God's Plan?

[POI]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

[bjs1]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

According to Christianity, God inspired the Bible. This means that He is the Author in that the final product is are the words He wanted to use.

I cannot think of any way that God could have written a message to his people that a skeptic could not easily “conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all.”

[POI]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

According to Christianity, God inspired the Bible. This means that He is the Author in that the final product is are the words He wanted to use.

Sounds like your argument is that humans were mere ghostwriters, and that God successfully conveyed all his wishes and commands exactly the way he wanted, without interference of any fallibility or sin? Is this your official position?

I cannot think of any way that God could have written a message to his people that a skeptic could not easily “conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all.”

I can. It could have been constructed in a way humans could not have comprised themselves alone. Meaning, it could be made of some futuristic material, possess powers which defy the laws of physics, be physically indestructible, etc. It could also give information in which we could not have formulated all on our own, without the need for any higher knowledge at the time it was written. But it appears to possess none of those traits.

[TRANSPONDER]

Sounds like we are back in 'excuses' terriory, together with some finger - pointing.

The points have been made - tell frankly the sun was made first and caused the daylight. Then Believers would not have to excuse or deny.

Say 'Rule 3. "You shall not own another human being as property" Easy and a great selling point. The lack of it is of course an excuse and denial point.

Tyre was not destroyed forever, as the prophecy has it, and did we not see some fine wriggling and denial to try to get out of it. I still have to do a Proper Job on the Nativities, but that's a pleasure to come. The resurrections are nearly as bad.,

In fact (as said above) the 'inspiration' ploy is the usual, from morality to ID; it works better as natural forces (including human constructs) than a god, name your own religion anyway. As is persistently the case, Religious apologists start from a logical flaw - they assume a god in charge, therefore Morality should be a workable Law. It isn't, so it has to be excused and the flaws blamed on Man. It is outside of their mindset (and therefore out of logical validity) to work with the idea that morality has evolved (naturally and clater deliberately) and is NOT a cosmic law, and the idea that it should be objective and sound simply is outside of their thoughts.

Unexplaineds accepted, there Is No Good Reason to propose a god behind any of it, and the excuses are just trying to push away this unwelcome logical conclusion from rolling over Faith.

The finger -pointing is just another ploy or trick, where the rejection of bad arguments is countered by supposing that atheists would reject Good arguments - if they backed up the Bible.

Friends, that is merely projecting their own bad nature (there, I've Said It) onto the opponents. The fact is that what is backed up in the Bible or looks half - way credible is accepted or at least left alone.

That is why we go (or should go) for the Biggies. The minor or even correct points are simply let go.

If the Bible was factually, logically, and coherently sound, atheists would have no case, if there were any atheists at all. But it is not.

Clearly, demonstrably and provably not and the Believers are left, as I say, with only excuses, finger - pointing and denial.

Denial (of course) of science, of history and even logic and (oh don't we love it?) the Bible itself.

[bjs1]

I cannot think of any way that God could have written a message to his people that a skeptic could not easily “conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all.”

I can. It could have been constructed in a way humans could not have comprised themselves alone. Meaning, it could be made of some futuristic material, possess powers which defy the laws of physics, be physically indestructible, etc.

Then that would just be the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe the physical world. If a certain thing existed which did not fit within the parameters of physics on the whole, then the laws physics would have been written to accommodate that reality. It is impossible to defy the laws of physics because they describe whatever is happening.

An example of this would be dark gravity (sometimes called dark matter). It cannot be seen, felt or otherwise observed with the five senses. Therefore, not that long ago the laws of physics would have said that it doesn’t exist. But we can see the effect it has on the universe, therefore we have included it within our understanding of physics. Nothing in the physical world can defy the laws of physics, because we write the laws of physics to account for whatever happens in the physical world.

It could also give information in which we could not have formulated all on our own, without the need for any higher knowledge at the time it was written. But it appears to possess none of those traits.

I can make little sense of this statement. What knowledge could there be that we could not have formulated on our own? If we cannot formulate the knowledge, wouldn’t that make it impossible to test if that knowledge is true? This idea seems designed to give skeptics more fuel as opposed to answering skeptic’s objections.

[POI]

You skipped my question of direct follow up:

Sounds like your argument is that humans were mere ghostwriters, and that God successfully conveyed all his wishes and commands exactly the way he wanted, without interference of any fallibility or sin? Is this your official position?

I cannot think of any way that God could have written a message to his people that a skeptic could not easily “conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all.”

I can. It could have been constructed in a way humans could not have comprised themselves alone. Meaning, it could be made of some futuristic material, possess powers which defy the laws of physics, be physically indestructible, etc.

Then that would just be the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe the physical world. If a certain thing existed which did not fit within the parameters of physics on the whole, then the laws physics would have been written to accommodate that reality. It is impossible to defy the laws of physics because they describe whatever is happening.

An example of this would be dark gravity (sometimes called dark matter). It cannot be seen, felt or otherwise observed with the five senses. Therefore, not that long ago the laws of physics would have said that it doesn’t exist. But we can see the effect it has on the universe, therefore we have included it within our understanding of physics. Nothing in the physical world can defy the laws of physics, because we write the laws of physics to account for whatever happens in the physical world.

You have missed my point entirely. The Bible possesses nothing special, above and beyond any other claimed book which is also claimed to have been given from a "higher power". I gave example(s) of ways one could distinguish that it is not a mere human created collection of books. Is it logical to assume the Bible is just ANOTHER collection of (humans alone) inspired books? Yes or no?

It could also give information in which we could not have formulated all on our own, without the need for any higher knowledge at the time it was written. But it appears to possess none of those traits.

I can make little sense of this statement. What knowledge could there be that we could not have formulated on our own?

Advanced, not yet known knowledge - (see below)... I'm sure you are no stranger to all the atheist apologist's arguments concerning this topic already.

If we cannot formulate the knowledge, wouldn’t that make it impossible to test if that knowledge is true?

HINT --> hand washing... If we agree 'human flourishing' and/or 'well-being' is synonymous with the term 'good', as it relates to the topic of 'morality', then why didn't Jesus preach the washing of hands and why it is so important to do so? Either he did not know <or> did not want others to know. Either way, not very wise IMHO. Maybe if people were aware of microscopic germs, they would not of instead associated some disease with 'evil'. This is just one example as to why Jesus was not any wiser than the next guy. Reading an ancient document, expressing the importance of hand washing alone and why it was important, would make me wonder how Jesus would have known that information roughly 2K years before we figured it out ourselves.

This idea seems designed to give skeptics more fuel as opposed to answering skeptic’s objections.

No, reading the Bible is like reading any other ancient collection of books, with nothing profound or outside the era in which it was written within.

[TRANSPONDER]

I cannot think of any way that God could have written a message to his people that a skeptic could not easily “conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all.”

I can. It could have been constructed in a way humans could not have comprised themselves alone. Meaning, it could be made of some futuristic material, possess powers which defy the laws of physics, be physically indestructible, etc.

Then that would just be the laws of physics. The laws of physics describe the physical world. If a certain thing existed which did not fit within the parameters of physics on the whole, then the laws physics would have been written to accommodate that reality. It is impossible to defy the laws of physics because they describe whatever is happening.

An example of this would be dark gravity (sometimes called dark matter). It cannot be seen, felt or otherwise observed with the five senses. Therefore, not that long ago the laws of physics would have said that it doesn’t exist. But we can see the effect it has on the universe, therefore we have included it within our understanding of physics. Nothing in the physical world can defy the laws of physics, because we write the laws of physics to account for whatever happens in the physical world.

It could also give information in which we could not have formulated all on our own, without the need for any higher knowledge at the time it was written. But it appears to possess none of those traits.

I can make little sense of this statement. What knowledge could there be that we could not have formulated on our own? If we cannot formulate the knowledge, wouldn’t that make it impossible to test if that knowledge is true? This idea seems designed to give skeptics more fuel as opposed to answering skeptic’s objections.

Yes, but the problem is appeal to unknowns. Unknowns there are; unknown explanations, even unknown data. But none of that is a scrap of evidence for a god or its' Plan. What we do know, however, suggests the trial and error of evolution; physics, not an intelligent Designer's Plan (name your own religion and god, anyway).

It sounds like the old false start - assuming a god with a plan, to begin with nad looking for some Gaps to hide this God in.

Everything that has been understood and explained has failed to exhibit evidence for a god, despite strenuous efforts, not to mention indoctrination and brainwashing attempts.

Theism in fact, despite its' best efforts, has not come up with a shred of decent evidence, only the good old Appeal to Unknowns (which proves nothing) and denial of anything that conflicts with the Faith.

Denial does not gain a won case, but for sure, the winning case fails if nobody hears it or everyone rejects it, and that means control of the public Voice.

[Masterblaster]

Hello POI

Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself?

What kind of a question is this? Are you and TRANSPONDER out lamping rabbits again?

Do you really want to discuss how a book works?
I read very little fiction, nowadays. I prefer poetry.
I used to drink lattes, now it is expressos.

"For oft, when on my couch I lie
In vacant or in pensive mood,
They flash upon that inward eye
Which is the bliss of solitude;
And then my heart with pleasure fills,
And dances with the daffodils."

Why didn't the daffodils write this?
Is it about daffodils ,at all?

The Bible is a record of a certain brand of theism. It changes, just like my coffee. Is it about God at all?
Maybe, but only if the poem is about daffodils.
I could talk literature all week.

What plan had you in mind?

Thanks

[1213]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

God has promised wisdom and Holy Spirit for everyone asking. So, if you have problems to understanding something, it is not because of the book.

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him.
James 1:5

I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counse-lor,{Greek Parakleton: Counselor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate, and Comfortor.} that he may be with you forever,-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world can't receive; for it doesn't see him, nei-ther knows him. You know him, for he lives with you, and will be in you.
John 14:16-17
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
John 14:26
When the Counselor has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26
When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, don't be anxious how or what you will answer, or what you will say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that same hour what you must say."
Luke 12:11-12
However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13

Bible is a good book for everyone who remains in truth and wants to understand. By what I see, many people don't want to understand, and then there is not much what you can do to help them. It does not matter how the book is written in that case. And everyone who wants to understand, the current situation is good.

[benchwarmer]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

God has promised wisdom and Holy Spirit for everyone asking. So, if you have problems to understanding something, it is not because of the book.

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him.
James 1:5

Guess what happened when I basically did this as a Christian? I was a devout Catholic (former protestant) and reading the Bible every day. Trying to become a better Christian. Praying for guidance and wisdom.

It led to finding all the problems we debate here. I guess it worked!!

My only conclusion is that if there is a god, it's not the one described in the Bible. Perhaps the real god pointed me this way. If so, I'm relieved. I would prefer a god with higher moral standards and logical reasoning than the one portrayed in the Bible. I would also prefer one that is crystal clear about any rules for living. Since my seeking led me to where I am, I can only conclude that if there is a god, it must be of the kind I would hope for. One that doesn't agree with slavery, rape, incest, and war. One that doesn't require mental gymnastics to explain away inconsistencies with observation and reality.

Perhaps this god had a hand in getting James 1:5 penned.