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]

So, then he didn't intend the arrogant to understand.

I didn’t say that. I merely gave one possibility that would demonstrate how a lack of clarify in a message doesn’t automatically mean a lack of omnipotence or omniscience, which is what you suggested.

All those hindus, jews, muslims, atheists, etc, are arrogant and that's why they fail to believe what you do? Does somebody not believing what you do mean that they are deficient in character?

I’ve already said that we will be held responsible for the amount of truth committed to us and that this meant that those who are invincibly ignorant - ignorant of the Christian message because they have not yet had an opportunity to hear it – will not be judged according to that Christian message. Instead, they’ll be judged according to their conscience, which is made in God’s Image and Likeness, and which helps us discern good and evil.

I don't see a middle of possibilities.

I just gave you one – that the lack of clarity is deliberate, which has nothing to do with omnipotence or omniscience or a lack of either.

I said it excludes an omnipotent God who intends to be clearly understood by all of us.

Then we would seem to agree in part. Of course, the Christian would say that there was initially one Church and doctrine was clearly defined by her and then people simply wished to follow their own – heretics – and that any lack of clarity now isn’t God’s responsibility.

The holy books are especially troubling because it is easy to see that they lead people or justify people in doing some pretty horrific things. It isn't hard to read hate into them, and if they come from an all powerful being, that must also be intentional.

The Christian faith is summed up with Love God and your neighbor as yourself. It’s pretty hard to misinterpret that and if one does then s/he is deliberately choosing to be obtuse and I’m not sure we can fault God w/ someone else’s intentional, obdurate, rebellion.

[JLB32168]

Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!

I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Of course, it has little to do with the point that the Christian message of salvation is through Christ and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting is commonly understood by all – even atheists.
BTW, if an atheist is saved, it is still through Christ who can have mercy on whomever he wishes – even an atheist, who might be surprised to discover that God is real and saved him/her in spite of his/her atheism.

This is a strange claim. Do you believe atheists can go to heaven like the Pope, or is there a contradiction?

If an atheist is ignorant of the Christian through no fault of his/her own or has received a distorted version of the Christian message, then who am I to say that God will deny him salvation? Yes, I believe it’s possible.

How is the bold not circular logic?

I’m not sure what you mean here since there seems to be a disconnect. You asked me Christian theology – in particular Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. I’ve not compelled you to believe it. I’ve merely explained it, that is, that all religions contain truth in greater or lesser amounts but Christianity contains the fullness of truth.
You’re free to reject that claim if you wish since I can’t conclusively prove it’s the truth.

I'll continue to notice that theological perspectives vary, therefore to refer to some 'fullness of truth' or 'TRUTH' seems illogical.

Why – because it can’t be proven? The ancients thought the stars were in the heavens and they were right. They just thought that the stars were suspended by ropes. We now have greater truth in that we know they’re in space and are moving apart faster and faster as entropy approaches. That’s the difference between having truth and having more (or the fullness) of it.
Again, I’m not telling you that you have to be an Orthodox Christian so you can chuck whatever I have to say.

Referring to 'my fullness of truth' or 'my TRUTH' seems more appropriate.

Since I’m not demanding you agree with me I’m going to stick with the parlance I’ve used thus far.

Things written about your god concept have discrepancies because your god concept was created by men, much like the Constitution.

You’re free to believe that, Dude.

The Bible has discrepancies. Therefore, the Bible, like every other book in existence was written by men.

I don’t disagree that it was written by men. I just think that they were inspired by God to write it. No, I don’t think that it is inerrant. I think there are negligible discrepancies. No, I don’t think that’s important.

[Clownboat]

Pope Francis says atheists can do good and go to heaven too!

I don’t necessarily disagree with that. Of course, it has little to do with the point that the Christian message of salvation is through Christ and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting is commonly understood by all – even atheists.
BTW, if an atheist is saved, it is still through Christ who can have mercy on whomever he wishes – even an atheist, who might be surprised to discover that God is real and saved him/her in spite of his/her atheism.

You don't disagree, yet you said this:
The common belief is that salvation is through Christ and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting. There simply isn’t the difference that you allege.

Salvation is through Christ you say, and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting. Accept when there is not consequences like when Jesus saves an atheist.

I would consider that if there is consequences for accepting or rejecting the resurrection of Christ, accept for when there isn't (like Jesus forgiving an atheists) to be a very big difference like I claimed.

This is a strange claim. Do you believe atheists can go to heaven like the Pope, or is there a contradiction?

If an atheist is ignorant of the Christian through no fault of his/her own or has received a distorted version of the Christian message, then who am I to say that God will deny him salvation? Yes, I believe it’s possible.

Who are you to say that god will deny salvation you ask?
Since you asked, you seem to be a person that supersedes the Pope, because the Pope says they need to be good people. Nothing about how they must have received a distorted message and the like.

So, is heaven obtained through believing that Christ died and rose again, or by doing good?
You and the Pope don't seem to disagree that atheists will be going to heaven (many Christians will not agree with you of course), but there seems to be a bid discrepancy on the how. This puts doubt on your claim that there are consequences for accepting or rejecting.

How is the bold not circular logic?

I’m not sure what you mean here since there seems to be a disconnect.

Simple. You said: "Christianity containing the fullness of truth according to Christian theology."
Reads like, Christianity contains truth according to Christian study. This would be circular reasoning.

You asked me Christian theology – in particular Eastern Orthodox Christian theology. I’ve not compelled you to believe it. I’ve merely explained it, that is, that all religions contain truth in greater or lesser amounts but Christianity contains the fullness of truth. You’re free to reject that claim if you wish since I can’t conclusively prove it’s the truth.

Great, consider it rejected for it being an empty claim as of now.

I'll continue to notice that theological perspectives vary, therefore to refer to some 'fullness of truth' or 'TRUTH' seems illogical.

Why – because it can’t be proven?

No, because competing god concepts can't all be true. Therefore to assume that there is some 'fullness of truth' is to assume to much.

Since I’m not demanding you agree with me I’m going to stick with the parlance I’ve used thus far.

That is fair, I will continue to reject that religions contain some fullness of truth at this time.

Things written about your god concept have discrepancies because your god concept was created by men, much like the Constitution.

You’re free to believe that, Dude.

I know I am.
Do you yourself see the correlation or not?

The Bible has discrepancies. Therefore, the Bible, like every other book in existence was written by men.

I don’t disagree that it was written by men. I just think that they were inspired by God to write it. No, I don’t think that it is inerrant. I think there are negligible discrepancies. No, I don’t think that’s important.

Do I have this right?
You believe a perfect god inspired the writing of a book with discrepancies. Not just minor ones either, ones where we have some followers saying you must accept Jesus as your savior and others that are telling us we just need to be good people.

- Accept that an innocent man was tortured and died for your sins so you can go to heaven.
- Accept that you must be good to go to heaven.

How is this not a discrepancy? You do acknowledge that these are actual beliefs that are a part of your religion (as a whole, not just orthodoxy) right?

[Jolly_Penguin]

I merely gave one possibility that would demonstrate how a lack of clarify in a message doesn’t automatically mean a lack of omnipotence or omniscience, which is what you suggested.

No. I didn't. Later in your post it seems you can finally see that. And it now seems that you agree with my OP after all.

The Christian faith is summed up with Love God and your neighbor as yourself. It’s pretty hard to misinterpret that and if one does then s/he is deliberately choosing to be obtuse and I’m not sure we can fault God w/ someone else’s intentional, obdurate, rebellion.

Your view of the Christian faith may be summed up that way. But the bible certainly is not. It is easily interpretable as hateful and intolerant, and many have interpreted it that way, and many still do. Is it your claim that they are intentionally misinterpreting it and that they actually know what they say of it is wrong?

If an atheist is ignorant of the Christian through no fault of his/her own or has received a distorted version of the Christian message, then who am I to say that God will deny him salvation? Yes, I believe it’s possible.

What if the atheist knows very well your view of what Christian views are, and simply rejects them as make believe? What if they were even an ex-pastor or something like that who has since come to see the religion as a fiction? As you said before, most of us know the basic claims of Christianity (though we also know it changes from sect to sect). That doesn't mean we believe any of it though, just as you don't believe the claims from Muslims and say the shahada etc.

Salvation is through Christ you say, and there are consequences for accepting or rejecting. Accept when there is not consequences like when Jesus saves an atheist.

To be fair, I would argue that an atheist can't reject Christ or accept Christ, since an atheist sees no Christ to reject or accept. I would ask the Christians: Is it possible for an atheist to blaspheme. I don't see how it could be.

[JLB32168]

[JLB32168]

[Jolly_Penguin]

[Clownboat]

[JLB32168]

[ttruscott]

But an all powerful being would have no need to rely on such limited means so prone to error and misunderstanding. If he has infinite power he would have no need to depend on a message being relayed from person to person or to even rely on human language. He could simply make us all know. That we don't means that he didn't, and that he didn't means that he didn't intend to.

Is that really so difficult to understand?

What is difficult about the belief that those HE calls hear HIS voice and those who don't are condemned already so the message in the Bible is just not meant for everybody while the indwelling Holy spirit makes the message clear to those called who are sprinkled throughout the denominations and the unchurched?