Why does my God allow children to die? Is he evil?

[CG Didymus]

Indeed! That is why I always say be Spiritual, not religious.


Most religious DOGMA has a lot of crap it in - because it is written by man, not any God.



*

But then, they forged his name and said that God wrote it. But, we don't need to take the "crap". We can all figure out the good stuff from the spiritual and religious teachings of the past. In fact, isn't that what Christians do with the Jewish teachings? They take the good stuff, the things they can use, and leave off the rest. They left off most, if not all of the Jewish laws, why don't they leave off the parts that make God out to be evil? The Christians have elevated the position of The Adversary from what he was in the Jewish writings to the embodiment of evil, blame it all on him. Oh yeah, they kind of do.

Then, I wonder what is their problem? God didn't tell Joshua to kill women and children, it was the devil in a God disguise. God didn't create disease and natural disasters, it was that evil Bright Morning Star guy. It was that S.O.B. Satan disguised and using his many alias that does all the bad stuff. Hmm, I wonder who created him? And, then was dumb enough to give him his power? Now whoever that was, he has to be stopped. He's evil.

 

[CG Didymus]

...The fact here is a mountain of evidence for God and none for purple people on the moon makes this whole analogy irrelevant... You can't equate a faith so reasoned the greatest and most reasonable among us have held it...

No doubt your mountain is like Everest, but the mountains of the other religions are like maybe the Appalachia? Or, maybe Mt. Rushmore, a man-made carved out mountain? All religions have evidence. All have had great followers. All, to themselves, have great explanations on why they believe. Who's considered greater Gandhi or C.S. Lewis? Saint Francis or Hillel? Jim Baker or the Maharishi?

I claim the best explanation is that given in the Gospels for the evidence of these reliable historical details.

The gospels? We all know the various problems with the gospels, so I'll only ask one question: Who wrote the last part of the 16th chapter of Mark? Okay, maybe two questions: Did Jesus say "those who have believed" like in all of them will be able to cast out demons, speak in tongues, drink poison and handle snakes? If he did, shouldn't true believers have those "attesting" signs? Now that would be evidence.

Then there's the old trilemma trick:

“I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Lewis's trilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

He claimed to be God? I know it's kind of implied, but that was his followers telling the story. Are you sure they didn't put words into Jesus' mouth? And, what about other prophets and God-like incarnations? Didn't Krishna do equal or better things than Jesus? So who was Krishna? A liar, a lunatic or God? Or, a very good and believable story that inspires a lot of Hindu people, but for us? No, we don't believe it. Do we. But, I still get a lot of spiritual truth from it.

Then there's Bart Erhman adds a fourth question to the trilemma, the legend. The legend of Jesus, as told in the gospels, is inspiring and is told as actual, historical truth, but do we all believe it? No, it's religious and spiritual stuff. Maybe it's true, sort of? Maybe his followers made some of it up. Who knows? Sure, it works for those that choose to believe it, but so do all the other religious traditions. And, if yours is the only true one, then, what is theirs? Was their prophet speaking for God? Or, were their beliefs all based on writings of liars and lunatics?

Believing in Christ as a moral teacher will never get you to heaven...

Heaven? Is that the goal? How come God didn't tell Moses to tell the Hebrews that? And what does get a Christian to "heaven"? Believe and be baptized? Believe and repent? Follow Christ's commands? What? Just believe and you're saved? No action? No "works"? Then what was James talking about when he said he'd show you his faith by his works?

... religions are either a the greatest good if true, or the greatest evils if false.

What? They are the greatest stupid thing if followed to the extreme. But, all of them have done a lot of good and a lot of bad, depending how their followers choose to believe in it. They can kill and torture all "unbelievers" until they "see" the truth. Or, the can be more "liberal" in their beliefs and see the good in all people and try and love their neighbors instead of trying to convert them.

Have you lied? Then you and I are liars.
Have you stolen anything ever? Then we are thieves.
etc.......

How can God remain God and heaven remain heaven if it is full of liars and thieves? I have been pardoned of my merited condemnation. All I had to do is admit the truth, I am guilty.

What is this? An episode of the Way of the Master? Way before Jesus, God forgave Jews. What happened to those forgiven Jews? I don't know? Ask them, but I don't think it was the Christian concept of heaven. The other weird thing about using this "Oh, the Ten Commandments proves we can never, on our own, be right with God. We are hopelessly lost sinners." That is all Christian, not Jewish. There is very little, if any, consistency between Christianity and Judaism. Moses told them the commandments are doable. They aren't so hard they can't be followed. Paul says that they aren't too hard, they are impossible to follow.

But, most Christians, and probably including you and Kirk Cameron, don't follow the Ten Commandments anyway. You leave off the one about the Sabbath. So what are you trying to prove? We all have our beliefs. And yours is just one of many. And, it doesn't work for me. So does that make you a lunatic or a liar? No, well maybe, but it makes you like all other believers in all other religions. You've found something that works for you. You've found something that has convinced you of its truth. You feel it. You see its truth in the Word and you feel obligated to tell the world. Great. But it's still only one of many interpretations of one religion in a world of many interpretations of many religions. Liars and lunatics? No, there's a little to a lot of truth to be found in all the religions.

 

[1robin]

No doubt your mountain is like Everest, but the mountains of the other religions are like maybe the Appalachia? Or, maybe Mt. Rushmore, a man-made carved out mountain? All religions have evidence. All have had great followers. All, to themselves, have great explanations on why they believe. Who's considered greater Gandhi or C.S. Lewis? Saint Francis or Hillel? Jim Baker or the Maharishi?

I don't get the argument. If we have no evidence we cannot choose. If we have some we cannot choose. If we have a lot we cannot choose. That is not a very productive criteria. Is that how anything else works. In law if both sides include some evidence do they declare a mistrial or see which case has the most? In science if two theories have evidence do they give up and pronounce the conclusion unknowable or do they test both theories and see which one stands up? There are probably a great many "good" religious authorities in history but there is only one likely historical character who defeated death and sin. There are many theological texts but they are certainly comparable. The Bible does not just beat the Quran or the gnostic works in textual accuracy it by a enormous margin beats every other work of any kind in ancient history. If you go to the market for cheese and find more than one brand do you give up and starve or try them and see which you should buy?

The gospels? We all know the various problems with the gospels, so I'll only ask one question: Who wrote the last part of the 16th chapter of Mark? Okay, maybe two questions: Did Jesus say "those who have believed" like in all of them will be able to cast out demons, speak in tongues, drink poison and handle snakes? If he did, shouldn't true believers have those "attesting" signs? Now that would be evidence.

Instead of debating a hundred objections let me bypass them all. The Bible unlike any other ancient history has an extremely rich textual tradition. Virtually all scribal and other errors are known and indicated in every modern bible. You could literally cut out every likely error and still have no core doctrine touched. Let me illustrate this using one of the Bible's most popular and qualified critics.

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching. The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]
White-Ehrman debate

Then there's the old trilemma trick: He claimed to be God? I know it's kind of implied, but that was his followers telling the story. Are you sure they didn't put words into Jesus' mouth? And, what about other prophets and God-like incarnations? Didn't Krishna do equal or better things than Jesus? So who was Krishna? A liar, a lunatic or God? Or, a very good and believable story that inspires a lot of Hindu people, but for us? No, we don't believe it. Do we. But, I still get a lot of spiritual truth from it.

I used to debate the Trinity until I realized it did not matter. I need to do the exact same thing whether Christ be God, divine, empowered, or simply the Messiah. The virtually consensus opinion is that the Gospels were written far too early for them to have been myth. Myths (especially ones this complex) take generations to construct and do not arise during the lifetimes of eyewitnesses. So far every argument you have made has of the form "there is uncertainty 'real or imagined' so give up, no conclusions are possible"

Then there's Bart Erhman adds a fourth question to the trilemma, the legend. The legend of Jesus, as told in the gospels, is inspiring and is told as actual, historical truth, but do we all believe it? No, it's religious and spiritual stuff. Maybe it's true, sort of? Maybe his followers made some of it up. Who knows? Sure, it works for those that choose to believe it, but so do all the other religious traditions. And, if yours is the only true one, then, what is theirs? Was their prophet speaking for God? Or, were their beliefs all based on writings of liars and lunatics?

Again this is an anything less than certainty about any issue means the whole thing should be given up as unresolvable. Let me refer you to two of, if not the two greatest experts on testimony and evidence in history. Both of them use legal methods to conclude the exact opposite as what you have. Lord Lyndhurst and Simon Greenleaf. Testimony of the Evangelists by Simon Greenleaf

Continued below:

 

[1robin]

Heaven? Is that the goal? How come God didn't tell Moses to tell the Hebrews that? And what does get a Christian to "heaven"? Believe and be baptized? Believe and repent? Follow Christ's commands? What? Just believe and you're saved? No action? No "works"? Then what was James talking about when he said he'd show you his faith by his works? What? They are the greatest stupid thing if followed to the extreme. But, all of them have done a lot of good and a lot of bad, depending how their followers choose to believe in it. They can kill and torture all "unbelievers" until they "see" the truth. Or, the can be more "liberal" in their beliefs and see the good in all people and try and love their neighbors instead of trying to convert them.

There is like a dozen questions here.

1. Of course heaven would be the goal.
2. Moses did tell the Hebrews that God and Heaven were the goal. Heaven is a theme from Genesis to the prophets. However the focus of the OT was different. It was to record the problem and set up the political system that would usher in the solution. What do you think the priests were making sacrifices for?
3. Being born again?

3 Now there was a man of the Pharisees, named Nicodemus, a ruler of the Jews; 2 this man came to Jesus by night and said to Him, “Rabbi, we know that You have come from God as a teacher; for no one can do these [a]signs that You do unless God is with him.” 3 Jesus answered and said to him, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born again he cannot see the kingdom of God.”

4 Nicodemus *said to Him, “How can a man be born when he is old? He cannot enter a second time into his mother’s womb and be born, can he?” 5 Jesus answered, “Truly, truly, I say to you, unless one is born of water and the Spirit he cannot enter into the kingdom of God. 6 That which is born of the flesh is flesh, and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit. 7 Do not be amazed that I said to you, ‘You must be born [c]again.’ 8 The wind blows where it wishes and you hear the sound of it, but do not know where it comes from and where it is going; so is everyone who is born of the Spirit.”

9 Nicodemus said to Him, “How can these things be?” 10 Jesus answered and said to him, “Are you the teacher of Israel and do not understand these things? 11 Truly, truly, I say to you, we speak of what we know and testify of what we have seen, and you do not accept our testimony. 12 If I told you earthly things and you do not believe, how will you believe if I tell you heavenly things? 13 No one has ascended into heaven, but He who descended from heaven: the Son of Man. 14 As Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, even so must the Son of Man be lifted up; 15 so that whoever [d]believes will in Him have eternal life.John 3 - Jesus Teaches Nicodemus - Now there was - Bible Gateway

4. Belief, baptism (spiritual), repentance all occur at one moment in time.
5. Works has nothing to do with salvation.
6. James is contrasting two kinds of faith.
7. There are no commands we are to follow that are bad. There are bad ways of doing even good things. You must separate one from the other the same as you do in every other aspect of life (like law for example), instead of pointing out any uncertainty and giving up.

What is this? An episode of the Way of the Master? Way before Jesus, God forgave Jews. What happened to those forgiven Jews? I don't know? Ask them, but I don't think it was the Christian concept of heaven. The other weird thing about using this "Oh, the Ten Commandments proves we can never, on our own, be right with God. We are hopelessly lost sinners." That is all Christian, not Jewish. There is very little, if any, consistency between Christianity and Judaism. Moses told them the commandments are doable. They aren't so hard they can't be followed. Paul says that they aren't too hard, they are impossible to follow.

Faithful Jews were saved based on faith in a future messiah the same way Christians are saved based on faith in a past messiah. Jews cannot be saved by the law because not one of them or anyone has ever perfectly obeyed the law, and perfection is the standard. There is constant consistency between Judaism and Christianity but to anyone who does not desire it there would be hopeless inconsistency between water and steam.

But, most Christians, and probably including you and Kirk Cameron, don't follow the Ten Commandments anyway. You leave off the one about the Sabbath. So what are you trying to prove? We all have our beliefs. And yours is just one of many. And, it doesn't work for me. So does that make you a lunatic or a liar? No, well maybe, but it makes you like all other believers in all other religions. You've found something that works for you. You've found something that has convinced you of its truth. You feel it. You see its truth in the Word and you feel obligated to tell the world. Great. But it's still only one of many interpretations of one religion in a world of many interpretations of many religions. Liars and lunatics? No, there's a little to a lot of truth to be found in all the religions.

The law never saved a single person, was nailed to the cross, and was never ever the point. So me and Kirk have reasons for what we do and say.

New Living Translation
The law of Moses was unable to save us because of the weakness of our sinful nature. So God did what the law could not do. He sent his own Son in a body like the bodies we sinners have. And in that body God declared an end to sin's control over us by giving his Son as a sacrifice for our sins
Romans 8:3 For what the law was powerless to do because it was weakened by the flesh, God did by sending his own Son in the likeness of sinful flesh to be a sin offering. And so he condemned sin in the flesh,

Your entire position seems to rest on one tactic. Whether real or imagined throw out as many questions as you can think of, declare them all unresolvable and give up or declare everything equal. Is that the way you resolve anything else in your life. Do you say all cars are the same and just blindly buy one? Do you point out they all have tires so all work equally as well? No one actually wanting resolution would ask a hundred questions in one post. This is argument by equivocation. I could not even try to address every softball you threw and only scratched the surface on the few I mentioned yet still couldn't fit it in one post. Instead of volume, try quality.

 

[Nakosis]

I took a quick look and it sounds like the "Lord" spoke directly to Joshua and in several villages God told him to kill all the inhabitants. If that is what a kind and merciful and loving God does, I glad there isn't an evil god running around out there in the spirit world. If there was, he could disguise himself as the good, real God and probably trick a lot of people into doing a lot of nasty things.

But isn't it funny, we make laws to curb unusual behavior. We kind of know what is right and wrong, what is just and unjust, in spite of what our different religions tell us. Because, some of our laws are made to protect us from them, the over "enthusiastic" religious people and their gods and their leaders. So I wonder, is it God that's evil? Or, the people that say they're speaking for God?

It's a story with out verification. A "believer" will add whatever understanding necessary to justify the passage.

I understand the idea is to point out the "perception" of an evil God of the OT and ask how could they follow such an immoral character? That's has been attempted since long before I was born. Good luck.

What events causes a person to question their beliefs and adopt new ones? I don't know... It's certainly is a strain on the ego to accept the belief we have invested in is false. Much easier to alter our theology than toss out some of these core beliefs.

I have my core beliefs about how the universe works and they will not be easily dismissed. Whereas some ideas about the universe I'm not heavily invested in so I am open to reconsidering.

So my view if you give any reality to the Bible it becomes very arbitrary as to what to accept as historical and what to dismiss. Personally I cannot find any good reason to accept any part of the Bible as historical. So anything accepted as evidential would need a source outside the Bible.

That's not to say biblical events did or did not occur. That's only to say the Bible itself is not a credible source of support for those events.

So did God speak directly to Joshua? I highly doubt that. Why should anyone believe so? We've had mothers tell us that God told them to kill their children. Should this have any less credibility then a story of God telling some individual to destroy entire villages? I think rational people are under no obligation to accept such claims. So why get into an argument that accepts otherwise?

Joshua killed entire tribes, there is nothing godly or divine about that. People who would want to argue otherwise have no moral foundation to support it as a good act.
Are we as rational people going to start accepting the statement "God told me to do it"? as justification for a "moral" act? I think not.

 

[technomage]

That's not to say biblical events did or did not occur.

This particular event (the conquest and destruction of Jericho) did not, but I know that's a digression from the main discussion.

 

[Nakosis]

Instead of debating a hundred objections let me bypass them all. The Bible unlike any other ancient history has an extremely rich textual tradition. Virtually all scribal and other errors are known and indicated in every modern bible. You could literally cut out every likely error and still have no core doctrine touched. Let me illustrate this using one of the Bible's most popular and qualified critics.

Most of these differences are completely immaterial and insignificant; in fact most of the changes found in our early Christian manuscripts have nothing to do with theology or ideology. Far and away the most changes are the result of mistakes, pure and simple—slips of the pen, accidental omissions, inadvertent additions, misspelled words, blunders of one sort or another when scribes made intentional changes, sometimes their motives were as pure as the driven snow. And so we must rest content knowing that getting back
to the earliest attainable version is the best we can do, whether or not we have reached back to the “original” text. This oldest form of the text is no doubt closely (very closely) related to what the author originally wrote, and so it is the basis for our interpretation of his teaching. The gentleman that I’m quoting is Bart Ehrman in Misquoting Jesus. [audience laughter]
White-Ehrman debate

I actually accept that. I've no reason to think the Bible has be greatly altered from the original text. However this is a red herring. The real problem is that we've no good reason to place trust in the original authors.

 

[1robin]

I actually accept that. I've no reason to think the Bible has be greatly altered from the original text. However this is a red herring. The real problem is that we've no good reason to place trust in the original authors.

These issues must go in steps. If we cannot agree we have essentially what the apostles claimed then what is the need for scrutinizing what the Bible claims? Any discussion of the reliability of scripture must include that aspect. It can't be denied, but I am still surprised it was agreed to. Now that that is established we can move on.

 

[technomage]

If we cannot agree we have essentially what the apostles claimed then what is the need for scrutinizing what the Bible claims?

Yet we can have, as the evidence indicates, a set of claims made in the Bible that were made by the apostles, but that still do not match what Jesus said.

The trilemma is irrelevant. What is relevant is "Are the claims of the Bible accurate to history?" And history indicates they are not.

 

[1robin]

Yet we can have, as the evidence indicates, a set of claims made in the Bible that were made by the apostles, but that still do not match what Jesus said.

The point was if we do not have what the apostles claimed then we do not have the necessary ingredients to even begin a debate. I claim the apostles and Christ agreed and you claim they do not, on what basis can that even be debated if we do not have what the apostles claimed/

The trilemma is irrelevant. What is relevant is "Are the claims of the Bible accurate to history?" And history indicates they are not.

Did you mean the trinity is irrelevant? There is no biblical trilemma, sounds like a sporting event. I claim the Bible is accurate history (at least where accurate history is knowable) but you are going to have to get far more specific before a debate is even possible.

 

[technomage]

Did you mean the trinity is irrelevant? There is no biblical trilemma, sounds like a sporting event.

Are you unfamiliar with the "Lord, liar, lunatic" trilemma? Or was the word simply unfamiliar?

I claim the Bible is accurate history (at least where accurate history is knowable) but you are going to have to get far more specific before a debate is even possible.

Those who claim the Bible is accurate history have already placed themselves outside of the realm of debate. They have already shown not just an ability, but a requirement, to ignore both history and science.

One can debate with a flat earther as easily as one can with a biblical literalists. The results will be the same.

 

[Nakosis]

Yet we can have, as the evidence indicates, a set of claims made in the Bible that were made by the apostles, but that still do not match what Jesus said.

The trilemma is irrelevant. What is relevant is "Are the claims of the Bible accurate to history?" And history indicates they are not.

The way I look at it, you've no reason to trust me at my word. None, you don't know me, Any statements I make should should have some means of verifying before you accept them as true.

Now what of these mostly unknown authors of the Bible that lived 2000+ years ago? I don't know any of them. I've no reason to think they were trustworthy. I've less reason to trust them at their word then I have to trust my neighbor next door. At least my neighbor I could find out a little bit about and make some determination to his trustworthiness. These unknown authors, nothing. Even someone like the Apostle Paul. I didn't know him, have no reason to trust his statements. Not that I'm calling him a liar, just I've no more reason to trust Paul then you have to trust me. That's the reality of the situation.

They say trust must be earned, well Paul and these other authors are dead. The dead can no longer do anything to earn trust.

 

[technomage]

The way I look at it, you've no reason to trust me at my word.

Taken literally, I would then perforce reject anything written by a scholar I did not know personally. Taken less literally, I then could not trust any text written by someone dead.

Your standard of evidence is far too high for any reasonable application to history in general.

 

[Nakosis]

Taken literally, I would then perforce reject anything written by a scholar I did not know personally. Taken less literally, I then could not trust any text written by someone dead.

Your standard of evidence is far too high for any reasonable application to history in general.

Yes.... I accept that.
That being said history becomes a game. Any particular account of history has the possibility of being fiction. I think that is reality to.

So I suppose to me it doesn't matter much if one accepts one version of history over another. What matters is here and now, how we as human beings treat each other. If we treat each other fairly, great. If not, well life is what it is. I think the point is however we should not accept religious doctrine as justification for that treatment.

 

[technomage]

Yes.... I accept that.
That being said history becomes a game. Any particular account of history has the possibility of being fiction. I think that is reality to.

Nope. At least, I can't work with that view. We can know more about history than that, though (like many other areas) certainty is beyond our grasp.

So I suppose to me it doesn't matter much if one accepts one version of history over another. What matters is here and now, how we as human beings treat each other. If we treat each other fairly, great. If not, well life is what it is. I think the point is however we should not accept religious doctrine as justification for that treatment.

This I can appreciate, and agree with.

 

[Nakosis]

Nope. At least, I can't work with that view. We can know more about history than that, though (like many other areas) certainty is beyond our grasp.

I understand we work with probability.

I have a view of history that likely has less probability of being accurate then yours.

I'm not going to abandon it because yours has a higher probability and I probably couldn't justify my views as well as you seem able to. However I have a vested interest.

Christians and other religious folks have a huge vested interested in their version of history. I think that is what non-believers are fighting against. Not the probable accuracy of their version of history.

Religious folks have certainty. Certainty is define as conviction, or a firmly held belief. Most times that certainty arises from a spiritual experience of some kind. Your arguments cannot offer them certainty, they can only offer probability.

Me, I'm fine with probability. I don't need certainty. I think it is in the nature of some people to desire certainty. I think it is fair to say science offers probability and religion offers certainty.

Actually let me restate that. I do desire certainty but I accept that I can't have it. If I can't have it, neither can you. (This is just a neener, neener ego driven statement).

You attack their certainty they attack yours... Not that you are relying on certainty. Probability is more reliable then certainty. However certainty makes people feel comfortable, probability makes people feel uncomfortable.

Sorry, unimportant random tangent. Still it is interesting to me seeing this worked out.

 

[technomage]

However I have a vested interest.

Well, admittedly I do, too ... but then again, I treat history as a discipline that is amenable to scientific methods.

Actually let me restate that. I do desire certainty but I accept that I can't have it. If I can't have it, neither can you. (This is just a neener, neener ego driven statement).

Mommie, Nakosis is being mean to me!

Sorry, unimportant random tangent. Still it is interesting to me seeing this worked out.

Actually, it's interesting. If you want to explore it further, and don't mind input from me, start a thread and give me a heads-up. This sounds fascinating.

 

[CG Didymus]

...At England's lowest point in WW2 Churchill turned to a Christian not a secular person to address the nation. I will let him answer you.

“I am trying to prevent anyone saying the really foolish thing that people often say about Him: ‘I’m ready to accept Jesus as a great moral teacher, but I don’t accept His claim to be God.’ That is the one thing we must not say. A man who was merely a man and said the sort of things Jesus said would not be a great moral teacher. He would either be a lunatic—on the level with the man who says he is a poached egg—or else he would be the Devil of Hell. You must make your choice. Either this man was, and is, the Son of God: or else a madman or something worse. You can shut him up for a fool, you can spit at him and kill him as a demon; or you can fall at his feet and call him Lord and God. But let us not come with any patronizing nonsense about his being a great human teacher. He has not left that open to us. He did not intend to.
Lewis's trilemma - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Did you mean the trinity is irrelevant? There is no biblical trilemma, sounds like a sporting event.

You win the trifecta. You linked C.S. Lewis and his trilemma. You did read it didn't you? In the article it mentions Bart Erhman adding "legend" to the choices.

But, besides that, let's pretend that Jesus is real and everything it says about them in the Bible is the truth. Then, what does that make Buddha, Krishna, Mohammad, Baha'u'llah, Zoroastor and all the others? Were they liars or lunatics? Were they historical figures or merely legends? Or, a little of both? Oh, and by the way, do you believe in the trinity? 'Cause that would implicate Jesus and the Holy Spirit in all the killings at Jericho and the other places. Really, woman and children? You said you were in the military. Would you listen to your commander if he ordered you to kill every living soul in a city?

 

[1robin]

Are you unfamiliar with the "Lord, liar, lunatic" trilemma? Or was the word simply unfamiliar?

Ok, I am familiar with the concept, but I have never heard that term used to describe it. I also do not regard it as a dilemma. It appears to solve it's self pretty easily.

Those who claim the Bible is accurate history have already placed themselves outside of the realm of debate. They have already shown not just an ability, but a requirement, to ignore both history and science.

That would depend on what they claimed is accurate. If they claim the bible is full of accurate history they are right and any counter to that would place the one making it outside reality not just debate. If they claim every word is a perfectly literal history then they would show themselves unreasonable. I do not hold with the latter but stand with the former, so to challenge that view is to eradicate credibility. While the percentage will always be hotly debated the fact the bible records massive volumes of accurate history is simply a given.

One can debate with a flat earther as easily as one can with a biblical literalists. The results will be the same.

You like most, do not seem to understand what inerrancy means in this context. It is not the claim that every word in every copy of every version of the bible is perfect. It is the claim that original revelation was perfect and has been preserved (while imperfectly) is preserved far far more accurately than any work of any kind in ancient history.

So as the Chicago statement of faith makes clear the bible is extraordinarily preserved and does contain massive accurate historical detail but is not perfect.

I did not think explaining that in detail was necessary. Now that I have exactly what do you contend?

 

[technomage]

Ok, I am familiar with the concept, but I have never heard that term used to describe it. I also do not regard it as a dilemma. It appears to solve it's self pretty easily.

For those who already accept the divinity of Jesus, I'm sure it does. For those who don't, the issue is not quite so clear.

If they claim the bible is full of accurate history they are right and any counter to that would place the one making it outside reality not just debate.

There is far more inaccurate, anhistorical text to the Bible than historical accuracy. We can go into specifics, if you like, but you can fundamentally discard the historicity of anything before the Divided Monarchy, and much of the Divided Monarchy is grossly inaccurate.

You like most, do not seem to understand what inerrancy means in this context.

I understand the word well enough to know that the word is multivalent, and that different branches of Christianity have different standards. It matters not a bit to me, as I reject the assumption of inerrancy en toto. We can dispense with that argument.

All historical claims the Bible makes are subject to scrutiny. Those found wanting can (and have been) rejected by most scholars. Those individuals who continue, contra the more-than-abundant evidence, that the Bible is "infallible" or "full of accurate history," have already placed themselves beyond the realm of scholarship into the realm of fideism.

I have no interest in fideism.