient peoples believed encounter with that God.

If you cannot, or will not address that question and issue, then we will just have to agree to end this discussion rather than argue about process and terms.

[Justin108]

Sorry to disagree, you were trying to make God's existance part of the debate when you took me to task for declaring that I believe God exists.

Quote me. Where did I make God's existence part of this debate?

What I am debating is your assumption that God is necessarily good. I have repeated this time and time again: for argument sake, I will assume the existence of God. But I will make no further assumptions unless these assumptions are justified. I will not assume God is good, nor will I assume all good necessarily comes from God unless you can provide an argument to support this assumption.

Yes, it is not universal, but should we debate the nature of God based on a minority opinion?

Appeal to popularity. "Most people define God as good. Therefore, God must be good". Most people also define God as male. Does that mean God is male?

Your entire argument relies on the assumption that God is good, and the only support you can give me is "God is usually defined that way"?

You for instance, don't even believe in God yet are calling him "evil" aren't you?

I never said that. I am merely calling your assumption that he is "good" an unjustified assumption. If an intelligent creator exists, it can either be good, evil, or amoral. Since I have no way of telling which one is true, I'm not going to assume any of them as of yet.

You, however, assume it is good. All I'm asking for is an argument to support this assumption.

I am saying, for those of us who believe in God, the overwhelming majority believe he is good, and is the source of all that is good.

Appeal to popularity

Reminder, the question for debate is whether the Bible is from God, or about God.

Yes. Your position is that "yes it is from God" and your primary support for this position is the premise "God is good". I am asking you to support your premise.

And before you accuse me of demanding proof that God exists again, I am not asking for proof that God exists, I'm asking for proof that he is in fact "good".

If you cannot, or will not address that question and issue, then we will just have to agree to end this discussion rather than argue about process and terms.

I am addressing the question. The question is "does the Bible come from God?". Your position is "yes, because all good comes from God". Your argument is as follows

Premise 1: All good comes from God
Premise 2: There is good in the Bible
Conclusion: therefore, the Bible comes from (was inspired by) God

I am now asking you to support the first premise in your argument. Why are you objecting to me asking you to support your argument? Isn't that how debates normally work? Party 1 makes an argument, Party 2 addresses that argument. You (Party 1) made your argument, so why don't you want me (Party 2) to address that argument? What did you expect from this debate? For everyone to go "you're right, Elijah"? I am giving you valid criticism on your argument and instead of addressing my criticism, you are trying to worm your way out of this debate

[Elijah John]

Sorry to disagree, you were trying to make God's existance part of the debate when you took me to task for declaring that I believe God exists.

Quote me. Where did I make God's existence part of this debate?

Post 19. You said:

That theistic premise needs to be justified.

Also, "appeal to popularity" is not always a fallacious argument. It is only so when one uses that tactic to establish the truth of a matter. That's not what I was doing, I was attempting to define what we mean when we say "God". I was saying "God as is commonly understood, all good, all wise, all powerful etc".

Now would you care to address the actual OP question regarding whether the Bible is from God or about God?

Simple enough.

If not, have a nice day.

[Justin108]

Quote me. Where did I make God's existence part of this debate?

Post 19. You said:

That theistic premise needs to be justified.

Yes and if you go back to post 19, you can clearly see the quote I was referring to, namely:

Because ALL good comes from God, that is my Theistic premise

So when I asked you to support your theistic premise, I asked you to support your claim that all good comes from God. I never asked you to prove God exists. I asked you to support your claim that all good comes from God

Also, "appeal to popularity" is not always a fallacious argument. It is only so when one uses that tactic to establish the truth of a matter.

Which is exactly what you're doing here. You are trying to argue for the "truth" that God is good simply because most people define God as such.

That's not what I was doing, I was attempting to define what we mean when we say "God". I was saying "God as is commonly understood, all good, all wise, all powerful etc".

God is also normally understood as male. Does that mean God is male?

Can you seriously not provide a single argument for your assumption that God is good other than appealing to a commonly held definition?

Now would you care to address the actual OP question regarding whether the Bible is from God or about God?

Simple enough.

I did back in post 12.

The Bible is clearly about God. No one would argue that.

Is the Bible from God? Since there is no indication that God actually had anything to do with the authorship of the Bible, to assume as much is entirely unjustified.

[Elijah John]

The Bible is clearly about God. No one would argue that.

Is the Bible from God? Since there is no indication that God actually had anything to do with the authorship of the Bible, to assume as much is entirely unjustified.

Thank you. We will just have to agree to disagree on the rest.

And if the Bible is simply about God, then there are some implications to consider.

-The Ancients may well have written about very real encounters with God.
-The Ancients may have written about something or someone they believed to be God.

Either way, the followers of this God (real or imagined) are then relieved of the demands of Biblical literalism and infalliblity.

That is if said followers keep in mind that the Bible is a record of such encounters, and wisdom and lessons derived from those encounters.

Errors in specific details do not then negate the value of Scripture as a source of Spiritual inspiration.

Only if one considers the Bible to have been dictated by the Almighty should one feel compelled to defend it in every detail.

Muslims view their Scriptures as dictated by God via the angel Gabriel. Many Christians (defenders of infallibility) act as though they believe the Bible was dictated.

Muslim rhetorical defense of infallibility is understandable given their belief of the Qur'an's origins, Christian defense of the Bible as infallible? Not so much.

[Justin108]

And if the Bible is simply about God, then there are some implications to consider.

To be more precise, I believe the Bible was written "about God" in the same way the Lord of the Rings is "about hobbits, wizards, elves and orcs". That is to say, while God is the subject matter, I do not believe any of the events or claims about God has any basis in reality. I'm not saying God does not exist before you start accusing me of that again, but if God does exist, I do not believe the authors of the Bible had any connection with God.

-The Ancients may well have written about very real encounters with God.

There is nothing to suggest this

-The Ancients may have written about something or someone they believed to be God.

- There is nothing to suggest this
- Would this include the possibility of aliens and other non-God entities?

Either way, the followers of this God (real or imagined) are then relieved of the demands of Biblical literalism and infalliblity.

They are also relieved of the bragging rights of calling their book "the Word of God".

That is if said followers keep in mind that the Bible is a record of such encounters, and wisdom and lessons derived from those encounters.

Which encounters are you referring to exactly?

Errors in specific details do not then negate the value of Scripture as a source of Spiritual inspiration.

Define "Spiritual inspiration"