How do you know God is the good guy?

[The Happy Humanist]

In another thread, I was told that true morality is found by following God. God, we are told, is the source of absolute morality, the final arbiter of good and evil in the universe.

How do we know this? How do we come to assume that God's good is really good? Sure, we are told as much by the Bible. But it's one thing to accept the Bible as God's word...but what if he's lying?

What I'm asking is, what is it about God that makes you so sure he's the good guy, the one you should be following? And how can you trust your instincts in this regard, when you believe he is the source of your moral compass in the first place? Would it not be possible for a Supreme Being to plant a moral compass in you that automatically registers his words as "good", no matter what?

So? Discuss!

[chrispalasz]

Hello jimspeiser! I'm looking forward to continuing a good discussion!

jimspeiser: I no more want to know Jesus than you want to know Santa Claus, and for the same reason.

Oh! Then, can't we conclude that I am more reasonable than you since there is definately more evidance to warrant a belief in Jesus than there is for a beleif in Santa Claus? 8)

jimspeiser:
I do wish to know whether or not Jesus actually walked the earth, and whether or not there is a God.

I sincerely hope that one day you find the answer. And I am not trying to be arrogant in any way by saying that. From your perspective, I hope that one day you are certain of whatever answer you may find.

jimspeiser: Without the benefit of this experience, we are forced to fall back on logic and skepticism, and exactly the line of questioning with which I have barraged you.

Oh, absolutely. I totally agree. I onced used many of the same types of arguments against Christians - and back then, I thought they were all naive (and possibly all stupid). When I learned that they weren't all stupid... I started wondering why they were all naive. That's when I began the heavier debates.

Anyway, right now, I think it's a mistake to fall back on logic and skepticism - but it's only natural to do so. It's almost like a defense mechanism. I am probably sitting in the wrong nest, discussing the wrong subjects with the wrong people (no offense intended). It might be better for me to move on from this type of debate and touch on the ones that aren't so direct about attacking Christianity. I just don't feel like people are here to discuss much, sometimes. I feel like they are here for personal reasoons... or maybe to attack people with arguments instead of acheive a mutual learning.

jimspeiser: And now we come to a question that goes to the heart of the problem, the disconnect between believers and skeptics: Which came first, your Faith or your Experiencing the Holy Spirit? When you yourself took the prayer challenge, or whatever it was you did to open yourself to God or the Holy Spirit, were you already a believer? And is that a requirement for such an experience?

The Holy Spirit came first, which caused me to repent. You could say that my faith and the Holy Spirit came at the exact same time. I don't believe you can have one without the other. I was a believer when I took the Prayer Challenge, yes, but only minutes before. I was reading scripture, I had an experience and I gained an understanding which caused me to repent (take the prayer challenge). I don't think that being a believer is a requirement for having such an experience. I was not before I had one. But I did have a determination to find the truth.

I'm a little sick and I'm getting tired so I'm going to throw in the towel for tonight. I'll go back to the rest of what you said later this week. Hope you're having a good week.

~GL

[Karl]

(GreenLight311- Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:51 pm)
"Hi Karl, welcome to the discussion"

Thank you.

(GreenLight311- Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:51 pm)
It's too bad that you've never seen believers do these works. Maybe if you had, you would repent and accept Jesus Christ as your Savior. Would you?

Christians raising the corpses that were lying in the streets after the tsunami disaster would have been pretty powerful. I haven't heard of any documented instances of the works I listed having been done by believers in the past 2,000 years though, so I'm not counting on it.

Re: your comments on the Matthew 9:13 passage then, "Jesus" should have stated "...I came to call EVERYBODY to repentence"....then people may not have been confused.

I'm not going to argue about Isaiah 19:5 or Daniel. Twist it around all you want to. You'll never buy the opinion that Daniel was written c165BCE anyway.

(GreenLight311- Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:51 pm)
I would like to add that Nebuchadnezzar never conquered Egypt as Ezekiel prophesied. Not even Nebuchadnezzar claimed that."

In reply, we may note that our sources for this period are very sparse, and the best that can really be said is that there is no positive evidence that Nebbie took Egypt as prophesied. Extant records DO indicate that Nebbie did indeed conquer Egypt - whether he took them into captivity and left Egypt desolate for 40 years is neither proven nor disproven by our sources. However - it is known that it was Nebbie's policy to deport peoples from conquered lands (as he did with Judah), and there is a 33-year gap between the time that Nebbie attacked Egypt and the time that Cyrus defeated Babylon. Allowing either for rounded numbers or time to return to Egypt, we have a possible span into which we could see those 40 years. Therefore, for lack of evidence, this prophecy cannot be judged a priori a failure.

A clipping from an article at http://www.tektonics.org

Nonsense. The prophecy includes man and beast. I'm sure all of the Nile crocs, water buffalo, etc. all packed up and left Egypt for 40 years....they probably found a nice oasis somewhere, even if it would have been somewhat cramped....that is, provided they managed to make it across the desert....

GL

Karl(Ezekiel 18:20 - KJV) .....The son shall not bear the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity of the son:....
...VERSUS...
(2 Samuel 12:14 - KJV)....Howbeit, because by this deed thou hast given great occasion to the enemies of the Lord to blaspheme, THE CHILD also that is born unto thee SHALL SURELY DIE."
The Ezekiel and 2 Samuel verses above are in direct contradiction. Additionally, the Ezekiel passage applies to "Jesus" as well, since he would have allegedly died for the sins of his alleged mother Mary, and her alleged father (who would have been "Jesus'" grandfather on his mother's side.)

Allow me to help you with this one also. Ezekiel is clearly talking about sin and spiritual death. 2 Samuel is talking about physical death... two completely different things. Everyone will suffer physical death, but only those that oppose God will suffer spiritual death.

You're still wrong. "Jesus" supposedly died to keep men from suffering "spiritual" death. According to Christian dogma "Jesus" allegedly bore the "iniquity" of all, when Ezekiel says clearly the the son will NOT bear the iniquity of the father. How could the death of David's innocent new-born child possibly be the "just" act of "good" biblegod, considering that David allegedly committed the sin, and in light of your comment that "He will not unjustly punish anyone"?

(GL)It is a blessing from God that He did not send His angels to do all of the work.

You are missing the point re: Luke 2:10. The passage is a LIE, because the "angel" said the message was to "ALL people", EVERYBODY on earth should have known about it at that time!

GL, the link you provided in your reply on Tyre didn't work. I got a "page not found" message. I don't have ancient maps of Tyre to compare with modern day Tyre. What I do know is that there is photographic evidence that a city named Tyre has been rebuilt. It's good enough for me. Additionally, I'm going to trust that the people of Lebanon have a more accurate insight as to their history than an apologist website.

(GreenLight311- Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:51 pm)
{comments re: the cited Numbers 31:17,18}

"These verses are part of Holy Scripture and are God breathed. They show God's authority and righteous judgement over all. This violence that is in the Bible, as well as other violence in the Old Testament, is justified by God's omniscience. He knows everything. He knows what we have done wrong, He knows what we are doing wrong, and He knows what we will do wrong.

Violence is not wrong; unrighteous violence is wrong. These passages may be disgusting to you because you do not trust in Jesus Christ. If you seek a relationship with Jesus Christ, you will most certainly aquire the trust for God that I have. That trust goes so far as to cover all actions that may appear to be violent and evil. Knowing that God is good by knowing Jesus Christ and having the Holy Spirit inside of me... I know His actions are justified. I have faith in this by His Word alone.......It doesn't bug me because I know God is Good and Faithful and He will not unjustly punish anyone.

It's interesting that none of the girls were killed. Maybe they weren't sinners at all then, even though you said everybody was. The Numbers passages are disgusting to me because they smack of the child sex-slave trade. I call their author a butcher. I also refer to all of the perpetrators of the insane and abominable violence carried out in the "name of" biblegod over the centuries as butchers. The amount of mindless destruction and killing by those who use such passages such as Numbers 31:17, etc as an excuse to carry out said "violence" (doing the "work of God"), has over time, been horrifying. Don't believe it? Read this account of the death of the Philosopher Hypatia of Alexandria, in one of the most brutal and savage murders in the annals of human history:

(Carl Sagan from 'Cosmos')
...."The last Scientist who worked in the Library was a mathematician, astronomer, physicist and the head of the Neoplatonic school of Philosophy--an extraordinary range of accomplishments for any individual in any age. Her name was Hypatia. She was born in Alexandria in 370. At a time when women had few options, and were treated as property, Hypatia moved freely and unselfconsciously through traditional male domains. By all accounts she was a great beauty. She had many suitors but rejected all offers of marriage. The Alexandria of Hypatia's time--by then long under Roman rule--was a city under grave strain. Slavery had sapped classical civilization of its vitality. The growing Christian Church was consolidating its power and attempting to eradicate Pagan influence and culture. Hypatia stood at the epicenter of these mighty social forces. Cyril, the Archbishop of Alexandria, despised her because of her close friendship with the Roman govenor, and because she was a symbol of learning and science, which were largely identified by the early Church with Paganism. In great personal danger, she continued to teach and publish, until, in the year 415, on her way to work she was set upon by a fanatical mob of Cyril's parishoners. They dragged her from her chariot, tore off her clothes, and, armed with abalone shells, flayed her flesh from her bones. Her remains were burned, her works obliterated, her name forgotten. Cyril was made a saint."

"The glory of the Alexandrian Library is a dim memory. Its last remnants were destroyed soon after Hypatia's death. It was as if the entire civilization had undergone some self-inflicted brain surgery, and most of its memories, discoveries, ideas and passions were extinguished irrevocably. The loss was incalculable......

"Saint" Cyril and his band of deranged lunatic monks and parishoners do not even deserve to be called animals, let alone humans. But they were doing the violent "work" of "good" biblegod, weren't they?
Maybe this is one of those "misguided" claims about Christianity, or maybe they thought Hypatia was a witch, in which case they would have thought they had "divine authority" to kill her as per this bit of barbarism:

(Exodus 22:18 - KJV)
The shalt not suffer a witch to live.

(GreenLight311- Mon Jan 17, 2005 10:51 pm)

(Norman F. Cantor - 'The Sacred Chain' - page 51) "The first millennium of Jewish history as presented in the Bible has no empirical foundation whatsoever."

"What we have here: an unsupported claim. You wouldn't accept one from me; and I won't accept one from you, or this guy."

Thank you again. That is the whole point of Cantor's book. It is up to YOU to provide hard evidence as the the existence of Abraham, Moses, etc. Cantor couldn't find any, thus illustrating that the "history" of the bible for that time frame is an "unsupported claim". Maybe you have some hard evidence up your sleeve, but probably not:

(M. Grant - The History of Ancient Israel, page 32)
"Ur was Sumerian and had no connection with the people known as the Chaldaeans until a thousand years after any possible date to which Abraham can be attributed."

Of course, not only must you demonstrate the existence of the alleged god-man, but you must also demonstrate with hard evidence the existence of every individual in "Jesus'" alleged "genealogy". After all, it's pretty tough to have exsited when your alleged "lineage" didn't. And with the two different genealogies in Matthew 1:6-16 and Luke 3:23-31 I bet it's sure tough for you to know where to start. But please.....DO get started.
We're waiting for proof that "Jesus'" "genealogy" existed as well......

And I suppose you don't consider this to be a biblical self-contradiction or incongruity either, regarding "good" biblegod:

(Genesis 32:30 -KJV)
"....for I have seen God face to face, and my life is preserved."

...VERSUS...

(Exodus 33:20 - KJV)
And he said, Thou canst not see my face: for there shall no man see me and live.."

Maybe biblegod is confused, or the "perfect" HS couldn't quote get the message through to the "divinely inspired" "spirit filled" writers and scribes. Of course, if the HS couldn't do that, it would violate yet another "scripture":

(Luke 1:37 - KJV)
"For WITH GOD, NOTHING shall be impossible."

And there's always this:

(Judges 1:19 - KJV) And the Lord WAS WITH Judah; and he drave out the inhabitants of the mountains; but COULD NOT DRIVE OUT the inhabitants of the valley, because they had chariots of iron."

...until they decide to render a different "translation"...one that won't look as bad.

Before I look into Christianity, I'm looking into the bible and finding it to be errant and incongruous. I'm not going to follow biblegod, who seems to not be able to get things perfect, even though it is claimed that biblegod is "perfect" and "omnipotent". Additionally, IMO, biblegod is a butcher.

(GL)

(Karl)
I see Spirituality as an Internal Process, the Evolvement and Development of the Divine within, and I see it as being the same for everyone, regardless of religion.
This Process is exclusive of religion which is merely an external framework (e.g. tradition, observances, ritual, dogma) in which Spirituality is supposed to Operate.

You sound just like my dad. He shares this belief with you. Obviously, I do not. I am quite certain that, by God's merciful Grace, Christainity is the Truth.

It sounds like he raised you well. So how did you manage to get off track and get bogged down in the indefensible quagmire of literalist fundyism? Yes, according to your statement, religion/dogma is more important than Spirituality, isn't it? It would appear to be so to many, considering the myriad Christian sects.....

Regards,

K

[Tigerlilly]

It's obvious. Nothing you say will he actually take into account! Everything you say is wrong because you aren't divinely inspired, and everything you say is false because you are below the logic of God. *haha.*

You don't have the magic power to understand the logic in the bible's illogic.

Then, he will go off into magic-land and say that whatever you say is opinion and what he say's is the "truth."

[bernee51]

The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of the one and only Perfect God and was written through imperfect men. The message is perfect, and it is loud and clear. The authority by which I make this claim is not my own authority; it is the authority that Jesus Christ, Son of God holds. It is also firmly supported by the Bible.

So the bible is divinely inpired because it says so in the bible and because it is divinely inspired it must be true.

Am I the only person here who can see the arrant nonsense of this statement. Have you ever heard of a circular argument GL. It is begging the question.

Do you want to have another go at explaing why the bible is the 'inspired word of god"? Ths one did not quite work out

[otseng]

You are a Troll and you are trolling, that's it.

This thread is rapidly turning into attacks on each other rather than attacks on the arguments. Please exercise restraint on things that are said.

Be reminded to stay on the issue at hand:

In another thread, I was told that true morality is found by following God. God, we are told, is the source of absolute morality, the final arbiter of good and evil in the universe.

How do we know this? How do we come to assume that God's good is really good? Sure, we are told as much by the Bible. But it's one thing to accept the Bible as God's word...but what if he's lying?

What I'm asking is, what is it about God that makes you so sure he's the good guy, the one you should be following? And how can you trust your instincts in this regard, when you believe he is the source of your moral compass in the first place? Would it not be possible for a Supreme Being to plant a moral compass in you that automatically registers his words as "good", no matter what?

If further attacks on members continue, formal warnings will be issued and this thread could possibly be closed. If anyone feels susceptible to attacking another person, I would suggest leaving the thread entirely.

Thank you for your attention to this matter and in upholding the rules of this forum.

[chrispalasz]

GreenLight311 wrote:
The Bible is the divinely inspired Word of the one and only Perfect God and was written through imperfect men. The message is perfect, and it is loud and clear. The authority by which I make this claim is not my own authority; it is the authority that Jesus Christ, Son of God holds. It is also firmly supported by the Bible.

bernee51: So the bible is divinely inpired because it says so in the bible and because it is divinely inspired it must be true.

Am I the only person here who can see the arrant nonsense of this statement. Have you ever heard of a circular argument GL. It is begging the question.

Do you want to have another go at explaing why the bible is the 'inspired word of god"? Ths one did not quite work out

Sorry, no, you misunderstood what I wrote. When I say that this is by the authority of Jesus Christ, I mean that it is by the authority of God; and not because it's in the Bible, but because God is living and active and through everyday life and through history God can be seen and understood. So, it is through the world and through our lives that God actively communicates His Word and Law. The Holy Spirit, which is not part of the Bible, although He does speak through the Bible, actively verifies this in every Christian and in life.

As a side note at the end, I also mentioned that the Bible makes that claim about itself. I was not trying to use that as my reason. I was trying to make the point that I attempted to expand on (above).

So, it was not begging the question. Since you bring up another argument fallacy, I would like to comment on them. Often times you label points that I make as one of the fallacies... particulalry straw man and slippery slope. I do not believe you are making the correct assertion when you label some of my arguments. That is why I continue to make points that you continue to label. I have been ignoring those labels because I believe you're wrong. So, I will continue to ignore the one's that I believe are wrong until you A) stop labeling them, or B) expand on your response beyond the label.

Thanks
~GL

[chrispalasz]

I also wanted to comment and respond to this little example provided:

Tigerlilly wrote: Apparently you go the opposite direction to go where you want, in the Bible. Great inerrancy and reliability. They can't even do basic directional skills, much less historical accuracy.

If we read the gospel of Mark, we come to realize that Mark is not the most clear of writers. Actually - that's why I love the gospel. The fact that God can use anything to speak to people is invigorating! Mark may not be as clear as he could be with this one, but there is still absolutely no problem. Let me clarify for him.

Mark says:
1. Jesus returned from the region of Tyre
2. Jesus went through Sidon
3. Jesus went to the sea of Galilee
4. Jesus went through the region of the Decapolis

Mark does NOT say:
1. Jesus returned from the region of Tyre and went South through Sidon to the sea of Galilee

To interpret this as the picture atop shows is completely bias from what Mark actually says. If I live in St. Louis, are you telling me that I can't say "We're going through Chicago when we go to Houston." Of course I can... and everybody would know what I was saying. There's no difference.

GreenLight wrote:
Karl, a skeptic's misinterpretation of the Bible in no way equates to Biblical incongruity. Please allow one who has the Holy Spirit to interpret.

Tigerlilly responded:
So the only people who can critique it fairly are the ones who believe it. That's like saying no one can criticize communism because they're not a communist. No one except those inspired by the divine knoweldge of the almighty Stalin or Lenin or Marx may understand this triumphant work!

No. The people that critique it correctly are the ones that know Jesus Christ and have the Holy Spirit. Your analogy is not analogous (funny). What I was and am saying goes more like this:

You may know how to read something, but that does not mean you know what it means. For example, you may know Greek letters and how to pronounce Greek words, but that does not mean you understand Greek. You have to know the meaning as well. The words of the Bible themselves do not give the meaning of the scripture. The Holy Spirit, which speaks to people, gives the meaning of the scripture through the words. So, what I am saying is that, in general, people without the Holy Spirit are just looking at words on a page without comprehending their meaning. If they did comprehend the meaning, the Holy Spirit would fill their minds and bodies and they would be Christians.

Also, please note (as bernee51 often does) that when I speak of Christians, I refer to people that have the Holy Spirit inside them, Temples of the living God. I am not talking about any person that considers himself a christian. Bernee uses the term "True Christian" when referencing the meaning that I use. If you wish, you can do the same.

[Dilettante]

Greenlight311:

You're quoting me, but you're not talking to me... are you searching for people to agree with you? Or... are you searching for people to defend me? Do you want me to respond to this post, or is it just a few of your thoughts/comments/opinions?

Actually, both. You're right, I am trying to see whether we have two distinct camps here or not. And I definitely would like to read a response by you. Your posts are so interesting because you use words like "Christian" not in the conventional way, but in a totally different way. Please take no offence, but it reminds me of how the marxists used terms like "democracy" and "liberty" in a totally uncoventional sense. To me, things are what they are. No more, no less. Christians are Christians, even if, because of human weaknesses many do not live up to expectations. You make a distinction between two kinds of Christians not based on something observable but based on whether or not they have the Holy Spirit (which I always thought virtually everyone was supposed to have, in variable proportions). The Holy Spirit is not observable to the naked eye, but it is apparently immediately obvious to you. So I'm curious to know what your criteria are for determining who has and who has not the Holy Spirit. Do you perceive it as a kind of "energy", "good vibes", missionary zeal, or perhaps good works? It may also be that you only recognize the Holy Spirit in those who agree with your view of Christianity. I suspect this is the case, but I may well be wrong. If so, please correct me.

[Tigerlilly]

If we read the gospel of Mark, we come to realize that Mark is not the most clear of writers. Actually - that's why I love the gospel. The fact that God can use anything to speak to people is invigorating! Mark may not be as clear as he could be with this one, but there is still absolutely no problem. Let me clarify for him.

SO he can't write properly either? Mymy. You love the Gospel because it's literature isn't written coherently? Never before have I heard that one. That's a new Fundamentalist trait.

Anyone else notice this?

To any normal, grammatical person, Mark is saying he went from Tyre, then he went through sidon to the Sea of Galiee then to the relgion of Decapolis. None of which are in any logic route he could take to get them all.

You can't get to the Sea of Galiee to get to Tyre. And he's a moron if he went through Tyre, then went all the way south again.

He then went through Galiee through the region of Decapolis...which is again impossible.

"We're going through Chicago when we go to Houston."

To bad that ain't what Markie-poo says. Markiepoo says he goes through Tyre (which is not in the correct direction of Galiee) to Sideon to the sea of Galiee through Decapolis. It's not sensical.

No. The people that critique it correctly are the ones that know Jesus Christ and have the Holy Spirit. Your analogy is not analogous (funny). What I was and am saying goes more like this:

No. That's saying only people who know God and Jesus can criticise it correctly, which is a bogus, unsubstantiated, unprovable claim. It's your subjective opinion.

It doesn't matter whether or not you know Christ to critique it correctly. It's irrelevant 100%.

And my analogy works perfectly. Christian Bible is a book of dogma and philosophy just as much as Marx' DAS KAPITAL and COMMUNIST MANIFESTO. I don't have to KNOW marx or be a communist to understand and critique it correctly. It's nonsense and you know it.

You may know how to read something, but that does not mean you know what it means. For example, you may know Greek letters and how to pronounce Greek words, but that does not mean you understand Greek.

False analogy. The two aren't similiar. I know how to speak english, the bible's in English, therefore I can critique it.

If the bible were in Greek, I wouldn't be able to Critique it, cause I don't know Greek. That's not the case, ergo, the analogy doesn't fit.

If I understood English letters and English grammer I can read english words and understand them, thus comprehending the work. The bible is such.

The words of the Bible themselves do not give the meaning of the scripture. The Holy Spirit, which speaks to people, gives the meaning of the scripture through the words.

Unverifiable and unfalsifiable, thus meaningless. The Bible is the "word of God." You don't have to have some magical spirit to get it. ANd you can't prove anyone has it either. It's heresay and...not parsimonious.

Also, please note (as bernee51 often does) that when I speak of Christians, I refer to people that have the Holy Spirit inside them, Temples of the living God. I am not talking about any person that considers himself a christian.

Bernee uses the term "True Christian" when referencing the meaning that I use. If you wish, you can do the same.

No True Scotsman Fallacy.

[hannahjoy]

I looked into this, but didn't think it was really important enough to discuss. Since it has come under attack . . .

I find on looking at my Greek NT that there is a variant reading for this verse - two sets of manuscripts have slightly different wording. I don't know any way to get Greek letters here, so I'll have to transliterate (variant in red).

Reading 1:
"Kai palin exelthon ek ton horion Tyroy elthon dia Sidonos eis ten thalassan tes Galilaias ana meson ton horion Dekapoleos."

Reading 2:
"Kai palin exelthon ek ton horion Tyroy kai Sidonos elthon eis ten thalassan tes Galilaias ana meson ton horion Dekapoleos."

As literal a translation as possible:

Reading 1:
"And again having gone out of the regions of Tyre He went through Sidon to the Sea of Galilee into the midst of the regions of Decapolis."

Reading 2:
"And again having gone out of the regions of Tyre and Sidon He went to the Sea of Galilee into the midst of the regions of Decapolis."

If Reading 1 is correct, He just took a roundabout way. If Reading 2 is correct, He took a direct path.

Hannah Joy