Maybe He's lying?

[aiki]

Originally Posted by aiki

Quite right - which is why God hasn't just left us with "because I said so." No, God has done more than merely say that we ought to trust Him. He has entered human history as one of us and died on a cross to save us from our sin. In this God has given us the ultimate demonstration of His love for us and the quality of His character.
​

In order to believe, "dies on a cross to save us form our sins", you have to believe the Bible.

Yes, that's right. And as both secular and religious historians have stated, there is excellent reason to consider the eye-witness testimony of Christ's death and resurrection as highly reliable and accurate. Check out Dr. Gary Habermas's book "The Historical Jesus" for an exhaustive detailing of the historical basis for the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

If you are believing the Bible as true, then you have to accept that God (essentially) wrote it. Naturally, you can't accept something as true, unless you accept the source saying it (happened for those reasons) is truthful.

You can't say the source is truthful, only using evidence that declares that it is truthful.

Do you have some good reason to doubt the veracity of Scripture? Apart from your obvious personal antagonism toward theism, I mean? Archaeology has established again and again the accuracy of the biblical record. The writers themselves are often eye-witnesses to the events they recount. Unless you can show good cause to doubt the veracity of Scripture, I don't see why it should be automatically held in doubt.

That means you can't use any source in as an example for validating the claim. ("died on a cross to save us from our sin").

I have in Scripture eye-witness testimony to the event of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. Your doubt doesn't trump such powerful testimony, I'm afraid. The record of Christ's death and resurrection has been examined every which way imaginable. Every conceivable rational alternative and objection to the account of the Gospels has been made and answered.

Which leads back to my question, how do you know he wan't lying about who he says he is?

You really haven't offered any good reason to think God is lying. In contrast, I have pointed to quite a number of reasons why I believe God is dealing with me straightforwardly and honestly, not least of which is my own daily personal experience of God's goodness and love.

Originally Posted by aiki

We can trust a God who is willing to go to such lengths on our behalf.
​

He could have any number of reasons or ulterior motives to do so.

Your trust is unfounded and clouded by your interpretation.

Not every possibility is probable. Being able to conceive of God having an ulterior motive doesn't mean He actually has one. God has declared openly what His motive for dying for us was. As far as I'm concerned, His sacrificial death on my behalf warrants my trust.

Your mistrust is unfounded and clouded by your interpretation.

Again, you are reaching a conclusion based on your preconceived notion about who God is, based on what he said he was.

The record of Scripture is more than just what God said. It also records what He did. By itself, a statement by God about His motives and character would be suspect. But in the accounts of Scripture God also acts and in so doing demonstrates that what He says about Himself is true. And what God proved in action to those who wrote the Scriptures He is still proving today in His actions toward every one of His children.

As to the matter of "preconceived notions" I can only say that you are no less ordered by them than I. Be careful you aren't the pot calling the kettle black.

And yet, again, he could be lying or misleading you the whole time and you wouldn't know otherwise.

LOL! He could be doing any number of bizarre and/or deceitful things, but, again, being able to conceive of these possibilities doesn't automatically make them legitimate or probable. Until you can provide a reasonable basis for believing God is lying, the possibility that He might be remains irrelevant. The Queen of England could be an alien, she could be a Satan-worshipping cat-eater, she could be a Russian spy. I can imagine these things might be true, but that doesn't make any of them actually true.

If God is fulfilling His promises to me and showing me every day His love and patience and mercy, what possible reason would I have to think He isn't loving, patient and merciful? If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

Selah.

 

[Non sequitur]

Yes, that's right. And as both secular and religious historians have stated, there is excellent reason to consider the eye-witness testimony of Christ's death and resurrection as highly reliable and accurate. Check out Dr. Gary Habermas's book "The Historical Jesus" for an exhaustive detailing of the historical basis for the life, death and resurrection of Christ.

Well, eye-witness of his death and resurrection just validate it happened (assuming we are gonna accept it for the sake of argument).

Saying God had some part in the resurrection, assumes.
And again, we get back to you can't know that he was telling the truth.

An american evangelical Christian apologist talking about the resurrection of Jesus validates it because... he is a american evangelical Christian apologist.

And?


Please, direct me to one secular historian who asserts that it was the Christian God is the explanation for anything historical.

Do you have some good reason to doubt the veracity of Scripture? Apart from your obvious personal antagonism toward theism, I mean? Archaeology has established again and again the accuracy of the biblical record. The writers themselves are often eye-witnesses to the events they recount.

Yes, I do.

It speaks, in a factual sense, about a lot of things that can not be disproved and then it validates it self with circular logic to seal the deal (I am what I say I am).

Unless you can show good cause to doubt the veracity of Scripture, I don't see why it should be automatically held in doubt.

I already did, several times. You just keep ignoring that.

It's automatically held it doubt, because of its far out claims. Anything that made those claims would be would be automatically held in doubt.

More so, because they are self validating claims.

Are you not going to doubt other religions, because they had religious texts that had historical facts, as well?

Just because there were historical facts in the Bible, doesn't mean everything else it said had to be true.

Are you really this illogical?


It speaks, in a factual sense, about a lot of things that can not be disproved and then it validates it self with circular logic to seal the deal (I am what I say I am).

I have in Scripture eye-witness testimony to the event of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection. Your doubt doesn't trump such powerful testimony, I'm afraid.

You have religious material talking about the eye-witness testimony about a thing that happened, according to their religion?

You are right, I can not trump such circular-proving testimony.

The record of Christ's death and resurrection has been examined every which way imaginable.

Yes it has.

Every conceivable rational alternative and objection to the account of the Gospels has been made and answered.

Yes it has.

Many answers to the rational alternatives and objections to the account of the Gospels have been not attributed to God.

What is your point.

You really haven't offered any good reason to think God is lying.

Cause he can and you wouldn't know.

That's the biggest reason ever.

In contrast, I have pointed to quite a number of reasons why I believe God is dealing with me straightforwardly and honestly, not least of which is my own daily personal experience of God's goodness and love.

Yes you have.

Because you have established that you believe he is dealing with you straightforward with you because, historical facts prove nothing more than historical facts (find me one secular historian that talks about the Christian God) and he said he was.

Again, congratulations. You illogically convinced yourself.

Not every possibility is probable. Being able to conceive of God having an ulterior motive doesn't mean He actually has one.

And every probable is a possible.

So?

Being able to conceive of God having an ulterior motive doesn't mean He actually has one.

Nope. Just means he could.

God has declared openly what His motive for dying for us was. As far as I'm concerned, His sacrificial death on my behalf warrants my trust.

Right.

He told you what he said he said... and that warranted your trust.

That is illogical and nonsensical. You know that is circular logic, right?

(By the way, using moving words like, "motive for dying" and "sacrificial death" only make things seem more noble, not true.)

Your mistrust is unfounded and clouded by your interpretation.

My mistrust is founded by logic and demonstrable proof of claims.

And I wouldn't wink after making that statement. It just makes you look ignorant of your own logical fallacies.

Still cute, though.

The record of Scripture is more than just what God said. It also records what He did. By itself, a statement by God about His motives and character would be suspect. But in the accounts of Scripture God also acts and in so doing demonstrates that what He says about Himself is true. And what God proved in action to those who wrote the Scriptures He is still proving today in His actions toward every one of His children.

Yer doing that whole, He-said-He-said, again.

LOL! He could be doing any number of bizarre and/or deceitful things, but, again, being able to conceive of these possibilities doesn't automatically make them legitimate or probable.

Legitimate? Nope.

Probable? Yup.

Until you can provide a reasonable basis for believing God is lying, the possibility that He might be remains irrelevant. The Queen of England could be an alien, she could be a Satan-worshipping cat-eater, she could be a Russian spy. I can imagine these things might be true, but that doesn't make any of them actually true.

Your failure at analogies makes me giggle.

When the Queen of England starts saying she made everything and is omnipresent, then I might start wanting to see some examples.

If God is fulfilling His promises to me and showing me every day His love and patience and mercy, what possible reason would I have to think He isn't loving, patient and merciful?

God is fulfilling the promises God told you was fulfilling.

What makes you keep using this circular logic as examples?

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...

... but can't be seen, touched, heard by all and claims it made everything?

The answer is, "It might be a duck."

Thought I'd help you accurately finish that thought

 

[razeontherock]

Was there a book handed out to Christians on how to not answer questions?

I didn't ask what your long road was.

I just asked how do you know he isn't lying to you?

Abysmul's answer was actually very responsive, and intelligible.

The issue you are probing is TRUST.

 

[razeontherock]

Well, eye-witness of his death and resurrection just validate it happened (assuming we are gonna accept it for the sake of argument).

Saying God had some part in the resurrection, assumes.
And again, we get back to you can't know that he was telling the truth.

Cold hard logic correctly calculates this. You have absolutely no reproof, nor reasonable objection. The best you can conjure up is a misconception of G-d.

Any way you slice it, Christianity really does hang entirely on the resurrection. W/o that, it all comes down like a house of cards.

 

[Non sequitur]

Abysmul's answer was actually very responsive, and intelligible.

The issue you are probing is TRUST.

Potato, potato.

I guess it would have been more effective if you heard it...

Cold hard logic correctly calculates this. You have absolutely no reproof, nor reasonable objection. The best you can conjure up is a misconception of G-d.

I've named my reasonable objections. Something that has the ability to make such claims, as true at that, should reasonable be questioned.

I think your current (mis?)conception of him, leads you down the path of not seeing a need to...

Any way you slice it, Christianity really does hang entirely on the resurrection. W/o that, it all comes down like a house of cards.

Sweet.

Where do you get your non-circular and/or non-religious proof for the resurrection?

 

[razeontherock]

I've named my reasonable objections. Something that has the ability to make such claims, as true at that, should reasonable be questioned.

I think your current (mis?)conception of him, leads you down the path of not seeing a need to...

Sorry but your thinking is in error. What could possibly possess you to conclude I have not questioned? That could be seen as ... incredibly insulting.

Where do you get your non-circular and/or non-religious proof for the resurrection?

Straight from the source, and hot off the press.

Next question?

No, Christians don't rely on a book. We rely on Christ. The risen Christ.
We KNOW Him.

 

[Non sequitur]

Straight from the source, and hot off the press.

Next question?

No, Christians don't rely on a book. We rely on Christ. The risen Christ.
We KNOW Him.

And how did you know of a Christ, to know in? Who told you about this Christ?

 

[razeontherock]

The guy giving me a ride home. Seriously. It was about 2 AM, in 1981. After I got home I prayed in private, and the Lord showed up. Miraculously. Hasn't left me since.

 

[Non sequitur]

The guy giving me a ride home. Seriously. It was about 2 AM, in 1981. After I got home I prayed in private, and the Lord showed up. Miraculously. Hasn't left me since.

So, prior to this guy, did you have any knowledge of this Christ?

 

[aiki]

Well, eye-witness of his death and resurrection just validate it happened (assuming we are gonna accept it for the sake of argument).

Saying God had some part in the resurrection, assumes.
And again, we get back to you can't know that he was telling the truth.

Is it a reasonable assumption? I think so. Resurrection is a supernatural event, after all.

An american evangelical Christian apologist talking about the resurrection of Jesus validates it because... he is a american evangelical Christian apologist.

No, he is able to validate historically Christ's death, burial and resurrection because the available facts permit him to do so. His being a Christian doesn't make the facts any more or less than they are.

Please, direct me to one secular historian who asserts that it was the Christian God is the explanation for anything historical.

LOL! They wouldn't be secular if they held this view, would they?! What many secular historical scholars do admit is that Christ actually lived, was crucified and truly died, and hundreds of his followers believe they saw him alive again after he lay three days in a tomb. They were so convinced of Christ's resurrection, in fact, that they were willing to give their lives in proclamation and defense of it.

Yes, I do.

It speaks, in a factual sense, about a lot of things that can not be disproved and then it validates it self with circular logic to seal the deal (I am what I say I am).

Example please.

I already did, several times. You just keep ignoring that.

It's automatically held it doubt, because of its far out claims. Anything that made those claims would be would be automatically held in doubt.

I haven't ignored anything. You simply haven't been specific. Its hard to discuss vague generalities...

Far out claims? Says who? It seems perfectly normal to me to see a supernatural God acting in supernatural ways. The sometimes extraordinary events related to us in Scripture are perfectly in keeping with the extraordinary God who performs them.

Just because there were historical facts in the Bible, doesn't mean everything else it said had to be true.

No, but its accuracy on these many historical points ought to lend to it a certain degree of credibility.

Are you really this illogical?

*sigh* This kind of pugnacity doesn't make you seem like much of an "explorer of Christianity." Are you just looking for a fight?

You have religious material talking about the eye-witness testimony about a thing that happened, according to their religion?

You are right, I can not trump such circular-proving testimony.

Eye witness testimony is eye-witness testimony regardless of its source. The fact of the matter is, that the men who wrote the Gospel accounts were Jews who, as a rule of doctrine, did not believe in bodily resurrection of anyone until the Messianic Age. They certainly did not believe the Messiah himself would be resurrected! Therefore, they had no religious motive to proclaim Christ resurrected. Doing so would run contrary to what they believed as born-and-bred Jews.

As well, the men who claimed to have seen Jesus alive after his death by crucifixion not only wrote about it but gave their lives in defense of their claim. This strongly suggests that as incredible as their testimony was they were utterly convinced of its truth. As far as I'm concerned, their willingness to pay the ultimate price in defense of their claim of Christ's resurrection dissolves any charge that they were lying.

Many answers to the rational alternatives and objections to the account of the Gospels have been not attributed to God.

What is your point.

Read Habermas's book and you'll see.

Cause he can and you wouldn't know.

That's the biggest reason ever.

LOL! This is no reason at all! "Could" does not equal "does."

Because you have established that you believe he is dealing with you straightforward with you because, historical facts prove nothing more than historical facts (find me one secular historian that talks about the Christian God) and he said he was.

Again, congratulations. You illogically convinced yourself.

You are so quick to make statements from ignorance! Wow! Really, your statement above makes almost no sense. I believe God is good and honest because He is that way with me every day. When He is not, I will have cause to doubt as you do. Until then, it is perfectly reasonable, in light of my positive daily experience of God, to trust Him.

"Historical facts prove nothing more than historical facts" is a statement of the obvious. It is historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was buried. Multiple eye-witness accounts indicate that he was raised up from the dead. Thus, I have perfectly reasonable grounds to believe Jesus was who he said he was: the Son of God.

Not every possibility is probable.

And every probable is a possible.

So?

What does this have to do with what I wrote?

Being able to conceive of God having an ulterior motive doesn't mean He actually has one.
​

Nope. Just means he could.

*shrugs* So?

He told you what he said he said... and that warranted your trust.

That is illogical and nonsensical. You know that is circular logic, right?

This makes no sense. Probably because you aren't actually considering what I'm writing.

Yer doing that whole, He-said-He-said, again.

Your inability to see beyond your closed and confused perspective is astounding! You really believe you understand what you're talking about, don't you? I think you need to carefully re-read what I wrote because you're missing my points completely.

Legitimate? Nope.

Probable? Yup.

It'll take more than your say so to make it so.

Your failure at analogies makes me giggle.

When the Queen of England starts saying she made everything and is omnipresent, then I might start wanting to see some examples.

Your failure to understand the point of my analogy makes me wonder if I'm wasting my time. I wasn't comparing the Queen of England to God; I was demonstrating how simply imagining a thing to be possible doesn't make it so and is, as a baseless fiction, utterly irrelevant to the matter of the person or thing in question.

God is fulfilling the promises God told you was fulfilling.

What makes you keep using this circular logic as examples?

I'm not arguing circularly; you are seriously misapplying the idea of circular argumentation. If God makes me a promise and then fulfills it, it is not circular arguing to assert that God has fulfilled His promise. My own experience bears out what God has done, not just His claim that He has fulfilled his promise. You really aren't thinking through what you are writing.

If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
​

... but can't be seen, touched, heard by all and claims it made everything?

The answer is, "It might be a duck."

Thought I'd help you accurately finish that thought

Again you have missed my point. I wasn't arguing for God's existence, which is how you appear to have taken my comments about the proverbial duck. I was pointing out that if my experience of God is that He is good and kind and patient, then it makes perfect sense that that is how He is. And, just to be clear, my experience of God isn't limited to what I read in my Bible about Him. God has answered a countless number of my prayers; He has imparted grace, and peace, and patience to me in moments when I was angry, fearful and impatient; He has given me strength to withstand temptation and a sense of His love and presence that swells my heart near to bursting. God isn't just words on a page, but a Person with whom I interact every day. In the end, it is through this daily personal experience of Him that I know I can trust Him. No doubt you may have can diminish the wonder and joy of the history I have with my Maker.

Selah.

 

[Non sequitur]

I'm gonna have to boil all this down, as it is senseless to respond to everything.

What many secular historical scholars do admit is that Christ actually lived, was crucified and truly died, and hundreds of his followers believe they saw him alive again after he lay three days in a tomb. They were so convinced of Christ's resurrection, in fact, that they were willing to give their lives in proclamation and defense of it.
As far as I'm concerned, their willingness to pay the ultimate price in defense of their claim of Christ's resurrection dissolves any charge that they were lying.

It is historical fact that Jesus lived, died and was buried. Multiple eye-witness accounts indicate that he was raised up from the dead. Thus, I have perfectly reasonable grounds to believe Jesus was who he said he was: the Son of God.

That's illogical...

You are positioning it as an all-or-nothing argument, with emotions used to validate it.

People were willing to die for an idea or cause only proves that they believed in it that much, not that what they were believing in was real.

Their willingness to die doesn't validate their claim in any way.


I'll make it simple, for the both of us, so you don't have to respond to anything but one question.

Do you believe the Bible is the word of your god?

 

[razeontherock]

So, prior to this guy, did you have any knowledge of this Christ?

Can't answer that question as worded. "Knowledge" as it's commonly used, referring to intellect only? Sure. Made no difference. "Knowledge" in the Biblical sense, that actually matters? Nope.

 

[Non sequitur]

Can't answer that question as worded. "Knowledge" as it's commonly used, referring to intellect only? Sure. Made no difference. "Knowledge" in the Biblical sense, that actually matters? Nope.

Ok.

So, you had heard the story of Christ and heard of the Bible's claims?

 

[razeontherock]

Sure. Learned how to read by reading the Bible.

 

[Non sequitur]

Sure. Learned how to read by reading the Bible.

Ok.

Did you ever read any books that eluded to or spoke of Christianity, as being the truth, that did not reference or mention the Bible in some way?

 

[Emmy]

Dear Non-sequitur. You seem to have given much thought to your question. If perhaps He is lying, who do you think He is? Why should He lie? And what do you think made our World liveable, and put order into it all? If not God, it cannot have come from Nothing, or unformed Chaos? We being here today, and gone tomorrow. What dreadful thoughts, Non- sequitur. I know where I came from, and I know where I am going, can you think of something/someone better? I say this humbly and with love. Greetings from Emmy, sister in Christ. P.S. We know that we are the only beings in this Universe who can think and reason. We know Good from Bad, and Truth from Lie.

 

[Biker Angel]

Of course you are met with a myriad of questions. It surprises you?

What would prompt you to ask this?

Maybe He's lying?

Surely there was "something" that prompted it? Did the question come to mind as you were reading the Bible?

What is your question based on? An experience? A troubling scripture? Wondering if this "mythical" God is real enough to even wonder if HE exists, and if so, that He "lied"?

I don't wonder if Zeus "lied", but that is because i don't believe he was ever "real". I dismiss thoughts of him as i do with other fleeting thoughts of things that are not real. On the other hand, i DO wonder about things that are "real". I "ponder" over them.

Good Point brinny In my opinion, the OP has come here to just argue his atheistic talking points, and never has had the intention of learning about God and Christianity. He has started many threads here in Exploring Christianity full of such example of his rejection of Christianity thru his logical reasoning. All we can do is pray for him.

 

[Non sequitur]

Dear Non-sequitur. You seem to have given much thought to your question.

Thanks.

If perhaps He is lying, who do you think He is? Why should He lie?

I have no idea, but that isn't relevant.

Think about it: Have you ever known the reason someone was lying to you, before you knew that they were lying to you?

No, you can't.

And what do you think made our World liveable, and put order into it all? If not God, it cannot have come from Nothing, or unformed Chaos?

Not knowing one or several things, does not make another specific thing the only answer.

People once probably said, "What do you think keeps us from falling of the Earth, but the earth being flat?"

That did no more than arrive at a conclusion, not the fact that the earth was flat of any number of other things it could have been.

We being here today, and gone tomorrow. What dreadful thoughts,

Or you could say they are real possibilities.

Appealing to emotions only stir emotions and the imagination. They don't prove or disprove anything.

Politicians use that to get people to vote for them.

Non- sequitur. I know where I came from, and I know where I am going, can you think of something/someone better?

You came from your mother and are going into the ground, to provide nutrients for other life to grow and start the process over again.

That's a rather beautiful cyclical thought.


And again, appealing to emotions.

Not thinking of a better alternative, which one could easily do without the need for the Christian God, only leaves the realm of every other conceivable possibility.

We know that we are the only beings in this Universe who can think and reason.

No we don't and nobody has been able to prove that statement.

The inability to prove something at one specific time, does not mean that it must always hold true.

You don't know what you don't know.


We didn't know anything about Saturn, prior to our knowledge of it. Doesn't mean it didn't exist, before we knew.

(And I don't count a circular book as your source. Books were written previously about there being nothing outside the earth and our sun and moon, but we know that that is not the case now.)

 

[Non sequitur]

Good Point brinny In my opinion, the OP has come here to just argue his atheistic talking points, and never has had the intention of learning about God and Christianity. He has started many threads here in Exploring Christianity full of such example of his rejection of Christianity thru his logical reasoning. All we can do is pray for him.

That is the very reason I am here.

"Look non sequitur. All you are doing is asking questions or arguing your logical thought processes, in my opinion, and I don't think you really care to learn about me and the True God."

Would your Jesus make such statements and/or conjectures and say all he can do is pray for me?

Did your Jesus just give you a magical high-five for representing him or "keeping it real"?


I think my signature applies perfectly for you.

"I like your Christ, I do not like your Christians. Your Christians are so unlike your Christ."

Is there a way I can bless or donate you a "WWJD" bracelet?

 

[Biker Angel]

"Irrelevant" "Illogical" "Non sequitur" 'Irrelevant" "Illogical" "Non sequitur"

Did you ever see the original star trek episode where Nomad (pictured above) floats around the ship saying: "Irrelevant" "Illogical" "Non sequitur" that's what you remind me of.