[Harolinho]

Well God made us as we are, if we chose not to accept Jesus' teachings it's probably because God made us that way. Which can only lead us to the conclusion the Jesus is not who he claims to be... Damn Romans were clever.

[M'Ling]

I think I should clarify what I meant by "fail". I did not mean, of course, that His work was totally useless. Rather, my argument was that, since billions do not accept Christianity, one could not call it a success. The issue is beyond the individual, but rather humanity as a whole; what one person sees as conclusive is irrelevant, as the lack of substantial proof for the resurrection has meant billions have not been saved.

It's also interesting to discuss Jesus as an example for faith. God cannot have any idea what we have to go through in order to believe in Him, as He is the very thing which needs believing. It's for this reason that, if there is a God, which I think there is, He will be more forgiving to struggling agnostics than the major religions may believe.

[Retrodiction]

(Original post by Hylean)
What more evidence do you want? He sent the Prophets. He gave Moses the 10 Commandments. He sent the plagues. He sent Angels. He came down incarnate as Jesus and spread the new Word. He was resurrected. Should the fact these things happened way back when really matter to God, to whom time is infinite and miniscule all at once? No.

That there is cause to doubt is the fault of many humans, as we were the ones tasked with recording these events and we have apparently failed to do so in a satisfactory manner for the modern age. Which is not surprising, given how values have changed over the millenia. Again, He hasn't failed. Moreover, the entire point isn't for God to prove, as that would ruin the entire enterprise. If you thought your children loved you only because they knew that going against you would end in Hell fire, it wouldn't be the same as knowing they have come to you of their own free will. Every parent wants to be loved for who they are, not out of fear of punishment.

It's favouritism based on time of living. It's easier for those who met the prophets and witnessed the miracles etc to believe than it is for people living 2000 years after these events to believe them.

[navarre]

The morality he preached is astounding; however, he certainly failed if his aim was to convince everyone he was God, or even that God exists.

[Xotol]

If God really cared enough, he would have prevented his Word from being translated and editted a huge amount of times. In fact, he would, at the very least, not allow the Bible to contain as many false and outlandish tales as they do today. With the rise of science - which bases itself on evidence - why should we be blamed for putting aside a two thousand year old text that directly contains nonsense like a boat that had two of every animal, and indirectly contains crap about the Earth being 6000 years old, for a system that produces results time and time again?

He has really thrown us in the deep end. The sheep herders of back then were really lucky to see God and his miracles face to face, while we have to be content with a poorly verified book that is supposed to contain the word of the all powerful God.

Either God didn't care enough to ensure we have good reason to believe in him, or he doesn't exist.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Xotol)
If God really cared enough, he would have prevented his Word from being translated and editted a huge amount of times. In fact, he would, at the very least, not allow the Bible to contain as many false and outlandish tales as they do today. With the rise of science - which bases itself on evidence - why should we be blamed for putting aside a two thousand year old text that directly contains nonsense like a boat that had two of every animal, and indirectly contains crap about the Earth being 6000 years old, for a system that produces results time and time again?

He has really thrown us in the deep end. The sheep herders of back then were really lucky to see God and his miracles face to face, while we have to be content with a poorly verified book that is supposed to contain the word of the all powerful God.

Either God didn't care enough to ensure we have good reason to believe in him, or he doesn't exist.

Or, perhaps, Jesus/God (since I'm not overly sure as to who the OP is really talking about overall) knew the tales would enter The Bible and expects us to realise that those tales were not necessarily presented as fact by the original society, and so to attack them for being "outlandish" and "contrary to science" means nothing, as they are allegorical or symbolic?

[Xotol]

(Original post by Hylean)
Or, perhaps, Jesus/God (since I'm not overly sure as to who the OP is really talking about overall) knew the tales would enter The Bible and expects us to realise that those tales were not necessarily presented as fact by the original society, and so to attack them for being "outlandish" and "contrary to science" means nothing, as they are allegorical or symbolic?

That part falls under the 'not caring enough'. He didn't bother providing some scriptural evidence that he exists. If it is indeed allegorical and symbolic, how are we supposed to determine that he exists? He has all the knowledge in the world and couldn't be bothered to divinely inspire his writers to put some of it in and keep it there so that we can at least come to the sensible conclusion that he exists.

All in all, he gave the population 2000 years ago a man who could perform miracles, and expected them to believe in him? Okay, I can live with that. He's given us a book that contains a lot of provably false tales and expects us to come to the conclusion that he exists? ...Why? Because they're not actually meant to be literal and are supposed symbolic. Then how in God's name do we discern that he actually exists? Faith?

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by M'Ling)
Jesus came to Earth, according to Christians, as God's Son. He came in order to 'save' mankind with the gift of the Holy Spirit, and he suffered on the Cross so that mankind does not have to later.
This saving, of course, comes at a price: one has to accept Jesus as God.

Surely then, if God Himself was going to come to Earth to save everybody, He would make sure there was absolute scientific proof he existed so that there was absolutely no doubt as to his Godliness. Basically, if translations and interpretations of the Bible differ, and, therefore, billions of people doubt the Christian God, did Jesus fail in saving mankind? Are billions doomed to die forever due to God's laziness in created 100% evidence that there is something beyond?

Many thanks

Its not the fact that God made a mistake, Its said that He deliberately left it to belief, if there was indisputable evidence then there wouldnt be any need for faith.

[Hylean]

(Original post by Xotol)
That part falls under the 'not caring enough'. He didn't bother providing some scriptural evidence that he exists. If it is indeed allegorical and symbolic, how are we supposed to determine that he exists? He has all the knowledge in the world and couldn't be bothered to divinely inspire his writers to put some of it in and keep it there so that we can at least come to the sensible conclusion that he exists.

All in all, he gave the population 2000 years ago a man who could perform miracles, and expected them to believe in him? Okay, I can live with that. He's given us a book that contains a lot of provably false tales and expects us to come to the conclusion that he exists? ...Why? Because they're not actually meant to be literal and are supposed symbolic. Then how in God's name do we discern that he actually exists? Faith?

And you've missed the point entirely. They're not "false tales": some are symbolical tales containing information on how to act; some are pure historical tales; some are just lists of taboos and how to behave. The fact we can no longer tell is down more to centuries of translation without thought for original culture and linguistic signifiers which would make such issues clearer. Moreover, he apparently did divinely inspire the writers of The Bible to write the books in the first place. I'm not sure what you want, something from our age appearing in The Bible? Why specifically our age? Moreover, he'd have to **** up the entire culture at the time of the writing for them to be able to understand what was going on.

[M'Ling]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Its not the fact that God made a mistake, Its said that He deliberately left it to belief, if there was indisputable evidence then there wouldnt be any need for faith.

But, if God wanted all of his created children to be saved, there would not be any need for faith (belief without evidence). Adam didn't need to have faith, nor did Moses, since they were contacted directly by God. Jesus didn't need faith, since one doesn't need faith in one's own existence. Therefore, why should we need faith to be saved? Is it a game by God to see what happens?

[AverageExcellence]

(Original post by M'Ling)
But, if God wanted all of his created children to be saved, there would not be any need for faith (belief without evidence). Adam didn't need to have faith, nor did Moses, since they were contacted directly by God. Jesus didn't need faith, since one doesn't need faith in one's own existence. Therefore, why should we need faith to be saved? Is it a game by God to see what happens?

Yeah, but god supposedly pledged never to interact directly with humans after the Noah Arch story.

[M'Ling]

(Original post by AverageExcellence)
Yeah, but god supposedly pledged never to interact directly with humans after the Noah Arch story.

Well, I think we know the Noah Arch story is one big exaggeration. Didn't he supposedly live to be 900 years old or something similar? I don't understand, either, why a loving God would destroy everything in anger when, being timeless and omniscient, he knew he would have to do it...

Jesus, part of the Trinity which makes up God, directly interacted with humans as well, so I'm not sure what you say holds water in terms of the New Testament. Why should God get so bored with humanity that he doesn't want a direct relationship with our age, but he does with the one from thousands of years ago?

[Xotol]

(Original post by Hylean)
And you've missed the point entirely.

I have not. I understand what you're saying perfectly. You're the one that hasn't understood my point.

They're not "false tales": some are symbolical tales containing information on how to act; some are pure historical tales; some are just lists of taboos and how to behave.

My whole point is: why did God create the Bible like this? This is his Word; his ultimate source of authority. And he goes and writes a book that has been heavily, and rightly, scrutinised from a literal standpoint.

Okay, I get that it's supposed to be symbolic so a literal standpoint isn't correct. But, if God really wanted us to believe in his existence and he really cared, he wouldn't made this so. He would have slipped in some piece of divine knowledge that indicates to us that the book was something miraculous. Instead he decides to include a tale about every animal being on a boat. That's absurd, and even if it is allegorical, it adds no value to the scriptural evidence of his existence. Even worse, the geneology of the Bible can be tracked to 6000 years ago. That is beyond asinine.

Ultimately, God screwed us over because he couldn't be bothered to give us some useful information about how we can tell he exists. He gave the sheep herders 2000 years ago excellent evidence when he presented his incarnate. How is that fair?

The fact we can no longer tell is down more to centuries of translation without thought for original culture and linguistic signifiers which would make such issues clearer.

And you're acting like God couldn't have stopped this. You're acting like God didn't let it happen this way. We're talking about an incomprehensibly powerful God. This shouldn't be an obstacle. Hey, the Qur'an apparently managed it. I see no reason why the Bible couldn't.

Do you think I'm expecting too much from God?

Moreover, he apparently did divinely inspire the writers of The Bible to write the books in the first place.

Well, yes, that was what I was saying. The only problem is that he couldn't divinely inspire them to insert some useful information that we could use to discern whether he exists or not.

I'm not sure what you want, something from our age appearing in The Bible? Why specifically our age?

No. I want something that would be undeniable, or at least good, evidence that this book is divine. A small scientific fact or a few of them that wasn't known at that time? It isn't hard.

Moreover, he'd have to **** up the entire culture at the time of the writing for them to be able to understand what was going on.

This is God we're talking about, not an infant. And it doesn't even have to be that way. The people of that time just wouldn't be aware that this particularly alludes to anything.

[Bukhatir]

(Original post by M'Ling)
Jesus came to Earth, according to Christians, as God's Son. He came in order to 'save' mankind with the gift of the Holy Spirit, and he suffered on the Cross so that mankind does not have to later.
This saving, of course, comes at a price: one has to accept Jesus as God.

Surely then, if God Himself was going to come to Earth to save everybody, He would make sure there was absolute scientific proof he existed so that there was absolutely no doubt as to his Godliness. Basically, if translations and interpretations of the Bible differ, and, therefore, billions of people doubt the Christian God, did Jesus fail in saving mankind? Are billions doomed to die forever due to God's laziness in created 100% evidence that there is something beyond?

Many thanks

No, He didn't. He expiated ALL the sin of Mankind - ever. Did he deliver Mankind from its susceptibility to being enticed to sin? No. Did he remove the effects of the sin in the world up to that time? No. Did he remove the effects of the sin in the world after His time? No. But He promised that there will come a time when those issues will be dispatched, and sin and its effect - death - will be no more. Just give Him time.

[M'Ling]

(Original post by Bukhatir)
No, He didn't. He expiated ALL the sin of Mankind - ever. Did he deliver Mankind from its susceptibility to being enticed to sin? No. Did he remove the effects of the sin in the world up to that time? No. Did he remove the effects of the sin in the world after His time? No. But He promised that there will come a time when those issues will be dispatched, and sin and its effect - death - will be no more. Just give Him time.

My argument was not "people sin, therefore Jesus failed". Rather, it was that "not many people believe in the Christian God, therefore Jesus failed". My point is that people would sin less if God made the evidence of his own existence more convincing. I don't think I ever disagreed with what you say, so I'm not sure how what you say repudiates my argument.

[roar558]

(Original post by Xotol)
No. I want something that would be undeniable, or at least good, evidence that this book is divine. A small scientific fact or a few of them that wasn't known at that time? It isn't hard.



This is God we're talking about, not an infant. And it doesn't even have to be that way. The people of that time just wouldn't be aware that this particularly alludes to anything.

The problem with having scientific facts that weren't known at that time in a holy book is that if it was too obvious then it would reasonably quickly become common knowledge and so you could not prove that it was the holy book that first contained this knowledge.

However if it is vague or requires prior knowledge to interprete, then people won't believe it's a direct reference and so it wouldn't achieve anything. (This is the sort of problem with arguments that the qur'an contains scientific facts from beyond it's age).

It's kind of a catch 22 situation.

[Calumcalum]

(Original post by M'Ling)
Jesus came to Earth, according to Christians, as God's Son. He came in order to 'save' mankind with the gift of the Holy Spirit, and he suffered on the Cross so that mankind does not have to later.
This saving, of course, comes at a price: one has to accept Jesus as God.

Surely then, if God Himself was going to come to Earth to save everybody, He would make sure there was absolute scientific proof he existed so that there was absolutely no doubt as to his Godliness. Basically, if translations and interpretations of the Bible differ, and, therefore, billions of people doubt the Christian God, did Jesus fail in saving mankind? Are billions doomed to die forever due to God's laziness in created 100% evidence that there is something beyond?

Many thanks

There is rarely ever certainty in science. Most beliefs, though well-evidenced, are eventually revised in some science, and even the ones that aren't are at least potentially wrong.

[M'Ling]

(Original post by Calumcalum)
There is rarely ever certainty in science. Most beliefs, though well-evidenced, are eventually revised in some science, and even the ones that aren't are at least potentially wrong.

Of this I'm well aware. As I've previously said before, I mean scientific proof not in terms of, for example, a picture of the Risen Christ and the Apostles posing outside the tomb with the Churchillian 'V' sign and big cheesy grins.
Instead, I mean scientific in terms of some proof of other contemporaries supporting the Apostles' claims nearer to the event than forty years afterwards i.e. why were more people not divinely inspired by God to support his own existence?
Why should He have to test us to believe in the illogical, when He can have no real idea as to the leap of faith one has to take: he knows all, and therefore knows He exists, and also knows that Humanity struggles to believe in Him. Therefore, knowing this, He would surely, then, produce undeniable evidence as to His existence, in order that we reach the same level of certainty as to His existence? Since so many people do not believe, is this an indication to failure to assert Himself properly?

[cgraham15]

(Original post by M'Ling)
Jesus came to Earth, according to Christians, as God's Son. He came in order to 'save' mankind with the gift of the Holy Spirit, and he suffered on the Cross so that mankind does not have to later.
This saving, of course, comes at a price: one has to accept Jesus as God.

Surely then, if God Himself was going to come to Earth to save everybody, He would make sure there was absolute scientific proof he existed so that there was absolutely no doubt as to his Godliness. Basically, if translations and interpretations of the Bible differ, and, therefore, billions of people doubt the Christian God, did Jesus fail in saving mankind? Are billions doomed to die forever due to God's laziness in created 100% evidence that there is something beyond?

Many thanks

Well, science wasn't really a big thing back in the day. Also, the notion of God is to believe, even without proof, so making hard evidence would kind of destroy the whole trust thing. Also, I believe that as long as you live a good life, then you'll be fine. Obviously, the bible was written by people over 2000 years ago, so they would obviously have different opinions and interpretations of Jesus' messages. If you need hard evidence, that shows that you doubt your belief in God.

[cgraham15]

(Original post by Xotol)
That part falls under the 'not caring enough'. He didn't bother providing some scriptural evidence that he exists. If it is indeed allegorical and symbolic, how are we supposed to determine that he exists? He has all the knowledge in the world and couldn't be bothered to divinely inspire his writers to put some of it in and keep it there so that we can at least come to the sensible conclusion that he exists.

All in all, he gave the population 2000 years ago a man who could perform miracles, and expected them to believe in him? Okay, I can live with that. He's given us a book that contains a lot of provably false tales and expects us to come to the conclusion that he exists? ...Why? Because they're not actually meant to be literal and are supposed symbolic. Then how in God's name do we discern that he actually exists? Faith?

Also, much of the Bible was written after Jesus' death. Don't blame the Dude.