Now would be a good time to ask this question which should not be a problem in this thread.
Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being, when wanting to make known his one and only perfect will to all humans for the thousands of years he knew would eventually exist and across thousands of languages and dialects (which he's responsible for because of the Tower of Babel incident) and cultures that would spread throughout the whole world, choose to do so in a written way that has proven to be so confusing and contentious and cherry picked?
Another AI overview that I thought was a decent answer:
Your link above did not bring up an AI overview. It brought up videos about Jesus being the way, the truth and the life as well as some websites about "truth."
I wrote to Rocky earlier that the question was more of a rhetorical one, but I'd be interested in your thoughts about it if you'd like to share those.
Thank you for sharing the passage - I'm going to pass on it for myself.
I'd like to ask for clarification though on how you take this passage to mean because of things you have said in the past about the bible. Do you follow verse 1 literally; i.e., do you accept all of God's words (which is implied) and store up all his commandments (also implied) within? And do you believe you understand the fear of the Lord and that you have found the (not "a") knowledge of God?
I'm asking in a sincere way.
I have framed my answers to several questions/comments/posts on GSC the last few years thus: the bible is an anthology of stories. Do I take those stories literally? Definitely not. Do I believe I understand... anything... adequately or fully? Of course not.
The closest those stories come to factual truth, IMO, is taking them as human records of the times (histories) of humans in the context of the lives and cultures (anthropology and archeology) at the time they were recorded.
I was requesting biblical answers simply because the question had to do with biblical doctrine - whether once saved/always saved (Eph 1:13) or salvation through faithfulness (Heb 3:12-14; Matt 24:13; James 2:17) is accurate.
Sorry, my response in my previous comment is the closest I can get to "assessing the accuracy" thereof.
Your link above did not bring up an AI overview. It brought up videos about Jesus being the way, the truth and the life as well as some websites about "truth."
I wrote to Rocky earlier that the question was more of a rhetorical one, but I'd be interested in your thoughts about it if you'd like to share those.
I thought that the AI statement is pretty good and sums up my thoughts at present. God made it so we must do some work rather than simply handing us the written truth in complete perfection on a silver platter; i.e. scripture reading, prayer, thought, reflection, assimilation, action and faith etc. to eventually know the truth within ourselves:
Question: Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being, when wanting to make known his one and only perfect will to all humans for the thousands of years he knew would eventually exist and across thousands of languages and dialects (which he's responsible for because of the Tower of Babel incident) and cultures that would spread throughout the whole world, choose to do so in a written way that has proven to be so confusing and contentious and cherry picked?
Answer: (AI Overview) "According to many religious interpretations, the concept is that God desires people to actively seek and "work" to discover the truth, rather than simply having it passively handed to them; this often involves studying scripture, prayer, reflection, and seeking wisdom from trusted sources."
I thought that the AI statement is pretty good and sums up my thoughts at present. God made it so we must do some work rather than simply handing us the written truth in complete perfection on a silver platter; i.e. scripture reading, prayer, thought, reflection, assimilation, action and faith etc. to eventually know the truth within ourselves:
Question: Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being, when wanting to make known his one and only perfect will to all humans for the thousands of years he knew would eventually exist and across thousands of languages and dialects (which he's responsible for because of the Tower of Babel incident) and cultures that would spread throughout the whole world, choose to do so in a written way that has proven to be so confusing and contentious and cherry picked?
Answer: (AI Overview) "According to many religious interpretations, the concept is that God desires people to actively seek and "work" to discover the truth, rather than simply having it passively handed to them; this often involves studying scripture, prayer, reflection, and seeking wisdom from trusted sources."
Thank you for posting the Overview as I still can't bring it up on my computer. I think it explains the AI Overview given when I googled how many denominations in the world there are. Its answer was "There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations in the world."
I think most church goers find acceptable doctrines in the church they decide to attend and for the most part they are not too overly concerned with what other denominations teach. However, it's when a skeptic attempts to compare the different doctrines of even a handful of them that you will find confusion, contention and scriptures being cherry picked.
And as this reality goes against scriptures which teach about knowing "the truth," I have to wonder about the existence of a God who chose to communicate his will in this way. Clearing God of any responsibility for what goes on down here because people have "free will" and/or Satan is the "god of this world" only turns this God into being a myth imo.
If you feel like answering, which of the two choices above do you accept as accurate?
On 12/5/2024 at 5:01 PM, Rocky said:
I'm not speaking for WW, only myself. Those two options are not nearly the only choices available.
4 hours ago, Rocky said:
Sorry, my response in my previous comment is the closest I can get to "assessing the accuracy" thereof.
That's cool with me Rocky. As you know, I can come across as being too controlling, especially about small details, because that's what I am at times .
If you want to share some of the other choices you see that are available, I'd be happy to read them.
If you want to share some of the other choices you see that are available, I'd be happy to read them.
Recognizing the complexity of life and the fact there's more answers or ways of looking at the matter doesn't mean I know what other options might be.
Life is complex despite with Johnny Townsend claimed 40 to 50 years ago. I can tolerate that complexity even if I'm uncertain of the paradoxes enough to articulate them.
Townsend, IMO, was spouting cult propaganda back then to present shiny objects to distract young people like us (well, we were young then) to keep us from thinking outside of the overly simplistic box that Victor Wierwille had us confined to at the time.
While listening to atheists' podcasts, I've heard it said that there are bad reasons for becoming an atheist, but I have yet to hear them identify these reasons and explain why they are bad.
While listening to atheists' podcasts, I've heard it said that there are bad reasons for becoming an atheist, but I have yet to hear them identify these reasons and explain why they are bad.
So, iyo, what are some of these bad reasons?
Off the top of my head, a "bad" reason would be deciding to become an atheist because you're mad at God
Another might be because of perceived hypocrisy of religious people or organizations
Off the top of my head, a "bad" reason would be deciding to become an atheist because you're mad at God
Another might be because of perceived hypocrisy of religious people or organizations
Thanks for your reply Oakspear. I agree with both of the reasons you gave. Being heartbroken because of unanswered prayers could also fall under a "feeling" reason similar to being mad at God.
For me, it was this hurt that made me go back to the bible to study what I was getting wrong about prayer and eventually came to the conclusion that the biblical promises had too many loopholes and that prayer was always going to be a hit and miss concept - ignore the misses and count the hits.
It's like the time I was on an errand outdoors and it looked like it might rain, so I prayed to God that it wouldn't because I had no umbrella. When it started to rain, I prayed that it would be a light drizzle so I wouldn't get drenched. When it became a downpour, I prayed I wouldn't catch a cold and I didn't. Praise the Lord - God was real. (True story )
I listened to this 30-minute video once and thought it was excellent. I'll listen to it again today to confirm whether my first impression was correct.
It's like the time I was on an errand outdoors and it looked like it might rain, so I prayed to God that it wouldn't because I had no umbrella. When it started to rain, I prayed that it would be a light drizzle so I wouldn't get drenched. When it became a downpour, I prayed I wouldn't catch a cold and I didn't. Praise the Lord - God was real. (True story )
I hear similar things frequently. I often wonder whether people who claim to consistently receive answers to prayer would be as convinced if they kept a detailed log of every prayer and every time they received what they prayed for.
I disagree though, that unanswered prayers is a "bad" reason to become an atheist. I can see that it might be a first step to realizing that, at the very least, God isn't what we think he is. Lack of results from praying might cause one to question their faith, leading eventually to atheism.
I remember when my sister was first diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 2007 and I had to explain to my mother that it was basically a death sentence (which, despite the existence of exceptions to the rule, it usually is).
I asked for prayers, but not once did I ask for a prayer for healing. I said I refused to rule out a miracle, but everything I said and did was resigned to the reality of the diagnosis. I remember at some point saying the only thing I wanted to pray for was her comfort.
But why should that have been? Why should I not have been expecting a miracle?
In retrospect, I realize that my faith by that point had been shot to hell. Years of unanswered and underanswere prayers were taking their toll to such an extent that I was "moving the goalposts" as I prayed, making it all but impossible for God not to answer the prayer. So I didn't pray for healing. I prayed for peace and comfort. Because I could talk myself into thinking that prayer was answered, seeing as the only person who could contradict me...
A good reason to become an atheist is the realization that you don't believe this stuff anymore, that your prayers are hitting the ceiling if you say them out loud, and going nowhere if you don't.
When you realize the failure to answer prayers is better explained by His nonexistence than by your failure to believe, THAT is a good reason to become an atheist.
In my opinion.
[In case I'm not making it clear, I'm not blaming God for what happened to my sister. I'm realizing that by the time that happened, deep down, I had already stopped believing, even though I hadn't fully come to that realization and wouldn't until the week she died. What happened to my sister was not God's fault. I'm sure if he could have done something he would have].
I remember when my sister was first diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 2007 and I had to explain to my mother that it was basically a death sentence (which, despite the existence of exceptions to the rule, it usually is).
I asked for prayers, but not once did I ask for a prayer for healing. I said I refused to rule out a miracle, but everything I said and did was resigned to the reality of the diagnosis. I remember at some point saying the only thing I wanted to pray for was her comfort.
But why should that have been? Why should I not have been expecting a miracle?
In retrospect, I realize that my faith by that point had been shot to hell. Years of unanswered and prayers were taking their toll to such an extent that I was "moving the goalposts" as I prayed, making it all but impossible for God not to answer the prayer. So I didn't pray for healing. I prayed for peace and comfort. Because I could talk myself into thinking that prayer was answered, seeing as the only person who could contradict me...
A good reason to become an atheist is the realization that you don't believe this stuff anymore, that your prayers are hitting the ceiling if you say them out loud, and going nowhere if you don't.
When you realize the failure to answer prayers is better explained by His nonexistence than by your failure to believe, THAT is a good reason to become an atheist.
In my opinion.
[In case I'm not making it clear, I'm not blaming God for what happened to my sister. I'm realizing that by the time that happened, deep down, I had already stopped believing, even though I hadn't fully come to that realization and wouldn't until the week she died. What happened to my sister was not God's fault. I'm sure if he could have done something he would have].
I identify with how honest you were wanting to be with yourself during that time. It fits in with what I heard in the video I mentioned above.
On one hand, you have the apologist saying: “Why does God heal some and why he doesn’t heal others is God’s sovereign will his choice. We might not understand. The question is are we going to trust him? So please don’t think that if you’ve asked God and he hasn’t healed you, it’s necessarily because you have a weak or lack of faith. That’s bad theology.”
On the other hand, you have Brandon calling God on not keeping his promise. Which of the two ways is the most honest?
God gives specific instructions for what to do when you’re sick (James 5:13-15) - if you do this, you will be healed. So, when God does not heal you after you've followed the instructions, it rightfully becomes an issue of God's trustworthiness. Like with any human who regularly does not follow through on their word, it is rational to lose trust in that person. But with God, the fallacy of special pleading gets applied (aka selective adherence when someone claims an exception to a general principle or rule without sufficient justification). Is this being honest?
Shame also enters the picture when you're told (however gently) "how dare you question God?" God's ways are not man's ways. Just keep trying and trusting. But where is the honesty in that when you compare it to what James clearly says?
Is it being honest to believe without question in salvation that is prescribed in Romans 10:9-10 but turn around and not hold God to what he prescribed about healing in James 5:13-15? There is no difference - they are both clear promises.
One can put all their faith in "the abstract, unverifiable and unfalsifiable" biblical claim of eternal life, and yet make excuses for every biblical claims of healing (see below) that is demonstrated not to work. How is this being honest?
Is not the honest thing to say is that an untrustworthy God cannot be a real God?
*********************
More verses in the video about healing: Psalm 41:3; Isaiah 38:5; Mark 6:13; Exodus 15:26; Psalm 30:2; Jeremiah 17:14
Verses in the video about what God says about asking for things: Matthew 7:7-8; Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24 (faith the size of a mustard seed is all that’s needed – Matthew 17:20); John 14:13; 1 John 5:14
Recommended Posts
Top Posters In This Topic
78
56
93
234
Popular Days
May 18
36
May 13
28
Nov 13
24
May 16
24
Top Posters In This Topic
Raf 78 posts
Rocky 56 posts
Nathan_Jr 93 posts
Charity 234 posts
Popular Days
May 18 2024
36 posts
May 13 2024
28 posts
Nov 13 2024
24 posts
May 16 2024
24 posts
Popular Posts
waysider
Yeah, see. That kinda leaves us between a rock and a hard place. We were either following the teachings of a man with devil spirits or he was wrong about what he taught. That means he could have been
Raf
I consider myself humanist as well. Since there is no hierarchy in humanism, no one really gets to define it. This website gathers various definitions that permit us to ascertain some kind of co
waysider
When you consider the irony in this, it's almost comical in a perversely twisted way. Want something from God? Follow a complicated formula. Make sure to cross every T and dot every I. Want
Posted Images
oldiesman
Another AI overview that I thought was a decent answer:
God wants us to do a little work to find the truth - Google Search
Link to comment
Share on other sites
waysider
That's not an answer, it's a rationalization.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Your link above did not bring up an AI overview. It brought up videos about Jesus being the way, the truth and the life as well as some websites about "truth."
I wrote to Rocky earlier that the question was more of a rhetorical one, but I'd be interested in your thoughts about it if you'd like to share those.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
I have framed my answers to several questions/comments/posts on GSC the last few years thus: the bible is an anthology of stories. Do I take those stories literally? Definitely not. Do I believe I understand... anything... adequately or fully? Of course not.
The closest those stories come to factual truth, IMO, is taking them as human records of the times (histories) of humans in the context of the lives and cultures (anthropology and archeology) at the time they were recorded.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Sorry, my response in my previous comment is the closest I can get to "assessing the accuracy" thereof.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
oldiesman
I thought that the AI statement is pretty good and sums up my thoughts at present. God made it so we must do some work rather than simply handing us the written truth in complete perfection on a silver platter; i.e. scripture reading, prayer, thought, reflection, assimilation, action and faith etc. to eventually know the truth within ourselves:
Question: Why did an all-knowing, all-wise and all-powerful divine being, when wanting to make known his one and only perfect will to all humans for the thousands of years he knew would eventually exist and across thousands of languages and dialects (which he's responsible for because of the Tower of Babel incident) and cultures that would spread throughout the whole world, choose to do so in a written way that has proven to be so confusing and contentious and cherry picked?
Answer: (AI Overview) "According to many religious interpretations, the concept is that God desires people to actively seek and "work" to discover the truth, rather than simply having it passively handed to them; this often involves studying scripture, prayer, reflection, and seeking wisdom from trusted sources."
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thank you for posting the Overview as I still can't bring it up on my computer. I think it explains the AI Overview given when I googled how many denominations in the world there are. Its answer was "There are more than 45,000 Christian denominations in the world."
I think most church goers find acceptable doctrines in the church they decide to attend and for the most part they are not too overly concerned with what other denominations teach. However, it's when a skeptic attempts to compare the different doctrines of even a handful of them that you will find confusion, contention and scriptures being cherry picked.
And as this reality goes against scriptures which teach about knowing "the truth," I have to wonder about the existence of a God who chose to communicate his will in this way. Clearing God of any responsibility for what goes on down here because people have "free will" and/or Satan is the "god of this world" only turns this God into being a myth imo.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
That's cool with me Rocky. As you know, I can come across as being too controlling, especially about small details, because that's what I am at times
.
If you want to share some of the other choices you see that are available, I'd be happy to read them.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Rocky
Recognizing the complexity of life and the fact there's more answers or ways of looking at the matter doesn't mean I know what other options might be.
Life is complex despite with Johnny Townsend claimed 40 to 50 years ago. I can tolerate that complexity even if I'm uncertain of the paradoxes enough to articulate them.
Townsend, IMO, was spouting cult propaganda back then to present shiny objects to distract young people like us (well, we were young then) to keep us from thinking outside of the overly simplistic box that Victor Wierwille had us confined to at the time.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
While listening to atheists' podcasts, I've heard it said that there are bad reasons for becoming an atheist, but I have yet to hear them identify these reasons and explain why they are bad.
So, iyo, what are some of these bad reasons?
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
Off the top of my head, a "bad" reason would be deciding to become an atheist because you're mad at God
Another might be because of perceived hypocrisy of religious people or organizations
Edited by Oakspearadded information
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
Thanks for your reply Oakspear. I agree with both of the reasons you gave. Being heartbroken because of unanswered prayers could also fall under a "feeling" reason similar to being mad at God.
For me, it was this hurt that made me go back to the bible to study what I was getting wrong about prayer and eventually came to the conclusion that the biblical promises had too many loopholes and that prayer was always going to be a hit and miss concept - ignore the misses and count the hits.
It's like the time I was on an errand outdoors and it looked like it might rain, so I prayed to God that it wouldn't because I had no umbrella. When it started to rain, I prayed that it would be a light drizzle so I wouldn't get drenched. When it became a downpour, I prayed I wouldn't catch a cold and I didn't. Praise the Lord - God was real. (True story
)
This One Failed Promise Should Stop Christians In Their Tracks! "And The Sick Will Be Made Well"
I listened to this 30-minute video once and thought it was excellent. I'll listen to it again today to confirm whether my first impression was correct.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Oakspear
I hear similar things frequently. I often wonder whether people who claim to consistently receive answers to prayer would be as convinced if they kept a detailed log of every prayer and every time they received what they prayed for.
I disagree though, that unanswered prayers is a "bad" reason to become an atheist. I can see that it might be a first step to realizing that, at the very least, God isn't what we think he is. Lack of results from praying might cause one to question their faith, leading eventually to atheism.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Raf
I remember when my sister was first diagnosed with Lou Gehrig's disease in 2007 and I had to explain to my mother that it was basically a death sentence (which, despite the existence of exceptions to the rule, it usually is).
I asked for prayers, but not once did I ask for a prayer for healing. I said I refused to rule out a miracle, but everything I said and did was resigned to the reality of the diagnosis. I remember at some point saying the only thing I wanted to pray for was her comfort.
But why should that have been? Why should I not have been expecting a miracle?
In retrospect, I realize that my faith by that point had been shot to hell. Years of unanswered and underanswere prayers were taking their toll to such an extent that I was "moving the goalposts" as I prayed, making it all but impossible for God not to answer the prayer. So I didn't pray for healing. I prayed for peace and comfort. Because I could talk myself into thinking that prayer was answered, seeing as the only person who could contradict me...
A good reason to become an atheist is the realization that you don't believe this stuff anymore, that your prayers are hitting the ceiling if you say them out loud, and going nowhere if you don't.
When you realize the failure to answer prayers is better explained by His nonexistence than by your failure to believe, THAT is a good reason to become an atheist.
In my opinion.
[In case I'm not making it clear, I'm not blaming God for what happened to my sister. I'm realizing that by the time that happened, deep down, I had already stopped believing, even though I hadn't fully come to that realization and wouldn't until the week she died. What happened to my sister was not God's fault. I'm sure if he could have done something he would have].
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I identify with how honest you were wanting to be with yourself during that time. It fits in with what I heard in the video I mentioned above.
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Charity
I listened to the video below again and I think it's all about being honest with yourself like I mentioned to Raf.
This One Failed Promise Should Stop Christians In Their Tracks! "And The Sick Will Be Made Well"
On one hand, you have the apologist saying: “Why does God heal some and why he doesn’t heal others is God’s sovereign will his choice. We might not understand. The question is are we going to trust him? So please don’t think that if you’ve asked God and he hasn’t healed you, it’s necessarily because you have a weak or lack of faith. That’s bad theology.”
On the other hand, you have Brandon calling God on not keeping his promise. Which of the two ways is the most honest?
God gives specific instructions for what to do when you’re sick (James 5:13-15) - if you do this, you will be healed. So, when God does not heal you after you've followed the instructions, it rightfully becomes an issue of God's trustworthiness. Like with any human who regularly does not follow through on their word, it is rational to lose trust in that person. But with God, the fallacy of special pleading gets applied (aka selective adherence when someone claims an exception to a general principle or rule without sufficient justification). Is this being honest?
Shame also enters the picture when you're told (however gently
) "how dare you question God?" God's ways are not man's ways. Just keep trying and trusting. But where is the honesty in that when you compare it to what James clearly says?
Is it being honest to believe without question in salvation that is prescribed in Romans 10:9-10 but turn around and not hold God to what he prescribed about healing in James 5:13-15? There is no difference - they are both clear promises.
One can put all their faith in "the abstract, unverifiable and unfalsifiable" biblical claim of eternal life, and yet make excuses for every biblical claims of healing (see below) that is demonstrated not to work. How is this being honest?
Is not the honest thing to say is that an untrustworthy God cannot be a real God?
*********************
More verses in the video about healing: Psalm 41:3; Isaiah 38:5; Mark 6:13; Exodus 15:26; Psalm 30:2; Jeremiah 17:14
Verses in the video about what God says about asking for things: Matthew 7:7-8; Matthew 21:22; Mark 11:24 (faith the size of a mustard seed is all that’s needed – Matthew 17:20); John 14:13; 1 John 5:14
Link to comment
Share on other sites
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.