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]

So, then he didn't intend the arrogant to understand.

I didn’t say that. I merely gave one possibility that would demonstrate how a lack of clarify in a message doesn’t automatically mean a lack of omnipotence or omniscience, which is what you suggested.

All those hindus, jews, muslims, atheists, etc, are arrogant and that's why they fail to believe what you do? Does somebody not believing what you do mean that they are deficient in character?

I’ve already said that we will be held responsible for the amount of truth committed to us and that this meant that those who are invincibly ignorant - ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it – will not be judged according to that Christian message. Instead, they’ll be judged according to their conscience, which is made in God’s Image and Likeness, and which helps us discern good and evil.

I don't see a middle of possibilities.

I just gave you one – that the lack of clarity is deliberate, which has nothing to do with omnipotence or omniscience or a lack of either.

I said it excludes an omnipotent God who intends to be clearly understood by all of us.

Then we would seem to agree in part. Of course, the Christian would say that there was initially one Church and doctrine was clearly defined by her and then people simply wished to follow their own – heretics – and that any lack of clarity now isn’t God’s responsibility.

The holy books are especially troubling because it is easy to see that they lead people or justify people in doing some pretty horrific things. It isn't hard to read hate into them, and if they come from an all powerful being, that must also be intentional.

The Christian faith is summed up with Love God and your neighbor as yourself. It’s pretty hard to misinterpret that and if one does then s/he is deliberately choosing to be obtuse and I’m not sure we can fault God w/ someone else’s intentional, obdurate, rebellion.

[JLB32168]

Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!

I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Of course, it has little to do with the point that the Christian message of salvation is through Christ and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting is commonly understood by all – even atheists.
BTW, if an atheist is saved, it is still through Christ who can have mercy on whomever he wishes – even an atheist, who might be surprised to discover that God is real and saved him/her in spite of his/her atheism.

This is a strange claim. Do you believe atheists can go to heaven like the Pope, or is there a contradiction?

If an atheist is ignorant of the Christian through no fault of his/her own or has received a distorted version of the Christian message, then who am I to say that God will deny him salvation? Yes, I believe it’s possible.

How is the bold not circular logic?

I’m not sure what you mean here since there seems to be a disconnect. You asked me Christian theology – in particular Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. I’ve not compelled you to believe it. I’ve merely explained it, that is, that all religions contain truth in greater or lesser amounts but Christianity contains the fullness of truth.
You’re free to reject that claim if you wish since I can’t conclusively prove it’s the truth.

I'll continue to notice that theological perspectives vary, therefore to refer to some 'fullness of truth' or 'TRUTH' seems illogical.

Why – because it can’t be proven? The ancients thought the stars were in the heavens and they were right. They just thought that the stars were suspended by ropes. We now have greater truth in that we know they’re in space and are moving apart faster and faster as entropy approaches. That’s the difference between having truth and having more (or the fullness) of it.
Again, I’m not telling you that you have to be an Orthodox Christian so you can chuck whatever I have to say.

Referring to 'my fullness of truth' or 'my TRUTH' seems more appropriate.

Since I’m not demanding you agree with me I’m going to stick with the parlance I’ve used thus far.

Things written about your god concept have discrepancies because your god concept was created by men, much like the Constitution.

You’re free to believe that, Dude.

The Bible has discrepancies. Therefore, the Bible, like every other book in existence was written by men.

I don’t disagree that it was written by men. I just think that they were inspired by God to write it. No, I don’t think that it is inerrant. I think there are negligible discrepancies. No, I don’t think that’s important.

[Clownboat]

Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!

I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Of course, it has little to do with the point that the Christian message of salvation is through Christ and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting is commonly understood by all – even atheists.
BTW, if an atheist is saved, it is still through Christ who can have mercy on whomever he wishes – even an atheist, who might be surprised to discover that God is real and saved him/her in spite of his/her atheism.

You don't disagree, yet you said this:
The common belief is that salvation is through Christ and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting. There simply isn’t the difference that you allege.

Salvation is through Christ you say, and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting. Accept when there is not consequences like when Jesus saves an atheist.

I would consider that if there is consequences for accepting or rejecting the resurrection of Christ, accept for when there isn't (like Jesus forgiving an atheists) to be a very big difference like I claimed.

This is a strange claim. Do you believe atheists can go to heaven like the Pope, or is there a contradiction?

If an atheist is ignorant of the Christian through no fault of his/her own or has received a distorted version of the Christian message, then who am I to say that God will deny him salvation? Yes, I believe it’s possible.

Who are you to say that god will deny salvation you ask?
Since you asked, you seem to be a person that supersedes the Pope, because the Pope says they need to be good people. Nothing about how they must have received a distorted message and the like.

So, is heaven obtained through believing that Christ died and rose again, or by doing good?
You and the Pope don't seem to disagree that atheists will be going to heaven (many Christians will not agree with you of course), but there seems to be a bid discrepancy on the how. This puts doubt on your claim that there are consequences for accepting or rejecting.

How is the bold not circular logic?

I’m not sure what you mean here since there seems to be a disconnect.

Simple. You said: "Christianity containing the fullness of truth according to Christian theology."
Reads like, Christianity contains truth according to Christian study. This would be circular reasoning.

You asked me Christian theology – in particular Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. I’ve not compelled you to believe it. I’ve merely explained it, that is, that all religions contain truth in greater or lesser amounts but Christianity contains the fullness of truth. You’re free to reject that claim if you wish since I can’t conclusively prove it’s the truth.

Great, consider it rejected for it being an empty claim as of now.

I'll continue to notice that theological perspectives vary, therefore to refer to some 'fullness of truth' or 'TRUTH' seems illogical.

Why – because it can’t be proven?

No, because competing god concepts can't all be true. Therefore to assume that there is some 'fullness of truth' is to assume to much.

Since I’m not demanding you agree with me I’m going to stick with the parlance I’ve used thus far.

That is fair, I will continue to reject that religions contain some fullness of truth at this time.

Things written about your god concept have discrepancies because your god concept was created by men, much like the Constitution.

You’re free to believe that, Dude.

I know I am.
Do you yourself see the correlation or not?

The Bible has discrepancies. Therefore, the Bible, like every other book in existence was written by men.

I don’t disagree that it was written by men. I just think that they were inspired by God to write it. No, I don’t think that it is inerrant. I think there are negligible discrepancies. No, I don’t think that’s important.

Do I have this right?
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 and others that are telling us we just need to be good people.

- Accept that an innocent man was tortured and died for your sins so you can go to heaven.
- Accept that you must be good to go to heaven.

How is this not a discrepancy? You do acknowledge that these are actual beliefs that are a part of your religion (as a whole, not just orthodoxy) right?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I merely gave one possibility that would demonstrate how a lack of clarify in a message doesn’t automatically mean a lack of omnipotence or omniscience, which is what you suggested.

No. I didn't. Later in your post it seems you can finally see that. And it now seems that you agree with my OP after all.

The Christian faith is summed up with Love God and your neighbor as yourself. It’s pretty hard to misinterpret that and if one does then s/he is deliberately choosing to be obtuse and I’m not sure we can fault God w/ someone else’s intentional, obdurate, rebellion.

Your view of the Christian faith may be summed up that way. But the bible certainly is not. It is easily interpretable as hateful and intolerant, and many have interpreted it that way, and many still do. Is it your claim that they are intentionally misinterpreting it and that they actually know what they say of it is wrong?

If an atheist is ignorant of the Christian through no fault of his/her own or has received a distorted version of the Christian message, then who am I to say that God will deny him salvation? Yes, I believe it’s possible.

What if the atheist knows very well your view of what Christian views are, and simply rejects them as make believe? What if they were even an ex-pastor or something like that who has since come to see the religion as a fiction? As you said before, most of us know the basic claims of Christianity (though we also know it changes from sect to sect). That doesn't mean we believe any of it though, just as you don't believe the claims from Muslims and say the shahada etc.

Salvation is through Christ you say, and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting. Accept when there is not consequences like when Jesus saves an atheist.

To be fair, I would argue that an atheist can't reject Christ or accept Christ, since an atheist sees no Christ to reject or accept. I would ask the Christians: Is it possible for an atheist to blaspheme. I don't see how it could be.

[JLB32168]

Salvation is through Christ you say, and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting. [Except] when there is not consequences like when Jesus saves an atheist.

As I said, Eastern Orthodox belief is that if someone has not heard the full Gospel message then that person will not be judged according to it. Who’s to say that an atheist has received the message? If he has heard a Puritan version of it, then it’s a distorted version of it. God can decide for Himself if the atheist has heard the full truth and who am I to say that God will or won’t save him/her – his/her atheism notwithstanding.

Since you asked, you seem to be a person that supersedes the Pope, because the Pope says they need to be good people. Nothing about how they must have received a distorted message and the like.

Why should I defer to the Pope since I’m not Roman Catholic? Having said that, I don’t disagree with him that an atheist might go to heaven. That’s God’s purview – not mine.

So, is heaven obtained through believing that Christ died and rose again, or by doing good?

It’s obtained by Christ since He is God. As I said, God can have mercy on whomever He wishes.

This puts doubt on your claim that there are consequences for accepting or rejecting.

There are consequences for accepting or rejecting a message that has been delivered and delivered correctly. If that message never made it or a distorted version of it was delivered then Christ may decide to have mercy.
How is that appreciably different from what the Pope has said – not that I’m required to defer to him?

Reads like, Christianity contains truth according to Christian study. This would be circular reasoning.

I’m not trying to prove Christianity contains the fullness of truth. You don’t have to believe it. I’m merely explaining Christian theology as it pertains to the salvation of people outside Christianity.

Great, consider it rejected for it being an empty claim as of now.

Okay – so you simply wish to be argumentative for the sake of it. I can take it.

No, because competing god concepts can't all be true.

And we ultimately go to the safe haven. “I can’t really rebut the argument that your theology says that even ‘infidels’ might be saved so I’ll just cut to the chase and say, ‘Oh yeah – well your deity doesn’t even exist’.�
It’s like the kid who says he can beat everyone at basketball, but begins to lose and he says, “I’m taking my ball home – Ha! You don’t get to win!�

That is fair, I will continue to reject that religions contain some fullness of truth at this time.

Be my guest. These debates with most atheists usually end up with that argument once they can’t rebut a theological argument for which they previously allowed that a hypothetical deity existed – if only for the purpose of debating a theological question.

Do you yourself see the correlation or not?

What is the correlation. Do enlighten me.

Do I have this right?

Do you have the right to what? Dude, as far as religion goes – you’ve the right to do whatever you’d like. Ultimately you’re going to say the deity doesn’t exist.

You believe a perfect god inspired the writing of a book with discrepancies.

There are several things you’re not considering: 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.

Not just minor ones either, ones where we have some followers . . .

What major discrepancies are there in the Bible and how are those related to “accepting Jesus� – whatever that means?

Accept that an innocent man was tortured and died for your sins so you can go to heaven.

How is this a “major discrepancy� in the Bible?

[JLB32168]

Your view of the Christian faith may be summed up that way. But the bible certainly is not. It is easily interpretable as hateful and intolerant, and many have interpreted it that way, and many still do.

Do please give such examples and how it relates to A)The Christian Faith as expounded upon in the NT and B)The Christian theological opinion that the OT is the incomplete, imperfect revelation of God to serve as tutor until the full revelation of Christ was revealed?

What if the atheist knows very well your view of what Christian views are, and simply rejects them as make believe?

Then it’s God’s call – not mine.

That doesn't mean we believe any of it though, just as you don't believe the claims from Muslims and say the shahada etc.

Dude, you’re free to believe or disbelieve whatever you want. You asked me theological questions and I gave you theological answers. If you want to pull the “Oh Yeah – well I don’t even believe your deity exists and you can’t prove he does so all your theology is bunk� argument then who am I to stop you? That seems to be the automatic go-to when an atheist starts losing a debate.

I would ask the Christians: Is it possible for an atheist to blaspheme. I don't see how it could be.

How do you define blasphemy?

[Jolly_Penguin]

Do please give such examples and how it relates to A)The Christian Faith as expounded upon in the NT and B)The Christian theological opinion that the OT is the incomplete, imperfect revelation of God to serve as tutor until the full revelation of Christ was revealed?

That is a far cry from what I said. I said the bible can be and has been interpreted in such a way to encourage hatred and violence. It has even been used to "justify" atrocity. And given what it says, it isn't hard to see why or how.

You may have a particular view of it that you claim to be the only "real" Christian view, but it isn't even close to the only view of people who follow the book in earnest and claim Jesus as their saviour and call themselves Christians.

If you want to pull the “Oh Yeah – well I don’t even believe your deity exists and you can’t prove he does so all your theology is bunk� argument then who am I to stop you?

Who said you were going to stop me? And who said I said that? This is the second odd strawman attack you have launched my way. My point was that hearing "God's Message" and believing it are two very very different things. And judging somebody based on following said "God's message" is going to be a very different thing depending on whether the person believes it is actually a divine command or not.

That seems to be the automatic go-to when an atheist starts losing a debate.

You questioned something I said thinking I said something else, called it irrational and not based on logic. I corrected you a few times. It took some time for you to realize what I had actually said, and then you realized you agreed with me all along. That is neither a debate nor me losing anything.

How do you define blasphemy?

I would define blasphemy however the believers define it, hence my question to believers. It is awfully hard to address something when the definition of it seems to change from believer to believer, and often even from day to day within one given believer, so I can only do my best.

[Clownboat]

Salvation is through Christ you say, and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting. [Except] when there is not consequences like when Jesus saves an atheist.

As I said, Eastern Orthodox belief is that if someone has not heard the full Gospel message then that person will not be judged according to it. Who’s to say that an atheist has received the message? If he has heard a Puritan version of it, then it’s a distorted version of it. God can decide for Himself if the atheist has heard the full truth and who am I to say that God will or won’t save him/her – his/her atheism notwithstanding.

Can I assume you now retract this claim then:
"There simply isn’t the difference that you allege."
The fact of the matter is that your Eastern Orthodox beliefs do have quite a difference when compared to other denominations. And currently we are only talking about atheists going to heaven. I'm sure we could evidence many other differences, and I cannot simply just pretend that an atheist going to heaven or not (plus the hows) is a small thing.

Since you asked, you seem to be a person that supersedes the Pope, because the Pope says they need to be good people. Nothing about how they must have received a distorted message and the like.

Why should I defer to the Pope since I’m not Roman Catholic? Having said that, I don’t disagree with him that an atheist might go to heaven. That’s God’s purview – not mine.

You shouldn't, but thanks again for referencing yet another denominational difference. One denom will claim the Pope speaks for god while others disregard the Pope. Again, not something I would call a small thing.

So, is heaven obtained through believing that Christ died and rose again, or by doing good?

It’s obtained by Christ since He is God. As I said, God can have mercy on whomever He wishes.

Your dodging the question. I asked if a person must believe that Christ died and rose again. Are you afraid of another not so small discrepancy being brought to light. Is it a small thing that some Christians say "you must accept Jesus as your savior and believe that he died and rose again", while we have others saying you need to be good person, and yet more that say you need to be good but also deceived about the message of Christ that you heard.
These are differing claims about getting into a heaven. To call this a 'small thing' is to abuse the words.

This puts doubt on your claim that there are consequences for accepting or rejecting.

There are consequences for accepting or rejecting a message that has been delivered and delivered correctly. If that message never made it or a distorted version of it was delivered then Christ may decide to have mercy.
How is that appreciably different from what the Pope has said – not that I’m required to defer to him?

It's different because the Pope seems to allude to being a good person. You are inventing this concept of 'they also must have heard about some distorted version'. Not if they just need to be good. Another difference about atheists getting to heaven, and this doesn't even touch on what a Pentecostal would say.

Reads like, Christianity contains truth according to Christian study. This would be circular reasoning.

I’m not trying to prove Christianity contains the fullness of truth. You don’t have to believe it. I’m merely explaining Christian theology as it pertains to the salvation of people outside Christianity.

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

Great, consider it rejected for it being an empty claim as of now.

Okay – so you simply wish to be argumentative for the sake of it. I can take it.

No silly, it is an empty claim and thus should be rejected. You're not projecting this argumentative attitude by chance are you?

No, because competing god concepts can't all be true.

And we ultimately go to the safe haven. “I can’t really rebut the argument that your theology says that even ‘infidels’ might be saved so I’ll just cut to the chase and say, ‘Oh yeah – well your deity doesn’t even exist’.�
It’s like the kid who says he can beat everyone at basketball, but begins to lose and he says, “I’m taking my ball home – Ha! You don’t get to win!�

There is no award for the amount you can be wrong all in one post by the way.
What I'm saying is really, really simple. 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?
This is what is meant by "other competing god concepts can't all be true".

That is fair, I will continue to reject that religions contain some fullness of truth at this time.

Be my guest. These debates with most atheists usually end up with that argument once they can’t rebut a theological argument for which they previously allowed that a hypothetical deity existed – if only for the purpose of debating a theological question.

You're not still striving for that 'wrongness award' now are you. You see, I'm not an atheists. I'll join you anyways though.... "Those darn atheists".

Do you yourself see the correlation or not?

What is the correlation. Do enlighten me.

No need, I trust it was not lost on the readers.

Do I have this right?

Do you have the right to what? Dude, as far as religion goes – you’ve the right to do whatever you’d like. Ultimately you’re going to say the deity doesn’t exist.

The part I asked you that you left out of your reply. Once again:
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 and others that are telling us we just need to be good people.

- Accept that an innocent man was tortured and died for your sins so you can go to heaven.
- Accept that you must be good to go to heaven.

How is this not a discrepancy?

You believe a perfect god inspired the writing of a book with discrepancies.

There are several things you’re not considering: 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.

Can you evidence either of these claims? I ask because if you wanted to believe, you would be forced to invent these ideas in order to maintain room for your belief. From the outside it seems like a last ditch effort to keep beliefs from not making sence.

Not just minor ones either, ones where we have some followers . . .

What major discrepancies are there in the Bible and how are those related to “accepting Jesus� – whatever that means?

That would require posts of their own. For now, we can just focus on the differing denominational opinions about atheist going to heaven and how.

Accept that an innocent man was tortured and died for your sins so you can go to heaven.

How is this a “major discrepancy� in the Bible?

Compare that claim to be a good person and go to heaven.
Again, I trust the readers see the discrepancy.

[JLB32168]

I said the bible can be and has been interpreted in such a way to encourage hatred and violence. It has even been used to "justify" atrocity. And given what it says, it isn't hard to see why or how.

Okay - I suppose that on some level that is germane to the topic of the thread which asserts that Holy Books are evidence that the deities described in them don’t exist. I just don’t see how.

You may have a particular view of it that you claim to be the only "real" Christian view, but it isn't even close to the only view of people who follow the book in earnest and claim Jesus as their saviour and call themselves Christians.

I realize there are other views but I don’t think they’re right. I can’t prove that but I don’t have to since I’m not asserting they’re positively the truth. It’s merely a faith statement.
And of course I’m not sure how it’s related to the topic of the thread.

Who said you were going to stop me? And who said I said that?

Sorry - I misread your statement. I apologize for the error.

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 define blasphemy however the believers define it, hence my question to believers. It is awfully hard to address something when the definition of it seems to change from believer to believer, and often even from day to day within one given believer, so I can only do my best.

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.

[ttruscott]

But an all powerful being would have no need to rely on such limited means so prone to error and misunderstanding. If he has infinite power he would have no need to depend on a message being relayed from person to person or to even rely on human language. He could simply make us all know. That we don't means that he didn't, and that he didn't means that he didn't intend to.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

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?