But they aren't. Unless you accept the Scriptures as containing the self-revelation of God, then how do you know anything about Him? To me, it seems that you are simply projecting yourself onto God, in which case the god that you worship is no God at all. Your god isn't there.

If I'm understanding you correctly, you're postulating that humanity is oblivious to God and his presence in human life unless a person has been given divine grace, which causes dormant sensus Divinitatus to wake back up. What does divine grace have to do with believing every single book and passage of the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

I can't help it that God decided to reveal himself to me when I wasn't going to church and reading the Bible everyday. To say he cannot reach out to anyone, regardless of their Bible knowledge or anything else, sounds pretty limiting of God.

I didn't say that the scriptures didn't contain the self-revelation of God. I couldn't—and wouldn't—call myself a Christian if I believed every single sentence in the Bible was a lie, could I? I'm talking about whether or not the scriptures, in their entirety (whatever that is), are the infallible word of God.

Wolfy, that's one of the reasons why I doubt the extreme importance of extensive Bible knowledge and understanding in a person's spiritual life—because God allowed it to be manipulated and shrouded in mystery for tens of centuries. Again, Man is standing between humanity and God. I'm not really wild about that.

I'm deeply grateful that I live in an era and country where I can study the Bible and have a conversation like I'm having right now on here, but I don't believe that I would have been up the creek in terms of truly knowing God if I'd had the misfortune of being born in a different time and place.

I'm not talking about the belief of God, I am talking about the belief of an infallible Bible. To me, those are two separate issues.

The problem is, everything you know about God and Jesus Christ comes from the Bible. Even if you heard it from someone else like a family member or friend, they got it from the Bible, or else got it from someone else who got it from the Bible. Everything we know about God and Christ is from the Bible. So if you don't believe parts of the Bible are true, how do you know what you already believe is true? If you believe some parts and not others, how do you know you've picked the right parts to believe in? Maybe all the good sounding parts are true, and the bad sounding parts are false. But what if it's in reverse? What if the good parts are all false and only the bad parts are true? What if none of it is true, and the god you've gotten to know is actually some other god?

If we base our beliefs on what does and does not line up with how we think God is, our beliefs are going to be wrong sometime whether we believe in the Bible or not. Us being small, imperfect humans who don't know the whole picture; and God being bigger than we can imagine, perfect, and all knowing; the chances of us knowing what he would or wouldn't do, and agreeing with him on all matters moral (even us good-intentioned folk) is very slim. There's going to be times when He does something that shocks us. Eventually you're going to find examples not only in the Bible, but also in real life. And if you're already in a place where you'll reject the Bible because parts just don't seem like something God would do... well... you don't want to put yourself in a position where your faith might be endangered if God did something in your own life that seemed "unlike Him".

~Riella

Wolfy, that's one of the reasons why I doubt the extreme importance of extensive Bible knowledge and understanding in a person's spiritual life—because God allowed it to be manipulated and shrouded in mystery for tens of centuries. Again, Man is standing between humanity and God. I'm not really wild about that.

Ok first off what do you mean about manipulated? We have numerous versions of the Bible and they all say essentially the same thing. Some of the words may be different but the meaning is the same.
Secondly as for Man standing between humanity and God... that there is half the point. Satan wants to turn us away from God, and the easiest way to do that is by using false prophets and Man's imperfections. As we get closer to the end of times your going to see that more and more, whether it happens in one year or one thousand... Man is going to be continuously lead astray- that's why the Bible's important, if gives you a backbone and a brain. It shows you when someone who says it's holy to do something ungodly. You'll have the brains to know it's not right and the backbone to stand for your argument. If you don't believe in the Bible's fullness then you start poking holes in the backbone and the brain- that's exactly what Satan wants. Furthermore all of this Man getting in between is just more evidence supporting the Bible's inerrancy, because it is prophesied about in the Bible. For example if someone told you it was good to kill someone as long as it's for God or that God didn't want us to help the poor, how would you know they are not right unless you believe in what all the Bible says. People's morals are subject to influence if they didn't have the brain and the backbone provided in the inerrancy of the Bible then how would they stand without letting their morals fall? How would they know if something was right and wrong? How do you know that the parts of the Bible you believe are errant actually are and it's not the stuff you were told that you replaced it with?

^Granted I'm no expert on the Islam religion, but I believe the quote you speak of depends on the interpretation. In other words I've never read it, and until I do I cannot believe that it specifically says killing a non-Muslim would gain one immediate access into heaven. And I know for a fact that whether or not it is in the Qur'an the vast majority of Muslims do not think that way. I might also add on that the revearse belief was taught to Christians during the Crusades (one who killed a Muslim or Jew would get automatic entry into Heaven) and the majority believed it. Of course the majority of Christians nowadays have read their Bible enough to know that's not true (Granted not all of them... ) But if someone could find the actual quote from a non-biased site and that was translated well I'd feel more comfortable speaking on the matter...

Koran 9:3-5

3 And an announcement from Allah and His Apostle to the people on the day of the greater pilgrimage that Allah and His Apostle are free from liability to the idolaters; therefore if you repent, it will be better for you, and if you turn back, then know that you will not weaken Allah; and announce painful punishment to those who disbelieve.
4 Except those of the idolaters with whom you made an agreement, then they have not failed you in anything and have not backed up any one against you, so fulfill their agreement to the end of their term; surely Allah loves those who are careful (of their duty).
5 So when the sacred months have passed away, then slay the idolaters wherever you find them, and take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush, then if they repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate, leave their way free to them; surely Allah is Forgiving, Merciful.

Koran 9:123-126

123 O you who believe! fight those of the unbelievers who are near to you and let them find in you hardness; and know that Allah is with those who guard (against evil).
124 And whenever a chapter is revealed, there are some of them who say: Which of you has it strengthened in faith? Then as for those who believe, it strengthens them in faith and they rejoice.
125 And as for those in whose hearts is a disease, it adds uncleanness to their uncleanness and they die while they are unbelievers.
126 Do they not see that they are tried once or twice in every year, yet they do not turn (to Allah) nor do they mind.

Not sure how skewed a translation has to get to make up killing when there was none in the original.

Apparently, there are more verses in other Muslim holy books about this, but I have not checked into that.

The crusades are a horrible mark on the history of Christianity. That was a time where, as you pointed out in your later post, only the clergy were allowed to read the scriptures. The crusades were driven mainly by greed. It was shameful to the point of making me sick to my stomach.

I'm not talking about the belief of God, I am talking about the belief of an infallible Bible. To me, those are two separate issues.

And ^ that ^ is what my entire post was talking about. That cannot be true. If the Bible is infallible, how can you know that God isn't infallible? The Bible is all we have to tell us about God. God says that He will protect His scriptures.

2 Timothy 3:16-17

16 All Scripture is breathed out by God and profitable for teaching, for reproof, for correction, and for training in righteousness,
17 that the man of God may be competent, equipped for every good work.

But then, if the Bible is fallible, how do we know anything He says is true? What if someone made Jehovah up? If the Bible is fallible, we have no God. The two issues are not just conjoined, they are one.

John 1:1

In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Hey Coura!

I'm going to just respond to the gist of your post—I am trying so hard to keep my posts from becoming massive again —but if you feel like I've missed something important, shoot me a PM on it or we can talk about it in chat.

I think I'll PM you a bit later.

Actually, I've never run across a verse that says one must believe the Bible is the inerrant word in God or else be condemned. If you know of one, I'd be interested in seeing it.

As far as I know, there isn't one that says specifically that. But I didn't say that. I said that if you can't believe the Bible, you can't believe God.

My basic understanding of salvation is that if you accept Christ as lord (which also means living by his example and rules, I should assume), and believe in your heart that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved. Romans 10:9.

What I haven't been able to find in the Bible is God communicating directly to anyone which books should be put in the Bible, et cetera. So just by Man involving himself with so critically important a task as anthologizing the Bible, it ceases to be a case of "God Determines Truth." Man determines Biblical truth.

Again, referring to 1 Timothy 3:16-17. God specifically says that all scriptures are breathed out by God. If you can't believe that, then God doesn't keep His promises. If God doesn't keep his promises, then how can you believe that Christ was raised from the dead?

It's not that I'm not willing to consider that my views on life aren't 100% correct and right. I know that, though I do my best and I hope my intentions are at least good.

What I am unwilling to do is trade my belief system for another man's, or a hodgepodge of beliefs from hundreds of ancient humans, which are just as flawed, if not more flawed. (I'll say more flawed because I hope I don't contradict myself as much as the Bible, from my standpoint, seems to do so.)

I'm not an expert on the supposed conflicts in the Bible. But all the ones that I have come across and heard discussed are usually ones that were taken out of context or come from a partial understanding of the scriptures in both places.
EXCEPT!! In the Catholic Bible. The Catholic's added scriptures are full of contradictions. I don't feel equipped to debate this point very well, I just know that people I greatly respect have studied it in depth and have come to that conclusion.

As long as I feel that the Bible is largely the product of Man, believing it is the inerrant word of God is just not an option for me.

But the Bible is all you have to tell you that God exists. Therefore, if the Bible is largely the product of Man, how can you tell that God is real?

I've followed these threads for. . . gosh, I guess it's going on about five years now. I've seen just about every issue tossed about, and watched people on here debate and disagree and discuss 'til the cows come home. Yet most of the time, the people who are disagreeing with each other all believe in the Bible as the infallible word of God. It's like. . . when everyone sees something different in the shape of a cloud.

Absolutely. That is because the infallibility of the Bible is the basis for all the beliefs of the Christian. Would you argue that your compass really does point North? Sure you would, because if it doesn't, how do you know you're going North?

Even if the Bible were infallible (and even then, which version/translation would it be?), it seems to me that Man achieving an infallible understanding/interpretation of it is impossible.

Honestly, if understanding and believing in every aspect of the Bible was such an important issue, God should have put it in a form that could not be clouded by language, translation, and semantics. A form that is universal and everyone can truly understand, so instead of rejecting through misunderstanding, they can actually reject it with the nature of their hearts instead of the fallibility of their minds.

He has.

1 Corinthians 1:26-29

26 For consider your calling, brothers: not many of you were wise according to worldly standards, not many were powerful, not many were of noble birth.
27 But God chose what is foolish in the world to shame the wise; God chose what is weak in the world to shame the strong;
28 God chose what is low and despised in the world, even things that are not, to bring to nothing things that are,
29 so that no human being might boast in the presence of God.

This is His plan. He chooses who understands what.

1 Corinthians 1:18-23

18 For the message of the cross is foolishness to those who are perishing, but to us who are being saved it is the power of God. 19 For it is written:

“I will destroy the wisdom of the wise;
the intelligence of the intelligent I will frustrate.”

20 Where is the wise person? Where is the teacher of the law? Where is the philosopher of this age? Has not God made foolish the wisdom of the world?
21 For since in the wisdom of God the world through its wisdom did not know him, God was pleased through the foolishness of what was preached to save those who believe.
22 Jews demand signs and Greeks look for wisdom,
23 but we preach Christ crucified: a stumbling block to Jews and foolishness to Gentiles,

I don't understand it all and don't suppose my widdle human brain ever can. But He has said that not everyone will understand. If we understood the whole thing, then why would we need God anymore? If we knew it all, He would no longer be God.
But God says that if we seek, we will find. He will reveal what He wants us to know and He commands us to seek Him.

As for translations, God says that the scripture is Holy and the Word of God. So, what is He talking about? The originals. I believe that in order to study the Word best, you should grab yourself some translation books and delve into the original Hebrew Old Testament and the Greek New Testament. Choose your own English translation to be the one that most matches the original text. Most of the people I respect prefer ESV, though I have a New King James and that seems to be alright, though I've come to prefer ESV through my own personal study. All my Bible apps default to ESV now.

I'll check out the videos as soon as I have time. And thanks for the prayers and taking the time to write your post, Coura, I appreciate it.

Please please please please watch the videos!!! That man is so much smarter than me he can make me cry with humble gratitude. He can explain it all so much better than me.
And I appreciate you, Thorny.

We sometimes do here in the UK, actually Indeed, I've heard similar terms used by Christians to explain the behavior of people who do terrible things in the name of their god (murder of certain figures, etc). This isn't something I criticise either, it's sensible to acknowledge that there are people twisting your religion for wrong and to separate yourselves from them.

That is NOT a Christian action. To call that "extremist" is NOT true. But you acknowledged that yourself.

Humans can twist anything up to suit them. But it doesn't take a sick and twisted mind to see that the Koran demands the death of infidels who do not believe. Try and find that in the Bible.

The definition of "Christian" is not actually works and deeds, though. The definition of Christian is One called to the Kingdom. Frankly, it is between God and the person. But in James 2 we are told

26 For as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works is dead also.

The Bible talks about becoming a new man when Born Again. That does not mean we are without sin. It does mean that there is something changed inside of us. Is a Christian capable of murder? Absolutely. Can a Christian commit murder and still be a Christian? Absolutely, because our ultimate Sin is against God and nothing we can do to our fellow man is greater than our sins against God, which are already forgiven. Would I seriously doubt the Christianity of someone who murdered someone else and still claimed to be a Christian? YES. I. WOULD. It's not impossible, but it is highly unlikely.

This is the exact opposite (and yet the exact same one!) of the straw man argument I hear so often that tries to explain why people who call themselves Christian and yet stray from the path were never Christians at all - if someone is Muslim and doesn't adhere to a life of violence, they must never have been truly Muslim, despite calling themselves one. Therefore, there must be no peaceful Muslims!

What sort of "straying from the path" have you heard Christians try to explain away? I believe that your first scenario is a very common occurrence. There are many "Christians" in this world who are not Christians. The Bible warns us against them. Do Christians still sin and so "stray from the path" temporarily? Yes. Does that in and of itself make them no longer Christians? No. But Christianity is not based on works. As far as I can tell and in the verses from the Koran I quoted at the top of the post, Islam is based on works. The Koran is defining a convert as someone who will "repent and keep up prayer and pay the poor-rate". Also-

Koran 2:2-5

2 This Book, there is no doubt in it, is a guide to those who guard (against evil).
3 Those who believe in the unseen and keep up prayer and spend out of what We have given them.
4 And who believe in that which has been revealed to you and that which was revealed before you and they are sure of the hereafter.
5 These are on a right course from their Lord and these it is that shall be successful.

That sounds like a work based faith to me. They have to do this, this and this and they are alright. Christianity requires Atonement for our sins, which was given by God. It is not based on us. It is based on the forgiveness of our sins. There is nothing we can do that will earn us a place in the Kingdom. There is plenty a Muslim can do to earn a place in Islam.

Those verses appear to be mostly the "main outline" of the Muslim faith. Immediately after that comes more detailed stuff about those who do not believe.

Koran 2: 6-10

6 Surely those who disbelieve, it being alike to them whether you warn them, or do not warn them, will not believe.
7 Allah has set a seal upon their hearts and upon their hearing and there is a covering over their eyes, and there is a great punishment for them.
8 And there are some people who say: We believe in Allah and the last day; and they are not at all believers.
9 They desire to deceive Allah and those who believe, and they deceive only themselves and they do not perceive.
10 There is a disease in their hearts, so Allah added to their disease and they shall have a painful chastisement because they lied.

Chapter 9 details out the part the Muslim has to play in this "painful chastisement".

I believe there are people who claim to be Muslim and are peaceful people. I do. But I do not believe they fit what the Koran wants a Muslim to be like. Therefore, they are not true Muslims by their own standards. They are superficial Muslims, perhaps, but they do not completely follow the laws of Islam. That does not make those who do Extremest. If "following all the laws of a religion" is the definition of "Extreme", then may God make me an Extreme Christian.

I didn't not mention race or racism, nor did I intend to accuse you of it. It is fortunate for you that you 'don't believe' in race, but it is all the same a reality that millions of people must live within.

I know you didn't. Just wanted to clarify. And yes, it is a horrible reality of senseless prejudice. I believe it is just one more way those without a moral compass try to rationalize their actions. And it makes me mad.

I can't think of a better place for this discussion myself, but you're not wrong that it is one that quickly descends into politics. I'm curious then, as to why you said it in the first place when you were aware of its connections to politics.

Um, because I just wasn't thinking about that particular aspect at that particular moment. But I'll stand by it as a very good example of what happens when Man Determines Truth. In fact, even now I can think of no better one.

And I maintain you did make a generalisation, and now we've discussed it further it turns out it was one that came with the assumption that you know what makes a real Muslim, that any peaceful Muslim is incapable of understanding their own religion, or afraid to leave it.

That's taking what I said a bit too far and jumping to a few conclusions, but the gist of how you described what I said is absolutely correct. I'm only assuming that a "real Muslim" is one who strives to follow the Koran. Considering that is the definition of all the religions that I know of (though a bit different for Christianity), I think that is a very reasonable assumption.
I did not say a peaceful Muslim is incapable of understanding their own religion, I said they don't. I would say that most "Christians" are in the same place, at least in America. In America you don't get shot for claiming to be a Christian. In many Muslim countries, you do. And there is a man in my church who has seen it, not to mention the countless stories you can find about it. My bet would be that the Christians in those countries are real Christians. They are the ones willing to die for their religion. In the same way, I would say that those Muslim suicide bombers are real Muslims. They too are willing to die for their religion.

*waves to Fencer*

The Qur'an, like the Bible, is subject to historical and social factors. Just as in the Bible we find verses in the Old Testament that seem to contradict the peaceful and loving life Jesus instructs us to live, so in the Qur'an we find passages that contradict the peaceful life its followers are told to live. You are willing to make this distinction for the Bible, but not the Qur'an - why?

There is a new order in Christ. We no longer have to sacrifice lambs to cover our sins because Christ was the Perfect Lamb. The laws of the Old Testament are still in place, unless revoked specifically by Christ. He discusses "an Eye for an Eye and a Tooth for a Tooth" no longer being in place.

Mathew 3: 38-39

38 "You have heard that it was said, 'An eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.' 39 But I say to you, Do not resist the one who is evil. But if anyone slaps you on the right cheek, turn to him the other also."

In this case, I believe that this is because we now have a propitiation for our sins and God no longer requires from us exact payment because Christ paid it in full. Because of this, our dealing with sin is different too.
I'm sure some way smarter theologians might have a different interpretation, but here's one thing they would agree on: Much of what goes on in the Old Testament that is "in contradiction" of Christ's teachings was a one time deal. It was not a law. God told his people to do something and they obeyed. He did not say "kill all the people who have rejected me every time you find them". No. He cleansed His one Holy Land using humans and He did it once. Also, you'll see He did much of it Himself, as in the famous case of Jericho. In the case of Sodom and Gomorrah, God did the cleansing all by Himself.

The Koran is not so specific. You can see in the verses at the top of the post. There is, as far as I can tell, not very many specifications for when to kill unbelievers. The Old Testament details out only a few times when it was done and even then there were strict commands on how it was to be done.

Hello!

I'm not sure I'm qualified to discuss many of the matters that are being discussed. However, I have spoken with an Islamic friend more than once on the topic of whether Islam is a violent religion or not. When people talk about a section that mentions killing "infidels", they are usually talking about these:

___

2:190 Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.

2:191 And slay them wherever ye find them, and drive them out of the places whence they drove you out, for persecution is worse than slaughter. And fight not with them at the Inviolable Place of Worship until they first attack you there, but if they attack you (there) then slay them. Such is the reward of disbelievers.

2:192 But if the desist, then lo! Allah is forgiving, merciful.

___

Islams seem not have anything against non-believers specifically, they only have a problem with people who choose to cause them harm (which would happen to be non-believers). I may be wrong on this, but this is what I've learned from my friend and some research on my own.

I hope that this is all correct and that it may help clear some things up.

Thanks Lady C for the quotes I can understand your point a little better, though I think I may still do more research before I put any more of a label on it but those numbers will be helpful

What does divine grace have to do with believing every single book and passage of the Bible is the inerrant word of God?

I can't help it that God decided to reveal himself to me when I wasn't going to church and reading the Bible everyday. To say he cannot reach out to anyone, regardless of their Bible knowledge or anything else, sounds pretty limiting of God.

I'm not saying that the Spirit doesn't speak to people outside of Scripture: I am saying that when the Spirit speaks, He will inevitably point people to Scripture and to His Church. If that isn't happening, then it's not the Spirit at all.

I didn't say that the scriptures didn't contain the self-revelation of God. I couldn't—and wouldn't—call myself a Christian if I believed every single sentence in the Bible was a lie, could I? I'm talking about whether or not the scriptures, in their entirety (whatever that is), are the infallible word of God.

And I'm saying that you can't take revelation in Scripture seriously unless you hold to infallibility, else you will inevitably end up picking and choosing which of it to believe. The words of Scripture are the words elected by God: we cannot change them or pretend they say something different. We may accept or reject them---but in so doing we accept or reject God Himself.

TBG

The Koran is a list of rules and regulations, there is no context. That is just one of the huge differences between the Koran and the Bible.
I don't demonise Muslim people but as a whole I do find it difficult to love them, not because of terrorist talk from the media but because they're the biggest group of people who persecute Christians (even torture and kill them) in Asia, Africa and the Middle-East. It's really sad what they do to the Christians for doing nothing wrong. I understand that not all Muslims are like this, many aren't, but to relegate such activities to a few extremist parties is disingenuous.

All right, well, I guess I'd better clarify a few things first...

I shouldn't have made it sound like the question from "Religion 101: the Final Exam" was a serious one. The "exam", written by Terrence Kaye, is a satire piece where the questions aren't intended to be answered seriously, rather to make a point.

Obviously such a situation proving that God doesn't exist wouldn't happen (one can't prove a negative) and obviously the options and exaggerated and extreme. But the point of that question was merely to show how people wouldn't all run out and go on sin-filled rampages if atheism were suddenly forced upon them.
(I certainly didn't. )

Would some slack off on their Christian morals? Of course. But those sorts of people probably wouldn't have done the Christian morals for the right reasons anyway. If someone is only acting Christian because of the reward of heaven or the fear of hell, then they weren't really acting out of the goodness of their hearts. If they recognized that being good actually has positive effects on one's life, then they'd continue being good without God. My Christian friends and family taught me that alcohol, drugs, and premarital intercourse are bad things. When I became an atheist, I didn't automatically get any urges to do any of those things. I still find the concept of being drunk or high terrifying because I don't want to lose my ability to think straight. And I've been through the emotions of relationships and don't want to be so physically intimate with somebody unless I'm sure I'm not going to break up with her and have the sorts of awful awkward after-emotions and memories magnified to the nth degree.

To give another example of a question from the "Religion exam", here's one that I found particularly hard-hitting:

You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame-resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discovered your neighbor's house on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stood by and watched the family perish. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

A) All-powerful
B) All-knowing
C) All-loving
D) Mysterious

Again, the situation is a bit unrealistic and the none of the options are very good if one was actually trying to take this test and give serious answers. But it serves to make a point - Christians say that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and all-loving. But whenever God does something that doesn't appear to be any of those things, Christians will just write it off by saying that God works in mysterious ways.

Because nine times out of ten, the objection to Christianity isn't intellectual at all.

I do have to say, it does make sense for someone to reject the church due to horrific experiences.

I suppose I should clarify this too. The reason I rejected Christianity was not an emotional one (although the negative church experience certainly didn't help). Rather, I couldn't come to terms with the bible being the 100% infallible Word of God for a three reasons... 1) All of the crazy passages I would consider immoral in the Old Testament and even parts of the New Testament, 2) The fact that we have to translate the bible into different languages so that the other 99% of the world that doesn't know Greek and Hebrew can read it and translation errors are inevitable and 3) Christians can't even agree on what books should go in the Bible.

I firmly believe that the percentage of clergy that abuse their position (or worse, abuse the innocent children) is extremely small and not a mass pattern as the media has made it out to be.

I know. But it was extremely hard for me to feel any desire to defend clergymen when my own church was a prime example of how nasty they can be.

But as Paul states so well in Romans 5, while Adam is the bringing of sin to all mankind, Jesus is the bringing of life to all mankind.

I have trouble with this because it doesn't really seem like a fair trade - we are all subject to Adam's curse whether we like it or not, but we have to accept Jesus before we can get his gift to us.

The Qur'an, like the Bible, is subject to historical and social factors. Just as in the Bible we find verses in the Old Testament that seem to contradict the peaceful and loving life Jesus instructs us to live, so in the Qur'an we find passages that contradict the peaceful life its followers are told to live. You are willing to make this distinction for the Bible, but not the Qur'an - why?

Because it's convenient for Christians to use the same sort of logic to refute Islam that Atheists use to refute Christianity. I was surprised to see Fencer act in almost the exact same way as the Christian does in this video, one that I previously had thought of as just a strawman...

Because the Bible is an unfolding of revelation: in it, God reveals Himself progressively. Q'uran, in Muslim theology, is eternal and unchanging. That's why, in Scripture, we can reconcile these qualities, where in Q'uran, we cannot. They are two different birds.

I don't find this logically compelling. In the time of the Israelites, God's laws he had set out for them were the divine standard for justice, and unchangeable. Jesus says in Matthew 5:18, I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. That's awfully vague and up to interpretation.

And did any of the penalties mentioned in Exodus or Leviticus ever mention any sort of physical mutilation, apart from beating, to be meted out as a punishment?

I don't know about ones being directed specifically towards slaves, but there are many Hebrew laws that order physical mutilation as punishment. Here's one of my favorites:

If two men are having a fight and the wife of one tries to help her husband by grabbing hold of the other man's genitals, show her no mercy; cut off her hand. (Deuteronomy 25:11-12)

And in regards to the debate about the morality of Muslims...I'd say that the Muslims really aren't acting much worse than Christians did when their religion was 1,000-1,400 years old (dark ages, crusades, corrupt popes, the spanish inquisition, etc.). The difference? Muslims have access to modern technology and weapons.

Would some slack off on their Christian morals? Of course. But those sorts of people probably wouldn't have done the Christian morals for the right reasons anyway.

Ah, but what are the right reasons? I am a moral person largely because I love God, and therefore I strive to keep His commandments out of gratitude for what He has done. If there's no God, then there's no longer any love of God, and no basis for my code of ethics.

I don't find this logically compelling. In the time of the Israelites, God's laws he had set out for them were the divine standard for justice, and unchangeable. Jesus says in Matthew 5:18, I tell you the truth, until heaven and earth disappear, not even the smallest detail of God's law will disappear until its purpose is achieved. That's awfully vague and up to interpretation.

But this is precisely St. Paul's point in the epistle to the Galatians: that the old Hebrew law has served its purpose and that we are now to live by grace. The law's purpose is to point us to our sin and to the cross, wherein the law was satisfied once for all.

All of the crazy passages I would consider immoral in the Old Testament and even parts of the New Testament

Whose morality are you setting up against God's? What standard do you judge the Scriptures by?

TBG

Actually, I've never run across a verse that says one must believe the Bible is the inerrant word in God or else be condemned. If you know of one, I'd be interested in seeing it.

Not sure if this is of any help, but I thought I'd throw it in just in case. The Bible makes it pretty clear that we should have faith, but that our faith should be based on something. I think there's a lot more to it than just believing in God and loving Him.

I opened up my Bible Study page tonight, and the first scripture kind of jumped out at me, so I thought I'd post it here.

1 Brothers and sisters, my heart’s desire and prayer to God for the Israelites is that they may be saved. 2 For I can testify about them that they are zealous for God, but their zeal is not based on knowledge. 3 Since they did not know the righteousness of God and sought to establish their own, they did not submit to God’s righteousness.

So there, Paul is talking about people who believe in God and are "zealous" for him. My internet dictionary gives the definition of "zeal" as: "Great energy or enthusiasm in pursuit of a cause or an objective". So in other words, these people believed in God and were very enthusiastic about Him. Yet, Paul still prays for their salvation. Why? He says it's because their zeal is not based on knowledge. It doesn't have a basis. And so, it says they follow their own righteousness, what they believe is right and wrong, instead of what God says is right and wrong.

Hope that's of some help.

~Riella

You are a product tester and frequently bring your work home. Yesterday, while dressed in a flame-resistant suit (up to 3,000 degrees) and carrying the latest model fire extinguisher, you discovered your neighbor's house on fire. As the flames quickly spread, you stood by and watched the family perish. Which of the following best describes your behavior?

A) All-powerful
B) All-knowing
C) All-loving
D) Mysterious

Hello, Minotaur For Aslan! I am by no means a conventional Christian, but I think I may be able to point out a flaw in how this question is laid out. I know that it is supposed to be partly comical, but it leaves out a whole other option which is one of the most heavily addressed issues by C.S. Lewis himself! I'm going to play Devil's (God's? ) advocate here for a moment.

Let's redo this question, first!

A.) A being who rules with an iron fist and chokes the freewill out of his creations.
B.) An all-loving, all-powerful, all-knowing being who permits his creation to make their own decisions.

Here's a partly comical question of my own.

If God stepped in and put out every single fire, took every bullet, etc., would we really be able to make any choices? Would we ever be free? Wouldn't we just be on the strings of some sort of overly anxious puppet-master? That would be pretty bad. I know what you may be thinking!

"But The Grey Pilgrim... I would rather have a God take away my freewill in exchange for a perfect world!"

A world without freewill cannot be a perfect world. Freewill is necessary for love. According to the Bible, what does god want more than anything? He wants mutual love, of course.

This is my best attempt at answering your "question". I'm not a theologian, and I don't really subscribe to the Christian faith. Regardless, I hope that this was helpful in seeings things a different way.

Rose, maybe it would help you if some of us explained why we put such faith in the Bible? After all, there are lots of books in this world that can claim to be inspired. Why, out of all of them, do we believe the Bible? If you have some reason for believing it, maybe it would be easier to accept scripture as God's Word, even when you don't understand/agree with everything in it yet.

The Gospels: First off, I believe Jesus Christ is the Son of God (The reasons as to why I believe that is a whole other discussion, and we can get into that another time. Besides, I think you Rose already agree with that? If so, it doesn't need explaining for the present. If you don't agree with that, just let me know and we can discuss that more in full). Now, if I believe Jesus Christ was God's Son, that means I would believe the things he says are also God's Word. The things Jesus did and said were witnessed by many people; and were written down by four people. And the four accounts, each given by a different person, were remarkably similar. That much similarity between stories is rare (I mean, if you even just asked a few students to document the events of a field trip, there would be many differences in details, since most people view and remember things differently). So this is very remarkable. Four stories, all giving matching details, is certainly enough to stand in court. Which is why I believe I can trust in The Gospels.

The OT: The reason I believe the OT is the perfect Word of God is that Jesus Christ Himself believed it. That's documented in The Gospels. He believed in it so much that he didn't want one jot of it removed until it was fulfilled. If some of it was incorrect, he wouldn't mind those parts being removed. But no, he said not one little part of it should vanish. This is why I believe in The Old Testament.

The New Testament: The parts of the the New Testament, besides The Gospels, was written by Christ's closest friends and followers. He gave them authority. That's documented in The Gospels. They knew His teachings. They were instructed by Christ to teach others. If Christ entrusted this to them, then I believe I can too. This is why I believe in The New Testament.

Hope that helps somehow.

~Riella

Ah, but what are the right reasons? I am a moral person largely because I love God, and therefore I strive to keep His commandments out of gratitude for what He has done. If there's no God, then there's no longer any love of God, and no basis for my code of ethics.

So what would you replace your code of ethics with? Probably with natural urges. The most basic instinct of any human is self-preservation, which in Christian terms, would probably be referred to as "selfishness". But is selfishness a bad thing? After all, capitalism thrives on selfishness. Acts that people would consider "selfless" are often just results of the second most basic instinct - reproduction, which can also double as benefiting the species.

Whose morality are you setting up against God's? What standard do you judge the Scriptures by?

Atheism is often criticized for not having or providing a basis for an objective morality. Whenever an atheist points out some horrible act or sentiment in the bible and calls it immoral, the comeback is often not more thoughtful or sophisticated than pointing out that atheists don't have a good objective moral standard by which to judge whether something is moral, and therefore have no good grounds on which to make such an evaluation. The idea of objective morality is also used as one of the pillars, along with cosmology and design, in proving that there simply and logically must be a God. But just like those other "proofs", the objective morality argument is unhelpful for proving the truth of Christianity. But in fact, Christian views on objective morality are so problematic and are such a tangled mess of double-think and special pleading, that it amazes me that Christians even want to talk about it. - NonStampCollector

Do you consider stoning somebody to death acceptable? Do you consider burning somebody alive acceptable? Do you consider slicing a child to death with a sword in front of their parents acceptable? Obviously you do, since you stated that you had a desire to follow God's commands. God commanded humans to do all these things at some point in time. Would any of these things be acceptable if God commanded you to do them today? Would you carry them out?

"Suppose you hear in one of the towns the LORD your God is giving you that some worthless rabble among you have led their fellow citizens astray by encouraging them to worship foreign gods. In such cases, you must examine the facts carefully. If you find it is true and can prove that such a detestable act has occurred among you, you must attack that town and completely destroy all its inhabitants [which I assume means all the women, children, and babies too], as well as all the livestock. Then you must pile all the plunder in the middle of the street and burn it. Put the entire town to the torch as a burnt offering to the LORD your God. That town must remain a ruin forever; it may never be rebuilt. Keep none of the plunder that has been set apart for destruction. Then the LORD will turn from his fierce anger and be merciful to you. He will have compassion on you and make you a great nation, just as he solemnly promised your ancestors. "The LORD your God will be merciful only if you obey him and keep all the commands I am giving you today, doing what is pleasing to him." (Deuteronomy 13:13-19 NLT)

This is barbaric and I'm glad we've moved past this sort of thing as a society. If that's God's idea of acceptable behavior, I want no part in it.

A world without freewill cannot be a perfect world.

This is the "free will defense" most theologians will use to justify the existence of evil. But the argument falls apart when one considers heaven. Heaven is a perfect world. But a world without freewill cannot be a perfect world. So heaven must have free will. Which means that humans must have the choice to do evil in heaven. But evil cannot be in a perfect world. So it makes no sense.

But a world without freewill cannot be a perfect world. So heaven must have free will. Which means that humans must have the choice to do evil in heaven. But evil cannot be in a perfect world. So it makes no sense.

I don't think free will always equates the freedom to do evil. It's not always a choice between good and evil. For example, right now I have the free will to either choose reading a book in 5 minutes, or go play a computer game in 5 minutes instead. Neither of those things are inherently good or evil. Free will just means you're not driven around like a robot. You have control over your own actions.

Plus, if all the evil in us will be removed in the afterlife (as most Christians believe), we would, by our own free will, choose not to do evil.

~Riella