Character of God
Offline Just as many have misconceptions about physics many have misconceptions about the character of God and the meaning of scripture.
Even for those that hold the Bible to be (at least in part) fiction an effort should be made to understand the book before valid assertions can be made about its characters and meaning. Just as assertions in science require scientific evidence, assertions regarding the Bible should have Biblical evidence. Just as a less educated individual may believe there is evidence in physics to support a stance but be in error so may an individual believe there is evidence from the Bible to support a stance and be in error.
I've seen recent posts which repeat age old questions about the character of God as understood by Bible believers. Such questions as "if God is so good why does He let babies be born deformed" and "if God is so powerful why doesn't he intervene when there are accidents", etc. Generally these questions are not asked by an open minded individual in search for truth, but rather by one that has come to a conclusion and is attempting to bring others to the same conclusion.
Questions and statements like this simply show that such an individual has made no effort to understand the Bible. Even if it is treated as a work of fiction you must understand it before you can make any valid statement or ask meaningful questions. From what I understand an individual that sees themself as atheist has an open mind and is interested in truth. So many that call themselves atheists simply, and ignorantly, repeat assertions they have heard about the character of God without making any effort to find otu for themselves. That's just ignorance.
Even worse than the "luke warm atheist" is the luke warm "Christian". These are those that call themselves Christian but do not read the Bible, do not act in faith on the Word, do not attend church (or if they do it's for entertainment not to servce God), do not pray without ceasing. These are worse because they'll go around advertising how Christian they are then disaster strikes and everyone starts questioning the character of God.
It is common in Christian circles to attempt to find a reason for unanswered prayer. We hear things such as "God did answer but he said 'No'", or "Everything in it's season", or "All in God's time", or "It's not God's will", etc. I am yet to hear someone say "I just don't have the faith". It's human nature to blame God for our shortcomings. Look at Adam when God asked him what was going on in Gen 3:12 "The woman whom You gave to be with me, she gave me from the tree, and I ate." So as far as Adam was concerned it was ultimately God's fault that he did the wrong thing. This still happens today.
The correct reason for unanswered prayer, in every instance, is a lack of faith. Look at Matthew 17:19-20. The disciples could not drive out a demon. Jesus told them directly they lacked faith. In Luke 17 the disciples ask Jesus to increase their faith. Jesus says in effect that if they had any faith at all they could speak to trees and have them planted in the sea. Again and again where prayer is answered Jesus advises that their faith has been effective. Where it is not answered we are informed there is no faith.
Look at 1 John 3:21-22: Dear friends, if our hearts do not condemn us, we have confidence before God and receive from him anything we ask, because we obey his commands and do what pleases him. And again Mark 11:24: Therefore I tell you, whatever you ask for in prayer, believe that you have received it, and it will be yours. Again John 14:12-14: I tell you the truth, anyone who has faith in me will do what I have been doing. He will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father. And I will do whatever you ask in my name, so that the Son may bring glory to the Father. You may ask me for anything in my name, and I will do it.
Now back to the character of God. People question the goodness of God based on what is going on around us yet the Bible tells us if we follow Him all will be well, if we don't things will get bad for us. This is not because God makes it bad for us. It is a natural consequence of our actions. If we submit to God He gives us wisdom, we love one another adn we do well. If we do not submit to Him, we do what we feel is right and we get global warming, rampant rape, AIDS, etc.
So very few acknowledge God, let along trust Him or submit to Him and yet they ask "Where is God? Why doesn;t He do something?". He is ready, willing and able to do something. We have to ask Him and we have to believe He will do it. That'll be your evidence ladies and gents. Faith is the evidence of things not seen, the substance of things hoped for. Without it you will see nothing and we will continue to see chaos in this world.
If you won't even try it, if you won't even attempt to understand the character as portrayed in the book without a billigerent bias, then you will not see God. And that's your loss.
- Login to post comments
Note that word "assume". It'll get you into trouble yet if it has not done so already.
No doubt? So you have done work in this area? You have documented tests do you? You have evidence given by people that has been proven inaccurate or invalid or even untrue? Again, somneone that depends so heavily on evidence to accept truth yet makes a statement like this.
You know nothing of the sort. Where is your evidence?
Luckily I implied no such thing then.
I'm, not trying to show that man's abilityto reason is flawed and so the first 2 statements are moot.
Of course quoting the Bible takes though. You have to read it and have some udnerstanding to quote it appropriately. So that point is really just meaningless unless you are alluding in some way to indoctrination. There are many people with great minds, respected scientists, that have faith. Do you really think that all those people are so well indoctrinated that they can't break free of their delusion? Think again.
Good point. I'm holding onto the hope that I can make a logical point that you cannot understand the Bible and refute the truth of it.If you deny the truth of it you have misunderstood it. I'll show that by setting a little Bible comprehension test for the atheists out there. I guarantee a happy atheists will have no idea of the fundamental concepts described in the Bible. Even if you treat it as a work of fiction you need to understand it to criticise it. Many atheists read the Bible thoroughly, none understand it.
Good bye.
Does baby need a tissue?
Romans 12:6 "Having then gifts differing according to the grace that is given to us, whether prophecy [ let us prophesy ] according to the proportion of faith."
Romans 12:3 "For I say through the grace given unto me, to every man that is among you, not to think [ of himself ] more highly than he ought to think; but to think soberly, according as God has dealt to every man the measure of faith."
2 Corinthians 10:15 "Not boasting of things without [our] measure, [that is] of other men's labours; but having hope, when your faith is increased, that we shall be enlarged by you according to our rule abundantly,"
2 Thessalonians 1:3 "We are bound to thank God always for you, brethren, as it is meet, because that your faith groweth exceedingly, and the charity of every one of you all toward each other aboundeth;"
Matthew 14:31 "And immediately Jesus stretched forth [his] hand, and caught him, and said unto him, O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt ?"
Acts 6:8 "And Stephen, full of faith and power did great wonders and miracles among the people."
"No *man ( ie, *wzedi ) ever believes that the Bible means what it says, he is always convinced that it says what he means." George Bernard Shaw (1856-1950)
I also disagree with the original poster. It's a common misconceptions, usually held by Christians. This tends to come from Yeshua's (Jesus) statement that "Whatever you ask will be done, if you ask it in my name"
However, from a Hebraic perspective, a name is more than a name. A name speaks to the character of the person, to their lineage, to their spirit even.
This is the case going all the way back to the very beginning-
Adam means "mankind", and Havah (Eve) "mother"
Abram's name was changed to Avraham "Father of nations", and he called his miracle son Yitzchak, "laughter" because of how silly it must have seemed for two people to become parents at their age.
Thus, at least as it applies to that statement, I would say that it's not a matter of faith... I can pray for a Porsche, and REALLY believe, but that doesn't mean anything better than an Elantra is going to be in my driveway in the morning. One could not ask for such a thing, if what they ask of G-d is being asked in the spirit of any of the luminaries- This was never the type of thing they asked for. Again, taking Yeshua as an example, look what he asked for "Forgive us our sins... give us this day our daily bread... " He was quite humble about it all, not asing FOR extravagent things.
That's only half true. If they were a Christian, chances are they read the BIble SOME. But Christians tend to only read the parts they like (i.e. the NT and the prophets much more than the Torah), and they also tend to have a very Greek perspective about things when they do read it, which is why they find so many head-scratchers they have to ignore, and say "We'll understand it when we get to heaven" (Number one example in MY book is trinitarianism).
In short, being a Bible believing Bible reader does NOT mean that person has anything resembling a proper perspective ON the Bible. The majority of Christians DON'T, so why would ex-Christians be any different?
Who better to go to for the proper perspective on the bible than the one it's about?
"If the Bible is true, then I'm Christ."
--jesus christ* (1959 - 1993)
*Also known as david koresh, by those who lacked the proper faith.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Is your evidence for this anecdotal or have you taken a survey ?
Can you cite a source to substantiate such a sweeping generalization ?
I assume that you have excluded yourself from the category of superficial readers who don't have "a proper perspective ON the Bible." ?
Yes, note the word "assume" indeed. I explicitly told you that I was making an assumption, so it's kind of silly for you to point it out to me. It's hedging language. It expresses a degree of uncertainty about whatever follows. I was perfectly aware of what I was saying.
But if this isn't what you meant by wisdom, I'm curious as to what you DID mean.
This one remains unanswered.
Back to your responses:
Yes, "no doubt". It's a common figure of speech that can mean "I am persuaded that..etc, etc" or "I suspect that...etc etc".
I didn't literally mean that I know this is what people are doing with absolute certainty. I meant that I am convinced, I am persuaded, and I suspect that this is what they are doing.
I'll try and avoid all idioms and colloquialisms from now on. Sorry.
In prayer? Yes. I was a Christian until I went to college and learned me an edumacation. Nothing I studied in college proved that there couldn't be a god all by its onesy, but an honest, true, and (most importantly!) holistic education is extremely corrosive to the idea.
I would need documented tests and thorough explanations to understand how astronomers came up with their theory for the formation of our solar system, because none of that is something I can personally experience. I would also need such documents for evolution, since evolutionary time and my lifetime are on such totally different time loops that it would be difficult for a person to discern evolution taking place from mere, naked-eye observations.
I don't need documented tests to see that my brother doesn't like green beans, though, and I don't need documented tests to see that my nephew always blames another kid whenever he gets into trouble. I can just see a common trend. No experiments or surveys are necessary.
I'm honest with myself. Prayer never worked for me. And it has never worked for anyone I know.
Old man on the verge of death makes a miraculous recovery? The prayers worked, they say.
Old man on the verge of death dies anyway? God just decided that it was his time to go, they say.
You can stomp and scream all you want about prayers getting answered, but if it's just a case of your experience versus mine, I don't have to believe you.
If you, unlike me, have some kind of "document" you want to present as evidence that I'm clearly wrong, you are more than welcome. I doubt anyone would be impressed by it.
See the old man example above. I actually didn't just make that up off the top of my head. My dad attends a church where there are tons of senior citizens and war vets. Not to make light of it or anything, but if members of his church aren't dying, their relatives are. There is always... ALWAYS someone on the verge of death in their prayer requests. I have seen enough of the flip-flopping illustrated in my example to feel comfortable in my conclusion, but this is not the only place I've witnessed the flip-flopping phenomenon.
Someone else may have asked you for some kind of emperical evidence for one of your claims, but I don't recall ever requesting anything of the sort. All I said was that if you were claiming that human reasoning is flawed, you are guilty of self-contradiction.
I also broke down the concept of faith on page one, but I was only pointing out the reasons why it is a meaningless term. To my memory, I never invoked or said anything about documented evidence there either. It was mere reasoning.
I would redirect you to what has been said before.
And again, I would ask that you please tell me what you meant, so that I can respond to you more appropriately.
If someone read all of the plays of Shakespeare and was able to recite a relevant line for almost any situation, I would be very impressed. I would also agree that it would take a certain amount of brainwork. What with memory, being able to recognize relevance, being able to understand Shakespeare's language, etc.
But if the person was using those lines of Shakespeare as a moral compass (scary thought), and a guide for life, I would similarly accuse him of not thinking.
I was alluding to people using passages from ancient works of fiction in a magic eight ball fashion.
I wasn't specifically referring to indoctrination, but I justly could have.
Just because a person is rational about one thing doesn't mean they will be rational about another. It's called compartmentilization.
Maybe. It's also possible that they don't practice religion the same way you do, even if you call it the same thing and use some of the same buzz words. You might very well be citing people whose views would make you red in the face.
Compartmentilization is also a possibility.
Scientist also means a crapload of things, to be fair.
You're right. I can understand it, I just don't see what's so great about it. I assume (and I'm aware that I'm making an assumption, just so we're both clear on that) you're implying I'm reading the words but not "getting it", as if there is some profound meaning there I'm just not latching onto.
Sorry?
I don't even need to look at the bible (though I have). The god concept is ridiculous without invoking the book, just like the Santa Claus concept is ridiculous without invoking his songs.
If you deny the truth of atheism, you simply don't understand it!
Two can play that game.
I would love to see Rook's response to that.
But again, even if certain atheists fail your bible comprehension test, it won't make any difference, because it won't mean anything. See earlier Santa Claus analogy.
Some atheists are extreeemely well-informed when it comes to the bible and its fundamental concepts, so be careful there. Admittedly, I'm not one of them, because I consider it a waste of my time to read a book whose main character I know to be an undefined, meaningless word with a voice.
I can criticize the concept of Santa Claus without scrutinizing the lyrics of his songs. No doubt you're just trying to pull me into a discussion where you can drown me with interpretation hoopla. (That last sentence was an assumption.)
So says you.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
That's ridiculous. Upon what logic do you base this assertion?
Please do not say "because if they understood it they would be Christian" because that would be begging the question again.
"Physical reality” isn’t some arbitrary demarcation. It is defined in terms of what we can systematically investigate, directly or not, by means of our senses. It is preposterous to assert that the process of systematic scientific reasoning arbitrarily excludes “non-physical explanations” because the very notion of “non-physical explanation” is contradictory.
-Me
Books about atheism
Let's do a little test then. I'll start a new topic for a Bible Comprehension Assessment.
The problem with that is that if someone here passes your test, they've proven that atheists CAN understand the bible. But if no one here passes the test, your assertion is still not conclusively proven because this site represents a small sample of the total atheist population in which there are definitely more bible-readers.
I hope you won't, like a some theists, find some small confirmation of your initial assumption and have a hayday with it.
We do this same thing to theists all the time, only with more important things, like an evolution understanding assessment.
I could give you a test in your understanding of shakespeare, but if you failed, it wouldn't mean anything. His stories are fiction, although they are sometimes based on real figures.
If anyone fails your bible comprehension test, it won't mean anything. The stories are fiction, even if they are sometimes based on real figures.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
Since there are plenty of disagreements among Christians on how to interpret the Holey Babble, it's very arrogant of you to assume you have the correct interpretation. All someone scoring high on that test would prove is that they agree with you on it. Besides, if there really was an all-knowing and good god, and he/she/it wrote a book, wouldn't he/she/it make it easily understood so people could follow it rather than causing confusion and making it so ridiculous a lot of people would find it impossible to believe?
Matt Shizzle has been banned from the Rational Response Squad website. This event shall provide an atmosphere more conducive to social growth. - Majority of the mod team
I can see the format already:
wzedi: "Question 1: Is jesus divine?"
Atheist: "No."
(buzzer sounds)
wzedi: "WRONG!!! You don't comprehend the bible!"
You seem not to realize, this is about as meaningful as having a unicorn anatomy test.
There are no theists on operating tables.
Do we have to demonstrate proficiency in *your* interpretation of the bible or just proficiency in interpreting? If it is the former then we've already failed.
My Artwork
Yeah, his works are fiction, just like Shakespeare himself. He didn't write any of those books. Are we supposed to believe that a man who we don't KNOW ever left England, and had no library in his hometown, had such an intricate knowledge of the inner workings of foreign courts? That a man who had written so many books, died without leaving a single book to anyone in his will? That he would allow his daughter to grow up and marry, without attaining literacy? The body of Shakespearean works are likely a Masonic creation, as the name itself suggests. It has been thoroughly established that many of the first editions contained crpyographs, of the style in use by Masons at the time. And there is nothing to suggest that William Shakespear wrote any of them, except that they are credited to him. And even then, is it Shakespear or Shakespeare?
I would say neither. This comes from a person who loves visiting other people's churches, even ones I already know I disagree with. The overwhelming majority of Christians display a Greek/Roman perspective. Look at the name they call Messiah, a Roman name, not a Hebraic name. Look at the holidays, Roman not Biblical. Look at their beliefs, Roman not Hebraic. They have no more use for the Torah than any of you alleged atheists have. They'll pick out the rules they like, but they'll feel free to discard the rest.
Sure, I exclude myself. I am interested in the Hebraic perspective, which is often the exact opposite of the Greek perspective. I follow the religion Yeshua believed in and practiced, not the one created in his name later.
If it's any consolation, I'd "fail" that one, too.
The Bible is clear, there is only ONE G-d, not three, or three-in-one, or anything else.
As I articulated above, you would fail david koresh's biblical comprehension test.
Oh noes! Someone has invoked teh Shakespeare conspiracy!
He didn't write any books. There are many who believe he didn't write any of his plays, and they have some interesting points, but no one has ever been able to demonstrate conclusively that Shakespeare was not the figure that has been taught for years.
His knowledge of the inner workings of courts is the point I encounter the most whenever I hear someone bring up the Shakespeare conspiracy. But, to be fair, schooling in shakespeare's time was much more grueling than the schooling we receive today. There are no documents to prove that he received a university education, but there are no documents for virtually anyone who received a university education there before the 18th century. But judging by other well-known figures of his time and by the fact that his father was a prominent town figure, most believe that it's very likely that he did receive a university education, which would have blown our modern universities out of the water when it came to literature, history, language, and philosophy. Not so much with science.
*edit*
Oops, almost forgot. If you read Shakespeare's plays, he isn't exactly known for portraying foreigners honestly. He stereotypes the hell out of them using English stereotypes of the time. For example, in most Shakespeare stories, anybody who is Italian is a horny bastard that will steal your wallet and rape your daughter the moment you take your eyes off of him.
His portrayal of Othello, who can best be described as simply middle-eastern, paints Othello as having all kinds of English qualities. Granted, that play is kind of batshit crazy anyway, but the point stands.
So if you thought his portrayal of foreigners was suspiciously dead-on, think again.
*/edit*
Actually, he never wrote a single book.
Shakespeare wrote plays in the form of original manuscripts, and he wrote them by hand. They didn't have the same copyrite laws that we have today, so he probably kept his manuscripts somewhere safe at the time he was having the plays performed. Even if he allowed his manuscripts to go into print, which they later did, the printers had no obligation to print the work in its original form. They could make changes, if they felt like. This is why the different quartos and folios often have differences that range between slight and enormous. One of the quartos in particular chops his plays down, leaving out all kinds of lines and entire events, giving you some kind of express Shakespeare.
Further, printing books wasn't a big deal in Shakespeare's time like it is now, and it sure as hell wasn't as easy. Printing a book was expensive, and few people bought them, and they didn't even look very nice. They were damn sloppy. Usually only people with a hefty amount of money in their pocket who could actually read worth a damn (read: the rich minority) would consider buying them. Shakespeare was hot shit by the end of his career, so that's probably the only reason he made it into print at all.
Women hadn't exactly been elevated above baby-maker status quite yet. They were thinking about it, but not comitting themselves.
What name? Shakespeare? It's an actual name. There are public documents that show that Shakespeare and his family were real people. Mostly financial records.
That would say more about the printers than it would about Shakespeare.
The fact that his name appears on the manuscripts is pretty telling in itself, considering that no other authors' names are accused of being misplaced, that I'm aware of.
But Shakespeare's name appears on legal documents for his acting troupe, for ownership of the Globe, on documents showing items being sold to Shakespeare's acting company, etc.
I suppose all of this was planted by shady freemasons.
I'm by no means an expert on Shakespeare, but I have read a tiny bit, and from that tiny bit, I see no reason to think that he isn't who we think he is.
Let's be honest: people just love to make up crazy theories about famous figures.
Shakespeare.
If you've seen it spelled otherwise, it's probably because someone simply mispelled his name, or someone was trying to update the spelling of a text and for some reason decided to remove the e from the end of his name.
They had peculiar spellings then. Like "vncle" and "sadnesse" and a large squiggly line instead of "sh" in many words.
I don't know why someone would try to update his name, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened.
A place common to all will be maintained by none. A religion common to all is perhaps not much different.
As an expert on both Shakespeare and Masons, I can say with authority that you don't understand either. You obviously haven't read enough Shakespeare to understand how his works could have been written by him, and definitely haven't read enough accurate sources about Masons to know that they didn't even exist until after Shakespeare was dead.
Also, I'm ready to call 'troll' on mobius_thought--or maybe just 'needs a reality check.'
"After Jesus was born, the Old Testament basically became a way for Bible publishers to keep their word count up." -Stephen Colbert
I believe we can devise a test that does not rely on interpretation nor does it require one to agree with anything said by the Bible. My point is simply that even if the Bible is a work of fiction one should have some understanding of what it plainly says before making claims about it's validity or otherwise.
Since it seems so many believe it a bad idea I'll leave it.
I had a couple of other points. I believe it is common among atheists to say that religion is the greatest threat to society. Is that true?
Also, are their mathematical equations to describe music? Surely there are, after all music is simply sound and that can be broken down and analysed like anything else in physics. Take a deaf physicist with brilliant mathematical ability and ask that person to describe music to you - can they do it?
If you reduce everything to mathematics you're missing the point. It's good to have the mathematical/logical/scientific understanding but you are really taking the essence out of the truth.
On the question of wisdom vs rationality, one being rational does not impy that one has wisdom. One can have great knowledge, be fully rational and well versed in logic and be a fool, having no wisdom to apply the knowledge in the circumstances of life. By the same token one can be uneducated, unable to read, yet be rational and wise.
The wisdom of men has resulted in many threats to society that should make religion an after thought in terms of threat. Research into atomic energy resulted in the atomic bomb (was religion involved there?) not to mention the ensuing cold war. Medical/chemical science has at least indirectly contributed to drug abuse. Industry/transport has contributed or even directly caused global warming (religion?). Communications/technology make it possible to spread pornography all over the world which certainly (fact) leads to sexual deviancy such as rape and abuse (religion?).
None of these things is bad in themselves. It is the wisdom of men in applying the knowledge that is clearly lacking. Without God we are making a mess of things. We refuse to allow God in to give us wisdom and we break it.
Christianity does not call for an end to scientific research or progress. What it does clearly say is that men are essentially foolish not having the wisdom of God. The evidence is clear. Anyone denying that things are in a mess is deluded. The only people asking why God has not appeared to help are those that refuse to acknowledge His existence and accept His help.
If you believe knowledge is our saviour you are deluded.
Thank God He is the same yesterday, today and forever and He loves all men without exception. Accept it or not, of course the decision is yours. Thank God for free will.
What is the criteria for "understanding?"
It is, in many circumstances, an obstacle to the continuation of social and scientific progress hitherto. Your quantifier is subjective and meaningless.
There was a project to break the pop formula down, and essentially create an Orwellian "Kaleidoscope Machine," though the name escapes me. What is considered good, or musical at all, varies among cultures, so the question includes an defined variable.
Now you're committing a category error, leaping between aesthetic values and factual claims.
Sounds like an e-mail chain letter. Also a straw-man.
Appeal to consequences, and a straw-man.
Special pleading: science is also responsible for most advantages you take for granted in a modern, first world life.
That's a "fact" you'll have to argue separately.
Dark Ages.
Not uniformly, no. Thanks for blocking embryonic stem cell research so you can make sure those unused blastocysts can go directly to the bio-waste container, without any nasty research being performed. I'd hate to see, you know, cures get in the way of holy suffering.
Begging the question.
Longer life spans, global communication, the availability of vast accumulations of knowledge, cures to many diseases, social progress? No? The technology that allows us to have this dumbass conversation in real time?
Begging the question.
Begging the question, again. You're making the same logical mistakes yesterday, today, and ad infinitum.