Is God Omniscient?

mcgarnicle wrote: »

More spefically does God know the past, present and future all at once as is usually contended by Christians. If he is then surely this obviates any notion of context as a method of reading the various biblical writings as, if God were able to know how we would read them today, he would have put forth the writings in a far less parochial and less sadistic way given that he would be at once aware of how the writings would be received where they were presented and also exactly how they would spread and how they would be read thousands of years later.

Surely this then means that God

a) Meant what he wrote literally or b) did not write the bible at all.

No, it would simply mean that God, seeing the future, knew that most human beings would have the capacity to study the context and apply a minimum level of intelligence to distinguish between what is literal and what is a figure of speech. All that is necessary for salvation is there in the Bible and can be understood fairly easily by anyone who is genuinely seeking the truth rather than pushing an agenda.

No doubt He also knew that some people will deliberately act stupid and misunderstand His revelation, or twist it to their own ends, no matter how clear He made it.

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Most humans today may have this capacity but how many years of slaughter has it taken to reach this point? Maybe God should have been a bit more careful.

To believe that you would have to argue that much slaughter has been caused by people who were genuinely interested in following Christ but who honestly misinterpreted Scripture. None of my reading of history leads to such a conclusion.

People have, through the centuries, slaughtered each other for the age old gods of money, political power etc. Often they have, quite cynically, attempted to justify their actions by twisting Scripture. If the Bible had been written in a way that made it impossible for them to do so, then they would have simply rejected it and twisted something else to suit their purposes (the Communist Manifesto, perhaps, as did Stalin and Mao).

Wicknight wrote: »

The (conveniently) ignores why so many have followed them.

You can argue that all of the religious leaders that were involved in the European wars for land and power were actually atheists who didn't believe a word of your religion yet used to to manipulate the masses, but your argument falls down when it comes to the hundreds of thousands of people who followed them into battle. Are you honestly going to argue that none of them believed either?

No, I'm not arguing that at all. But the fact is that the sheep follow the leaders into battle whether the leaders use the Bible, Communism, or anything else as a pretext. Therefore I doubt that a differently worded Bible, or indeed the lack of any Bible at all, would have reduced the net slaughter of history through the ages.

Nor am I arguing that all the leaders were atheists. Most of them were certainly theists. My point is that they manipulated religion to suit their interests, and if there was no religion they would have manipulated something else - as evidenced by Mao, Stalin, Hitler etc.

Wicknight wrote: »

That isn't what the OP is asking.

Actually it is. The OP is claiming that the need to read the Bible in context, and therefore the possibility of different interpretations, has caused slaughter. I am pointing out that any such slaughter would probably have occurred anyway, simply under a different pretext, therefore his point is invalid.

People follow religious leaders into battle because of the fuzzy nature of the Bible in the first place.

Nonsense. People follow leaders into battle just as equally under Communist or nationalistic pretexts as under a biblical pretexts. Therefore if the Bible was incapable of being used in such a fashion it would simply be replaced by something else more convenient. So, again, the argument that the nature of the Bible has caused slaughter is invalid.

I have watched Christians on this forum debate two or more different interpretations of the same books and you guys never come to a unified conclusion. You normally just virtually hug and agree to disagree, which is nice but it does demonstrate that the interpretations of the same text can greatly differ, even among friends. Imagine what they are like between people who don't particularly like each other in the first place

Christians on this forum often claim that one of the overriding message of the Bible is that God wants everyone to love everyone, including their enemies, and that this should deter people from war, particularly war in the name of God. Assuming that is actual supposed to be the overriding message of the Bible, that obviously isn't clear, since there are so many examples of people following the Bible without coming to that interpretative.

It is very clear. The ability of selfish people to deliberately misquote the Bible to suit their own agendas does not alter the fact that any person who honestly reads the Bible with an open mind can see that its overall message is incompatible with cruelty or hatred.

You yourself are a example of this. You consistently take biblical passages where the meaning would be obvious even to a mentally defective rabbit and manage to interpret it in a way that suits your agenda (ie trying to put Christianity in a bad light). That does not mean the Bible is somehow to blame for your wrong interpretations and wrong conclusions about Christianity - that is your fault, and your fault alone. The fact so many other atheists, pursuing a similar agenda, reach similar conclusions does not make your conclusions any more valid. Equally, the fact that a large number of people throughout history, pursuing a common agenda of seeking political power and economic gain, have deliberately misinterpreted the Bible does not in any way suggest that a true interpretation is not easily obtained by an open minded seeker.

Again that isn't the point. The point is why did God not produce a book that was clearer in its central message.

Because God gives us credit for having a bit of intelligence and an open mind. It is not my fault, or God's fault, if you possess the first quality but choose to lack the second one.

Jumpy wrote: »

Then why write the bible at all? Surely sections of it must be immediately dismissed by anyone with any significant intelligence.

Since many people of very high intelligence do not dismiss the Bible then your statement is obviously false.

Jumpy wrote: »

Obviously. Maybe I should have changed that to "A high capacity to reason".

Which would also be false. Many evangelical believers have a very high capacity to reason.

Most of us who have a high intelligence and a high capacity to reason are able to accept that other intelligent reasonable people do not share all our opinions and prejudices.

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Just out of interest what was the message God was trying to give with the following and could you perhaps explain the context I should read it in.

The context, as even the simplest reader of the Bible should see, is that the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Christ and that passage, while of historical interest, has no bearing on how you treat someone today.

I have met many thousands of Christians all over the world and never encountered even one who thought that the passage you quoted gave them the right to own slaves, let alone strike one. The only people who reach such a conclusion are those, like yourself, who are trying to use the Bible to justify their own agenda.

PDN wrote: »

The context, as even the simplest reader of the Bible should see, is that the Old Testament law was fulfilled in Christ and that passage, while of historical interest, has no bearing on how you treat someone today.

Please quote the passages of the Bible where it actually says that

PDN wrote: »

I have met many thousands of Christians all over the world and never encountered even one who thought that the passage you quoted gave them the right to own slaves, let alone strike one. The only people who reach such a conclusion are those, like yourself, who are trying to use the Bible to justify their own agenda.

You are ignoring the hundreds of thousands of Christians who throughout history (up to pretty recently in areas such as North America) who did interpret those passages as being a justification for owning slaves.

When they read the exact same "very clear" Bible as you did why did they not come to the same "very clear" conclusion that God does not want modern people to own slaves.

Are you saying that they were all atheists?

God is everywhere, in our victories and in our failings. Why do we try to objectify / quantify/ justify / criticise that which bonds us and binds us and frees us? Because we're human. That is our failing, and yet our strength. We fight to believe in something (allow it to flourish) or to disavow something (let it wither).

I don't believe in the God preached to us in cold unwelcoming churches. But I do believe that something far greater than the mightiest mind can fathom holds us in the cusp of its hand and wonders why we struggle. He/she/it wonders at what they've created, and nourishes us even as we stab at their heart with words of cold feeling and weapons of science and war.

The sooner we accept that God cannot be caged and studied, the sooner we can live our lives to the fullest.

Jumpy wrote: »

So you are saying that I should accept that people who believe that physical evidence of human evolution was placed there by god in order to test their faith are as intelligent as someone who considers the whole organised religion of any type as war-starting piffle?

No-one has been talking about people who believe evidence of human evolution was placed there in order to test faith. We were talking about people who do not dismiss sections of the Bible. Maybe you should make your mind up about what you want to discuss. Or are you so woefully ignorant as to think that all evangelicals believe that about evolution?

I must say it seems strange that you want to dismiss others for lacking intelligence or not having a high capacity to reason, yet your posts in this thread have, so far, demonstrated neither.

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Ignoring the wars and inquisitions in Europe that were caused by Bible reading one of the main causes of the South being so desperate to cling onto slavery in 19th century America was the explicit approval given for it in the Bible.

Your post demonstrates how interpretation is often dictated by people's agendas rather than the clarity or otherwise of what you are attempting to interpret. This applies equally to history as it does to the Bible.

The reason why Southern slave-owners quoted the Bible to justify their slave-holding was not because the Bible had led them into the practice in the first place, but in a desperate attempt to fight fire with fire. The abolitionists were primarily evangelical Christians who quoted the Bible extensively and effectively to stir up opposition to slavery. The slave owners, in an attempt to fight back, tried to twist Scripture to support their activities. They were singularly ineffective in doing so, as popular opinion continued to go against them, as the ordinary people were not fooled by such manifestly self-serving interpretations of Scripture. Therefore they soon abandoned their attempts at Biblical justification and resorted instead to economic scaremongering, political action, and violence.

mcgarnicle wrote: »

Ok, so informing people that they could beat their slaves to the point of death but it was ok so long as they didn’t die of their wounds for 24 hours was a moral interference?

Firstly, you have deliberately chosen a translation that suits your argument. A number of translations (eg the NIV) render Exodus 21:21 as saying that if the slave recovers and is back on his feet again in a day or two then the master is not to be punished. Obviously it is difficult for us, thousands of years later, to be sure which translation is correct - a point of historical interest, but irrelevant to our daily conduct.

Either way, it was a vast improvement on most contemporary cultures where you could slaughter your slaves on a whim with no adverse consequences. So, yes, it was moral interference.

Well I’m sorry to keep harping on about slavery but this is from the NT and it would seem God still felt it was quite an acceptable proposition:

From the New Testament:
Ephesians 6:5-9: "Servants, be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ”

So in other words, all you slaves be as loyal to your slave master as you should be to Christ himself. What a thoroughly disgusting message.

Your logic is seriously at fault here. The New Testament commands us to turn the other cheek if someone strikes us - but that does not equate to saying that striking other people on the cheek is an acceptable proposition. Neither does the giving of instruction to slaves equate to an endorsement of slavery.

Similarly, a friend of mine pastors a church in Palestine. He advises the young Christian Arab men in his church to keep quiet and not pick arguments when they are unjustly stopped, searched, and roughed up by Israeli soldiers. Is he thereby propagating a disgusting message? Is he approving of the actions of the Israeli soldiers? Of course not. He is helping those young men not to end up getting killed.

The passage in Ephesians is intended to give practical advice to slaves who had accepted Christ. What would you prefer? That the Bible tell them to launch a rebellion and get themselves crucified?

off the top of my head was Zeno the father of Stoicism who was, not only strongly against slavery but also spoke of the equality of the sexes, it would seem he was ahead of God’s time.

Well, since you are talking off the top of your head we will forgive you for forgetting that Zeno was not a contemporary of the author of Exodus, but lived about 1000 years later. However, I may ask you whose approach worked best? Zeno's or God's? I think you will find that it was the followers of Jesus Christ, applying the message of the Bible, who abolished slavery, not any bunch of Zenoists. It is one thing to say you are opposed to something, it is another entirely to bring about change in people's morality.

I’m sorry but this is wrong, the Churches split along geographical lines (indeed the southern Evangelicals were aligned with the Confederacy) there was no more Christian opposition to slavery than there was Christian support of it.

Southern evangelicals did indeed, for the most part, align with the Confederacy - but that is a separate issue from whether they supported slavery or not. Many Southerners did not own slaves and were opposed to slavery, but fought against what they saw as unwarranted intrusion by federal government into the internal affairs of their States. This would be comparable to the many Iraqis who hated Saddam Hussein but nevertheless opposed the US invasion.

Irrespective of what the Bible said, the Southern authorities and the slave-owners were determined to keep their slaves for economic, not religious reasons. They never attempted to use Scripture to support slavery until thet were forced to by the effective use of Scripture by the abolitionists.

As a pastor I have personally seen this unpleasant trait of human personality on a number of occasions. Somebody does something for selfish reasons. When confronted with a Biblical rebuke they frantically search for Scripture to justify their actions. If you show them clearly that such support is non-existent then they quickly ditch all pretence of obeying the Bible and persist in doing what they want to do. If the Bible was worded differently then it might cut out the silly pretences, but it would not stop people doing what they want to do. The issue is not one of interpretation or of understanding - it is one of the will.

Wicknight wrote: »

Why would have it occurred anyway?

You can argue it could have occurred anyway with the argument that the world would be better off without religion, because in that scenario you are replacing Christianity with a non-Christian group.

But (again) that isn't what we are talking about.

In a universe with a much clearer Bible everyone is still Christian, they just have a much clearly Bible, one where everyone understand that God really doesn't want them to start wars or go off killing people.

So how exactly would just as much slaughter have happened anyway?

It would have happened because people are basically selfish. People do what they can to get money and power, and many of them will kill others to get what they want. Such behaviour is clearly contrary to the teaching of the Bible, but people do it anyway. Making the Bible 'clearer' would not make everyone Christian. The Bible does, thank God, make society better by restraining some people from selfish acts - but these are generally only a minority.

This isn't a "the world would be better off without religion" argument. This is a "why did God not make the messages of the Bible a heck of a lot clearer knowing all the confuse it would cause" argument.

Again, assume that the message of the Bible actually is not to go to war with each other. So, why then has so many Christians gone to war with others, including Christians, if the central message of their religion is that they shouldn't

Do none of them actually believe in the Bible? Are they all actually atheists? That seems unlikely.

The reason is because this central message is simply one interpretation of a very fuzzy and unclear Bible, a Bible that allows for many other interpretations.

So the question remains, why is the Bible not clearer.

You can argue that it is perfectly clear to you, but that seems more based on the faith you put in your interpretation. I would be interested if you could easily convince a Christian of another interpretation (a Catholic for example) how "clear" your interpretation at is.

Firstly, I never said the central message of the Bible is not to go to war with each other. While I am personally a pacifist, there are many who believe that a just war (eg to stop Hitler committing genocide, or to intervene in Darfur) is compatible with the Bible's central message of love. Slaughtering people who believe different doctrines to yourself is, however, obviously not compatible with that message.

I never said that those who went to war were atheists. That is unwarranted straw manning on your part. People usually initiate wars for entirely base motives (eg, patriotism, wounded pride, greed). Theists are just as prone to do this as atheists. Then they try to twist Scripture to justify their actions. However, they will still commit such actions even if you demolish their pretended excuses.

I saw this with a guy who professed to be a Christian but wanted to selfishly cheat on his wife. He tried to twist Scripture to justify his affair. Finally, after a long discussion, he freely admitted that his use of Scripture was entirely without merit. So what did he do? He dropped all pretence of obeying the Bible and continued with his affair. A 'clearer' Bible would not have stopped him, but he was not an atheist.

Are you honestly suggesting that Christians would throw out a clear Bible with a less clear holy book just so they can start wars with each other?

If you are using the word 'Christian' in your usual loose sense (anyone who calls themselves Christian) then I certainly am suggesting that. An obvious historical example is Henry VIII who cheerfully swapped Catholicism's clear condemnation of his divorce for Protestantism's less clear approach. Human selfishness trumps cultural adherence to Christianity.

History (and the arguments between Christians on this forum) would disagree with that rather naive assessment.

I will assume you have got confused rather than deliberately being dishonest with the quotes. I said it was clear that the central message of the Bible was one of love, not hate and violence. I have not seen any arguments between Christians on this forum to contradict that statement.

So anyone through history who has gone in to a war based on a religious idea was being dishonest and is actually an atheist looking to put Christianity in a bad light (by what, going to war?)

That is quite a sweeping statement, and one that I think would be hard to support.

Is that 3 or 4 times that you have used that straw man about atheists?

Most 'religious' wars have been about greed and power. The Cathars, for example, were wiped out for economic, rather than doctrinal reasons, as any history of the movement makes abundantly clear.

Yes, how about we skip over the personal attacks for the moment

I don't see any personal attack. It is abundantly clear that you deliberately choose interpretations of Scripture based on how effective a stick they will provide for you to beat Christian beliefs. You do not appear to have the slightest interest in actually discovering what the authors of Scripture actually sought to teach. Do you deny this?

You are basically dismissing everyone throughout history who came to a different interpretation of the Bible as being dishonest or not actually a believer.

No offense PDN, but that isn't that convincing.

No, I am saying that those who used the Bible as a pretext for murder and hatred were dishonest. Lots of us have different interpretations of Scripture that make for interesting discussions but have no bearing on any central truth necessary to salvation.

As to whether you find that convincing - I'll not lose much sleep over that, I assure you.

Well considering how bad a job humans have done by applying "intelligence and an open mind" to how they interpret the Bible, one would think God kinda messed up there.

Only if you believe that truth is decided by popular opinion.

The central message of the Bible is not difficult to interpret if you search for it with an open mind. Neither is it difficult to deliberately misinterpret the Bible if you are determined to pursue your own agenda. Therefore the Bible very effectively shows those who are sincere and those who are not - which may well be what God intended.

Wicknight wrote: »

Funny that I would get confused with something that is "very clear"

Your apparent "confusion" that I was referring to is in misquoting my words, not in regard to understanding the Bible. You have just done it again, and unless you are drunk for the New Year I can only assume it is deliberate.

That wonderful but that doesn't actually mean anything. You have already admitted that your religion condones "just wars" .. where does that leave you.

How many Christian wars have been fought under the banner of being a "just war" carried out for the "love" of ones religion?

I have said that the prohibition of wars is not the central theme of the Bible. I have also said that many Christians believe in the concept of a just war. I have not said that 'my religion' condones just wars. Please stop twisting my words. I, personally, am a pacifist. That is 'my religion'.

Every war, even the nastiest and most pointless, are fought under the banner of 'a just war'. That is because human beings have an almost infinite capacity for deception and self-deception.

In fact that is the whole point. You are saying that these people fight out of need for power and money (strange since most soldiers tend to get neither).

I am saying they fight out genuine love for their religion and the promise of salvation if one does "God's work". How can they think this if the Bible is so clear that they shouldn't do this? But then the Bible isn't clear at all. If you think it define a "just war"

You are twisting my words yet again. What I said was that the leaders who start such wars do so for base and selfish motives. As for the poor sods who do most of the fighting - they just have to do what they are told. A differently worded Bible wouldn't alter that fact at all. Wars took place before people had the Bible, and they have continued as much, if not more, when people get rid of the Bible (look at Stalin etc) so blaming the Bible for wars is not a reasonable stance to take.

Well the alternative is you saying that these people believe in God, understand that the Bible condemns what they are doing, yet they do it anyway.

Happens every day. Do you think theists never commit adultery, for example? That they have somehow honestly misinterpreted Scripture to mean that they can have an affair? Of course not. People who believe in God deliberately disobey God. It's called sin.

You can see what that doesn't make a whole lot of sense. Why would a suicide bomber (yes there have been Christian ones of those to) blow himself up if he knew that God disapproved of this?

Maybe you would cite a source for that claim? I presume you are using the word 'Christian' in your customary loose sense (someone who was born in a culturally Christian country and may think of themselves as a Christian). I am unaware of any case (although I will be interested to hear of any) where any Christian has deliberately killed others & themselves in an explosion carried out for religious motives.

But that is not why then men in the trenches fight PDN. You seem to be constantly ignoring that point.

Their leaders might be but they aren't rewarded with power and money. They are reward with the promise of salvation in the service of their Lord God.

If the Bible is so blooming clear that they shouldn't do this it seems a little funny that they would do this, does it not.

The men in the trenches fight for an abundance of reasons. Usually these have little to do with religion an much to do with conscription, patriotism, nationalism, or a desire to protect their own.

I have never claimed that the Bible clearly forbids people to fight in a war. Once the leaders have started the war then the ordinary person may have no choice in the matter because they get conscripted. They may fight because of patriotic appeals. They may feel that, whatever the reasons for the war, their wives and kids stand to suffer if their country is defeated, so they go and fight. They may feel that as Christians they have an obligation to be good citizens - and that citizenship means fighting for your country in times of war.

But you appear to be deliberately misrepresenting my argument. My point, in response to the OP, was that the Bible clearly forbids hatred and cruelty. The Bible was not intended to produce a utopian society on earth where no wars ever took place.

I know exactly what the authors of the scripture sought to teach. They sought to teach that slavery is fine, and that war in the cause of God is also fine.

That is not true. The fact that you have already made up your mind on that point, but keep coming onto this forum pretending to ask questions, shows that you are just trolling.