Why????

[POI]

If a God exists, and this God wants us to know He really exists, and also wants us to know what He wants, then why doesn't He just tell us Himself? If the Christian God is true, He is either pleased, or at least content, with the publication of the Bible.

Many will argue the Bible is not inerrant. Many may also argue context, when reading. Others might argue it is literal, and the perfect word of God. How do we really know what Jesus did and did not say, being He bothered not to write/preserve any of it Himself? Etc... Regardless of one's position on the matter, I have to ask, why??? Meaning.....

For Debate:

1. Why didn't God/Jesus write the final canon Himself, and also preserve it in a way for which it could not later be completely corrupted?
2. How could we know it was from an actual divine source, you ask? Well, it could have been written/preserved in a way in which humans could not do at the time, or even now. Thus, at best, I guess skeptics could still argue it came from aliens/other. But certainly not from earthly men ALONE

[TRANSPONDER]

Just as we learn a lot about a painter from his painting, thinking people can learn much about the Creators intelligence, benevolence and wisdom "from "the book of nature".

Hypothetically, assuming I believed it, what we can observe is something that wants us to be conscious. Whether or not it wants us to be kind to one another is not evident, especially in the case of social animals like humans and wolves.





The painter chooses which brush and paint to use. He chooses the elements to paint. He chooses the composition. The colours and strokes he chose cannot be solely blamed for the work. It's a beautiful work, but the idea that Nature, as such a work, conveys compassion as its central theme, is doubtful. It conveys compassion, but also ruthlessness in equal measure.

And this is very, very broad. The Bible may have the specifics right, but so might another religion. Human beings do make stuff up and dupe others. The only way a creator could tell us something specific, through a specific religion, is by giving each of us proof that it is the true religion and nobody's just made it up or even twisted it.

.... we can't conceive of life without suffering.

Biblically speaking, suffering is not part of Gods will for mankind. While people can learn certain Godly qualities such as endurance and patience through pain, divine qualities are innate and do not a require personal suffering to be developped. Just as no loving Father will deliberately burn his child's face so he can learn to overcoming disfigurement and become more sympathetic to burn victims, our loving Creator did not design a world where suffering was a requirement for life.

Just to be clear, I'm saying the argument against God, from suffering, is a bad one.

But where I think this idea fails of God not wanting us to suffer at all, is on the level of slight suffering. Just having a physical body with physical needs entails certain things like hunger and thirst and constipation which are at least unpleasant.

Yes. I think too much is taken for granted or overlooked - how the 'design' makes us another animal, working the same way and with the same instincts. Evolution explains this; Creation and intelligent design doesn't. I have heard the apologetic 'a car maker would make all cars the same basic design', but would a god intending humans as a perfect creature to rule His creation an animal with animal instincts, functions and behaviour? Just as the Fall doesn't explain why T rex, designed to be a carnivore would eat fruit, design of human to be animal isn't explained by the Fall, unless one (yet again) suspects that God intended the Fall, sin and everything that needed to be put right by Jesus, but really wasn't.

I can already hear the excuses, up to and including 'God knows best' and the like denial, but doesn't evolution, (chemical, biological and social) explain it better than a god planning it all that way? It is better to accept things the way they are and play the hand nature dealt us rather than try to make evidence, logic and even the Bible jump through hoops to make what doesn't look true, sound true? I have even seen some apologists have to say that God does not know what is going to happen and is working to patch up a mess He made but of course like a cosmic karen, will not accept responsibility for but offloads the blame onto men.

I don't want to get steamed at this lousy lie and denial of the way the evidence points, but with watchmaker arguments with pretty pics of kiddies playing with flowers and butterflies, the message I get is that 'You are all mentally children and we can fool you with simple tricks'. I've said it before - I do not like people who try to fool me, and I think the people don't either.

[JehovahsWitness]

having a physical body with physical needs entails certain things like hunger and thirst and constipation which are at least unpleasant.

Sufffering refers to ongoing or enduring pain, anguish or distress and most people that use language know to distinguish "suffering" from the physical fleeting sensations our bodies send us as signals to eat, sleep or remove our finger from a flame. The bible promises and end to famine, drought and sickness.

My point stands.

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE KINGDOM, THE MILLENIUM and ...THE EARTHLY PARADISE

[JehovahsWitness]

The only way a creator could tell us something specific, through a specific religion, is by giving each of us proof that it is the true religion and nobody's just made it up or even twisted it.

If the bible is the source of religious truth as a result of divine revelation, then it would not be dependent on any religion for this to be true. God's people however would then be identifiable by how closely they adhere to the biblical requirementas for them.


JEHOVAH'S WITNESS


RELATED POSTS

Has the bible been contaminated with human error?
viewtopic.php?p=979422#p979422

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

THE BIBLE , HERMENEUTICS* and ... BIBLE AUTHORSHIP & TRANSMISSION

* bible interpretation[/quote]

[JehovahsWitness]

... the idea that Nature, as such a work, conveys compassion as its central theme, is doubtful.

WHY DO WE SEE CRUELTY IN NATURE?


Since the fall in Eden the bible explains that the planet lost its balance and neither the animal kingdom nor especially humans fully reflect Gods original purpose for them. Soon God will kill off the wicked that cause so much suffering and restore the peacefull harmony between man and beast God originally purposed.









ORIGINAL PURPOSE

Can nature teach is anything about the Creature?
viewtopic.php?p=1128302#p1128302

Did God originally purpose for animals to be dangerous?
viewtopic.php?p=1029607#p1029607

Why did God create dangerouse carnivores ?
viewtopic.php?p=1124377#p1124377

Did God originally create animals to kill and each each other?
viewtopic.php?p=1124287#p1124287

Do numerous scriptures not attribute violent carnivorous behaviours as being God's will?
viewtopic.php?p=1124285#p1124285

Are eagles evidence God origonally wanted animals to kill each other?
viewtopic.php?p=1124379#p1124379

ADAPTABILITY

Why did some animals become "wild"?
viewtopic.php?p=1029636#p102963

How did carnivorous digestive systems first develop ?
viewtopic.php?p=1124518#p1124518

Would it not be impossible for God to anatomically adapt carnivores to herbivores?
viewtopic.php?p=1124286#p1124286

PARADISE PROMISES

Will sharks be dangerous in be paradise ?
viewtopic.php?p=1124094#p1124094

Are the scriptures that mention total peace in the human kingdom and the animal kingdom only referring to land creatures?
viewtopic.php?p=1124284#p1124284

Do the scriptures that mention peace with animals INCLUDE sea creatures?
viewtopic.php?p=1124284#p1124284

When will land and sea creatures cease to be a threat to humans or each other?
viewtopic.php?p=1124146#p1124146

How do we know whether or not Isaish 11:6-7 is to be taken literally?
viewtopic.php?p=1124267#p1124267

To learn more please go to other posts related to...

ANIMALS, NATURE and ... THE EARTHLY PARSDISE

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to JehovahsWitness in post #204]


This is all rather poor. While some accepts natural selection (evolutionary adaptation) it leaves Creation open. For the rest it is asking theological questions that don'r address the problem. Trying to blame animal nature on the fall which is absurd that a god would allow the disobedience of man to bring down all God's creation with it. Especially as the fossil record shows that carnivorous activity goes back to Cambrian crustaceans. T Rex never ate grass.

Nobody who understands the evidence could possibly see that eating an apple explains nature better than evolution.

[Purple Knight]

having a physical body with physical needs entails certain things like hunger and thirst and constipation which are at least unpleasant.

Suffering refers to ongoing or enduring pain, anguish or distress and most people that use language know to distinguish "suffering" from the physical fleeting sensations our bodies send us as signals to eat, sleep or remove our finger from a flame. The bible promises and end to famine, drought and sickness.

The problem is that there is no clear line. How much hunger constitutes the suffering of starvation? Going without a meal for a day? I've done this simply because I've been busy or lazy.

We need negative sensations and that's clearly intended, if we assume intelligent design. God is smart enough not to design people so that he has to stuff their mouths with food, then tell them if they don't do this every so often, they'll die. A similar design is an alarm clock. It's unpleasant, and if it just beeped once, many people would just go back to sleep. To some degree, the unpleasantness has to be ongoing.

You can give people enough food to eat and clean water to drink, but you can't make it so they don't suffer at all, because suffering is part of human design.

There probably isn't an alternative design. If we were never called to action by unpleasantness, we would never do any actions to relieve that ongoing unpleasantness. We get spat out into the world as little bald balls of wailing suffering and we learn to alleviate some and get used to the rest.

My original point, however, was that because people do make stuff up to deceive, we can't know which religion has it right and which are deceptions without having personal proof.

[Purple Knight]

If the bible is the source of religious truth as a result of divine revelation, then it would not be dependent on any religion for this to be true. God's people however would then be identifiable by how closely they adhere to the biblical requirementas for them.

I can write a fake holy book right now and claim it's from God. Now, you know now, if I do this in front of your face, that the Bible at least might be divine, and my fake book definitely isn't. So you have every reason to trust the Bible more.

If I go back a thousand years and do this, it's going to be harder to tell what I've done.

There may be truthful accounts in the Bible. It may all of it be a technical account. And Jesus may simply have been a servant of some other god and lied about the resurrection of regular people for kicks.

WHY DO WE SEE CRUELTY IN NATURE?

Since the fall in Eden the bible explains that the planet lost its balance and neither the animal kingdom nor especially humans fully reflect Gods original purpose for them. Soon God will kill off the wicked that cause so much suffering and restore the peaceful harmony between man and beast God originally purposed.

If God didn't want animals to be carnivores, why not just set them to starve, rather than start eating meat, if wicked humans sinned and made it so they wouldn't be able to live in harmony anymore?

Even adaptive carnivory, even if that's all it is, is a design.

[JehovahsWitness]

And Jesus may simply have been a servant of some other god and lied about the resurrection of regular people for kicks.

Jesus didn't make claims about resurrecting people... he resurrected dead people and left those that witnessed his actions to testify to events. If the testimonies were false there would be eyewitness record to that effect.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Purple Knight in post #206]

I agree. Evolution accounts for why we have animal instincts and limitations and needs and indeed why animals do, and the Fall is ridiculous as used as a reason that animals and plants (nettles wouldn't sting in Eden, surely) would get taken down in a Fall that Gos surely did abd would do selectively, or couldn't do something about.

The suggestion (highly dangerous ) was posted that God doesn't know in advance what will happen and his plan is made up as he goes along. I don't think the poster realised how bad that looked but just needed an excuse at that moment.

But the fall bringing down the whole of creation makes no sense, no more than destroying everything other than what could be crammed on the Ark for a year or that natural disasters are to teach us a lesson, especially since no - one now believes that lighting is used to strike evildoers.

Our Pal JW should consider that evolution makes perfect sense and the Eden sceniaro does not and no reference to the painter (watchmaker) apologetic or pictures of kiddies playing with buttercups is going to make it any less nonsense.

[TRANSPONDER]

And Jesus may simply have been a servant of some other god and lied about the resurrection of regular people for kicks.

Jesus didn't make claims about resurrecting people... he resurrected dead people and left those that witnessed his actions to testify to events. If the testimonies were false there would be eyewitness record to that effect.

Don't treat us like idiots The contradictory stories claim that Jesus resurrected people.

The son of the woman of nain. Nobody mentions that but Luke;
Possibly Jairus' daughter, of which John knows nothing, and they don't seem sure whether she was dead or just not feeling well;
Lazarus, which is unknown (improbably) or not considered worth a mention (impossibly) by the synoptics.

You must see it is not credible as eyewitness, nor even reliable record.

I have a suspicion..a possible explanation...of many Problems (1) that there were odd stories floating about that were used by the writers. Suppose "Jesus resurrected a dead man before witnesses!" was thrown out in the "Prove me wrong - if you can't it's true!" spirit of inverted Christian logic) and, while John concocted a very circumstantial but puzzling story - not to say looking like a faked miracle (Mary knew Jesus would be waiting at Peraea), Luke popped in this son of Nain, wherever that is.

Floating stories would also explain why the synoptics have the Palsied man in Galilee, but John has him in Jerusalem, the synoptics has the Blind man ("Where do you want these blinds put up?") at Jericho but John seems to have him in Jerusalem, and - what make me think hard, explains why Luke has no walking on water.

I expect 'well I am not convinced' dismissal. That doesn't matter (though it should) but the reasons not to credit the gospels as reliable, or indeed not even unreliable, witness mount up. For anyone with an open mind.

(1) not that after 2000 years of study by "Experts" who know the Bible with verse numbers by heart have ever seen then, but this mediocre mind without 50 hours of sky pilot flying - time can see them - simply because I looked with an open mind.