on whether god should be limited on how to communicate

On his blog post, Family ties, Nate says, as a matter of introduction

Regular readers of this blog may know that one of the first lines of evidence that caused me to begin questioning my Christian faith had to do with the Book of Daniel.

Nate’s blog is an interesting read for those who may not have an idea who Nebuchadnezzar was. It is not the interest of this blog. Our interest is a comment by rank apologist unkleE.

He sets the argument thus

1. If the christian God exists, he would communicate perfectly.
2. Such perfection would certainly include the Bible, which is claimed to be his “Word”.
3. The Bible clearly contains errors, including historical inaccuracies and failed prophecies.
4. Therefore the christian God doesn’t exist.

I don’t know if Nate agrees with the conclusion 4. One would easily argue, as apologists have argued when dealing with the problem of evil, that god has its reasons for mishandling matters and this includes communication. While this argument does seem to solve the problem, it creates room for other questions.

For example if we accept uncleE’s claim god doesn’t have to communicate clearly, we should ask

  1. why should anyone be threatened with eternal damnation for acting on their interpretation of the good book
  2. who is to tell the true interpretation?

And if as uncleE insists that scholars, who he seems to name only two, wouldn’t agree with Nate’s conclusions, we must ask why then can belief in the bible stories be restricted to scholars? There is no conflict that is about to arise because two scholars disagree ion how to interpret one of Shakespeare’s sonnets. Lives have been lost on doctrinal matters and interpretation of what the bible commands. I think it is only fair to ask that these matter be addressed conclusively.

The author of Supernatural Religion wrote

Christianity professes to be a Divine revelation of truths which the human intellect could not otherwise have discovered. It is not a form of religion developed by the wisdom of man and appealing to his reason, but a system miraculously communicated to the human race, the central doctrines of which are either superhuman or untenable. If the truths said to be revealed were either of an ordinary character or naturally attainable, they would at once discredit the claim to a Divine origin. No one could maintain that a system discoverable by reason would be supernaturally communicated. The whole argument for Christianity turns upon the necessity of such a revelation, and the consequent probability that it would be made.

And I think this is enough in answering the claims uncleE raises on inspiration or divine revelation.

I take issue with this comment

finally you dispose of a real problem for your argument with the statement “It’s a shame that God didn’t preserve his word in a language that would eliminate this kind of confusion, but there you go.” which is unworthy of your usual high standards of accuracy and fairness, and dodges rather than explains the difficulty.

by uncleE because Nate, in my view, doesn’t dodge the question but is expressing a valid opinion. Inquiring minds want to know why god has not been keen to say the correct message, especially in a field with so many contenders and which translation is divinely approved.

I am hoping unclE will be kind enough to tell us what the thoughtful Christians believe and how we should name them. Maybe from his exposition we should also help him and the rest of their group correct all the other misguided lot. I could do this free, you know.

About makagutu

As Onyango Makagutu I am Kenyan, as far as I am a man, I am a citizen of the world

33 thoughts on “on whether god should be limited on how to communicate

  1. john zande says:

    He’s not worth the time it takes to get frustrated with him.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. archaeopteryx1 says:

    http://i887.photobucket.com/albums/ac73/archaeopteryx1/unklee.jpg Don’t get him started over here! Ah’m beggin’ya!


  3. archaeopteryx1 says:

    Try it again —


  4. Nate says:

    Thanks for linking to me, mak! And great post.

    Personally, I think the moderate Christian position that the Bible can be inspired but still contain errors is one of those positions that only arises out of necessity. The default assumption would be that if God decided to tell us something, we could trust him on it. The fact that we can’t do that with the Bible suddenly created this movement that said, “oh, we didn’t need inerrancy anyway.” On top of that, it’s then presented as the more intellectual approach.

    Don’t get me wrong — I prefer moderate Christians to fundamentalists, but their view on inspiration and inerrancy is just something I’ve never been able to figure out.

    Liked by 2 people

    • Arkenaten says:

      Not surprising then how the ”intellectual approach” produces sycophant individuals like dear unklee, who believe that using any means possible to justify their presuppositional beliefs is a sure sign of integrity and intellectualism.


      • Nate says:

        As you know, I don’t really see him that way. I think he’s sincere. I actually like him, despite our areas of disagreement. Not trying to change your mind, of course. Just going on the record.


        • Arkenaten says:

          Oh, I know how you feel,Nate.

          But he is no less a presuppositionalist than any biblical literalist. In fact he is worse as he will only use the parts of Christian theology that fit comfortably with his own personalized worldview and as long as he swears by Yeshua, confirms Yeshua is the only way to salvation then anything else can be taken with a pinch of salt. While at the same time refusing to accept that this belief has no more merit in evidence than a Creationist assertion in a six day creation and Noah’s Ark.
          And this is why I consider he should not be afforded any more respect than a Creationist.


      • archaeopteryx1 says:

        I can’t stand him either. Give me a good, old-fashioned Fundy, like Colorstorm, with his black and white viewpoint anytime – at least while I’m talking to one, I know where I stand, and I don’t feel a compulsive need to keep one hand on my wallet.

        Liked by 1 person

      • makagutu says:

        You can always say scholars agree and never mention them. If you mention them, they are two


        • Arkenaten says:

          He has in the past cited the supposed Resurrection consensus as put forward by Habermas, and quoted by many scholars including the likes of Licona.
          I went to the link he provided re: the Exodus but there really is nothing new it seems.
          Yet he has told me his faith does not even rest on the Exodus.
          So many ”thoughtful Christians” use a similar approach to their faith, but the bottom line is, it is all hogwash. They just want to be seen as some sort of Upper Class intellectual christian so at to completely disassociate with Creationists.
          As if the Resurrection is intellectual. lol.

          Liked by 1 person

          • makagutu says:

            At least with Ham you know Genesis is the all he needs. If it ain’t covered in Genesis, it’s irrelevant.
            With uncleE, you have to be on high alert always with his claims for scholarship consensus. I want scholarship consensus on whether Jonah swallowed the fish or whether the zombies are still with us.


    • makagutu says:

      On what grounds would you think the moderate christian position is the more tenable one? Is it because a few of them find the whole thing repugnant to the senses?
      Were the errors inspiration errors or errors of transmission? How can we tell?


  5. Good post. Like the bible, I, too, am divinely inspired. Soon, I will present the one true reading of the bible and all questions regarding its inerrancy or lack thereof shall be answered. I’ll do this as soon as I get back from the vacation I’m taking in a timeless, spaceless, limitless, invisible realm that exists outside of existence. See you soon. If you’re nice, I’ll send you a postcard.

    Liked by 1 person

    • makagutu says:

      Oh yes, we are aware of your inspiration and hope this year you will grow an inch taller.
      Please send me two invisible postcards from timeless and space-less place. Don’t mess yourself with any ink

      Liked by 1 person

  6. archaeopteryx1 says:

    OK – I have an announcement, and I want Ark, Neuronuts and Nan to all get together, and give out a big ‘Nelson Muntz’ “HA! HA!” —

    I have contracted this day for a new website, which it will likely take weeks to get ready, but the kicker is (fanfare please —): it is a WordPress product!

    Go ahead, knock your selves out!


  7. “thoughtful Christian” = invented a God based on him/herself.


We sure would love to hear your comments, compliments and thoughts.

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s