Why doesn't God clear up confusion between believers who misinterpret his word?
I have recently came across an article, in which a "22-year-old Christian preacher clarifies that he wants gays executed ‘humanely’"
Article Here
According to Leviticus 20:13, this Christian is correct. "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
I know many of you (Christians) will say that Old Testament laws are non-abiding now, and that we live by a new covenant. Although many Christians do adhere to the 10 Commandments, which are coincidentally in the Old Testament. This becomes problematic, because it is then up to the Christian's interpretation, which laws he/she may or may not adhere to from the Old Testament.
So my question stands. The creator of the universe believed that his messaged would be most accurately accepted by inspiring a book that would be misinterpreted over centuries. And instead of coming down and clearing up the genuine confusion that some believers have, he allows the confusion to continue. This confusion causes further conflict between believers themselves, and creates a larger gap between the non-believers.
Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? Why doesn't He tell us what he actually meant by these verses, and how to live by them?
Article Here
According to Leviticus 20:13, this Christian is correct. "If a man has sexual relations with a man as one does with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable. They are to be put to death; their blood will be on their own heads."
I know many of you (Christians) will say that Old Testament laws are non-abiding now, and that we live by a new covenant. Although many Christians do adhere to the 10 Commandments, which are coincidentally in the Old Testament. This becomes problematic, because it is then up to the Christian's interpretation, which laws he/she may or may not adhere to from the Old Testament.
So my question stands. The creator of the universe believed that his messaged would be most accurately accepted by inspiring a book that would be misinterpreted over centuries. And instead of coming down and clearing up the genuine confusion that some believers have, he allows the confusion to continue. This confusion causes further conflict between believers themselves, and creates a larger gap between the non-believers.
Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? Why doesn't He tell us what he actually meant by these verses, and how to live by them?
Comments (77)
Gay Christians found there were satisfactory methods of disposing of scriptures like this without rejecting the whole Bible. There are, in fact, quite a few passages in the Bible--various authoritative pronouncements--which very few people feel obligated to consider.
Quoting chatterbears
A Christian ought to know that God, in the second person of the Trinity, did clarify what he meant: "Love one another as I have loved you." Agape.
I'm pretty sure that the creator of the universe fully understood what the likelihood was that humankind would get and keep any message straight, so to speak: close to nil. Look, if the Jesus couldn't adequately clarify things, (and Jesus was God)... well, there you have it.
I'm not quite sure why Mr. Powell's problem is. He could be self-hating, or maybe he is just a hateful bastard looking for targets.
A clearer route to dealing with God's information management problems would be to recognize that God is our creation, not the other way around, and no one should ever be surprised that we are inconsistent. As Kant said, "Nothing straight was ever constructed with the crooked timber of mankind."
I asked Him about this ages ago, and He explained it like this: "Life would be very dull if all the answers were given in advance, like a crossword puzzle that's already filled in." Thus saith the Lord.
Do we become a world of saints, or a world of sheep?
Enough clarification to not allow different people to interpret things differently.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Jesus seemed to make things worse. Telling slaves to obey their masters, which seems to be an indirect condoning of slavery. If he did not condone it, he would have said, "Masters, free all of your slaves"
Quoting unenlightened
Nobody wants all the answers. I want clarification for the word he has presented as the most meaningful doctrine of all time. It would be like a crossword puzzle without any indication of what to fill the puzzle with. It would be like a crossword puzzle saying, " #1 Across is 9jfj093k90f09k290kkf0 " - When a passage can be interpreted in an endless amount of ways, the understanding of that passage becomes irrelevant. Because it is then about who has the right interpretation, rather than who has the correct message and who lives by the correct message. Because if God gave us the correct message, we still don't necessarily have to abide by his message. But at least we would know what he actually meant and wants us to live by. Right now, we just have millions of believers who form different religions and sects based on what they think God means.
Quoting Rank Amateur
We become a world of informed people. As I stated before, just because God clears up what he really meant by his message, doesn't mean people would follow him. Satan is a perfect example of this, as Satan had more evidence than we ever would of God's existence, as well as God's plan and God's wants. Yet Satan still went against what God told him, and is now neither a saint or a sheep.
Quoting SherlockH
If God is real, he either doesn't care about spreading his message in the most accurate and well-received way as possible. Or, he plays favorites and only reveals his true message to certain people of specific religions and denominations.
God stops the world from turning tells people all that eternal bliss stuff if you love one another is right, and the alternative, well not so good.
Who is not a follower now? Well everyone who is not an idiot is, but is there any choice now? Does it have any value? Is it paradise or prison? Do your 80 years, get your ticket punched. Are you still a human being with any kind of free will? Does your acts of kindness even matter now, if there is no choice not to.
Maybe you are think of Paul: Slaves, obey your earthly masters with respect and fear, and with sincerity of heart, just as you would obey Christ. Ephesians 6:5
The deeper you delve into Christianity the more you'll find that its mystique is both its strongest and weakest link. And you're right to be flummoxed by the bits that don't fit. But, I don't see how you can be a Christian and pick and choose what you like, a la Thomas Jefferson. In the end you'll end up with people like in the OP who don't see a way out of the predicament and endorse damn near everything.
The bible doesn't mention the universe. nor does it mention anything God believes. The bible is a collection of books written by people on their interpretation how people should act.
Quoting chatterbears
Why assume God doesn't? I see God doing so all the time, it's just that many people refuse to listen.
Yes, He has revealed His true message to me, and to anyone who will listen:
Lo, and God spake unto them saying, "Play nice, children." But some of them pretended that they were His special favourites, and that He had said privily to them that He did not like those with ye carrot tops and spread like falsehoods about Him.
And low, He came down to Earth and declared that that was all bollocks, and all he wanted was for everyone to play nice together, and have ye good time, and in His own person He shewed it plain, that ye should continue to play nice even if they crucify you.
And though He showed it and said it many times, yet they continued to make up more bollocks, and low, Jesus bloody wept.
Example?
Can you really not lose respect for MLK if you have disdain for Joel Olsteen?
Olsteen runs around telling people, “God wants you to be rich!!!”
Where did he get that from? The Gospel according to Goldman Sachs?
Jesus was pretty clear that his followers were to put aside concern for earthly treasures and start building heavenly treasures.
How exactly can King be excused for invoking Christianity to call for economic justice, ie a call for a fair share of earthly treasure he was told to eschew?
His Lord did not have a place to lay his head and had his ass nailed to a cross. A lot of his followers seem to think their cross is managing a mortgage and 401k plan...
Let's say God did appear and said that, "yes, homosexuals should be euthanised". Would this make you change your mind?
I don't understand what this has anything to do with what I said. If God cleared up the confusion in the Bible from believers interpreting it differently, why would that violate anyone's free will?
Quoting Bitter Crank
Either way, the New Testament condones slavery. Correct?
Quoting Buxtebuddha
Agreed.
Quoting Tomseltje
Give an example of this?
Quoting Txastopher
I would then have the proper knowledge as to what he (God) means. And anyone who goes against that, would clearly be wrong in how they interpret his message. I wouldn't follow God's commands, because I don't want harm anyone. But if he came and cleared up all this confusion between religions, at least we wouldn't have religious people fighting with each other on what they think God says. It would create a better world overall, and much less conflict between religious groups. Religion would become 1 True religion, instead of thousands of interpretive ones.
If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing.
So what you're saying is that you want god to appear and clarify his wishes, but if he demands anything that you don't like, you won't do it. What do you need the clarification for? Either god is the ultimate moral authority or he isn't. If he is, you do what he says. If he isn't, his clarification is redundant.
Don't know. Maybe show up for supper on occasion? We're personable hosts, supper's on us. Oh, and grant me omnipotence for a bit, the fun I'd have. :) All-knowing includes knowing such stuff.
Quoting Txastopher
Maybe an appropriate response could be: "Well, you best get on with your dirty work, then."
According to some stories, I guess it wouldn't be the first time.
Either way, humans clearly aren't reliable.
Sathya Sai Baba claimed to be a Shiva avatar, and has 100,000s of followers (actually might be in the millions) across the globe, some of whom claim to have witnessed him doing supernatural magic. Some Abrahamic religious folk, on the other hand, claim it's all demonic, followers bound for the grand BBQ. Go figure.
Suppose I was to take the countless fantastic supernatural human babble serious. My head would be filled with just about anything imaginable, mutually incompatible, incoherent babble.
[quote=Thomas Jefferson (1787)]Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blind-folded fear.[/quote]
Quoting Rank Amateur
Assuming s/he/it made their demands and identity clear, and that no trickery was afoot.
The New Testament was written a certain time and in a certain place, and the New Testament writers were restricted in their thinking by the reality that they knew. As it happens, 21st century philosophy bloggers blog in a certain time and a certain place, and are restricted in their thinking to what they know. Just as what we natter on about here should not be taken as the foundation of all future thought, the New Testament is not the foundation of all future thought, either. Slavery disappeared in much of the Roman Empire (as it collapsed) because it no longer made economic sense. It didn't make any difference to Christians whether Paul accepted or condoned slavery, or not.
Similarly with respect to homosexuality. "Homosexuality" as such is a modern (mid-19th century) concept. Men desiring and having sex with other men has been in existence for a long time--long before, and long after, the New Testament was written. Paul had his view; at other times, in other places, (not just in the present) sex amongst men was was viewed more tolerantly than at other times.
in my own life, the official public attitude towards sex amongst men has changed greatly since the 1950s. Westerners have moved from viewing it very negatively to viewing it with at least slightly positive connotations. Many heterosexual people now accept it as normal and healthy. There have been previous episodes of relative acceptance (and condemnation) between Roman times and the present.
What applies to the issue of slavery and homosexuality (both peripheral issues in the NT) doesn't apply to the NT as a foundational document of the faith. The church was already in existence when the NT was composed, and the church had a hand it composing and editing it. It doesn't matter what anybody in the New Testament thought about peripheral issues like slavery, prostitution, adultery, eating pork and shellfish, temple worship, or lots of other stuff. What mattered to the New Testament writers is that Jesus was the risen Christ, and that the job of the church was to continue the ministry of the Apostles. Period.
Every time people talk to each other with the result that they better understanding each other.
Answer the question?
Regards,
God
Quite the opposite. Blaise Pascal said that it is not possible to prove or disprove that God exists. Therefore, it is better to bet that God exists. If God made himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager would be irrelevant and not applicable.
Quoting Txastopher
People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. His believers have created wars and segregation throughout the centuries, mostly based on what they think God means or wants for humanity. One church interprets God's word in one way, while another church interprets God's word in another way. In the US, a vast majority of the population are God believers. Many of these people have used their religious beliefs to enact laws that discriminate against people, based on what they think God wants. Beliefs inform your actions, and if your beliefs aren't even accurate, maybe God should come down to clarify that for his believers. As stated before, this would cause much less confusion, much less harm and much less segregation among believers.
Quoting Bitter Crank
For clarification purposes, are you Christian? My question/statement was still not addressed. It blatantly clear that the old testament endorses slavery, such as in Exodus 21. And the new testament doesn't seem to have any problem with slavery as well. So as a general idea, the Bible condones/endorses slavery. Correct?
Quoting Tomseltje
Your question was asking me why I assume he hasn't. I never assume he hasn't, I have stated I am not convinced he has. If you have proof/evidence that he has, please provide it. You claim he has, so I asked for an example.
When the bible was written, thousands of yeas ago, the ancient people did not have all the modern medical bells and whistles to treat STD's. Therefore, if you got a STD, such as AIDS, nature would have to run its course. This could lead to discomfort at best or birth defects and death at worse. Gay behavior, back in the day, was a disease waiting to happen; sodomy, with very serious consequences for the community. There was no medical way to deal with it. However, the ancients understood the cause and affect and addressed behavior.
Picture the 1980's, but without any modern medicine, when the Gay community was dropping like flies due to AIDS. If this had been thousands of years ago, these deaths would have been seen as a sign from God, that this particulate behavior was not acceptable; wage of sin was death. Modern medicine allows humans to cheat the cause and affects of nature.
I can eat rocks if I had the resources to hire dentists and internal medicine doctors to keep me going. Then, since I appear to be doing fine, with this prosthesis, I assume rocking eating is natural, without any permanent consequence. Medicine makes money off unnatural choices.
Those who are taught to think in terms of revisionist history, try to apply the modern cheating of nature to the past, before human knew how to cheat with science and medicine. The revisionists historians wonder why the caveman did not do a Google search and find a free clinic. Revisionist history thinking then leads to questions that make the common sense of the past, appear irrational.
If you read the old Testament, you don't find anything written, similar, about lesbians. The reason is, this was not a main highway to serious diseases, that could then spread to the community.
We could run a national experiment, where we stop producing condoms and we stop treating all STD's for one year. We will try to simulate the past and let nature run its course. We can then observe what happens and come up with national guidelines, in terms of the cause and affect of behavior and the willful path needed to avoid sickness and death for the community. Then we compare this to the bible. God already made the path of health, clear in terms of the natural world. He was not addressing the artificial world of medical prosthesis and revisionist history.
Seems we are in violent agreement. Well except for that "quite the opposite part"
Wow! You really are dogmatic. So if God did put in an appearance, as per your request, you still wouldn't believe in him.
Quoting chatterbears
They must be overjoyed with your concern for them.
Quoting chatterbears
People have always interpreted religious texts in order to rationalise their prejudices. People do exactly the same with any texts; scientific, philosophical, legal etc.that presume to speak with authority. We have an entire professional class of jurists dedicated to the constant interpretation and reinterpretation of the law, supposedly, the ne plus ultra of unambiguous language. What makes you think that anything god could say would not be open to convenient interpretations and provide yet more material for confirmation biases?
This has got to be one the most ill-informed posts of all time.
Quoting wellwisher
Ancient Jews did not have a vector model of disease (like, mosquitos being a vector or carrier of malaria). That people were a vector of disease was, likewise, not part of their world view. Being "unclean" or having a very vaguely defined 'leprosy' was as much a spiritual matter as it was a physical matter. Some ancient Greek and Roman physicians had a slightly better understanding of disease, but not much.
We have a specific definition of leprosy. Ancient people had no good way to distinguish between all the various kinds of skin rashes and infections. Real leprosy did exist at the time, and was a serious disease then as now, but lots of other things were counted as leprosy too.
People would not have a clear understanding of disease causation, disease transmission, and cure for another 1700 years, at least. Robert Koch tied up the loose ends of infection as recently as 1875.
The Jewish lawmakers of the millennium prior to the common era were concerned about the social and spiritual health of the community. Strange acts (a man lying with men as with women, etc.) violated social and spiritual norms. Of course, 'homosexuals by our definition' existed in all times, but homosexual behavior didn't have a defined role in Jewish society the way it did in Greek or Roman society.
Which sexually transmitted diseases were prevalent among ancient Jews isn't clear. AIDS certainly was not, syphilis was most likely not; gonorrhea--maybe, warts, yes. Gonorrhea and warts are both diseases whose visible presence can disappear after the acute stage. For that matter, so can syphilis' acute symptoms. Any sequelae would be counted as another disease. Not only would be counted as another disease, would have to be counted as another disease, because they had no way to connect early symptoms to symptoms several months or years later.
Read more history of the ancient world; investigate ancient ideas of disease. Get an understanding of the difference between "spiritual and community health" and "physical health".
really?
Quoting chatterbears
You sure have odd ways of stating you are not convinced of something, the question as you formulated clearly implies this assumption you now deny. If you were stating you are not convinced, you should have formulated it more like : "Does God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of this texts? And if so, why haven't I seen any evidence of this."
Kamikaze Butter asked first, so I answered him. I'm not gonna answer twice on the same question, but I can quote my answer for you, since you were too lazy to read the entire thread:
Quoting Tomseltje
If your claim is atheism - or there is no god. That claim in no way obligates the theist to show proof of God as argument against. If that is your claim the burden of proof for that claim rests with you.
Quoting chatterbears
2 points, first is there has also been evil caused in the world in the name of atheism. Secondly, religion is an act of man, not an act of God, and as such is subject to all the inherent errors that entails.
lastly - the concept of a hidden God is well argued. The usual answer back is there is more value to us - the creature. What we consider valuable traits such as Faith, Charity, Chastity, Love of neighbor etc lose value if done on some guarantee of an eternal hereafter of bliss. It becomes a transaction , base.
For clarification purposes...
I was raised as a Christian, inherited the value system of mainline Calvinist Protestantism, have been at times active in the church as a believer, but since the mid 1980s have maintained an atheist POV. I have had plenty of quarrels with Christianity. As an old man contemplating his limited future, I don't expect to find any sort of hereafter.
The problem I have with your question hinges on the words "condones/endorses" slavery. If we look at the OT as a product, it reflects the practices of the Jewish community which produced it. In that sense: Yes, the Bible condones/endorses slavery--and a good many other practices which we find extremely objectionable. The Greeks and Romans, South Asians, East Asians, Amerindians --everybody -- has similar problems in their ancient religions. They did -- and approved of -- things that we find utterly unacceptable. For instance, a classical Greek family which went bankrupt generally became slaves as part of the settlement. Very bad practice.
The authors of the OT and NT were, as one would expect, captives of their time and place, as much as we are captives of our time and place. For NT writers (and Jesus, and everybody mentioned in the NT) the Roman Empire was a fact on the ground. When Jesus said, "render unto Caesar..." he wasn't condoning/endorsing Caesar, he was simply acknowledging a fact: the Romans were running things in Israel, like it or not.
What is true of Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible is true of Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and every other religion: They were all contrived in a time and place, and reflect the prevailing values of that time, and of the principle founders, if there was one. They generally incorporated -- condoned/endorsed -- prevailing values of their time and place into their religion.
Believers in ancient religions frequently find themselves in serious tension between what the ancient religion hatched out, and what modern people find acceptable. Fundamentalists of several religions are having a lot of problems with this. Fundamentalist Christians, Moslems, and Hindus are seriously out of sync with the values and norms of the modern world.
So yes, the Bible endorses slavery; we don't, and the Bible can't be used today to justify it. Stone throwing Moslems are in the same boat: They can't use the Koran to justify stoning adulterers or throwing homosexuals off a tall building.
OK?
Those who were under law; by the book, were the children of the bond woman. A good slave's job is to obey. Their orders depends the word of God, as written by the prophets. The children of the promise, are like grand children of God, who have a family a connection via the Holy Spirit; written in their hearts. As children of God, they have more freedom based on an internally generated creativity, from the spirit, This is based on faith, apart from the law.
What you see is as the confusion in the word of God, is connected to these two ways of serving God appearing so different. The children of the bondwomen memorize the bible and take its orders literally like a good servant. The children of the promise, are like the Grandchildren of God, who are know Papa personally and are faithfully creative with this spirit. The follow their inner voice with faith and often generate unique perspectives that may suit the times and occasions. Both way are considered valid and sometimes, they will contradict each other.
Paul summarizes the value of this apparent contradiction in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23
Part of the reason, God allows various ways of interpreting the bible is so the faithful can save some through their inner spirit of truth.
If you ever go to a small independent church, they may be very unique. If you look at the people, their unique path nevertheless inspires some. It is a bridge to the spirit. Become all things to all men so that you can save some.
But shouldn't an all-knowing God understand that people in the future would have treatment to many diseases? Instead of saying 'Homosexual is punishable by death', God could have simply said, 'Homosexuality may be considered more unclean, so take precaution and be wary."
Quoting Rank Amateur
You're still not making sense. What did you mean by "If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing". Please expand and explain this more in depth.
Quoting Txastopher
You should learn how to read. When/where did I write that I wouldn't believe in God if he made an appearance? I said, even if I believed/knew God exists, it doesn't necessarily mean I would follow his commands. I believe my mother exists, but I am not going to necessarily follow everything she tells me, especially if she told me to kill homosexuals.
Quoting Txastopher
Because if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving, He would know how to communicate in a way that would not allow for interpretation or confirmation bias. If the creator of the universe cannot communicate in a way that we all would be certain of what his message entails, maybe he isn't all that powerful. Also, even if someone still did somehow misunderstand his message, God could confront that specific individual and clear up their confusion, could he not?
Quoting Tomseltje
From thousands of different religions, denominations within those religions, different churches within those denominations and different people who believer different things within those churches; it is clear that God has not made his message clear enough. My question is not formulated on assumption. It is formulated on fact. If you want to say that God DOES in fact clear up confusion between believers, you would need to provide evidence for that.
Quoting Tomseltje
This is apparently evidence that God clears up genuine confusion between believers? Really?... So when I talk to my wife about an issue, and at the end of the conversation we better understand each other, that is apparently God revealing the true meaning of scripture to us?
Quoting Rank Amateur
My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. The same applies here with Atheism. I don't believe that a God exists, and anyone who does believe a God exists, should provide evidence to support their claim. I don't need to provide evidence for my lack of belief in your God, just as you don't need to provide evidence for your lack of belief in my invisible pet dragon.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Shouldn't God have created a different system that wouldn't allow for errors by the beings he created?
Quoting Rank Amateur
Secular groups provide Charity and Love of neighbors, so those two are tied to a hidden God. Faith is an ill-defined term, and you would need to explain why it is valuable. Chastity is just a silly way that God/Man tries to control what you do in the bedroom. You'd also have to explain why chastity is valuable, rather than having safe responsible sex that is consensual.
Quoting Bitter Crank
This is your interpretation, which still applies to my original post. Let's wait for God to come clear this up for us.
Quoting Bitter Crank
Why can't the Bible be used to justify slavery? If the creator of the universe gave us a book (the Bible) to live by, and one of the commands is to own people as property, why wouldn't we adhere to his commands? Religious people believe that God has wrote the Bible through man, and that everything in the Bible is good and moral. When believers genuinely believe the things they read in the Bible, they would also believe it is morally acceptable to follow commands in the Bible, such as killing homosexuals. And if this wasn't God's actual message for humanity, I go back to my original question. Why doesn't God come down to clear up this confusion about what his book (the Bible) actually means or is supposed to mean?
Quoting wellwisher
This seems like a very dangerous path to truth. If God knows that leaving any room for interpretation can result in the deaths of millions, I would conclude that God is immoral and doesn't actually care about conveying his message properly to humanity.
seems you need to clarify if you are an atheist as below, or an agnostic as above
Quoting chatterbears
Look up the terms yourself, or I can link you here: https://www.thoughtco.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040
Agnostic/Gnostic are pertaining to knowledge. Atheist/Theist are pertaining to belief. Knowledge and belief are two separate things. So there are two separate questions.
Do you believe a God exists? [ Atheist or Theist ]
Do you know a God exists? [Agnostic or Gnostic ]
You can answer no to both, in which that would make you an Agnostic Atheist. You can answer yes to both, in which that would make you a Gnostic Theist. To give an easier explanation, let me use an analogy I have used before.
If I told you I have a pet monkey; and asked you, " Do you believe I have a pet monkey? " - You would either say yes or no. A different question would be to ask you, " Do you know I have a pet monkey? " - In our daily lives, we first need to believe something, before we can know it. So you may believe I have a pet monkey, but until you see evidence for that pet monkey, you wouldn't be able to say that you know I have a pet monkey. Once you see the monkey in person, your belief turns into knowledge. You would then be justified in saying you believe and know that I have a pet monkey. Now apply the same logic to belief in God.
I can try - but not sure I can do better than the first time. If God came on TV on every TV in the world and said "I'm God - and now I am going to stop the world spinning on its axis" and it happened/ Than he said all that stuff about heaven if you do as I say, and hell if you don't - well that is all true. Than Pascal's wager becomes bet on God is and act accordingly with 100 % chance of eternal bliss - or bet of God is not - with 100% chance of eternal suffering -
Ah, so now you're claiming that whatever god had to say, it may or may not be correct. So this god that you claim not to believe in has, nevertheless, certain qualities that you are sure about. What a mess!
Quoting chatterbears
Obviously, you exclude yourself from this group since, as you state above, you wouldn't necessarily follow his commands, which suggests that you are either even more all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving than god; a logical impossibility, or that you have grandiose delusions, or that you are a bell-end.
Yes it does. It's simultaneously on both of you. Your claim offers no new information so we simply don't know whether you have an invisible pet dragon. Drawing conclusions from the existence of burden of proof or from that someone, despite the burden of proof being on them, doesn't provide any proof, is argumentum ad ignorantiam.
How can certainty about god or any of their qualities be concluded from not following their commands?
Quoting Txastopher
Which could perfectly well be done while being aware of what those commands were.
The problem is that you can't take an atheist position and make claims about the nature of the deity.
I'm claiming one doesn't need to. You can choose to not follow someone's commands without making any claim. Do I believe you have a beard? No. Do I believe you don't have a beard? No. Will I go to your church if you tell me to? No. Does not mean I have to make a claim about your beard.
I have no idea what you're talking about.
If you claim that you are an atheist, you surrender the bases on which to make claims about the nature of god. OP claims that god is wrong, therefore OP claims that god is fallible. This is a claim about the nature of god made by one that denies his existence.
And just what other interpretation is there?
Quoting chatterbears
Go right ahead and use the Bible to justify slavery, but tell us where in the Bible god commanded us to practice slavery.
And it doesn't make any difference -- especially to you, an self-described atheist. True enough, people do now, and have long used the Bible to justify whatever was convenient for them. This is normal behavior -- justifying our practices when other people object to them.
I don't see how so. You can refer to claims of other people or make speculations perfectly well as an atheist.
Quoting Txastopher
No, just that he thinks so. He only claims they would(/could) disagree. The following
Quoting Txastopher
is only true with objective morality, so the claim is more about the nature of morality if anything. You could argue that if God was objectively right they'd convince you so but that feels far-fetched to be honest - then you couldn't really say you'd be following the orders out of your free will.
What are you even saying? Just because God commands something, does not mean it is correct or moral. What qualities about God am I sure about?
Quoting Txastopher
Jesus Christ, you're horribly confused. There are two things here that you are conflating.
1. God's actual commands.
2. God's communication on what those commands are.
#1 is something no one is sure of, because they interpret #2 to mean thousands of different things. #2 is referencing the Bible. God communicated to humans through the Bible, yet everyone has a different interpretation of what God actually communicated. What "group" am I excluding myself from? You speaking in riddles, it's frustrating.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Then you get into the problem of how stupid/naive God really would be, at that point. The all-knowing God, that knows our every thought, would be OK with people faking it, just to get to heaven? This sounds like a very petty God who cares more about superficial nonsense, rather than genuine thought. It would also be out of fear. People would think, "I am scared to go to hell, so I'll pretend to follow and worship this God so I can get to heaven." - That's just ridiculous.
Quoting Rank Amateur
Instead of acknowledging your lack of education on the difference between belief and knowledge, you reply with "Never mind - whatever you say." - Really?
Quoting BlueBanana
What are you talking about? Explain to me how the burden of proof rests on the person who does not believe the person making the claim. You seem to not understand the burden of proof and where it rests. It rests on the person making the claim, not the person who doesn't accept the claim as true.
Which is why I can start off the statement with "IF ". IF God exists, etc... I am not making claims about a God I believe exists. I am making claims about what other people believe about a God existing. And my claim would be, " IF God exists, why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? " - For the sake of argument, I leave out the " IF " part of my statement to save time arguing with believers. I'd rather argue about the illogical positions that believers hold in reference to God, rather than arguing the existence of God. There's no evidence to support a God's existence, so arguing that is a waste of time.
Depends. By "does not believe the person making the claim" do you mean the same as "believing the claim to be false"? If so, there is a burden of proof on that belief, as a new claim is made and each claim has a burden of proof on it. But if you mean the person questioning the claim has no belief either way regarding the claim, you're correct, there's no burden of proof on them.
Quoting chatterbears
Quoting Bitter Crank
You first say the Bible endorses slavery. The bible is word inspired by God, which means God endorses slavery. You say the Bible can't be used to justify it today. I asked why. You reply with "Go ahead and do it." - You didn't even answer my question of WHY. Why can't people use the Bible to justify slavery today?
Here are the verses you asked for.
Leviticus 25:44-46 - Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves
Exodus 21:4 - The children of slaves were born into slavery
Exodus 21:7-11 - Parents could sell their daughters into slavery
Exodus 21:20-21 - Beating your slaves, as long as they don't die within a day or two
Moses wrote Exodus and Leviticus. Moses was a prophet from God. So essentially, when you break it down, God told Moses to convey these commands and rules to everyone. And part of those commands were laws about slavery. How to own slaves, how to beat them, different rules for female slaves, etc...
There are also may verses in the New Testament about slavery, but that's not necessary. I gave you verses that command/endorse/condone slavery. So why can't people use the Bible (God's word) to justify slavery?
I never stated belief in the claim to be false. I originally stated, " I do not believe a God exists ". This is NOT the same as, " I believe NO God exists " - These are two different claims. Or you can look at it this way.
Claim: God exists
Me: I don't accept that claim as true.
This does not mean I accept that claim as false. It simply means I don't accept it as true. Similar to how you can believe the defendant is not-guilty, but that does not mean you believe the defendant is innocent. There just may not be enough evidence to support guilt, in the same way there is not enough evidence to support God's existence.
Try not to misrepresent my position next time, because you cause more confusion for people reading and replying to me. I'd suggest researching a little more on the burden of proof and how we address belief claims.
My reply was to the example with invisible pet dragon. In informal language as it's commonly used the negation of the phrasal verb "to believe someone" means the same as thinking they're lying, and not that one doesn't hold their beliefs.
Quoting chatterbears
My analysis on the burden of proof is completely valid on my stated premises about what the sentence "I don't believe you" is interpreted to mean.
You appear more concerned with some type of victory, not in some type of truth - I have no interest in continuing such a discussion
You can not use the Bible to justify slavery BECAUSE the Bible is not a foundational document for any state, with the possible exception of Israel -- and Israel doesn't allow slavery. You can not use the Bible to justify slavery because the Bible is not an accepted normative source with respect to slavery. The Bible is correctly considered irrelevant to any discussion of present day slavery. (All this applies as well to the 17th - 19th century when western countries were engaged in slavery or slave trading. Slavery wasn't practiced then because biblical people practiced slavery; modern people practiced slavery because it was immensely profitable.
In a secular society, religious documents may at most be advisory, but they aren't and they can not be normative. In other words, for western nations it is irrelevant whether the bible endorses or denounces slavery. It just isn't relevant. Secular law overrides any and all Biblical rules.
Further, I don't (and most people do not) accept the Bible as the "literal, dictated word of god". Only fundamentalists accept the Bible that way. Most Bible-using religious people take the Bible as a document which reflects the will of god as perceived by human beings. Some Bible-using religious people accept the Bible as an entirely human document in response to their faith.
I am familiar with the Bible, including the dreary passages you quoted. No where does God say to Moses, "You know, you Jews don't have any slaves. It is my wish that you practice slavery. Go get yourselves some slaves, then my day will be just perfect."
You, as an avowed atheist, have no business expecting people to take the Bible literally. You don't even believe God exists, so you can't seriously think that God had any wishes in the matter at all. If you want to declare yourself as some sort of fundamentalist believer of whatever religion, then you would at least be consistent.
As it is, your dogged insistence on a literal interpretation suggests that you like playing games with literalism. It's a boring game.
Yes, I am. Your inability to say anything clearly has that effect.
Quoting chatterbears
Quoting chatterbears
Other than a series of feeble attempts to save face, you have no position.
Quoting chatterbears
This response I gave you quoted from was refferring to your question implying that you already established that God doesn't as a fact. When I asked you how you established this fact, you denied you meant to claim this as a fact, hence I suggested a better formulation for your question that doesn't imply this. So I don't see why you start talking about other religions as a response to my suggestion for improving your question.
Now if you come back on your own word, and now claim that god doesn't as a fact, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Now it may be the case that god's message isn't clear enough to you, but that doesn't mean god isn't clearing it up. God acts through people, so me attempting to explain how it works, if succesfull, is god clearing it up.
There is an old joke wich is quite an analogy for your position:
During a flood, an old farmer sits on top of his roof, and the water has risen to his feet. A boat comes by and the people on it invite the farmer to get in. But the farmer sais "No need, Jesus will save me". So the boat goes on to resque other people. When the water is at the farmers waist, another boat comes and the people on board invite the farmer to come aboard. Again the farmer replies "No need, Jesus will save me". So this boat also continues its way to resque other people. When the water is at the farmers shoulders a third boat comes, and the farmer gets invited to come aboard. But still the farmer replies "No need, Jesus will save me". So this boat also continues its way without the farmer, and the farmer drowns. When the farmer sees Jesus in heaven, he approaches him and quite agitated he sais to Jesus "I had faith in you, and you let me drown, how could you?", on wich Jesus replies "I did send three boats to rescue you, but if you are too stupid to get in, what can I do?"
Quoting chatterbears
Partly yes. God is the logos. In that regard, what is worshipped is the human ability to speak truthfully about what they experienced.
I read it as chatterbears feeling that, if God made it clear that She wanted to punish homosexual acts, chatterbears would conclude that God was immoral according to chatterbear's ethical system (eg see Stephen Law's 'Evil God' hypothesis, or this saying that is wrongly attributed to Marcus Aurelius) and would refuse to serve Her.
If we accept the RC church's teachings then we have to accept that it is possible to know with certainty of God's existence and power and yet refuse to serve Her, because that's what the teachings say Satan did.
The old testament itself is known to be written and refined by several people. Considering that translation itself is also extremely difficult to do accurately, it should be expected that something may have gone wrong in the process.
So let's hypothetically say God came to our world once again to clear up the confusion and misinterpretation. There are still going to be millions of people misinterpreting his words.
Say you were an IT specialists, working on artificial intelligence; AI. You have access to a large supercomputer at a large prestigious university. One day there is an anomaly, in terms of how the supercomputer is working, which has no software or hardware explanation. You realize this anomaly is due to your AI research.
The creator of the AI is delighted by the anomaly, since it prove it is conscious. However, the impact of this anomaly on supercomputer operation is not fully optimized to anyone else, like the research team who needs the supercomputer to do physics calculations. The AI is diverting resources and tweaking the processors, but in irrational ways. The physics team is falling behind schedule and cannot trust the results. They start to complain.
The first baby steps of AI will not be logical, creative and productive. It will be more on the side of destructive, since a baby can break things easier than build things; deconstructionism. God is patient with the baby human AI, since it is only 6000 years old. He is allowing the baby time to evolve itself so it can get beyond its terrible two's. The terrible two's of human AI is messing up the supercomputer of nature. When it reaches three, it will smooth out and the computer will work better for all.
During the terrible two's of AI, since the anomaly will so revolutionary, you can't just pull the plug even if everyone is complaining about the constant glitches. Everyone will need to adjust, be on guard and be patient. One day, this AI baby will step up higher, and become a useful tool for all.
There are about 10^24 star systems in the universe but there have only been 4x10^20 milliseconds since the Big Bang.
That gives god the grand total of 0.0004 milliseconds to spend checking out each star system...
Quoting FLUX23
If God cannot communicate to the humans he has created, in a concise and understood way, then he is not all-powerful. Also, people are not misinterpreting scientists, they are misunderstanding them. But the difference is, if you are not understanding a scientific principle correctly, you can actually go talk to them in person and get your confusion cleared up for you. So apparently scientists are more powerful than God is, because they can clear up misconceptions by continuously clarifying their position by giving talks or writing books, as well as initiating Q&A.
If this is God's thought process, he is unbelievably ignorant. God can inspire a book which he has wrote through prophets like Moses, and say things like don't eat shellfish or don't wear mixed fabrics? But he can't clarify what he means by specific verses which causes segregation between different religions and sects?
Why would he decide to confuse people with easily misunderstood 2,000 year old text, but then think it would be too confusing for humans to grasp his clarification on the cryptic book he wrote? What an insanely confused creator of the universe. Giving highly confusing information to a baby, but then think it would be more confusing to clarify the information he original gave out. God is a troll.
lol....? I assume you're making a joke here.
I appear more concerned with some type of clarity, while you appear more concerned with some type of diversion and deflection of responsibility for your lack of understanding.
Yet you haven't cleared it up at all. So apparently God does not act through people, since you weren't successful, correct? Also, if God acts through people, he's done a horrible job. Considering how many different religions and sects there have been throughout history. God really thinks the best way to communicate a message is through people that don't know how, rather than communicate it himself? It's like having a biologist send his 3 year old to explain evolution to a group of people. Either God doesn't exist, or he is really terrible at communicating things in a clear and concise manner.
Yeah well, he's not. Unless he can break the rules of logic, he is never omnipotent because that will create numerous paradoxes. And if he can break logic, then we have no reason to believe him neither.
In this sense, it is not much different.
Is that a Biblical timeline you're going by there...?
Human evolution (Wikipedia)
Partly to allow free will. God will tell each individual through their conscience what He wants. They will not be forced to listen nor forced by unassailable texts.
Hm. Then it seems this God figure is no longer needed here. Falls out of the equation after a fashion.
Anyway, if we go by the Biblical narratives (and others), then God has meddled plenty in human affairs, though.
But did that, by itself, remove free will...? Seems more like rendering degrees of doubt/conviction, than removing free will.
can you expand some, I don't see how free will negates the existence of God - sure I am missing something
Yes, I think you are agreeing with me here. The truth has been written down throughout religious texts. What is needed is not rigid dogma that is indisputably from God - that would impinge on free will. What is needed is a receptive reading of texts and God will show people what He wants them to understand. If we have a sincere desire for truth it will be given to us, either by religious texts, or by some other means. Texts are only an invitation to listen to God.
Why assume it's god who failed and not the people? I failed explaining it so you can understand, you failed to understand, it doesn't nessesarily need to be a failur on god's side. I could have done a better job at explaining, perhaps you could have done a better job at trying to understand.
Well, if you refuse to talk to the biologist himself, you will have to do it with the explanation of the 3 year old, you shouldn't blame god for that. Since god works through people, at best you can blame the people not doing it proporly, not nessesarily god. Unless you believe that all people are perfect of course, i don't believe that, I believe that none of us is perfect, but decent people strive for perfection.
Its not confusing at all, no interpretation needed. Some reality would be nice though. In the Israeli society or nation formed under the Torah such laws apply. In none Israeli societies it doesn’t apply. Other nations were not and are still not in a covenant with the Almighty, but Christians are. Meaning amongst Christians such activity is unacceptable and should be disregarded. But Christians do not live physically in God’s Kingdom from Heaven as of yet, so Christians don’t have right to impose their followings on none believers unless authorized by God which will happen but not until Jesus returns.
Now in a democratic society where Christians have a majority vote they do have the right to impose their views just as would any other majority even if their views are incorrect biblically. Or in the case of the Church of the Roman empire they where authorized to eliminate pagan religions within the empire. Or if an authority of a nation such as king, dictator and the like are authorized to make law so if they are Christian then the law may reflect Christian values. If such leaders where Buddhist or atheists or Muslims then the laws would reflect those beliefs.
The pick and choosers are just justifying to themselves and others what it is they want. Which certainly isn’t what God wants of them. In this world most Christians are to be proved. Jesus did say something to the effect that in the day light one doesn’t stumble but in the dark one must have the Light to see and walk according to the Light. And the world is in the dark in Christian context because Jesus Christ is the Light of the world, and few know Him, meaning the Light of the world.
We are all sinners while we are in flesh, so it is not a question of God clearing up confusion, but us being sinners in flesh, including Christians, and sinners misinterpret God's word. Adam had one very simple and straightforward command to follow and he failed at that. You could have most clear and simple explanation for what you want to know, and you would still sin against God.
What Christians don't misinterpret is that Jesus Christ died for their sins and rose on the third day. Other than that, it's God's grace what one will truly understand while here. Apostle Paul says that we are now seeing through a glass darkly.
You can ask, why did God create sinners and gave them a slice of reality to live in for a certain period of time, but that's another discussion. And I don't think that's really a discussion for unbelievers.