Why does science always upstage God?

[ayost]

I believe the Bible because it's true and I am convinced that the evidence supports it's truth. 

I want to address this single comment from your long post and I'm not taking it out of context.  Most of your argument seems to be based on this one precept, that the Bible is true and you believe it, so your philosophy stems from that point of perceived truth.  But here's the problem, there is an avalanche of evidence that you are ignoring.  This "Bible" that you hold to be so truthful is not a "book", not written by the people who it is said to have written it and is nothing but a collection of disparate religious manifestos authored over decades if not centuries.  Large swaths of Biblical stories and anecdotes are borrowed from previous religions, such as Zoroastrianism and previous cultures, such as Kemet (ancient Egyptians).  There are documented studies that assert this.  There's the dead sea scrolls which contain contradictory religious stories.  These writings and possibly thousands more were buried and/or destroyed by the early Christians in an attempt to curate a religion of their liking.  There is the trajectory that Paul sent Christianity on that simply did not exist before.  There are many borrowed concepts from older religions that were clearly adapted for Christian purposes.  And there is the obvious political contamination by the Romans that so shaped Christianity.  My question is how in the world can you be so confident about a text with all of these clearly defined problems?

Everything you said is demonstrably false. Like untrue and easily shown to be untrue.

not written by the people who it is said to have written it
Unprovable and these ideas don't come from any new manuscripts or archeological evidence.

nothing but a collection of disparate religious manifestos authored over decades if not centuries
You don't even know if its decades or centuries. That shows at least some ignorance on your part. You didn't even bother to Google which one it is.

Biblical stories and anecdotes are borrowed from previous religions, such as Zoroastrianism and previous cultures, such as Kemet
Only in the MOST superficial and anecdotal ways. Not in a deep, meaningful way. Nether one of those religions tell the story of God entering into His creation to save it.

dead sea scrolls which contain contradictory religious stories
The Old Testament texts that were found in the Dead Sea scrolls were 1000 years older than any manuscripts we had, plus they only strengthened the reliability of the transmission of the Old Testament.

possibly thousands more were buried and/or destroyed by the early Christians in an attempt to curate a religion of their liking
I can't speculate on phantom texts that may have existed and may have been destroyed or the motivations of the people that destroyed them. Good theory. Good luck proving it.
The Jewish scripture cannon was well established before the Dead Sea scrolls were gathered.

the trajectory that Paul sent Christianity on that simply did not exist before
I am familiar with unbelieving liberal scholarship but these ideas just aren't grounded in anything solid. Paul basically formed the early church. You can read 1st century Christians and see the same things in their writings.

many borrowed concepts from older religions that were clearly adapted for Christian purposes
Again, I know what you're talking about. This is speculation on motivations and in ancient religions when there are similarities they are only very, very surface, they are not deep.

I pulled this from a website that was dogging Christianity for copying Kemet and their Trinity of Asar, Aset, and Heru:

"Like many Egyptian gods, these divine beings started out as humans. Asar was a revered king who was murdered by a usurper but became king of the afterlife, or spiritual realm. His wife, Aset, took their son, Heru, into hiding, and Heru eventually returned to reclaim the earthly throne."

I'm sorry, that is absolutely nothing like the eternal triune God of the Bible. Accusing Christians for stealing this and changing it is just speculation. Pure speculation.

---

I said I would table the idea of suppression because you reject it. Do you want it tabled or do you want to explore it?

As far as a world in which God exists and the Bible isn't true I want to note that there's somewhat of a nuance in the way you asked your question. I am not arguing for god. I am arguing for the triune God of the Bible. That's important. You can make any claim you want about what another god would do in whatever circumstance. I'm not arguing from a particular source for a particular God. This isn't from the dome.

Assuming the God of the Bible exists I would say no, there is no world in which the God of the Bible exists and the Bible (or any of it's claims) are false.

Here's why...

When we talk about God (in the Bible) He is perfect and His ways are perfect. So when he chooses to act, He acts perfectly. That means that, whether we like it or not, the world we live in reflects perfectly what God intended it to. When I say perfectly I mean precisely, exactly what God wanted. I don't mean perfect as in no evil. He didn't create the best available option. He created precisely what He wanted. So in that context, another creation with different outcomes or events or standards or truths would then have to either be more perfect or less perfect than this creation.

If He could create a  more perfect creation that means God created not exactly what He wanted in this creation.
If He created a less prefect creation that would mean God is settling for something that's not exactly what He wanted. I already established that the God of the Bible is prefect and acts perfectly, so to act imperfectly would be for Him to act against His own nature, which makes no sense.

So no, there is no world where the God of the Bible exists and the Bible isn't true. What we have here, in this creation, is the only way.

So, if you make a claim that is contrary to the Bible, either your claim is false or the Bible's claim is false.

Perhaps the bible isn't a reflection of God.  Why would you believe that the bible is necessarily of God?

In this creation, according to this God who revealed Himself through Jesus's life, death, and resurrection as written about in Bible, this Bible is necessarily from this God.

[The Grand Nudger]

I suppose it doesn't really matter where they got it from, if one claim being errant means that your god can't exist.

[ayost]

Ayost,

A perfect being is a complete being. It wants nothing. It needs nothing. It has no desires because to desire something entails missing something that would make it better, and it cannot be better. A perfect being wouldn't need to act because the only reason to act is to accomplish a goal but the perfect being can have no goals. A perfect being is perfectly fulfilled.

So when you say that God acted or intended or wanted in the same breath as saying God is perfect, you are contradicting yourself. Your concept is self-contradictory and therefore incoherent. It is statements like this that make atheists shake their heads. How can Christians expect atheists believe in something they can't even coherently describe?

Ok, cool line of reasoning, but it's a strawman.

I am defending the Biblical God. You defined a concept outside the Bible and then measured God inside the Bible with that concept.

I'm sorry, it just doesn't reflect the Biblical picture of God's perfection.

I agree God needs nothing.
If by "want" you mean lack, I agree, He lacks nothing.

But if by want you mean desire, well "desiring nothing" isn't part of the definition of perfect. According to the Bible, God is perfect and has all kinds of desires. But he doesn't desire imperfectly like you or I. He doesn't hope or wish or dream. He isn't lacking something he desires. He's not trying to grow as a being. In the past God was in perfect fellowship as the trinity. His decision to glorify Himself through the redemption of a particular people doesn't impugn the perfect fellowship that He has had for all eternity.

No one ever said God has goals. He has a will and He acts perfectly with perfect intention to do everything according to His will the first time. Maybe you're confusing a will and goals, just a simple category error?

Its statements like this that make me shake my head. It just demonstrates a lack of education about the Biblical God.

---

I suppose it doesn't really matter where they got it from, if one claim being errant means that your god can't exist.

That is correct, sir. If one claim is errant, the God I'm describing doesn't exist.

[The Grand Nudger]

Right, the reason you came. To shake your head disparagingly and pretend that no one understands your god.

[Spongebob]

Everything you said is demonstrably false. Like untrue and easily shown to be untrue.

not written by the people who it is said to have written it
Unprovable and these ideas don't come from any new manuscripts or archeological evidence.

nothing but a collection of disparate religious manifestos authored over decades if not centuries
You don't even know if its decades or centuries. That shows at least some ignorance on your part. You didn't even bother to Google which one it is.

Biblical stories and anecdotes are borrowed from previous religions, such as Zoroastrianism and previous cultures, such as Kemet
Only in the MOST superficial and anecdotal ways. Not in a deep, meaningful way. Nether one of those religions tell the story of God entering into His creation to save it.

dead sea scrolls which contain contradictory religious stories
The Old Testament texts that were found in the Dead Sea scrolls were 1000 years older than any manuscripts we had, plus they only strengthened the reliability of the transmission of the Old Testament.

possibly thousands more were buried and/or destroyed by the early Christians in an attempt to curate a religion of their liking
I can't speculate on phantom texts that may have existed and may have been destroyed or the motivations of the people that destroyed them. Good theory. Good luck proving it.
The Jewish scripture cannon was well established before the Dead Sea scrolls were gathered.

the trajectory that Paul sent Christianity on that simply did not exist before
I am familiar with unbelieving liberal scholarship but these ideas just aren't grounded in anything solid. Paul basically formed the early church. You can read 1st century Christians and see the same things in their writings.

many borrowed concepts from older religions that were clearly adapted for Christian purposes
Again, I know what you're talking about. This is speculation on motivations and in ancient religions when there are similarities they are only very, very surface, they are not deep.

I pulled this from a website that was dogging Christianity for copying Kemet and their Trinity of Asar, Aset, and Heru:

"Like many Egyptian gods, these divine beings started out as humans. Asar was a revered king who was murdered by a usurper but became king of the afterlife, or spiritual realm. His wife, Aset, took their son, Heru, into hiding, and Heru eventually returned to reclaim the earthly throne."

I'm sorry, that is absolutely nothing like the eternal triune God of the Bible. Accusing Christians for stealing this and changing it is just speculation. Pure speculation.

---

It's sad that you are so poorly informed of the religion that you've dedicated your life to.  But sorry, facts are facts and even Biblical scholars don't disagree on most of what I posted.  If you've never read about the dead sea scrolls, then you wouldn't understand these things.  You won't ever learn anything if you just reject everything you hear and clearly you have had zero time to verify anything I posted; you just rejected it, which is exactly what I would expect from someone like you.

Here's a place to start learning:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl7i6U

[brewer]

Speculation is a very good word to describe most of christianity.

Bart Ehrman; Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor...=124572693

More Bart: https://ehrmanblog.org/tag/biblical-discrepancies/

[zebo-the-fat]

Where do all the bibles come from? .... they come from human made printing presses (or before that hand copied by teams of monks who never, ever made a single error in their copy)
Why would a god who made the whole universe need people to make his book for him, he can make a universe but not a book?
I would be more convinced if bibles appeared in every home on the planet, in every language and made of some indistructable and untestable substance... but an old paper book? sorry god you need to try harder!

[ayost]

Everything you said is demonstrably false. Like untrue and easily shown to be untrue.

not written by the people who it is said to have written it
Unprovable and these ideas don't come from any new manuscripts or archeological evidence.

nothing but a collection of disparate religious manifestos authored over decades if not centuries
You don't even know if its decades or centuries. That shows at least some ignorance on your part. You didn't even bother to Google which one it is.

Biblical stories and anecdotes are borrowed from previous religions, such as Zoroastrianism and previous cultures, such as Kemet
Only in the MOST superficial and anecdotal ways. Not in a deep, meaningful way. Nether one of those religions tell the story of God entering into His creation to save it.

dead sea scrolls which contain contradictory religious stories
The Old Testament texts that were found in the Dead Sea scrolls were 1000 years older than any manuscripts we had, plus they only strengthened the reliability of the transmission of the Old Testament.

possibly thousands more were buried and/or destroyed by the early Christians in an attempt to curate a religion of their liking
I can't speculate on phantom texts that may have existed and may have been destroyed or the motivations of the people that destroyed them. Good theory. Good luck proving it.
The Jewish scripture cannon was well established before the Dead Sea scrolls were gathered.

the trajectory that Paul sent Christianity on that simply did not exist before
I am familiar with unbelieving liberal scholarship but these ideas just aren't grounded in anything solid. Paul basically formed the early church. You can read 1st century Christians and see the same things in their writings.

many borrowed concepts from older religions that were clearly adapted for Christian purposes
Again, I know what you're talking about. This is speculation on motivations and in ancient religions when there are similarities they are only very, very surface, they are not deep.

I pulled this from a website that was dogging Christianity for copying Kemet and their Trinity of Asar, Aset, and Heru:

"Like many Egyptian gods, these divine beings started out as humans. Asar was a revered king who was murdered by a usurper but became king of the afterlife, or spiritual realm. His wife, Aset, took their son, Heru, into hiding, and Heru eventually returned to reclaim the earthly throne."

I'm sorry, that is absolutely nothing like the eternal triune God of the Bible. Accusing Christians for stealing this and changing it is just speculation. Pure speculation.

---

It's sad that you are so poorly informed of the religion that you've dedicated your life to.  But sorry, facts are facts and even Biblical scholars don't disagree on most of what I posted.  If you've never read about the dead sea scrolls, then you wouldn't understand these things.  You won't ever learn anything if you just reject everything you hear and clearly you have had zero time to verify anything I posted; you just rejected it, which is exactly what I would expect from someone like you.

Here's a place to start learning:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WUYRoYl

You aren't saying anything new that I haven't heard 1000 times. I have already looked into these things which is can conversationally reply to them. You're having a conversation with me that I started having 20 years ago.
What does "Biblical scholars" mean? I know Bart Ehrman agrees with you. What if I point you to Biblical scholars that disagree with what you said, would that change your mind?

---

Speculation is a very good word to describe most of christianity.

Bart Ehrman; Jesus And The Hidden Contradictions Of The Gospels: https://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor...=124572693

More Bart: https://ehrmanblog.org/tag/biblical-discrepancies/

Ahhh yes, Bart Ehrman. He has already been responded to by Christian scholars. Check out James White for a response.

[HappySkeptic]

Assuming the God of the Bible exists I would say no, there is no world in which the God of the Bible exists and the Bible (or any of it's claims) are false.

Here's why...

When we talk about God (in the Bible) He is perfect and His ways are perfect. So when he chooses to act, He acts perfectly. That means that, whether we like it or not, the world we live in reflects perfectly what God intended it to. When I say perfectly I mean precisely, exactly what God wanted. I don't mean perfect as in no evil. He didn't create the best available option. He created precisely what He wanted. So in that context, another creation with different outcomes or events or standards or truths would then have to either be more perfect or less perfect than this creation.

If He could create a  more perfect creation that means God created not exactly what He wanted in this creation.
If He created a less prefect creation that would mean God is settling for something that's not exactly what He wanted. I already established that the God of the Bible is prefect and acts perfectly, so to act imperfectly would be for Him to act against His own nature, which makes no sense.

So no, there is no world where the God of the Bible exists and the Bible isn't true. What we have here, in this creation, is the only way.

So, if you make a claim that is contrary to the Bible, either your claim is false or the Bible's claim is false.

"Perfect" can have many meanings.  I think the bible writers meant "having no flaw", and they meant it as a type of praise.  I'm don't think the statement can stand scrutiny as one of fact, as God changed His mind many times, and God fails to live up to the promises mentioned in the bible.

So no, there is no world where the God of the Bible exists and the Bible isn't true. What we have here, in this creation, is the only way.

This conclusion is unsupported.  If the world is EXACTLY as God wanted it, then God must want atheists to exist, God must want no evidence for his own existence, and God must want death and destruction to happen randomly on the good and the bad.

The usual Christian argument is that the Earth is completely corrupted by Man, and God can't do a darn thing about it, because He gave us free will.  Basically, God isn't in control - Satan is, until such time as God will destroy the whole thing.

So, the bible-writers could've been wrong, or the priests deciding on which texts are holy could've been wrong, or a scribe could've made a mistake, or stories could change in the retelling.  That wouldn't have any bearing on whether a real God exists, only on the accuracy of the bible's account of that God.

So, if you make a claim that is contrary to the Bible, either your claim is false or the Bible's claim is false.

I completely agree.  Two contradictory claims can't both be right.  If you are trying to go down the path of biblical inerrancy, I think you are going to have to believe a lot of crazy things, compromising both your hold on reality and your sense of decency.

[ayost]

Where do all the bibles come from?  ....  they come from human made printing presses (or before that hand copied by teams of monks who never, ever made a single error in their copy)
Why would a god who made the whole universe need people to make his book for him, he can make a universe but not a book?
I would be more convinced if bibles appeared in every home on the planet, in every language and made of some indistructable and untestable substance... but an old paper book? sorry god you need to try harder!

Ah yes, if only God did things the way you think He should. Then it would be convenient for you. He couldn't possibly have a reason for doing things the way He does.