[ShortcutToMoncton]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Only those who having seen God through creation chose to either reject him or worship the creation instead of the Creator.

This always bugged me. If it's possible to see God "through creation" - and I'm not disputing that - then the end result could certainly look something very like whatever mumbo-jumbo voodoo* you like. But I don't know any Christians who would say that some pygmy voodoo-worshipping tribe from Ye Olde Jungle are just fine as-is and wouldn't need to be saved, because their particular voodoo-ism is the result of "seeing God" in creation and coming up with said voodoo-ism to explain what they saw.

Whew.

*insert any religion or belief you choose

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by ShortcutToMoncton 

This always bugged me. If it's possible to see God "through creation" - and I'm not disputing that - then the end result could certainly look something very like whatever mumbo-jumbo voodoo* you like. But I don't know any Christians who would say that some pygmy voodoo-worshipping tribe from Ye Olde Jungle are just fine as-is and wouldn't need to be saved, because their particular voodoo-ism is the result of "seeing God" in creation and coming up with said voodoo-ism to explain what they saw.

Whew.

*insert any religion or belief you choose

Indeed. As a Christian, I've always wondered how that works. It's probably my biggest question regarding my faith, actually. If anybody has an answer, I'd be interested to hear.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Only those who having seen God through creation chose to either reject him or worship the creation instead of the Creator.

Is this "seeing god through creation" a direct biblical quote? I'm not sure I've heard it put quite like this before. Is this why creationists are so obsessed with their literal version of genesis?

The skeptic in me wants to dismiss it as one of many quite beautifully crafted lines designed to look profound whilst being tremedously vague but I'm genuinely curious as to how popular this line is.

It has often occurred to me that there are certain quotes and passages that seem to define key aspects of different christian denominations. I'm struggling to think of examples right now, its been a long day. Does that make sense to anyone else?

[imitchellg5]

Creationists are obsessed with the literal version of Genesis because if you don't take what is written as a historical text to actually be correctly historical, then the rest of the Bible has no meaning at all.

[Wiskedjak]

Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE 

But how does anyone who's "not telling" know about God themselves? God must have his own PR campaign.

Are you referring obliquely to this "see God through creation" bit? Do you have any evidence of Christianity appearing spontaneously without outside influence/Christian missionaries?

[Big Mac]

A very interesting documentary produced by the government of India that I just came across today makes a fairly compelling case that Jesus may have survived a staged crucifixion, traveled to India and lived a long life before dying and being interred there in Kashmir. It claims he took the name Yuza Asaf. It also claims that he went to India because he had studied there (studying Indian religion!) in his youth, thus accounting for the lost years of Jesus between his later childhood and the beginning of his ministry in the Galilee. It's apparently not a new theory trying to capitalize on Da Vinci Code type-conspiracy, either. This documentary also makes a strong claim that many of the lost tribes of Israel are settled in the Indian region (although they also dubiously include "Bene Israel" as an original lost tribe) and that Jesus may have gone to that region to be near the lost tribes (reminiscent of the gospel instruction to the disciples to seek out the lost sheep of Israel).

[imitchellg5]

Yeah, a government film about Jesus is probably 100% accurate.

[Big Mac]

Perhaps you'll want to watch it instead of just dismissing it because it's not in line with your beliefs, mitchell.

[olePigeon]

Just FYI, Vodou has evolved into a mix of traditional Haitian beliefs and Christianity.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Creationists are obsessed with the literal version of Genesis because if you don't take what is written as a historical text to actually be correctly historical, then the rest of the Bible has no meaning at all.

I think the reason some Christian are creationists is different from why Jews or Muslims might be creationists.

Muslims think the Koran was written by God himself, with no human agency. God wrote it, Gabriel dictated it, Moe wrote it down. Jews believe in some human agency, as Moses is believed to have authored the Torah, but was directly inspired by God, with God dictating some of the content himself.

Traditional Christianity is another step removed from that, as Paul (and other writers) didn't have God telling him what to write, but rather Paul simply wrote correct information, being inspired by the Holy Spirit, but not being dictated to.

The more human agency you can establish in scriptures, the more potential interpretations are permissible. God himself wouldn't write a myth to explain things, but humans would.

If Paul hadn't directly linked the fall in Eden to the saving grace of Jesus, Christianity would have completely shed creationism long ago. But as it is, only the fringe of modern Christianity endorses creationism.

The best way to approach Paul's attitude to the fall is: man is separated from God. The saving grace of Jesus repairs this separation. The fall in the garden is a myth that established the human knowledge of our separation, but is not literally true. That's not what Paul says, but it's really the only reasonable way to salvage Paul's soteriology without being crazy creationists.

The fact is, the myth of the fall is utterly unnecessary. If God exists, then man is separated from him; there's no way to deny that fact. We don't need the fall, because the fact of separation is self-evidently true. If it wasn't true, then idolatry, atheists, evil, ignorance, and suffering wouldn't exist.

Non-creationist Christians essentially recognize what I've just explained. If they made a stronger effort to explain it to creationists, we would all be better off.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A very interesting documentary produced by the government of India that I just came across today makes a fairly compelling case that Jesus may have survived a staged crucifixion, traveled to India and lived a long life before dying and being interred there in Kashmir. It claims he took the name Yuza Asaf. It also claims that he went to India because he had studied there (studying Indian religion!) in his youth, thus accounting for the lost years of Jesus between his later childhood and the beginning of his ministry in the Galilee. It's apparently not a new theory trying to capitalize on Da Vinci Code type-conspiracy, either. This documentary also makes a strong claim that many of the lost tribes of Israel are settled in the Indian region (although they also dubiously include "Bene Israel" as an original lost tribe) and that Jesus may have gone to that region to be near the lost tribes (reminiscent of the gospel instruction to the disciples to seek out the lost sheep of Israel).

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Yeah, a government film about Jesus is probably 100% accurate.

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Perhaps you'll want to watch it instead of just dismissing it because it's not in line with your beliefs, mitchell.

It is in line with Islam. (Possibly the late Elizabeth Clare Prophet as well YouTube -The Summit Lighthouse's Channel )
Surah 4:157-158

[4.157] And their saying: Surely we have killed the Messiah, Isa son of Marium, the apostle of Allah; and they did not kill him nor did they crucify him, but it appeared to them so (like Isa) and most surely those who differ therein are only in a doubt about it; they have no knowledge respecting it, but only follow a conjecture, and they killed him not for sure.
[4.158] Nay! Allah took him up to Himself; and Allah is Mighty, Wise.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

A very interesting documentary produced by the government of India that I just came across today makes a fairly compelling case that Jesus may have survived a staged crucifixion, traveled to India and lived a long life before dying and being interred there in Kashmir. It claims he took the name Yuza Asaf. It also claims that he went to India because he had studied there (studying Indian religion!) in his youth, thus accounting for the lost years of Jesus between his later childhood and the beginning of his ministry in the Galilee. It's apparently not a new theory trying to capitalize on Da Vinci Code type-conspiracy, either. This documentary also makes a strong claim that many of the lost tribes of Israel are settled in the Indian region (although they also dubiously include "Bene Israel" as an original lost tribe) and that Jesus may have gone to that region to be near the lost tribes (reminiscent of the gospel instruction to the disciples to seek out the lost sheep of Israel).

I'm pretty confident that Nicolas Notovitch, the source of all this stuff, made it all up. I'll watch the video in your link, but I've heard this stuff before, and it isn't very convincing to me. Several people in Notovitch's lifetime exposed him as a hoax, and today a small army of New Ager writers with no credibility talk about Notovitch's work as if it were unassailable.

The staged crucifixion stuff is pretty old, though. Several Gnostic texts make that claim, and these works are probably the source of Mohammed's beliefs about Jesus. The problem is: the Gnostics claimed Jesus couldn't have been really crucified because he was a bodiless spirit, which is very different than saying it was staged.

I don't think there are any "lost years of Jesus," for two reasons. One, Jesus was a "tekton" (a builder), and there were many cities built in Galilee during his life that he could have been gainfully employed at. Two, Jesus and some NT writers betray some knowledge of Essene teachings, which meant they had to have been Essenes also, since the Essenes were a secretive sect that required a two year initiation before any doctrines would be shared. Essene practices like celibacy and common ownership were known to the rest of the Jewish people, since it set the Essenes off from them (and were also common to the early church), but peculiar doctrines, sons of light/darkness in John, or leaving a sheep to die in a well on the Sabbath in Mark, would not be known to the wider Jewish community. Regarding the sheep-in-the-well stuff, Jesus was teaching against that, which meant he was being critical of Essene (not typical Jewish) practices, but we had no idea they were the ones he was criticizing here until the discovery of the Dead Sea Scrolls.

The ancient world functioned very much like prison gangs today: your group protected you, but you had to know your place. Step outta line, and protection is withdrawn. (The Islamic world still functions like this.) Jesus' public ministry was probably very critical of the Sadducees and Pharisees, but once he started trash-talking his own group, the Essenes likely withdrew their protection, giving Jesus' enemies an easy opportunity to lynch him for trash-talking them.

[Athens]

What exactly are the finer details that make Jews, Muslims and Christian beliefs different. And what is the same in all 3?

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I removed you, Doofy, and Athens from my ignore list just for this thread. Doofy seems to have left. I have great respect for you and ebuddy, despite our differences, simply because you guys bring a lot of substance, which makes for an interesting challenge.

Thank you very much. The feeling is mutual. It's really funny that we ended up unblocking each other at the same time.

[Athens]

Religion brings people together lol

[Big Mac]

Indeed, you brought us closer in seeking out religion, Athens. You actually did something holy through this thread, I'd say, in fostering better relations between fellow human beings.

[Athens]

how about unblocking me now

[screener]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Thank you very much. The feeling is mutual. It's really funny that we ended up unblocking each other at the same time.

It's funny you felt the need to put each other on ignore.
Never did get that need.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

What exactly are the finer details that make Jews, Muslims and Christian beliefs different. And what is the same in all 3?

They all essentially worship the same god. They are all offshoots from one religion. Or rather two of them are offshoots from the other one.

This is a big part of why religion does nothing for me. Two guys from the same religion disagree on something, one of them forms a new church. This happens with political parties, street gangs and in playgrounds across the world on a daily basis.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

Creationists are obsessed with the literal version of Genesis because if you don't take what is written as a historical text to actually be correctly historical, then the rest of the Bible has no meaning at all.

I'm not sure I buy this line of reasoning. I mean, I get what you're saying that there is either metaphor throughout or the whole thing should be taken literally but I'm pretty sure creationists are just as likely as many others to deflect certain questions by invoking the old "its a metaphor" line. Just not when it comes to the creation part. Which is what makes no sense to me.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

If Paul hadn't directly linked the fall in Eden to the saving grace of Jesus, Christianity would have completely shed creationism long ago. But as it is, only the fringe of modern Christianity endorses creationism.

I actually thought christianity did shed creationism long ago. I was under the impression that modern creationism was a fairly recent phenomenon. It was certainly much much rarer on this side of the Atlantic when I was younger.

[screener]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I actually thought christianity did shed creationism long ago. I was under the impression that modern creationism was a fairly recent phenomenon. It was certainly much much rarer on this side of the Atlantic when I was younger.

Creationism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The history of creationism is part of the history of religions, though the term itself is modern. In the 1920s the term became particularly associated with Christian fundamentalist movements that insisted on a literalist interpretation of the Genesis creation narrative and likewise opposed the idea of human evolution. These groups succeeded in getting teaching of evolution banned in United States public schools, then from the mid-1960s the young Earth creationists promoted the teaching of "scientific creationism" using "Flood geology" in public school science classes as support for a purely literal reading of Genesis.[25] After the legal judgment of the case Daniel v. Waters (1975) ruled that teaching creationism in public schools contravened the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment, the content was stripped of overt biblical references and renamed creation science. When the court case Edwards v. Aguillard (1987) ruled that creation science similarly contravened the constitution, all references to "creation" in a draft school textbook were changed to refer to intelligent design, which was subsequently claimed to be a new scientific theory. The Kitzmiller v. Dover (2005) ruling concluded that intelligent design is not science and contravenes the constitutional restriction on teaching religion in public school science classes.[26]

Google is your friend.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by screener 

It's funny you felt the need to put each other on ignore.
Never did get that need.

We managed to mutually piss each other off based on politics.

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

They all essentially worship the same god. They are all offshoots from one religion. Or rather two of them are offshoots from the other one. This is a big part of why religion does nothing for me. Two guys from the same religion disagree on something, one of them forms a new church. This happens with political parties, street gangs and in playgrounds across the world on a daily basis.

Sort of. That's like the old joke that contains a lot of truth - why are there three synagogues in a town with only two Jews? One for one of them, one for the other, and one neither one would ever set foot in.

But as for the similarities and differences between Judaism, Christianity and Islam that Athens asked about, that would require a pretty complicated answer. I don't even know how to simplify an answer to that question. Maybe it's a compare and contrast multi-part list, something like this (I'll probably end up adding to this list over some period of time):

**Written from my perspective as an Orthodox Jew**

Major Similarities between all three religions - Judaism, Christianity and Islam:
*All three (apparently) worship the G-d of Abraham, although in different ways
*All three believe in the special Creation of the Heavens and Earth and all their contents by G-d
*All three believe in much of the content found in the Hebrew Scriptures (although not directly in Islam but rather through sometimes substantially altered retelling by the Koran)
*All three believe in some kind of judgment in the afterlife
*All three believe in angels and demons
*All three believe in prayer
*All three believe in charity
*All three believe in some form of End Times

Major Similarities between Judaism and Christianity:
*The major prophets of Judaism and Christianity are the same until the end of the Hebrew Scriptures (then Christianity accepts prophets not accepted in Judaism)
*Christianity accepts the Hebrew Scriptures as part of its cannon (but Judaism does not accept the Christian Scriptures)
*Both Judaism and Christianity place special importance on the Ten Commandments.
*Judaism and most forms of Christianity believe in the special status of Israel as the chosen people.
*Judaism and some denominations of Christianity agree that the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel is a sign the End Times are approaching.

Major Differences between Judaism and Christianity (covered many already here)
*Judaism is strictly monotheistic, whereas normative Christianity has the Trinity that in my opinion does not qualify as strict monotheism
*Judaism rejects graven images, whereas Christianity in practice does not
*Judaism believes in G-d has no physical form and cannot possibly be represented by a physical form of any kind because it would make Him finite, whereas normative Christianity makes Jesus equivalent to G-d and 1/3 of a Trinity
*Judaism teaches righteousness both through faith in G-d and the keeping of His 613 mitzvot (commandments) for Jews and 7 for non-Jews, whereas Christianity usually stresses faith as the main or sole component of righteousness and works only distantly secondary.
*Judaism teaches that the Torah is eternal, eternally binding and not subject to revision, whereas Christianity teaches that the Torah was "fulfilled" and completed by the act of Jesus dying on the cross
*Judaism and Christianity have very different views about the nature of man (capacity to sin versus original sin)
*Judaism and Christianity have very different views about how sins are atoned for
*Judaism has, in addition to the Torah and rest of the Hebrew Scriptures, the Talmud, which contains the "Oral Torah" (instructions held to also be from Mt. Sinai on how to implement the Written Torah), the logical rules for how to interpret the Written Torah, thousands of years of knowledge and history, etc, whereas Christianity does not have a direct parallel to that kind of body of accumulated knowledge.
*Judaism does not believe in eternal punishment in the afterlife, except perhaps for the very worst sinners of all time, whereas Christianity is very much steeped in hellfire damnation.
*Judaism does not teach of "The Satan" as a rebellious king angel of Hell but rather an angel who serves G-d's will as a "heavenly prosecutor."
*Judaism holds circumcision to be a religious necessity, whereas with Christianity it's not a requirement
*Judaism hasn't been a proselytizing religion since the advent of Roman Catholicism when Judaism came under heavy persecution from the Church, whereas Christianity is very much based on proselytizing
*Judaism doesn't teach that its path is the exclusive path to salvation, whereas most forms of Christianity teach that (salvation being dependent on belief in Jesus)
*Judaism teaches that the End Times will eventually usher in universal peace, justice and prosperity for all of mankind, whereas most forms of Christianity teaches that the End Times will only benefit Christians

Major Similarities between Judaism and Islam:
*Both Judaism and Islam are very strictly monotheistic
*Judaism and Islam have many of the same or very similar religious laws and customs in many areas, in part because of heavy borrowing from Judaism and in part because both religions are Middle Eastern
*More specifically, Judaism and Islam have very similar dietary laws, very similar prohibitions on various types of close family marriages/incest, very similar laws on divorce, and others areas
*Judaism and Islam have very similar religious vocabularies with similar words in Arabic and Hebrew because a large amount of Koranic terminology was imported from biblical Hebrew.
*Both religions have set times for daily prayer (three times per day for Jews, five times a day for Muslims).
*Both Judaism and Islam have circumcision as a requirement (although it's a more stringent requirement in Judaism).
*Both Judaism and Islam are anti-graven images (although Islam extends the prohibition to images of prophets as well).
*Both Judaism and Islam have requirements about modest attire including head-covering for men (although requirements are much more stringent for Islamic women than Jewish women)
*Islam has a detailed set of written traditions that accompany the Koran called the Hadith, which can be seen as some kind of parallel to the Talmud, although they're very different bodies of work and relate differently to their respective religions.

Major Differences between Judaism and Islam:
*Islam claims that Muhammed was the final prophet of the Abrahamic religions, whereas Judaism rejects Muhammed as a prophet (and that rejection led Muhammed to be really spiteful toward the Jews and promote hatred of them that he did not teach prior).
*Islam claims that Judaism and Christianity were originally authentic religions but that they both got corrupted at some point in their developments and needed to be corrected by Islam (although the earlier verses of the Koran teach a very different view, namely that Muhammed has come to teach religion to the polytheistic Arab world and that Jews and Christians already have their own legitimate, divinely given religions).
*Islam claims that Ishmael was actually the son who Abraham was tested with the command to sacrifice instead of Isaac, and that Ishmael was the true inheritor of the blessings Abraham received from G-d instead of Isaac (and also claims that instead of being in the Land of Canaan they were hundreds of miles away in Mecca).
*Islam is a thorough-going supersessionist faith that seeks not only to succeed but replace Judaism and Christianity (i.e the prophets of the Hebrew Scriptures are claimed as "Muslims" as we've discussed elsewhere, and even Jesus is called a Muslim)
*Islam seeks sovereignty over the entire planet and preferably the conversion of all of humanity to Islam, whereas Judaism seeks sovereignty only over the Land of Israel and does not seek out converts
*Islam in the Hadith teaches of an End Times in which Muslims will be compelled to seek out and murder Jews i.e. "The stones and trees will say 'Oh Muslim, Oh Abdullah, there is a Jew behind me, come and kill him" (Sahih Muslim, 41:6985)
*Islam has some beliefs that are exclusively Arab in origin and not found in Judaism or Christianity, like belief in Jinn.
*Whereas Judaism and Christianity arrange their holy texts in rough chronological order or by theme, the Koran is arranged by the word length of its chapters, so the narrative skips around.

I think that's a pretty good run for now. If anyone wants me to do Similarities and Differences between Christianity and Islam, I can work on that too, but I think I've sufficiently flushed out the enough of the similarities and differences between the three that it's pretty easy to infer much of the rest.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

Judaism and most forms of Christianity agree that the reestablishment of Jewish sovereignty over the Land of Israel is a sign the End Times are approaching.

Gotta disagree. I don't think non-Orthodox Jews believe this, and few Christian churches believe this either.

Judaism does not teach of "The Satan" as a rebellious king angel of Hell but rather an angel who serves G-d's will as a "heavenly prosecutor."

I'm not certain, but, I think most of the NT can be read this way, though probably not Revelations. Besides, everyone would probably accept that God uses evil people as agents of his will all the time in the Bible, so it's no different for Satan.

Judaism holds circumcision to be a religious necessity, whereas with Christianity it's not a requirement

This is true, but I want to emphasis the historical context for a moment. Paul did not expect Gentile converts to adopt Jewish practices, but he definitely expected Jewish Christians to maintain their Jewish practices. So for the early church, circumcision was a religious necessity, but only for Jews.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I actually thought christianity did shed creationism long ago. I was under the impression that modern creationism was a fairly recent phenomenon. It was certainly much much rarer on this side of the Atlantic when I was younger.

Creationism is basically a reaction to Darwin and the rest of science. Prior to Darwin, I don't think the issue was given much thought or emphasis either way. The medieval church wasn't particularly interested in the historical accuracy of the Old Testament, just in the ways it foreshadowed events in the New Testament.

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

Gotta disagree. I don't think non-Orthodox Jews believe this, and few Christian churches believe this either.

I should have made it clear that I'm writing from an Orthodox Jewish standpoint. I write from an Orthodox Jewish standpoint not just because I'm an Orthodox Jew but because. . . well. . . Ah, I don't know if it's worth offending non-Orthodox Jews who are going to read this.

Well, this is worth writing because the topic came up before. I'll say it like this, and it may well offend (although that's not intentional): The broad category of Orthodox Judaism is Judaism. Real, authentic Judaism. Until the late 19th Century Orthodox Judaism was the only Judaism. The other Jewish movements, mainly Reform and its reactionary offshoot Conservative, do not differentiate themselves by having alternative theology from Orthodox Judaism like the way Catholicism and Protestantism are very different but equally religious Christian movements. Reform and Conservative Judaism differentiate themselves only by being watered down Judaism, Judaism-lite. Reform Judaism was started in Germany because highly assimilated German Jews wanted to hold on to some vestiges of Judaism but really desired to be much more like their Christian neighbors; Reform even originally took Christian liturgy and lightly Judaized it. Reform churchogoues also had organ music. (I don't know if any do in modern times because I've never been to a Reform "Temple.")

A person who is Jewish by Jewish law is always going to be Jewish with very few exceptions. But not all Jews want to practice authentic Judaism. That's where Reform Judaism and the like came from. Of course, Reform was only possible because of the liberalization of Jewish status in Europe, which let the Jew leave the ghetto and assimilate into the non-Jewish world. But just because Jews suddenly got to have a watered down Judaism to go along with their increasingly assimilated lives didn't mean that it was authentic Judaism. In truth text book Reform Judaism falls far, far short of the Torah standard. So much so that Conservative Judaism was created soon after it as a countervailing force to the marginalized faux-Judaism that Reform represented.

That's probably going to cause offense to some of my friends on here. But since I'm really good at causing my Christian friends offense I may as well do the same for my own people. It's the honest truth. Sects of other religions define themselves by contrasting beliefs, not reduced religiosity - Catholicism and Protestantism, Sunni and Shia. But in Judaism that's not the case. There's Orthodox Judaism (which I don't mean to make sound monolothic - there are sub-categories of Orthodox Judaism but they're still all Orthodox), and then there's scaled down Judaism for those who don't want or can't handle the real thing. That's the brutally honest truth. However I have anecdotally noticed a trend among at least some Reform congregations to return to greater levels of Jewish adherence. I don't know how widespread the trend is or how far it will go, but it's definitely a positive trend IMO.

Anyway, as for few Christian churches believing that, I've seen that many Christians believe the reestablishment of the Jewish state is a sign of the approaching End Times, but I guess I was wrong to say most denominations of Christianity teach it. Some definitely do though.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by Big Mac 

The other Jewish movements, mainly Reform and its reactionary offshoot Conservative, do not differentiate themselves by having alternative theology from Orthodox Judaism like the way Catholicism and Protestantism are very different but equally religious Christian movements. Reform and Conservative Judaism differentiate themselves only by being watered down Judaism, Judaism-lite. Reform Judaism was started in Germany because highly assimilated German Jews wanted to hold on to some vestiges of Judaism but really desired to be much more like their Christian neighbors; Reform even originally took Christian liturgy and lightly Judaized it. Reform churchogoues also had organ music. (I don't know if any do in modern times because I've never been to a Reform "Temple.")

I would argue that while this is generally true, it has been becoming less so in the last few decades. Reform and Conservative Judaism (which, as with you, I am not very intimately familiar with) have, I think, been slowly diverging theologically from Orthodox Judaism. While Judaism is much more about practice than belief, I think it's pretty clear that the practice is derived from the belief. As you point out, Reform Judaism was essentially developed as a way for Jews to appear outwardly to be more like their Christian neighbors, which, in and of itself, I don't think is necessarily a bad thing at all. However modern Reform Judaism, it seems to me, now espouses essentially divergent beliefs about the nature of Judaism, Jews, Israel, pretty much everything.

Personally (and this may come as a shock to some here...), I am in total agreement that Orthodox Judaism represents the 'real', 'authentic' Judaism, though I would argue that this is more true of the Modern Orthodox than the so-called Ultra Orthodox, as, while it is very clearly the case that certain articles of clothing are mandated, it is certainly not the case that the way in which those articles are styled must remain frozen in time. It may be commanded that you cover your head and wear fringes on the corners of your garment, but nowhere does it say that it has to be a very specific style of hat you wear or that the rest of your outfit has to look like you just walked off the shtetl. But once you decide to stop obeying even just one commandment, then in what way can you be said to be truly following the same religion? Either these are Divine Commandments issued from On High, or they aren't. Perhaps you could find some valid evidence that convincingly shows that certain books or passages of the Bible are modern, even politically motivated additions, in which case you might be able to justify ignoring those ones, but to try and argue that a commandment can't or shouldn't be followed because it's inconvenient, uncomfortable, or incompatible with modern life is to argue that the whole basis of the religion is flawed. If any of it is invalid, by what justification can you possibly say that the rest is valid? Who are you, in other words, to arbitrate which commandments are valid and which aren't?

If you are not following the commandments, in what way can you be said to be practicing Judaism? If you claim the right to decide which commandments are and aren't to be obeyed, are you not essentially placing yourself above (your conception of) G-d, and, again, if you do that how can you be said to be practicing Judaism?

By the same token, I would argue that much of the 'Shabbat technology' employed by some Orthodox Jews to ease some of the inconveniences of observing Shabbat in the modern world should really be considered a violation. If you believe that you are forbidden from turning on your coffee pot on Saturday morning, it seems pretty ridiculous to try and claim that it's ok to set a timer that will turn it on for you instead: the coffee pot was still turned on during Shabbat by your voluntary and intentional action.

[Big Mac]

Wow, yeah I actually am somewhat shocked and very pleasantly surprised by the substantial agreement we have here, nonhuman. I had you in mind when I was hesitating to write that last post. Awesome.

I'll be responding to your specific points shortly. . .

[lpkmckenna]

I would like to point out that the sentiment you guys just shared is found in Christianity too. There are Bible inerrantists think other Christians aren't real Christians, there are Catholics who think non-Catholics aren't real Christians, etc. Heck, I've criticized Doofy for being a false Christian because he doesn't belong to a church.

However, I would hope that you guys recognize that the non-Orthodox are sincere believers in God, and they don't accept that the massive corpus of Tanakh and Talmud is completely divine because human agency mitigates the reliability of that stuff. It's not about "convenience," but believability.

[lpkmckenna]

[deleted duplicate post]

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

I would like to point out that the sentiment you guys just shared is found in Christianity too. There are Bible inerrantists think other Christians aren't real Christians, there are Catholics who think non-Catholics aren't real Christians, etc. Heck, I've criticized Doofy for being a false Christian because he doesn't belong to a church.

However, I would hope that you guys recognize that the non-Orthodox are sincere believers in God, and they don't accept that the massive corpus of Tanakh and Talmud is completely divine because human agency mitigates the reliability of that stuff. It's not about "convenience," but believability.

Granted, but I think you're only partially understanding the point I'm making in this regard. I never said that the non-Orthodox can't be sincere believers in G-d. I merely meant that there are hallmark features of Orthodox Judaism that if jettisoned means something less than real Judaism is being practiced.

Here are some examples of what I mean: Believing that eating non-kosher food is an entirely valid spiritual choice for a Jew is not authentic Judaism. Believing that it's acceptable to call a synagogue a "Temple" because of a belief that the Beit HaMikdash doesn't need to be rebuilt is not authentic Judaism. Reform rabbis who choose not to wear yarmulkes even in synagogue are not practicing authentic Judaism. To me and much to my delight also to nonhuman, Orthodox Judaism is "real" Judaism. By real Judaism I mean in essence the same religion as practiced by our ancestors, the religion mandated by the Torah. The Torah teaches us repeatedly to follow only the religion our ancestors were taught at Mt. Sinai and not to innovate. The degree to which any other flavor of Judaism diverges from the broad Orthodox standard makes it increasingly inauthentic.

[Athens]

Can people be of 2 religions or even all 3, like Jewish Christian, a Jewish Muslim, or some one that subscribes to both Christianity and Islam?

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by Athens 

Can people be of 2 religions or even all 3, like Jewish Christian, a Jewish Muslim, or some one that subscribes to both Christianity and Islam?

I suspect the answers to this one will go both ways. Some people certainly do claim to be of two religions. I suspect most other members of either one would not be over the moon about this in most cases though.

My understanding is that believing jesus to be the son of god (and saviour of mankind) is essentially the defining difference between Jews and Christians put simply. One would think thats a tricky contradiction to overcome.

This is like genetics. Which religious hybrids are viable and which would spontaneously vanish in a puff of contradiction?

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

I'm not sure I buy this line of reasoning. I mean, I get what you're saying that there is either metaphor throughout or the whole thing should be taken literally but I'm pretty sure creationists are just as likely as many others to deflect certain questions by invoking the old "its a metaphor" line. Just not when it comes to the creation part. Which is what makes no sense to me.

The first five books of the Bible are written as a historical narrative. If Genesis isn't accurate, then the rest of the narrative can't be either. If you're reading a history book and it says Columbus sailed into the West Indies in 1994, how will you be able to take the rest of the book seriously? I question those people who call themselves Christians or Jews yet do not believe the account of creation as it is told in the Bible. If you're a Christian and don't believe that God created the earth in six literal days, how will you be able to believe that God raised his son from the dead? Or how will you believe miracles?

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The first five books of the Bible are written as a historical narrative. If Genesis isn't accurate, then the rest of the narrative can't be either.

That doesn't even merit a dismissive snicker. No one can trust the historical narratives in Chronicles because stories of giants and talking snakes precede it in Genesis? Gimme a break.

If you're a Christian and don't believe that God created the earth in six literal days, how will you be able to believe that God raised his son from the dead? Or how will you believe miracles?

Most of the gospels are deliberately written with double meanings; for instance the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac is certainly a commentary on Roman legion recruitment from that area in the 1st century. And there are several ways to interpret the resurrection without believing Jesus actually walked out of the tomb. The original meaning of the resurrection was probably that Jesus' spirit was taken into heaven instead of descending into the underworld, which was where all souls went to await the eventual World to Come.

[DBursey]

Athens: Start your own. It'd be at least as based in reality as any of the monotheistic hocus pokus we've been saddled with.

I recommend keeping the feast of maximum occupancy as a good start

[besson3c]

Athens: I would suggest worshiping me, I think it will enrich your life.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That doesn't even merit a dismissive snicker. No one can trust the historical narratives in Chronicles because stories of giants and talking snakes precede it in Genesis? Gimme a break.
Most of the gospels are deliberately written with double meanings; for instance the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac is certainly a commentary on Roman legion recruitment from that area in the 1st century. And there are several ways to interpret the resurrection without believing Jesus actually walked out of the tomb. The original meaning of the resurrection was probably that Jesus' spirit was taken into heaven instead of descending into the underworld, which was where all souls went to await the eventual World to Come.

It seems to me that he was pretty clearly talking exclusively about the Pentateuch, which exists as a distinct collection within the Bible(s) as a whole. It is entirely reasonable to say that one could consider the Pentateuch to be historically invalid without also having to throw out the possibility that there might be valid historical narrative in other parts of the Bible (or even within Genesis; some of it, at least, is based on reality).

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

That doesn't even merit a dismissive snicker. No one can trust the historical narratives in Chronicles because stories of giants and talking snakes precede it in Genesis? Gimme a break.

No, you can't trust the Bible to have correct valid historicity for books that were written as a history if the history isn't actually what it says it is.

Most of the gospels are deliberately written with double meanings; for instance the exorcism of the Gerasene demoniac is certainly a commentary on Roman legion recruitment from that area in the 1st century. And there are several ways to interpret the resurrection without believing Jesus actually walked out of the tomb. The original meaning of the resurrection was probably that Jesus' spirit was taken into heaven instead of descending into the underworld, which was where all souls went to await the eventual World to Come.

But the accounts of the death and resurrection are all literal. Jesus literally died. Roman records even show this. I don't see how you can get around it. Sometimes I think that people tend to give their own meaning to things, which can be a dangerous base for theology. Are you certain that the double meanings found in the Gospel are a result of writing or a result of the life of Jesus? With Jesus's life, you see that many things he did, were not only for one purpose; IE, one action could illustrate a moral ideal. I don't, however, see that in the writings of the Gospel.

Yes, I do certainly agree that parts of the Bible are very much not-literal (Song of Songs, Psalms, Proverbs, etc). But the Pentateuch isn't one of them.

[nonhuman]

What Roman records show anything about Jesus at all? So far as I'm aware, there are no credible, non-scriptural, contemporary sources, let alone official ones, that mention Jesus at all,

[imitchellg5]

Originally Posted by nonhuman 

What Roman records show anything about Jesus at all? So far as I'm aware, there are no credible, non-scriptural, contemporary sources, let alone official ones, that mention Jesus at all,

There are records of the crucifixion of a man who was held as innocent by the Roman called Pontius Pilate, as well as records of the extreme darkness and earthquake after the man died. Romans are very well-known for their record keeping, especially over their territories. And there are TONS of non-scriptural and contemporary sources that mention Jesus. He was well-known in his day. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't the only people who wrote down accounts.

[nonhuman]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

There are records of the crucifixion of a man who was held as innocent by the Roman called Pontius Pilate, as well as records of the extreme darkness and earthquake after the man died. Romans are very well-known for their record keeping, especially over their territories. And there are TONS of non-scriptural and contemporary sources that mention Jesus. He was well-known in his day. Matthew, Mark, Luke, and John weren't the only people who wrote down accounts.

The Romans are very well known for their record-keeping, and I'm pretty sure the records you're talking about don't exist. Please provide some citations.

To the best of my knowledge, the only non-scriptural citation is the discredited later addition to Josephus.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by imitchellg5 

The first five books of the Bible are written as a historical narrative. If Genesis isn't accurate, then the rest of the narrative can't be either. If you're reading a history book and it says Columbus sailed into the West Indies in 1994, how will you be able to take the rest of the book seriously? I question those people who call themselves Christians or Jews yet do not believe the account of creation as it is told in the Bible. If you're a Christian and don't believe that God created the earth in six literal days, how will you be able to believe that God raised his son from the dead? Or how will you believe miracles?

Don't get me wrong, I see where you are coming from and I realise that to disregard any of it while choosing to take some of it literally is plainly ridiculous but I don't believe this has stopped people. I obviously don't take any of it literally myself but in my various "discussions" with creationists they seem to stick to their guns about the 6 day creation and the 5-10000 year old Earth but when you bring up things like "Your loving God killed an entire nation of first born children because he was pissed off with one guy" it all suddenly becomes metaphor and misinterpretation.

I don't know how anyone can take a 6 day creation seriously. Even if you point out that a day is based on the rotation of the Earth and therefore a single 'god day' could be any length of time at all the creationists get all angry with you and start sulking or throwing their toys out of the pram. When genesis was written, nobody even knew what a planet was or what it looked like. If god himself had come down to Earth and started harping on about gravity and accretion discs even the sharpest scribes in all the land would have had no idea what he was going on about.

Hence my original question, why is it they are SO obsessive about creation in particular?

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by lpkmckenna 

As I've said before, my opinions on the Bible are informed by the works of biblical scholars whose views are taught in every Christian seminary in the world, except American evangelical seminaries, who are the real fringe here.

Well then you should have no problem citing for me what your preferred scholars have to say about a God who does not love you (my first point being that God loves you) and that God is not active in your life (my second point that He is engaged in your life) based on their examination of the NT.

But there's nothing inherently bad about being "fringe, contrarian, and antagonist." Jesus was "fringe, contrarian, and antagonist" which was part of what made him a great guy. But there's nothing particularly fringe, contrarian, and antagonist about my views.

I'll remember your tolerance for fringe views the next time I read "wingnut loonacy" in one of your posts. It seems you understand how "fringe, contrarian, and antagonist" are negative qualities in the wrong hands.

Don't worry ebuddy, I will never accuse you of having an independent thought.

Your opinions (independent thinking) do not make others dishonest and wrong.

"I think" the accounts of hundreds or thousands of followers of Jesus or Buddha are exaggerations, because ancient texts are always exaggerated. I'm not saying it to diminish Jesus or Buddha, I'm just telling you what I think is reasonable.

I understand you believe they are exaggerations, I get that. It follows. What I wanna know is why it is so important for atheists to beat others over the head with their beliefs?

The span of time between Paul's letters (the 50s) and the oldest manuscripts (4th century) isn't very meaningful, and the only things that the oldest manuscripts tell us is that the NT has been tampered with (eg, the adulteress tale in John is forged, the two endings of Mark are forged, etc). And even without manuscripts, we'd still know that half of letters of Paul are forgeries, because the letters' contents give themselves away. Your "proof of authenticity" actually proves the opposite point.

Purely in terms of evidential tampering from original composition, you've got less than 100 years of such to contend with in the Christian text and more than 400 in Buddhism. In short, you're left with so many basket-fulls of tampered, entirely contrived text that scholars will not even attest to its authenticity. The mere notion of considering it for measurement is a non-starter. You've got more than 24,000 NT manuscripts for analysis and they attest to remarkable care in duplication and maintain irrefutable integrity of the gospel message.

You are lying about what scholar's think about the textual authority NT, and you know it.

Fenton John Anthony Hort; "The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation than seven-eights of the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism... If the principles followed in this edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognizing to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgment in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one-sixteenth of the whole New Testament. In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text." He continues; "In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachable alone among ancient prose writings."

John Warwick Montgomery; "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."

J. Harold Greenlee; "...the number of available MSS of the New Testament is overwhelmingly greater than those of any other work of ancient literature. In the third place, the earliest extant MSS of the New Testament were written much closer to the date of the original writing than is the case in almost any other piece of ancient literature."

It is sometimes very difficult to know what Jesus meant, even assuming we have his very words. There are often differences in the actual words from each source, making Jesus' real teaching very obscure. For example...
Matthew and Luke give us difference versions of the divorce and remarriage teaching here:
Luke: Everyone who divorces his wife, and marries another, commits adultery. He who marries one who is divorced from a husband commits adultery.
Matthew: “It was also said, ‘Whoever shall put away his wife, let him give her a writing of divorce,’ but I tell you that whoever puts away his wife, except for the cause of sexual immorality, makes her an adulteress; and whoever marries her when she is put away commits adultery.

Notice the huge difference? In Luke, divorce is fine but remarriage is adultery. In Matthew, it's a lot more complicated, making divorce bad in all but one circumstance.

Where in Luke does it say "divorce is fine"? This constitutes a "huge" difference to you? Why are you assuming an attitude here? Seems to me Luke is onto the hypocrisy of "wanting some strange" and that it had nothing to do with uncleanness, but everything to do with the corrupted nature of seeking divorce to begin with. In other words, if your'e thinking you'll ditch this one to pick up that one - take heed. Even today 75% of divorcees remarry.

But it doesn't end, there, since there's another discussion of divorce and remarriage, which Luke doesn't mention, but Mark does...
Mark: But Jesus said to them, "For your hardness of heart he wrote you this commandment. But from the beginning of creation, 'God made them male and female.' 'For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife, and the two shall become one flesh.' So they are no longer two but one flesh. What therefore God has joined together, let not man put asunder." And in the house the disciples asked him again about this matter. And he said to them, "Whoever divorces his wife and marries another, commits adultery against her; and if she divorces her husband and marries another, she commits adultery."
Matthew: He said to them, "For your hardness of heart Moses allowed you to divorce your wives, but from the beginning it was not so. And I say to you: whoever divorces his wife, except for unchastity, and marries another, commits adultery."

Both times, Matthew slips in that comment about a cheating wife. In other words, he edited his sources (Q and Mark). Notice that Mark says divorce is bad because because it destroys the mystic union created by God, but Matthew throws that away.

How does Matthew "throw that away"? Why make an assumption about Matthew's attitude? By this logic, why is it necessary that Mark and Luke reiterate the Matthaean exception? The holistic message you're getting is that from Deuteronomy men were allowed to "break" this mystic union for loosely - uncleanness. Jesus clarifies exactly what uncleanness is and it seems fitting that Matthew would twice remind them that this in fact hadn't been the only time they had been breaking that union; that their hearts in such instances are hardened, but that God detests divorce as it was never intended to be what it had become.

But Paul himself has yet another take:
Paul: To the married I give charge, not I but the Lord, that the wife should not separate from her husband (but if she does, let her remain single or else be reconciled to her husband) --and that the husband should not divorce his wife. To the rest I say, not the Lord, that if any brother has a wife who is an unbeliever, and she consents to live with him, he should not divorce her.

Here, Paul makes clear that Jesus himself opposed divorce. (This is also a good example that Paul was in fact familiar with the teachings of Jesus.) It's also interesting to see Paul give a command not from Jesus himself. How can this letter be included in "the inerrant word of God" if Paul himself says it isn't?

So, he's want we have:
Paul: divorce bad
Mark: divorce bad, remarriage bad
Luke: remarriage bad, but no comment on divorce at all.
Matthew: divorce bad unless your wife was a slut, remarriage bad, and if your divorced wife remarries, you are also guilty of adultery.

So what to make of all this? Jesus was against divorce, and he considered remarriage to be adultery. Why? Multiple attestation, which is an important part of textual analysis. Just because it's in the Bible doesn't mean it's trustworthy. Because Luke and Matthew stick out as strange idiosyncrasies here, those texts must be held to be suspect in this case.

Matthew's talk about adulterous wives and sharing the in adultery of wives who remarry is certainly his own invention, not Jesus. And why doesn't Luke include the bit about divorce? He must have known about it, since he copied directly from Mark. Like Matthew, he edited his source. In all likelihood, Matthew made an edit to appeal to his Jewish audience, and Luke edited to appeal to his Gentile audience. Paul didn't edit for his Gentile audience, and makes plain when his teachings are his own and not Jesus, because he has much more integrity than Luke or Matthew, both of whom are caught with their pants down, not just here, but many, many other times.

• Paul; divorce is bad. If divorced, stay single or be reconciled to your spouse. i.e. divorce is bad, remarriage is bad.
• Mark; divorce is bad, remarriage is bad.
• Luke; remarriage is bad. Does he really need to reiterate that divorce is bad, particularly while addressing the overwhelming cause of it?
• Matthew 19:3-12; Divorce is bad, it was never meant to be from the beginning. Defines uncleanness as used from Deuteronomy, and rebukes the primary cause of divorce lest the hypocrites testing Jesus be disingenuous.

In short;

• Marriage is a covenant
• Because marriage is a covenant, divorce is bad
• Even the man-made laws of divorce to assuage the hardened heart had been abused
• The reason for the abuse is sin
• Marriage is a covenant
• Divorce is bad

None of this is problematic in the least.

I call that bibliolatry. You've replaced the worship of God with the worship of the works of man; not statues in this case, but sometimes just ordinary letters.

I'm not concerned with what you call it. Your opinions of Scripture are not a guide for my salvation and you do not know me from a 10-minute discussion on MacNN. Otherwise, you've replaced worship of God with outright rejection. What is it to you hypocrite?

No, that's what you do. You think letters written in the 1st century can explain the writings from the 8th century BC.
This is tiresome. I don't care to debate this anymore, because your willingness to make blanket assertions about the entire Bible without regard to who wrote it or when is irritating, especially when you just claimed that I'm the one who does this, not you.

I'm not pretending it is problematic to tailor a message to an audience. The way I treat you in this discussion for example, is entirely different than how I've treated others. Why? Because you deserve special treatment. The fact that you'd stoop to this degree to marginalize Scripture is telling.

There's no translational error here. Is that the latest evangelical whitewashing on uncomfortable passages? Classy.

Speaking of tiresome.

I just cracked open Robert Alter's fantastic translation "The Five Books of Moses" and re-read the relevant passages from Deuteronomy 22. It specifically says "take hold of her and lie with her," which is certainly rape.
I've heard this one, and it doesn't pass the laugh test. In ancient Israel, many poor men lacked wives and were forced to share prostitutes, because the rich keep many wives. The idea that a poor man with no hope for a wife would turn away a rape vicitim as a spouse is not credible, especially since rape was ubiquitous in the ancient world (and today).

Right, that's why the father maintained the right to deny the mandatory message as long as he could find another provider. Is this how atheists whitewash their zeal?

No they weren't. In the Deuteronomy passage, it's very clear that only if the woman is married or betrothed is the rapist stoned to death. If the woman is single, they are to be married. Read the passage, see that I'm right, or come back here and try to tell me otherwise.

First of all, none of this addresses my statements on God's engagement, guidance, and love. Right out of the atheist handbook; toggle back and forth from the feeble contradictions argument to the feeble Scriptural barbarism argument. I'm not here to reconcile every jot and tittle of Scripture to zealous unbelievers with an internet connection. You were never my target audience in this.

Your "gotcha" moments here are nothing more than dishonesty and antagonist zeal. The words you're interpreting as "rape" are taphas and shakab. Taphas is used 27 times as "take", 12 times as "taken", 8 times as "handle" and "hold", 4 times as "catch", "surprised" twice, and 4 times in a miscellaneous manner such as "deal with" in Jeremiah 2:8 regarding their application of law. mckenna's interpretation? Forcible sex. Shakab is "to lie down". It is used 106 times as "lie", 48 times as "sleep", and 43 times as "lie down". mckenna's exhaustive interpretation? Rape.

Chazaq is used as "force" in the preceding text and the differences between such instances rely on whether or not the woman screamed. If she did not, it was deemed consensual. If she screams, implying chazaq, then only the man who lay with her shall die. So... I've come back here to tell you otherwise. Now what? More dishonesty? More cherry-picking of this verse and that? indeed.

This is the Bible we're talking about, right? You can't brush it off with "civil laws change" if you think God wrote the thing. Sheesh.

Should I assume "God wrote the thing" when the thing He wrote said "Moses allowed"? C'mon mckenna.

I'm sorry if my objection to blatantly misogynist laws is antagonizing you. I really should have more consideration of your feelings.

As usual you are attributing what you want instead of what is. And no, there's no reason you should have any greater regard for my feelings than you would your own knowledge, filtered through antagonism.

Ok, let's read what Paul says, shall we...

Sure, should we do this with no regard for what is said in Matthew? John? Acts? Ephesians regarding the necessity of faith in Jesus? Worse yet, should we do this in context of your own citations of familial abandonment as the central theme of the NT?

What do you make of the "unbelieving yet sanctified" spouse? What do you make of "saving" your unbelieving spouse?

Note also, that the children as regarded as "holy" not because of anything they do, but because of what their parents do. Yet another example that the belief of the individual isn't really what counts.

And now back to "gotcha" moments. Sanctified means "set apart". Living with one of faith puts you in a unique position to hear God's word as indicated throughout Acts and there's no reason to divorce as the marriage and offspring are merely legitimized by faith as indicated throughout Corinthians. The entire context of this passage has zero to do with a promise of salvation, everything to do with the legitimacy of the marriage covenant itself. You fail to see the qualification in the rhetorical question offered by Paul in closing; "For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” The fact is, you don't know because salvation through marriage is clearly not a promise.

Consider my sandals as having been dusted off at your doorstep. I'm done attempting to adjudicate every jot and tittle of Scripture to the willfully blind.

[Shaddim]

First of all, none of this addresses my statements on God's engagement, guidance, and love. Right out of the atheist handbook; toggle back and forth from the feeble contradictions argument to the feeble Scriptural barbarism argument. I'm not here to reconcile every jot and tittle of Scripture to zealous unbelievers with an internet connection. You were never my target audience in this.

This. People wonder why I no longer engage in religious debate on this forum, and the fact remains that it's a tiresome waste of time.

Athens, did you take "the test"? It's largely for entertainment purposes only, but might nudge you in the right direction.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This. People wonder why I no longer engage in religious debate on this forum, and the fact remains that it's a tiresome waste of time.

Agreed. I think I'll follow your lead here. Too many people purposefully misunderstand what is clearly spelled out for them. Then there are those who just outright lie and ridicule.

Time for yet another MacNN vacation, me thinks.

[Waragainstsleep]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

What I wanna know is why it is so important for atheists to beat others over the head with their beliefs?

If you must insist on restating this opinion over and over I wish you'd better qualify it with a word like 'some'. Outspoken atheists are a minority among atheists. (Yes I know I am one and I wish there were more of us but there it is).


Why do some of us speak out about our beliefs and attempt to dissuade others from theirs?
All that is required for the prevalence of ignorance is that knowledgable people do nothing.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep 

If you must insist on restating this opinion over and over I wish you'd better qualify it with a word like 'some'. Outspoken atheists are a minority among atheists. (Yes I know I am one and I wish there were more of us but there it is).

Like I've said numerous times, you generally won't see Christians proselytizing here. Unless of course a thread like this comes along soliciting it. There's no reason to qualify "some" atheists when the only ones proselytizing are atheists.

Why do some of us speak out about our beliefs and attempt to dissuade others from theirs?
All that is required for the prevalence of ignorance is that knowledgable people do nothing.

And yet with regard to Scripture, some atheists would do well to remain silent.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy

Right out of the atheist handbook; toggle back and forth from the feeble contradictions argument to the feeble Scriptural barbarism argument. I'm not here to reconcile every jot and tittle of Scripture to zealous unbelievers with an internet connection. You were never my target audience in this.

It would be wonderful if you even bothered to address the contradiction and barbarism claims without dismissing them as "feeble." But since you are preaching to your choir instead of "zealous unbelievers," that explains why you aren't even bothering to address the issues we have with the Bible and the reason we don't believe in it: it's full of barbarism and contradictions.

Originally Posted by Shaddim 

This. People wonder why I no longer engage in religious debate on this forum, and the fact remains that it's a tiresome waste of time.

Uh, what do you expect non-believers to think of the Bible that would allow you to have a conversation with them?

Originally Posted by Railroader 

Agreed. I think I'll follow your lead here. Too many people purposefully misunderstand what is clearly spelled out for them. Then there are those who just outright lie and ridicule. Time for yet another MacNN vacation, me thinks.

That's fine, we'll survive just fine without the "oh gosh=blasphemy" guy for a while.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Well then you should have no problem citing for me what your preferred scholars have to say about a God who does not love you (my first point being that God loves you) and that God is not active in your life (my second point that He is engaged in your life) based on their examination of the NT.

I never claimed the Bible denied God loves us, so stop shoving words in my mouth. And I might quote from a Bible scholar about the "engagement with your life" issue if any bothered to examine an issue so trivial as modern-day evangelical catch-phrases. At it is, try to remember what I actually said: the NT (not the Jewish Bible) displays a lack of concern about everyday life because the world is gonna end. That's how Jesus, Paul, and the earliest writers saw things. Of course the forgeries like Timothy and Titus have some practical advice about life, because they are forgeries written in the 2nd or 3rd century.

I'll remember your tolerance for fringe views the next time I read "wingnut loonacy" in one of your posts. It seems you understand how "fringe, contrarian, and antagonist" are negative qualities in the wrong hands.

It would be wonderful it you properly remembered anything of what I write, because when you relay it back to me, it's badly distorted.

Your opinions (independent thinking) do not make others dishonest and wrong.

I never said otherwise. I accused you of being dishonest for other reasons.

What I wanna know is why it is so important for atheists to beat others over the head with their beliefs?

Pot, have you been introduced to kettle?

Purely in terms of evidential tampering from original composition, you've got less than 100 years of such to contend with in the Christian text and more than 400 in Buddhism.

First, I've already stated that I think the time period between composition to extant manuscripts is meaningless. Second, we already know of tampering that happened after the 4th century; you know, I gave you some examples. The adulteress story of John is a forgery, the two endings of Mark are forgeries, that's what the manuscripts say. Stop pretending they don't exists, and I'll stop accusing you of dishonesty, deal?

In short, you're left with so many basket-fulls of tampered, entirely contrived text that scholars will not even attest to its authenticity. The mere notion of considering it for measurement is a non-starter.

I've never claimed that any Buddhist texts are inerrant, and I said that most of it unreliable. That doesn't mean we don't have a good approximation of what the Buddha taught. I would suggest the excellent book "What the Buddha Taught" if you're actually interested. (Probably not, since you've elevated Buddhism-bashing to a method of Christian apologetics.)

You've got more than 24,000 NT manuscripts for analysis and they attest to remarkable care in duplication and maintain irrefutable integrity of the gospel message.

I love it when you pretend "irrefutable integrity" can be found in documents with forged passages and forged letters.

Fenton John Anthony Hort; "The proportion of words virtually accepted on all hands as raised above doubt is very great, not less, on a rough computation than seven-eights of the whole. The remaining eighth, therefore, formed in great part by changes of order and other comparative trivialities, constitutes the whole area of criticism... If the principles followed in this edition are sound, this area may be very greatly reduced. Recognizing to the full the duty of abstinence from peremptory decision in cases where the evidence leaves the judgment in suspense between two or more readings, we find that, setting aside differences of orthography, the words in our opinion still subject to doubt only make up about one-sixteenth of the whole New Testament. In this second estimate the proportion of comparatively trivial variations is beyond measure larger than in the former; so that the amount of what can in any sense be called substantial variation is but a small fraction of the whole residuary variation, and can hardly form more than a thousandth part of the entire text." He continues; "In the variety and fullness of the evidence on which it rests the text of the New Testament stands absolutely and unapproachable alone among ancient prose writings."

I don't know how Hort moves from 1/16th to 1/1000th, but regardless, Hort has been dead for over a hundred years, and Biblical scholarship has advanced considerably since then. The most important scholarly instrument in NT studies, the Nestle-Aland, didn't even begin publication until Hort was dead. The secular Bible scholars of his era are also recognized as lacking for this reason. Regardless, my point about the NT reliability isn't about trivial variations, but major ones, the ones you keep pretending don't exist. And his comparision between the NT and other ancient writings is irrelevant, since no one is claiming the writings of Plato or Galen are inerrant.

John Warwick Montgomery; "to be skeptical of the resultant text of the New Testament books is to allow all of classical antiquity to slip into obscurity, for no documents of the ancient period are as well attested bibliographically as the New Testament."

That's wonderful, except to say the NT is in much better shape than Cicero is nowhere near saying it's perfect, which is what you claim the NT is.

J. Harold Greenlee; "...the number of available MSS of the New Testament is overwhelmingly greater than those of any other work of ancient literature. In the third place, the earliest extant MSS of the New Testament were written much closer to the date of the original writing than is the case in almost any other piece of ancient literature."

You keep coming back to this irrelevant point. No one cares.

Where in Luke does it say "divorce is fine"? This constitutes a "huge" difference to you?

He doesn't say it's fine, he eliminates the saying on divorce entirely from his version, which he based on Mark. Why did he leave it out? Did he make a mistake, or did he choose to remove it? If he made a mistake in leaving it out, his work cannot be inerrant. If he deliberately removed it, then his motives for removal become an issue. That's a huge issue.

Seems to me Luke is onto the hypocrisy of "wanting some strange" and that it had nothing to do with uncleanness, but everything to do with the corrupted nature of seeking divorce to begin with. In other words, if your'e thinking you'll ditch this one to pick up that one - take heed.

You are inferring something that simply isn't there.

How does Matthew "throw that away"?

Uh, because he removes something he had? Matthew had information that he chose not to share. We're all entitled to ask why.

By this logic, why is it necessary that Mark and Luke reiterate the Matthaean exception?

You can't "reiterate" something you don't have. Seriously, when someone doctors a document, you don't go back to the original author and ask why he didn't include the doctored info in the first place.

The holistic message you're getting is that from Deuteronomy men were allowed to "break" this mystic union for loosely - uncleanness.

Actually, Deuteronomy allows the husband to divorce for no reason at all. The only thing he can't do is falsely accuse the wife of being a non-virgin before marriage.

Jesus clarifies exactly what uncleanness is and it seems fitting that Matthew would twice remind them that this in fact hadn't been the only time they had been breaking that union; that their hearts in such instances are hardened, but that God detests divorce as it was never intended to be what it had become.

Please, show me once in the OT where God tells us that he hates divorce. The fact is, Jesus was implementing a new rule, not explaining an old one. 

Paul; divorce is bad. If divorced, stay single or be reconciled to your spouse. i.e. divorce is bad, remarriage is bad.

I have no doubt that Paul knew Jesus' stance on remarriage, and he just doesn't mention it because his writing is in response to specific issues brought to him. My point was to show multiple attestation.

Luke; remarriage is bad. Does he really need to reiterate that divorce is bad, particularly while addressing the overwhelming cause of it?

What he needs to do is stop editing his sources, otherwise he's gonna get caught doing it. Theophilus wanted a complete account of Jesus' life and teachings, and Luke fails to deliver.

Even the man-made laws of divorce to assuage the hardened heart had been abused

I find it interesting that you would describe any of the contents of the Torah as "man-made laws." Yes, Jesus appears to say that Moses, not God, is the source of the permissive divorce laws in the Torah. I don't think that's the only way to read it, though.

I'm not concerned with what you call it. Your opinions of Scripture are not a guide for my salvation and you do not know me from a 10-minute discussion on MacNN. Otherwise, you've replaced worship of God with outright rejection. What is it to you hypocrite?

There's nothing hypocritical about observing that's you've ascribed the qualities of God to a man-made object.

I'm not pretending it is problematic to tailor a message to an audience.

That's depends on how things are being tailored, doesn't it.

Right, that's why the father maintained the right to deny the mandatory message as long as he could find another provider.

Could you point me in the direction of this passage, since I don't see it in Deut 22.

Your "gotcha" moments here are nothing more than dishonesty and antagonist zeal. The words you're interpreting as "rape" are taphas and shakab. Taphas is used 27 times as "take", 12 times as "taken", 8 times as "handle" and "hold", 4 times as "catch", "surprised" twice, and 4 times in a miscellaneous manner such as "deal with" in Jeremiah 2:8 regarding their application of law. mckenna's interpretation? Forcible sex. Shakab is "to lie down". It is used 106 times as "lie", 48 times as "sleep", and 43 times as "lie down". mckenna's exhaustive interpretation? Rape.

I never said "to lie down with" equals "rape." To lie down with obviously means have sex with. I clearly said "take hold of and lie with her" is rape. And Robert Alter's translation of taphas is "to take hold of," which is quite the same as the previous cases of the victim crying out or not crying out, where it says "seize her and lie with her." If you think "seize her" and "take hold of her" are different for some reason, I'd love to hear why.

Chazaq is used as "force" in the preceding text and the differences between such instances rely on whether or not the woman screamed. If she did not, it was deemed consensual.

Does that make the slightest bit of sense to you? This is a pretty good example of how completely fncking ridiculous the Bible is sometimes.

If she screams, implying chazaq, then only the man who lay with her shall die. So... I've come back here to tell you otherwise. Now what? More dishonesty? More cherry-picking of this verse and that? indeed.

Let me know when you figure out that "take hold of" and "seize" mean exactly the same thing. I don't wanna miss this remarkable moment in the history of synonyms and diction.

Should I assume "God wrote the thing" when the thing He wrote said "Moses allowed"? C'mon mckenna.

So thanks for affirming that not everything in the Bible is the word of God. We should let the world know.

As usual you are attributing what you want instead of what is.

No, that's what you do when you pretend the Bible isn't filled with misogyny and barbarism.

Sure, should we do this with no regard for what is said in Matthew? John? Acts?

Why? Paul never read anything of that. And since Acts misrepresents Paul so often, it's the last place to look for clarity of his intent.

Ephesians regarding the necessity of faith in Jesus?

Ephesians is a forgery. If you could stick to the authentic letters of Paul, that would at least be an attempt to convince me. EDIT: Even the TITLE is a forgery, since the oldest manuscripts don't include any reference to Ephesus at all. Someone thought it would be useful to tamper with a forged document!

And now back to "gotcha" moments. Sanctified means "set apart". Living with one of faith puts you in a unique position to hear God's word as indicated throughout Acts and there's no reason to divorce as the marriage and offspring are merely legitimized by faith as indicated throughout Corinthians. The entire context of this passage has zero to do with a promise of salvation, everything to do with the legitimacy of the marriage covenant itself. You fail to see the qualification in the rhetorical question offered by Paul in closing; "For how do you know, O wife, whether you will save your husband? Or how do you know, O husband, whether you will save your wife?” The fact is, you don't know because salvation through marriage is clearly not a promise.

You are reading it however you want, to make it fit your belief in the faulty interpretation "salvation thru faith." Paul clearly says the believer must not divorce an unbelieving spouse, because that spouse has been sanctified. Taking the religious term "sanctified" and watering it into nothing but listening-distance of Jesus-talk is so typical of all the rest of your watered-down theology. By that token, I'm "sanctified" if I can hear my neighbours pray to God thru the walls in my apartment building.

[lpkmckenna]

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

Like I've said numerous times, you generally won't see Christians proselytizing here. Unless of course a thread like this comes along soliciting it. There's no reason to qualify "some" atheists when the only ones proselytizing are atheists.

I haven't proselytized for atheism in this thread at all.

And yet with regard to Scripture, some atheists would do well to remain silent.

Why? I'm just repeating the work of Christian scholars.