This is the one that bugs me the most.


Atheist: The biblical God is wrong for committing genocide.

Theist: You cant judge the biblical God as wrong with your tiny intellect, bad atheist.

Atheist: But isn't that what you are doing by saying he is right.

Theist: No.

Atheist: Head explode jpg...

i see no harm in believing or not believing what ever makes people happy and comfortable who cares i float from believing to not believing currently im a non believer who wears fckn rossary beads.at the end of the day who gives a **** we live we die what happens next prob nothing anything after is a bonus level

Just because something is not understood, doesn't mean it can't be understood. So until it is understood, it is a mystery. No?

Would you agree that X=2, not X=3; on the grounds that X is beyond scrutiny?

What?

It's a simple question. Yes/no will do.

Not sure how you feel it is relevant to my post. And i don't really understand the questions. Are you asking me if i believe X=2 and not 3 because we have no way of knowing? I would have no reason to believe either. So no.

Maybe it isn't relevant. Is your answer yes or no?

*edit* N/M, I see that you edited your post to include an answer.

So in other words, it is safe to say there has to be some level of scrutiny involved for you to attain knowledge regarding unknowns?

Pretty sure i agree with this.

So, if I pass judgment on God after scrutiny of some holy work (let's say it is the Bible) and my judgment does not fit within some set of parameters you would find acceptable...is this because:

1. God is beyond scrutiny.
2. I'm wrong.
3. None of the above.
4. Both 1 & 2.

5. Your judgment is irrelevant.

To me God is not beyond scrutiny. I believe He wants us to understand ourselves and love before He lets us understand Him. I have questions that i don't believe i will find the answers to answered every day.

If you judge God or anyone you should be able to explain why.

It could be both 1 or 2 or both, or it could none of the above. It would depend on the claim right? But just because something is beyond scrutiny for one person, doesn't mean it is for another.

I don't think it depends on the claim (we've already stated it is a claim that is unacceptable because it is not within the confines you find as acceptable beliefs), and I don't think it can be both 1&2.

I also don't think it can be 1 as long as you yourself have an opinion on God.

The only viable alternative I see is 2: I am wrong. But that means we are disagreeing - not that my opinion can be handwaved away as an impossibility to attain.

I think it does depend on the claim. I admit i haven't read this whole thread so not sure exactly what you are referring to. Can you provide an example?

Claim: God is X

Is there a value of X that is impossible to attain because God is beyond scrutiny?

I don't believe anything is impossible. Except for one thing and one thing only. It is impossible to defeat God.

I think revealed religion is "taken seriously" in two quite distinct ways. The first is as some kind of source-of-all-knowledge which will tell you (among other things) how old the earth is, how the stars and planets formed, where humans came from, whether various tribes/cities/nations existed and what sort of things they did. I presume you're not referring to this kind since I don't see the connection between the statements you listed and biblical inerrancy on questions of scientific or historical fact.

The second is that it is a guide to God's nature and/or how we should respond to the presumed fact of his existence. I don't find the statements paradoxical even though I "take revealed religion seriously" in this context because I don't regard revealed religion as an inerrant and comprehensible set of rules (I think it demonstrably fails in this regard given the number of different interpretations of devout, intelligent, committed devotees). I find it a useful tool in developing my own spiritual understanding of how I should attempt to relate to what I presume is God and don't go any further than that. The bible's certainly not going to result in me knowing God - he's far beyond my ability to know (for example, I can't even speak about him properly since our language presupposes a spatio-temporal location which I think he doesnt have so even saying "God exists" or "God made the world" is not strictly capturing what I mean).

I think the paradox arises when people simultaneously claim that "God is unknowable" and "I know what God wants because I've read the bible". I don't think this is a necessary stance to take though. In my opinion, intellectual rigour just requires one bite the bullet and concede that either the bible is incomprehensible/incomplete or that "You can't know the mind of God" is a cop-out to avoid difficult questions.

Then your judgment of the biblical God should be too.

The answer sounds good, but it does leave a little room for misunderstanding.

Would you say that there are values for X, for God is X, that is not possible to attain because God is beyond scrutiny? Yes or no?

Remember that I'm not saying such specific values for X are necessarily correct, I'm just asking if they are voided because God is inscrutable.

3. One of us is wrong.

I believe God allows people to say/do wrong in order for them to learn first hand the consequences. Just because something is not revealed to some, doesn't mean it is not revealed. Christ is a good example. The beginning of the book of Proverbs kind of explains this also.

I think you are on your way. I think the main thing that is holding you back is doubt. I have doubt also, but not doubt in Him, doubt in myself.

No, i believe He has provided everything we need to know. But it is up to us to find the answer. I don't think God keeps anything hidden from us that we do not hide from ourselves.

I don't think the specific values are voided unless they can be proven void.

What I mean is that some devout, intelligent, studious theologians (far more versed in Christianity than you or I) think that the Bible indicates violence is always wrong, others think it indicates violence is sometimes justified. It is therefore demonstably not an inerrant and comprehensible set of rules, or they wouldnt disagree about the existence or otherwise of the absolute immorality of violence.
Well thanks, but I think it's not doubt which prevents my knowledge (the doubt comes from recognising what I believe is not sufficiently justified or well enough defined to constitute knowledge). I think it's the fact I'm limited by being a creature who lives in time and space without the mental faculties to comprehend something as far from me as I imagine God to be.

Jesus showed us where violent situations were sometimes justified. He went through some pretty violent deaths, He allowed violent attacks to take place on Him. He also told us to turn the other cheek to allow the other side to be slapped also. We are also taught about when violent situations are not justified. You have to find the middle ground i think.

There was also the story of Jesus clearing the temple. He got violent, but nobody got physically hurt.

They are all steps of faith. Don't try to jump the whole staircase. You are given a lifetime, not a day. God wants you to be honest with yourself and with Him, and if He wants you to be shown something, you will be. We all feel limited because we are born into a world that has been tainted by unproven laws and theories. God's Word foretold of this. All anyone can really do is keep the gifts of God open, understand His Word, be honest, and do what you know He wants you to do. If you are unsure it may be best not to do it at the time.

Matthew 7:7