Existence of Holy Books as Evidence Against Their Claims

[Jolly_Penguin]

It occurs to me that many holy books claim a God exists that is all powerful and that this God has a message he/she/it wants you to know. But it occurs to me that an all powerful God would not have any need for such a limited and primitive means of communication. An all powerful God could simply make us all know what he is there and what he expects of us*. So the books themselves are at best redundant, and almost certainly misleading.

That we do not all know and agree on what God wants, that we have battles between different religions and different sects, tells me that if an all powerful God exists, he must intend all of this confusion. Perhaps he enjoys it. This conflicts with the messages I keep reading in these holy books.

So I wonder, is the mere existence of these holy books evidence against their claim of an all powerful God with a message he wants us to know?

* - Please note that us knowing what he expects of us doesn't in any way restrict our "free will" to obey or not obey what he wants, an in fact that only with knowing what he wants can we truly make any informed choice and have "free will" on the matter.

[JLB32168]

It occurs to me that many holy books claim a God exists that is all powerful and that this God has a message he/she/it wants you to know. But it occurs to me that an all powerful God would not have any need for such a limited and primitive means of communication.

I agree that an omnipotent deity wouldn’t have any need for a book. I just don’t know why that’s important since an omnipotent deity isn’t precluded from using such a book.

So I wonder, is the mere existence of these holy books evidence against their claim of an all powerful God with a message he wants us to know?

What is the logical process for arriving at the conclusion?

If [p1] Holy Books exist and [p2] fill in the blank, then [C]an omnipotent deity doesn’t exist.

I’m not understanding what the second premise might be that would render the conclusion a logical one.

[Jolly_Penguin]

If [p1] Holy Books exist and [p2] fill in the blank, then [C]an omnipotent deity doesn’t exist.

As I explained above, the claim seems to be that God not only exists, but that he has a message and command for you, and fully intends you to understand it and wants you to obey it. Being an all powerful God, he would also have the ability to convey that message clearly and effectively so we would all know it... which the bible doesn't do, as we can see with there being different interpretations and indeed different books also claimed as holy books from Gods.

We must conclude that either God doesn't exist, or God is not all powerful, or God does not have a message for us that he intends us all to understand. My OP is asking if there are any other conclusions possible.

If God wanted us to know X, then we would know X. If he tested us to see if we would obey the command X, then we would have to understand there is such a command X that we are being asked by him to obey. Otherwise it isn't a real and informed choice and he isn't judging us on anything but the very confusion he created in us.

A very valid and proper answer to "Jesus loves you and wants to save you but you must do X" is "Jesus can come and tell me that himself then. Until he does you are just some guy pretending to speak for him, if he exists at all". Sending a messenger or relying on written text is something a limited being with limited time and resources may need to depend on, but not something an all powerful God would. That this "message from God" is brought to us via an old book is something we should be highly suspicious of and I think it counts as evidence against their claims.

[JLB32168]

Being an all powerful God, he would also have the ability to convey that message clearly and effectively so we would all know it.

It seems to me that it has been conveyed quite clearly. Everyone here seems to understand Christianity very well – that one must achieve Salvation, that it is through Christ alone, that heaven and hell are real in one form or another. What ambiguity is there?

If God wanted us to know X, then we would know X.

Like I said, I’m not sure what tenets of Christianity one here doesn’t understand. It seems to me that most non-Christians know quite a bit about Christianity so it seems that any lack of clarity on these things is manufactured.

Sending a messenger or relying on written text is something a limited being with limited time and resources may need to depend on, but not something an all powerful God would.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow. How are omnipotence and sending a written witness or a speaker mutually exclusive? It’s simply illogical to conclude that not speaking for oneself means that one’s omnipotence is compromised.

That this "message from God" is brought to us via an old book is something we should be highly suspicious of and I think it counts as evidence against their claims.

And you’re free to believe that but don’t say that you arrived at that conclusion through some logical process, which you clearly didn’t.

[Clownboat]

It occurs to me that many holy books claim a God exists that is all powerful and that this God has a message he/she/it wants you to know. But it occurs to me that an all powerful God would not have any need for such a limited and primitive means of communication.

I agree that an omnipotent deity wouldn’t have any need for a book. I just don’t know why that’s important since an omnipotent deity isn’t precluded from using such a book.

So I wonder, is the mere existence of these holy books evidence against their claim of an all powerful God with a message he wants us to know?

What is the logical process for arriving at the conclusion?

If [p1] Holy Books exist and [p2] fill in the blank, then [C]an omnipotent deity doesn’t exist.

I’m not understanding what the second premise might be that would render the conclusion a logical one.

It is not logical that an all powerful god would right a book with a message for everyone, yet then require pastors and theologians to interpret said book.

If you disagree with this logic, I would like to understand why.

[Jolly_Penguin]

It is not logical that God would rely on a book at all, when he could simply make us all know him and what he wants of us. Christians among themselves disagree to the point of creating many sects of Christianity ranging form Catholic to Mormon to Baptist and so on. Nevermind the other religions and atheists who belive the bible to be fiction. God could avoid all this confusion if he wanted to and simply make us know. To say otherwise would be say he isn't all powerful.

[JLB32168]

It is not logical that an all powerful god would right a book with a message for everyone, yet then require pastors and theologians to interpret said book.

What’s not logical about it? You’ve used no logical process to make such a conclusion. What does a person’s inability to understand a book thus requiring an interpreter have to do with omnipotence or the lack thereof?

Perhaps said deity wished for said book to be interpreted to the people.

Perhaps said deity wished for only the humble to understand said book since the humble approach such knowledge with thankfulness contrasted against those who rely purely upon arrogant modern intelligence to determine truth or falsehood.

I’ve given two examples that would rebut your assertion that its illogical for an omnipotent deity to inspire an enigmatic book to be written.

Of course, you seem to be suggesting that the book is enigmatic and I’ve noticed that everyone here seems to have a grasp on the doctrine of traditional Nicaene Christianity. That being the case, I don’t know why you speak as if the book is sphinxlike.

[tokutter]

What’s not logical about it? You’ve used no logical process to make such a conclusion. What does a person’s inability to understand a book thus requiring an interpreter have to do with omnipotence or the lack thereof?

Perhaps said deity wished for said book to be interpreted to the people.

Perhaps said deity wished for only the humble to understand said book since the humble approach such knowledge with thankfulness contrasted against those who rely purely upon arrogant modern intelligence to determine truth or falsehood.

I’ve given two examples that would rebut your assertion that its illogical for an omnipotent deity to inspire an enigmatic book to be written.

Of course, you seem to be suggesting that the book is enigmatic and I’ve noticed that everyone here seems to have a grasp on the doctrine of traditional Nicaene Christianity. That being the case, I don’t know why you speak as if the book is sphinxlike.

And after 1500 years of humble interpretation gods word has now coalesced into a well defined well understood singularity of holy speak............or know wait.........it has fractured into thousands of different demoninations........and how many different bibles???????

Book of Mormon
New World Translation
21st Century King James Version (KJ21)
American Standard Version (ASV)
Amplified Bible (AMP)
Amplified Bible, Classic Edition (AMPC)
BRG Bible (BRG)
Common English Bible (CEB) with Apocrypha
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB)
Contemporary English Version (CEV)
Darby Translation (DARBY)
Disciples’ Literal New Testament (DLNT) NT
Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition (DRA) with Apocrypha
Easy-to-Read Version (ERV)
English Standard Version (ESV) 
English Standard Version Anglicised (ESVUK)
Expanded Bible (EXB)
1599 Geneva Bible (GNV) 
GOD’S WORD Translation (GW)
Good News Translation (GNT) with Apocrypha
Holman Christian Standard Bible (HCSB) 
International Children’s Bible (ICB)
International Standard Version (ISV)
J.B. Phillips New Testament (PHILLIPS) NT
Jubilee Bible 2000 (JUB)
King James Version (KJV) 
Authorized (King James) Version (AKJV)
Lexham English Bible (LEB) 
Living Bible (TLB)
The Message (MSG) 
Modern English Version (MEV)
Mounce Reverse-Interlinear New Testament (MOUNCE) NT
Names of God Bible (NOG)
New American Bible (Revised Edition) (NABRE)
New American Standard Bible (NASB) 
New Century Version (NCV)
New English Translation (NET Bible)
New International Reader's Version (NIRV)
New International Version (NIV) 
New International Version - UK (NIVUK) 
New King James Version (NKJV)
New Life Version (NLV)
New Living Translation (NLT)
New Revised Standard Version (NRSV) with Apocrypha
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised (NRSVA) with Apocrypha
New Revised Standard Version, Anglicised Catholic Edition (NRSVACE)
New Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (NRSVCE)
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB)
Revised Standard Version (RSV) with Apocrypha
Revised Standard Version Catholic Edition (RSVCE)
The Voice (VOICE)
World English Bible (WEB)
Worldwide English (New Testament) (WE) NT
Wycliffe Bible (WYC) with Apocrypha
Young's Literal Translation (YLT)

Are you humble JLB32168 and understand the word???...or are you just winging it???

I want to start my humble journey JLB32168......whats the best denomination to get me there????

What the best bible version to use????

Whats the most humblest correctest rightest bible passage below........ the one that says rape......or seize.......or grab........or takes...........or caught or or or or.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29New International Version (NIV)
28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, 29 he shall pay her father fifty shekels[a] of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives

Deuteronomy 22:28-29Revised Standard Version (RSV)
28 “If a man meets a virgin who is not betrothed, and seizes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the young woman fifty shekels of silver, and she shall be his wife, because he has violated her; he may not put her away all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29World English Bible (WEB)
28 If a man finds a lady who is a virgin, who is not pledged to be married, grabs her, and lies with her, and they are found; 29 then the man who lay with her shall give to the lady’s father fifty shekels[a] of silver. She shall be his wife, because he has humbled her. He may not put her away all his days.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29New Life Version (NLV)
28 “If a man finds a girl who has never had a man and is not promised in marriage, and takes her and lies with her, and they are found, 29 then the man who lay with her must give fifty pieces of silver to the girl’s father. And she will become his wife, because he has put her to shame. He cannot divorce her as long as he lives.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29Young's Literal Translation (YLT)
28 `When a man findeth a damsel, a virgin who is not betrothed, and hath caught her, and lain with her, and they have been found,

29 then hath the man who is lying with her given to the father of the damsel fifty silverlings, and to him she is for a wife; because that he hath humbled her, he is not able to send her away all his days.

Tell me where to start......brother......show me the way.



.

[JLB32168]

And after 1500 years of humble interpretation gods word has now coalesced into a well defined well understood singularity of holy speak............or know wait.........it has fractured into thousands of different demoninations........and how many different bibles???????

Which of the Bibles below presents a Christian message that’s appreciably different from the others – save the NWT and the Book of Mormon, which is by the Jehovah’s Witness organization or the LDS?

The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and most Protestant Churches teach essentially the same things when it comes to the Christian fundamentals articulated in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds.
It seems to me that most of these alleged differences are manufactured or blown out of proportion.

Are you humble JLB32168 and understand the word???...or are you just winging it???

I might ask you the same question but I won’t.

I want to start my humble journey JLB32168......whats the best denomination to get me there????

I’d go with the Eastern Orthodox Church.

What the best bible version to use????

I prefer the KJV but many of the others are good ones.

Whats the most humblest correctest rightest bible passage below........ the one that says rape......or seize.......or grab........or takes...........or caught or or or or[/b].

That’s the OT and Christian denominations teach that is the imperfect revelation of God’s Truth. Take whichever you want but keep in mind that it was written to reign in Bronze Age barbarousness. Victims of rape would be cast out of their communities and left destitute to starve since they were regarded as “spoiled goods.� The commandment made sure that this couldn’t happen. It’s imperfect, but it made sure that victims weren’t further victimized – unlike the other societies of the time.

Personally, I go to the Septuagint/LXX or an English translation of it, which says, “And if any one should find a young virgin who has not been betrothed, and should force [her] and lie with her, and be found, 29 the man who lay with her shall give to the father of the damsel fifty silver didrachms, and she shall be his wife, because he has humble her; he shall never be able to put her away.�

Of course, Christianity is founded mainly upon the teachings of Christ in the NT so concentration on the minutia of the OT seems more like a distraction than anything else.

[catnip]

[Replying to post 67 by tokutter]

I am always amused when someone uses clobber verses from the Old Testament against Christians. While the Old Testament is useful background information for the Christian, the authoritative Testament (Covenant) for Christians is the New one. Only Evangelical/Fundamentalist Christians conflate the two.

[Jolly_Penguin]

If God wanted us to know X, then we would know X.

Like I said, I’m not sure what tenets of Christianity one here doesn’t understand. It seems to me that most non-Christians know quite a bit about Christianity so it seems that any lack of clarity on these things is manufactured.

Even if the non-Christians understand the claims of Christinaity (whichever Christianity you want to say is true) they do not know it to be true. God has not made that so. He very easily could if he is omnipotent. Nor would it interfere with free will, and indeed only by knowing he exists could one truly make an informed decision as to whether or not to follow him.

Sending a messenger or relying on written text is something a limited being with limited time and resources may need to depend on, but not something an all powerful God would.

Your conclusion doesn’t follow. How are omnipotence and sending a written witness or a speaker mutually exclusive?

It isn't, and that's not what I said. I said that omnipotence, and desiring all to know your message, is not compatible with sending a written witness or a speaker that fails to convince all. If God wants to be known to all, is all powerful, and is not known to all, he isn't omnipotent. This is really quite simple.

The Roman Catholic Church, the Eastern Orthodox Church, and most Protestant Churches teach essentially the same things when it comes to the Christian fundamentals articulated in the Apostles’ or Nicene Creeds.
It seems to me that most of these alleged differences are manufactured or blown out of proportion.

Despite you thinking that all these sects of Christianity believe essentially the same things, they are different enough to split off into different sects,for many to call Catholics not Christian, and to declare each other wrong and possibly even hellbound.

My point stands unchallenged. If they were all united in one church that would definitely help, but what of non-christian religions? Are they not seeking just as honestly? Just as humbly? Hindus appear pretty humble to me, as to Jains. Are many of them not just as devout and certain that they know who God really is and what God really wants? And what of the Atheists?

Clearly all of humanity does not share a unified message from God. They conflict with each other, so at least some of them must be wrong, despite persistent and faithful efforts to understand and obey God. That directly contradicts with the claim they often make that there is a message from God that he wants us all to know and understand.

So when a Christian comes to me and tells me there is "Good News" about Jesus and Jesus wants to know me etc... I see it for what it is... a human claiming he knows something, conflicting with a thousand other humans claiming he's wrong and they are right. And I recognize that a real God would not need to rely on such faulty methods of communication.

The existence of holy books is evidence against such claims. A real God wouldn't be so bad a communicator. Perhaps he doesn't want to be known by all, or perhaps he is not all powerful, or perhaps there is no God.