Can you really tell people "There is no/There IS a god"?
Either way there is a problem: The limitation's of the human mind; we cannot think on such a large scale... For example: a man/woman thinking of the limitless paradox's of space, and time would go completely insane!

And as the arguemant goes, if you say "God is a lie, you cannot believe in him!" people will retort and say how god makes life better...

...On the same not, if you say He is real, then you face the people who say "War is caused by god, ect."


So can you really debate over such a thing?

Its really quite simple. The Bible/Torah is the workbook to the teachers lectures. Its not meant to stand alone, it's meant to be accompanied by what is called the Oral Torah.

Those contradictory examples you gave, ignore something called context.

Its wrong to kill people, unless you are a police officer and defending yourself, or are a soldier in a war. Life is not black and white, the universe is not simple, why would you expect a divinely written book to be simple? G-d creates all humans, no two humans think a like, why would you expect two humans to understand the nature of their relationship with Gd the same way?

As for Christians, I imagine the Jesus created his own oral Torah. Then you have to remember the hundreds of years of Governments using religion to push their own social agendas. But as usual, you enjoy over simplification and mockery rather than study and learning.

AKA the Mishnah, if I remember from my textual history classes correctly...



Well said. This is a concept even a lot of Christians have a hard time with.



From the Christian perspective, we don't have an accepted oral tradition (the exception is the Catholic church, but that is one of my many beefs with them). Instead, we believe that all of the core and important issues are clear and self-evident. As far as secondary issues, you will most likely find some Christian somewhere who believes every possible option. We don't have any one accepted work or set of works that we believe are infallible, we just try to take everything in the context of the Bible, and things which aren't clear don't matter as much.

From a different standpoint, I suppose you could say that most of the New Testament is made up of 'oral tradition,' like the epistles and even the gospels. Outside of the Bible, though, we don't have any real oral tradition.

That is one part yes. Even with the thousands of books written down over the past 2,000 years, nothing replaces having a teacher who himself, had a teacher etc etc.

mitbulls:

I suppose I misunderstood the purpose of the original statement. I am one of those people that encourages that all things should go back to scripture, and that human traditions should be recognized as just that. So, what I intended to imply was that while there may be some Christian movements which believe baptism to be necessary to salvation, it is not actually biblical, so I do not believe it holds water when speaking universally about Christianity.

Sorry, no.

Acts 2:

2:36 Therefore let all the house of Israel know assuredly, that God hath made the same Jesus, whom ye have crucified, both Lord and Christ.

2:37 Now when they heard this, they were pricked in their heart, and said unto Peter and to the rest of the apostles, Men and brethren, what shall we do?

2:38 Then Peter said unto them, Repent, and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins, and ye shall receive the gift of the Holy Ghost.

The things you are focusing on here are minor sub-points of Christianity. Calvinists and Arminians don't agree on some things, Baptists and Church of Christ members disagree on some things. The vast majority of beliefs, however, are central and universal.

Gee, I wasn't aware that salvation was a minor issue. I guess it doesn't really matter that, if Christian theology is wrong, either:

1) Only the predestined are saved. All that faith and good deeds are for nothing, and the non-predestined, Christian or otherwise, go to hell.

2) Only those who did good deeds are saved. All those people who were duped into believing that all they needed was faith, go to hell.

3) Only those who had faith (However that is defined) are saved. Everyone else goes to hell.

Not one of these verses actually take into consideration context. In addition to ignoring the textual context, they ignore the cultural and political context in which they were each said - the majority are quotes of single verses.

That's the cookie-cutter response. The thing is, biblical verses need very little context. Most of them are fairly self-contained bits. I mean, when you have a verse saying "And the LORD sayeth ", how can you use the context defense? Is the LORD incapable of speaking clearly and literally? You keep talking about human imperfection while postulating a god that inspires a book which nobody seems to be able to agree on. Does God like being misrepresented? Is he into riddles or something?

I imagine, for example, that if I posted one quote from a history book, and a quote from a Donne poem, you would be able to tell which was which just by the nature and flow of the text. In the same way, we examine to determine how biblical texts were meant.

Okay.

Better is it for each one of us that he should avenge his friend, than greatly mourn. Each of us must expect an end of living in this world; let him who may win glory before death: for that is best at last for the departed warrior.

A world is supported by four things...the learning of the wise, the justice of the great, the prayers of the righteous and the valor of the brave. But all of these are as nothing... without a ruler who knows the art of ruling

Assuming you have read neither, which one of this is from the book , and which one is from Beowulf?

Those scholars consistently fail to agree on what is supposed to be factual, and what is allegorical. And then you have things like this:

Numbers 23:19 God is not a man, that he should lie; neither the son of man, that he should repent.

Thessalonians 2:11 And for this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie:

Thessalonians 2:12 That they all might be damned who believed not the truth, but had pleasure in unrighteousness.

How do you conciliate that?

Still, I'm curious in what ways you think those people would differ from Christianity today. Would they believe Jesus was God? Would they believe that God created the universe? Would they believe that there really was a God at all, or that Jesus ever lived at all? I'm not going to come out and say that they would turn out exactly like Baptists, or exactly like Catholics, or anything else of that sort, but I imagine that they would come up similar to mainstream Christianity.

They could turn out very different from mainstream Christianity; but then again, they could not. I'm inclined to believe whatever things fit their preconceptions the most would become canon for them.

I don't find anything about the Flood all that scary. Another similar example you might cite is Sodom and Gomorrah. In every similar instance, you should note that God gave the people every opportunity, but they continually rejected him and became worse and worse. In the end, he killed them only to prevent them from falling further. Also, keep the afterlife in mind. When we die is not all that important, from a biblical perspective our lives are very short, so if God intervenes and we die a few years earlier than we otherwise would have it's not all that big of a loss. The time we spend AFTER our deaths is much more important. We should pity those people not because they died early, but because of the way they will now spend eternity. In that sense, the frightening things are all their own decisions, not their early deaths.

If you think that a supposedly benevolent deity killing every man, woman, and child on earth, except for eight people, even though the children in question hadn't even been able to do anything isn't scary, then there is something seriously wrong with you. The same goes for Sodom and Gomorrah, on a smaller scale. It is important to note that, whenever God kills someone in the Bible, he is denying that person the actual choice of how to end his life (IE, denying him/her the opportunity to repent in the future) AND casting them into the lake of fire. Hardly fair, and hardly respecting of free will. Good has obviously no qualms about smiting people.

The Bible is quite a clear manual on its own. There are some minor issues (predestination, pre- or post-tribulationism, dispensationalism, etc.), but the important things are all clear.

Yes, minor things. Like 'how not to go to hell when you die'. Minor.

A comprehensive manual of the most important Christian beliefs can be found almost completely in one book, if you look at Romans (and one verse added from John):
These verses present a pretty clear overview of the central tenants of Christianity. I believe you'll find them reiterated several times in different parts of the bible, but you will be hard-pressed to find them contradicted or muddled anywhere.

So... seven verses are not contradicted (I didn't bother to check those). That's a pretty bad track record for a god.

Those verses above are all anyone would need to arrive at mainstream Christianity. If you know of any exceptions or confusions of those ideas anywhere else in the Bible, I would understand that someone given the bible for the first time might not turn out like mainstream Christianity. However, if they do accept these ideas, then regardless of their other secondary beliefs, they would be considered a traditional Christian.
This brings up a couple of different issues. First, God is perfectly aware of human imperfection. Another similar question I've heard asked is "why doesn't God just come down, perform some ultimate miracle, and prove to all of us he's out there?" The answer comes from God's reason for creating us in the beginning. He already had angels which worshipped him constantly because they had no other choice. God created us purposefully to have the choice to either follow him, or to reject him. He purposefully leaves those other options open because he'd rather have willing followers than forced slaves.

Except, instead of presenting people with clear information (Even if only through non-verifiable means like, say, a book and some prophetic visions), he inspires a body of work so confused, bizarre, and horrifying that no-one who has seriously read it critically could ever believe in it (Good thing, then, that it's so horrifyingly dull that nobody would read it for pleasure). And he interferes all the time in the Old Testament, smiting people and aiding in genocide and generally dicking around with free will.

The second issue is the question of morality. I have to ask you, what is it that actually makes something 'good' or 'bad'? If there is no god, it doesn't make much sense to have a universal morality. We can't really say "god must not exist, because the world is too immoral" because it begs the question of where morality comes from. Either universal morality comes from God, or universal morality does not exist. So, you might either say that God exists but is immoral, or that God does not exist and there is no universal moral code. Any mixture of the two confuses things.

Christianity postulates a moral god. The universe does not conform to that.

That's my point, you dummy. Scripture does not stand on its own. The Christians, though, don't have an oral tradition - They like to pretend, in the face of all evidence, that the Bible is clear and whatever truth contained herein is self-evident.

Every theist that gets faced with Biblical contradiction just screams, 'Context!' without actually pointing at a valid conciliation between the two verses. Saying 'I ignored context' is not an argument.

In the OT, God does things which absolutely cannot be taken as good in any context, ever. If I go out, walk into a Kindergarten and proceed to shoot every last child there in the face, will you accept my argument that "They had the original sin" and that "Life's not black and white, you have to look at the grey areas?" Some crimes cannot be justified with hand-waving. How do you justify the genocide of recently-born and newborn children, Daganev?

Enjoy your mindless acceptance of dogma rather than critical thinking. Particularly, enjoy dismissing everyone who disagrees with you as 'oversymplifying'.

1. um ok, though considering the pope recently declared that Limbo no longer exists for un baptized babies (i.e. they go straight to heaven) I think you are either oversimplifying, or are mistaken about a lack of oral traditions.

2. Right, because I don't feel like wasting my time explaining things to you that you can just read for yourself. anytime someone declares a contradiction it is nine times out of 10 an issue of ignorance on the subject.

3. Again, I'm not sure what standard of "morals" you are using. Are you looking for strict Justice, an over application of Mercy, Utilitarianism? As for the death of the first born, (which ranged from the ages of 0 - 120, not just babies like you want to make it seem.) you have three answers depending on which type of "morals" you are looking at. Justice: The Egyptians killed all the first born of their slaves, so in direct measure for measure, the first born of the Egyptians were killed. Mercy: The Firstborns were the Aristocrats of Egypt, they got all rights and were responsible for their kingdom. When Egypt falls, the people are going to revolt against the first born and kill them/torture them for their failures, this way they have a painless death in the middle of the night. Utilitarian: No first born left, nobody to organize an attack against Israel when its formed 40 years later. There are many other factors also, but I figured I'd humor you. After all, I'm sure you have read the English translation of Rambam, Ramban, and Rashi on this section where they go into great depth on this subject, or perhaps Yeshiva Universities, Haggadah. The stories are put into a greater context that you seem to enjoy to ignore. Not sure if you just don't care, or if you just enjoy pulling things out of context to mock, but there you go. The reason you probably don't get full answers from people is because they know you don't want a real answer, and you aren't even going to bother to put in the time to read the material available on the subject. Sorry that not all relevant writings from the past 3,000 years hasn't been put onto the internet for your pleasure yet.

Without saying how horrifyingly bad your notion of 'mercy' is (Pre-emptive euthanasia because of the upcoming insurgency that God himself is causing in the first place?) I am going to note I was talking about the incidents in Sodom and Gomorrah, and about the Flood. Althought there are a number of less well-justified examples of genocide in the Bible.

At any rate, you have succeeded in proving that the Bible needs reams of apologetics to be able to be regarded as any sort of moral and comprehensible book. Hardly what I'd expect from a deity.

And I'm sure what you expect from a deity is really all that important. I'd expect more civility from a human, but just because you don't have any, doesn't make you not a human.

I expect from said deity the properties attributed to it by his followers, to wit:

1) Sufficient complexity and power to create the universe.
2) Benevolence towards mankind.
3) Respect for human free will.

This is the Christian god; I'm afraid I'm not as versed in Judaic theology, but I believe this applies to all Abrahamic godheads?

Wait a second, I just read your first paragraph ( I tend to read posts backwards)...

Sodom and the flood were the stories you were referring to and not Egypt? That seems really weird to me, because in Sodom, its clear that not even 10 people in the entire city are "good" and in the case of the flood, they had 3 years to get on the ship themselves... Its even the case that the animals became corrupted.... there isn't even any presumed innocence in those stories. It really makes me wonder if you have done any thinking of your own on this subject.

Won't someone please think of the children?!

Ahem. My point is, there were presumably young children killed in both events - In the case of the Flood, presumably, children aged 3 and less. Do they have to die because their parents were immoral? Can you really call a child that is barely old enough to talk, let alone make moral judgements, morally corrupt enough to warrant death? Same goes for Sodom and Gomorrah. Not to mention that God did not just kill people in the flood, but also animals... who had nothing to do with human wickedness.

And then there's Isaac. A man who would willingly sacrifice his own son is actually commended for (Almost) doing so.

And Ai, and Jericho, and the Amalekites, and others.

Not to mention that you are justifying the murder of infants, which sticks a rusty nail through my sensibilities. Children, Daganev. Children who never did anything to deserve any sort of retribution. How can you, with a straight face, support that, and claim that you have a sense of morality and I don't? How can you support the Israelites who would've killed the children themselves if God hadn't gotten to them first? Yes, 'firstborn son' isn't all children, I am perfectly aware of that. But it includes children. How in blazes can you support a deity that takes children from their mothers, calls them wicked, and slays them - And then rationalize it saying that said deity's chosen people would've killed them later anyway, so that's not wrong?

Didn't you learn anything about morality in this post modern world of ours? A person is defined by the society they grow up in. If the society is rotten, and there isn't any other society for them to go become a part of, then they are just going to repeat the actions of the society ad naseum. Some things are immoral because we have limited information about the results and consequences, not because the act itself is immoral, but because there is the whole "well I'm not sure" factor.



Thank you for not reading what I wrote, I highly appreciate it.

To state it again, I said the non-first born Egyptians would have killed the first born Egyptians.

And for the record, yes, I believe that someone who creates something, can destroy it whenever they like, while they own it. Be it a new genetic mouse, a robot, or a painting. But thats a dangerous line of thought for people who don't believe in Gd, so I can understand the general inclination for double standards of logic.


Again, if you want to actually learn something about this, there are a myriad of books on the subject. But you might have to go into the real world to find them.

That doesn't make killing that person moral. Pre-emptive punishment is a very dangerous slippery slope, and definitely not the moral thing to do.

Or, in God's case - Why kill the children, and not the immoral society they are about to be raised in?

Also - I don't really think any amount of apologetics would convince me that the senseless slaughter of young children is moral.

So given that god doesn't have this uncertainty factor, and is essentially 100% aware that these kids don't have any ability or choice to not grow up being evil because that's what society dictates they do...that obliviates any kind of argument that we have free will to choose whether to serve or not, and that that's why he gave us free will as opposed to angels.

What?

That is EXACTLY what the story says happens. The destruction of the society. You assume there was a destruction of children, but thats not what is said to happen.

Yes, but all those first-born children? Was their deaths necessary for the end of Egyptian society? Did they need to die?

And if people have no choice of what kind of life they will lead, because of the society they live in, how do you conciliate that with free will?

And if they had no choice, then why are they immoral? If you put a knife on my hand, and then hold my wrist and make me stab someone, am I guilty of murder? Morality stems from choices, you said so yourself. How can a person that was never faced with any moral choices be judged as immoral?

CONTEXT!!! people! Context!!!

One society, one group of people on earth, small population, no where else for people to go to. No other options for people.


Take Two: People don't learn lesson, they get sent to 4 corners of the globe and given different languages, to create multiple societies.

There are three instances of people having thier free will removed in the story. None of them are issues of mass punishment.

I think the first thing you need to do is read up on the various DIFFERENT opinions of how free will exists in the first place. Depending on which understanding you take on that issue will affect how you see the rest of the stories. Again, people are complex, the book is equally complex, and you can't just force feed one explanation to fit every different view of the more metaphysical esoteric questions of the universe.


I know know, athiests hate dynamic rules.

I get bored easily by debates over the minutae of a single theology, but I did want to respond to something you said...

Why would either of these cases make killing someone right? Not that I disagree with you in that life is definitely not always black and white, but I think you chose a poor example.

Killing someone in self-defense is a lesser crime, certainly, but it is still a crime. Killing someone in war, well, in some cases it is the same situation as killing in self-defense (at a stretch), in most cases it isn't.

It's 'atheists'. Why do theists seem to have a problem with spelling that word when they've gone into a meaningless diatribe about how God works in mysterious ways?

Again, you keep skirting the issue... how do you justify infant genocide? Or any sort of genocide, for that matter. Why keep it to infants? Why does everything in the Bible need to be punished with death? Why does God consistently fail to give people a fair chance of believing in him? (Oh, sure, an old man says a flood is coming and so he's building an ark, that is sure gonna convince everyone. Definitely giving everyone a shot at being moral and good. Definitely upholding free will.)