The Bible's Biggest Problem(s)?

[POI]

In a continuation of this topic (viewtopic.php?t=39327&start=990), which only discusses one important topic, I present a follow-up....

For Debate:

1) Why didn't Jesus write the NT Himself? Why leave this task up to fallible humans to write what was floating around, only after decade(s) of oral traditions? Wouldn't Jesus know that earnest confusion would soon prevail, and that his true message(s) may get fouled up by human error and/or corruption?

2) Case/point: There exists countless denominations, with opposing belief systems, all in earnest in reading the exact same collection of books. If Jesus' intent is to convey truth, why not assure his message(s) are crystal clear and unified for all?

3) If Jesus also recognizes that many/most were/are illiterate, and/or the many who are literate merely read at a lower grade level, and that differing languages can also blur the message(s), why not write the Bible in a cohesive way in which even the most rudimentary person can understand, in all languages?

This is, in part, the problem of communication....

[Clownboat]

If a God were to write a message intended for all humans, do you really think that it would read like a human wrote it?
This being that can create universes, but can't write a message any better than a human?

Surely you see how nonsensical this claim is. Right?

If people are unwilling to believe the claim that God created the universe, then they'll also be unwilling to believe the claim that God wrote any messages.

You have committed a formal fallacy. "All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs, or arguments in which the conclusions do not follow from the premises."

That you refuse to address what I actually asked of you speaks volumes. I assume you do notice how nonsensical it would be to pretend that a God can't write any different then a human, so fail to answer and instead offer fallacious reasoning.

We are just moving the goalposts at this point, in true skepticistic (new word) fashion.

False. You ignored a question that was asked of you and offered up a fallacy instead.

[Purple Knight]

This being that can create universes, but can't write a message any better than a human?

In our language maybe not. The better message would probably have to be written in a better system, on a better medium.

It would be written from consciousness, for consciousness. When we write messages to aliens, we draw them two-dimensional pictures and whether they will even understand such a thing is a mad guess in the dark.

It would just... be there. And to be fair this is what religious people seem to experience. But those of us who are listening and don't hear it... well ploop us I guess.

[Clownboat]

This being that can create universes, but can't write a message any better than a human?

In our language maybe not. The better message would probably have to be written in a better system, on a better medium.

It would be written from consciousness, for consciousness. When we write messages to aliens, we draw them two-dimensional pictures and whether they will even understand such a thing is a mad guess in the dark.

It would just... be there. And to be fair this is what religious people seem to experience. But those of us who are listening and don't hear it... well ploop us I guess.

Surely you recognize how some authors are better than others?
George Orwell
Ernest Hemingway
Mark Twain

These authors excel way beyond my means. A God that can create universes surely would excel beyond the means of even our best authors. This being would also have access to information that escapes the rest of us.
Therefore, this being would be able to write a message intended for all humans better than a mere human could (by being a better author and providing info that we don't have).

Imagine if Genesis began with: In the beginning, I created the heavens and the earth AND THE EARTH IS AN OBLATE SPHEROID.

[POI]

Imagine if Genesis began with: In the beginning, I created the heavens and the earth AND THE EARTH IS AN OBLATE SPHEROID.

Now now Clownboat! The Bible is not meant to be a science book!

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #192]

Opinions.

The Bible transcends the inherent issue(s) of ancient human produced writings from antiquity? Do tell?

Putting a percentage on it is irrelevant because no matter the %, it is enough for me to believe it.... I agree with you here (for a change). However, "less", as you put it, is on a sliding scale...and I am still on the "convinced" side of the scale as it pertains to the who, what, when of the Gospels.

What would the percentage need to be, to where you would doubt the claim?

Opinions

Did Jesus want to convey a message in which all understand, or not?

What did Jesus say after Thomas believed? Verse 29.. "You see, therefore you believe. Blessed are those who have not seen, and still believe". So, we are blessed for not seeing what Thomas saw, and still believing. I'm essence, Jesus already shut your question down.

Thank you for justifying my other thread (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41878).

***************************************

BELOW THIS, THINGS WENT FUNKY. If none of my responses make sense, in relation to your prior response, let me know?

1) Do some not deserve to know, but others do?
2) Is this what you call, another rabbit hole? I've addressed why I think people believe, here--> (http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=41274).

***************************************

The problem of communication remains, in the sense that all are not equally given the same opportunity to accept or reject a clearly given and clearly understood message.

***************************************

Jesus would know how to communicate with each individual in a way they would understand.

***************************************

Why do you believe all have a fair chance to truly understand?

***************************************

Jesus did not shake the world until the 16th century, which means he did not snake the WORLD then. And by 'then', you meant during the Roman Empire.

***************************************

Yes, Rome became a theocracy:

"The Roman Empire could be considered to have been under a Christian theocracy during the later stages of its existence, particularly after Emperor Constantine the Great legalized Christianity and later Emperor Theodosius I officially established Nicene Christianity as the state religion through the Edict of Thessalonica in 380 CE; however, it's important to note that the power dynamics between the Church and the Emperor were complex and not always a strict theocratic structure."

***************************************

When Christianity eventually falls to Islam, via the number 1 spot, and Christianity also eventually loses numbers, this will go directly against what you keep saying. In that Jesus's objective ultimately fails.

***************************************

In your wishful thinking hypothesis, something has to give. You state the religion spread throughout the empire. This means in any and all dark corners, stories were told from one person to the next. It is illogical to believe that any and every exchange was regulated by Paul and company, or by the divine. And since we do not know who wrote the Gospels, we know not of their source(s)? Unlike Paul.

***************************************

All believers emphasize John 14:6, like you do, in regards to 'salvation'? This verse is THE verse which is to be addressed to answer this question? Is it really this cut and dry? And in examining this verse, what does this mean exactly? Does the individual need to make a conscious effort to accept Jesus? If they do not get the opportunity, due to ignorance, dying too young, or other, is conditional grace given to some?

***************************************

Do any believers truly think God condones same sex physical relations? I think not. This means God can make some instruction crystal clear for all who engage. With a larger topic, via salvation, the message is not as clear. This is evidence when looking at this thread -->(http://debatingchristianity.com/forum/v ... hp?t=39327), which is why this thread was created.

***************************************

You stated : Now ask any Christian is salvation through Jesus Christ? See if you get any conflicting answers.

What exactly does this mean? Is worshipping him enough? If so, do morals not really matter? Feel free to respond to the thread expressed above, so there is not so much overlap....

***************************************

Jesus corrected anyone's prior understanding he wanted. Why not correct all so that all are given a fair chance to accept or reject him?

***************************************

Paul's claim should be no more relevant to you than any other person on the street who claims they are speaking for God, or in any church, or anywhere else in public. And yet, your faith is based upon this one being MORE-SO true? Why does Paul's get more credence than any other, if you admit you do not know who has been contacted?

***************************************

You are still missing my point. I'll keep trying.... WTS writers write clearer messages than Bible writers.

***************************************

"Matthews" report survived, and all others, who reported the same extraordinary event, did not survive, got it

[SiNcE_1985]

You have committed a formal fallacy. "All formal fallacies are specific types of non sequiturs, or arguments in which the conclusions do not follow from the premises." Surely you see how nonsensical this claim is. Right?

First of all, your statement..

"This being that can create universes, but can't write a message any better than a human? "

That statement is about as subjective as they come.

Opinion(s)....of which I do not share.

Now, I could have called it as it is, an opinion, and simply left it as that....but I decided to share my opinion with you as well...so I said what I said.

That you refuse to address what I actually asked of you speaks volumes. I assume you do notice how nonsensical it would be to pretend that a God can't write any different then a human, so fail to answer and instead offer fallacious reasoning.
False. You ignored a question that was asked of you and offered up a fallacy instead.

Well, again..

If skeptics are questioning whether God created the universe...then they won't go from being skeptical of a cosmic creator, but open to the concept of a cosmic author of a book.

So no, I'm not ignoring your question, I am pointing out the mere absurdity in the thinking that the lack of "God authorship" would make any difference in any skeptic's sliding scale of convincing or persuasion.

I am of the strong opinion that skeptics won't believe regardless of what we have/don't have...so pointing out "we don't have this, we don't have that" stuff doesn't really mean anything...because if we had what you claim we don't, your skepticism will be held elsewhere, if not there.

So, moving the goalposts, as I stated.

[SiNcE_1985]

[Replying to POI in post #204]

You can have the last word there.

I said all that I needed to say.

See you in traffic.

[POI]

[Replying to SiNcE_1985 in post #207]

At the end of the day, had Jesus, who you presume is omni, wrote it himself, and assured his message was preserved, and also assured that his message(s) transcended all language barriers, then I never would have raised this topic. I, like some, would be in a position to accept or reject his clearly understood messaging

[Purple Knight]

Therefore, this being would be able to write a message intended for all humans better than a mere human could (by being a better author and providing info that we don't have).

Imagine if Genesis began with: In the beginning, I created the heavens and the earth AND THE EARTH IS AN OBLATE SPHEROID.

I agree, I just think such a message might be non-linguistic. It might have to be. Because what I imagine when I imagine Genesis beginning that way, is that the first person to copy it shakes his head and tries to make it look less crazy.

If skeptics are questioning whether God created the universe...then they won't go from being skeptical of a cosmic creator, but open to the concept of a cosmic author of a book.

I think you're assuming that atheists' worldview informs their consideration of evidence, when for those who put rationality first (which I admit is not all atheists but ought to be) the evidence comes first, and shapes our worldview.

If there is a divine creator, what we would expect is a divine message, which could be a book but it could also be something else. So it's perfectly natural to consider whether a book might be divinely inspired first, before thinking about whether the universe might be created.

[1213]

...The Trinity
Catholics believe in one God who exists in three persons: the Father, the Son (Jesus Christ), and the Holy Spirit.
...
Salvation
Catholics believe that salvation through the Catholic Church is the only way to reach Heaven.

Purgatory
Catholics believe that those who die are sent to Purgatory to be cleansed of sin before going to Heaven.

Transubstantiation
Catholics believe that during the Eucharist, the bread and wine are transformed into the body, blood, soul, and divinity of Jesus Christ.
...

Thank you for the examples. The problem with all of these is, they are doctrines that are not in the Bible. Bible doesn't speak of Trinity, or three persons of God. Bible doesn't say that the salvation is only through Catholic Church, nor about purgatory. Neither Bible tells that the bread and wine transforms to Jesus.

I don't think so. By what is told in the Bible, person can be counted righteous, even if he would not have heard of Jesus. If person is righteous, he accepts Jesus, because he sees the goodness in Jesus.

But then you are completely ignoring Romans 3, where it tells the reader --> "righteousness is given through faith in Jesus Christ"

I don't think i am ignoring it. righteousness can be given the way Romans tells it. That does not mean person can't be counted righteous any other way.

I'm asking if a righteous person would EVER, under any circumstances at all, allow for their raped daughter to receive blood products, and still be considered righteous? Yes or no?

I think it is possible that person is righteous, if he does not allow it and I think it is also possible that person can be righteous, even if he allows that. But, it is possible that I am wrong in this.

Assuming you state yes, why do you assume it is okay to receive blood from one's own family? Is this just a hunch, or is there Scripture to back this up?

I think I already explained it. Bible tells blood carries soul/mind/life, I would not want my family member to get their soul mixed with someone else's. In a way I think family members share the same blood already, therefore it would not be exactly the same. However, it may still be wrong to get blood even from family members. This is only to show the difference.

Well, we apparently cannot use it as any advice in this scenario, can we? Can folks accept blood transfusions without offending God, or not?

I think it is possible, if the action is done with right thoughts. I personally could not accept it to me with good conscience, because I think it goes against God's will.