Is "God's Word" Really Man's Word?

[Kenny]

My position is that it was truly recorded to be both God's and man's words.

 

[Spideymon77]

To quote a song by Tool.

"My Gods will becomes me.
When he speaks, he speaks through me.
He has needs like I do.
We both want to **** you."

 

[Curious George]

To quote a song by Tool.

"My Gods will becomes me.
When he speaks, he speaks through me.
He has needs like I do.
We both want to **** you."

That verse seems to place a very signicant value on the subjectivity of god. Is that what you hoped to point out by quoting it?

 

[Spideymon77]

That verse seems to place a very signicant value on the subjectivity of god. Is that what you hoped to point out by quoting it?

What I meant by this was, "I don't believe in God so I believe that it's not God's word, but man's word."

 

[PureX]

Really?

I have to disagree with you: ALL THESE THINGS exist already in nature, if you sit quietly and don't impose "Oh, we have to have a Big Guy God creating and ruling over this, to give it meaning."

Every human culture that has ever been observed has notions of love, beauty, justice, compassion, perfection, etc. And, careful and open observation of animals suggests that other creatures also have notions of many of these concepts as well.

Really: no love, beauty, justice, notions of perfection, etc., etc., without the Abrahamic Omnimax creator deity? Bull.

If you think that's really true, please demonstrate it.

How does beauty exist in nature, apart from our cognitive experience of it? And how does our cognitive experience if it happen without our faith in it as an existential ideal? The answers are that it doesn't. Because beauty is not a physical phenomena, it's a metaphysical phenomena. It's a cognitive experience OF a physical phenomena. It's not a physical phenomena, by itself.

So are the cognitive experiences of love, and of justice, and of perfection, and of infinity/eternity, and of "God".

Also, I did not state nor imply that we cannot experience any of these metaphysical phenomena unless we believe in or experience the metaphysical phenomena we call "God". I'm simply pointing out that they are the same kind of phenomena. And that they are not "physics". They are cognitive human experiences OF physics.They are a 'second order of reality'.

 

[PureX]

When I read scripture I am always struck by the humanity that I find in there. Sometimes it displays the best of humanity, sometimes the worst. But for me there can be no doubt that it comes from a human source.

And sometimes, perhaps, from the 'divine spirit' within the human source?

 

[fantome profane]

And sometimes, perhaps, from the 'divine spirit' within the human source?

Honestly, I don't even know what that means. But I have seen nothing in any scripture that could not have come from humans. I see humanity in these documents, not "divintiy" (whatever that is).

 

[PureX]

Honestly, I don't even know what that means. But I have seen nothing in any scripture that could not have come from humans. I see humanity in these documents, not "divintiy" (whatever that is).

My point would be that it all comes from we humans. But that doesn't negate the occasional manifestation of divine wisdom and/or insight.

And I think the fact that you don't understand what that is, is your loss. And is a loss that you should seriously consider correcting. But that's up to you.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

How does beauty exist in nature, apart from our cognitive experience of it? And how does our cognitive experience if it happen without our faith in it as an existential ideal? The answers are that it doesn't. Because beauty is not a physical phenomena, it's a metaphysical phenomena. It's a cognitive experience OF a physical phenomena. It's not a physical phenomena, by itself.

So are the cognitive experiences of love, and of justice, and of perfection, and of infinity/eternity, and of "God".

Also, I did not state nor imply that we cannot experience any of these metaphysical phenomena unless we believe in or experience the metaphysical phenomena we call "God". I'm simply pointing out that they are the same kind of phenomena. And that they are not "physics". They are cognitive human experiences OF physics.They are a 'second order of reality'.

Thank you for the clarification, because in post #5, you said:

Apart from faith-based experience, there is no evidence of "God" at all. But then apart from faith-based experience, there no evidence of love, or of beauty, or of justice, or of perfection, or of any number of such metaphysical phenomena.

While I see your response clarifies it, I certainly didn't read that in the original. But I do find that I'm agreeing with your further discussion.

So, sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[Ponder This]

Is this post your screen's word, or is it 'my' word where 'my' indicates an entity sitting far off the typing a message for your screen to convey to you?

This is the dilemma you face: knowing when a person is the conveying the words of someone else or their own. Of course, if you don't believe in an entity from which a message may be received and passed on to you, then you don't believe there can be God's word (only man's). But if you do believe there are other entities beside the person or the computer screen that you appear to be conversing with, then it is an easy matter to understand that they can be speaking on behalf of someone else.

How do you know? You don't know. for Christians it is something like this:
John 12:49 For I did not speak on my own, but the Father who sent me commanded me to say all that I have spoken. - NIV
and
John 8:19
Then they asked him, "Where is your father?" "You do not know me or my Father," Jesus replied. "If you knew me, you would know my Father also."

The knowing that someone is speaking for God has to do with the knowing of God. If a person doesn't know God, then how can they know when someone is speaking for God? You would have to take the messenger at his word when he says that he speaks for someone else.

 

[Revoltingest]

My position is that it was truly recorded to be both God's and man's words.

I hear men (& women & others) say stuff attributed to a god or gods.
But I never hear it directly from the horse's mouth.

 

[Kenny]

I hear men (& women & others) say stuff attributed to a god or gods.
But I never hear it directly from the horse's mouth.

And yet, other people do.

But if you can't "hear Him", you can always refer to the Bible.

 

[Erebus]

All words are 'mans words'. Not even the most devout christians or muslims will dare claim their god wrote anything itself. It's always 'divinely inspired' or 'dictated by some magical creature' which, even if accepted as true in either case(fat chance), still leaves a flesh and blood man doing the writing (and interpreting).

Here's one for you, LaVey was an autotheist so would that make the Satanic Bible a religious text that actually was written by God?

 

[Satans_Serrated_Edge]

Here's one for you, LaVey was an autotheist so would that make the Satanic Bible a religious text that actually was written by God?

In a sense, yes.

But only if you happen to be LaVey.

 

[LuisDantas]

It is essentially useless, or even worse, to even claim that anything "comes from God", written and spoken words definitely included.

That is so because any constructive use of deity-concepts can only happen when those concepts are backed up with some elaboration of their worth and meaning. By themselves, those concepts are just placeholders inviting delusion and misguidance.

I voted "yes", but I actually think that even if they could conceivably be "God's Words", they would then need to be validated and explained by rational beings (i.e. humans) before they could be of any worth.

More even than that, I also think that it is necessarily dangerous to even attempt to guide oneself by "God's words as opposed to those of humans". That is throwing out the baby and the water in order to collect dirt in the bathtub.

 

[beenherebeforeagain]

And yet, other people do.

But if you can't "hear Him", you can always refer to the Bible.

If you "can't hear Him," why would you pick the Bible over any other religion/sacred texts? Or any "sacred" texts at all?

Why should ANYONE accept ANY words attributed to God/s, that inevitably come through other people?

Indeed, why should anyone accept any words that seem to be coming to them directly from God?

 

[Kenny]

If you "can't hear Him," why would you pick the Bible over any other religion/sacred texts? Or any "sacred" texts at all?

Why should ANYONE accept ANY words attributed to God/s, that inevitably come through other people?

Indeed, why should anyone accept any words that seem to be coming to them directly from God?

That certainly is a good question.

For some, it isn't necessary and yet others do so order to search for truth. Certainly there are those who sought the Bible just to disprove it and ended up believing. Others started believing and then decided it wasn't worth their time. There are many variations thereof.

But to ask "Why should ANYONE accept ANY words attributed to God/s, that inevitably come through other people?" is to say that somehow your position is so much more intelligent than those who seek... a not-so-good position since many an intelligent person, and probably more intelligent than the two of us, have decided that it is truth.

On a more rational basis, it is its prophetical accuracy that gives it an intriguing attraction.

But, again, who said you can't hear Him? Is it that a person can't hear or the person doesn't have a hearing ear? Is He speaking but we have decided to tune into a different frequency? Again, many variations. Certainly, in the natural, a speaker can speak on something and those who did hear can hear different things and yet it is just one person who is speaking

 

[ThePainefulTruth]

Various religions -- as well as numerous religious individuals -- make claims that they are passing along intelligible messages from their god(s). e.g. "The scriptures of our religion contain the word of God." Or, "God spoke to me and said...." But are there any reasonable grounds, apart from faith, for believing that these messages are actually "god's word"? If so, what are those grounds? Or are there more reasonable grounds, apart from faith, for believing these messages are actually "man's word"? If so, what are those grounds?

Yes, "God's Word" is man's word since there is no evidence that God has ever spoken and ALL supposed divine revelations are 100% hearsay.

 

[Revoltingest]

And yet, other people do.
But if you can't "hear Him", you can always refer to the Bible.

Someone is at odds with reality.
The one who hears something?
Or the one who doesn't hear something?

 

[Kenny]

Someone is at odds with reality.
The one who hears something?
Or the one who doesn't hear something?

Or the one who simply needs to change the dial on their radio frequency