ARCHIVES:

Posts in this section were archived prior to February 2010. For more recent posts, go to the HOME PAGE.

6/24/2007                                                                                       View Comments

If you want something done right...

By Stronger Now

This is a rant that I have been thinking about for a little while now.

If God wanted humans to truly understand His will, why did He use fallible humans to write His book? It doesn't make sense to me. The Bible clearly states that God knew how to write; He supposedly wrote the original ten commandments on stone.

Questions:
  • Was it His own laziness that resulted in His homemade idiots writing it for Him?
  • If He is "all knowing" then wouldn't He have known that the guys He had doing His work would screw it up (did screw it up), which would cause people to doubt His message, which would result in millions ending up in His hell?
  • Are we so expendable to God that He can risk losing a few million souls, just to avoid writing and spreading His message Himself?

If you want something done right, you have to do it yourself.

As for the Bible being infallible, rabbits do not chew their cud. Therefore, rabbits must be "clean" and not "unclean," even though the Bible says they are unclean. (Deuteronomy 14:7) Right? Even if rabbits did chew their cud, SO WHAT?! Why does that make them "unclean" or, in other words, bad?

If God actually intended to leave a clear message to the world, He could not have done a worse job of it.

"GOD BREATHED"... my ass.

To monitor comments posted to this topic, use .

22 comments:

Anonymous said...

See, now, this is one of those cases where the original text went wrong in the translation, it was not that God wrote the original Ten Commandments on stone, it was that God was stoned when he wrote the Ten Commandments.

:-)

Chucky Jesus

Joe said...

Of course, xianity has its built in defense against this argument. God, we are told, used the humble things to accomplish his purpose. Kind of like the tennis master taking on all comers with a frying pan. Didn't Bobby Riggs do that once?

RubySera Martin said...

I live for the day when fundies realize that their "inerrant" doctrine is responsible for more deconversions than perhaps any other. I'm not holding my breath. I just think it's totally unbelievable that they are so near-sighted as not to see that. Let's see. No the biggest problem is not their near-sightedness but their fear of a lightening-bolt wielding all-mighty creator of the universe throwing a temper tantrum.

Jamie said...

For the record, the "clean" animals DID chew their cud...and have a split hoof...since rabbits DIDN'T chew their cud, that is why they were considered unclean...you had it backwards above.

That's my Adventist upbringing coming through...somehow we got stuck with the dietary laws AND the 10 commandments (especially the fourth one) to follow.

But you are absolutely right, there HAD to be a better way to get the message across. My wife feels as if she had some sort of vision from God and is trying to figure out what it means. It occurs to me that God would be better served if he hadn't made it so cryptic so that we could never be sure of the meaning. (Of course, I think it's a dream, not a message, though I think it's telling her the right thing nevertheless).

Aspentroll said...

There is no real problem here. All we have to do is get it through our heads that the bible is the biggest load of crap that has ever been dumped on mankind.
The sooner we realize this, the sooner we can get on with our lives with out feeling guilty about all that imaginary stuff.

Josh said...

To Jamie:

You said: "But you are absolutely right, there HAD to be a better way to get the message across."

How do you are we "know" that there had to be a better way? Can one truly know this? Also what does one mean by saying that there is a "better" way? What is mean by better? Or is this the best possible world?

Thanks for the input,

Josh

stronger now said...

Jamie, I see the bible saying that rabbits chew the cud and do not have a cloven hoof and so they are unclean. But this goes to show why it is so unclear.

Deuteronomy 14:7

7Nevertheless these ye shall not eat of them that chew the cud, or of them that divide the cloven hoof; as the camel, and the hare, and the coney: for they chew the cud, but divide not the hoof; therefore they are unclean unto you.

(Does anyone know if punctuation was even used in the original text?)

To josh: In this case clear would be better than unclear. Or do you disagree? A clearer way would be to say, Don't eat rabbits. Thus making it a better way to get a clear message.

Jamie said...

Josh said How do you are we "know" that there had to be a better way? Can one truly know this? Also what does one mean by saying that there is a "better" way? What is mean by better?

By better I mean something that clearly says what it means. The piles of Christian Apologists necessary to help convince us that all this stuff that doesn't "seem" to make sense really DOES make sense is quite telling. There are a gazillion denominations that interpret the same bible in a gazillion different ways. For every text that proves one denominations point you get a "Yeah, but" from other denominations pointing to different texts. "A better way" would be to make the text clear enough in the first place so you can avoid that.

I understand that ANY text is open to interpretation and can be interpreted many different ways, but for text claiming to be the very word of God, it should be a little more clear.

Furthermore, "a better way" would be for God not to "prove" himself through coincidences or dreams and visions that can be easily chalked up to the subconscious simply doing what it does. Why doesn't God just show up and say, "Here I am, now you can believe in me?" The bible says he eventually will anyway, so why doesn't he do it BEFORE he damns everyone to hell, then lets us make our choice based on verifiable information. Why all the cloak and dagger? Why the cryptic symbols and metaphors?

By a "better way" I mean why not leave a credible trail of evidence...not one that we have to "take on faith"? Why make a book that seems pretty easy to debunk and lends itself, quite easily I might add, to doubt? He's supposed to be the All Powerful God, for heaven's sake. It shouldn't be that difficult for him.

That's what I mean by a better way.

Josh said...

Well Jamie,

What if God did "come and and declare His glory on Oprah, because the entire world watches oprah." (Bad example but indulge me for a second) Let us just say that the entire population of the world saw God on Oprah. Thus there is now no possibility that anyone lacks knowledge of God. Even so, would everyone still believe and put their faith in God? I would argue no. We can not forget about free choice. Some would argue that this "actual" world we live in is the best possible world. There might be other worlds where God could have created humans that no one would be damned. But in that world only 10 people were created. So you can see how these "possible worlds" are far to hypothetical for me. Anyway I would argue that this is the "best" we have. I think it would be logically easier to argue for the non-existance of God, as many do, than to argue that there is a better world in which God could have created.

For readings on possible worlds you can check out William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame) and the theories of Jose Molina. or Mollinism.


Thanks,

Josh

Spirula said...

How do you are we "know" that there had to be a better way? Can one truly know this? Also what does one mean by saying that there is a "better" way? What is mean by better?

Oh...maybe the fact that there are over 30,000 denominations worldwide is kind of a clue that nothing is clear about this "Holy Book".

Also, one would expect that a Christian would only need one book on the shelf to understand his/her religion, but (as in my minister-father's case) there are volumes upon volumes of books of exposition, doctrine, and apologetics attempting to "explain" this "divine" word.

That's pretty pathetic if that is the best god could do to reveal himself to man.

stronger now said...

Josh,

If this world, in which millions if not billions of people go to hell for lack of understanding, is the best your god can do then he is very weak indeed.

Just because this is the only world we live in doesn't mean it is the best we can conceive of. My car is the best car I have but it would be better if it got 1000 miles per gallon. So to say this world is the best we have is true, because it is the only one we have. But to say that it is the best one we could have because it's the only one we do have is false. Also, we are not talking about the entire world but only one part of the world. What I am saying is, in our world there is at least this one part of it that should be better if one can logically contribute it to the work of a deity. So if your god would come out on Oprah it would be better than what we have now.

Josh said...

Just a question to provoke thought,

If there is a lack of understanding about God in the world, I and would conclude there is, is this due to a lack of revelation on God's part? Or is this due to man? In another way, is man culpable or is God for lack of understanding?

Spirula said...

is man culpable or is God for lack of understanding

Well, who is purportedly the omniscient and omnipotent one? See how this becomes problematic for concepts such as sin, evil and damnation? If you are an omniscient and omnipotent being these things are your responsibility and their existance is your fault. Game. Set. Match.

Josh said...

Spritula,

There is a problem with the necessity of causation though. Just because God created does not necessitate a causal model. This is where theories of "freedom of will" come in. We need to distinguish between sustinance and causation. We also need to distinguish if there if free will or not. Then one can go from there. So again the question for me is "should God have created in the first place."

freeman said...

If there is a "bible" god, then there is no free will.

If there is no god, then free will exists!

twincats said...

"I live for the day when fundies realize that their "inerrant" doctrine is responsible for more deconversions than perhaps any other. I'm not holding my breath."

Good thing, because the bible believers have two big things going for them:

1. The bible thing has worked for many centuries now, and still does.

2. The deconversions are nominal compared to those who remain faithful.

Finally, remember, kids: No munchin' bunnies! *snort*

Lorena said...

Josh:
For readings on possible worlds you can check out William Lane Craig, Alvin Plantinga (Notre Dame) and the theories of Jose Molina. or Mollinism.


Lorena:
Oh, yeah, that'll happen...not. Done masturbating my brain with Christian propaganda. Beginning to enjoy life completely undisturbed by religious do's and don'ts.

boomSLANG said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
boomSLANG said...

Josh: Let us just say that the entire population of the world saw God on Oprah. Thus there is now no possibility that anyone lacks knowledge of God. Even so, would everyone still believe and put their faith in God? I would argue no.[bold added]

Firstly, if "everyone" was convinced it was real, they wouldn't need "faith".

As for if "everyone" would believe it?... I, too, would "argue no"...and rightfully so. Why?....because the "Oprah" analogy is a hypothetical, of a hypothetical. Yes, **"God" IS a hypothetical. He/She/It's existance is currently limited to an idea, or concept, hence, why there has yet to be a working Universal definition/description of said "thing"---and furthermore, there never will be Universal agreement on it, as long as said "thing" fails to be objectively observed with the physical senses---note, THE SAME senses that one would rely on to "witness" said "God" on a TV show. Yoo hoo? The idea is utterly contradictory.

Moreover, even if a world-wide audience witnessed a "flesh and blood" mortal who resembled "Jesus" walk out on Oprah's set, you'd have even Christians doubting such an appearance was legitimate, even though they are the ones who actually believe in the resurrection/"zombification" of said biblical figure.

Josh: If there is a lack of understanding about God in the world, I and would conclude there is...

Yes, because, again, one cannot/should not expect a universal/objective "understanding" to take place over something that cannot even be objectively defined.(For a quick review, see here**, above)

Furthermore, this "understanding" issue is compounded because so many Theists claim that "God" is "beyond our understanding". Of course, in order to make such a matter-of-fact statement, you'd have to be somewhat "comprehending" the alleged "incomprehensible". Again, contradiction.

Josh continues: ..is this[lack of understanding] due to a lack of revelation on God's part? Or is this due to man? In another way, is man culpable or is God for lack of understanding?

Gee, I don't know, if "God"-- particularly biblegod--expects us to accept "His" existance on "Faith"(and according to the bible, this is clearly the case) then it seems to me that the "lack of revelation" is intentional, yes? I think so, otherwise, this "freewill" and "Faith" we keep hearing about would lose it's luster.

I mean, on the one hand, we were presumably "created in the image" of a "God", but then on the other hand, we ALL have the innate propensity/potential to be skeptical of at least one "creator" god. And I say "ALL", because even Christians deny some unseen "creator" gods---the same gods whose existance is ALSO to be accepted on "Faith".

So, you either "know" that your particular deity exists, and thereby, you "understand" said deity.... or, you don't "know" that your particular deity exists, and subsequently, you CANNOT "understand" them.... and thus, you take every bit of it on "Faith".

You cannot have it both ways.

Josh: We also need to distinguish if there if free will or not. Then one can go from there.

We already know that "freewill" exists, as the Christian uses theirs to deny Allah, Vishnu, Odin, and myriad other deities.

What "we" need to distinguish, is if "God" exists beyond concept in one's mind. Then one can go from there. Of course, we're talking evidence, not "Faith".

Jamie said...

Furthermore, this "understanding" issue is compounded because so many Theists claim that "God" is "beyond our understanding".

If God is beyond our understanding, then how do we know who he means us not to have sex with or what church is really doing His will, I wonder...

boomSLANG said...

If God is beyond our understanding, then how do we know who he means us not to have sex with or what church is really doing His will, I wonder...

The point is, if Theists, themselves, have "answers" to these types of questions, it's presumably based on an "understanding" of what their particular deity needs, wants, and desires. It's when these ideas are challenged that the skeptic is told that "God is beyond our understanding".

This, of course, translates to nothing more than the individual projecting their own personal view on the issue, while trying to justifiy it with "God". Those inbred mother-f%ckers(heavy pun intended), the Phelps, are a shining example.

Oh, and instead of the "beyond *our* understanding" soundbite, what they really mean to say is it's beyond "your" understanding.

Jamie said...

Exactly!

My wife is "making" me read a book on addiction by a guy named Edward Welch that is based on the idea the addiction is a "worship problem" in that we worship something other than God. I promised her that I would read it through, and I am having SUCH a hard time doing it because of this idea that Scripture (specifically, the Christian Bible) has all the answers and everything has to be evaluated in relation to it. Being newly deconverted, a part of me DOES feel like I'm just being rebellious. The psychological hold of fundamentalist religion digs itself in deep. At the same time, I can't go back. My mind just won't let me. And so, the main points the book makes, and the points my wife would hope I would get out of it are lost on me. They literally don't make sense anymore. And it sucks knowing that people will think that I've simply becomed "hardened". And I guess, in a way, that is what it feels like. The idea that this author, or the scripture he speaks of somehow has a greater understanding of truth just doesn't fly anymore, and so arguments that if I'd just find Jesus aren't able to work anymore. So I guess I have hardened in that way.

I do look forward to the day, though, where the joy I find when I realize I don't have to be bound by this overshadows the sadness, anger, and fear brought about by giving it up. I get both sides but I think it will be awhile yet.