Questioning God's Chosen Communication

[POI]

(1) Why would an omniscient God reveal to ancient societies the questions that modern scientific communities would be interested in? (2) Why would God care more about making scientific knowledge available in these texts versus addressing how He wanted humans to live?

For debate: Does the provided video below answer the above two questions sufficiently? If not, why not? If so, then I guess God is inept?

[TRANSPONDER]

You all may wish to regard the following article. ALL sin is punishable by eternal separation from GOD. And ALL who do not repent and turn to CHRIST for their salvation will face eternal separation from GOD. HOWEVER, ALL who repent and trust in the LORD will be saved. That said, there comes the truth that the unredeemed sinners will face different levels of eternal punishment. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no ... e-the-same

Jesus’ description is worse than separation from God, which He never mentions. He described fairly torturous experiences with fire and worms. Separation from God is exactly what the atheists want. I prefer to describe eternity for those who choose to do wrong as being as horrible as Jesus described, not what they’re hoping for. That’s what God chose to communicate…fire and worms that never stop, not that they will continue as they do now and enjoy an existence without Him.

What must be understood by an atheist or agnostic is that right NOW GOD is interacting with what happens around us. We are not alone. GOD has an influence. However, in HELL a person is separated from GOD's influence (because that is what the individual selected through his desire and behavior) and the influence of believers in general. The U.S. though not perfect is a country that has experienced the influence of Evangelical Christianity. It's pervasive in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The tugging and pulling of Christian ethics and the Bible eventually led to the Civil War. It's obvious that the War of 1812 and the burning of Washington DC could have been the end of the young nation, and it wasn't terribly long afterwards that the Civil War erupted. And again, that war could have gone any number of ways for this then fledgling nation... The Great Depression was (I feel) GOD's inducement/spanking to put America (if not the world) back on track and not think so highly of itself or abilities ---- and World War II was in fact believed by many at the time to be a fight with THE Anti-Christ (though we now know that Hitler was an Anti-Christ and likely setting the stage for future events that are now developing faster and faster). I feel GOD sends out warnings in stages. One of the most godly defined eras in the U.S. was right after World War II. Churches were full, people loved Billy Graham, and the general climate was one of Family orientation with children receiving the most consideration above (I feel) any other time in U.S. history. Church Buses would pick kids for Vacation Bible School and youth groups everywhere. And bells rang every Sunday everywhere (or so it seemed) and Christmas lights appeared everywhere. Every store was decorated for the holidays... Movies, Television Shows, Magazines, Newspapers, had no foul language. And frankly, I remember when Payton Place came out on television, that the theme of the show was the issue, and not language in the least. My parents wouldn't let me watch it (not that I wanted to), I was told to do my homework. Yet, I watched and enjoyed Ed Sullivan, Drag Net, Perry Mason, Dick Van Dyke... There were still cigarette commercials, and Winston even was a sponsor of The Flintstone's. And yet I knew (as a kid) that smoking was bad and not something to desire. But I feel that this was because even as children we heard about GOOD and BAD, and such values were not exclusive to a handful of church goers. We were surrounded by values and it was much easier to note the affects of both good and evil and make as it were the "right" choice ---- most of the time...

Yes, I understand your position and a number of people prefer it to the description Jesus gave of existence after this life. “Separation from God” as a description today, atheists find appealing and christian’s don’t come as preaching hell fire. There is strong motivation not to sound so severe. Problem is, one has to deviate what Jesus actually taught and accept something he didn’t teach.

A what exactly did not JESUS teach nor present through HIS disciples after HIS departure and the coming of the HOLY SPIRIT?

There’s a whole lot Jesus didn’t teach. He didn’t teach anything about accepting Him as Lord and Savior. He didn’t teach Hell is just separation from God. He didn’t teach all will eventually go to Heaven. Lots

The two Corinthians, 12. 1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.
Yes, but here's the thing. Does one accept Paul or not?He (apparently after a chat with Jesus in the 3rd heaven) taught just those things the Gospels rather skip over. So Jesus did teach though Paul that he was Lord and Savior and only through Faith in him (not works) could one be saved.

It is ambiguous (as Paul often is) whether he is speaking about himself, but the supposition is that he is. And yet Romans is his thesis argued out (wrongly) and any Vision is not Jesus saying thisor that but endorsing Paul's ideaWhic is Jesus saves.Nothing and nobody else.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

It just so happens I came across this



It just starts with what became obvious to me - Paul was first and the gospels were based on that (though I reckon with a real Jesus story underneath).

It's just posted here if anyone is interested.

[Mae von H]

You all may wish to regard the following article. ALL sin is punishable by eternal separation from GOD. And ALL who do not repent and turn to CHRIST for their salvation will face eternal separation from GOD. HOWEVER, ALL who repent and trust in the LORD will be saved. That said, there comes the truth that the unredeemed sinners will face different levels of eternal punishment. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no ... e-the-same

Jesus’ description is worse than separation from God, which He never mentions. He described fairly torturous experiences with fire and worms. Separation from God is exactly what the atheists want. I prefer to describe eternity for those who choose to do wrong as being as horrible as Jesus described, not what they’re hoping for. That’s what God chose to communicate…fire and worms that never stop, not that they will continue as they do now and enjoy an existence without Him.

What must be understood by an atheist or agnostic is that right NOW GOD is interacting with what happens around us. We are not alone. GOD has an influence. However, in HELL a person is separated from GOD's influence (because that is what the individual selected through his desire and behavior) and the influence of believers in general. The U.S. though not perfect is a country that has experienced the influence of Evangelical Christianity. It's pervasive in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The tugging and pulling of Christian ethics and the Bible eventually led to the Civil War. It's obvious that the War of 1812 and the burning of Washington DC could have been the end of the young nation, and it wasn't terribly long afterwards that the Civil War erupted. And again, that war could have gone any number of ways for this then fledgling nation... The Great Depression was (I feel) GOD's inducement/spanking to put America (if not the world) back on track and not think so highly of itself or abilities ---- and World War II was in fact believed by many at the time to be a fight with THE Anti-Christ (though we now know that Hitler was an Anti-Christ and likely setting the stage for future events that are now developing faster and faster). I feel GOD sends out warnings in stages. One of the most godly defined eras in the U.S. was right after World War II. Churches were full, people loved Billy Graham, and the general climate was one of Family orientation with children receiving the most consideration above (I feel) any other time in U.S. history. Church Buses would pick kids for Vacation Bible School and youth groups everywhere. And bells rang every Sunday everywhere (or so it seemed) and Christmas lights appeared everywhere. Every store was decorated for the holidays... Movies, Television Shows, Magazines, Newspapers, had no foul language. And frankly, I remember when Payton Place came out on television, that the theme of the show was the issue, and not language in the least. My parents wouldn't let me watch it (not that I wanted to), I was told to do my homework. Yet, I watched and enjoyed Ed Sullivan, Drag Net, Perry Mason, Dick Van Dyke... There were still cigarette commercials, and Winston even was a sponsor of The Flintstone's. And yet I knew (as a kid) that smoking was bad and not something to desire. But I feel that this was because even as children we heard about GOOD and BAD, and such values were not exclusive to a handful of church goers. We were surrounded by values and it was much easier to note the affects of both good and evil and make as it were the "right" choice ---- most of the time...

Yes, I understand your position and a number of people prefer it to the description Jesus gave of existence after this life. “Separation from God” as a description today, atheists find appealing and christian’s don’t come as preaching hell fire. There is strong motivation not to sound so severe. Problem is, one has to deviate what Jesus actually taught and accept something he didn’t teach.

A what exactly did not JESUS teach nor present through HIS disciples after HIS departure and the coming of the HOLY SPIRIT?

There’s a whole lot Jesus didn’t teach. He didn’t teach anything about accepting Him as Lord and Savior. He didn’t teach Hell is just separation from God. He didn’t teach all will eventually go to Heaven. Lots

The two Corinthians, 12. 1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.
Yes, but here's the thing. Does one accept Paul or not?He (apparently after a chat with Jesus in the 3rd heaven) taught just those things the Gospels rather skip over. So Jesus did teach though Paul that he was Lord and Savior and only through Faith in him (not works) could one be saved.

It is ambiguous (as Paul often is) whether he is speaking about himself, but the supposition is that he is. And yet Romans is his thesis argued out (wrongly) and any Vision is not Jesus saying thisor that but endorsing Paul's ideaWhic is Jesus saves.Nothing and nobody else.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

It just so happens I came across this



It just starts with what became obvious to me - Paul was first and the gospels were based on that (though I reckon with a real Jesus story underneath).

It's just posted here if anyone is interested.

When I read that an atheist considers Paul or any Bible author “difficult to understand” I think of how Jesus said that God hides understanding from some people. I find Paul very easy to understand. Who is standing upon a more secure position, the one who understands or the one who think the writings are ambiguous?

All of the apostles knew Jesus as Lord and Savior. They didn’t go through some “accepting Jesus” prayer.

[TRANSPONDER]

You all may wish to regard the following article. ALL sin is punishable by eternal separation from GOD. And ALL who do not repent and turn to CHRIST for their salvation will face eternal separation from GOD. HOWEVER, ALL who repent and trust in the LORD will be saved. That said, there comes the truth that the unredeemed sinners will face different levels of eternal punishment. https://www.desiringgod.org/articles/no ... e-the-same

Jesus’ description is worse than separation from God, which He never mentions. He described fairly torturous experiences with fire and worms. Separation from God is exactly what the atheists want. I prefer to describe eternity for those who choose to do wrong as being as horrible as Jesus described, not what they’re hoping for. That’s what God chose to communicate…fire and worms that never stop, not that they will continue as they do now and enjoy an existence without Him.

What must be understood by an atheist or agnostic is that right NOW GOD is interacting with what happens around us. We are not alone. GOD has an influence. However, in HELL a person is separated from GOD's influence (because that is what the individual selected through his desire and behavior) and the influence of believers in general. The U.S. though not perfect is a country that has experienced the influence of Evangelical Christianity. It's pervasive in the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution. The tugging and pulling of Christian ethics and the Bible eventually led to the Civil War. It's obvious that the War of 1812 and the burning of Washington DC could have been the end of the young nation, and it wasn't terribly long afterwards that the Civil War erupted. And again, that war could have gone any number of ways for this then fledgling nation... The Great Depression was (I feel) GOD's inducement/spanking to put America (if not the world) back on track and not think so highly of itself or abilities ---- and World War II was in fact believed by many at the time to be a fight with THE Anti-Christ (though we now know that Hitler was an Anti-Christ and likely setting the stage for future events that are now developing faster and faster). I feel GOD sends out warnings in stages. One of the most godly defined eras in the U.S. was right after World War II. Churches were full, people loved Billy Graham, and the general climate was one of Family orientation with children receiving the most consideration above (I feel) any other time in U.S. history. Church Buses would pick kids for Vacation Bible School and youth groups everywhere. And bells rang every Sunday everywhere (or so it seemed) and Christmas lights appeared everywhere. Every store was decorated for the holidays... Movies, Television Shows, Magazines, Newspapers, had no foul language. And frankly, I remember when Payton Place came out on television, that the theme of the show was the issue, and not language in the least. My parents wouldn't let me watch it (not that I wanted to), I was told to do my homework. Yet, I watched and enjoyed Ed Sullivan, Drag Net, Perry Mason, Dick Van Dyke... There were still cigarette commercials, and Winston even was a sponsor of The Flintstone's. And yet I knew (as a kid) that smoking was bad and not something to desire. But I feel that this was because even as children we heard about GOOD and BAD, and such values were not exclusive to a handful of church goers. We were surrounded by values and it was much easier to note the affects of both good and evil and make as it were the "right" choice ---- most of the time...

Yes, I understand your position and a number of people prefer it to the description Jesus gave of existence after this life. “Separation from God” as a description today, atheists find appealing and christian’s don’t come as preaching hell fire. There is strong motivation not to sound so severe. Problem is, one has to deviate what Jesus actually taught and accept something he didn’t teach.

A what exactly did not JESUS teach nor present through HIS disciples after HIS departure and the coming of the HOLY SPIRIT?

There’s a whole lot Jesus didn’t teach. He didn’t teach anything about accepting Him as Lord and Savior. He didn’t teach Hell is just separation from God. He didn’t teach all will eventually go to Heaven. Lots

The two Corinthians, 12. 1 I must go on boasting. Although there is nothing to be gained, I will go on to visions and revelations from the Lord. 2 I know a man in Christ who fourteen years ago was caught up to the third heaven. Whether it was in the body or out of the body I do not know—God knows. 3 And I know that this man—whether in the body or apart from the body I do not know, but God knows— 4 was caught up to paradise and heard inexpressible things, things that no one is permitted to tell. 5 I will boast about a man like that, but I will not boast about myself, except about my weaknesses.
Yes, but here's the thing. Does one accept Paul or not?He (apparently after a chat with Jesus in the 3rd heaven) taught just those things the Gospels rather skip over. So Jesus did teach though Paul that he was Lord and Savior and only through Faith in him (not works) could one be saved.

It is ambiguous (as Paul often is) whether he is speaking about himself, but the supposition is that he is. And yet Romans is his thesis argued out (wrongly) and any Vision is not Jesus saying thisor that but endorsing Paul's ideaWhic is Jesus saves.Nothing and nobody else.
1 Thessalonians 5:9
For God did not appoint us to suffer wrath but to receive salvation through our Lord Jesus Christ.

2 Timothy 2:10
Therefore I endure everything for the sake of the elect, that they too may obtain the salvation that is in Christ Jesus, with eternal glory.

2 Timothy 3:15
and how from infancy you have known the Holy Scriptures, which are able to make you wise for salvation through faith in Christ Jesus.

It just so happens I came across this



It just starts with what became obvious to me - Paul was first and the gospels were based on that (though I reckon with a real Jesus story underneath).

It's just posted here if anyone is interested.

When I read that an atheist considers Paul or any Bible author “difficult to understand” I think of how Jesus said that God hides understanding from some people. I find Paul very easy to understand. Who is standing upon a more secure position, the one who understands or the one who think the writings are ambiguous?

All of the apostles knew Jesus as Lord and Savior. They didn’t go through some “accepting Jesus” prayer.

I took a long time to tackle Paul, but when I did it wasn't too hard to see through his double dealing. 'easy to understand' suggests to me'easy to have Faith and not bother to look any deeper'.

And we really don't know much about what the apostles (the 12) thought and did. We have the letter of James which I suspect might actually be by James, which is very cool. But it is too easy to just accept that the string of claims in the gospels and Acts (not to mention Paul's self serving comments) really tells us what the 12 did or did not think or do. Acts indeed, (if one can believe it) is clear that James is an observing Jew even though covering up the fact that Paul is sidelining the Law. It also depicts Peter as an observing Jew who will not break clean food laws, even after Jesus says they don'tmatter.

I think Luke (Acts) is in a position of taking a Christian Gospel using Pauline ideas (as that video argues) and tried to fit it to what he knows when writing Acts - the 12 were observant Jews, not converted Christians.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #383]

Well, we disagree on every point, but it would derail the thread to go there. As I said, it is interesting to come to understand the thinking of people. There are definite trends and consequences that show themselves with time. Thank you for responding.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to TRANSPONDER in post #383]

Well, we disagree on every point, but it would derail the thread to go there. As I said, it is interesting to come to understand the thinking of people. There are definite trends and consequences that show themselves with time. Thank you for responding.

My pleasure.

Just a couple of things I noted from the video. We have the almost universal idea that Mark was the first synoptic gospel (based as I said on an original story of an observing Jew with a reforming if not rebelling agenda) with a Christian overpainting, though it is clear to me that Mark is itself an edition (with particular additions of a synoptic gospel, itself an edited version, with material common to Mark and Matthew, but not found in Luke.
Also there seems confusion about "Q" (at least he mentions it). He mixes the ur-text idea which can be three things:
(1) The synoptic original (not used by John)
(2) the Original story of a Jewish (not Pauline) Jesus not of course used by any Gosepl -writer but..
(3) the Christian overpainting of Jewish Jesus to make him a proto - Christian, which was the Ur-text of the (lost) synoptic original, later edited and added to to produce the present Mark, Luke and Matthew -

-with a quite different meaning of "Q"; the material common to Matthew and Luke, but not found in Mark. This look (to me) like an imported document, mainly using the sermon in Matthew, half of which Luke uses in a sermon, but from the Lord's prayer (given at a quite different time) onwards, is material 'taught' all the way to Jerusalem. This being evidence that Luke did not copy Matthew, but used an original synoptic gospel, without material common to Mark and Matthew - notably the other feeding of 4,000 and without the Syrio -Phoenecian woman and the cursing of the fig -tree, for instance.

Our pal Masterblaster, I recall, noted that Matthew's sermon includes material shared with Mark - the single instance of the simile of salt. This is synoptic original material in all three but in Mark and Luke in a different place. Matthew simply incorporated it into his sermon.

[Clownboat]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #368]

There doesn’t seem to be any benefit in answering your individual points. You defend an ad hominem attack or don’t see it as such. I can supply ample evidence for my position despite your claim to the contrary. Sigh!

Perhaps we’ll exchange again in another thread. When the atheists reach the point in a discussion where reason is no longer applied and personal attacks on the character are used instead, further exchanges will not be of benefit. From such exchanges, however, I’ve come to deeply understand the atheist position. I could successfully verbalize your position in neutral or even positive terms as I see fairly clearly how your side thinks.

I'm not an atheist. If your being wrong was evidence for one of the available god concepts, I would be a believer again!

This is something I’ve never ever seen an atheist do regarding the christian perspective.

Other than one of many available god concept being claimed to be the sovereign and almighty Lord of all existence, there is no Christian perspective. Not even how one gets in to heaven or what happens after death are agreed upon. To claim a Christian perspective exists beyond this is to play pretend.

[TRANSPONDER]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #368]

There doesn’t seem to be any benefit in answering your individual points. You defend an ad hominem attack or don’t see it as such. I can supply ample evidence for my position despite your claim to the contrary. Sigh!

Perhaps we’ll exchange again in another thread. When the atheists reach the point in a discussion where reason is no longer applied and personal attacks on the character are used instead, further exchanges will not be of benefit. From such exchanges, however, I’ve come to deeply understand the atheist position. I could successfully verbalize your position in neutral or even positive terms as I see fairly clearly how your side thinks.

I'm not an atheist. If your being wrong was evidence for one of the available god concepts, I would be a believer again!

This is something I’ve never ever seen an atheist do regarding the christian perspective.

Other than one of many available god concept being claimed to be the sovereign and almighty Lord of all existence, there is no Christian perspective. Not even how one gets in to heaven or what happens after death are agreed upon. To claim a Christian perspective exists beyond this is to play pretend.

Not an atheist? I would never have guessed. But Yes, (and aside from our fried Mae running away with some final mud -slinging) I totally agree that Christians imagine imagine all sorts of things from doctrine or out of their own heads or to suit themselves

"Well...my religion is basically the same as yours, but while you don't mind a bit of swearing, we...don't mind a bit of .....drinking.." (from a tv play I saw as a kid. Made quite an impression on me how people adapt their beliefs to suit themselves).

[Mae von H]

[Replying to Clownboat in post #368]

There doesn’t seem to be any benefit in answering your individual points. You defend an ad hominem attack or don’t see it as such. I can supply ample evidence for my position despite your claim to the contrary. Sigh!

Perhaps we’ll exchange again in another thread. When the atheists reach the point in a discussion where reason is no longer applied and personal attacks on the character are used instead, further exchanges will not be of benefit. From such exchanges, however, I’ve come to deeply understand the atheist position. I could successfully verbalize your position in neutral or even positive terms as I see fairly clearly how your side thinks.

I'm not an atheist. If your being wrong was evidence for one of the available god concepts, I would be a believer again!

I don’t believe you.

This is something I’ve never ever seen an atheist do regarding the christian perspective.

Other than one of many available god concept being claimed to be the sovereign and almighty Lord of all existence, there is no Christian perspective. Not even how one gets in to heaven or what happens after death are agreed upon. To claim a Christian perspective exists beyond this is to play pretend.

That you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

[Clownboat]

I don’t believe you.

I don't care. You don't enter my thoughts outside of forming a reply, so believe whatever you need to believe so that you can maintain having a place to go when you die. You need there to be this Us vs Them and it saddens me that religions are so divisive in this world. Consider how much better off societies would be if it weren't for people waring over their preferred god concept.

There is a reason I debate 'god concepts' specifically, but you have shown you will believe whatever you want to believe.

That you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

That you failed to refute what I said, does suggests I'm correct though.

Be well.

[Mae von H]

I don’t believe you.

I don't care. You don't enter my thoughts outside of forming a reply, so believe whatever you need to believe so that you can maintain having a place to go when you die. You need there to be this Us vs Them and it saddens me that religions are so divisive in this world. Consider how much better off societies would be if it weren't for people waring over their preferred god concept.

There is a reason I debate 'god concepts' specifically, but you have shown you will believe whatever you want to believe.

That you don’t see it doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

That you failed to refute what I said, does suggests I'm correct though.

Be well.

The usual personal attack imaging my motivations same as you freely imagine “trickster gods” and who animistic people view superior spiritual beings with absolutely no references to such.

What you wrote doesn’t match. That’s why I’m dubious as to its veracity. I’ve read about peoples doing homage to demons and talked to people believing in such. They all knew those beings were evil. That’s cause they are.