How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Estro Felino]

But since this hypothetical, or even real God, made the material world he is responsible for everything in it. If he is omnipotent and omniscient then he is responsible for the actions of everyone. Thanks again for your help on refuting @Trailblazer 's claim.

Well...but it's man, that after millions of years of evolution has become so intelligent that he has invented computer.

God has never created a computer. Man has.
Men are not handicapped...quite the opposite, I guess. So they are responsible for everything going on on Earth.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not 'almost everyone', only atheists.
An atheist would not see evidence for God if it hit them in the face, and it is hitting them in the face and they STILL cannot see it.
There are reasons for that.

“So blind hath become the human heart that neither the disruption of the city, nor the reduction of the mountain in dust, nor even the cleaving of the earth, can shake off its torpor.” Gleanings, p. 39​

​

“Say: So great is the glory of the Cause of God that even the blind can perceive it, how much more they whose sight is sharp, whose vision is pure.” Gleanings, p. 106​

​

“And yet all, except such as God was pleased to guide, are bewildered in the drunkenness of their heedlessness!” Gleanings, p. 39​

​

Atheists rebel against the signs of God, which are Messengers of God. God cannot guide atheists and still honor free will.

I am sure that I could find some Christians and probably even Muslims that would say that same. But I do thank you for acknowledging the general intelligence of atheists. And thanks for quoting a fool as if that is evidence for anything. Do you seriously think that he could justify those claims? They are just lies about others.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Well...but it's man, that after millions of years of evolution has become so intelligent that he has invented computer.

God has never created a computer. Man has.
Men are not handicapped...quite the opposite, I guess. So they are responsible for everything going on on Earth.

No, man is responsible for quite a lot but we do not claim to be omnipotent and omniscient. We are not even close. We do not have the ability to affect everything. Seriously, can't you do any better than this?

By the way, pointing out that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent without everything being his fault does not refute God. It only refutes nonsensical versions of God. One could still claim without breaking logical laws, that their God is smarter than anyone else or anything else or more powerful than anything else, but that does not make it omnipotent and omniscient.

 

[dybmh]

That is 100% you. You made an incredibly foolish strawman argument.

No it's not foolish. It's beyond simple.

The world, the universe, everything that exists is not GOD. God is not pantheistic. It's not the universe, it's not nature. Only GOD is perfect. That means that chaos, will always and forever be required for all of this that surrounds you to exist.

So go ahead. Put God on trial. What exactly do you expect to happen? It's ridiculous! God says: "Do you want to exist or not? If you think Im guilty, then poof, bye-bye."

Who's on trial in this situation? YOU are, not God. Let me say that again, very clearly...

YOU are not God.

That's why @Trailblazer is right again, and again, and again.... because you do not know what God is. Your defintion is shallow narrow and corrupt.

Because YOU are not God, it is foolish to put God on trial. Think about it. What can you possibly know at a cosmic eternal scale? That's **exactly** what TB is saying.

 

[Estro Felino]

No, man is responsible for quite a lot but we do not claim to be omnipotent and omniscient. We are not even close. We do not have the ability to affect everything. Seriously, can't you do any better than this?

Man has the ability to affect everything. Through free will.

By the way, pointing out that God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent without everything being his fault does not refute God. It only refutes nonsensical versions of God. One could still claim without breaking logical laws, that their God is smarter than anyone else or anything else or more powerful than anything else, but that does not make it omnipotent and omniscient.

Good point.

 

[Subduction Zone]

God would be eternal, so no, most Christians do not think that there was a time when God did not exist or a time when there was nothing.

"God is the first truth and the last fact; therefore does all truth take origin in him, while all facts exist relative to him."

Okay, so now we are faced with the need for definitions. Define "Nothing". The odds are that atheists will point out that your version of "nothing" never existed.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No it's not foolish. It's beyond simple.

The world, the universe, everything that exists is not GOD. God is not pantheistic. It's not the universe, it's not nature. Only GOD is perfect. That means that chaos, will always and forever be required for all of this that surrounds you to exist.

So go ahead. Put God on trial. What exactly do you expect to happen? It's ridiculous! God says: "Do you want to exist or not? If you think Im guilty, then poof, bye-bye."

Who's on trial in this situation? YOU are, not God. Let me say that again, very clearly...

YOU are not God.

That's why @Trailblazer is right again, and again, and again.... because you do not know what God is. Your defintion is shallow narrow and corrupt.

Because YOU are not God, it is foolish to put God on trial. Think about it. What can you possibly know at a cosmic eternal scale? That's **exactly** what TB is saying.

LOL! Another strawman. I am not putting God on trial. You are making an incredibly unjustified assumption. One that you cannot even come close to supporting. I will let you try to figure out that yourself. I am putting various concepts of God on trial. That we can do quote easily. If a God randomly killed individuals for no reason at all and yet people claimed that God was moral, could we put that concept of God on trial? If a God decided to torture everyone after they died and yet he was said to be omnibenevolent could that concept of God be put on trial? I would say that I could. Aer we putting an actual god on trial when we do so?

 

[dybmh]

Where did I admit that I did not read it?

LOL. Oh boy. You seem to be part of the Atheist-hive-mind. You all sem to do this. "What?? I didn't do that. I didn't do nuthing."

Here's a link to the post - LINK Here's pictures so you don't need to do a single iota of extra work. See how nice I am?

Are you talking about one of your foolishly long spiels that did not prove anything?

Nope. It was 119 words. A very short paragraph. It's a simple idea. I know it might sting for someone if their ego is completely bound up in their athiest arguments. But 90% of those arguments are trash. The last 10% are valid, important, and worthy of discussion. But, the Atheist-predator is hunting for weakness. So they obsess over the simple basic and weak. It's also why YOU whine about posts being too long. You NEED things to be short so then you can flip and say "vague". And if they're too long "word-salad". And if they're complicated "incoherent".

The atheist predator is looking for weakness. That's why some of your comrades have put me on ignore. Anything strong is ignored.

But yes, you did in essence refute the claim that God is omnipotent and omniscient. You had to limit your god's version of omnipotence and omniscience which makes it without both of those traits.

Nope. Wrong argument! Try to keep up with your own claims. Here's a link to the claim - LINK

Here's an official quote. And a picture. Hopefully you're starting to see how I am abe to stay several steps ahead of you. In spite of your deflection and denial. You see I understand how your gods work. And my GOD is infinitely greater.

free will cannot exist if God is omniscient and omnipotent.

But your argument did. What was that you said about "willful ignorance?

Not true. You didn't read it. You can't keep track of the convo. Please go head and quote where I put ANY limits on God. Good luck, you won't find any.

I was only going by what you said. This is an incredibly odd claim on your part.

You don't know what I said. You didn't read it. Either you are extremely dishonest. Or befuddled and confused.

Go ahead and quote it. Else, you have been defeated by a children's book. That atheist-talking-point is dead.

 

[Subduction Zone]

LOL. Oh boy. You seem to be part of the Atheist-hive-mind. You all sem to do this. "What?? I didn't do that. I didn't do nuthing."

Here's a link to the post - LINK Here's pictures so you don't need to do a single iota of extra work. See how nice I am?

View attachment 79560

View attachment 79561






Nope. It was 119 words. A very short paragraph. It's a simple idea. I know it might sting for someone if their ego is completely bound up in their athiest arguments. But 90% of those arguments are trash. The last 10% are valid, important, and worthy of discussion. But, the Atheist-predator is hunting for weakness. So they obsess over the simple basic and weak. It's also why YOU whine about posts being too long. You NEED things to be short so then you can flip and say "vague". And if they're too long "word-salad". And if they're complicated "incoherent".

The atheist predator is looking for weakness. That's why some of your comrades have put me on ignore. Anything strong is ignored.



Nope. Wrong argument! Try to keep up with your own claims. Here's a link to the claim - LINK

Here's an official quote. And a picture. Hopefully you're starting to see how I am abe to stay several steps ahead of you. In spite of your deflection and denial. You see I understand how your gods work. And my GOD is infinitely greater.



View attachment 79562



Not true. You didn't read it. You can't keep track of the convo. Please go head and quote where I put ANY limits on God. Good luck, you won't find any.



You don't know what I said. You didn't read it. Either you are extremely dishonest. Or befuddled and confused.

Go ahead and quote it. Else, you have been defeated by a children's book. That atheist-talking-point is dead.

If you cannot write a readable post do not accuse others of being willfully ignorant. You do have a tendency to natter excessively.

 

[Trailblazer]

Trailblazer uses nonstandard rules to connect evidence to conclusions, not those of academic pursuits such as law and science. Her rules are her own. All we know about them is that they connect what she calls her evidence to what she says it supports for her.

Why would I use the same rules of evidence for God as are used academic pursuits such as law and science? That would be completely illogical. Since God is not equivalent to science and law, using the same rules of evidence would be committing the fallacy of false equivalence.

That was a response to, "Even imperfect knowledge makes one responsible if he had the power to prevent an outcome with the twitch of a nose." You're giving your rules, but they're not mine.

"the basis for much Western law, is that combined with the ability to intervene, perfect knowledge of what will follow means responsibility for it. Even imperfect knowledge makes one responsible if he had the power to prevent an outcome with the twitch of a nose."

Then how is it that nobody in the field of law expects God to intervene, nor does anyone in the field of law hold God responsible for any crimes?
Because they know better. They know that God is not like Superman who comes barrelling down to earth to intervene and stop bad things from happening. God is not a man, God is spirit.

Comparing is always appropriate. So is contrasting. What you want is separate standards for man and gods, but your only justification is that gods aren't men. So what? That's a special pleading fallacy - unjustified double standard.

God is not a man so it is completely illogical (fallacy of false equivalence) to try to hold God to a human standard.

This is not special pleading on my part, since I have justified the special exception -- God is not a man!

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.[1][2][3][4][5] It is the application of a double standard.[6][7]
Special pleading - Wikipedia

This is special leading on your part since you are deliberately ignoring aspects of God (that God is not a man) because they are unfavorable to your point of view.

Special pleading argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

This is more special pleading. I assume that you would give a good reason why a god is not morally liable for the same actions that we would call immoral from a human being if you had one, but you don't. You simply want to excuse the deity. I understand, but I have no reason to do that. Your argument so far is unconvincing.

God is not morally liable for the same actions that we would call immoral from a human being simply because:

- God is not a human being. Sadly, the OT has anthropomorphized God so some believe God is a human.
- God does not have actions. God has a will and God wills the actions of His Messengers through Revelation.

There is nothing more absurd than to say God is morally liable. God, the Creator of the universe, is not accountable to anyone at all.
Only humans are morally liable for anything.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

God does not even have behavior, so how can God be liable for behavior?

That isn't working out too well for man. A good god gives good will, not free will, which allows for malice.

A good God gives man free will to choose between good and evil, for which they alone are responsible.
Allowing for malice does not male God responsible for malice since God commits no malice. Only humans commit malice.

It will work out well for man when more people start following the Teachings and Laws of God. That will happen in the future.

I see it the other way around. A tri-omni god is responsible for everything, and that what YOU are doing is looking for a way to abdicate THAT responsibility.

A tri-omni God who gave man free will to choose is responsible for nothing that man chooses. This is logic 101.

Then what responsibility do we have to such a god. Why give such a god a second thought? Why defend its choices and actions as you do?

I said: "we are not God's children, so God bears no responsibility towards us" and that was said in the context of comparing God to a human parent who is responsible for his children.

I never said that we are responsible to God, but we are accountable to God, just as a children are accountable to the parents who created them.

A reason to believe in God and worship God is not to 'get something' for ourselves.

“WORSHIP thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise.... Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.” Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 77-78​

Why would God want us to worship Him? I know it is difficult to understand why God would want us to worship Him, and I wrote up a thread I was going to post concerning this: Why is it beneficial for us to praise God?

I have not posted that thread yet since I decided to post another thread instead and I don't like having two threads started at the same time since I don't have time to keep up.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would I use the same rules of evidence for God as are used academic pursuits such as law and science? That would be completely illogical. Since God is not equivalent to science and law, using the same rules of evidence would be committing the fallacy of false equivalence.

Translation: I have no reliable evidence for God.

"the basis for much Western law, is that combined with the ability to intervene, perfect knowledge of what will follow means responsibility for it. Even imperfect knowledge makes one responsible if he had the power to prevent an outcome with the twitch of a nose."

Then how is it that nobody in the field of law expects God to intervene, nor does anyone in the field of law hold God responsible for any crimes?
Because they know better. They know that God is not like Superman who comes barrelling down to earth to intervene and stop bad things from happening. God is not a man, God is spirit.

Because they realize that if a God exists there is no point in trying to convict him of anything. It would be a waste of time. But it seems that most realize that those particular versions of God do not exist. So many theists make the mistake of thinking that refuting their personal version of god is "Refuting God".

God is not a man so it is completely illogical (fallacy of false equivalence) to try to hold God to a human standard.

This is not special pleading on my part, since I have justified the special exception -- God is not a man!

Special pleading is an informal fallacy wherein one cites something as an exception to a general or universal principle, without justifying the special exception.[1][2][3][4][5] It is the application of a double standard.[6][7]
Special pleading - Wikipedia

This is special leading on your part since you are deliberately ignoring aspects of God (that God is not a man) because they are unfavorable to your point of view.

Special pleading argument in which the speaker deliberately ignores aspects that are unfavorable to their point of view.
https://www.google.com/search?q=special+pleading

God is not morally liable for the same actions that we would call immoral from a human being simply because:

- God is not a human being. Sadly, the OT has anthropomorphized God so some believe God is a human.
- God does not have actions. God has a will and God wills the actions of His Messengers through Revelation.

There is nothing more absurd than to say God is morally liable. God, the Creator of the universe, is not accountable to anyone at all.
Only humans are morally liable for anything.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

God does not even have behavior, so how can God be liable for behavior?

A good God gives man free will to choose between good and evil, for which they alone are responsible.
Allowing for malice does not male God responsible for malice since God commits no malice. Only humans commit malice.

It will work out well for man when more people start following the Teachings and Laws of God. That will happen in the future.

A tri-omni God who gave man free will to choose is responsible for nothing that man chooses. This is logic 101.

I said: "we are not God's children, so God bears no responsibility towards us" and that was said in the context of comparing God to a human parent who is responsible for his children.

I never said that we are responsible to God, but we are accountable to God, just as a children are accountable to the parents who created them.

A reason to believe in God and worship God is not to 'get something' for ourselves.

“WORSHIP thou God in such wise that if thy worship lead thee to the fire, no alteration in thine adoration would be produced, and so likewise if thy recompense should be paradise.... Fire and paradise both bow down and prostrate themselves before God. That which is worthy of His Essence is to worship Him for His sake, without fear of fire, or hope of paradise.” Selections From the Writings of the Báb, pp. 77-78​

Why would God want us to worship Him? I know it is difficult to understand why God would want us to worship Him, and I wrote up a thread I was going to post concerning this: Why is it beneficial for us to praise God?

I have not posted that thread yet since I decided to post another thread instead and I don't like having two threads started at the same time since I don't have time to keep up.

So many more errors. Whether or not a version of god can be held to human standards is just a red herring on your part at best. You usually use it for strawman arguments. Once again, we can judge different versions of God. Most can be shown to be nonexistent since they contradict the qualities of a God claimed the the person proposing that God. Once again, that does not "refute God" It can only refute mistaken versions of God.

 

[dybmh]

LOL! Another strawman. I am not putting God on trial.

Wow, you really can't keep track can you. There is no difference in this discussion between the words "God-concept" and "God". Your objection is rejected.

I am putting various concepts of God on trial. That we can do quote easily.

Great! Let's do it and stop with the needless quibbles.

If a God randomly killed individuals for no reason at all and yet people claimed that God was moral, could we put that concept of God on trial?

One would need evidence that it is random and without reason. How do you propose to do that Mr. Prosecutor without having God-Level-Knowledge on a cosmic and eternal scale. See? What @Trailblazer is not wrong. And it's not foolish at all what you're being told.

If a God decided to torture everyone after they died and yet he was said to be omnibenevolent could that concept of God be put on trial?

Of course! But you would need to show that God decided it.

I would say that I could. Aer we putting an actual god on trial when we do so?

If you're not considering an absolutely infinite god, then I don't care who you're putting on trial. I will simply point out that you are refusing to consider the solution to the problem, intentionally, forcing a contradition. Anyone can do that. It doesn't mean God can't be moral and omnipotent and omniscient. It means the god you choose to imagine can't be. Nothing more.

 

[Trailblazer]

No it's not foolish. It's beyond simple.

The world, the universe, everything that exists is not GOD. God is not pantheistic. It's not the universe, it's not nature. Only GOD is perfect. That means that chaos, will always and forever be required for all of this that surrounds you to exist.

So go ahead. Put God on trial. What exactly do you expect to happen? It's ridiculous! God says: "Do you want to exist or not? If you think Im guilty, then poof, bye-bye."

Who's on trial in this situation? YOU are, not God. Let me say that again, very clearly...

YOU are not God.

That's why @Trailblazer is right again, and again, and again.... because you do not know what God is. Your defintion is shallow narrow and corrupt.

Because YOU are not God, it is foolish to put God on trial. Think about it. What can you possibly know at a cosmic eternal scale? That's **exactly** what TB is saying.

You are appealing to logic, but sadly you cannot get through to atheists with logic.

Of course the bigger problem is that atheists do not know what God is so they create an imaginary God.
Then when we tell them what God actually is they fight back since they cannot win any arguments if they are basing their arguments on what God actually is, rather than what they imagine God is.

 

[dybmh]

You are appealing to logic, but sadly you cannot get through to atheists with logic.

Of course the bigger problem is that atheists do not know what God is so they create an imaginary God.
Then when we tell them what God actually is they fight back since they cannot win any arguments if they are basing their arguments on what God actually is, rather than what they imagine God is.

It is painful for ex-Chrisitian-atheists specifically to consider they were wrong about leaving their faith. They need a god which is null and void. Need it. So they conjure it and invoke it into themself. And, honestly it's fine. Until they go on the hunt looking for Christians and religious people to abuse. Then, it stops being fine.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Wow, you really can't keep track can you. There is no difference in this discussion between the words "God-concept" and "God". Your objection is rejected.

That is totally incorrect. What makes you think that you have the correct version of God? That is incredibly arrogant. I am talking about testing your ideas, not testing your God. If your ideas fail then that version of God does not exist. Does that mean that no Gods exist? Of course not.

As long as you keep making this extremely basic mistake you will not be able to advance in your beliefs.

Great! Let's do it and stop with the needless quibbles.

I wish that you would

One would need evidence that it is random and without reason. How do you propose to do that Mr. Prosecutor without having God-Level-Knowledge on a cosmic and eternal scale. See? What @Trailblazer is not wrong. And it's not foolish at all what you're being told.

That you cannot recognize a hypothetical is rather odd. And there are cases where we do not need to know everything. Take the flood myth. That God was an immoral version of God, he killed countless innocent people for no good reason. The flood solved nothing. The same problems existed afterwards as before. All sorts of innocents died to no purpose. And you cannot even claim that God knew that things all of those people would have been evil since your argument is that they had a choice in their future acts. By limiting the omniscience of God as you want to do you take away the claim that "God knew that they would be evil".

Of course! But you would need to show that God decided it.

Again you still do not how one can use a hypothetical.

If you're not considering an absolutely infinite god, then I don't care who you're putting on trial. I will simply point out that you are refusing to consider the solution to the problem, intentionally, forcing a contradition. Anyone can do that. It doesn't mean God can't be moral and omnipotent and omniscient. It means the god you choose to imagine can't be. Nothing more.

Once again, we are putting concepts on trial. You do not have the power to decide what God is by definition. Your idea of God can be put on trial. That is not putting God on trial. You keep making the error of assuming that your God is the right God. That is a whole different argument and it puts an almost infinite burden of proof upon you.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is painful for ex-Chrisitian-atheists specifically to consider they were wrong about leaving their faith. They need a god which is null and void. Need it. So they conjure it and invoke it into themself. And, honestly it's fine. Until they go on the hunt looking for Christians and religious people to abuse. Then, it stops being fine.

Another false claim. No, we are just demonstrating to others why their particular version of God does not exist. I could make just as bogus of a claim that you have to believe in the God that you have due to your own inherent immorality. I could not demand to others "Prove me wrong" I would have to support that claim. Just as you need to support yours with more than irrational arguments and handwaving.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am sure that I could find some Christians and probably even Muslims that would say that same.

Why would that matter? Are you going to commit the fallacy of ad populum?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

But I do thank you for acknowledging the general intelligence of atheists.

And thanks for quoting a fool as if that is evidence for anything. Do you seriously think that he could justify those claims? They are just lies about others.

I'd be careful if I were you. I don't think that God would like you calling His Manifestation a fool.
A Manifestation of God does not have to justify His claims to you. Rather, you have to justify His claims to yourself, or not justify them.

I guess you never read the Bible verse that says that God cannot lie:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

And since a Manifestation of God such as Baha'u'llah represents God, He cannot lie either. Logic 101.

 

[dybmh]

Translation: I have no reliable evidence for God.

Translation: You are not willing or capable of connecting deep theological ideas.

So be it. You're not in the club. You're invited. You're always welcome. But you would need to accept that it's not ever going to meet your expectations and you would need to be OK with that. Honestly, it's a good skill for anyone to cultivate.

 

[Trailblazer]

We do not have the ability to affect everything. Seriously, can't you do any better than this?

Ability does not imply responsibility. Seriously, can't you do any better than this?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why would that matter? Are you going to commit the fallacy of ad populum?

In argumentation theory, an argumentum ad populum (Latin for "appeal to the people") is a fallacious argument that concludes that a proposition is true because many or most people believe it: "If many believe so, it is so."
Argumentum ad populum - Wikipedia

No, I was merely saying that your statement of singling out atheists was false. It really does not matter since regardless of who has pointed it out your debating techniques are well known.

I'd be careful if I were you. I don't think that God would like you calling His Manifestation a fool.
A Manifestation of God does not have to justify His claims to you. Rather, you have to justify His claims to yourself, or not justify them.

If God cannot do any better then why worship him? You are refuting your own version of God with such arguments.

I guess you never read the Bible verse that says that God cannot lie:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent: hath he said, and shall he not do it? or hath he spoken, and shall he not make it good?

And since a Manifestation of God such as Baha'u'llah represents God, He cannot lie either. Logic 101.

No, I have read it. I have also read the verses where it says that God does lie. By the way, that verse does not actually say that God cannot lie. It only says that God has no reason to lie. That is not the same thing.

But here we go. Lying by proxy is still lying:

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee. 1 Kings 22:23

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets. 2 Chronicles 18:22

And these do claim that God lied:

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people. Jeremiah 4:10

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived. Jeremiah 20:7

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet. Ezekiel 14:9

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie. 2 Thessalonians 2:11