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.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 118 by ttruscott]

And to tell the truth, if I am condemned or even if there is no afterlife, I can only say that my life as a committed Christian has been the best part of my life in every way and was very much worth it.

Ted, since you consider this a possibility, why bother being loyal to God and this version of Christian theology that you have?
It's one thing if a random Christian says they believe 100% that God will give them salvation because they believe.
This however seems to be different. You're not 100%. You say it's a possibility that God will condemn you, despite your very vocal and fervent beliefs.

[rikuoamero]

[Replying to post 118 by ttruscott]

The way we live on earth and the things we understand or do not understand as humans have nothing to do with our free will decisions about YHWH's deity and HIS morality.

I have a question about this part as well. Let's pretend for the sake of argument that I agree that this is what happened, every person who ever has been on Earth, is now on Earth and will be in the future made this choice before we were even conceived.
How do you know that we were wrong? Is this the choice in vocal terms "I say that you, YHWH, are not God"?

I'll proceed assuming yes.
What comes to mind is Philip Pullman's His Dark Materials trilogy. I'm going to spoil something from it if you haven't read it, and I highly urge you to. In that series, Heaven is ruled by the angels, and the angels are ruled by what they believe to be God, but who is in fact "merely" the very first angel, who then used the mysterious substance called dust (I think this part is from the books, it's been years since I've read them) to create the other angels and then told them that he was God, the creator of the universe. He then proceeded to act in a tyrannical fashion. The 'actual' God (if there is one) in the Materials meta-verse is never encountered, in any fashion.

UPDATE - Just checked the wiki for HDM. The first angel didn't create the other angels, the books just say that after they formed, the first angel then lied to them and claimed to be their creator.

[Clownboat]

^ I can't make heads or tails of the above post, other than the last bit about "willingness to do evil".... no I don't even know where you are going with that.

Your entire post looks like airy language with no meaning to me. Maybe because I am not versed in your theology and am not capable of reading it properly. Care to break it down in terms the layperson can understand?

What does it have to do with my point about God apparently choosing a confusing and less than perfect means of communication through holy books and prophets instead of just making us know what he wants?

Jolly, perhaps you need to 'think with your heart'.


When I was a Christian, that is what we said when we wanted people to believe us. How can anyone refute that claim, much less understand it? I sure don't miss the airy language myself.

I agree. I've never used it nor do I think it means anything...

Personally I feel that the above is just an insult to anyone that doesn't share his beliefs. (eternally evil folk - living their lives of idolatry and sin - they, the tares - they, the sinful elect - living with the reprobate - their willingness to be evil).
... You will know them by their fruit.

Pretty ordinary Christian doctrine, right? Kept me out of the Church for many years searching the world. Then I found a rationale that made sense of how those eternally evil ones self created their state by their free will etc etc...

I get it. I did everything I could in order to maintain my Christian beliefs as well. I accepted that evolution was how god got us here and that there was not a global flood and such before giving up fully.

I never attempted any pre-conception ideas though. Back when keeping my beliefs was important to me (I was terrified of what my friends and family would think and say about me), I just might have accepted such an explanation.

This just doesn't work for me now though. It seems as though a person can take account of all the things in the Bible that they have issues with, and then invent a theological idea that makes them all go away. Sure a person can keep their beliefs this way, but is it really a good way to arrive at the truth of a matter? I suggest not.