Are people who claim to know God liars?

[Muffled]

I had a personal relationship with God too. Lots of folks do. They just don't all seem to be having a relationship with the same God.

So the question is, when other folks make a claim about God which opposes something you claim about God, does it make them liars?

I believe it means the person is self deceived. I had that happen once. The person who thought she was hearing from God ended up having trouble with the law. It isn't a dead giveaway but it is an indication.

 

[Muffled]

Jews and Muslims don't agree with the Christian view of God. Are they deluded or liars?

I believe they are apt to be both. It was the Jewish leaders who lied about the body of Jesus being stolen by His disciples.

 

[Muffled]

And in my 40 years I've experienced everything but #3. So far, I have had no evidence, whatsoever, of anything remotely approaching a demonic entity.

I believe I have had a visit from a demon but not because I was meditating. I believe it is because Christians are more open to spiritual reality.

 

[YmirGF]

I believe I have had a visit from a demon but not because I was meditating. I believe it is because Christians are more open to spiritual reality.

That is one way of looking at it, but I'm more inclined to think one is creating their own subjective reality. The imagination is far more powerful than most consider or admit.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe they are apt to be both. It was the Jewish leaders who lied about the body of Jesus being stolen by His disciples.

It all ends up being a matter of who you choose to believe for whatever reasons.

 

[Nakosis]

I believe it means the person is self deceived. I had that happen once. The person who thought she was hearing from God ended up having trouble with the law. It isn't a dead giveaway but it is an indication.

You've never question whether, you've subconsciously, are deceiving yourself?

I don't believe people do this on purpose. The religious experience seems to be a "real" experience of the conscious mind.

The subconscious mind creates the reality that is experienced by the conscious self. To the point that what you consciously experience doesn't actually exist.

For example the color pink doesn't actually exist. It's a fabrication of the subconscious mind. However you still experience seeing the color pink.

The Color Pink Doesn't Exist? So Why Can We See It?

Now if your brain can make you see a color that doesn't actually exist, what else can your subconscious mind cause you to see/experience which doesn't actually exist?

 

[Nakosis]

perhaps this thread should have been framed with a different title
sure you 'claim' to not call believers liars.....but....
you're choice of title betrays you

What's wrong with the title?

 

[Nakosis]

Not at all. I was answering a different question.

The God of both testaments is consistent in showing love and justice.

Flooding the world, killing all of the first born. Making folks eat their sons and daughters for the crime of despising a statue of God. Asking a father to sacrifice his son to prove his obedience. We have differing ideas what love is about.

 

[Rick B]

Well, if you find anything completely riddled with self-contradiction, obvious error, and occasional complete nonsense to be an "objective final authority" for anything, then you must be forever deluded. And quite obviously you haven't the vaguest idea of what JTB actually means. (Here's a hint: "justified" doesn't mean "because it's written in the bible." It means that you an demonstrate that you have a valid reason for holding the belief.")

Time after time I have tried to get you to reveal your final standard of truth. Being a Christian, I have freely given the written revelation of God as mine. I'm not sure why you have sidestepped this simple question. I'm only asking you, as an Atheist, to what do you rely upon as your ultimate authority by which you justify what you believe to be the truth. In other words: "It means that you an(sic) demonstrate that you have a valid reason for holding the belief." by referencing your final authority.

 

[Evangelicalhumanist]

Time after time I have tried to get you to reveal your final standard of truth. Being a Christian, I have freely given the written revelation of God as mine. I'm not sure why you have sidestepped this simple question. I'm only asking you, as an Atheist, to what do you rely upon as your ultimate authority by which you justify what you believe to be the truth. In other words: "It means that you an(sic) demonstrate that you have a valid reason for holding the belief." by referencing your final authority.

Because there is no reason to even suppose that there is a "final authority" on anything at all. And that's where you get it all so very wrong.

You are assuming somehow that there is something utterly static, unchanging in the universe, or in us, or in something, that grounds everything else. There is, unfortunately for that hypothesis, not even a remote shred of evidence.

Give me, for example, what you think might be a "final authority" for what must constitute the most beautiful piece of music, or the greatest work of pictorial art, or the single best example of English (or French, or Urdu, or Tagalog) literature. And tell me why they would be the best, when our hearing or eyesight or languages might continue to evolve, as they have always evolved until now?

You want my "final authority" for why I believe capital punishment is wrong? Okay, my answer is, "I am my final authority -- I have thought about as carefully as I am capable of, though I'm not perfect, and this is what I have concluded."

So I can ask the same question to Christians all over the world, "what is your final authority for believing that capital punishment is wrong, or right?" And guess what -- they will all come back, eventually, to the same final authority -- their Christian religion rooted in the Bible. And yet, some will come down for, and some against. How, I ask you, is that a "final authority" of any value whatever?

The kind of "truth" you are asking me about is, in my personal view, always at root philosophical and personal. I think about myself as a human being, and my relationship with other human beings (and with animals, and the physical world). I ask myself how I would like to be treated by others, and then whether that says anything about how I should treat others. Simple question, really. As I recall, Jesus suggested you ask it. But oddly, so did every other religion of which I am aware. The difficulty always turns out -- when religions ask such questions -- that there are "overriding" dogmas that will sometimes require you to abandon your own best answer.

I would not like, for example, to be killed for loving the person I do. Therefore, I would reject the idea that I should kill anybody else for loving who they do -- even if its someone of whom I disapprove.

We live in a world where there is much that we can learn by science, but also much that we must simple discover to the best of our own abilities. Science can't tell us whether it is better to believe that Jesus is the last, best prophet, or Mohammed is -- or neither! This must always be a question answered by individual belief -- however it is informed, scripturally, scientifically, philosophically or plain gullibility. Where such beliefs cannot be independently attested to and justified, what should we do about others who don't share our beliefs? Easy answer! The same as you would have them do to you for not liking your beliefs -- get over it and leave you alone.

Is that last -- getting over it and leaving each other alone -- very much like the history of religion in human history? If it is, then I suggest you haven't read that history very well.

Nor even the present.

Me, my reason, my knowledge -- all such as they are -- are my "final authority."


I'm going to end by telling you that in my own observation, many religion people who rely on what they conceive of as their "final authority" wind up being quite content with the notion that some people -- who for one reason or another are "not quite like God intended us all to be" -- should suffer. Their suffering cannot be permitted to be part of the equation -- rather, their "compliance" (usually with how that religious person sees the world) is the only important thing. And I find that something that I do not like very much about those persons. You know, sort of: "my final authority tells me I'm right and you're wrong, so even though I'm having a great time, you should give up all hope of happiness unless you can be like me. And I get to say this because that's how I personally interpret my 'final authority.'" Is it not so?

 

[BilliardsBall]

Flooding the world, killing all of the first born. Making folks eat their sons and daughters for the crime of despising a statue of God. Asking a father to sacrifice his son to prove his obedience. We have differing ideas what love is about.

I understand. You believe God should be loving enough to look the other way. Where do you not look the other way? Should paedophiles continue their behavior in the next world? How about Hitler? How about you and I?

 

[Nakosis]

I understand. You believe God should be loving enough to look the other way. Where do you not look the other way? Should paedophiles continue their behavior in the next world? How about Hitler? How about you and I?

Actually it's your claim of God being inclusive of differing views/religions. Whereas it's obvious the God of the OT is not inclusive.

So it's not what I believe God should be, it's what you believe God should be which doesn't support the God of the OT.

I'm not criticizing you for possessing a different view of God since folks design a God which fits their morals anyway, I just find it interesting that folks don't even realize they are doing it.

 

[Rick B]

Me, my reason, my knowledge -- all such as they are -- are my "final authority."

Thank you for your straight-forward admission that you, yourself, are your final authority on what is true. It is true that you are an Atheist. It is true that you have presented an anti-theistic view of the reason for the existence of pain and suffering in the world. There are several problems with your response in your post.

With our many exchanges you have disallowed, rejected, with disparaging remarks, that I should present my final standard of truth according to my worldview as truth-claims while all along you have responded, in every post, using your final standard of truth to support yours. An obvious "double-standard".
"Truth: is an expression, symbol or statement that matches or corresponds to its object or referent. Truth must correspond to reality in order to be true."

But when you begin with:

Because there is no reason to even suppose that there is a "final authority" on anything at all. And that's where you get it all so very wrong.

And:

You are assuming somehow that there is something utterly static, unchanging in the universe, or in us, (emp. mine) or in something, that grounds everything else. There is, unfortunately for that hypothesis, not even a remote shred of evidence.

And your evidence for your assertion?

These, and the remarks below demonstrate total "self-contradictory" statements within your own argument because you base whatever is true is grounded in your confessed ultimate standard. ""Me, my reason, my knowledge -- all such as they are -- are my "final authority." You assume the opposite of that hypothesis without giving "even a remote shred of evidence." yourself. "False Accusation Fallacy"
"The question of morality being relative is directly linked to its source. If truth is relative then morality can be relative."

So I can ask the same question to Christians all over the world, "what is your final authority for believing that capital punishment is wrong, or right?" And guess what -- they will all come back, eventually, to the same final authority -- their Christian religion rooted in the Bible. And yet, some will come down for, and some against. How, I ask you, is that a "final authority" of any value whatever?

While you think that your final authority (YOU) has the ability to "ask the same question to Christians all over the world - "what is your final authority for believing that capital punishment is wrong, or right?" And that (YOU) can know for certain that "they will all come back, eventually, to the same final authority" that is: "their Christian religion rooted in the Bible". But you go on to say "And yet, some will come down for, and some against." Do you see the self-contradictory, irrational argumentation here? Not to speak of the fact of making a moral argument of right and wrong within your Atheistic worldview. As well, your subjective/relativistic final authority can neither account for moral laws nor promote your personal ultimate standard of morality as being superior any other. Therefore illogical. "Subjective: characteristic of or belonging to reality as perceived rather than as independent of mind : phenomenal."

Also, as you have revealed in this post, that I was apparently justified in my observation of you being prideful, even though you vehemently objected: "What have you accomplished by calling me "prideful" and attempting to slag my knowledge of the English language? (Which, by the way, as someone who actually creates cryptic crossword puzzles, might just be a tad stronger than your own. www.crossword.info/BigAl)". Since you claim to be your final arbiter of truth: "Me, my reason, my knowledge -- all such as they are -- are my "final authority." the pridefulness is self-evident throughout.

"The question of morality being relative is directly linked to its source. If truth is relative then morality can be relative. “Relative Truth” means that truth is subject to the holder of truth." The ultimate authority to which you hold as your final standard of truth (YOU) must allow, to be consistent, that same standard for the other 8 billion free-thinking people in the world. Which should be obvious that there cannot be resolved logically therefore absurd. "The relativist believes that subjective truth is true for everyone, not just from them. This is the one thing they cannot believe, if they are relativist. Therefore, if a relativist thinks it is true for everyone, then he believes it is an absolute truth. Therefore, he is no longer a relativist."

The kind of "truth" you are asking me about is, in my personal view, always at root philosophical and personal. I think about myself as a human being, and my relationship with other human beings (and with animals, and the physical world). I ask myself how I would like to be treated by others, and then whether that says anything about how I should treat others. Simple question, really. As I recall, Jesus suggested you ask it. But oddly, so did every other religion of which I am aware. The difficulty always turns out -- when religions ask such questions -- that there are "overriding" dogmas that will sometimes require you to abandon your own best answer.

Yes, the arguments for moral laws take into consideration philosophical and personal views. You ask yourself "how I would like to be treated by others, and then whether that says anything about how I should treat others." You unconsciously reverse the order of what Jesus actually said in your thinking. "So in everything, do to others what you would have them do to you, for this sums up the Law and the Prophets." Matt.7:12. This further demonstrates pride in that "let's first see how this person treats me then I will respond in kind". This is exactly the opposite of Jesus' teaching. Not so simple for some it appears.

Then you state: "The difficulty always turns out -- when religions ask such questions -- that there are "overriding" dogmas that will sometimes require you to abandon your own best answer." "Always"? "Strawman", "Presumptive Fallacy"
The same can be said, in the extreme, for the Atheistic, relativistic, subjective worldview where there is no absolute truth. "Double-standard"

Our difference lies in the fact that our worldviews espouse opposing truth values. Yours embraces, by default, relative truth: Things appear to be true only for some people but not for others. My worldview espouses absolute truth: Something true for all people, at all times and in all places”. Absolute truth is true regardless of what we believe and think. It is abstract, universal and invariable. Absolute truth stands on its own. Absolute truth is absolutely true no matter what evidence there is for it. Truth is what corresponds to the facts. Truth does not change just because we learn something about it.

We live in a world where there is much that we can learn by science, but also much that we must simple discover to the best of our own abilities. Science can't tell us whether it is better to believe that Jesus is the last, best prophet, or Mohammed is -- or neither! This must always be a question answered by individual belief -- however it is informed, scripturally, scientifically, philosophically or plain gullibility. Where such beliefs cannot be independently attested to and justified, what should we do about others who don't share our beliefs? Easy answer! The same as you would have them do to you for not liking your beliefs -- get over it and leave you alone.

Your assertion that "Where such beliefs cannot be independently attested to and justified" that "whether it is better to believe that Jesus is the last, best prophet, or Mohammed is" is fallacious in that the Christian's final authority is objective revelation and this question of the Person and work of Christ is answered and recorded in the Bible. "such beliefs cannot be independently attested to and justified" by your final standard because you are dependent upon your own limited, finite subjective rejection of absolute, universal, invariant laws of thought, nature, and morality in your self-defeating ultimate standard of truth. "With Subjective truth, no one could ever be wrong since there is no standard for right and wrong. As long as something is true to the holder of truth, it is true even if it is wrong for someone else." "Objective: of, relating to, or being an object, phenomenon, or condition in the realm of sensible experience independent of individual thought and perceptible by all observers : having reality independent of the mind, objective reality."

I'm going to end by telling you that in my own observation, many religion people who rely on what they conceive of as their "final authority" wind up being quite content with the notion that some people -- who for one reason or another are "not quite like God intended us all to be" -- should suffer. Their suffering cannot be permitted to be part of the equation -- rather, their "compliance" (usually with how that religious person sees the world) is the only important thing. And I find that something that I do not like very much about those persons. You know, sort of: "my final authority tells me I'm right and you're wrong, so even though I'm having a great time, you should give up all hope of happiness unless you can be like me. And I get to say this because that's how I personally interpret my 'final authority.'" Is it not so?

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. But to construct some kind of theoretical "strawman" in order to "find that something that I do not like very much about those persons." in an attempt to justify your position according to your final authority is a fallacious, imaginary argument. "Red Herring"

But I am sure you said: "Me, my reason, my knowledge -- all such as they are -- are my "final authority."
So maybe that's your point.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Actually it's your claim of God being inclusive of differing views/religions. Whereas it's obvious the God of the OT is not inclusive.

So it's not what I believe God should be, it's what you believe God should be which doesn't support the God of the OT.

I'm not criticizing you for possessing a different view of God since folks design a God which fits their morals anyway, I just find it interesting that folks don't even realize they are doing it.

I'm an inclusivist, a term for people who believe people who aren't in the NT church can be saved, so no.

You will be limited in your understanding of God's nature and God's love and God's appropriate choices until you are in right relationship with God through the cross of Christ.

 

[Nakosis]

I'm an inclusivist, a term for people who believe people who aren't in the NT church can be saved, so no.

You will be limited in your understanding of God's nature and God's love and God's appropriate choices until you are in right relationship with God through the cross of Christ.

Of course, until folks come to agree with your view of God.

The pastor/priest of a denomination can bring to bear a lot of social pressure towards agreement within a community.

 

[Shaul]

"I believe they are apt to be both. It was the Jewish leaders who lied about the body of Jesus being stolen by His disciples."

Excuse me, but that is both wrong and libelous.

You are not displaying a great example Christian ethics.

 

[Rick B]

"I believe they are apt to be both. It was the Jewish leaders who lied about the body of Jesus being stolen by His disciples."

Excuse me, but that is both wrong and libelous.

You are not displaying a great example Christian ethics.

"Now while they were on their way, some of the guard (probably Jewish Temple Police) came into the city and reported to the chief priests (Jews of course) all that had happened. (the tomb was empty and it was being reported that Jesus is risen) When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said , "You are to say 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep'. And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." And they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day. Matthew 28:11-15

 

[Rick B]

My criticism of Religion is the claim to know anything about God, at all.

My position is man knows nothing about God. I assume this is the default position of atheists. Am I wrong?

People who say God is whatever... loving, all powerful, Just, merciful, has a plan for all of us etc.
From whence does this knowledge about God come from?

I know nothing about God and neither do you. You can have faith that God possesses whatever properties you feel God should possess, but based on what? Imagining if a God did exist, this is what God ought to be like?

You have the Bible, Quran etc... So why do you feel these folks were in any better position than you to have knowledge about God.

Not that I'm going to go about calling believers liars. I just think they feel a certainty that they don't actually possess.

Our "knowledge" and our "certainty" comes from our ultimate authority of truth.

"All Scripture is breathed out by God and is profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;" 2 Timothy 3:16

"For prophecy never had its origin in the human will but prophets, though human, spoke from God as they were carried along by the Holy Spirit." 2 Peter 1:21

"By this you know the Spirit of God: every spirit that confesses that Jesus has come in the flesh is from God;" 1John 4:2

"These things I have written unto you who believe in the name of the Son of God, so that you may know that you have eternal life. " 1John 5:13

"And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding so that we may know Him who is true; and we are in Him who is true, in His son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life." 1John 5:20

"For this reason also I (Paul) suffer these things, but I am not ashamed; for I know whom I have believed, and am convinced that He is able to guard what I have entrusted to Him until that day." 2Timothy 1:12

 

[Nakosis]

Our "knowledge" and our "certainty" comes from our ultimate authority of truth.

Then why can't Christians all get on the same page and make the same claims about God? Why are there so many denomination and views by Christians out there?

I can create a theology based on biblical scripture as easy as anyone else. Being able to use Bible passages to support my claims, regardless of whether they agree with your claims, does that give me authority?

 

[Shaul]

"Now while they were on their way, some of the guard (probably Jewish Temple Police) came into the city and reported to the chief priests (Jews of course) all that had happened. (the tomb was empty and it was being reported that Jesus is risen) When they had assembled with the elders and consulted together, they gave a large sum of money to the soldiers, and said , "You are to say 'His disciples came by night and stole Him away while we were asleep'. And if this should come to the governor's ears, we will win him over and keep you out of trouble." And they took the money and did as they were instructed; and this story was widely spread among the Jews, and is to this day. Matthew 28:11-15

I'm supposing you think this disproves your libel. It doesn't. What it shows is that the gospel according to Matthew is also libelous. Worse, it evinces that anti-Jewish slander is codified and inextricably part of Christianity. If you want me to explain how, just let me know. Meanwhile, you might want to read this link to broaden your insight about this topic: Stolen body hypothesis - Wikipedia