Existence of Holy Books as Evidence Against Their Claims

[Jolly_Penguin]

It occurs to me that many holy books claim a God exists that is all powerful and that this God has a message he/she/it wants you to know. But it occurs to me that an all powerful God would not have any need for such a limited and primitive means of communication. An all powerful God could simply make us all know what he is there and what he expects of us*. So the books themselves are at best redundant, and almost certainly misleading.

That we do not all know and agree on what God wants, that we have battles between different religions and different sects, tells me that if an all powerful God exists, he must intend all of this confusion. Perhaps he enjoys it. This conflicts with the messages I keep reading in these holy books.

So I wonder, is the mere existence of these holy books evidence against their claim of an all powerful God with a message he wants us to know?

* - Please note that us knowing what he expects of us doesn't in any way restrict our "free will" to obey or not obey what he wants, an in fact that only with knowing what he wants can we truly make any informed choice and have "free will" on the matter.

[JLB32168]

The fact of the matter is that your Eastern Orthodox beliefs do have quite a difference when compared to other denominations.

I measure differences by adherence to the Nicene Creed as interpreted by its writers. You’ll find very little difference when considering those fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.

I asked if a person must believe that Christ died and rose again.

If someone who subscribes to Christianity doesn’t believe that Christ died and arose then his faith is defective. Whether or not that means he obtains God’s salvation is God’s decision. I’ve been taught to refrain from making any such speculations and to “tend to my own knitting� so to say.

It's different because the Pope seems to allude to being a good person.

Since I’ve not seen the Pope’s comments as they were made in context I think it’s a bit premature to determine what allusion he was making. One can infer a lot from one sentence of even paragraph of a bishop’s homily, which can be voluminous. Often those inferences can be wrong.

I was just pointing out that:"Christianity containing the fullness of truth according to Christian theology" is circular in logic. Do you still disagree?

A circular argument would be used in a debate when one is making an assertion that X is fact. I’m not doing that – merely stating a belief – so I’m of the opinion that it’s circular but I’m not willing to put more energy and time into debating such an insignificant point.

Christians claim that there is one god, and that one god is the god of Abraham.
If this claim is true JLB, can Quetzalcoatl be a real god too?

If the claim there is one deity – the Judeo-Christian deity – is true then claim that Quetzalcoatl is also a deity cannot be true because both cannot be true since they exclude one another. Your point is correct – not all god concepts can be true.

But the Christian god concepts are only different in respects that most Christians wouldn’t classify on the same level as the twelve articles of the Nicene Creed, which is the standard used for the Christian faith.

You believe a perfect god inspired the writing of a book with discrepancies. Not just minor ones either, ones where we have some followers saying you must accept Jesus as your savior . . .

What does “accept Jesus as your savior� have to do with the book and its discrepancies? I asked you for discrepancies in the book. You’ve given me discrepancies between interpretations of words in the book but you’ve not demonstrated that the book had a discrepancy

Can you evidence either of these claims [i.e. A) The autographs (originals) were w/o discrepancy but later scribes made errors. B) God simply doesn’t regard some details to be of great import but inspires overall themes?]

We know that there are discrepancies between the Hebrew texts from AD/CE 800 and those of the DSS. We also know that Christ said He spoke in parables so as to exclude the arrogant from understanding. Of course, I didn’t invent these things any more than you invented the argument that differences of interpretations mean that speakers don’t have their deity straight. The fact remains that the two hypotheticals I pointed out are entirely possible.

[Jolly_Penguin]

My point was that hearing "God's Message" and believing it are two very very different things.

Isn’t that somewhat obvious that it doesn’t really need to be said?

I would have thought so, but evidently not. Christians and other theists seem to consistently say things like Atheists rebel against, disobey, or disrespect God. That is like saying you rebel against, disobey or disrespect Dart Vader. It doesn't make sense unless you believe.

Then let’s assume Merriam-Webster’s definition, which is “: great disrespect shown to God or to something holy.� If that is the definition we’re using then it would seem that the atheist’s disbelief is irrelevant. If God exists, then blasphemy is possible. If God doesn’t exist but in men’s minds then blasphemy has still been committed since man determines if crimes have been committed.

How can you show great disrespect to fiction? Can I greatly disrespect Sherlock Holmes and offend him by saying he was a bad detective? No. I can only greatly disrespect him in the minds of believers. He doesn't exist to take offense.

What does “accept Jesus as your savior� have to do with the book and its discrepancies? I asked you for discrepancies in the book. You’ve given me discrepancies between interpretations of words in the book but you’ve not demonstrated that the book had a discrepancy

Does it matter? It is written with enough discrepancy to set earnest believer against earnest believer, and God, as all powerful could have avoided such conflict, and didn't. Doesn't that tell you something?

[Jolly_Penguin]

What is difficult about the belief that those HE calls hear HIS voice and those who don't are condemned already so the message in the Bible is just not meant for everybody while the indwelling Holy spirit makes the message clear to those called who are sprinkled throughout the denominations and the unchurched?

It is possible that God doesn't wish us all to understand his message. I allow for that. There could be a sadistic God who seeks to enlighten a few and confuse the rest and have them war and do horrible things to each other including to his believers.

But I would still question why a book and why not just speak directly to his elect, as he apparently did even according to the bible at one time in history.

[Clownboat]

The fact of the matter is that your Eastern Orthodox beliefs do have quite a difference when compared to other denominations.

I measure differences by adherence to the Nicene Creed as interpreted by its writers. You’ll find very little difference when considering those fundamental tenets of the Christian faith.

And those differences that affect an eternal soul, like can atheists go to heaven and how, just aren't important? It's just an eternal soul after all right?
Your personal way of measuring differences does not change the differences that are there and it comes across like you are sticking your head in the sand to me.

I asked if a person must believe that Christ died and rose again.

If someone who subscribes to Christianity doesn’t believe that Christ died and arose then his faith is defective. Whether or not that means he obtains God’s salvation is God’s decision. I’ve been taught to refrain from making any such speculations and to “tend to my own knitting� so to say.

What does your own 'knitting' say about how one Christian will claim that a person must believe that Christ died and rose again, while we have the Pope claiming that even a good atheist can go to heaven.

Do you not see the discrepancy here? Notice, I'm not asking you to judge anyone.

It's different because the Pope seems to allude to being a good person.

Since I’ve not seen the Pope’s comments as they were made in context I think it’s a bit premature to determine what allusion he was making. One can infer a lot from one sentence of even paragraph of a bishop’s homily, which can be voluminous. Often those inferences can be wrong.

If you have not seen them, then I would not be interested in your argument from ignorance anyways. You are probably right about not being a good person to make a comment.

I was just pointing out that:"Christianity containing the fullness of truth according to Christian theology" is circular in logic. Do you still disagree?

A circular argument would be used in a debate when one is making an assertion that X is fact. I’m not doing that – merely stating a belief – so I’m of the opinion that it’s circular but I’m not willing to put more energy and time into debating such an insignificant point.

Please read more carefully.
I said circular logic, not that you made a circular argument. You did not make a circular argument, your logic was what was circular.

Christians claim that there is one god, and that one god is the god of Abraham.
If this claim is true JLB, can Quetzalcoatl be a real god too?

If the claim there is one deity – the Judeo-Christian deity – is true then claim that Quetzalcoatl is also a deity cannot be true because both cannot be true since they exclude one another. Your point is correct – not all god concepts can be true.

Is this a retraction of you claiming I was taking my ball and going home then? Sure seems like you agree with me after all.

But the Christian god concepts are only different in respects that most Christians wouldn’t classify on the same level as the twelve articles of the Nicene Creed, which is the standard used for the Christian faith.

I get it, you find the Nicene Creed which came about almost 300 years after Jesus was said to live important. More important than the Apostle's Creed and the Athanasian Creed I would presume.

I however argue that an atheist faced with going to an actual heaven or spending an eternity in a hell would find knowing how to get to heaven and how to avoid a hell very important. To each their own right? You're on team creed apparently. Why should you care if you can articulate to an atheist about how they can get to heaven? Why would 'you' even care about those differences?

You believe a perfect god inspired the writing of a book with discrepancies. Not just minor ones either, ones where we have some followers saying you must accept Jesus as your savior . . .

What does “accept Jesus as your savior� have to do with the book and its discrepancies? I asked you for discrepancies in the book. You’ve given me discrepancies between interpretations of words in the book but you’ve not demonstrated that the book had a discrepancy

Show where you asked this if you would like a response. Cut and paste please.
Until you do, would you mind responding to what I asked above? Why is, 'you must accept Jesus as your savior' and ' even a good atheist can go to heaven' not a discrepancy?
Things that affect a claimed eternity would be important? Why would you not find a persons soul and where they spend eternity to be not important?

Can you evidence either of these claims [i.e. A) The autographs (originals) were w/o discrepancy but later scribes made errors. B) God simply doesn’t regard some details to be of great import but inspires overall themes?]

We know that there are discrepancies between the Hebrew texts from AD/CE 800 and those of the DSS. We also know that Christ said He spoke in parables so as to exclude the arrogant from understanding. Of course, I didn’t invent these things any more than you invented the argument that differences of interpretations mean that speakers don’t have their deity straight. The fact remains that the two hypotheticals I pointed out are entirely possible.

See the bold? Please explain how you know that a Christ said anything, much less even existed (which I find likely myself by the way). I'm just want to know how you can say this as if it's a fact.

Either way, I find speaking in parables so as to exclude the arrogant just a defense mechanism built in to your religion. Do you really not see it?
Basically, anyone that doesn't agree with how you decipher the parables is just arrogant.
Sure thing there guy.

People claiming to speak for Christ or the Bible is what causes a lot of the differing types of Christianity. Do you not know the discrepancies between yourself and the Pope, or yourself and Truscott, or yourself and a Jehovah's Witness, or .........? Pointing to some creed does not make these go away.

[ttruscott]

What is difficult about the belief that those HE calls hear HIS voice and those who don't are condemned already so the message in the Bible is just not meant for everybody while the indwelling Holy spirit makes the message clear to those called who are sprinkled throughout the denominations and the unchurched?

It is possible that God doesn't wish us all to understand his message. I allow for that. There could be a sadistic God who seeks to enlighten a few and confuse the rest and have them war and do horrible things to each other including to his believers.

It is also possible that a loving GOD who cannot enter the heavenly marriage until that part of HIS church stops idolizing the eternally sinful tares on earth and comes to choose righteous holiness instead, keeps the truth of the Spiritual side of life hidden so that these eternally evil folk will go about their ways naturally, living their lives of idolatry and sin openly and thus they, the tares, will teach the sinful elect that they, the tares, will never change and repent, and that they, the sinful elect, are guilty also and must repent, even though they are believers.

Jesus said the good seed must live together with the tares but He doesn't say why...just that when they mature in holiness will the judgement day come. It is no great leap to think that there is something about living with the reprobate that helps bring the sinful but good seed to holiness and what else but their willingness to be evil?

[Jolly_Penguin]

^ I can't make heads or tails of the above post, other than the last bit about "willingness to do evil".... no I don't even know where you are going with that.

Your entire post looks like airy language with no meaning to me. Maybe because I am not versed in your theology and am not capable of reading it properly. Care to break it down in terms the layperson can understand?

What does it have to do with my point about God apparently choosing a confusing and less than perfect means of communication through holy books and prophets instead of just making us know what he wants?

[Clownboat]

^ I can't make heads or tails of the above post, other than the last bit about "willingness to do evil".... no I don't even know where you are going with that.

Your entire post looks like airy language with no meaning to me. Maybe because I am not versed in your theology and am not capable of reading it properly. Care to break it down in terms the layperson can understand?

What does it have to do with my point about God apparently choosing a confusing and less than perfect means of communication through holy books and prophets instead of just making us know what he wants?

Jolly, perhaps you need to 'think with your heart'.


When I was a Christian, that is what we said when we wanted people to believe us. How can anyone refute that claim, much less understand it? I sure don't miss the airy language myself.

Personally I feel that the above is just an insult to anyone that doesn't share his beliefs.
(eternally evil folk - living their lives of idolatry and sin - they, the tares - they, the sinful elect - living with the reprobate - their willingness to be evil).

You will know them by their fruit.

[ttruscott]

^ I can't make heads or tails of the above post, other than the last bit about "willingness to do evil".... no I don't even know where you are going with that.

Your entire post looks like airy language with no meaning to me. Maybe because I am not versed in your theology and am not capable of reading it properly. Care to break it down in terms the layperson can understand?

What does it have to do with my point about God apparently choosing a confusing and less than perfect means of communication through holy books and prophets instead of just making us know what he wants?

I'm sorry I summed it all up too quickly or shortly for you - I do not know who has read what here and my theology is too big for short answers usually.

I suggested HIS message is not for all people so HE hides HIMself from some. You suggested that made HIM sadistic. I answered that HE is loving but stymied in fulfilling HIS love by the heavenly marriage (you do know that heaven is the marriage of the Church with His Son?) by the presence of the evil ones which some of HIS elect (the ones HE wants to marry) idolize over HIS plans to condemn them...you know, on the judgment day. They stand against the judgment so if it was executed, they too would be burnt in that terrible fire which HE promised them would never happen (called the promise of election...with me so far?) which necessitated the postponement of the judgment until the sinful elect could be made holy.

I then suggested that HE hides the truth from these evil ones so they act out their sinfulness in a natural way so HIS sinful elect will be able to see their error and allow the judgment, stop their rebellion and become holy, that is committed to HIM and HIS righteousness.

Except for the bit that the sinful elect fell into sin by their rebellion to the judgment, this is all pretty ordinary stuff for the kinds of questions you like to ask, eh?

[ttruscott]

^ I can't make heads or tails of the above post, other than the last bit about "willingness to do evil".... no I don't even know where you are going with that.

Your entire post looks like airy language with no meaning to me. Maybe because I am not versed in your theology and am not capable of reading it properly. Care to break it down in terms the layperson can understand?

What does it have to do with my point about God apparently choosing a confusing and less than perfect means of communication through holy books and prophets instead of just making us know what he wants?

Jolly, perhaps you need to 'think with your heart'.


When I was a Christian, that is what we said when we wanted people to believe us. How can anyone refute that claim, much less understand it? I sure don't miss the airy language myself.

I agree. I've never used it nor do I think it means anything...

Personally I feel that the above is just an insult to anyone that doesn't share his beliefs. (eternally evil folk - living their lives of idolatry and sin - they, the tares - they, the sinful elect - living with the reprobate - their willingness to be evil).
... You will know them by their fruit.

Pretty ordinary Christian doctrine, right? Kept me out of the Church for many years searching the world. Then I found a rationale that made sense of how those eternally evil ones self created their state by their free will etc etc...

[Jolly_Penguin]

I suggested HIS message is not for all people so HE hides HIMself from some. You suggested that made HIM sadistic. I answered that HE is loving but stymied in fulfilling HIS love by the heavenly marriage (you do know that heaven is the marriage of the Church with His Son?) by the presence of the evil ones which some of HIS elect (the ones HE wants to marry) idolize over HIS plans to condemn them...you know, on the judgment day. They stand against the judgment so if it was executed, they too would be burnt in that terrible fire which HE promised them would never happen (called the promise of election...with me so far?) which necessitated the postponement of the judgment until the sinful elect could be made holy.

I then suggested that HE hides the truth from these evil ones so they act out their sinfulness in a natural way so HIS sinful elect will be able to see their error and allow the judgment, stop their rebellion and become holy, that is committed to HIM and HIS righteousness.

Except for the bit that the sinful elect fell into sin by their rebellion to the judgment, this is all pretty ordinary stuff for the kinds of questions you like to ask, eh?

Thank you for the more thorough explanation. I'm still not sure I perfectly understand you, but I think I get the gist of what you are saying.

He hides himself from some people so they will act sinful, according to their nature, so he can use them as an example for those he does point himself out to? Is that correct according to what you are saying? So these sinful who he hides himself from are there as a cautionary tale basically? Does he then go on and punish these people he hid himself from for not following him even though they didn't know he was there, and maybe even thought they were following him, but got him wrong? That perplexes me.

And you then said that the sinful fell into sin by their rebellion to the judgment.... but are these not the people he is hiding himself from, so they don't know there is anything to rebel against? Or did they rebel in a former life or before their souls were human and they don't remember the rebellion now?

And I still don't see how this addressed the OP. Even the non-sinful, for whom these sinful are being used as a cuationary tale... why do these people get prophets, holy books, and these cautionary people, instead of God just telling them who he is and what he wants, etc?

My OP was asking the question why all the indirect, imperfect communication resulting in all the confusion and conflict we see in religion(s) today, and why doesn't God simply make us all clearly understand whatever he wants us to know? You are saying he intends all the conflict and confusion as a way to demonstrate something to his true elect (who we have no way of knowing who that is, since they all sincerely think its them)?