Why Should God Appear/exist At All?

[nailit]

I asked this in naomi's 'Atheist Authors' thread, below, in response to khandro's query.
He did what all good religionists do and ignored it, so thought I'd put it out here.
Religionists....WHY does your God exist?

[Hypognosis]

@Clanad

Recall that she made the opening challenge: "tell me what happened at Easter"
You then claimed to not know what she was going on about.
She specified "the contradictions between the gospels"
You (may/may not have) denied that there were any.
She cut and pasted a long list.

So, I think she wants *you* to react to the contradictions in your own words - e.g. acknowledge they exist (which you've sort of done by saying that scholars have done a lot of legwork on this task) on Answerbank, just for the sake of this thread.

If it's too complicated then, by all means, cut'n'paste extracts of these scholarly treatments.

If they exist on paper on your bookshelf and are impervious to Google/Yahoo searches, then write the title/author so we can revisit this topic at some later date when some library has seen fit to digitise that particular tome.

[Theland]

Many of the so called contradictions in the Bible appear as such without a fuller understanding of the Bible history, and this is the finding of such Bible scholars as Jacob Prasch and others, who can allay the doubts of so many Christians.

[Hypognosis]

@Theland

So which bits of naomi's cut'n'pasted article did you decide not to read?


Are any of the chapter/verse numbers incorrect? If so, why not say so?

How on earth does wider bible history explain why four story tellers cannot get their versions to agree in the details?

Note: there is a difference between being factually incorrect and lying. Lying is when you know the true state of affairs but *purposely* communicate something other than that.

Getting the facts wrong is an honest mistake but making stuff up, so as to pretend you witnessed such a momentous event firsthand (making oneself cool, famous and getting ones name memorialised as a bible chapter, say) is definitely a lie.

Lying is, of course, not covered by the ten commandments. No sin in it. Nothing to stop it. In 33A.D., or now.

[vulcan42]

I wish theist's would realise that the statement " you don't understand" is not proof of anything.

[Clanad]

A reasonable suggestion, Hypognosis:

http://www.tektonics.org/qt/rezrvw.php

http://www.bible.ca/b-alleged-bible-contradictions-refuted.htm Especially the Prologue)

https://answersingenesis.org/contradictions-in-the-bible/isnt-the-bible-full-of-contradictions/ (Offered earlier)

http://www.comereason.org/bible-contradictions-explained.asp

http://www.berenddeboer.net/sab/ (Exhaustive research but well laid out)

http://atheismexposed.tripod.com/bible_contradictions.htm (A little too "in-your-face, but a world of information nonethe less)

http://www.amazon.com/New-International-Encyclopedia-Bible-Difficulties/dp/0310241464 (This well worn tome is on my book shelf... never to be lent always to be consulted first).

I'm well aware of the charge of contradictions... even engaged in well behaved discussions on the subject. In a few cases the atheist left saying "I didn't know that", and in all cases I've come to understand that there's more to understand of the atheist mentality than just a desire to be generally nasty. Even had coffee with many of them, but not dinner.... yet!

Thanks for the invitation Hypognosis... sincerely...

Last comment in your reply to Theland... "...How on earth does wider bible history explain why four story tellers cannot get their versions to agree in the details?"

Keep in mind, other than the preimmence of John, there's little to indicate that any of the Gospel writers actually knew each other. They wrote, individually, about the same subject which adds, in my opinion, to the veracity of the histories therein. It's probable that Mark was the first book (actually, a scroll) written and was known by at least Luke and Matthew and likely John.

As to the time when they were written... the short answer is the oral transmission preceded the writings, but that date keeps getting pushed back... now to as little as (possibly) 2 years after the events (33AD).

In any case it's demonstrably true that the most historically significant event... one that was deathly traumatic for all of Jerusalem, if not Israel, was the destruction of the Temple in AD 74... date certain through many sources, especially secular ones, yet that destruction and siege of Jerusalem that resulted in thousands of deaths by starvation is not reported in any of the writings...

Again, thanks...

[naomi24]

Clanad, so tell me, what happened at Easter?

[jomifl]

So what you seem to be saying Clanad is that the bible is not a terribly accurate historical record since some things got left out conveniently or otherwise.

[Clanad]

Naomi, so, what specifically do you want to know?

[naomi24]

Clanad, it’s a simple question. What happened at Easter?

[Clanad]

Naomi, since the word Easter itself, as the dictionaries and encyclopedias explain, comes from the name of a Pagan Goddess -- the goddess of Spring, Easter is simply a more modern form of Ishtar, Eostre, Ostera, or Astarte. Ishtar, another name for Semiramis of Babylon, was pronounced as we pronounce "Easter" today! And so the name of the Spring Festival, "Easter," is definitely paganistic, the name being taken from the name of the Goddess. I suppose a riot of imbibing and celebrating happened... what do you think?

[vetuste_ennemi]

Have had a look at the prologue Clanad recommended.
Here are extracts from its first three key points:

1. Be fully persuaded in your own mind that an adequate explanation exists, even though you have not yet found it...
2. ...Once we have come into agreement with Jesus that the Scripture is completely trustworthy and authoritative, then it is out of the question for us to shift over to the opposite assumption, that the Bible is only the errant record of fallible men...
3....When we are unable to understand God's ways or are unable to comprehend His words, we must bow before Him in humility and patiently wait for Him to clear up the difficulty or to deliver us from our trials as He sees fit. There is very little that God will long withhold from the surrendered heart and mind of a true believer.

I admire the perfect circularity of this reasoning.

[Clanad]

How convenient to omit the following guidance, vetuste... the very next Paragraph states:

(4)Remember, no interpretation of Scripture is valid that is not based on careful exegesis, that is, on wholehearted commitment to determining what the ancient author meant by the words he used. This is accomplished by a painstaking study of the key words, as defined in the dictionaries (Hebrew and Greek) and as used in parallel passages. Research also the specific meaning of these words in idiomatic phrases as observed in other parts of the Bible. Consider how confused a foreigner must be when lie reacts in a daily American newspaper: "The prospectors made a strike yesterday up in the mountains." "The union went on strike this morning." "The batter made his third strike and was called out by the umpire." "Strike up with the Star Spangled Banner." "The fisherman got a good strike in the middle of the lake." Presumably each of these completely different uses of the same word go back to the same parent and have the same etymology. But complete confusion may result from misunderstanding how the speaker meant the word to be used. Bear in mind that inerrancy involves acceptance of and belief in whatever the biblical author meant by the words he used. If he meant what he said in a literal way, it is wrong to take it figuratively; but if he meant what he said in a figurative way, it is wrong to take it literally. So we must engage in careful exegesis in order to find out what he meant in the light of contemporary conditions and usage. That takes hard work. Intuition or snap judgment may catch one up in a web of fallacy and subjective bias. This often results in heresy that hinders the cause of the Lord one professes to serve.

So, on one hand the reader is advised to rely on God's word along with careful and "wholehearted commitment to determining what the ancient author meant by the words he used..." Not bad advice and no indication of "circularity" when taken in context, which you failed to do...

[vetuste_ennemi]

The circularity exist in the proposition implicit in points 1 to 3 which can be expressed in Q&A form, Clanad:

Q: Does the Bible contradict itself?
A: No.
Q: How can we be sure?
A: Because the Bible is the inerrant work of God, not the work of fallible man.
Q: How do we know that?
A: The Bible tells us so.

As for item 4, I'm reminded of the introduction to the Penguin Classics translation of the Koran on exegesis which makes the same point:

"Among these disciplines [required for correct interpretation] are the subsidiary sciences of... historic context,...harmony of laws,...linguistic obscurities,...variant readings,...grammar,...metaphors,...rhetorical excellences and ...divinely ordained inimitability."

I'm sure that the struggle He forces us to make in order to understand Him is morally improving, Clanad, but I can't resist the observation that had He on His part made more effort to speak plainly and to avoid ambiguity He could have have prevented a lot of confusion and strife.

[Clanad]

While usually clear headed and straightforward, vetuste, I fear you've not been inoculated for the virus naomius antagonistus .

Look, all the passage is saying is for the believer especially, to seek God with your whole heart (Jeremiah 29: 12-13) and to use honesty is seeking after the truth, avoiding biases as much as possible...

Major problem exists though, in the non-believer and strident atheist's mutual goal of decrying the methods of a god in whom they do not believe... that's an indiction of argument for arguments sake, no?

[Clanad]

Look... like a lot of my acquaintences, I was once a "strident" atheist... and I was really full of myself.

I'll not go into the long and short of my meeting with the Holy Spirit but only to say, I've never been more content nor more sure of what this ancient Book has to say. I can only fear for those on the day of the Great White Throne judgement when, standing before the accuser they have only the tawdry works of their hands to offer... The accuser is not, by the way, Adonai Elohim...

[vetuste_ennemi]

I'm sorry I appear strident and antagonistic, Clanad. My first point was meant as no more than a mild tease. My last point, on the other hand, was meant seriously and I'll restate it. The ambiguity of the sacred texts constitutes in my mind a powerful argument against the God of revealed religion (most especially Christianity). The history of Christianity is a history of schism and sectarianism, the results of which have been anathemas, persecutions and burnings. These misfortunes appear to me unnecessary because they could have been avoided if God had spoken with greater clarity. I concede that the ambiguity and confusion caused by different interpretations of the Bible MAY be consistent with the Divine Being as you conceive Him. But to believe that you would have to start with the premise that He exists (back to points 1 to 3), wouldn't you? I can't see what argument you could present to somebody, however open-minded and honest, who did not start with the premise.

[vetuste_ennemi]

Talking of Naomi, what have you done with her?

[vetuste_ennemi]

"The accuser is not, by the way, Adonai Elohim...".

Who is the accuser, then, Clanad?

[Clanad]

But, vetuste, you're talking entirely about how men are (meaning humans, including the fairer sex) which is usally the case, not how God is.

Isn't it strange, that the God of the Bible, having the power and wisdom to create the Universe with a spoken word also created man and gave us the ability to say "no" to such a Creator?

The accuser is Satan... God has provided the way for reconciliation which man had no way of doing by providing the acceptable sacrifice... Himself... unique concept. Look... it is with the utmost clarity that God has revealed Himself... it is with the utmost rejection that man has anwered Him.

Again, I say, I'm the perfect example of one coming to believe His word and that he exists when everything within me had said "no". Another ex-athiest says it far better than I:

" To be honest, I also had another motive. As I challenged those who believed in God, I was deeply curious to see if they could convince me otherwise. Part of my quest was to become free from the question of God. If I could conclusively prove to believers that they were wrong, then the issue is off the table, and I would be free to go about my life.

I didn't realize that the reason the topic of God weighed so heavily on my mind, was because God was pressing the issue. I have come to find out that God wants to be known. He created us with the intention that we would know him. He has surrounded us with evidence of himself and he keeps the question of his existence squarely before us. It was as if I couldn't escape thinking about the possibility of God. In fact, the day I chose to acknowledge God's existence, my prayer began with, "Ok, you win..." It might be that the underlying reason atheists are bothered by people believing in God is because God is actively pursuing them.

I am not the only one who has experienced this. Malcolm Muggeridge, socialist and philosophical author, wrote, "I had a notion that somehow, besides questing, I was being pursued." C.S. Lewis said he remembered, "...night after night, feeling whenever my mind lifted even for a second from my work, the steady, unrelenting approach of Him whom I so earnestly desired not to meet. I gave in, and admitted that God was God, and knelt and prayed: perhaps, that night, the most dejected and reluctant convert in all of England."

Lewis went on to write a book titled, "Surprised by Joy" as a result of knowing God. I too had no expectations other than rightfully admitting God's existence. Yet over the following several months, I became amazed by his love for me."

[jomifl]

Clanad, lets get to the point, you believe in god. That being the case, all your verbal justification is unnecessary. In fact it undermines your belief because to a true believer belief is enough and any form of explanation or justification hints at underlying doubts in the claimed belief. The genus Naomius should have a capital N if we are going to be scientifically picky.