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....

[SiNcE_1985]

I can't read a message that isn't there. If you stay on this forum for any length of time you'll see I'm more charitable to the religious point of view than any other atheist on the forum. I care if I am wrong and want to know. I investigate. I assume the other person is right and ask, "What then?" and honestly look for that.

The truth is found in Jesus Christ.

But in the case of "God exists" I haven't found it.

If you wanted it bad enough, you'll find it.

"I want to lose weight, but I just can't".

If you wanted to lose weight bad enough, the weight would drop off.

"I wanna get I'm back in school and earn my degree, but I just don't have the time".

If you wanted a degree bad enough, you'll make the time.

A rapper once said in his lyrics..

"Determined niggas make it".

Meaning, in the hood (or otherwise), there are people struggling, trying to find a way to make it out.

But those that make it out are usually the ones who are determined enough to make it out.

The existence of God is overwhelming, so a lack of belief isn't because of lack of evidence.

So, there must be something else...holding you back.

It's not because the Bible can't be, in its entirety, true. It's not because magic powers like Jesus had can't exist. I know very well that there is more in Heaven and Earth than is dreamed of in my philosophy.

It's because a bad person can't be God.

I'm a bad person. And no matter what powers I had, even if I was omnipotent, I would not be God. Same goes for the entity in the Bible described as God.

?

[1213]

...
If it is not an important issue, then why would you apply any restrictions from blood transfusion(s) yourself??? Why do JWs follow this rule at all, if it is not important enough to mention?

I do it, because of the no blood rules and because it is not said in the Bible that it is ok. JW's do it, if I have understood correctly, because it is said "abstain from blood".

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.

Why would it matter, if God does not think it is important enough to mention? a) Is it okay, b) are there certain restrictions, or c) is it not okay?

I would say, it is ok, if there is a good reason for it. If the reason is not good, the person is probably not righteous.

Yes, i think it is possible that a person who is righteous accepts it. It is possible that even righteous people make mistakes.

Since all that is required is Jesus-faith to become righteous, and all sin, then all other sin is basically irrelevant anyways.

Righteous is not a meaningless word in the Bible. If one becomes righteous, it will also show in the persons actions. Righteous person does righteousness, wants to live according to God's will, and sinner does sin and goes against God. And it is not irrelevant, if we go by what is said in the Bible.

He who does righteousness is righteous, even as he is righteous. He who sins is of the devil, for the devil has been sinning from the beginning. To this end the Son of God was revealed, that he might destroy the works of the devil. Whoever is born of God doesn't commit sin, because his seed remains in him; and he can't sin, because he is born of God. In this the children of God are revealed, and the children of the devil. Whoever doesn't do righteousness is not of God, neither is he who doesn't love his brother.
1 John 3:7-10
These will go away into eternal punishment, but the righteous into eternal life.
Matt. 25:46
For the wages of sin is death, but the free gift of God is eternal life in Christ Jesus our Lord.
Romans 6:23

[POI]

I would say, it is ok, if there is a good reason for it. If the reason is not good, the person is probably not righteous.

JWs disagree with you. Who is right, you or the JWs? It cannot be both. Remember, you believe you have the right understanding of the Bible. Which means you think YOU are right, and they are wrong, right?

Further, what reason(s) are acceptable to receive IV blood products, and how would you know?

Righteous is not a meaningless word in the Bible. If one becomes righteous, it will also show in the persons actions. Righteous person does righteousness, wants to live according to God's will, and sinner does sin and goes against God. And it is not irrelevant, if we go by what is said in the Bible.

The only way to become righteous is by having faith in Jesus, ala Romans 3 and other areas. You also agree that the 'righteous' can still sin. The Bible states, again in Romans 3, that only Jesus is sinless. So, I guess all that matters is Jesus-faith, as you will continue to sin, no matter how hard you try not to. Which begs the following:

Since all will continue to sin, no matter how hard one tries not to, why does Jesus opt to only save the ones (based upon an attribute they cannot control)? ---Which would be based upon a belief? Makes no logical sense....

[Clownboat]

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.

None of these words that you typed show that you understand how nonsensical your statement was. You can lead a horse to water as they say.

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.

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.

The question asks if you believe that a god that can create universes can't write a message intended for everyone better than a mere human could.
You did in fact ignore this question.

I am of the strong opinion that skeptics won't believe regardless of what we have/don't have.

I agree that you have this opinion. It's likely a mechanism that is in place to justify why others don't think like you (they wouldn't believe no matter how much sense it made, so it doesn't matter much that it doesn't make much sense).

..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.

Bam! Like I said, a defense mechanism in place in order to maintain a preconceived belief. You do my work for me!

[Clownboat]

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.

I acknowledge the barriers of language that you allude to and take no issue. I still think that a being that has the ability to create universes, with words no less, would be able to more clearly compose a message intended for everyone better than a mere human could, even with the barriers to linguistic language. The Bible is not such a message though.

[Clownboat]

The existence of God is overwhelming, so a lack of belief isn't because of lack of evidence.

This is great to hear!
Please provide the overwhelming evidence for your preferred god concept.

[Purple Knight]

So, there must be something else...holding you back.

There's not. It's usually incomprehensible to the religious but not everyone experiences this godly experience of creation. The universe is beautiful, but so are things like an empty beach or fields of rocks, which have the least "wow, this is complicated, so it must have been created" in them.

There are exceptionally wonderful things, like cats, but there are also exceptionally horrible things like flies, parasitic foot worms that cause blindness, and humans.

Just as you don't like to blame God for the horrible things, as awful as Man is, I think it's just as rude to blame Man because he ate an apple. Imagine instead, if bad stuff just happens, and nobody is at fault for it. And if you want to put a moral imperative to it, you can say we're all born into an imperfect world with a moral directive to make it fairer and better, just a little bit.

People seem to have a desire to have fallen, to have been better off before, but we can climb back up. This is even part of the basic "Cinderella" story arc, where the main character is happy, then something happens, then they're much worse off, then they climb back up. This story arc is so appealing that writing classes teach you to do it, even though it's a trope. But I don't think it's as appealing as being worse off at the start, and forging a new path forward, imagining how the world could be if it were fair, and pursuing that even if we don't know if it's possible to get there.

[Purple Knight]

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.

I acknowledge the barriers of language that you allude to and take no issue. I still think that a being that has the ability to create universes, with words no less, would be able to more clearly compose a message intended for everyone better than a mere human could, even with the barriers to linguistic language. The Bible is not such a message though.

I agree, it's just important to at least have an idea of what we're looking for before we say it for sure isn't there. I say we can't possibly be looking for something linguistic.

So not only is the Bible not it, it can't be it.

[SiNcE_1985]

There's not. It's usually incomprehensible to the religious but not everyone experiences this godly experience of creation. The universe is beautiful, but so are things like an empty beach or fields of rocks, which have the least "wow, this is complicated, so it must have been created" in them.

Beauty is subjective.

I'm talking about the order and fine-tuning of it.

The laws/constants were engineered, to a degree of astronomical mathematical precision.

The question is, how do you best explain it?

1. Intelligent Design.

2. Blind, mindless, random, chaotic processes.

There are exceptionally wonderful things, like cats, but there are also exceptionally horrible things like flies, parasitic foot worms that cause blindness, and humans.

Point?

Just as you don't like to blame God for the horrible things, as awful as Man is, I think it's just as rude to blame Man because he ate an apple. Imagine instead, if bad stuff just happens, and nobody is at fault for it. And if you want to put a moral imperative to it, you can say we're all born into an imperfect world with a moral directive to make it fairer and better, just a little bit.

Opinions.

People seem to have a desire to have fallen, to have been better off before, but we can climb back up. This is even part of the basic "Cinderella" story arc, where the main character is happy, then something happens, then they're much worse off, then they climb back up. This story arc is so appealing that writing classes teach you to do it, even though it's a trope. But I don't think it's as appealing as being worse off at the start, and forging a new path forward, imagining how the world could be if it were fair, and pursuing that even if we don't know if it's possible to get there.

Opinions.

I'm bringing you facts, here.

And you seem to be a poster who has this consistent, overwhelming need to continue bringing these irrelevant-to-the-facts opinions.

Stop bringing opinions to a fact fight.

[Purple Knight]

The question is, how do you best explain it?

1. Intelligent Design.

2. Blind, mindless, random, chaotic processes.

Either of those could easily be true. The first is not necessarily true.

There are exceptionally wonderful things, like cats, but there are also exceptionally horrible things like flies, parasitic foot worms that cause blindness, and humans.

Point?

That you cannot prove an omnibenevolent creator by looking at reality. Reality has both good and bad. And while you cannot rule out an omnibenevolent creator, neither can you rule out an omnimalevolent one, and such a creator is not God and should be opposed.

Just as you don't like to blame God for the horrible things, as awful as Man is, I think it's just as rude to blame Man because he ate an apple. Imagine instead, if bad stuff just happens, and nobody is at fault for it. And if you want to put a moral imperative to it, you can say we're all born into an imperfect world with a moral directive to make it fairer and better, just a little bit.

Opinions.

Hopefully an opinion we share, insofar as we should extend the benefit of the doubt and not assume malevolence.

If this is not an appropriate starting point because you do not agree, then nothing else follows.

You're giving God the benefit of the doubt, though, which indicates that you do agree, and assuming that he is honest and not trying to hurt us. Given what he's done as his actions appear in the Bible, it is no more ridiculous to give Man that same benefit of the doubt. Conversely if you're finding Man full culpable - meaning knew it would hurt people and did it anyway - for eating an apple and causing all the harm in the world, then it's extremely reasonable to ask, what if God is malevolent, what if he's a liar, what if he does cause all the harm intentionally because he's a sadist? Well then, he should be opposed.

People seem to have a desire to have fallen, to have been better off before, but we can climb back up. This is even part of the basic "Cinderella" story arc, where the main character is happy, then something happens, then they're much worse off, then they climb back up. This story arc is so appealing that writing classes teach you to do it, even though it's a trope. But I don't think it's as appealing as being worse off at the start, and forging a new path forward, imagining how the world could be if it were fair, and pursuing that even if we don't know if it's possible to get there.

Opinions.

That might be very little evidence, and not strong evidence, that the Bible is made-up, but the type of story people prefer, and that consequently succeeds, is not.

https://thewritepractice.com/story-arcs/

I'm bringing you facts, here.

And you think the Bible being true counts as a fact?