1. God is omniscient, omnipotent, omnibenevelant.
2. The bible is Gods message of salvation
3. The bible had been misinterpreted various times.
3a. The bible is not clear on some things.
4. God could've taken the time to make it more clear and interpreted better.
5. Therefore God does not exist, or Christianity is less valid, etc. etc.
The problem with this argument is displays a lack of knowledge regarding salvation in general, the second problem is it it stems from nothing but personal opinion and subjectivity which actually defeats the entire argument, but that is putting the cart before the horse, so let's back up.
1. God is omniscienct, omnipotenet, omnibenevelant.
While I don't subscribe to God being omniscience(at least not in the traditional sense), I do enjoy taking up the position, so I have no problems with #1. It should be noted that possession of the quality is not synonymous with its use, especially using it all the time. God has blessed me with the ability to fight quite well, this does not mean I have to use this ability every time I get into a fight, nor does it mean I have to use this ability all of the time. having omniscience synonymous with using it how the skeptic THINKS it should be used. If someone were to argue "Well God could've done it way X instead of the current way, it would've made more sense," one needs to prove that assertion, Loftus writes on the issue of miscommunication:
If God had condemned slavery from the very beginning there would be nothing to reform, no beatings, no killings, no institutional slavery justified from the Bible. If God had repeatedly said, "Thou shalt not buy beat or own slaves," and never sent any vibes the other way, then Christians could never justify it as an institution.
This is entirely subjective, dependent upon personal opinion, and I daresay a little historically ignorant as well. Loftus seems to think that if God had condemned slavery from the very beginning, there would be nothing to reform, but there are multiple problems with this. Loftus seems to think that all slavery = chattel slavery, which is incorrect, as there are different forms of slavery. The United States military is a form of "slavery" not very different from the Hebrew on Hebrew form of slavery, neither of which resembles chattel slavery.
"So why didn't God condemn Chattel slavery?" He actually did. While this is an entirely different subject that must be brought up at a different time, the following included with the entire NT message about treating others as you yourself would like to be treated, should suffice.
Exodus 21:16
16 “He who kidnaps a man and sells him, or if he is found in his hand, shall surely be put to death.
Leviticus 19:34
34 The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the LORD your God
Deuteronomy 10:19
19 Therefore love the stranger, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt.
Chattel slavery is not based upon loving the stranger as you love yourself or treating their slaves as one born among them, since chattel slavery was based primarily off whites being superior and blacks being inferior. Were the masters beat? did the masters suffer horrible conditions? were the masters oppressed? these 2 verses also remind Israel about Egypt. What is interesting is in Egypt, when the Hebrews were slaves, they were treated under the same type of chattel slavery system as the one found in the U.S. and God seems to be using the Hebrews experiences in Egypt as a reminder how NOT to treat their own slaves. So it is quite clear to me and various other Christians that God did condemn chattel slavery, and Loftus is being historically ignorant by not looking at the historical context in which slavery is being presented in the bible, and completely ignores the entire NT message about treating others as you would want yourself to be treated. The bible CLEARLY condemns that type of slavery. Loftus is simply grounding his argument on his personal opinion. He states "If God said "Thou shalt not buy beat or own slaves," and never sent any vibes the other way, then Christians could never justify it as an institution,." but it was clearly condemned, just not in the way Loftus personally thinks it should've been.
2. The bible is Gods message of salvation
No problems here.
3. The bible had been misinterpreted various times.
No problems here.
3a. The bible is not clear on some things.
This is where the problem lies. What exactly is not clear? and to whom is it not clear too? this is entirely subjective, as what might not be clear to one person might be clear to another person. 3a is nothing but a subjective personal opinion. The skeptic might argue "well it should be clear to everyone, everyone should get a clear message" but not everyone is the same, so God must make it clear to some people in one way and make it clear to others in another way, but the problem with this is we wind up back where we started, one message makes sense to one person, but that same message doesn't make sense to the next person, we will still have conflicting messages. This argument is self defeating. One personal only needs to mention 'his' message to somebody else, and the confusion starts.
Furthermore, this argument also shows a complete lack of knowledge in basic communication that happens every single day. Companies and workplaces don't pass out individual messages tailored to each persons 'personal needs and understanding(unless of course they're handicap which is an entirely different subject).' They send out the same message to everyone, "Company Picnic at 5:00". If someone has a problem with the message, it is up to them to seek clarification by either asking someone else or researching for themselves. The skeptic might argue "Well companies do that because they don't have enough resources and energy to tailor to each persons personal needs, God has unlimited energy and resources, so He actually CAN do it," but that simply misses the point, since different messages tailored to different needs would still create confusion, God having the unlimited power is irrelevant since He chooses not to use that unlimited power to affect peoples free will.
The skeptic maintains, "consider the following example, one persons message might say 'go to room 5 on the second floor for salvation,' while another persons message might say 'go up the stairs and go into the third room on the right for salvation,' and the message also includes 'don't tell anyone else about your message.' The people end up going to the same room, in a way that makes sense to them, with the confusion part being taken care of." This assumes that people will not be exercising their free will to disobey Gods message and go ahead and tell people anyway.
"BUT TD WHY WOULD THEY DO THAT? the message makes sense to them, so they would know not to tell anyone." There are multiple problems with this.
1. People can reject God even though they have a clear message of His salvation. Perhaps they lose a loved one, or someone runs over their puppy, or their prayer wasn't answered in time or the way they thought it should be answered, all reasons people would reject God that is independent of a clear message of salvation.
2. Satan and his fallen angels main job is to manipulate, distort, deceive, and get people to go against God, and if satan isn't doing it, our own human nature is tempting us to do what we know is wrong. One only needs to look at Loftus himself who claims to have been a very devout Christian, having a clear understanding that 'certain things are incorrect, and clearly wrong,' yet He went ahead and did it anyway. While I am certain Loftus would deny satan had anything to do with it, I am sure he would agree that the temptation was quite strong. So a clear message of 'do not tell anyone about your own message' is not any type of fail safe plan that prevents people from telling others about their own message and causing confusion. Even with a clear message of what is right and wrong, people will still be tempted to do wrong, either by their own human nature or by satan trying to manipulate people into doing wrong.
The skeptic continues to argue, "Why didn't God just make the same message then?" At this point the skeptic is confusing "different opinions" with "the same message." Different denominations have different opinions on what the message is, but that has nothing to do with the message not being the same or not. When the dead sea scrolls were found, they proved the old testament to accurately passed down through the centuries(there were a few spelling mistakes, but nothing that took away from the context). Thousands of years later millions of people have a different opinion on the OT, that doesn't take away from the fact that it was the same message being passed down. The skeptic argues "Well why didn't God stop people from having different opinions?" this would be a violation of peoples free will.
The skeptic continues to argue "Well it's not clear to me," To which I say, perhaps you should abandon your ridiculous assumptions/worldview then?
Variants of the argument
1. The bible is not good at getting Gods messages to everyone equally and unequivocally.
2. Therefore this renders God's p;an and God Himself incompetent.
#1 assumes a few things. Where is the requirement that God must get the message out to everyone equally and unequivocally? If there was a requirement, how might God go about doing this? as sending a message tailored to everyone's individual needs will still cause confusion, God can have one message, but due to Him choosing not to interfere with free will, that message would be subject to misinterpretation(kinda like what we have now)and still cause confusion. Update(I don't know why this wasn't included) finally this also assumes that the skeptic has some sort of knowledge about everybody in existence. How on earth would the skeptic know that people are not receiving the message clearly? perhaps everyone is receiving the message clearly but some are simply rejecting it? how does the skeptic know this? where is his evidence?
The skeptic is also confusing Gods plan. Going by the bible, Gods plan was to provide a WAY OUT of hell, which was the sacrifice of Christ, this plan succeeded when Christ conquered death.
God certainly desires everyone to be saved, but that was not part of His plan since there are numerous passages in the bible where God acknowledges that some people don't end up getting saved.
Revelation 14:11
11 And the smoke of their torment ascends forever and ever; and they have no rest day or night, who worship the beast and his image, and whoever receives the mark of his name.”
If it were part of Gods plan for everyone to be saved, there would not be people in hell.
God being omniscient should have known his message of salvation couldn't get to the masses for these reasons:
1. land barriers
2. water barriers
3. culture barriers
4. language barriers
5. time barriers
6. technological barriers
7. Misunderstandings due to philosophical/intellectual short comings.
This person is right, God DID foresee problems 1-6, which is why He created a system called progressive revelation. First it must be noted that God DID reach people from every nation and every language.
Revelation 5:8-10
8 Now when He had taken the scroll, the four living creatures and the twenty-four elders fell down before the Lamb, each having a harp, and golden bowls full of incense, which are the prayers of the saints. 9 And they sang a new song, saying:
“ You are worthy to take the scroll,
And to open its seals;
For You were slain,
And have redeemed us to God by Your blood
Out of every tribe and tongue and people and nation,
10 And have made us[a] kings[b] and priests to our God;
And we[c] shall reign on the earth.”
There were A LOT of these people from every nation and every tongue, so many that no one could number them.
Revelation 7:9
9 After these things I looked, and behold, a great multitude which no one could number, of all nations, tribes, peoples, and tongues, standing before the throne and before the Lamb, clothed with white robes, with palm branches in their hands,
So that takes care of 1-4. What about time barriers? well this is where progressive revelation comes into play. Before the gospel was written, before Christ was sacrificed, how did people go to heaven? the answer to this is simply having faith in what God said at the time.
Hebrews 11:1-12
By faith Abel offered to God a more excellent sacrifice than Cain, through which he obtained witness that he was righteous, God testifying of his gifts; and through it he being dead still speaks.
By faith Enoch was taken away so that he did not see death, “and was not found, because God had taken him”;[a] for before he was taken he had this testimony, that he pleased God.
By faith Noah, being divinely warned of things not yet seen, moved with godly fear, prepared an ark for the saving of his household, by which he condemned the world and became heir of the righteousness which is according to faith.
By faith Abraham obeyed when he was called to go out to the place which he would receive as an inheritance. And he went out, not knowing where he was going. 9 By faith he dwelt in the land of promise as in a foreign country, dwelling in tents with Isaac and Jacob, the heirs with him of the same promise; 10 for he waited for the city which has foundations, whose builder and maker is God.
By faith Sarah herself also received strength to conceive seed, and she bore a child[b] when she was past the age, because she judged Him faithful who had promised. 12 Therefore from one man, and him as good as dead, were born as many as the stars of the sky in multitude—innumerable as the sand which is by the seashore.
The skeptic then asks "So what about the people that never even HEARD of God? how would they know to put their faith in Him?"
One does not need to know Gods name to put faith in Him.
Acts 17:22-24
22 Then Paul stood in the midst of the Areopagus and said, “Men of Athens, I perceive that in all things you are very religious; 23 for as I was passing through and considering the objects of your worship, I even found an altar with this inscription:
TO THE UNKNOWN GOD.
Therefore, the One whom you worship without knowing, Him I proclaim to you: 24 God, who made the world and everything in it, since He is Lord of heaven and earth, does not dwell in temples made with hands.
As you can see, these people were actually worshiping God without knowing who He was! Remember, this is to be taken in context of progressive revelation only in places where people have either not heard the gospel, before the gospel was written and outside of Israel, or before the gospel had been distributed so widely. How is it that they were able to worship God without knowing?
Romans 1:20
20 For since the creation of the world His invisible attributes are clearly seen, being understood by the things that are made, even His eternal power and Godhead, so that they are without excuse,
According to Romans, it seems that some information about God can be gathered from creation itself. How God responds depends on how the people respond with that information. If the people respond positively then God will see their open heart and send them more of the revelation, if someone responds negatively to that however, God will leave them to their delusions.
Luke 8:18
18 Therefore take heed how you hear. For whoever has, to him more will be given; and whoever does not have, even what he seems to have will be taken from him.”
So that takes care of time barriers. Technological barriers is a moot point, since God can reach people regardless of what technology they do or do not possess. This leaves #7.
Misunderstandings due to philosophical/intellectual short comings.
Philosophical/intellectual shortcomings are the fault of the person, not God. It is not Gods fault one chooses to believe illogical, irrational nonsense like atheism, nor is it Gods fault that people go to a different religion. Intellectually handicapped people are of course an exception and go under the same category as children.
I read that God might take people through atheism and extreme skepticism to shed and get rid of false concepts about Jesus and God(kind've like starting from scratch, or clearing the board) in order to start people on a path of a genuine relationship with God, and I agree 100% with that, however this does not mean that being an atheist/agnostic will get you to heaven, nor does it mean that atheism/agnosticism is a valid, rational, logical philosophical worldview. It is simply a tool that God uses for His purposes and like every other tool used, you are still held responsible and accountable for your actions and your knowledge of the truth.
"But I haven't shed my false concepts about Jesus yet! how do I know your explanation/religion/interpretation isn't false?"
If you're doing research with an honest and open mind then you'll find the truth. If you ask a question of a Christian and he answers it(validly) and you simply ignore the answer, that is your fault, if you're researching Christianity and find something that runs contrary to your atheism and ignore it or reject it based upon illogical irrational means, its your fault.
Why no scientific evidence of God? Why no hard proof?
This question is asked a lot and also falls under #7 since skeptics love to maintain that the lack of scientific proof or 'hard proof' is a philosophical or intellectual shortcoming in accepting God. Not only is it hypocritical, it is actually another self defeating argument. Regarding evidence there is historical, testimonial, and eye witness evidence for God. The only thing missing(and to the skeptics, the most important) is scientific evidence.
Demanding scientific evidence only and placing such a high priority on it leaves the skeptic in a little mess.
For instance, there is no scientific evidence for God, not because God doesn't exist, but because He is simply absent from scientific literature, this is the little mess the skeptic finds himself in, as he believes in things that have no scientific evidence at all. They believe their brother/mother/spouse loves them, or their friends like them but there is no scientific evidence for that. Which leads me to my next point.
God wants peoples faith, He wants people to have faith in Him and if we go by various quotes from skeptics.
http://www.thehumanist.org/humanist/...s/dawkins.html
Well, science is not religion and it doesn't just come down to faith. Although it has many of religion's virtues, it has none of its vices. Science is based upon verifiable evidence. Religious faith not only lacks evidence, its independence from evidence is its pride and joy, shouted from the rooftops. Why else would Christians wax critical of doubting Thomas? The other apostles are held up to us as exemplars of virtue because faith was enough for them. Doubting Thomas, on the other hand, required evidence. Perhaps he should be the patron saint of scientists.
One reason I receive the comment about science being a religion is because I believe in the fact of evolution. I even believe in it with passionate conviction. To some, this may superficially look like faith. But the evidence that makes me believe in evolution is not only overwhelmingly strong; it is freely available to anyone who takes the trouble to read up on it. Anyone can study the same evidence that I have and presumably come to the same conclusion. But if you have a belief that is based solely on faith, I can't examine your reasons. You can retreat behind the private wall of faith where I can't reach you.
http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/ba...e-faith-based/
This is completely wrong. It shows (unsurprisingly) an utter misunderstanding of how science works. Science is not faith-based, and here’s why.
Scientific evidence is not faith. Science is not faith based. Why doesn't God show Himself or give scientific evidence for His existence? because according to the skeptics, it would be pointless for God to do so, since scientific evidence is not faith, and that is what God wants us to have, faith. The demand for scientific evidence of God is a self defeating one. It also shows the hypocrisy of atheists and agnostics, who demand scientific evidence prior to believing, but believe in things with no scientific evidence all of the time. You certainly believe I exist without requiring evidence prior to that belief, as you certainly believe that your mother/brother/spouse loves you prior to seeing scientific evidence(or ignoring the fact there isn't any).
