God's Plan?

[POI]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

[POI]

[Replying to POI in post #49]

Just in case you are wondering where your interlocuter is likely plucking their 'information'.

https://answersingenesis.org/religious- ... er-faiths/

As usual, your interlocutor also fails at google:

https://www.vifindia.org/node/341

There is no tragedy of greater magnitude on the planet than that suffered by the Hindus. Millions of innocent men, women and children were brutally butchered by fanatic marauders on religious arid racial grounds. India passed through worst genocidal phases in human history over a millennium, at the hands of Muslim invaders, followed by the Christian carnage of Hindus at the hands of the Portuguese. Historians, generally, skirt around these spells of mass tragedies for fear of offending the Muslims; those who write objectively are branded as communal. Objective teaching of history in educational institutions is not part of the educational ethos. The martyrdom of millions of innocent Hindus, who died for their faith and the country, remains unrequited and their fate unlamented.

Ratz! I am virtually debating Ken Ham and friends. Foiled again!

[Mae von H]

For Debate: Why didn't God directly author the Bible himself? Why instead give his instruction(s) to fallible and sinful humans to write down his wishes to paper, which then makes it quite easy for skeptics to conclude that such writings were not from any higher power at all?

God has promised wisdom and Holy Spirit for everyone asking. So, if you have problems to understanding something, it is not because of the book.

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask of God, who gives to all liberally and without reproach; and it will be given to him.
James 1:5

I will pray to the Father, and he will give you another Counse-lor,{Greek Parakleton: Counselor, Helper, Intercessor, Advocate, and Comfortor.} that he may be with you forever,-- the Spirit of truth, whom the world can't receive; for it doesn't see him, nei-ther knows him. You know him, for he lives with you, and will be in you.
John 14:16-17
But the Counselor, the Holy Spirit, whom the Father will send in my name, he will teach you all things, and will remind you of all that I said to you.
John 14:26
When the Counselor has come, whom I will send to you from the Father, the Spirit of truth, who proceeds from the Father, he will testify about me.
John 15:26
When they bring you before the synagogues, the rulers, and the authorities, don't be anxious how or what you will answer, or what you will say; for the Holy Spirit will teach you in that same hour what you must say."
Luke 12:11-12
However when he, the Spirit of truth, has come, he will guide you into all truth, for he will not speak from himself; but whatever he hears, he will speak. He will declare to you things that are coming.
John 16:13

If you then, being evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your heavenly Father give the Holy Spirit to those who ask him?
Luke 11:13

Bible is a good book for everyone who remains in truth and wants to understand. By what I see, many people don't want to understand, and then there is not much what you can do to help them. It does not matter how the book is written in that case. And everyone who wants to understand, the current situation is good.

We’re on the same side but it would be better if you presented the whole truth.

James 1: starting at
5 if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask God, who gives generously to all without reproach, and it will be given him. 6But let him ask in faith, with no doubting, for the one who doubts is like a wave of the sea that is driven and tossed by the wind. 7For that person must not suppose that he will receive anything from the Lord; 8he is a double-minded man, unstable in all his ways.

A double minded man WILL NOT RECEIVE wisdom from God because God won’t give it. Most of the promises of God have conditions we must meet. There are those who asked for wisdom and did not receive it. There are those who asked for healing and died. The Bible teaches us how to walk with God. It isn’t a book obligating God to do as we bid. If we cherry pick out the conclusions without the requirements on our part, we will ruin the faith of those who believed something untrue as they throw out the baby with the bath water.

[Mae von H]

[Replying to POI in post #49]

Just in case you are wondering where your interlocuter is likely plucking their 'information'.

https://answersingenesis.org/religious- ... er-faiths/

As usual, your interlocutor also fails at google:

https://www.vifindia.org/node/341

There is no tragedy of greater magnitude on the planet than that suffered by the Hindus. Millions of innocent men, women and children were brutally butchered by fanatic marauders on religious arid racial grounds. India passed through worst genocidal phases in human history over a millennium, at the hands of Muslim invaders, followed by the Christian carnage of Hindus at the hands of the Portuguese. Historians, generally, skirt around these spells of mass tragedies for fear of offending the Muslims; those who write objectively are branded as communal. Objective teaching of history in educational institutions is not part of the educational ethos. The martyrdom of millions of innocent Hindus, who died for their faith and the country, remains unrequited and their fate unlamented.

Ratz! I am virtually debating Ken Ham and friends. Foiled again!

None of those are martyrs. You guys forget the requirements for being a martyr is being killed solely for your faith which, if abandoned, would result in it not being killed. I particularly said one group of people killing another because of war or bigotry or simply attack is not martyrdom. So no, people who happened to be Hindus killed in war does not count. Hindus who died in wars are not martyrs. There are no Hindus who were martyrs since dieing in a war is all you got, obviously.

But POI, T thinks a Muslim terrorists who straps on a bomb and walks into a marketplace of innocent shoppers and commits painless suicide is the same as a young woman who is dragged out of her house and tortured until she recants her faith is the same thing. I mean if one cannot see the difference then anyone who isn’t an atheist and is killed is a martyr.

[Mae von H]

Even if one credited (1) the Christian stories about Martyrs being tortured, that condition does not define martyrdom.Simply dying for the faith is martyrdom, and Hindus and Muslims have done that, from the Siege of Rhodes to the Iran-Iraq wars I fact Kig Sigurd did a Viking -style crusade, and slaughtered Muslims unless they changed religion, and don't suppose that those who died like John Huss in the 30 years war between Catholics and protestants aren't martyrs as much as Wycliffe or Thomas More. Of course,science has their \Martyrs at the hands of Christianity like Giordano Bruno.

The Vikings had no such policy. You’re are again making up stuff. You deny that any christians were martyred but insist Pagans pushed their faith. Means no dealing in facts with you. For you the 9/11 pilots were martyrs.

(1)The Myth of Persecution: How Early Christians Invented a Story of Martyrdom is a 2013 book by Candida Moss, a professor of New Testament and Early Christianity at the University of Notre Dame. In her book, Moss advances a thesis that:

The traditional idea of the "Age of Martyrdom", when Christians suffered persecution from the Roman authorities and lived in fear of being thrown to the lions, is largely fictional.[1] Here she follows the work of G. E. M. de Ste. Croix.
There was never sustained, targeted persecution of Christians by Imperial Roman authorities. Official persecution of Christians by order of the Roman Emperor lasted for at most twelve years of the first three hundred of the Church's history.[2][3] Moss writes: "This does not mean, however, that there were no martyrs at all or that Christians never died. It is clear that some people were cruelly tortured and brutally executed for reasons that strike us as profoundly unjust."[Wiki]

As has been discussed here before, there is no valid reason to credit the Early church stories of martyrdoms, including the stoning of Stephen, or the killing of James in Acts.

I looked up the definition. Martyrdom is BEING KILLED for one’s faith, not dying or suicide. That’s the definition. You can deny it because you don’t like it, but that’s what you’re doing. Muslim terrorists don’t count.

(It’s hard to believe I even have to say this. But the examples of denying undisputed history as well as making up stuff increases with increasing tears of being an atheist, it seems. Denying uncomfortable truth grows branches and roots)

But which definition are you using? Websters? The Christian? The Muslim?

This was online. What is the definition of the term martyrdom '?
noun. mar·​tyr·​dom ˈmär-tər-dəm. Synonyms of martyrdom. 1. : the suffering of death on account of adherence to a cause and especially to one's religious faith

That covers more than just Christian martyrs..
I looked up Hindu martyrdom. Their end is not dying professing their faith but they are called martyrs, despite what you say.

Wiki-
category "Hindu martyrs"
The following 11 pages are in this category, out of 11 total. This list may not reflect recent changes.

A
Abu Syahid Shah of Malacca
B
Bineswar Brahma
D
Tarani Debnath
K
Shanti Kali (Shanti Tripura)
Selliah Parameswaran Kurukkal
M
T. Maheswaran
Syama Prasad Mukherjee
P
Narayan Pokharel
R
Haqiqat Rai
S
Sambhaji
Mourya Sawant.

I believe I mentioned the Muslims who were killed by Sigurd on a Viking Rampage (which was ok since he was Christian) and died rather than change religion.
They weren't the terrorists in that case. Even today Muslims regard the Crusades as the epitome of Christian terrorism against Muslims. Not to mention the Crusades against Livonian Pagan or various herestics. Joan of Arc even threatened the Hussites with some military retribuion, but fortunately she was taken down before she could.

https://archive.joan-of-arc.org/joanofa ... _1430.html

I didn’t read the above as your opening is too untrue. But I did catch the word “Crusades.” The myth about the Christians starting it is wrong. The muslims started slaughtering the christians (and other Muslims) so the christians pleaded with christian Europe to help. Before the Muslims attacked Jerusalem, the christians had lived in peace under Muslim rule for 500 years. So Muslims started slaughtering christians who asked for help.

But we are done with this because you cannot bring yourself to admit christians have died rather than deny the truth and muslim suicide bombers ARE martyrs. There’s no talking with someone who thinks this way.

[1213]

No, I'm sorry but you are not making sense. The scripture I quoted specifically deals with slaves. Where do you get the idea this has anything to do with striking anyone else? That would be adding to scripture which is a big no-no.

The situation is same with everyone else, so why make this an issue about slaves?

You shall not oppress a hired servant who is poor and needy, whether he be of your brothers, or of your foreigners who are in your land within your gates:…
Deut. 24:14-18

This scripture does NOT apply. A slave is not a hired servant. Try again.

Ok, in the case of Exod. 21:20-21 the word "slave" can also be translated a "servant". That is why I think it is the same.

Ok great. So you agree it says avenge and not defend. Why do I care what they might want to avenge? Your apologetic was about defense. Nobody should be avenging anyone, but the God of the Bible seems to think it's just dandy and the right thing to do.

Defending is basically the same as avenging.

[benchwarmer]

Defending is basically the same as avenging.

I'm not bothering with the rest as readers now have both sides, but I couldn't help but respond to this.

Does it not concern you that you have to redefine words to make your apologetics work?

Thank you though for clearly showing readers that two basically opposite words have to be called 'basically the same' in order for you to reconcile what's actually written versus your beliefs.

When you attempt these sorts of explanations, you are likely losing a lot of credibility with readers who know (and can double check) what words actually mean.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/defend

defend
verb
UK /dɪˈfend/ US /dɪˈfend/
defend verb (PROTECT)
to protect someone or something against attack or criticism:

How can we defend our homeland if we don't have an army?
defend someone/something against something White blood cells help defend the body against infection.
defend against Scientists have examined how healthy lungs defend against asthma attacks.
defend someone’s rights The minister has committed herself to defending the rights of marginalized groups.
defend someone’s interests We are simply trying to defend our own interests.
They are fighting to defend their beliefs.
defend yourself I'm going to karate lessons to learn how to defend myself.
The Bank of England intervened this morning to defend the pound (= stop it from losing value).

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictio ... ish/avenge

avenge
verb [ T ] formal

to do harm to or punish the person responsible for something bad done to you or your family or friends in order to achieve a fair situation:

He swore he would avenge his brother's death.
She determined to avenge herself on the killer.
At the end of the film, the murderer is killed by his victim's avenging girlfriend.

[POI]

We’re on the same side but it would be better if you presented the whole truth.

Then you too state to be saved, the human much achieve "righteousness"? I'm asking for the requirements and 1213 is the only one who has mentioned this.

[Mae von H]

We’re on the same side but it would be better if you presented the whole truth.

Then you too state to be saved, the human much achieve "righteousness"? I'm asking for the requirements and 1213 is the only one who has mentioned this.

Please quote me where I said you “much (sic) achieve righteousness.” I didn’t say that.

Again, you control the answers, don’t you?

[1213]

Defending is basically the same as avenging.

I'm not bothering with the rest as readers now have both sides, but I couldn't help but respond to this.

Does it not concern you that you have to redefine words to make your apologetics work?...

I don't say they are synonyms. I just don't think defending differs from avenging, because when you defend, you "hit" back, which is avenging basically.

But, this leads to interesting question, is retaliation wrong, if for example a country sends missiles to other country, is there right to pay back?

[benchwarmer]

Defending is basically the same as avenging.

I'm not bothering with the rest as readers now have both sides, but I couldn't help but respond to this.

Does it not concern you that you have to redefine words to make your apologetics work?...

I don't say they are synonyms. I just don't think defending differs from avenging, because when you defend, you "hit" back, which is avenging basically.

NO, it is not.

Let's have an example:

1. You come to my house and knock on my door.
2. I answer the door and say hi.
3. You throw a punch at my face.
4. I block the punch. DEFENDING because I'm protecting myself.
5. You stand your ground and try another punch.
6. I block this one and also punch you in the throat, dropping you to the ground. DEFENDING because you are not leaving and continue to assault me until you are stopped.
7. You are taken away in an ambulance.
8. Three days later I wake up and get really mad as I think about what you did.
9. I find your address and go knock on your door.
10. You answer the door and say hi.
11. I punch you in the face. AVENGING because the previous attack was already over and I was safe. I have gone out of my way to now attack you in retaliation when I didn't need to.

You are equating step 11 with steps 4 and 6. They are NOT the same. If you think so, then that's a 'you' problem and a misunderstanding of different concepts.

Hitting has nothing to do with whether it's defending or avenging. Intent and circumstance have everything to do with it.

But, this leads to interesting question, is retaliation wrong, if for example a country sends missiles to other country, is there right to pay back?

According to the God in the Bible, retaliation is perfectly fine and in fact ordered in Numbers 31 so I would think you would agree with it.

However, also according to the God in the Bible retaliation is NOT fine and you should "turn the other cheek".

https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?s ... ion=NRSVUE

Concerning Retaliation
38 “You have heard that it was said, ‘An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.’ 39 But I say to you: Do not resist an evildoer. But if anyone strikes you on the right cheek, turn the other also, 40 and if anyone wants to sue you and take your shirt, give your coat as well, 41 and if anyone forces you to go one mile, go also the second mile. 42 Give to the one who asks of you, and do not refuse anyone who wants to borrow from you.

Love for Enemies
43 “You have heard that it was said, ‘You shall love your neighbor and hate your enemy.’ 44 But I say to you: Love your enemies and pray for those who persecute you, 45 so that you may be children of your Father in heaven, for he makes his sun rise on the evil and on the good and sends rain on the righteous and on the unrighteous. 46 For if you love those who love you, what reward do you have? Do not even the tax collectors do the same? 47 And if you greet only your brothers and sisters, what more are you doing than others? Do not even the gentiles do the same? 48 Be perfect, therefore, as your heavenly Father is perfect.

Happy tap dancing to explain that. Cognitive dissonance sure is fun isn't it? I no longer have to deal with it after leaving Christianity, but I feel for you believers, I really do.