Your question was asking me why I assume he hasn't. I never assume he hasn't, I have stated I am not convinced he has. If you have proof/evidence that he has, please provide it. You claim he has, so I asked for an example. — chatterbears

really?

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? — chatterbears

You sure have odd ways of stating you are not convinced of something, the question as you formulated clearly implies this assumption you now deny. If you were stating you are not convinced, you should have formulated it more like : "Does God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of this texts? And if so, why haven't I seen any evidence of this."

Kamikaze Butter asked first, so I answered him. I'm not gonna answer twice on the same question, but I can quote my answer for you, since you were too lazy to read the entire thread:

Example? — Kamikaze Butter


Every time people talk to each other with the result that they better understanding each other. — Tomseltje

People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. — chatterbears

If your claim is atheism - or there is no god. That claim in no way obligates the theist to show proof of God as argument against. If that is your claim the burden of proof for that claim rests with you.

His believers have created wars and segregation throughout the centuries, mostly based on what they think God means or wants for humanity. One church interprets God's word in one way, while another church interprets God's word in another way. In the US, a vast majority of the population are God believers. Many of these people have used their religious beliefs to enact laws that discriminate against people, based on what they think God wants. — chatterbears

2 points, first is there has also been evil caused in the world in the name of atheism. Secondly, religion is an act of man, not an act of God, and as such is subject to all the inherent errors that entails.

lastly - the concept of a hidden God is well argued. The usual answer back is there is more value to us - the creature. What we consider valuable traits such as Faith, Charity, Chastity, Love of neighbor etc lose value if done on some guarantee of an eternal hereafter of bliss. It becomes a transaction , base.

For clarification purposes, are you Christian? My question/statement was still not addressed. It blatantly clear that the old testament endorses slavery, such as in Exodus 21. And the new testament doesn't seem to have any problem with slavery as well. So as a general idea, the Bible condones/endorses slavery. Correct? — chatterbears

For clarification purposes...

I was raised as a Christian, inherited the value system of mainline Calvinist Protestantism, have been at times active in the church as a believer, but since the mid 1980s have maintained an atheist POV. I have had plenty of quarrels with Christianity. As an old man contemplating his limited future, I don't expect to find any sort of hereafter.

The problem I have with your question hinges on the words "condones/endorses" slavery. If we look at the OT as a product, it reflects the practices of the Jewish community which produced it. In that sense: Yes, the Bible condones/endorses slavery--and a good many other practices which we find extremely objectionable. The Greeks and Romans, South Asians, East Asians, Amerindians --everybody -- has similar problems in their ancient religions. They did -- and approved of -- things that we find utterly unacceptable. For instance, a classical Greek family which went bankrupt generally became slaves as part of the settlement. Very bad practice.

The authors of the OT and NT were, as one would expect, captives of their time and place, as much as we are captives of our time and place. For NT writers (and Jesus, and everybody mentioned in the NT) the Roman Empire was a fact on the ground. When Jesus said, "render unto Caesar..." he wasn't condoning/endorsing Caesar, he was simply acknowledging a fact: the Romans were running things in Israel, like it or not.

What is true of Judaism, Christianity, and the Bible is true of Islam, Buddhism, Jainism, Zoroastrianism, and every other religion: They were all contrived in a time and place, and reflect the prevailing values of that time, and of the principle founders, if there was one. They generally incorporated -- condoned/endorsed -- prevailing values of their time and place into their religion.

Believers in ancient religions frequently find themselves in serious tension between what the ancient religion hatched out, and what modern people find acceptable. Fundamentalists of several religions are having a lot of problems with this. Fundamentalist Christians, Moslems, and Hindus are seriously out of sync with the values and norms of the modern world.

So yes, the Bible endorses slavery; we don't, and the Bible can't be used today to justify it. Stone throwing Moslems are in the same boat: They can't use the Koran to justify stoning adulterers or throwing homosexuals off a tall building.

OK?

In the New Testament, as told by Paul, in Romans, Jesus left behind a comforter, the spirit of truth; the Holy Spirit. To this end, Paul spoke of the children of the bondwoman versus the children of the promise.

Those who were under law; by the book, were the children of the bond woman. A good slave's job is to obey. Their orders depends the word of God, as written by the prophets. The children of the promise, are like grand children of God, who have a family a connection via the Holy Spirit; written in their hearts. As children of God, they have more freedom based on an internally generated creativity, from the spirit, This is based on faith, apart from the law.

What you see is as the confusion in the word of God, is connected to these two ways of serving God appearing so different. The children of the bondwomen memorize the bible and take its orders literally like a good servant. The children of the promise, are like the Grandchildren of God, who are know Papa personally and are faithfully creative with this spirit. The follow their inner voice with faith and often generate unique perspectives that may suit the times and occasions. Both way are considered valid and sometimes, they will contradict each other.

Paul summarizes the value of this apparent contradiction in 1 Corinthians 9:19-23

19 Though I am free and belong to no one; chid of the promise. I have made myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), so as to win those under the law. 21 To those not having the law I became like one not having the law (though I am not free from God’s law but am under Christ’s law), so as to win those not having the law. 22 To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some. 23 I do all this for the sake of the gospel, that I may share in its blessings.

Part of the reason, God allows various ways of interpreting the bible is so the faithful can save some through their inner spirit of truth.

If you ever go to a small independent church, they may be very unique. If you look at the people, their unique path nevertheless inspires some. It is a bridge to the spirit. Become all things to all men so that you can save some.

God already made the path of health, clear in terms of the natural world. He was not addressing the artificial world of medical prosthesis and revisionist history. — wellwisher

But shouldn't an all-knowing God understand that people in the future would have treatment to many diseases? Instead of saying 'Homosexual is punishable by death', God could have simply said, 'Homosexuality may be considered more unclean, so take precaution and be wary."

Seems we are in violent agreement. Well except for that "quite the opposite part" — Rank Amateur

You're still not making sense. What did you mean by "If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing". Please expand and explain this more in depth.

Wow! You really are dogmatic. So if God did put in an appearance, as per your request, you still wouldn't believe in him. — Txastopher

You should learn how to read. When/where did I write that I wouldn't believe in God if he made an appearance? I said, even if I believed/knew God exists, it doesn't necessarily mean I would follow his commands. I believe my mother exists, but I am not going to necessarily follow everything she tells me, especially if she told me to kill homosexuals.

What makes you think that anything god could say would not be open to convenient interpretations and provide yet more material for confirmation biases? — Txastopher

Because if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving, He would know how to communicate in a way that would not allow for interpretation or confirmation bias. If the creator of the universe cannot communicate in a way that we all would be certain of what his message entails, maybe he isn't all that powerful. Also, even if someone still did somehow misunderstand his message, God could confront that specific individual and clear up their confusion, could he not?

If you were stating you are not convinced, you should have formulated it more like : "Does God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of this texts? And if so, why haven't I seen any evidence of this." — Tomseltje

From thousands of different religions, denominations within those religions, different churches within those denominations and different people who believer different things within those churches; it is clear that God has not made his message clear enough. My question is not formulated on assumption. It is formulated on fact. If you want to say that God DOES in fact clear up confusion between believers, you would need to provide evidence for that.

Every time people talk to each other with the result that they better understanding each other. — Tomseltje

This is apparently evidence that God clears up genuine confusion between believers? Really?... So when I talk to my wife about an issue, and at the end of the conversation we better understand each other, that is apparently God revealing the true meaning of scripture to us?

If your claim is atheism - or there is no god. That claim in no way obligates the theist to show proof of God as argument against. If that is your claim the burden of proof for that claim rests with you. — Rank Amateur

My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. The same applies here with Atheism. I don't believe that a God exists, and anyone who does believe a God exists, should provide evidence to support their claim. I don't need to provide evidence for my lack of belief in your God, just as you don't need to provide evidence for your lack of belief in my invisible pet dragon.

Secondly, religion is an act of man, not an act of God, and as such is subject to all the inherent errors that entails. — Rank Amateur

Shouldn't God have created a different system that wouldn't allow for errors by the beings he created?

lastly - the concept of a hidden God is well argued. The usual answer back is there is more value to us - the creature. What we consider valuable traits such as Faith, Charity, Chastity, Love of neighbor etc lose value if done on some guarantee of an eternal hereafter of bliss. It becomes a transaction , base. — Rank Amateur

Secular groups provide Charity and Love of neighbors, so those two are tied to a hidden God. Faith is an ill-defined term, and you would need to explain why it is valuable. Chastity is just a silly way that God/Man tries to control what you do in the bedroom. You'd also have to explain why chastity is valuable, rather than having safe responsible sex that is consensual.

When Jesus said, "render unto Caesar..." he wasn't condoning/endorsing Caesar, he was simply acknowledging a fact: the Romans were running things in Israel, like it or not. — Bitter Crank

This is your interpretation, which still applies to my original post. Let's wait for God to come clear this up for us.

So yes, the Bible endorses slavery; we don't, and the Bible can't be used today to justify it. — Bitter Crank

Why can't the Bible be used to justify slavery? If the creator of the universe gave us a book (the Bible) to live by, and one of the commands is to own people as property, why wouldn't we adhere to his commands? Religious people believe that God has wrote the Bible through man, and that everything in the Bible is good and moral. When believers genuinely believe the things they read in the Bible, they would also believe it is morally acceptable to follow commands in the Bible, such as killing homosexuals. And if this wasn't God's actual message for humanity, I go back to my original question. Why doesn't God come down to clear up this confusion about what his book (the Bible) actually means or is supposed to mean?

Part of the reason, God allows various ways of interpreting the bible is so the faithful can save some through their inner spirit of truth. — wellwisher

This seems like a very dangerous path to truth. If God knows that leaving any room for interpretation can result in the deaths of millions, I would conclude that God is immoral and doesn't actually care about conveying his message properly to humanity.

My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. The same applies here with Atheism. I don't believe that a God exists, and anyone who does believe a God exists, should provide evidence to support their claim. I don't need to provide evidence for my lack of belief in your God, just as you don't need to provide evidence for your lack of belief in my invisible pet dragon. — chatterbears

seems you need to clarify if you are an atheist as below, or an agnostic as above

People think I am Christian, or a God believer. I am in fact an Atheist. My morality is based on secular principles, so I wouldn't adhere to a God, whether he exists or not. I need the clarification, if a God actually exists, for the people who believe in him. — chatterbears

seems you need to clarify if you are an atheist as below, or an agnostic as above — Rank Amateur

Look up the terms yourself, or I can link you here: https://www.thoughtco.com/atheist-vs-agnostic-whats-the-difference-248040

Agnostic/Gnostic are pertaining to knowledge. Atheist/Theist are pertaining to belief. Knowledge and belief are two separate things. So there are two separate questions.

Do you believe a God exists? [ Atheist or Theist ]
Do you know a God exists? [Agnostic or Gnostic ]

You can answer no to both, in which that would make you an Agnostic Atheist. You can answer yes to both, in which that would make you a Gnostic Theist. To give an easier explanation, let me use an analogy I have used before.

If I told you I have a pet monkey; and asked you, " Do you believe I have a pet monkey? " - You would either say yes or no. A different question would be to ask you, " Do you know I have a pet monkey? " - In our daily lives, we first need to believe something, before we can know it. So you may believe I have a pet monkey, but until you see evidence for that pet monkey, you wouldn't be able to say that you know I have a pet monkey. Once you see the monkey in person, your belief turns into knowledge. You would then be justified in saying you believe and know that I have a pet monkey. Now apply the same logic to belief in God.

You're still not making sense. What did you mean by "If God made Himself unequivocally known, Pascal's wager becomes a sure thing". Please expand and explain this more in depth. — chatterbears

I can try - but not sure I can do better than the first time. If God came on TV on every TV in the world and said "I'm God - and now I am going to stop the world spinning on its axis" and it happened/ Than he said all that stuff about heaven if you do as I say, and hell if you don't - well that is all true. Than Pascal's wager becomes bet on God is and act accordingly with 100 % chance of eternal bliss - or bet of God is not - with 100% chance of eternal suffering -

Never mind - whatever you say

even if I believed/knew God exists, it doesn't necessarily mean I would follow his commands. I believe my mother exists, but I am not going to necessarily follow everything she tells me, especially if she told me to kill homosexuals. — chatterbears

Ah, so now you're claiming that whatever god had to say, it may or may not be correct. So this god that you claim not to believe in has, nevertheless, certain qualities that you are sure about. What a mess!

Because if God is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving, He would know how to communicate in a way that would not allow for interpretation or confirmation bias. — chatterbears

Obviously, you exclude yourself from this group since, as you state above, you wouldn't necessarily follow his commands, which suggests that you are either even more all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving than god; a logical impossibility, or that you have grandiose delusions, or that you are a bell-end.

My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. — chatterbears

Yes it does. It's simultaneously on both of you. Your claim offers no new information so we simply don't know whether you have an invisible pet dragon. Drawing conclusions from the existence of burden of proof or from that someone, despite the burden of proof being on them, doesn't provide any proof, is argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Ah, so now you're claiming that whatever god had to say, it may or may not be correct. So this god that you claim not to believe in has, nevertheless, certain qualities that you are sure about. What a mess! — Txastopher

How can certainty about god or any of their qualities be concluded from not following their commands?

Obviously, you exclude yourself from this group since, as you state above, you wouldn't necessarily follow his commands — Txastopher

Which could perfectly well be done while being aware of what those commands were.

How can certainty about god or any of their qualities be concluded from not following their commands? — BlueBanana

The problem is that you can't take an atheist position and make claims about the nature of the deity.

The problem is that you can't take an atheist position and make claims about the nature of the deity. — Txastopher

I'm claiming one doesn't need to. You can choose to not follow someone's commands without making any claim. Do I believe you have a beard? No. Do I believe you don't have a beard? No. Will I go to your church if you tell me to? No. Does not mean I have to make a claim about your beard.

I'm claiming one doesn't need to. You can choose to not follow someone's commands without making any claim. Do I believe you have a beard? No. Do I believe you don't have a beard? No. Will I go to your church if you tell me to? No. Does not mean I have to make a claim about your beard. — BlueBanana

I have no idea what you're talking about.

If you claim that you are an atheist, you surrender the bases on which to make claims about the nature of god. OP claims that god is wrong, therefore OP claims that god is fallible. This is a claim about the nature of god made by one that denies his existence.

This is your interpretation — chatterbears

And just what other interpretation is there?

Why can't the Bible be used to justify slavery? — chatterbears

Go right ahead and use the Bible to justify slavery, but tell us where in the Bible god commanded us to practice slavery.

And it doesn't make any difference -- especially to you, an self-described atheist. True enough, people do now, and have long used the Bible to justify whatever was convenient for them. This is normal behavior -- justifying our practices when other people object to them.

If you claim that you are an atheist, you surrender the bases on which to make claims about the nature of god. — Txastopher

I don't see how so. You can refer to claims of other people or make speculations perfectly well as an atheist.

OP claims that god is wrong — Txastopher

No, just that he thinks so. He only claims they would(/could) disagree. The following

This is a claim about the nature of god — Txastopher

is only true with objective morality, so the claim is more about the nature of morality if anything. You could argue that if God was objectively right they'd convince you so but that feels far-fetched to be honest - then you couldn't really say you'd be following the orders out of your free will.

Ah, so now you're claiming that whatever god had to say, it may or may not be correct. So this god that you claim not to believe in has, nevertheless, certain qualities that you are sure about. What a mess! — Txastopher

What are you even saying? Just because God commands something, does not mean it is correct or moral. What qualities about God am I sure about?

Obviously, you exclude yourself from this group since, as you state above, you wouldn't necessarily follow his commands, which suggests that you are either even more all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-loving than god; a logical impossibility, or that you have grandiose delusions, or that you are a bell-end. — Txastopher

Jesus Christ, you're horribly confused. There are two things here that you are conflating.

1. God's actual commands.
2. God's communication on what those commands are.

#1 is something no one is sure of, because they interpret #2 to mean thousands of different things. #2 is referencing the Bible. God communicated to humans through the Bible, yet everyone has a different interpretation of what God actually communicated. What "group" am I excluding myself from? You speaking in riddles, it's frustrating.

Than Pascal's wager becomes bet on God is and act accordingly with 100 % chance of eternal bliss - or bet of God is not - with 100% chance of eternal suffering - — Rank Amateur

Then you get into the problem of how stupid/naive God really would be, at that point. The all-knowing God, that knows our every thought, would be OK with people faking it, just to get to heaven? This sounds like a very petty God who cares more about superficial nonsense, rather than genuine thought. It would also be out of fear. People would think, "I am scared to go to hell, so I'll pretend to follow and worship this God so I can get to heaven." - That's just ridiculous.

Never mind - whatever you say — Rank Amateur

Instead of acknowledging your lack of education on the difference between belief and knowledge, you reply with "Never mind - whatever you say." - Really?

My claim is, "I do not believe a God exists." AKA "I am not convinced that God exists." - If I told you I owned an invisible pet dragon, and you said you don't believe me, does the burden of proof suddenly rest with you? No. — chatterbears

Yes it does. It's simultaneously on both of you. Your claim offers no new information so we simply don't know whether you have an invisible pet dragon. Drawing conclusions from the existence of burden of proof or from that someone, despite the burden of proof being on them, doesn't provide any proof, is argumentum ad ignorantiam. — BlueBanana

What are you talking about? Explain to me how the burden of proof rests on the person who does not believe the person making the claim. You seem to not understand the burden of proof and where it rests. It rests on the person making the claim, not the person who doesn't accept the claim as true.

The problem is that you can't take an atheist position and make claims about the nature of the deity. — Txastopher

Which is why I can start off the statement with "IF ". IF God exists, etc... I am not making claims about a God I believe exists. I am making claims about what other people believe about a God existing. And my claim would be, " IF God exists, why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? " - For the sake of argument, I leave out the " IF " part of my statement to save time arguing with believers. I'd rather argue about the illogical positions that believers hold in reference to God, rather than arguing the existence of God. There's no evidence to support a God's existence, so arguing that is a waste of time.

What are you talking about? Explain to me how the burden of proof rests on the person who does not believe the person making the claim. You seem to not understand the burden of proof and where it rests. It rests on the person making the claim, not the person who doesn't accept the claim as true. — chatterbears

Depends. By "does not believe the person making the claim" do you mean the same as "believing the claim to be false"? If so, there is a burden of proof on that belief, as a new claim is made and each claim has a burden of proof on it. But if you mean the person questioning the claim has no belief either way regarding the claim, you're correct, there's no burden of proof on them.

So yes, the Bible endorses slavery; we don't, and the Bible can't be used today to justify it. — Bitter Crank

Why can't the Bible be used to justify slavery? — chatterbears

Go right ahead and use the Bible to justify slavery, but tell us where in the Bible god commanded us to practice slavery. — Bitter Crank

You first say the Bible endorses slavery. The bible is word inspired by God, which means God endorses slavery. You say the Bible can't be used to justify it today. I asked why. You reply with "Go ahead and do it." - You didn't even answer my question of WHY. Why can't people use the Bible to justify slavery today?

Here are the verses you asked for.

Leviticus 25:44-46 - Israelites can utilize the full human resources of slaves
Exodus 21:4 - The children of slaves were born into slavery
Exodus 21:7-11 - Parents could sell their daughters into slavery
Exodus 21:20-21 - Beating your slaves, as long as they don't die within a day or two

Moses wrote Exodus and Leviticus. Moses was a prophet from God. So essentially, when you break it down, God told Moses to convey these commands and rules to everyone. And part of those commands were laws about slavery. How to own slaves, how to beat them, different rules for female slaves, etc...

There are also may verses in the New Testament about slavery, but that's not necessary. I gave you verses that command/endorse/condone slavery. So why can't people use the Bible (God's word) to justify slavery?

Depends. By "does not believe the person making the claim" do you mean the same as "believing the claim to be false"? If so, there is a burden of proof on that belief, as a new claim is made and each claim has a burden of proof on it. But if you mean the person questioning the claim has no belief either way regarding the claim, you're correct, there's no burden of proof on them. — BlueBanana

I never stated belief in the claim to be false. I originally stated, " I do not believe a God exists ". This is NOT the same as, " I believe NO God exists " - These are two different claims. Or you can look at it this way.

Claim: God exists
Me: I don't accept that claim as true.

This does not mean I accept that claim as false. It simply means I don't accept it as true. Similar to how you can believe the defendant is not-guilty, but that does not mean you believe the defendant is innocent. There just may not be enough evidence to support guilt, in the same way there is not enough evidence to support God's existence.

Try not to misrepresent my position next time, because you cause more confusion for people reading and replying to me. I'd suggest researching a little more on the burden of proof and how we address belief claims.

I never stated belief in the claim to be false. I originally stated, " I do not believe a God exists ". This is NOT the same as, " I believe NO God exists " - These are two different claims. Or you can look at it this way.

Claim: God exists
Me: I don't accept that claim as true. — chatterbears

My reply was to the example with invisible pet dragon. In informal language as it's commonly used the negation of the phrasal verb "to believe someone" means the same as thinking they're lying, and not that one doesn't hold their beliefs.

I'd suggest researching a little more on the burden of proof — chatterbears

My analysis on the burden of proof is completely valid on my stated premises about what the sentence "I don't believe you" is interpreted to mean.

Instead of acknowledging your lack of education on the difference between belief and knowledge, you reply with "Never mind - whatever you say." - Really? — chatterbears

You appear more concerned with some type of victory, not in some type of truth - I have no interest in continuing such a discussion

You say the Bible can't be used to justify it today. I asked why. — chatterbears

You can not use the Bible to justify slavery BECAUSE the Bible is not a foundational document for any state, with the possible exception of Israel -- and Israel doesn't allow slavery. You can not use the Bible to justify slavery because the Bible is not an accepted normative source with respect to slavery. The Bible is correctly considered irrelevant to any discussion of present day slavery. (All this applies as well to the 17th - 19th century when western countries were engaged in slavery or slave trading. Slavery wasn't practiced then because biblical people practiced slavery; modern people practiced slavery because it was immensely profitable.

In a secular society, religious documents may at most be advisory, but they aren't and they can not be normative. In other words, for western nations it is irrelevant whether the bible endorses or denounces slavery. It just isn't relevant. Secular law overrides any and all Biblical rules.

Further, I don't (and most people do not) accept the Bible as the "literal, dictated word of god". Only fundamentalists accept the Bible that way. Most Bible-using religious people take the Bible as a document which reflects the will of god as perceived by human beings. Some Bible-using religious people accept the Bible as an entirely human document in response to their faith.

I am familiar with the Bible, including the dreary passages you quoted. No where does God say to Moses, "You know, you Jews don't have any slaves. It is my wish that you practice slavery. Go get yourselves some slaves, then my day will be just perfect."

You, as an avowed atheist, have no business expecting people to take the Bible literally. You don't even believe God exists, so you can't seriously think that God had any wishes in the matter at all. If you want to declare yourself as some sort of fundamentalist believer of whatever religion, then you would at least be consistent.

As it is, your dogged insistence on a literal interpretation suggests that you like playing games with literalism. It's a boring game.

Jesus Christ, you're horribly confused. — chatterbears

Yes, I am. Your inability to say anything clearly has that effect.

For the sake of argument, I leave out the " IF " part of my statement to save time arguing with believers. — chatterbears

Try not to misrepresent my position next time, because you cause more confusion for people reading and replying to me. — chatterbears

Other than a series of feeble attempts to save face, you have no position.

Why doesn't God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of his text? — chatterbears

If you were stating you are not convinced, you should have formulated it more like : "Does God come down and clear up any misunderstandings and/or misinterpretations of this texts? And if so, why haven't I seen any evidence of this." — Tomseltje


From thousands of different religions, denominations within those religions, different churches within those denominations and different people who believer different things within those churches; it is clear that God has not made his message clear enough. My question is not formulated on assumption. It is formulated on fact. If you want to say that God DOES in fact clear up confusion between believers, you would need to provide evidence for that. — chatterbears

This response I gave you quoted from was refferring to your question implying that you already established that God doesn't as a fact. When I asked you how you established this fact, you denied you meant to claim this as a fact, hence I suggested a better formulation for your question that doesn't imply this. So I don't see why you start talking about other religions as a response to my suggestion for improving your question.

Now if you come back on your own word, and now claim that god doesn't as a fact, the burden of proof is on you, not me. Now it may be the case that god's message isn't clear enough to you, but that doesn't mean god isn't clearing it up. God acts through people, so me attempting to explain how it works, if succesfull, is god clearing it up.

There is an old joke wich is quite an analogy for your position:
During a flood, an old farmer sits on top of his roof, and the water has risen to his feet. A boat comes by and the people on it invite the farmer to get in. But the farmer sais "No need, Jesus will save me". So the boat goes on to resque other people. When the water is at the farmers waist, another boat comes and the people on board invite the farmer to come aboard. Again the farmer replies "No need, Jesus will save me". So this boat also continues its way to resque other people. When the water is at the farmers shoulders a third boat comes, and the farmer gets invited to come aboard. But still the farmer replies "No need, Jesus will save me". So this boat also continues its way without the farmer, and the farmer drowns. When the farmer sees Jesus in heaven, he approaches him and quite agitated he sais to Jesus "I had faith in you, and you let me drown, how could you?", on wich Jesus replies "I did send three boats to rescue you, but if you are too stupid to get in, what can I do?"

So when I talk to my wife about an issue, and at the end of the conversation we better understand each other, that is apparently God revealing the true meaning of scripture to us? — chatterbears

Partly yes. God is the logos. In that regard, what is worshipped is the human ability to speak truthfully about what they experienced.

Ah, so now you're claiming that whatever god had to say, it may or may not be correct. — Txastopher

I read it as chatterbears feeling that, if God made it clear that She wanted to punish homosexual acts, chatterbears would conclude that God was immoral according to chatterbear's ethical system (eg see Stephen Law's 'Evil God' hypothesis, or this saying that is wrongly attributed to Marcus Aurelius) and would refuse to serve Her.

If we accept the RC church's teachings then we have to accept that it is possible to know with certainty of God's existence and power and yet refuse to serve Her, because that's what the teachings say Satan did.

In principle, God, whether he actually exist or not, can never completely and accurately convey his will to the people. There's an obvious reason to that: because we are human, and human can misinterpret words. Even when scientists explain their own works in completely concise and accurate manner, not a lot of people would understand, much less a general audience.

The old testament itself is known to be written and refined by several people. Considering that translation itself is also extremely difficult to do accurately, it should be expected that something may have gone wrong in the process.

So let's hypothetically say God came to our world once again to clear up the confusion and misinterpretation. There are still going to be millions of people misinterpreting his words.