How can we trust the Bible if it's not inerrant?

[otseng]

From the On the Bible being inerrant thread:

How can you trust something that's written about god that contradictory, contains errors and just plain wrong at times? Is there a logical way to do so, or do you just want it to be god's word so much that you overlook these things like happens so often through the history of christianity?

The Bible can still be God's word, inspired, authoritative, and trustworthy without the need to believe in inerrancy.

For debate:
How can the Bible be considered authoritative and inspired without the need to believe in the doctrine of inerrancy?

While debating, do not simply state verses to say the Bible is inspired or trustworthy.

----------

Thread Milestones

• Case study of Hezekiah
• Start discussing global flood / Flood Model summary
• Recap arguments of authority of the Bible
• Start discussing Tower of Babel / Tower of Babel summary
• Start discussing archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet / End of discussion on archaeology
• Start discussing cosmology / Concluding cosmology
• Start discussing Shroud of Turin / Summary top TS imaging theories / Created DefendingChristianity.com and TS subforums / Shroud of Turin summary
• Start discussing Bible and resurrection
• Start discussing the Messiahship of Jesus / Messiahship of Jesus wrap up
• Start discussing Old Testament ethics
• Summary argument of atheism and morality / God basis for objective morality
• Start discussing genocide / Genocide summary argument
• Start discussing slavery / Slavery summary argument
• Start discussing homosexuality / Homosexuality summary argument
• Old Testament ethics summary argument
• Start discussing philosophy / Summary argument on philosophy
• Start discussing creation of universe / Summary argument universe was created

[William]

[Replying to otseng in post #3418]

The Bible is meant to learn about God, how to have a relationship with God, how to live, etc. It is the absolute standard for Christian doctrine and life. It is how we learn what God is like and how to love God. It is our comfort, hope and inspiration for life.

Yes. Only it isn't those things and cannot provide those things for real. It only points to those things, but is not in and of itself, those things.
Your response to Post #3410, underlines the truth of my observation above.

What is the justification to trust the Bible? That is the purpose of this massive thread.

I will trust in building my relationship with The Father. That is the purpose of this massive creation. (The Universe and my place within it and how that relates to The Father et al)
Unnecessary to that is.

Case studies.
Belief in the story of a global flood.
Arguments of authority of the Bible.
Belief in the story of a Tower of Babel.
Archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet.
Cosmology / Concluding cosmology.
Articles such as the Shroud of Turin.
Defending Christianity.
Discussing Bible and Resurrection.
Discussing the Messiahship of Jesus.
Old or New Testament ethics.

The Bible (among many other things) are signposts to that destination, not the destination itself.

Even the existence of this thread (massive or otherwise) cannot - in Truth - Hope for the result of any individual personality connecting with The Father and building a relationship with that Being.

Christianity (and its various Bibles and interpretations of those) cannot provide that for anyone. It can only (at best) be a device pointing to that provision - where to go, but more often than not (historically speaking and relative to modern times) it points only to itself/variations of itself.

That is why That Father pointed out that

IF:
There is a mind behind creation
THEN:
We ought be able to communicate with it, using whatever physical devices we can create in order to do so.

The Father is not saying these things are inherently unhelpful, but they are there as a sign to a destination, not the destination itself. The "Destination" is for the personality to enter into a relationship with The Father.
The Father is the mind behind creation, and since The Father exists, can be communicated through use of things designed for that purpose.

Does such device include the Bible? Of course! (But not as a substitute.)

I pointed out that our own minds are such devices and since we (human personalities) appear to have such device, we should use such device to connect with The uncaused mind "behind" creation.

The Father then points out the meaning of a symbol (Hebrew) which points to a device (sword) but how can a sword be used to help the individual? Perhaps more information on this can be found in the Bible?

The Father then states that in order to begin answering the question "How can we trust the Bible?" we first have to go to the source of that which might hold the attitude that "it would be rude not to" - those who make claims about the Bible - claims such as, that it is "the word of God" and "therein, there is Life." (Common claims of some of Christianity's variations.)

That is why I replied to The Father that the Bible contains (overall) the theme of the offer to individuals re being in a relationship with the Creator-Mind… re information which can cut through the costume of personality which otherwise prevents said personality from seeking or wanting connection with The Father.

The Father reminded me of something I had recently wrote to do with trying to understand how one's subconscious "sees" one's human personality - perhaps in the same way we see our shadows and that a suitable analogy re that example, goes much deeper as the "shadows" a human personality has to deal with are contained within the vastness of that internal "space"...such perspective is deep/massive and is directly related to said individual human personalities necessary processes re connecting with and growing a relationship with The Father.

The mysterious realms of the subconscious are directly related to the Biblical phrase "The Kingdom of God is within." and are devices unto themselves, pointing to where The Father can be found and how that then relates to the external world which is without (surrounding) what is within.






Post #3410 (Shared communication between The Father and an individual human personality.)

[otseng]

Post #3410 (Shared communication between The Father and an individual human personality.)

We've talked about this before. Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity. But on this forum, this is not allowed as evidence.

[otseng]

"I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the Lord do all these things."
(Isaiah 45:7)

The passage is in the context that God is most powerful and there is no other god like Him.

[Isa 45:5-22 KJV] 5 I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else, [there is] no God beside me: I girded thee, though thou hast not known me: 6 That they may know from the rising of the sun, and from the west, that [there is] none beside me. I [am] the LORD, and [there is] none else. 7 I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things]. 8 Drop down, ye heavens, from above, and let the skies pour down righteousness: let the earth open, and let them bring forth salvation, and let righteousness spring up together; I the LORD have created it. 9 Woe unto him that striveth with his Maker! [Let] the potsherd [strive] with the potsherds of the earth. Shall the clay say to him that fashioneth it, What makest thou? or thy work, He hath no hands? 10 Woe unto him that saith unto [his] father, What begettest thou? or to the woman, What hast thou brought forth? 11 Thus saith the LORD, the Holy One of Israel, and his Maker, Ask me of things to come concerning my sons, and concerning the work of my hands command ye me. 12 I have made the earth, and created man upon it: I, [even] my hands, have stretched out the heavens, and all their host have I commanded. 13 I have raised him up in righteousness, and I will direct all his ways: he shall build my city, and he shall let go my captives, not for price nor reward, saith the LORD of hosts. 14 Thus saith the LORD, The labour of Egypt, and merchandise of Ethiopia and of the Sabeans, men of stature, shall come over unto thee, and they shall be thine: they shall come after thee; in chains they shall come over, and they shall fall down unto thee, they shall make supplication unto thee, [saying], Surely God [is] in thee; and [there is] none else, [there is] no God. 15 Verily thou [art] a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour. 16 They shall be ashamed, and also confounded, all of them: they shall go to confusion together [that are] makers of idols. 17 [But] Israel shall be saved in the LORD with an everlasting salvation: ye shall not be ashamed nor confounded world without end. 18 For thus saith the LORD that created the heavens; God himself that formed the earth and made it; he hath established it, he created it not in vain, he formed it to be inhabited: I [am] the LORD; and [there is] none else. 19 I have not spoken in secret, in a dark place of the earth: I said not unto the seed of Jacob, Seek ye me in vain: I the LORD speak righteousness, I declare things that are right. 20 Assemble yourselves and come; draw near together, ye [that are] escaped of the nations: they have no knowledge that set up the wood of their graven image, and pray unto a god [that] cannot save. 21 Tell ye, and bring [them] near; yea, let them take counsel together: who hath declared this from ancient time? [who] hath told it from that time? [have] not I the LORD? and [there is] no God else beside me; a just God and a Saviour; [there is] none beside me. 22 Look unto me, and be ye saved, all the ends of the earth: for I [am] God, and [there is] none else.

The sovereignty of God is also displayed in using Cyrus, a Persian king, to do God's will as explained in verses 1-4.

[Isa 45:1-4 KJV] 1 Thus saith the LORD to his anointed, to Cyrus, whose right hand I have holden, to subdue nations before him; and I will loose the loins of kings, to open before him the two leaved gates; and the gates shall not be shut; 2 I will go before thee, and make the crooked places straight: I will break in pieces the gates of brass, and cut in sunder the bars of iron: 3 And I will give thee the treasures of darkness, and hidden riches of secret places, that thou mayest know that I, the LORD, which call [thee] by thy name, [am] the God of Israel. 4 For Jacob my servant's sake, and Israel mine elect, I have even called thee by thy name: I have surnamed thee, though thou hast not known me.

So, in verse 7, what does it mean God creates evil?

If we take evil to be moral evil, God does not necessarily directly create moral evil. Evil is a by-product free will. Without volition, there is no concept of moral evil. With volition, there is the capability of doing what one ought to do, which can be contrary to what one actually does.

How can we reconcile it at once with His perfect goodness and unbounded power? On our hypothesis we reconcile it with His power by the plain and obvious argument that even Omnipotence cannot at once create freewill and not create it; that, when once He has created it, even the Almighty cannot interfere with it without destroying it.

Biblical Illustrator

So, God would be the secondary causation of evil since God created free will.

However, free will only applies to people, what about natural disasters such as earthquakes, hurricanes, etc.? Yes, it could be possible God is directly causing such things, but it doesn't necessarily have to be. As skeptics like to state, we have modern science to explain weather and geological phenomena. So, God would be secondary causation of natural disasters as well, at least for the vast majority of cases. Even in legal documents they allow for "acts of God".

But the passage does not have to mean moral evil. In Isa 45:7, the word "evil" is the Hebrew word "ra" which has multiple meanings:

evil (442x), wickedness (59x), wicked (25x), mischief (21x), hurt (20x), bad (13x), trouble (10x), sore (9x), affliction (6x), ill (5x), adversity (4x), ill favoured (3x), harm (3x), naught (3x), noisome (2x), grievous (2x), sad (2x), miscellaneous (34x).

https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... v/wlc/0-1/

"Ra" also means bad things that happen, such as disasters, calamities, and disappointments.

It is emblematically true also that calamity, ignorance, disappointment, and want of success are ordered by him; and not less true that all the moral darkness, or evil, that prevails on earth, is under the direction and ordering of his Providence. There is no reason to think, however, that the words ‘darkness’ and ‘evil’ are to be understood as referring to moral darkness; that is, sin.

Barnes' Notes on the Bible

Many translations of this verse do not use the word evil and modern translations render it calamity or disaster.

(ESV)
I form light and create darkness, I make well-being and create calamity, I am the LORD, who does all these things.

(HCSB)
I form light and create darkness, I make success and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

(NASB)
The One forming light and creating darkness, Causing well-being and creating disaster; I am the LORD who does all these things.

(NET)
I am the one who forms light and creates darkness; the one who brings about peace and creates calamity. I am the Lord, who accomplishes all these things.

(NIV)
I form the light and create darkness, I bring prosperity and create disaster; I, the LORD, do all these things.

(ULT)
I form the light and create darkness; I bring peace and create disaster; I am Yahweh, who does all these things.

Guzik says the point of the passage is there is not a dual reality of good and evil, but only one reality of God's sovereignty.

i. Isaiah’s point is that there are not two gods or forces in heaven, one good and one bad, as in a dualistic “yin and yang” sense. “Cyrus was a Persian, and Persian had a dualistic concept of God and th world. Their good god they called Ahura-mazda and the evil god Angra-mainya. The former had created the light, the second the darkness.” (Bultema)

ii. But God has no opposite. Satan is not and has never been God’s opposite. There is one God. He is not the author of evil; evil is never “original,” but always a perversion of an existing good. Yet God is the allower of evil, and He uses it to accomplish His eternal purpose of bringing together all things in Jesus (Eph 3:8-11 and Eph 1:9-10). If God could further His eternal purpose by allowing His Son to die a wicked, unjust death on a cross, then He knows how to use what He allows for His eternal purpose.

iii. “Undoubtedly the Lord is no representative of evil as such, but He does make use of evil so that it may bring forth good.” (Calvin, cited in Butlema)

iv. When God does great, miraculous things, it is easy to believe that He is in control. When times are hard and the trials heavy, we need to believe it all the more.

Guzik's Commentary on the Bible

Other commentaries affirm this:

Zoroastrianism — the Magian religion — held God to be one and omnipotent, but he was derived from the light principle. The God Jehovah here assumes priority to and creatorship of light. He claims also to be no rival with Ahriman, the evil deity of the East. God himself rejects dualism absolutely. He is the one sole sovereign. “Evil,” as it exists in the world, is the result, not of God’s direct creation, but of actualized possibility likely to occur in beings free to choose the right or the wrong way; such freedom as is essential to moral responsibility. Jehovah lays down his eternal protest against the old Zend or Persian religion.

Whedon's Commentary on the Bible

Light is the emblem of good; darkness the emblem of evil According to the opinion of the Persians, these were eternal and independent principles; a system which afforded no hope of deliverance. But here our God declares that both are His, either by formation or permission; both are under His control, and at His disposal.

Preacher's Complete Homiletical Commentary

There are not two gods, but only one living and true God.

Spurgeon's Verse Expositions of the Bible

Calvin says the passage is referring to the "evil" of punishment, not the evil of guilt.

Fanatics torture this word evil, as if God were the author of evil, that is, of sin; but it is very obvious how ridiculously they abuse this passage of the Prophet. This is sufficiently explained by the contrast, the parts of which must agree with each other; for he contrasts “peace” with “evil,” that is, with afflictions, wars, and other adverse occurrences. If he contrasted “righteousness” with “evil,” there would be some plausibility in their reasonings, but this is a manifest contrast of things that are opposite to each other. Consequently, we ought not to reject the ordinary distinction, that God is the author of the “evil” of punishment, but not of the “evil” of guilt.

But the Sophists are wrong in their exposition; for, while they acknowledge that famine, barrenness, war, pestilence, and other scourges, come from God, they deny that God is the author of calamities, when they befall us through the agency of men. This is false and altogether contrary to the present doctrine; for the Lord raises up wicked men to chastise us by their hand, as is evident from various passages of Scripture. (1Kin 11:14.) The Lord does not indeed inspire them with malice, but he uses it for the purpose of chastising us, and exercises the office of a judge, in the same manner as he made use of the malice of Pharaoh and others, in order to punish his people. (Exod 1:11 and 2:23.) We ought therefore to hold this doctrine, that God alone is the author of all events; that is, that adverse and prosperous events are sent by him, even though he makes use of the agency of men, that none may attribute it to fortune, or to any other cause.

Calvin's Commentary on the Bible

[alexxcJRO]

Then why did you fail to answer my question? - "Can you give any example of any non-moral agent being judged for a crime?"

But we are talking of Yahweh not humans.
Western justice system for example usually does not punish non-moral agents if that is what you are asking.
Humans behave better, more logically then Yahweh in the Bible. Yahweh character is a joke.

You have not justified making any objective moral judgment, so who cares really what your subjective moral opinion is about God?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic, acurracy and relevancy.
It is truth that Yahweh punished in those examples the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.
This is a fact.
The omni-perfect being committed a serious illogical fact. QED.

Obesity and factory farming are separate issues. Is it morally acceptable for a thin person to eat a chicken that is raised in a country farm?

Veganism as a way of eating is not a healthy for Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

Homo Sapiens Sapiens evolved as an omnivore.

Some meat consumption is necessary. QED.

"While several studies have shown that a vegan diet (VD) decreases the risk of cardiometabolic diseases, such as cardiovascular disease, type 2 diabetes mellitus, obesity, and non-alcoholic fatty liver disease, veganism has been associated with adverse health outcomes, namely, nervous, skeletal, and immune system impairments, hematological disorders, as well as mental health problems due to the potential for micro and macronutrient deficits."
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl ... e%20system

Is it possible for God to make a square a circle?
Is God not omnipotent since he cannot do any wrong?
Is God not omnipotent since there is no darkness in him?

Q: Since when is my problem sir that the concept is illogical?

Bible says so.

Many Christians argue Yahweh is omnipotent in the sense that can do anything that is logically possible and anything that does not contradict his omni-perfect<-omni-benevolent side.

Even if Yahweh's omnipotence is viewed in this sense my point still stands.

One does not need omnipotence(classic senses) to not punish the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; punishing some for the misdeeds of others, asking for genocides, being homophobic.

You are implying how God should act by bringing up dictators and saying God should not act like them.
Now, if you don't like how God acts, then it is merely your opinion. There is no moral objectivity that God has done anything evil. It is on the level of how people don't like singing hymns in church or a church must have coffee bars.

Stop the straw-man. I am not saying how Yahweh should act.
I am saying Yahweh is portrait like the following malevolent characters: Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero, Genghis Khan, Darth Sidious, Frieza.

Q: Why trust and worship, adore such a being?

I do not dispute God is omnibenevolent.

According to the Bible Yahweh had favorites: the Israelites.
Yahweh helped the Israelites at the expense of others(Amalek, Egyptians and so on).
Therefore Yahweh cannot be equally all loving.
A god which does not love all equally cannot be perfect therefore cannot be omnibenevolent->omni-perfect for I can imagine a being more perfect then that: a god that not only loves all, but loves all equally.
Also a omniscient being cannot but love all equally or be ignorant to all equally because it does not have reasons to do otherwise and because it knows all, knows this too.

If aliens come to earth to kill all humans and take over our planet, would we appeal to your logic to stop them? Highly doubtful.
The root issue is why do we feel the innocent and weak should be protected and not be mistreated?
Yes, given that the innocent and weak should be protected, then it is not logical to punish the innocent.

Please don't bore me with irrelevant things.
If aliens come to our planet and commit genocide and mass murders with no regard for the innocent they are malevolent and evil conform the concepts.
But I was not simply talking of killing non-moral agents.

Punishing non-moral agents with the death penalty and inflicting great suffering in the process is illogical, wrong as I demonstrated.

Right, it is the objective because God is eternal and the source of morality.

Your own logic says is subjective dear sir.
You said: “The first is subjective" aka: “One says: "X is wrong because I say so.""
Therefore “One(God) says: "X is wrong because I say so."" is subjective morality. QED.

I have cited and argued against the evolutionary arguments from respected secular sources - the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Scientific American. And I've provided summaries of my arguments against each of these. No, your analysis doesn't even come close to the level of these sources.

Let's say aliens created us 200.000 years ago. We are genetically modified Hominids.
The mirroring process-Affective Empathy mechanism and the morality derived from this is a real thing.
You can ignore evolution if you don't like it.

This also comes across as uncivil.

Christian apologists are famously known for quote mining and misunderstanding things in respect to scientific subjects like Evolution, Dating techniques, Geology.

Evolutionary ethics is, on a philosopher’s time-scale, a very new approach to ethics. Though interdisciplinary approaches between scientists and philosophers have the potential to generate important new ideas, evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go.
https://iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/

The problem if Homo Sapiens Sapiens ought to be good or not is irrelevant to the fact that morality evolved. Evolution of Homo Sapiens Sapiens happened. This is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming.

[William]

Post #3410 (Shared communication between The Father and an individual human personality.)

We've talked about this before.

We have never debated this before

Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity. But on this forum, this is not allowed as evidence.

Let's unpack this and see what can be discovered.

"Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity."

This is true.

"But on this forum, this is not allowed as evidence."
(Note - please direct the reader to the rule)

This appears not to be true. It appears that any writing in the Bible is exempt from this forum standard, and certainly at least the one character from the book who is given a free pass is Biblical Jesus - who more often than not made claims that he had a direct communications with a deity, and such writing is often referred to and accepted as "Evidence".

If Christianity requires this double standard in order to avoid debate and hand-wave away (as "rambling et al) other mirrored-claims and supporting evidence, clearly Christianity is/should be considered false.


To add more to this observation, since Biblical Jesus told his followers that it was his task to point them towards that objective - to build a relationship with The Father - then one can expect from those who do, to have something re evidence of that relationship, to share with others.

(This means that in order to "not allow" such evidence to be shared, one has to ignore said evidence and treat it as nothing more than "rambling".)

However, the evidence was presented, and even though deemed by the maker of the forum rules/the forum ruler to being unacceptable as evidence, it is still - nonetheless - evidence.

Context (Matthew 7:6)

3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye; and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. 6Give not that which is holy unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls before swine, lest they trample them under their feet, and turn again and rend you. 7Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you: 8For every one that asketh receiveth; and he that seeketh findeth; and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. 9Or what man is there of you, whom if his son ask bread, will he give him a stone? KJV

So having unpacked, I draw your attention to my last post - my argument therein against your own.

The Bible is meant to learn about God, how to have a relationship with God, how to live, etc. It is the absolute standard for Christian doctrine and life. It is how we learn what God is like and how to love God. It is our comfort, hope and inspiration for life.

Yes. Only it isn't those things and cannot provide those things for real. It only points to those things, but is not in and of itself, those things.


What is the justification to trust the Bible? That is the purpose of this massive thread.
I will trust in building my relationship with The Father. That is the purpose of this massive creation. (The Universe and my place within it and how that relates to The Father et al)
Unnecessary to that are.

Case studies.
Belief in the story of a global flood.
Arguments of authority of the Bible.
Belief in the story of a Tower of Babel.
Archaeology / Philosophy of science / Origin of alphabet.
Cosmology / Concluding cosmology.
Articles such as the Shroud of Turin.
Defending Christianity.
Discussing Bible and Resurrection.
Discussing the Messiahship of Jesus.
Old or New Testament ethics.

The Bible (among many other things) are signposts to that destination, not the destination itself.

Even the existence of this thread (massive or otherwise) cannot - in Truth - Hope for the result of any individual personality connecting with The Father and building a relationship with that Being.

Christianity (and its various Bibles and interpretations of those) cannot provide that for anyone. It can only (at best) be a device pointing to that provision - where to go, but more often than not (historically speaking and relative to modern times) it is used to point only to itself/variations of itself.

What evidence is there to support that having a relationship with the Bible is an acceptable substitute for having a relationship with The Father?

(NOTE: In this case The Uncaused Cause ("God" et al other titles) is specifically referred to as The Father in line with biblical Jesus using that title when referring to The Uncaused Cause.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to otseng in post #3423

If we take evil to be moral evil, God does not necessarily directly create moral evil. Evil is a by-product free will.

Then apparently we can discount this:

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth.

Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
(Romans 19:17-18)

[otseng]

Then why did you fail to answer my question? - "Can you give any example of any non-moral agent being judged for a crime?"

But we are talking of Yahweh not humans.
Western justice system for example usually does not punish non-moral agents if that is what you are asking.
Humans behave better, more logically then Yahweh in the Bible.

I'm trying to get at what you mean by punishing a non-moral agent. I take a non-moral agent to mean an agent that has no free will and no morality. It cannot be judged for an offense because it cannot freely choose between right and wrong. Therefore it cannot be "punished" for any crime. However, I agree it's possible to kill a non-moral agent, but not punish one for any immoral act.

You have not justified making any objective moral judgment, so who cares really what your subjective moral opinion is about God?

Nonsensical ramblings devoid of any logic, acurracy and relevancy.

Actually your response shows you're the guilty one here. Though you claim empathy can account for objective moral judgment, I've already presented three secular respected sources that admit evolutionary theories cannot account for objective morality. And it's doubtful you've even read any of it since you asked me to summarize it.

It is truth that Yahweh punished in those examples the moral agents together with the non-moral agents.
This is a fact.
The omni-perfect being committed a serious illogical fact. QED.

If you're referring to the flood, I'll post that in a separate post.

Some meat consumption is necessary. QED.

As you've stated, it's a "necessary evil":

The reality is human animals or non-human animals needed to eat meat to survive most of their existence in the hundred of millions of years animals existed. This is a necessary evil.

This shows there is a higher principle at stake that makes eating meat acceptable.

Is it possible for God to make a square a circle?
Is God not omnipotent since he cannot do any wrong?
Is God not omnipotent since there is no darkness in him?

Q: Since when is my problem sir that the concept is illogical?

What I'm getting at is what does it mean to be omnipotent. As you've admitted, God can be "practically omnipotent(logically)" which means God is not actually omnipotent, as defined by God can do absolutely anything.

Many Christians argue Yahweh is omnipotent in the sense that can do anything that is logically possible and anything that does not contradict his omni-perfect<-omni-benevolent side.

I've never claimed or argued for God being omnipotent. What I do claim is God is the most powerful being in the universe.

One does not need omnipotence(classic senses) to not punish the moral agents (adults) together with the non-moral agents(babies, non-human animals, the severely mentally impaired from birth) in the process of which the being its inflicting great suffering; punishing some for the misdeeds of others, asking for genocides, being homophobic.

Again, if you're referring to the flood, I'll post that in a separate post.

You are implying how God should act by bringing up dictators and saying God should not act like them.
Now, if you don't like how God acts, then it is merely your opinion. There is no moral objectivity that God has done anything evil. It is on the level of how people don't like singing hymns in church or a church must have coffee bars.

Stop the straw-man. I am not saying how Yahweh should act.
I am saying Yahweh is portrait like the following malevolent characters: Hitler, Joseph Stalin, Pol Pot, Nero, Genghis Khan, Darth Sidious, Frieza.

Of course you're implying it. You bring up a list of evil people and then imply God should not act like these evil people. If you're making a moral judgment on God, you'll implying how God ought to act which is contrary to how God has acted.

According to the Bible Yahweh had favorites: the Israelites.
Yahweh helped the Israelites at the expense of others(Amalek, Egyptians and so on).
Therefore Yahweh cannot be equally all loving.

Just because people are treated differently doesn't mean God doesn't love all people. Parents treat their children differently, but that doesn't mean they don't love all their children. Yes, God has chosen Israel to be a special people, but it is not an easy burden to carry as attested to by all the persecution they've endured throughout history. But there is something that God does not love and actually hates. And that would be sin. And it applies to all people, whether it is the Gentiles or the Jews. If anyone sins, then God hates it and will judge people for it (and the Jews are not excluded from this).

If aliens come to earth to kill all humans and take over our planet, would we appeal to your logic to stop them? Highly doubtful.
The root issue is why do we feel the innocent and weak should be protected and not be mistreated?
Yes, given that the innocent and weak should be protected, then it is not logical to punish the innocent.

Please don't bore me with irrelevant things.
If aliens come to our planet and commit genocide and mass murders with no regard for the innocent they are malevolent and evil conform the concepts.
But I was not simply talking of killing non-moral agents.

You're the one that brought up aliens - "The law of non-contradiction I would say applies to aliens on the other side of the galaxy." So, I'm just following your argument. And continually making the accusation of boring you is also uncivil.

Therefore “One(God) says: "X is wrong because I say so."" is subjective morality.

What is your definition of objective and subjective morality?

As I've stated:

A subjective morality is a morality that would only apply to a certain group of people at a certain time. An objective morality would apply to all people for all time. Since God created all people and He is the source of morality, that morality would apply to all people for all time.

I have cited and argued against the evolutionary arguments from respected secular sources - the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy, and Scientific American. And I've provided summaries of my arguments against each of these. No, your analysis doesn't even come close to the level of these sources.

Let's say aliens created us 200.000 years ago. We are genetically modified Hominids.
The mirroring process-Affective Empathy mechanism and the morality derived from this is a real thing.
You can ignore evolution if you don't like it.

I have no idea what you are saying here.

This also comes across as uncivil.

Christian apologists are famously known for quote mining and misunderstanding things in respect to scientific subjects like Evolution, Dating techniques, Geology.

No idea what you're referring to here either. If you think I'm quote mining, then please point out where I'm doing it instead of making these vague accusations.

Evolutionary ethics is, on a philosopher’s time-scale, a very new approach to ethics. Though interdisciplinary approaches between scientists and philosophers have the potential to generate important new ideas, evolutionary ethics still has a long way to go.
https://iep.utm.edu/evol-eth/

The problem if Homo Sapiens Sapiens ought to be good or not is irrelevant to the fact that morality evolved. Evolution of Homo Sapiens Sapiens happened. This is a fact. The evidence is overwhelming.

The quote is not from me, but from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy. So, why should anyone believe you over a peer-reviewed secular academic source?

[otseng]

Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity. But on this forum, this is not allowed as evidence.

Let's unpack this and see what can be discovered.

"Anybody can claim to have a direct communication with any deity."

This is true.

"But on this forum, this is not allowed as evidence."
(Note - please direct the reader to the rule)

Here are the rules:

3. Do not portray yourself as speaking directly for God or as a special messenger of God.

viewtopic.php?t=22302

Evidence should ideally be accessible by the general public. When quoting material not accessible by the general public (professional journals, out of date books), provide substantial quotes to allow the reader to understand the material. Journal abstracts are typically accessible to the public and may be quoted freely.

viewtopic.php?t=16903

The difference between you and Jesus is you are the one debating here, not Jesus. As you acknowledge, anyone here on this forum can claim direct communication with God. If we allowed personal claims of hearing from God as evidence, then it would not be debating, but just sharing personal opinions and stories.

[otseng]

[Replying to otseng in post #3423

If we take evil to be moral evil, God does not necessarily directly create moral evil. Evil is a by-product free will.

Then apparently we can discount this:

For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth.
(Romans 19:17-18)

[Rom 9:17-18 KJV] 17 For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/kjv/rom/9/18/s_1055018

My statement is about the origin of moral evil. God does not directly create moral evil, but moral evil is a result of the ability to choose. So, the specific instance of Pharaoh does not nullify the origin of moral evil.

As to specifically about Pharaoh's case, I do not think God overrode his free will. Yes, God could've hardened it, but it doesn't necessarily mean all free will has been removed.

Harden is sklērynō.
https://www.blueletterbible.org/lexicon ... jv/tr/0-1/

It is used 6 times and there is no indication all free will has been removed in these cases:

[Act 19:9 KJV] 9 But when divers were hardened,[G4645] and believed not, but spake evil of that way before the multitude, he departed from them, and separated the disciples, disputing daily in the school of one Tyrannus.

[Rom 9:18 KJV] 18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will [have mercy], and whom he will he hardeneth.[G4645]

[Heb 3:8, 13, 15 KJV] 8 Harden[G4645] not your hearts, as in the provocation, in the day of temptation in the wilderness: ... 13 But exhort one another daily, while it is called To day; lest any of you be hardened[G4645] through the deceitfulness of sin. ... 15 While it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden[G4645] not your hearts, as in the provocation.

[Heb 4:7 KJV] 7 Again, he limiteth a certain day, saying in David, To day, after so long a time; as it is said, To day if ye will hear his voice, harden[G4645] not your hearts.

[otseng]

Yet you presumably have no problem with the idea of that same deity brutally drowning every innocent child on earth in a global flood.

Is God a deity that is just looking for any opportunity to smite people?



Is God a capricious God? Does God act unpredictably and without any reason for the things that he does?

If God's actions are just random, then I'd agree it's not really a God worthy of our devotion. It'd be like being under a dictator who acts on a whim with no rational justification for his negative actions.

In terms of God acting negatively towards people, there is only one reason God would do that - to discipline evil actions and to promote moral good. This is even the same as our government. We would only be fined or go to jail if we did something wrong. It is because of sin that God would judge people.

Were the people who lived before the flood innocent? No. Sin had permeated everyone.

[Gen 6:5 KJV] 5 And GOD saw that the wickedness of man [was] great in the earth, and [that] every imagination of the thoughts of his heart [was] only evil continually.

The only one that God considered righteous was Noah.

[Gen 6:8 KJV] 8 But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD.

He told Noah the entire world would be judged.

[Gen 6:13 KJV] 13 And God said unto Noah, The end of all flesh is come before me; for the earth is filled with violence through them; and, behold, I will destroy them with the earth.

It was around 120 years between this judgment and when the flood came.

[Gen 6:3 KJV] 3 And the LORD said, My spirit shall not always strive with man, for that he also [is] flesh: yet his days shall be an hundred and twenty years.

These 120 years are a countdown to the Flood. In other words, mankind’s violence had reached its peak and God declared that 120 years was the “drop dead” date for mankind who is a mortal being.

https://answersingenesis.org/bible-time ... d-the-ark/

During those 120 years, Noah had preached about the upcoming judgment.

[2Pe 2:5 KJV] 5 And spared not the old world, but saved Noah the eighth [person], a preacher of righteousness, bringing in the flood upon the world of the ungodly;

Not sure how much he used words to preach, but for sure people saw the giant boat he was building in his backyard. Word definitely would have spread about Noah building a massive boat the length of a large schooner to escape the judgment of the flood. However, nobody outside his family believed in his message. But if any would, the ark could've accommodated more people.

What about the children that were innocent? It was a 120 year span until the flood came, so the people who heard the warning could've decided not to have any children. And if they had children, the parents could've given their children to Noah and let them live. And if they didn't give them to Noah, couldn't God have supernaturally saved all the innocent children? Doubtful since Noah and his family had to spend a long time building the ark to save themselves. So, if righteous Noah was not saved supernaturally, why would anybody else be saved supernaturally?

So the accusation that God brutally downing every innocent child on earth is a false picture of the flood account. Rather, God had warned the people they would be judged because of their evil hearts. They had 120 years to repent and to accept salvation through the ark. But none except Noah's family heeded the warning.