Does God Ever Take Life or Order Its Taking?

[Nessa]

Wow, ok.

Did you miss the part about my talking of potential dangers and that coplans book of course had merit. You are taking what I say and twisting it to mean something it does not mean. It is a fact that some people have this mentality of needing to get God off the hook. Did I ever say that there is never any place for apologetic logic arguments?

[Nessa]

and I never implied that phillip was doing anything

[Nessa]

Kurieuo,

To say you can't have relational responses when you're not physically together is so untrue.

You don't have to touch someone's body, to touch their heart

Don't limit God's love or power.

Even in logical arguments, it's not just about winning someone over with persuasive words.. I think of 1 Corinthians 2:4

Human wisdom only goes so far.

[PaulSacramento]

Look at 1 Chronicles for example, it is basically a lineage telling from Adam to David.
It basically relies on Genesis and kings and is typically regarded as a "summary" book.
Inspired? sure.
Would you say it has the same divine inspiration as the prophesies in Daniel? or the visions of Isaiah ?

Yes, of course. Either it's divinely inspired, or it isn't.

I don't see any of scripture as partly divinely inspired. That just doesn't make any sense. Either the Holy Spirit told the authors what to write, or He didn't. And if He did, then it's inspired. If He didn't, it's not inspired.

Define inspired.
Did the HS "take control" of the writers and editors of the OT and NT ?
Were they "inspired" to write about what they saw and heard and had to pass on?

[PaulSacramento]

"Inspired" doesn't simply mean God approved something or caused it. It may or may not be prophetic or a "Thus saith the Lord." But it most certainly means God wanted it to be a part of the canon of Scripture! It may be a chronicling of evil acts, mere history. But make no mistake, CONTEXT is KING! When so many want to deny some apparent historical revelation in the Bible that is also referenced in the same context in multiple places, one needs to produce a compelling reason as to why that would be mere allegory or metaphor. What I have a problem with is those agreeing about all the things Jesus said about one's need for salvation, but when He also endorses the OT as Scripture or reinforces some passage as history, they cherry pick it as a passage to deny. To me, that is grossly inconsistent, dangerous, and often, self serving.

Agreed and I also agree with your view on inspiration.

[PaulSacramento]

The issue of God taking a life:

We have spoken about this before and the reality is that it is not an issue at all because IF God is GOD and He is the God revealed in Christ as all Christians believe than what does it mean IF God "takes" a life?

It means that life as WE know it is NOT what we think BUT is what the bible and God says it is:
A temporary state of material existence that at the point of what we call death, becomes a state of "life before life after death" ie: the resurrection.

In short, when we die, only our bodies die and our spirit goes to God and stays in a state of bliss ( and a type of sleep) until we are resurrected into our new and "imperishable" bodies.

We have issues with death because we cling on to the notion that death is the end even though as Christians, we know it isn't.

[RickD]

Look at 1 Chronicles for example, it is basically a lineage telling from Adam to David.
It basically relies on Genesis and kings and is typically regarded as a "summary" book.
Inspired? sure.
Would you say it has the same divine inspiration as the prophesies in Daniel? or the visions of Isaiah ?

Yes, of course. Either it's divinely inspired, or it isn't.

I don't see any of scripture as partly divinely inspired. That just doesn't make any sense. Either the Holy Spirit told the authors what to write, or He didn't. And if He did, then it's inspired. If He didn't, it's not inspired.

Define inspired.
Did the HS "take control" of the writers and editors of the OT and NT ?
Were they "inspired" to write about what they saw and heard and had to pass on?

I guess if I had to define "inspired", this link gives as good of an explanation as I could.

[PaulSacramento]

I guess if I had to define "inspired", this link gives as good of an explanation as I could.

That is a tricky one there...

A few issues:
No where does it ever say the bible is without error ( and by that I mean translation/copying errors).
Paul states the bible is "god breathed" ( referring to the HS of course) BUT also states for WHAT purposes:
useful for teaching, rebuking, correcting and training in righteousness, so that the man of God may be thoroughly equipped for every good work.”

As for Peter in 2Peter 1:21, He is speaking about Prophecy and in THAT regard He is 100% correct.
To speak prophecy is to have the HS speak through you.


See, I do NOT doubt that Luke was under the inspiration of the HS when He wrote his gospel, BUT Luke is very clear on HOW he wrote it:

Inasmuch as many have undertaken to compile an account of the things accomplished among us, 2 just as they were handed down to us by those who from the beginning were eyewitnesses and servants of the word, 3 it seemed fitting for me as well, having investigated everything carefully from the beginning, to write it out for you in consecutive order, most excellent Theophilus; 4 so that you may know the exact truth about the things you have been taught.

Note that Luke states that He wrote this based on Accounts related to Him and his own investigations.
Nowhere does He state that the HS guided his writing.

Now, do I believe that GOL to be inspired? yes 100%
Do I believe that the HS guided Luke to write and collect and to investigate? Yes 100%
DO I believe the HS "put words into his mouth and took over his pen"? No.

[Jac3510]

"Uh oh , God You did it again... now how am I suppose to get you out of this mess?!... better go look for some possible technicalities..just stay right there and dont move, just stay out of trouble!"

Are the atheists trying to have their day in court and we need to become God's lawyer to try to bail him out?" That's the danger I think we can head towards.

Job wanted his day in court and we all know the way that ended....and to think certain people on this board accuse moi of asking too many questions

If we are busy trying to "defend" God (instead of our faith) then are we actually becoming God and God is becoming the Creature?

I'm not sure I understand this response fully, nor those who like it.
And it is like neo-x's in the other thread. Let's be clear this isn't just about the OT God, but an immoral God in general.
The two are related, and DS linked to YouTube video of Sam Harris who presents it beautifully.

Let's be clear we're dealing with logical arguments at the end of the day.
Any response may therefore appear cold and clinical, but it's not meant to be a big hug and kiss, and an "I'm so sorry this happened to you. I feel your pain" type of experience. Such a relational response cannot be had, except in true relationship with someone that you can reach out and touch. You know, the kind not behind a keyboard and monitor, not with headphones and a mic -- but actual physical human being.

However, Atheists have made a challenge.
It is a logical challenge and they heavily play upon emotion to cloud any reasonable response.
And now they've presented their own cold logical argument, some of you guys are giving them a taxi cab and to demand noone give a logical response because it's oh so emotional? Bah! There's a a long drawn out word for that in Aussie slang that most people would be offended by. It's goes something like, "buuuuuuuuuuuuuuuu-illllllllllllllllllllllllshit".
If someone makes a challenge, I have every bloody right to respond.
Whether that's criticising God as presented in the OT or God in real life who allows bad things to happen.
Again, if I believe otherwise then I have every right to respond. They threw down the challenge, let a response be heard.
I will not allow them to criticise and throw down a challenge and then taxi cab away. Some Christians here think we should allow such?
Philip doesn't and offers up some responses, while those who prefer to give a taxi cab just criticise?? I don't get it.
I love you all, but am deeply confused by such.

That is, I'm perplexed by some responses like DS', Jac who liked it and neo-x who think Philip's just trying to "get God off the hook". New flash. I believe God is already off the hook. He needs no justifying. But, the fact is stupid people are taken in by such arguments due to their emotional appeal. And our beliefs, our faith, is what needs defending. Not God. God draws a line at death and is quite capable of defending Himself there. That is where the reality will set in for all.

To not deal with any logical response? I don't get it! And I don't really think you guys think no response should be presented, right?
BUT, simply because Philip doesn't deal with the issue on some relational or emotional level?
Get a grip on reality and what is practical. This is a bloody board.
The argument being is foundationally logical. It merits a logical response.
So Philip tackling it in a correct manner, he's the only one using his mind so it seems to me.
You don't like it, well, place what you think is a good response on the table, other than conceding to the argument based on your emotion and allowing the likes of Sam Harris to laugh himself silly as he rides away in a taxi.

Now, I'm not saying Philip is dealing with the emotional issue.
Indeed he can't. No one can. You have to live it to truly know and associate on that level.
Sometimes to best response, IN REAL LIFE, is to just sit silently with another and listen.

HOWEVER, let's be clear.
Atheists have made an attack on God's existence based upon an immoral God argument.
IT is a rational argument. Rational arguments are cold in their very nature. Spock was rational and highly emotionalness.
SO, any argument of the type that challenges God's goodness needs to be dealt with on this level.

THEN, the more potent appeal to this argument is that it strongly appeals to emotion.
Sam Harris has invoked a classical appeal to emotion (a logical fallacy) to great effect.
Just because it is a logical fallacy (eww, cold rationality there!), doesn't mean it's not effective.
That's the whole point of the appeal! To play upon your emotions and make you believe there has to be truth to it.
To play upon your feelings and mind. Doesn't mean it won't pull at your heart strings.
And you know what, it doesn't mean it is in fact actually true!

NOW, let's say God doesn't exist. Great!
Now what? The world is cold and cruel. Ohh...
Don't like it, kill yourself. Want to indulge in pleasures. Go ahead.
It really doesn't matter one iota what you do.

But, add into the equation God...,
And there are very good reasons to believe God exists (cold logical reasons),
then well, maybe, just perhaps there is meaning to the pain we go through in life.
There is value to life like we all intuitively believe there to be when a child is ripped from their mother's arms and tragically killed.
OR, nothing off limits, God takes babies from our womb for no apparent reason.
I'll tell you now, if you think there was some value to be had there, God not existing means you should just get over it because there is in fact ZERO value without God. ONLY someone who has contemplated suicide, heck maybe even in the last month, can really understand the existential issues so clearly. Because then you're faced with the very real prospect of nothingness or somethingness. And you realise that if you die, and there is nothing, then nothing really mattered. But, if there is something, then God I pray that my final decision to kill myself didn't matter.

Finally, Christianity itself isn't about a God up there somewhere who stood afar.
Rather Christ came down and dwelt amongst us. He took on the pains of life, experienced sorrow.
AND here's something more theologically deeper than your basic standard Christian response that "Jesus died for our sins."
Jesus was reconciling the world to Himself, reconciling God and humanity.
He did not come into the world to condemn, but to reconcile (John 3:17; 2 Corinthians 5:19)
Reconciliation means "the restoration of friendly relations."
In any relationship two can be grieved regardless of who is right and wrong.
In Christ, God essentially says "stuff your sin" which grieves me so.
In Christ, God essentially says let me come down by your side, be in your shoes, to experience life's hardships and joys.
In Christ, God provides an opportunity to humanity who wish to remain angry at Him for their life, the world and all of creation -- to actually do their worst for payback.
In Gethsemane, Jesus was face with one big cup of sorrow to drink. (Matt 26:39)
Jesus who is the Word, and who is identified as the direct Creator of everything that has been made (John 1).
A person only drinks a cup if it is there's to drink? Jesus drinks the cup because He is ultimately responsible for all of creation as Creator.
So you don't like God, then look at Jesus' suffering. Humanity got some good payback. God allowed us to.
But, anger will only get you so far. Anger destroys, even God's righteous anger burns and consumes those who face it.
Christ teaches that greatness is found in forgiveness and mercy.
And yet to receive such, we must accept a proposition. The proposition is seen in Christ who is God nailed to the cross.
Let that sink in. God actually came down here, dwelt with us, experienced life as we do (minus modern luxuries), and then let us literally kill Him.
You want the heart of Christianity, that is it right there. You want faith, Christ with us is what it is all about!

So, if you want to remain bitter at God about how much life can suck,
how unfair it is that small children are killed in the most horrible ways,
how horrible it is that babies are torn from mother's arms during floods (not to mention in the womb by such good humans),
ignoring any good, beauty and love found in life and found in people who do have their heart strings and give a damn after God who imparted such,
then you will die going to your grave believing maybe/maybe not believe God exist. That God didn't give a damn. That God created a bad world and doesn't deserve your respect. That God hasn't reached out to us in the most personal way. That God hasn't lived along side us. That God hasn't suffered and died like us... whatever.

Rest assured in this life, that once it passes, if there is no God then there will be no further meaning.
But, I'm 100% sure that there IS MEANING in life, that God does exist, and some will sadly find there was meaning to it all only too late.
Will it be too late? Yes! Why? Because our lived life demonstrates under no direct influence from God, what our hearts really seek.
And if God existed, you considered Him a mean tyrant. You hated him. Sam Harris will still be Sam Harris in the hereafter.
What will change? Sam knows all the same arguments and he considers God an evil and unjust tyrant.
He'll just realise how weak he is and feeble his arguments are. Such will run him wild and mad inside.
How does a creature who only has meaning due to the source of all meaning judge the One who gives us worth?
We can't. It'll eat away at the person who hates God to no end. The thought that God is actually the source of not only any value, but their own moral judgement with which they condemn God as a tyrant. We damn ourselves to an eternal hell.

And God say, "so be it!" IF a person doesn't come to grips in this life with God, then they will not in the next.
You consider God a tyrant in this life, then God will show you just how much in the next.
Consider the parable to talents. The people thought the Nobleman was harsh and did not want him ruling them. (Luke 19:14)
And then the Nobleman came in His Kingdom and ruler of all. (Luke 19:15)
What happened to those who did not want the Nobleman's reign?
He dealt with them with harshly as the tyrannical ruler they thought him to be, to ultimately give them what they want and free them from his reign (Luke 19:27)

So the decision is before us.
Feel free to point the finger, but God does love us and God will have the last say. It's God's right.
There are also other reasons, logical reason, you know the cold unemotional kind, to believe God exists.
And it is only in Christ that are given rational reasons as to why we should give a damn about God even if he does exist.
BECAUSE only in Christ do we find God reaches out and really gives a damn about us.
There is nothing quite like Christian message where God actually comes down to us.
So, if there is any possibility of there being truth, truth that God exists, truth that God really does care about us, truth that we really do have value like we all tend to think, truth that life really does matter that those in the Positive Atheist movement like to plant in mid-air, then it seems there is only one true contender.

That is my most humble opinion.
But, I'm biased. Just like you, the reader reading this.
So make of it all what you will.

I think there may be some talking past each other on this. I think this conversation can (and probably does) happen on at least three levels at the same time.

1. The logical level
I see this as is what you are getting at K. The classical problem of evil is presented in logical terms. It seeks to prove that the classical conception of God is incoherent. Therefore, it's not that we are trying to "bail God out" or "defend God" as much as we are trying to show that the concept itself is coherent. I won't say anything more here as I think we're all pretty well informed as to these issues.

2. The existential level
I see this as what Nessa is getting at. Her point--and I think it is an important one which is why I liked it, and frankly I think it is one that is under appreciated by apologists in general--is that God is not the king of "thing" to be judged. It's what Paul (the Apostle, not poster ) was getting at when he said, "Let God be true and every man a liar" (Rom 3:4). This isn't just a devotional point or a desire to avoid questions of coherence. This is a deep theological and even logical truth. This fact actually points out that the so called logical problem of evil is nonsense. We all know that just because you can put words together that sound like they have meaning, it doesn't mean they actually do. "Can God make a rock so big He can't lift it?" isn't really a question. It's a category error. I'd encourage people unfamiliar with this line of thought to Google Chomsky's famous "sentence," "colourless green ideas sleep furiously." Anyway, at this level--which is what the whole book of Job is about--the question itself is not only impious and shows the depravity of the heart but actually irrational and illogical because it attempts to apply word and concepts to God that simply, by nature and definition, cannot. And if you think they can, the proof is not that God is incoherent, but that your conception of God is wrong (and probably Personalist in assumption).

3. The emotional level
I want to say the most about this. I see this as really what gives the whole thing its energy, and rightly so. Look, in terms of biblical anthropology, emotions are not some accidental part of humanity. They are essential. We are attracted to the good. Yes, that is in part an intellectual experience. Our minds perceive and are directed towards the good. But if we are not Cartesians--if we are more than just a mind--then our intellectual appreciation for the good is NOT all that there is to this, Kant be damned. WE--not just our minds--are attracted to the good. So, yes, our intellect is drawn to the good. But so is our will (necessarily). And so is our whole being, including our non-volitional instincts (to use sort of modern language; in classical language, I'd say our appetites and passions are directed toward the good). What that means in practice is we not only want the good intellectually, but we experience that want as a desire, and that experience is psychosomatic. That desire is both intellectual and bodily. That is, we have an EMOTIONAL attachment to the good, and that necessarily and essentially because we are human beings. In turn, that means we have an EMOTIONAL aversion to the evil.

Now, the problem is that we can be mistaken about what is good and what is evil. A married man can see another woman and have an emotional desire for her. He may know on some intellectual level that to have her would be wrong and evil--not good. But he still perceives it as a good (for reasons I won't go into here for time and space). So he finds he "loves" her. Again, in classical parlance, we find his emotion is disordered. But the key is that it is there for natural and essential reasons. To give another example, a man may be very hungry and be delighted to find a bit of food in front of him. He feels desire for it and joy as he eats it. But he may not know that it has been poisoned. Had he known, he would not have wanted the food (and the deeper the knowledge, the deeper his aversion would have been for it). So, again, his intellect has confused the situation and led him to want the wrong things. He thought he wanted something good. And in a real way he did. But in reality considered in itself, the thing he desired was an evil for him.

Can you see how all of this applies to this debate? Atheists, skeptics, and confused believers hear stories of God commanding or directly causing death. They perceive death for what is--the ultimate privation--and feel (they have an emotional response) an immediate aversion to it. They attempt, as they must, to explain that aversion in logical terms. We debate this on a logical level, and all the while, the feeling of aversion remains. That isn't a bait and switch. It is a fact that exists because we are human. I would submit that every member of this community feel real aversion to the idea of potentially millions of people dying in a flood (local or global), of children drowning, and babies being ripped from mother's wombs, etc. The emotional response is there. The thing to do is not to explain it away. It is to affirm it as right and holy in and of itself, but then seek to understand exactly what it is we are having the reaction to, ask if it is fitting, if we have all the information, etc. To be frank, I deal with this every single day at work. I don't give people this philosophical parsing out of the variables, of course. They're just sad/mad that mom is dying. Or take a case I had yesterday in a young woman delivering a stillborn. Lots of heavy emotions there! People ask me about the Problem of Evil. I don't give them anything like a philosophical discourse, and I never defend God. Even when they are angry at Him. I just affirm their feelings. I affirm their anger or their sadness. If they press for an answer, I say something like, "Look, we can have an abstract discussion about the nature of good and evil and God. But let me ask you this. Suppose you knew exactly why this happened. Suppose God Himself revealed to you why this happened, and suppose that the reason was so clear that you just got it. Tell me honestly, would knowing why this happened make you feel any better about it?" I've never had someone say that it would. Perhaps some of you here might imagine yourself of someone else saying, "Yes, I'd feel a lot better!" And maybe someday I'll get that. But I am telling you from professional experience that I have never gotten that, not after sitting with literally hundreds of hurt and angry people and asking that question more times than I can count. Instead, the response is always a sigh, and something like, "No, I guess it wouldn't." At that point, we start working through their feelings, their emotions, their real sense of loss. Usually after a time I'm able to say very gently something like, "May I suggest to you, after all this, that what you are looking for isn't a why . . . it's a Who?" If they don't immediately get it, I ask them what will make them feel better. Other than time, the answer is, again, always the same. They want someone to listen to them, to cry with them, to hold them. And the real Someone they want, of course, is God Himself.



So my point in the above three is that we have to be clear, at least in our own minds, what exactly we are dealing with and what our arguments are responding to. All three are interrelated, sure. That's because they are all rooted in humans, and in humans, the logical, existential, and emotional are all different parts of the same thing: ourselves. But that doesn't change the fact that they issues are still distinct, and I think I have found that is very easy to (unintentionally?) address one, ignore or not address the other(s), and therefore leave the other person convinced that their own concerns haven't been addressed; all the while we are convinced that we have addressed their concerns.

Just food for thought. Sorry for the long post. I meant to keep this one short. As usual, I failed . . .

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:


That is a tricky one there...

A few issues:
No where does it ever say the bible is without error ( and by that I mean translation/copying errors).

We are talking about the original texts being inspired. I think just about everyone agrees that there may be some minor translation errors. But those errors, in most cases, don't affect the message.

The Holy Spirit worked through the authors of scripture. But He also allowed each author's writing style to come through in the text.

PaulS wrote:

Note that Luke states that He wrote this based on Accounts related to Him and his own investigations.
Nowhere does He state that the HS guided his writing.

Then what does 2 Timothy 3:16 mean?
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

All 66 books of the bible are scripture. If they're not all inspired by God, as 2 Timothy 3:16 says, then how do we know what scripture is inspired, and what isn't? Do we just choose what we like, and call that inspired?

[PaulSacramento]

PaulS wrote:


That is a tricky one there...

A few issues:
No where does it ever say the bible is without error ( and by that I mean translation/copying errors).

We are talking about the original texts being inspired. I think just about everyone agrees that there may be some minor translation errors. But those errors, in most cases, don't affect the message.

The Holy Spirit worked through the authors of scripture. But He also allowed each author's writing style to come through in the text.

PaulS wrote:

Note that Luke states that He wrote this based on Accounts related to Him and his own investigations.
Nowhere does He state that the HS guided his writing.

Then what does 2 Timothy 3:16 mean?
16 All Scripture is inspired by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for training in righteousness;

All 66 books of the bible are scripture. If they're not all inspired by God, as 2 Timothy 3:16 says, then how do we know what scripture is inspired, and what isn't? Do we just choose what we like, and call that inspired?

Only 66 books?
Not 73?


All scripture is inspired.
Maybe this will make it clearer:
All scripture is inspired by the HS.
In some cases the HS speaks directly, as in the case of prophetic writings and in other cases He speaks "indirectly" through the writers.

Does that sound better?

[Philip]

Paul: Now, do I believe that GOL to be inspired? yes 100%
Do I believe that the HS guided Luke to write and collect and to investigate? Yes 100%
DO I believe the HS "put words into his mouth and took over his pen"? No.

So, do you believe God miraculously preserved and protected Scripture for 2,000 years - and much longer with the OT - that He has the power to create a universe from nothing, that He created and holds the very keys to and is the Sustainer of ALL life, came here to DIE for what He says is "God breathed," to so fulfill it, but then He nonetheless irresponsibly allowed a bunch of misleading, mere man-made false ideas and even outright lies to dangerously get blended in with HIS Word?!!! Did Jesus or even ONE of the Apostles ever warn us of even ONE such example of an untruth or inaccuracy that can be found amidst ANY of Scripture? This is so tremendously important - would not God/Jesus or at least one of His Apostles not have warned us of such IF it so existed? He gave us such a tremendous amount of widely distributed manuscript copies of the autographs to easily compare in age and substance so as to discern if it has been changed or altered - giving us HIGH confidence in what was originally revealed. Is the integrity of God's Word not IMPORTANT to Him? Does He not have the power to protect and preserve it as He sees fit? Do you really think that God's ability to protect His Word is somehow limited by the mortals He inspired to write it down and also guides and uses to accomplish His Great Commission?

Few things to ponder.

[PaulSacramento]

Paul: Now, do I believe that GOL to be inspired? yes 100%
Do I believe that the HS guided Luke to write and collect and to investigate? Yes 100%
DO I believe the HS "put words into his mouth and took over his pen"? No.

So, do you believe God miraculously preserved and protected Scripture for 2,000 years - and much longer with the OT - that He has the power to create a universe from nothing, that He created and holds the very keys to and is the Sustainer of ALL life, came here to DIE for what He says is "God breathed," to so fulfill it, but then He nonetheless irresponsibly allowed a bunch of misleading and even outright lies to dangerously get blended in with HIS Word?!!! Did Jesus or even ONE of the Apostles ever warn us of even ONE such example of an untruth or inaccuracy that can be found amidst ANY of Scripture? This is so tremendously important - would not God/Jesus or at least one of His Apostles not have warned us of such IF it so existed? He gave us such a tremendous amount of widely distributed manuscript copies of the autographs to easily compare in age and substance so as to discern if it has been changed or altered - giving us HIGH confidence in what was originally revealed. Is the integrity of God's Word not IMPORTANT to Him? Does He not have the power to protect and preserve it as He sees fit? Do you really think that God's ability to protect His Word is somehow limited by the mortals He inspired to write it down and also guides and uses to accomplish His Great Commission?

Few things to ponder.

I believe God does NOT HAVE to protect His written word.
There is this guy, He lived about 2000 years ago, died and was resurrected and HE is the LIVING word of God so, you see, while God may choose to have the bible be what it is for the sake of those that need something like the bible, God doesn't need there to be a bible when there IS a LIVING Word of God.
Remember, the bible simply exists to point the way to Christ and as long as it does that, it is serving it's purpose.

[Jac3510]

If only Bart were here . . . he would give you a like for sure, Paul. (and no, I'm not at all poking fun at him!)

[RickD]

PaulS wrote:


Only 66 books?
Not 73?

All scripture is inspired.
Maybe this will make it clearer:
All scripture is inspired by the HS.
In some cases the HS speaks directly, as in the case of prophetic writings and in other cases He speaks "indirectly" through the writers.

Does that sound better?

I can agree with that.