Again, you are taking these things and ripping them out of their social, moral, and political context. For example, stoning was the standard method of execution for capital crimes and was used because it was essentially communal.

Oh, how wonderful. A from of execution that was communal. Everybody could participate in throwing stones at the condemned! What a cheerful, wholesome community activity.

Burning and cutting infants in half, on the other hand, are never recommended.

Except that they were. Here's a few bible verses about burning...

If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. (Leviticus 20:14)

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the w***e, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Leviticus 21:9)

Tamar thy daughter in law hath played the harlot; and also, behold, she is with child by whoredom. And Judah said, Bring her forth, and let her be burnt. (Genesis 38:24)

...and here's a few verses about slicing children apart with swords.

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18)

The people of Samaria must bear the consequences of their guilt because they rebelled against their God. They will be killed by an invading army, their little ones dashed to death against the ground, their pregnant women ripped open by swords. (Hosea 13:16 NLT)

Although God isn't commanding the Israelites to slaughter the children in these passages, it's made pretty clear that he is the one causing the foreign armies to do such things.

What you can't seem to get you head around is a doctrine that Scripture is compiled and written by men, yet inspired and made infallible by God.

You're right, I can't. Because men managed to write and compile multiple different Scriptures.

For the purposes of this debate, let's limit ourselves to the 66 books that all Christians agree on (going into RC and OE doctrines about deuterocanon is another subject for another time, IMO).

Even though I think that the RC and OE doctrines about deuterocanon are relevant to the debate (since it is critically important that one has made sure they have the correct version of the bible before they start declaring it infallible), I'm willing to ignore that issue if you can answer for me one simple question.

Which English translation of the Bible is infallible?

The King James Version? The New King James Version? The 21st Century King James Version? The Wycliffe Bible? The New International Version? The New International Reader's Version? The New Living Translation? The New Life Version? The New Century Version? The Lexham English Bible? The Common English Bible? The Amplified Bible? The American Standard Version? The Holman Christian Standard Bible? The Douay-Rheims 1899 American Edition?

Or is the Bible only infallible when we read it in the original Greek and Hebrew?

If you ask me, heaven would not be a beautiful place if people were all forced to do good. It would be a beautiful place because people would have the choice to do evil, and yet they would rather do good because they would rather please their god.

In such a situation everybody would have to always choose good over evil, because if they ever chose to do something evil they would destroy the "perfectly good" aspect of heaven. So they really wouldn't have any choice at all; it'd be predetermined that they would always choose good.

In such a situation everybody would have to always choose good over evil, because if they ever chose to do something evil they would destroy the "perfectly good" aspect of heaven. So they really wouldn't have any choice at all; it'd be predetermined that they would always choose good.

I think that we are starting to tread in slightly confusing waters! Whether you're Christian or not, there is no such thing as true freewill. True freewill would be the ability to make your own decisions outside of the control of someone else or an outside force.

As we both know, the world does not work in such a way that we can make completely free decisions. Whether atheist or Christian, people are limited in their decisions based on past experiences and their circumstances. According to (most) Christians, humanity is cleansed of their sinful nature when they enter heaven.

Humanity can therefore still have freewill, but its freewill is still limited by its circumstances (not having a sinful nature). Humans will therefore not have the temptation to make the decision of evil, because their choices in their previous life (i.e. becoming a Christian) have have led them to the point of heaven.

Once someone enters heaven, their circumstances are changed to a point of no return. A change of circumstances (which you arrived at due to your choices) is not an absence of freewill.

Is it an absence of the idealistic "true" freewill? I would say so!

Does "true" freewill exist? Nope!

Oh, how wonderful. A from of execution that was communal. Everybody could participate in throwing stones at the condemned! What a cheerful, wholesome community activity.

Yes---this way everyone bears responsibility. You also forget the historical context: the point here is that the community cannot hand off responsibility for justice to a king or other governmental figure---stoning is democratic.

Anyone who is captured will be run through with a sword. Their little children will be dashed to death right before their eyes. Their homes will be sacked and their wives raped by the attacking hordes. For I will stir up the Medes against Babylon, and no amount of silver or gold will buy them off. The attacking armies will shoot down the young people with arrows. They will have no mercy on babies and will show no compassion for the children. (Isaiah 13:15-18)

Context context. What is being described here? Are these the actions of the righteous? Or are they the actions of the instruments of God's judgement?

If a man take a wife and her mother, it is wickedness: they shall be burnt with fire, both he and they; that there be no wickedness among you. (Leviticus 20:14)

And the daughter of any priest, if she profane herself by playing the w***e, she profaneth her father: she shall be burnt with fire. (Leviticus 21:9)

Point granted: burning is used as a form of execution. What's the problem, exactly? What do you expect from a God who is Holy and righteous? Do you expect Him to lenient with sin? That's the part you don't seem to grasp. And even so, you forget the progressive nature of revelation yet again.

Which English translation of the Bible is infallible?

The one through which God is speaking to you right now and convicting you of sin and calling you to repentance.

TBG

Yes---this way everyone bears responsibility. You also forget the historical context: the point here is that the community cannot hand off responsibility for justice to a king or other governmental figure---stoning is democratic.

The only justification I've heard from Christians about all the capital punishment in the Old Testament is that before Jesus' time, people didn't know of heaven or hell, so justice had to be fully dealt out on earth.

While the Israelites were in the desert, a man was found gathering wood on the Sabbath day. Those who found him gathering wood brought him to Moses and Aaron and the whole assembly, and they kept him in custody, because it was not clear what should be done to him. Then the LORD said to Moses, “The man must die. The whole assembly must stone him outside the camp.” So the assembly took him outside the camp and stoned him to death, as the LORD commanded Moses. (Numbers 15:32-36)

So that atrocious sinful heathen who gathered wood on the wrong day of the week got his just desserts, I suppose.

However, I have a big problem with God later handing over the Israelites the power to decide for themselves who is innocent or guilty for these heinous crimes and then having them actually deal out the punishments on their own judgement, such as in Deuteronomy 13:13-19.

People aren't perfect. It's inevitable that somebody is going to get punished for something that they don't deserve. Why, then, should the responsibilities of punishments be in the hands of the Israelites?

Context context. What is being described here? Are these the actions of the righteous? Or are they the actions of the instruments of God's judgement?

What is being described here is a prophecy of what God is going to do to Judah and all the other sinful nations. God goes into great detail describing how he's going to build up the anger between societies and cause them to destroy each other in the most horrific of ways as punishment for their crimes as a nation. (Never mind whether this is a fair punishment on an individual level to the girls who are going to be raped, the pregnant women who are going to have their stomachs slashed open, the children who will be cut to pieces...)

Point granted: burning is used as a form of execution. What's the problem, exactly? What do you expect from a God who is Holy and righteous? Do you expect Him to lenient with sin? That's the part you don't seem to grasp.

I expect him to give out fair and just punishments, not act like a homicidal maniac. In the Bible, there are a plethora of examples of God killing people for absolutely moronic reasons.

Meanwhile, the LORD instructed one of the group of prophets to say to another man, "Strike me!" But the man refused to strike the prophet. Then the prophet told him, "Because you have not obeyed the voice of the LORD, a lion will kill you as soon as you leave me." And sure enough, when he had gone, a lion attacked and killed him. (1 Kings 20:35-36)

Is God being all-knowing, all-loving, and all-powerful when he orders a man to hit his prophet and, when the man disobeys, sends out wild animals to maul the man to death?

No, he's just being mysterious.

Which English translation of the Bible is infallible?

The one through which God is speaking to you right now and convicting you of sin and calling you to repentance.

So if that's the only core message that Christianity needs to tell us, why do we need to believe in an infallible Bible as well?

From my perspective, it feels like you deliberately dodged my question. I've heard this same old tired speech from theists many times - I'm a sinner, I'm going to hell, yadda ya. Telling me that I haven't accepted God is an unnecessary rebuttal. I already know that.

the world does not work in such a way that we can make completely free decisions. Whether atheist or Christian, people are limited in their decisions based on past experiences and their circumstances. According to (most) Christians, humanity is cleansed of their sinful nature when they enter heaven.

Humanity can therefore still have freewill, but its freewill is still limited by its circumstances (not having a sinful nature). Humans will therefore not have the temptation to make the decision of evil, because their choices in their previous life (i.e. becoming a Christian) have have led them to the point of heaven.

You've changed your original argument. At first, it seemed like you were trying to say that humans had free will in heaven because they'd have the choice to do either good or evil, but would always have the urge to do good. Now it seems as if you're saying that humans can't choose evil in heaven, but they still have free will because they can choose between doing different good things.

The problem with this is that it still requires one to completely abandon the very logic you used to say that evil is necessary in the first place. If people only have the option to do good things in heaven, then the options won't seem good or bad because there's no moral spectrum to compare them to.

You've changed your original argument. At first, it seemed like you were trying to say that humans had free will in heaven because they'd have the choice to do either good or evil, but would always have the urge to do good. Now it seems as if you're saying that humans can't choose evil in heaven, but they still have free will because they can choose between doing different good things.

The problem with this is that it still requires one to completely abandon the very logic you used to say that evil is necessary in the first place. If people only have the option to do good things in heaven, then the options won't seem good or bad because there's no moral spectrum to compare them to.

Similar to humans in heaven having the choice to choose evil, I have the choice to be a serial killer. I don't get the temptation to do such a thing, and I don't ever contemplate actually being one. Does this mean that I do not have freewill? No, I think it just means that I was brought up in a home which taught me how to live (relatively ) ethically, so as a result of my upbringing (circumstances), I don't have the temptation to be a serial killer.

I imagine that heaven would be the same way. There is still the choice to fall into sin, but I think that people would never even contemplate such a thing because of their circumstances. I never said that entity of evil is necessary, I only said that the potential to choose an evil is necessary.

The Grey Pilgrim, I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't think using serial killers is a good example because morality is a bit more than simply choosing not to be a serial killer.

I think a more important point is that even though both of us have been raised in environments that have taught us the desire to live a (relatively) ethical lifestyle, we still constantly do things that Christians consider morally wrong (such as coveting, lying, etc.).

People are commonly defined by their heritage through the nurturing and influence that a culture provides. Obligation to abide by precedents can create a description of the person someone is expected to be when they are still a young child. However, the true characteristics of any human can be seen based on the actions taken when they are given decisions between good and evil. Our personalities are defined by our moral choices.

If a person shed all desire to do anything evil, their personality would be stripped down to that of a robot. Would my love really be love if I never contemplated the possibility of not loving? How would I recognize anyone in heaven if everybody was acting morally perfect? We'd all, functionally, be the same.

So that atrocious sinful heathen who gathered wood on the wrong day of the week got his just desserts, I suppose.

Here you go again, judging God---yet who appointed you judge over Him? Where were you when God created the earth? Where were you when He set the stars and planets in motion?

People aren't perfect. It's inevitable that somebody is going to get punished for something that they don't deserve. Why, then, should the responsibilities of punishments be in the hands of the Israelites?

Why do we in the United States have trial by jury? Why do we appoint judges? Because otherwise we wouldn't be able to enforce law. Unenforced law is no law.

What is being described here is a prophecy of what God is going to do to Judah and all the other sinful nations. God goes into great detail describing how he's going to build up the anger between societies and cause them to destroy each other in the most horrific of ways as punishment for their crimes as a nation.

In other words, God's judgment is to let people do as they please: to stop restraining their sin in order to let them create their own little hell. God judges by leaving them alone (in a sense---in another, He's clear that He's with them).

And lest you think that God is unloving for judging in this manner, remember that He also suffered all of this and more Himself.

I expect him to give out fair and just punishments, not act like a homicidal maniac. In the Bible, there are a plethora of examples of God killing people for absolutely moronic reasons.

Again, here you go judging God. Disobedience to God is and should be taken seriously. God gives life and can take it away---who are you to judge whether He is right in doing so?

So if that's the only core message that Christianity needs to tell us, why do we need to believe in an infallible Bible as well?

Because this message is from the outside---it isn't a human message at all. The Church proclaims it, but it proclaims it by means of the Word, which cannot bear witness to the self-revelation of God in Christ unless it is infallible. Yes, the Bible is written by men, but men inspired by God and given the words to say---even as their own voice and perspective is preserved.

From my perspective, it feels like you deliberately dodged my question.

This is because it is the wrong question. Your objection to Biblical infallibility is not about translations or manuscripts at all: you're offended by it, as you should be. You want to be autonomous: free from Divine authority, so you come up with excuses and objections. You are free to do this: but recognize it for what it is.

TBG

The Grey Pilgrim, I see the point you are trying to make, but I don't think using serial killers is a good example because morality is a bit more than simply choosing not to be a serial killer.

You have a point! I simplified ethics a bit too much for an example. I should have made it a bit more coherent with reality. Sorry about that!

People are commonly defined by their heritage through the nurturing and influence that a culture provides. Obligation to abide by precedents can create a description of the person someone is expected to be when they are still a young child. However, the true characteristics of any human can be seen based on the actions taken when they are given decisions between good and evil. Our personalities are defined by our moral choices.

Hmm! I'm not sure how to convey what I'm saying unless I get you to first agree with me, so let's pretend for a moment that we both agree that there must be freewill in the Christian heaven. Let us also assume that humans have been cleansed of their sinful nature. Each time they are faced with the possibility to do something immoral (which would be often), they have the choice to do what is immoral. However, because of the perfection of heaven, they will not be tempted to actually do that act.

You seem to think that the fact that they are not really tempted to do evil makes the world of heaven somehow robotic, but I cannot say that I agree! I think that living in a world where people have the choice to do anything yet choose to only do good things because of their good-hearted nature would be a beautiful world to live in. How would it be robotic? It would be a utopia! I always imagined heaven (whether Christian or not) to be something along the lines of Rivendell... maybe that's just a Tolkien pipe dream.

Anyways! Does this help explain my thoughts in a more fair way than the serial killer example?

Here you go again, judging God---yet who appointed you judge over Him? Where were you when God created the earth? Where were you when He set the stars and planets in motion?

Muslims can use this exact same argument if you tried to point moral problems in the Koran to them.

The problem with the argument is it's a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for any theologian trying to defend any action of God. We can't understand God, so God's actions can never be scrutinized! Since it can be applied to everything, it is convincing of nothing.

I once heard Ken Ham give a talk to a crowd of children about science vs. creationism. He told the children, "Who's smarter? The scientists, or God? Obviously God! So who should you always trust? God!" That sort of logic is not compelling to me.

Why do we in the United States have trial by jury? Why do we appoint judges? Because otherwise we wouldn't be able to enforce law. Unenforced law is no law.

The United States legal system is different because the crimes that it deals with are determined by the collective conscience of voters, congressmen, the supreme court, etc. and thus it makes sense for the punishments to be administered by humans.

I'm simply saying that for issues of moral justice where the law comes directly from God, it would make the most sense for God to be the one dealing out the punishments, because God is the only one who can deal them out perfectly according to his plan.

In other words, God's judgment is to let people do as they please: to stop restraining their sin in order to let them create their own little hell. God judges by leaving them alone (in a sense---in another, He's clear that He's with them).

But at that point in history, that's essentially what God did all the time. He only seemed to care about guiding and instructing the Israelites, his Chosen People, on how to live, and left the other countries to stew in their primitive immoral juices.

And lest you think that God is unloving for judging in this manner, remember that He also suffered all of this and more Himself.

I don't think it matters to the people receiving his judgement in old testament times. I was under the impression that Jesus only died for the sins of the people who were born after him in history (since God was so keen on administering the justice on earth in the BC era).

God gives life and can take it away---who are you to judge whether He is right in doing so?

Let's say I have some kids. Without me, the kids wouldn't exist. They owe everything to me. So therefore I should be able to treat them however I want. I can kill them for theoretically any reason, and they can never challenge my reasonings, because I tell them that their inferior kiddie brains will never comprehend my motives!

What a wonderful parent I am.

The Church proclaims it, but it proclaims it by means of the Word, which cannot bear witness to the self-revelation of God in Christ unless it is infallible. Yes, the Bible is written by men, but men inspired by God and given the words to say---even as their own voice and perspective is preserved.

Okay...but then I'm really curious to know how the Christians managed to know about God's infallible self-revelation in the Word before 396 A.D., when the Word didn't even exist.

This is because it is the wrong question. Your objection to Biblical infallibility is not about translations or manuscripts at all: you're offended by it, as you should be. You want to be autonomous: free from Divine authority, so you come up with excuses and objections. You are free to do this: but recognize it for what it is.

It is not the wrong question, it is another question. I thought I had explained this earlier...the reason I can't accept the Bible as infallible is threefold, the content, manuscripts, and translations.

I'm disappointed that you are only engaging in the content debate, which is mostly just turning out to be a head-butting of opinion. The manuscript and translation questions I brought up had to do with actual facts - I was hoping to actually get somewhere with them.

And just to clarify something - I'm not coming up with objections to the bible's content simply because I loathe the idea of having a God dictate for me guidelines for my life and judge me according to my actions on earth. I object the bible's content because the God of the Bible just doesn't seem like a very good God.

You seem to think that the fact that they are not really tempted to do evil makes the world of heaven somehow robotic, but I cannot say that I agree! I think that living in a world where people have the choice to do anything yet choose to only do good things because of their good-hearted nature would be a beautiful world to live in. How would it be robotic? It would be a utopia!

I went along with pretending that humans have free will in heaven and are cleansed of the desire to sin but it still doesn't seem right to me. I wouldn't find it be utopia because there would be no bad experiences to contrast the good experiences with. The reason we appreciate things like someone opening a door for us is that not everybody does it. If everybody opened the door for everybody else, we wouldn't appreciate it anymore (not to mention nobody would end up walking through any doors ).

I think we may just have to agree to disagree. Regardless, I do appreciate the very polite tone of everything you've posted.

Okay...but then I'm really curious to know how the Christians managed to know about God's infallible self-revelation in the Word before 396 A.D., when the Word didn't even exist.

Sorry, all of the Bible that we know of today, both Old Testament and New Testament, whether Catholic or Protestant, was written well before 396 AD. Fact. The authors of the Gospels either knew Jesus personally or they knew someone who knew someone. And thanks to the standard of education of those days, the followers of Jesus appear to have been quite literate. Clearly, from the Gospel accounts, Jesus, himself, could read and write.

By the time of the Emperor Claudius (41-54 AD) and the later Nero, who died in 68 AD the followers of Christ were already being noted by Roman writers as well, such as Tacitus (Histories, Annals) or Suetonius, writers who chronicled those times. They were also noted by the historian Josephus, a Jewish contemporary who was associated with the fall of Jerusalem in 70 AD.

Paul wrote his own letters, though I'd have loved to have seen his incoming correspondence. Mark is said to be the oldest Gospel, with Matthew being quoted by Ignatius, an Early Christian writer who died in 115 AD. Various other followers of Jesus wrote down their recollections. We have Early Christian writings which tell, not only about Jesus, but also of the development of the Early Christian Church. They include Tertullian, the historian, Eusebius (AD 263-339), Jerome, Polycarp, Barnabas (mentioned in Acts) and many others. These works, for the most part, are still extant. They are available from Penguin Classics. Penguin is a big UK company with offices in Melbourne.

Constantine adopted Christianity as the State Religion after the Battle of the Milvian Bridge, in 312 AD and held the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. Out of this Council came the Nicene creed, establishing what most mainstream Christians believe, and which Scriptures were to be considered canon (not cannon as some people seem to think.)

It is an interesting debate on this thread, but because I love historical accuracy I cannot help butting in from time to time. I'm a bit reluctant to say too much about Muslims due to the lead-up to 9/11. As of this moment I cannot understand what drove those men to do what they did.

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.

Do you not see that this is the exact same response peaceful Muslims have when people commit atrocities in the name of Islam?

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.

I don't claim to be an expert on either the Qur'an or the Bible, but so far the quote I have seen can be explained within context. I could roll out the usual round of quotes from the Bible that atheist's take issue with, but you would simply respond by explaining their context and intent. See?

I'm aware that one does not become Christian through works and deeds. It doesn't change the fact that when a person does something terrible and claims they did in the name of God, Christians respond by saying the person was not truly Christian.

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?

The usual, so-and-so was a Christian, but says they have had a change of heart. Response is to say they were never really a Christian to start with in that case.
Now - this could be true. Again, I don't consider myself enough of an expert to either confirm or deny that this is according to Scripture. But there's no denying that it's a circling argument that explains away a lot.

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.

This sound very similar to the Christian traditions of attending church on a regular basis and practices such as tithing. They won't make you a Christian, but they show you are on the right path. The explanation I usually hear is that if you truly do believe that Christ is your saviour, you will in turn wish to live in a way which honours him. In the same way, if you truly believe Allah is your god, you wish to live in a way which honours him, as noted in the Qur'an.

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.

But, to me this attitude seems to be ignoring the Qur'an's many calls for peace and gentleness, even to non-believers.

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.

I'd argue that that's a case of semantics Surely, thinking of the Muslims I know, they have made a concerted effort to study their religion and live in the way it asks them too. To say they in that case still don't understand their religion implies some sort of problem on their behalf.
There's a difference between passively dying for your religion, and committing suicide with the intent to harm others. I'm sure there's Muslims in the world who would risk being shot for their religion, but would not want to engage in suicide bombing, and don't believe that the latter is something they are called to do. What I'm trying to say is that your comparison of Christians dying for their faith and Muslims becoming suicide bombers isn't a fair comparison. It ignores Muslims who are peaceful and yet utterly committed to their faith. It implies that suicide bombing is the ultimate martyrdom for all Muslims, when in truth that's only the case for some misguided factions.

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.

There are specifications for when to kill unbelievers in the Qur'an. Perhaps the best known line where they are instructed to 'kill the infidels' in fact comes after giving several other options which are intended to avoid the death of the unbeliever. As The Grey Pilgrim pointed out, these instructions tend to relate to unbelievers who are attempting to cause them harm. These instructions were also given during a point in history where Holy Wars on the behalf of many religions were common.

I'd like to clarify at this point that I don't believe the Qur'an is a perfect book. I've no doubt it contains contradictions about this topic. But I have similar feelings for the Bible too, so from my point of view it simply seems unreasonable to claim one does not and that the other is rife with them (from either direction!).

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.

There was a time when Christianity held a similar position. I think it's unwise to blame simply the religion for these actions when the actual situation is a social and economic one more than anything.

Muslims can use this exact same argument if you tried to point moral problems in the Koran to them.

Which is why that would not be the objection I would bring to the table in debate with a Muslim.

The problem with the argument is it's a "get-out-of-jail-free" card for any theologian trying to defend any action of God. We can't understand God, so God's actions can never be scrutinized!

That's not the argument I'm using at all. I'm not questioning your ability to judge, I'm questioning your right to judge. Who gave you the right to judge God?

I'm simply saying that for issues of moral justice where the law comes directly from God, it would make the most sense for God to be the one dealing out the punishments, because God is the only one who can deal them out perfectly according to his plan.

But here you don't understand the purpose of the law. The law here is an instrument of covenant---the terms of a contract. God has given the people of Israel the responsibility to carry out this contract, and if they fail to do so, He will judge (however, note Genesis and who the recipient of judgment will actually be---His actions toward Israel are discipline, not judgment).

But at that point in history, that's essentially what God did all the time. He only seemed to care about guiding and instructing the Israelites, his Chosen People, on how to live, and left the other countries to stew in their primitive immoral juices.

And so you think he should have just let the Israelites stew as well? Or maybe you forget that part of the purpose of the chosen people was to be a witness and to show the nations the way.

I was under the impression that Jesus only died for the sins of the people who were born after him in history

And that impression is mistaken (Hebrews 11). The sacrifice of Christ is repeatedly promised and it is applied retroactively.

Okay...but then I'm really curious to know how the Christians managed to know about God's infallible self-revelation in the Word before 396 A.D.

1) The Word is Christ (John 1)

2) The Scriptures existed before this time, the Church merely recognized them.

Let's say I have some kids. Without me, the kids wouldn't exist. They owe everything to me. So therefore I should be able to treat them however I want.

No---they are God's kids, you just have a measure of authority over them for the time being. You are a steward. You didn't create them: God created them and you were the instrument.

And just to clarify something - I'm not coming up with objections to the bible's content simply because I loathe the idea of having a God dictate for me guidelines for my life and judge me according to my actions on earth. I object the bible's content because the God of the Bible just doesn't seem like a very good God.

Here you go judging God again---you want to follow God on your own terms and only on your own terms. If God doesn't seem good to you, then you have an excuse for not following Him. Sorry, I just don't buy that this isn't what it is.

I'll engage in the other parts of the objections once you approach the suubject from a faith perspective. Until then, I'll address your presuppositions.

TBG

The Bible makes it clear that God is the same, yesterday, today, and tomorrow. The 'judgmental' OT God is the same 'peace and loving' NT God. God struck down two people, Ananias and Sapphira for lying in Acts 5. And like in the OT where there are times where God apparently allowed sin to dwell for a time (think of the times of the Judges), then suddenly showed up, there is a similar time now. God is storing up his wrath for the End of the World. I also won't rule out that we still might see God's judgement in the forms of sudden deaths of some people or in natural disasters. I'm not saying that is the case, but I can't rule that out.

Something we have to understand about God, he does not care what we think of him. He doesn't need our praise. He doesn't need our affection. He doesn't even need our acknowledgement that he exists. He was perfectly self-sufficient without for eternity past. He does what he does with us because he chooses to. If he wanted to be a tyrant and rule over each of us with a iron first, he very well could and there would be nothing we could do or say about it. But he doesn't. He chooses to let us to live our lives as we want and when sin entered, he had to gives us guidelines and rules to follow so we would be able to tell the difference. And what's more is that he knew from the very beginning that we would sin, and he knew exactly when Jesus would come down and die. A study of the crucifixion and the solar activities as depicted in Star of Bethlehem, a solar eclipse happened at the very hours of Jesus' death, something that according to studying astronomy could have only happened if God set that plan into motion in Day 4 of creation.

We who follow Christ still take it for granted what a privilege it is to be alive let alone in a relationship with the living God. We didn't do a thing to deserve it. In fact, we've done more than enough to cut us off from it for eternity. But God in his grace and mercy found a way for us not to suffer his wrath and judgement. It's so simple but so deep.

Do you not see that this is the exact same response peaceful Muslims have when people commit atrocities in the name of Islam?

Absolutely. And many Jews today say that those of them who come to realize that Christ is the Messiah they rejected are no longer Jews and reject them just as they did the Messiah. But they are Jews still; they are now the Jew that God intended them to be (which is a Jew with a Messiah).

Just sayin'.

I'm aware that one does not become Christian through works and deeds. It doesn't change the fact that when a person does something terrible and claims they did in the name of God, Christians respond by saying the person was not truly Christian.

True. And then it all boils down to "what is a Christian?"

I don't claim to be an expert on either the Qur'an or the Bible, but so far the quote I have seen can be explained within context. I could roll out the usual round of quotes from the Bible that atheist's take issue with, but you would simply respond by explaining their context and intent. See?

Absolutely. And on further research, I have to agree that that quote seems to be a quote that is explained in context. But at the same time, taking some other things into account muddle the context a good deal too much for comfort, to me. *points down to later in her post*

The usual, so-and-so was a Christian, but says they have had a change of heart. Response is to say they were never really a Christian to start with in that case.
Now - this could be true. Again, I don't consider myself enough of an expert to either confirm or deny that this is according to Scripture. But there's no denying that it's a circling argument that explains away a lot.

Absolutely, because we can never know what is in the heart of Man. God judges the heart.

1 Samuel 16:7

But the LORD said to Samuel, "Do not look on his appearance or on the height of his stature, because I have rejected him. For the LORD sees not as man sees: man looks on the outward appearance, but the LORD looks on the heart."

This sound very similar to the Christian traditions of attending church on a regular basis and practices such as tithing. They won't make you a Christian, but they show you are on the right path. The explanation I usually hear is that if you truly do believe that Christ is your saviour, you will in turn wish to live in a way which honours him. In the same way, if you truly believe Allah is your god, you wish to live in a way which honours him, as noted in the Qur'an.

That's not what I'm getting from the Koran itself. I'm perfectly willing to admit I just haven't read enough of the other works to get that picture, but all I'm seeing so far is work based faith in the description of what makes a Muslim. There is much "believing" you can do, but it all depends on you. "Do this, this, this and this and Allah shall be merciful unto you. If you don't, you must be punished".
Not "Because you have sinned, you are all deserving of death. You cannot earn your salvation. You are not worthy of Me. But I have sent Someone to be the propitiation for your sins and by His sacrifice, you are made Holy."
Lot of difference there.

I'd argue that that's a case of semantics Surely, thinking of the Muslims I know, they have made a concerted effort to study their religion and live in the way it asks them too. To say they in that case still don't understand their religion implies some sort of problem on their behalf.
There's a difference between passively dying for your religion, and committing suicide with the intent to harm others. I'm sure there's Muslims in the world who would risk being shot for their religion, but would not want to engage in suicide bombing, and don't believe that the latter is something they are called to do. What I'm trying to say is that your comparison of Christians dying for their faith and Muslims becoming suicide bombers isn't a fair comparison. It ignores Muslims who are peaceful and yet utterly committed to their faith. It implies that suicide bombing is the ultimate martyrdom for all Muslims, when in truth that's only the case for some misguided factions.

That is totally what it sounded like I was saying. But I muddled my meaning so badly, I can barely pick it out when I go back and reread it. I'm sorry.

What I was mainly trying to say is that the Muslims we know here may be a bit less committed than the ones in other countries. I know that is the case with Christians (which is what I was trying to say ), but I wonder if it may be the case with Muslims too.

I think that was all I was trying to say... XD Sorry for the confusion.

As for ultimate martyrdom... Well, for the sake of trying to keep everything on the same sub-subject (is that a word?) in the same spot, keep reading down.

But, to me this attitude seems to be ignoring the Qur'an's many calls for peace and gentleness, even to non-believers.

*points down again*

There are specifications for when to kill unbelievers in the Qur'an. Perhaps the best known line where they are instructed to 'kill the infidels' in fact comes after giving several other options which are intended to avoid the death of the unbeliever. As The Grey Pilgrim pointed out, these instructions tend to relate to unbelievers who are attempting to cause them harm. These instructions were also given during a point in history where Holy Wars on the behalf of many religions were common.

But Muslims believe Christians are causing them harm. Unless that website is only for a certain sect of Muslims.

One other thing about that website- you can see their slogan in the upper right corner. As I said, I believe there are peaceful Muslims. I do not believe that is what the Koran teaches (more on that in a minute).

I'd like to clarify at this point that I don't believe the Qur'an is a perfect book. I've no doubt it contains contradictions about this topic. But I have similar feelings for the Bible too, so from my point of view it simply seems unreasonable to claim one does not and that the other is rife with them (from either direction!).

Ah. Well, I can understand your point of view. Considering that, I think it unlikely we will come to a conclusion on this issue unless you or I change our views on the Bible.

That being said, I'll state my point of view:

The Old Testament of the Bible is a foreshadowing of Christ. One of its biggest purposes is to point forwards towards Christ. All the laws in it are to show us how impossible it is to please God on our own. Take a look at them. There's no humanly possible way to keep all that law. God says that if you break one law, you are guilty of it all (James 2:10). Humans are capable of keeping the laws in the Koran. If they break it, according to the Sunnah, they are no longer a believer at the time of committing it. But their faith can be returned to them if they repent. (warning, not very family friendly verse. Hence the link and not a quote )
In the Old Testament, you are guilty of death once you break the law. But God, in His mercy, took in place of the blood of the offender the blood of a sacrifice. Because it was an "imperfect" sacrifice, it only lasted so long and then you had to sacrifice again. A never-ending cycle that could easily be slipped into as a way of life and not as an act of worship. And that is exactly what happened.
But the whole point of that and the point of the violence in the Old Testament and the point of everything else in there is to show the complete Depravity of Man, his helplessness in pleasing God and the payment of the sins he could not hope to overcome. Note: That's not the only reason for the Old Testament, but that is the overall message we are to draw from it.

Finally, the One whom the Jews had been praying for, feasting in honor of, proclaiming the coming of through sacrifice and sensing the need of through their utter lack of ability to keep all the law, came to us.

2 Corinthians 5:17

Therefore, if anyone is in Christ, he is a new creation. The old has passed away; behold, the new has come.

If you read the chapter, you can see that Paul is talking about the Old Man. The Old Testament was in effect for the Old Man, though it is still in effect. Read Romans 7 for an explanation straight from the Word.

Romans 7 (key portions)

1 Or do you not know, brothers—for I am speaking to those who know the law—that the law is binding on a person only as long as he lives? 2 For a married woman is bound by law to her husband while he lives, but if her husband dies she is released from the law of marriage. 3 Accordingly, she will be called an adulteress if she lives with another man while her husband is alive. But if her husband dies, she is free from that law, and if she marries another man she is not an adulteress.

4 Likewise, my brothers, you also have died to the law through the body of Christ, so that you may belong to another, to him who has been raised from the dead, in order that we may bear fruit for God. 5 For while we were living in the flesh, our sinful passions, aroused by the law, were at work in our members to bear fruit for death. 6 But now we are released from the law, having died to that which held us captive, so that we serve in the new way of the Spirit and not in the old way of the written code.

7 What then shall we say? That the law is sin? By no means! Yet if it had not been for the law, I would not have known sin. For I would not have known what it is to covet if the law had not said, "You shall not covet." 8 But sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, produced in me all kinds of covetousness. For apart from the law, sin lies dead. 9 I was once alive apart from the law, but when the commandment came, sin came alive and I died. 10 The very commandment that promised life proved to be death to me. 11 For sin, seizing an opportunity through the commandment, deceived me and through it killed me. 12 So the law is holy, and the commandment is holy and righteous and good.

I don't claim to understand it all, but this I do know: The Old Testament Law is trumped by the forgiveness of God. It condemned us to death, but God gave us life in his Infinite Mercy.

Now we get into TBG and Mino's conversation. I do not believe the Bible contradicts itself. It does when taken out of context or when there is an incomplete understanding of the way the scriptures work. For instance, saying that God commands His people to kill unbelievers by drawing from Joshua, where there is much violence that God condones (and He does! That is absolutely true that He does!). But Joshua is a book of history. Not a book of law. What goes on in there is not the way it is always supposed to go. It is a record of what did happen.

The Koran is not so clear. It looks like the Sunnah might be more a book of history than a book of law (just from what I've read). Therefore, I'm assuming that these extremely violent and cruel punishments (extremely violent, use caution) to a group of men for theft and the death of one man (and the rejection of Allah) is a one time occurrence and not a commandment. But even a book of history has truths in it. Such as,

Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 41

I asked Allah's Apostle, "O Allah's Apostle! What is the best deed?" He replied, "To offer the prayers at their early stated fixed times." I asked, "What is next in goodness?" He replied, "To be good and dutiful to your parents." I further asked, what is next in goodness?" He replied, "To participate in Jihad in Allah's Cause." I did not ask Allah's Apostle anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more.

I honestly had never heard of Jihad until I read that article Greymouser linked to. But reading the rest of this chapter, every instance of its use I have come across is referring to battle.

Sunnah, Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 43

(That she said), "O Allah's Apostle! We consider Jihad as the best deed. Should we not fight in Allah's Cause?" He said, "The best Jihad (for women) is Hajj-Mabrur (i.e. Hajj which is done according to the Prophet's tradition and is accepted by Allah).

Sunnah, Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 80

Allah's Apostle said, "Allah welcomes two men with a smile; one of whom kills the other and both of them enter Paradise. One fights in Allah's Cause and gets killed. Later on Allah forgives the 'killer who also get martyred (In Allah's Cause)."

Sunnah, Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 49

The Prophet said, "Last night two men came to me (in a dream) and made me ascend a tree and then admitted me into a better and superior house, better of which I have never seen. One of them said, 'This house is the house of martyrs."

Vol. 4, Book 52, Hadith 44

A man came to Allah's Apostle and said, "Instruct me as to such a deed as equals Jihad (in reward)." He replied, "I do not find such a deed." Then he added, "Can you, while the Muslim fighter is in the battle-field, enter your mosque to perform prayers without cease and fast and never break your fast?" The man said, "But who can do that?" Abu- Huraira added, "The Mujahid (i.e. Muslim fighter) is rewarded even for the footsteps of his horse while it wanders bout (for grazing) tied in a long rope."

And over and over and over again the Sunnah lauds the martyr. "Allah's Apostle" tells men that Jihud (in context, I can't pull anything other than "war" out as the meaning) is the greatest thing a Muslim can do. Well, it contradicts itself. One place it says, in order; prayer, honoring your parents and participating in Jihad are the best things you can do. Most everywhere else it ignores the first two and skips to Jihad.

Even with all the verses in the Koran about peace and tolerance, I'm really not sure how that can fit in with these verses as well. Looks to me like the holy works of Mohammad are very contradictory and it requires a person to sift through it and decide just which parts they will believe. Tolerance is preached, but martyrdom is lauded with great volume.

If the works of Muhammad are eternal and perfect (as the Koran claims they are), then even taking the books into Historical context does not erase the fact that the Koran and the Sunnah both say that war in the cause of Allah is the best thing that a Muslim can do.

I am still researching this. Hopefully in the next few days I can get to my library and see if they have any hard copies of the Koran and the Sunnah for me to look at. Perhaps, with deeper study, I will come to a different conclusion. But for now, I see nothing in the Islam holy works that would lead me to believe that Islam is a peaceful religion.

In reply to the whole thing that started this debate: I still do not think I should have worded that sentence "extremest Muslims". But it might have been more accurate if I had worded it "The Islam holy works teach".

There was a time when Christianity held a similar position. I think it's unwise to blame simply the religion for these actions when the actual situation is a social and economic one more than anything.

I would argue that religion has everything to do with most social and economic situations. In history, we can see that the worldviews of the people in the situations plays a major part in the social views of the day. Worldviews are shaped by religious views, or lack thereof, which is a religion all in itself.

Just sayin'.

.....
I imagine that heaven would be the same way. There is still the choice to fall into sin, but I think that people would never even contemplate such a thing because of their circumstances. I never said that entity of evil is necessary, I only said that the potential to choose an evil is necessary....

In my personal worldview of what Heaven is, I do not believe there will be any more falling into sin because things will be perfect then. I believe in Heaven we'll be in a sense "locked in" by God to perfection. I don't think it will be boring at all!

I also find the issue of Biblical infallibility hugely dependent on one's current personal worldview towards the Bible and life.....if one is currently questioning their personal experience of God in their life (which obviously varies across the board) I think it biases every argument/debate they make for or against what they personally interpret from reading the Bible...i.e. they've had personal experience that God is a tyrant....which could lead them to argue against His actions of cruelty in the OT that don't jive with the grace and forgiveness in the NT.

Or....they've grown up with God as a loving Father of forgiveness and grace and that fuels their belief in His Sovereignty....and causes them to have faith in Him even when things are not easily explained or understood. Don't know if I make sense...

Sometimes taking the questionable parts of God's Word are just steps of faith....all will be explained at the end (I know that some will see that statement as a
cop-out)....and one just has to have faith that overall God does not lie and His Word is Truth.

http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?se ... ersion=NIV
Hebrews 11:6

The existence of so many versions seems to me to be for the benefit of people who find certain translations incomprehensible or hard to understand.....for me personally the existence of many translations does not mean that the essential core Word of God (all 66 books) is fallible. I agree that it was divinely inspired.

http://bible.org/article/why-so-many-tr ... ranslation

http://www.spotlightministries.org.uk/inner.htm