What Could God do About Bible Errors?

[Purple Knight]

Hypothetically. I'm not saying the Bible has errors. I'm saying, what if people want to put lies in?

If I'm an unscrupulous monk, wanting to foist my own ideas on what I'm copying, and I just decide to lie like a dog and put down what I want to put down, what can God do about it? Can he act against me without violating my free will, which he has known compunctions against doing?

If I decide to burn originals and say I lost them, am I going to immediately suffer a heart attack or get struck by lightning before I destroy the precious scripture and corrupt it? Is my plan going to miraculously fail in some other way? Arguably the wind can blow everything away every time I try. Is that violating my free will? I mean, it's a bit like stopping the bullet every time somebody tries to shoot somebody else and it easily crosses into not allowing people the freedom to be bad, which may invalidate the choice to be good, to some degree.

Ultimately if I lie to gullible people, the only way to stop them being taken in, is by the use of force against me, right? And that's rather tactless and ham-handed; not something God would do.

But what if there's another way to stop people being taken in?

I could argue that just giving people Reason and permission to use it, is enough to defend against all possible lies. Now this is a really, really good argument, because all you people who have Reason are supposed to use it, and then you might see something wrong with people telling you to take things on faith. And you don't have to conclude that this means God doesn't exist. You are fully empowered to say it means God does exist: It means God does exist and he doesn't strike people dead who decide to lie to you, rather, he implores you to use this gift of Reason to see through it. So then, there's this one piece that doesn't fit and it's the necessity of faith.

So if you follow, then maybe anyone who has said not to use your Reason and just trust, is exactly such an unpunished liar and blasphemer God has allowed to do evil because he prefers not to interfere directly. And it's okay, because God gave you what you needed to see which puzzle piece doesn't fit.

God, yes. Faith, no.

[boatsnguitars]

And all inferior to yours, right?

Right.

Exactly. Don't let anyone tell you different because they don't know. AND you don't need to be a theist to do that. You do it every day. We all do. So, you see humans being. Like this.



Then we can get to the real argument.

Sadly, you seem to ignore the fact that you seem to insist that God exists and you don't seem to recognize the alternative. There is no way to argue with someone so fixed into their ideas that I don't really worry whether you think I am or not.

So, I will simply mirror your style of argument: You think you have a better sensus divinitatis than anyone, so I will claim mine is better. After all, I know you have no method to determine which Faith Claim is true, so why shouldn't I play the game likewise?

That's my serious question to you: Why should I act differently than you, and not simply declare I know things based on Faith? Knowing you have no ability to test Faith, test for God, or test anything supernatural - or even demonstrate it exists - I have nothing to lose, and only win.

[TRANSPONDER]

There's 2 problem there - why does God allow the devil to pervert his book?

Well, you have to put yourself in God's shoes. If some nefarious people (not the devil directly) want to copy wrongly, and they happen to have the numbers on their side, what are you going to do, blow away all the leaves from their hands every time they try?

There are problems I have with the Bible but God wanting to allow free will is not one of them. Not letting people do a certain thing, makes the decision not to do it, not as valuable. And this is just my personal opinion but a large part of the human condition, as it pertains to evil, is picking the evil action sometimes and seeing how that feels - proving to yourself that you know, really really know, that this is wrong. Remorse is necessary to understanding evil. And understanding evil is necessary to understanding good. None of that happens if we're in a padded room where we're prevented from doing nasty things.

Aside what god we are talking about, the Bible makes it clear that God can and does intervene when he needs to, if only stilling a storm or multiplying packed lunches. It would not be abrogating Free Will to ensure that his book told the truth or at least did not contradict valid science, was coherent and rational and did not contain horrendous contradictions to begin with. It would not force us to be robots - it would just give us evidence though His Communication, that was at least convincing, without blind faith.



What do you think?

[Purple Knight]

Aside what god we are talking about, the Bible makes it clear that God can and does intervene when he needs to, if only stilling a storm or multiplying packed lunches. It would not be abrogating Free Will to ensure that his book told the truth or at least did not contradict valid science, was coherent and rational and did not contain horrendous contradictions to begin with.

No I think it would amount to violating free will, in the case that humans are deliberately corrupting the message. What can't be stopped is humans doing evil. They have to be allowed to do it. Bullets can't be stopped from hitting people.

It would not force us to be robots - it would just give us evidence though His Communication, that was at least convincing, without blind faith.

Well, for the sake of argument, let's say the evidence of that communication is our own Reason. Maybe we're supposed to follow the lines of that vid and come to the conclusion that if there was such a communication, it's been corrupted.

Imagine for the sake of argument, a god that did not want to make arbitrary moral demands. He doesn't reveal himself, because if he does, and says there's a reward, everyone just goes for the reward and it's not as meaningful. He doesn't stop people from doing harm to one another or corrupting his word, because he needs people to be able to choose to do those vile things, so the choice not to do them, is meaningful. When thinking along those lines, the Bible becomes a lot more bathwater than babies, however.

[TRANSPONDER]

Aside what god we are talking about, the Bible makes it clear that God can and does intervene when he needs to, if only stilling a storm or multiplying packed lunches. It would not be abrogating Free Will to ensure that his book told the truth or at least did not contradict valid science, was coherent and rational and did not contain horrendous contradictions to begin with.

No I think it would amount to violating free will, in the case that humans are deliberately corrupting the message. What can't be stopped is humans doing evil. They have to be allowed to do it. Bullets can't be stopped from hitting people.

It would not force us to be robots - it would just give us evidence though His Communication, that was at least convincing, without blind faith.

Well, for the sake of argument, let's say the evidence of that communication is our own Reason. Maybe we're supposed to follow the lines of that vid and come to the conclusion that if there was such a communication, it's been corrupted.

Imagine for the sake of argument, a god that did not want to make arbitrary moral demands. He doesn't reveal himself, because if he does, and says there's a reward, everyone just goes for the reward and it's not as meaningful. He doesn't stop people from doing harm to one another or corrupting his word, because he needs people to be able to choose to do those vile things, so the choice not to do them, is meaningful. When thinking along those lines, the Bible becomes a lot more bathwater than babies, however.

I'm afraid that doesn't work, because if God was worried about people doing the Good because they thought they'd get some reward, then He'd make sure the Bible contained a message (not to speak of not letting people get the idea there was a heaven and hell). It is inescapable that, even if heaven and hell are arguable, even if John implies there is a heaven with quality apartments for the faithful, the Bible offers incentives for the believers and warnings for the unbelievers.

As to a corrupted message, isn't it worthless? I mean, we might argue about it as we do about 'corrupted'historical records, but belief up to certain Faith is just not justified.

Your first point misses. It wasn't about people corrupting the message (which has evidently happened ) but making the message valid to start off with. Bottom line - if the OT is wrong, what reason would we have to suppose it was right from the start? If the OT makes no sense and is contradictory, why should we do other than suppose it was written by individuals who really knew nothing much about it?

If it is full of errors, never mind inerrant, Why believe it at all? Only because some people have Faith in it and suggest we have it, too, as otherwise, there is no good reason I have seen proposed, to believe i, nor the religious it spawned. I have emptiedout the bathwater and the only baby I find there is not the one Christianity said there was.

[Data]

Sadly, you seem to ignore the fact that you seem to insist that God exists and you don't seem to recognize the alternative.

That isn't true, actually, but in the context of our immediate discussion for the sake of argument, so what if it was? You become your enemy and do the exact opposite? Insist God can't exist and refuse the alternative. Not that either one of those positions would be faulty in my opinion. It's individual responsibility, not a scientific consensus or diktat.

There is no way to argue with someone so fixed into their ideas that I don't really worry whether you think I am or not.

Am or not what? Though it doesn't matter, what you say is only true from the position of a narcissistic ideologue. I've been doing this for three decades now and I've never argued with the intent to change someone's beliefs or ideas. I've never taken the position that you have to think like me, for any reason other than possibly in a metaphoric sense to see my position - where I'm coming from. And that doesn't require the removal of belief or ideas. Is this your motivation? To make people think like you? You can't stand that someone else believes in gods? Because it doesn't bother me at all that they don't.

So, I will simply mirror your style of argument: You think you have a better sensus divinitatis than anyone, so I will claim mine is better.

You've missed the point. I've already said yours is better and not to let anyone else tell you otherwise. You're not arguing that. You're restating what I've already stated. I've never thought otherwise of anyone. You are the one who is insistent. You insist my God isn't real only for imitatio dei. You want to be my god instead of Jehovah God. By you I mean unbelievers collectively, including yourself. It's typical. Like government wanting to protect its citizens so that they can't protect themselves from the government. I think the imitatio dei sums militant atheism up very well. Ironically.

After all, I know you have no method to determine which Faith Claim is true, so why shouldn't I play the game likewise?

No method to determine which faith claim is true? I don't really think that way. What is method aside from the obvious and what is faith claim to me? I don't even know how to answer that.

That's my serious question to you: Why should I act differently than you, and not simply declare I know things based on Faith?

I don't know that you would. Most militant atheists I've known wouldn't. They present science, for example, as a belief system rather than a method of investigation. to answer your question in general possibilities in a collective sense, rather than personal criticism, I would think militant atheism and theism as well, often involves delusion. Ideological fixation. As mentioned above imitation dei. Imitation of a god. This is an ideological struggle or conflict. Sometimes I throw them off because that isn't where I'm coming from. They don't know how to argue my position without thinking I'm pandering to them in jest or condensation. Being ideological their argument is fixed. Limited. Prepared. Boring. Typical. Nonsense.

That's what I think you are doing now. I've said I agree your faith is superior to all others and you shouldn't let anyone convince you otherwise. That goes for me and everyone else as well. It is superior to you, to me to everyone else. A personal responsibility. Am I trying to remove yours or are you trying to remove mine?

Knowing you have no ability to test Faith, test for God, or test anything supernatural - or even demonstrate it exists - I have nothing to lose, and only win.

Win? Lose? What?

And I didn't say you can't test faith, God or supernatural. Science can't. I'm not science. You are not science. No one is science.

[TRANSPONDER]

Data mate I never know when you are messing us about or not. Look, suppose nobody can know anything, then nothing that anyone says means anything, pretty much as you imply above. I just posted on Revelation/communication,so that is a non -starter. We have to go with logical evaluation of data, Data, and that is what we call 'science'. We do no need obscurantist flam about 'nobody is science'.

We have seen far, far too much semantic dickering, trying to overturn epistemology, smokescreen science and invert logic in the interests of Theism, and we ought to have had enough of it.

Logical evaluation of data and (because we cannot all do our research) we have to rely on the current science as the best model of reality and science -denial doesn't do anything but prop up conspiracy theories.

You get off to a bad start immediately in inverting the logic of the burden of proof. Such a basic error that I can hardly believe you are serious. Agnosticism mandates non belief until persuasive evidence for the claim is produced. Do we need to continue? Get the basic right before you even try to debate or discuss.

But then of course, if you did, there would be no case for theism.

p.s this is of course not 'personal' but a critique of the discussion method. A distinction the supervisory mentors seem to have trouble making.

[boatsnguitars]

Data mate I never know when you are messing us about or not. Look, suppose nobody can know anything, then nothing that anyone says means anything, pretty much as you imply above. I just posted on Revelation/communication,so that is a non -starter. We have to go with logical evaluation of data, Data, and that is what we call 'science'. We do no need obscurantist flam about 'nobody is science'.

We have seen far, far too much semantic dickering, trying to overturn epistemology, smokescreen science and invert logic in the interests of Theism, and we ought to have had enough of it.

Logical evaluation of data and (because we cannot all do our research) we have to rely on the current science as the best model of reality and science -denial doesn't do anything but prop up conspiracy theories.

You get off to a bad start immediately in inverting the logic of the burden of proof. Such a basic error that I can hardly believe you are serious. Agnosticism mandates non belief until persuasive evidence for the claim is produced. Do we need to continue? Get the basic right before you even try to debate or discuss.

But then of course, if you did, there would be no case for theism.

p.s this is of course not 'personal' but a critique of the discussion method. A distinction the supervisory mentors seem to have trouble making.

It's clear there is nothing to be gained talking to theists. I simply have seen nothing of value brought to the table. Its simply their expression of ego. They say nothing, and I think they've stopped pretending. Not only the theists here, but en masse.
I have no idea what they are trying to argue other than the desire that their feelings of faith to be taken seriously, despite any reason.
Am I wrong here? What debate has occurred here, in any meaningful sense? What new knowledge has anyone gained about religion, god, science, etc?
I've learned a lot from various books, podcasts, periodicals, texts books, etc - but then it seems I end up going in circles with someone who demands they know the one true god because they feel like it. What the biscuit? Its absurd! It's a farce.
Religion has got to be the single most absurd joke ever. Who can't invent answers for everything? Who can't name gods that don't exist?! Who can't claim they speak to angel?!
Who can't pretend all that and laugh at those who believe them?!
Everyone can! Anyone can! We can all claim we speak with Lord Chuthulu and pretend we gain occult knowledge from his firey, but ice-cold, invisible breath that freezes time and heats gravity... or whatever.
How am I supposed to take Theism seriously when it all seems a joke to the theists by their own actions?
There's no meat to Theism. Ever. There is no there, there.
A once marvelous, mystic investigation has become a parlour trick; they've turned it into a child's game in the schoolyard. But, of course, not by their own doing.
They have nothing to work with. There is no God guiding their investigations, there is no God guiding their hand. Just ham-handed, regurgitated apologetics they repeat like parrots repeating math equations.

Meanwhile, I might add, science has developed cures for Alzheimers, sickle-cell anemia, has edited genes to reduce malaria, etc. We've landed on the Southern Pole of the Moon, landed on and returned from an asteroid, created Large Language IA that will stagger the world, and they are bragging about God curing their jock itch...

Ah. I feel better. I'm ready to get back to it....

[boatsnguitars]

And I didn't say you can't test faith, God or supernatural.

Go on, tell us how you test those things. I'm ready to take notes!

[Data]

And I didn't say you can't test faith, God or supernatural.

Go on, tell us how you test those things. I'm ready to take notes!

I've told you the same as you test anything, and I asked you, an act of the purest optimism because atheists never answer questions, how do you test the science you have been spoon-fed?

[POI]

an act of the purest optimism because atheists never answer questions, how do you test the science you have been spoon-fed?

I doubt it would be logical for anyone, including 'atheists', to respond or answer to loaded questions