Where did God come from S M Lockridge's Unforgettable answer - YouTube

Where did God come from S M Lockridge's Unforgettable answer..wmv - YouTube

Faceplant of the Day - Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Speak for God?

Again JM Green has attempted to come up with an argument against Christianity but only manages to show how ignorant a human mind is without God

The god of the Bible sure has a lot of self-appointed press agents.

In the Old Testament, Moses and the prophets spent a lot of time talking about what their god hated and loved. They detailed what behavior he expected, the loyalty and sacrifices that he demanded, and the ways he would retaliate if not obeyed. They revealed who god wanted killed, and under what circumstances. Whenever God was upset, feeling betrayed, or benevolent, his spokesmen let be known, as if they were divine mood rings.

Notice the unstated presupposition: That Moses and the Prophets offer varying and different messages throughout the Old Testament In other words that the message changed like people's moods change. He offers no proof of this or example where one Prophet contradicted another. Why? Because there is no such example.

In the New Testament, Jesus claimed to speak for God, as did the self-declared, late-to-the-party Apostle Paul. Peter and other apostles also vied for acceptance as their god’s mouthpiece, and the competition sometimes got quite fierce.

Again more assertion and no evidence. Given that Jesus is God, saying that he knows what God thinks and wants would make sense. As for Paul and Peter and the New Testament apostles and writers, we have the same case as for Moses and the Old Testament prophets: the consistency of their message speaks volumes as evidence for single source.

Today, nothing has really changed, except that with the various platforms of mass communication, there are ever so many more people who are eager to tell us the demands of their invisible deity. Lately, their god seems very obsessed with gays, although to be fair, Rev. Fred Phelps has been telling us for quite a long time that “God hates fags.”

"Invisible deity" does not equal "non-existent deity". The Bible tells us what God thinks about a great many of human behavior and activities. Fred Phelps does not epitomize the Biblical message at all and citing him as an example of someone who thinks they speak for God but doesn't fits this article really nicely but notice the vast number of Bible-believing Christians who realize that their opinions and concepts do not line up with the Bible and changes themselves to conform to God's viewpoint. They are out there too right along with the liars and hypocrites

The talking heads of the religious right churn out their doomsday pronouncements like clockwork:

[Go to the original post linked to the end to see the videos cited for "evidence"] For the sake of argument, let's agree that the article's author is correct about the people in the video. What difference does it make? None. Them being wrong does not invalidate the Bible nor God's existence.

For Catholics, the Pope is God’s voice on earth. For Protestants, at the local church level you have pastors telling people what the Man Upstairs expects of them. If you are in a Pentecostal church, it is even worse because through “tongues and interpretation” and “prophecies”, church members will issue spontaneous communications from heaven. This provides an open forum for every narcissistic attention-seeker to run wild. If only I had a dollar for every bogus ‘word from the Lord’ which I encountered over the years…

Anyone who only takes the word of another human being about what God expects of them deserves what they get - nothing. You can know God for yourself and you can check what they say against scripture. That is how you know if it is bogus or not. 

The point I would like to make is: In all of these instances, the only thing we actually have is humans telling us what their god thinks, feels, and wants. Never once do we have a miraculous voice from the sky in which God speaks for himself.

Oh finally there is a point...such as it is. No proof is offered showing us that Biblical revelation is not from God and the assumption being made that the only valuable evidence would be a "miraculous voice from the sky". Why? God does not live in the sky.God is everywhere. And God has already done that. Remember when Jesus was baptized? God did exactly that - speak from the sky - and people Green still reject the message. 

We have lots of press agents, but never once a public sighting of, or statement from the celebrity they claim to represent.

Oddly revealing isn’t it?

Yeah. Reveals a failed epistemology on Green's part. There are quite a few celebrities that are now reclusive and no long appear in public...for years!  People don't go around arguing that they never existed. This is truly a horrible argument.  Where is the "A" material?

If the Christian God truly existed, and wanted to make his thoughts known, he should be able to do that quite easily. I mean, if the aliens in the TV show “V” could appear over 29 major cities simultaneously and communicate a message, then it should be no big deal for a god to do something similar. An unmistakably supernatural communication from Yahweh, which each person heard in their own language, with no middleman, would clear up all confusion sown by competing denominations and theologies.

God has chosen to reveal himself to us the way he has done it. He put you in the best possible circumstances that you could find Him (see Acts 17)  and He has chosen to use the proclamation of the Gospel to draw people to Him If you don't like it, take it up with God. Most denominations are different from the stand point of traditions and worship styles - pick the one that gets you closest to God. As for choosing correct theologies - that is what the Bible is for - read it.

 But it hasn’t happened, and it won’t.

It doesn't need to.

The reason it won't is because the god of the Bible doesn’t exist.

Sure would like to see him prove that. 

That’s why Christians spend so much time speaking on his behalf.

That's not proof. That's completely wrong. Christian spend time talking on God's behalf so that people have not heard about God or know God can know that they are living beneath their privilege. They can have more. 

He is the dummy sitting on their knee, while they play the ventriloquist, projecting their fears and desires and prejudices with a godlike inflection. I think the fact that they talk so much on his behalf is a clue that deep in some dark, repressed corner of their reason, they know that if they stop speaking on behalf of God, there will be a deafening silence.

And then comes the insult. If you think that being a Christian means projecting your thoughts, emotions, prejudices and other foibles on  God, then you are doing it wrong. When I read the Bible and find out what God is like, I find a being wholly different than me and even something that if it had have been up to me would be different. That is how I know I'm not just saying that God agrees with me. He doesn't.  I have to agree with him  and that means changing what I think, feel, and do - and so does everyone else!

I realize that the picture on the left is meant to be derisive, but I agree with it because God does tell us when He doesn't like how we live. It's just that without salvation you are so trapped in your own sin you can't see how to get out of it.


So how about it Christians?

 A simple, modest experiment. For one month, no telling the world what your god wants, thinks, or hates. Also, while we’re at it, how about stopping the dishonest trickery of attributing things that humans accomplish to God – for example when doctors and nurses save a life , you don’t get to praise your Invisible Friend for that.

One month. Let’s see just how much your god can accomplish with no help from you…

God does not need my help, nor anyone else. I have a counter offer. If we can't thank God for anything good or for saving lives in a hospital, then unbelievers can't blames God for any evil and suffering. the  Euthyphro Dilemma and Problem of Evil and  Problem of Suffering arguments cannot be used. I don't think anyone will agree to this because it's the only argument they have although it's completely full of complete and utter failure.

Any takers?

You first.

Debunking Christianity: Why Do Christians Speak for God?