• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

If God wrote a book, what would it look like?

ViaCrucis

Confessional Lutheran
Oct 2, 2011
39,580
29,129
Pacific Northwest
✟814,879.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Lutheran
Marital Status
In Relationship
Politics
US-Others

None of those passages

A) Mention the Bible

B) Say the Bible is to be taken more seriously than anything else in life

-CryptoLutheran
 
Upvote 0

SnowyMacie

Well-Known Member
Apr 12, 2011
17,008
6,087
North Texas
✟125,659.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Anglican
Marital Status
In Relationship

Your point was that God sees clothes as irrelevant, and now it's irrelevant except where it's symbolically important?

I will also point out that after Adam and Eve did eat the fruit, they felt naked and ashamed about that fact, and so God sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.


Except where Jesus charges John to care for his mother, Abram lies to protect his wife, the first miracle of Jesus was likely done a family friend's wedding, etc. Jesus does preach against valuing family above himself, but he also does that for literally everything else in the world. That's really not all the same as what you said in your OP where you called family an "irrelevant and evil concept". If that were the case and family did not matter at all, then I guess it wouldn't be important that Jesus comes from the line of David. There's entire books of the Bible dedicated to counting families and who belongs to what clan and family, and entire chapters about genealogies.


Scripture says that man's heart is evil from his youth. I think you're mistaken about God's law being inside of a natural human heart.

Scripture also says that mankind also has a conscious and knows right from wrong, regardless of whether or not they actually follow what is right.

"For it is not the hearers of the law who are righteous in God’s sight, but the doers of the law who will be justified. When Gentiles, who do not possess the law, do instinctively what the law requires, these, though not having the law, are a law to themselves. They show that what the law requires is written on their hearts, to which their own conscience also bears witness; and their conflicting thoughts will accuse or perhaps excuse them."




None of those passages are talking about the Bible, nor say it should be taken more seriously than anything else in life.
 
Upvote 0

Aelred of Rievaulx

Well-Known Member
Nov 11, 2015
1,399
606
✟19,731.00
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Private
Why would it have to be the most popular genre?
It wouldn't really have to be the most popular genre, but it would have to have been a common genre and all religious saga's and cultic texts which we have from the ancient world are mythical.
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
Your point was that God sees clothes as irrelevant, and now it's irrelevant except where it's symbolically important?

The point is that in a certain place clothing is indicated as irrelevant to God. And, indeed, clothing would be irrelevant to the Creator of the universe.

I will also point out that after Adam and Eve did eat the fruit, they felt naked and ashamed about that fact, and so God sewed fig leaves together to cover themselves.

God didn't sew fig leaves for them.

Except where Jesus charges John to care for his mother,

Christ actually charges John to care for his (Christ's) mother. That repudiates the natural concept of family, which is my point. The natural concept of family is irrelevant to God and actually evil.

1) God values everyone equally since he made everyone
2) God is the only definition of good
3) The natural concept of family involves valuing people unequally, which is why favoritism/partiality is shown to family members
4) The natural concept of family contradicts God and therefore contradicts the only definition of good
5) The natural concept of family is evil (from 1-4)

That's the whole point of Paul calling Timothy his "son" in the Pastorals. Peter calls Mark his son in his letter. The entire point is that the biological concept of family (which is the natural concept) has been repudiated. Everyone is being valued equally and hence everyone is now "son, daughter, sister, brother, mother, father."

In addition, Jesus Christ clearly teaches that family can be an impediment to God. If he didn't mean that then he wouldn't have quite clearly said that you have to hate your mother/father/brother/sister/children etc., in order to be his disciple (Lk. 16:26). You didn't address this nor any other of the passages I quoted in my post.

As far as your remark about genealogies is concerned, the lists of genealogies have nothing to do with the concept of family we're talking about (which involves valuing some people above others) and rather are just talking about who's descended from who. This is a way to trace Christ to David in order to show he fulfilled prophecy, etc.

Scripture also says that mankind also has a conscious and knows right from wrong, regardless of whether or not they actually follow what is right.

If man knows how to do good then God is a part of man since God is the only definition of good. You can't have good coming from outside of itself. The only way to do good is through God, i.e., through obedience to his commands. I would suggest that you misinterpreted the passage you quoted. Remember that Paul can be quite confusing.

"17 And as he was setting out on his journey, a man ran up and knelt before him and asked him, “Good Teacher, what must I do to inherit eternal life?” 18 And Jesus said to him, “Why do you call me good? No one is good except God alone." Mk. 10:17-18 (ESV)

None of those passages are talking about the Bible, nor say it should be taken more seriously than anything else in life.

I think the the "word of the LORD," etc., is the Bible. And clearly he's telling you to take it more seriously than anything else as he's telling you to meditate in it all the time (!). There are other passages that say that it's your life itself. There are curses upon those who tamper with it and you're specifically told that unless you obey it you'll be doomed. In addition, it's the word of the Creator of the universe. I'd say that all that put together indicates that it should be taken more seriously than anything else in life.
 
Upvote 0

Esiar

Esiar the Esiar
Dec 2, 2015
23
4
United States
✟22,868.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Other Religion
Marital Status
In Relationship
It wouldn't really have to be the most popular genre, but it would have to have been a common genre and all religious saga's and cultic texts which we have from the ancient world are mythical.
Mythical isn't exactly a genre, though. It comes with what they wrote about. If it's an old religious text of course it's going to be defined as mythical.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

My thought would be that the very idea that a "god" would decide to communicate through a book is moronic. I'm not saying it's not possible...I'm saying that the god would need to be very very dumb in order to think this is an effective means of communication between itself and its creation.

If you want evidence of this, think of any religious text and then think of all the current and past interpretations of that text. Think of all the ways they differ. Then think of how not just the text...but the very passages within all have different interpretations within denominations.

As a clear, and effective means of communication...writing a book is pretty dumb. I don't see any way around this.
 
Upvote 0

GrowingSmaller

Muslm Humanist
Apr 18, 2010
7,424
346
✟56,999.00
Country
United Kingdom
Faith
Humanist
Marital Status
Private
I have often thought such a book would have magical powers, and glow beautifully.

But we are stuck with books cant agree on. I think each book is a cognitive journey. Where does the journey end and what is the path like?
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
Hi,

Are you saying God can't make his words clear in his book? God doesn't argue over interpretation, human beings do.

Has god made his word clear "in his book"? Obviously not...or there would be only one interpretation.

You're right, god doesn't argue over interpretation...he's completely silent on that issue and all others. Funny that.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married
I think God can make the meaning clear to anyone who's really sincere.

That's nice.

Why write a book or send a messenger at all then? Why not just skip straight to the part where he delivers his message to you (or everyone) clearly and consistently?

There's some rather obvious conclusions here and I'm curious to see if you reach them.
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
I already answered. A book is practical as a record of events that have transpired. It's also practical if you want to show the eternal and unchanging nature of your word (and God apparently does). Remember he says that his words stand firmer than heaven and earth.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married

And yet it's completely open to interpretation...incomplete and flawed.

If you really think it's "unchanging" you need to look more into the history of your book. It's gone through more changes than I care to count.

So those conclusions I spoke of...let's look at some shall we?

1. God doesn't want his word to be "clear" to everyone.
2. God doesn't really care if you get his message partially, entirely, or clearly.
3. God isn't all that effective at communication (I call this the "impotent god")
4. God doesn't write books (and yours isn't his)

There are other conclusions to draw, of course, but those are a good start.
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican

Anything is open to interpretation, obviously. But I would say that God isn't going to withhold the truth from anyone and so if someone really wants to know he'll show them.

But I would argue that Scripture is pretty clear in and of itself. I'd invite you to give examples where it isn't.

I disagree with all of your conclusions. Also, I would like to see examples of the countless changes you claim it's been through.
 
Upvote 0

Ana the Ist

Aggressively serene!
Feb 21, 2012
39,990
12,573
✟487,130.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Atheist
Marital Status
Married


Everything is not open to interpretation.


Look at the sentence above. There is literally just one interpretation of it.

Certainly an all powerful god could've been just as clear as that sentence was in delivering his message to everyone. Yet he wasn't, and isn't.
 
Upvote 0

Achilles6129

Veteran
Feb 19, 2006
4,504
367
Columbus, Ohio
✟44,682.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Non-Denom
Politics
US-Republican
Right, well I hope that you know that when I said "anything" I was using hyperbole. Obviously the Bible contains statements about morality, science, history, symbols, etc. Clearly such things are open to interpretation.

Again, I'll submit that God will make the meaning clear to anyone who sincerely wants the truth. I'll also submit that many of these statements are clear anyway and that they're argued over by fallible human beings.
 
Upvote 0