If I was God

[Spectrox War]

If I was God I would have conveyed my extremely important message to humanity in some other way.

Let us consider what Christians believe (the genuine ones who believe the Bible to be the infallible word of God, not the dishonest "cherry pickers" who select what they like and dismiss what doesn't suit them).

Apparently the best way to convey the ultimate message is to incarnate as a human 2,000 years ago - God could have chosen any time in history to do this but instead chose the Iron Age. We'll put that aside for now.

What method did the all-knowing God devise to ensure the accurate recording of the most important message in history? He would let 4 other people write his biography (2 of which he never met). He would let one guy, Mark, write it down first with the resurrection bit missing and tag that on the end at some later stage. Then he'd allow the other 3 to write their own versions of the biography, copying huge sections from Mark, making sure the Aramaic was converted to Greek. Then wait another 3 centuries for it to be put together officially.

Does this sound like a good cosmic plan to you?

If I'd been God I would have written the account myself and taken responsibility for it with a sense of ownership instead of abandoning the task to others and hoping for the best. Or better still - use an entirely different method to communicate to all of my creations to ensure an equal opportunity.

It's the most bizarre, ridiculously inept plan in history and yet some people are happy to lap up this cobblers.

[tirtlegrrl]

So...to me it appears that you're simultaneously preaching to the choir and totally blowing off both inerrantists and non-inerrantists (or the "dishonest cherry pickers", as you call them). If that's your intent, I would suggest you cherry-pick your post on over to the Atheist forum.

[Spectrox War]

Yes of course. We must restrict free speech and only debate with and challenge those who already agree with us, lest we frighten uninformed minds. Who appointed you as internet policewoman? The Christians I've met are used to self-flagellation anyway. It's called Spiritual Stockholm Syndrome whereby they try to protect and defend their abuser (God).

[humanguy]

If your intent in joining this forum is to unilaterally insult Christians then you won't find your stay very pleasant. It's okay to test principles and wage an argument, but outright attacking a group of people is just not warranted.

Attack ideas, not people. We're all human beings, you know, each as flawed as the next.

[tirtlegrrl]

Yes of course. We must restrict free speech and only debate with and challenge those who already agree with us, lest we frighten uninformed minds. Who appointed you as internet policewoman? The Christians I've met are used to self-flagellation anyway. It's called Spiritual Stockholm Syndrome whereby they try to protect and defend their abuser (God).

Well, if your intent WAS to blow off the people who don't agree with you, you likely don't really care about having a meaningful conversation with them anyway.
If, however, by lumping all non-inerrantists together under the label "dishonest cherry pickers"/"non-genuine Christians" and characterizing inerrantists as "happy to lap up the cobbler" of the "most bizarre, ridiculously inept plan in history" you sincerely think you'll acheive something good or change someone's mind, I apologize for criticizing your motives (if not your method).

[Spectrox War]

humanguy wrote: you won't find your stay very pleasant

There's very little pleasant about The Bible or its apologists. I'm just cutting to the chase, my friend. The rest of this forum is just circular arguments that doesn't go anywhere good. If there are genuine Christians on this blog then they'll forgive me or turn the other cheek or something and if there are atheists on here then they would be daft for defending the faith. Anyone teetering on the brink might actually detect that I'm not being disingenuous in my posts and when they have been exposed to new information that they hadn't encountered before they might wake up and smell the coffee.

[Spectrox War]

Tirrtlegrrl wrote: If, however, by lumping all non-inerrantists together under the label "dishonest cherry pickers"/"non-genuine Christians" and characterizing inerrantists as "happy to lap up the cobbler" of the "most bizarre, ridiculously inept plan in history" you sincerely think you'll acheive something good or change someone's mind, I apologize for criticizing your motives (if not your method).

I'm targeting the undecided. Let's be honest, we're all on here to influence someone. If I can get someone on this forum to think about new information that they haven't encountered before and get them to change their mind and stop wasting their time on these ancient desert scribblings then the quality of their life will be immeasurably improved. My job will be done. I think it's unlikely however but I won't give up just yet.

But turgid dialogues about whether babies are agnostic or atheist is futile. Everyone is just playing politics. And what's the point on an anonymous blog?

Dawkins is wrong on one point. No-one can prove that God doesn't exist from first principles. I approach the issue from the other direction. Look for evidence of God in the world religions. And every single one that I've found has serious problems with it in terms of morality, science and logic. So the question is therefore "where is God?" The answer is a deafening silence.

Like what Steve Buscemi said in The Island when asked who God was. And he replied "You know when you pray really hard for something? Well, God is the one who ignores you!"

[jordanws]

Again, throughout your posts here, I'm sensing a lot of anger, more so than almost anyone else I've read on this forum. This leads me to ask: what happened? I wish we could have an actual conversation over coffee.

I hope that wherever you are, that you are happy outside of this area of your life. I'm also sorry that you have been so hurt by Christians that you feel your only valid form of response is to lash out against an entire people group on an anonymous forum. I hope that you have found what you were looking for and were unable to find in Christianity, and I hope that what you have found has made you a better and happier person.

[tirtlegrrl]

Tirrtlegrrl wrote: If, however, by lumping all non-inerrantists together under the label "dishonest cherry pickers"/"non-genuine Christians" and characterizing inerrantists as "happy to lap up the cobbler" of the "most bizarre, ridiculously inept plan in history" you sincerely think you'll acheive something good or change someone's mind, I apologize for criticizing your motives (if not your method).

I'm targeting the undecided. Let's be honest, we're all on here to influence someone.

And some of us are even here to learn something.

If I can get someone on this forum to think about new information that they haven't encountered before and get them to change their mind and stop wasting their time on these ancient desert scribblings then the quality of their life will be immeasurably improved. My job will be done. I think it's unlikely however but I won't give up just yet.

Don't give up, but do consider the advice of others who might tell you that there aren't many people here (if any) that will respond to name-calling and cliches.

But turgid dialogues about whether babies are agnostic or atheist is futile.

I dunno, I think the question of infant belief and cognition is pretty interesting.

Everyone is just playing politics.

Well, that's very cynical of you. Some of us are here for stimulating conversation and don't particularly care if they "convert" anybody.

And what's the point on an anonymous blog?

What's the point in alienating the very people you're trying to reach? Yeah, the forum's more or less anonymous, but the people behind the avatars can still choose to ignore you if they think you're not contributing anything helpful or if you make the place unpleasant to hang around.

Dawkins is wrong on one point. No-one can prove that God doesn't exist from first principles. I approach the issue from the other direction. Look for evidence of God in the world religions. And every single one that I've found has serious problems with it in terms of morality, science and logic. So the question is therefore "where is God?" The answer is a deafening silence.

Like what Steve Buscemi said in The Island when asked who God was. And he replied "You know when you pray really hard for something? Well, God is the one who ignores you!"

Well, that was potentially consciousness-raising without resorting to direct insult. Props.

[mikedsjr]

humanguy wrote: you won't find your stay very pleasant

There's very little pleasant about The Bible or its apologists. I'm just cutting to the chase, my friend. The rest of this forum is just circular arguments that doesn't go anywhere good. If there are genuine Christians on this blog then they'll forgive me or turn the other cheek or something and if there are atheists on here then they would be daft for defending the faith. Anyone teetering on the brink might actually detect that I'm not being disingenuous in my posts and when they have been exposed to new information that they hadn't encountered before they might wake up and smell the coffee.

Oh good. Someone who realizes sola scriptura requires circular argument. O have no problem with it. Hope you have a nice time.

[humanguy]

humanguy wrote: you won't find your stay very pleasant

There's very little pleasant about The Bible or its apologists. I'm just cutting to the chase, my friend. The rest of this forum is just circular arguments that doesn't go anywhere good. If there are genuine Christians on this blog then they'll forgive me or turn the other cheek or something and if there are atheists on here then they would be daft for defending the faith. Anyone teetering on the brink might actually detect that I'm not being disingenuous in my posts and when they have been exposed to new information that they hadn't encountered before they might wake up and smell the coffee.

"New information?" You've got to be kidding me. You have new information about the non-existence of the Christian God? Well, let's have a look at it!

But first learn how to use the quote function.

[ChristianHeretic]

"New information?" You've got to be kidding me. You have new information about the non-existence of the Christian God? Well, let's have a look at it!

Uncle! We're not going to start this again are we?

[cleve]

...Or better still - use an entirely different method to communicate to all of my creations to ensure an equal opportunity.

If I was God I would have conveyed my extremely important message to humanity in some other way. ...

SW,
What makes you think God hadn't already given this extremely important message to humanity in some other way?

[humanguy]

"New information?" You've got to be kidding me. You have new information about the non-existence of the Christian God? Well, let's have a look at it!

Uncle! We're not going to start this again are we?

Hah! I guess it's now your turn, CH.

[Spectrox War]

humanguy wrote: you won't find your stay very pleasant

There's very little pleasant about The Bible or its apologists. I'm just cutting to the chase, my friend. The rest of this forum is just circular arguments that doesn't go anywhere good. If there are genuine Christians on this blog then they'll forgive me or turn the other cheek or something and if there are atheists on here then they would be daft for defending the faith. Anyone teetering on the brink might actually detect that I'm not being disingenuous in my posts and when they have been exposed to new information that they hadn't encountered before they might wake up and smell the coffee.

"New information?" You've got to be kidding me. You have new information about the non-existence of the Christian God? Well, let's have a look at it!

But first learn how to use the quote function.

I've discovered the quote function!

By the way I have never categorically stated that the Christian God never existed. You're misrepresenting me here. It's impossible to prove this from first principles (this is where I disagree with Dawkins, although I think he's mostly correct). There is not sufficient evidence for me to believe much of it although myths and legends are all based on some kind of true event in history. It's just that people of that day were more brutal and superstitious than they are now and so those qualities have been absorbed into the writings. In fact I would go further and say that the evidence that is the Bible has so many contradictions and morally dubious stories and ideas in it, that it suggests strongly to me that is is badly in error and has passed it's sell-by date.

Everyone who comes to this forum will bring something new so in that sense I do bring new information or at least a new spin on it.

Be honest. The forum was getting dull until I turned up!