If God gave those commands himself and then programmed us to look at his commands and realize that if anyone else had committed those actions, it would be obviously atrocious and they would be considered a mass-murderer

I must say, you're delightfully modern and specifically western in your assessment here. If you asked a Ugandan, a Rwandan, or a Polynesian, they would see nothing wrong here---that's what you did to your enemies. The radical thing was in certain cases not taking plunder, slaves, or wives.

You are fundamentally justifying your arguments with "magic." It doesn't make any sense to you or me, but to a being magical enough to make sense of it

That's not what I'm saying at all. I'm saying it doesn't matter what you think because God doesn't answer to you. God is the standard, not you.

However, I don't think you'd be able to prove that objective morality exists transcendent of nature, and all the organisms that constantly weigh the options of life, death, pain, pleasure, selflessness, and selfishness, in a never-ending struggle to maximize the well-being of the species.

I would say that morality is rooted in the Divine nature, which pre-exists all of that. If God is creator, then He is the transcendent standard of morality.

Jahveh didn't create the standard: Jahveh is the standard.

One of the things that has always really bothered me is how badly Israel fails in general at being a witness and showing the way to the other countries.

It bothered God a lot too---read the minor prophets.

Jesus only spoke directly to a tiny portion of people (and an even tinier portion actually heard most of what he said). That doesn't help any of the people who were born later and didn't have direct access to copies of the Gospels.

Does it bother you to have to trust that God knows what He's doing here? I honestly don't know what happens to those who don't ever hear. I just don't---I don't think we're told the whole story there. Do some go to Hell? Most likely. But all? I don't know---I'm told my story.

Your mistake here is referring to "The Scriptures" as a single unit. Rather "The Scriptures" were merely a whole bunch of different pieces of literature that were written by early Christians to specific audiences in many different places. There were quite a few hodgepodge collections of these pieces of literature floating around until one of the Church Councils finalized the list of writings that were to be the New Testament and proclaimed them the official Scripture.

Actually, there's good evidence from extra-Biblical sources that there was a general consensus on the NT canon by the late 2nd century. Only a couple books in the canon were controversial, and those mainly because of lack of clear authorship. The four Gospels, Acts, and the Pauline epistles, though, were recognized as Scripture fairly early on.

Also, it wasn't a council that decided the issue: the modern list was first put in a letter by Athanasius of Alexandria, who basically assumed that everyone in his audience already accepted the books on the list.

In order to jump into that circle of logic, I first need to have faith that God is real. But that's something I can't do right now. I don't feel God's presence in my life. I never felt like God answered my prayers when I was still a Christian. I haven't witnessed any miracles. The Holy Spirit needs to enter me and convince me. I don't think anything else can give me such faith.

Then pray and ask that God would give you that faith. You have questions for God? Fine---He's not afraid of them. But, as Anselm says, unless you believe, you will never understand. Wrestle with God, but don't keep fighting Him. Ask that God would send His Spirit.

TBG

Ok, let's start off with something that cannot be disputed...in the Old Testament, God ordered the Israelites to completely destroy many cities in Israel's area. All men, women and children were killed, and all livestock were slaughtered. (Saul even gets in big trouble with God when he fails to comply completely with the latter requirement.)

Unfortunately that is what invading armies do. Those that they left alive later on corrupted the Israelites. The judges had a lot of trouble with Canaanites, Amalekites and others. Specifically they went on to have trouble with the Philistines, an Indo-European speaking people, escapees from Crete and Santorini. Called the Sea Peoples, they also troubled Egypt about the time of Merneptah, a successor to Rameses II, who was also considered by some as the Pharaoh of Exodus.

I brought it up because other people in here were using moral problems in the Koran as an objection to Islam at the time.

What is horrible about Islam is that the men who smashed those planes ten years ago today, is that they allegedly did so in the name of Allah, according to some of the Surahs in the Qu'ran. In the past 10 years others have had similar beliefs and have acted on them, often to the detriment of their own countrymen and co-religionists. Today, 1.35 pm 11/9/2011, I am glad Bin Laden was killed, even if it is a sin I have committed in doing so. I can understand emotionally why people would criticize Islam for things that might equally apply to Christianity.

But I will not accept that the so-called 'Christian fundamentalist', who killed those people in Norway a month or two ago, was a Christian or in any way acting in the name of my God.

If God gave those commands himself and then programmed us to look at his commands and realize that if anyone else had committed those actions, it would be obviously atrocious and they would be considered a mass-murderer, then he has failed to get his message across. Why not program us to be able to at least somewhat understand why it is okay to design whole civilizations of people to fail, then destroy them for failing like God knew and planned?

God programmed us to use our heads and to choose which is the right path of action. But sometimes we don't do that very well, even Solomon, the wisest of them all. Sometimes people behave unethically and reap the consequences. And yes, God didn't always speak to just the Israelites, or his chosen leaders, even in the OT. He talked to Balaam and his donkey didn't he? To get the King of Moab to let the Israelites pass, which he was reluctant to do. Of course the tribes of Moab, in what is now Jordan, were ethnically related to the Israelites, who later absorbed them.

One of the things that has always really bothered me is how badly Israel fails in general at being a witness and showing the way to the other countries.

For example, Moses left the Israelites for 40 days to collect the 10 commandments and regardless of the fact that they witnessed many of God's most powerful miracles firsthand in their escape from Egypt, the Israelites started worshipping a golden calf. The first King of Israel that God chose disobeyed him several times. The third King of Israel, Solomon, had the God-given gift of being the wisest man that ever lived, yet eventually started worshipping idols and lived in such luxury at the expense of Hebrew peasants that 10 tribes of Israel rebelled against Solomon's son and split off to form two countries: Israel and Judah. Judah had 8 Kings (out of 20) that pleased God, and Israel had NO Godly kings!

Some of Judah's more godly kings still did the wrong thing. Hezekiah sometimes wrestled with God who made him ill at one stage. Hezekiah who built the tunnel from the Pool of Siloam into Jerusalem, was the famous king who resisted Sennacherib. Hezekiah who should have left politics well alone, played footsies with neighbouring nations against the Assyrians, and that is why Sennacherib besieged successfully Lachish then Jerusalem, itself. His son Manasseh sinned mightily but repented after the Assyrians brought him to Nineveh in chains with a hook through his lip. These are occasions when we get to hear of incidents from the enemy POV, since Sennacherib's grandson, Assurbanipal, built a library in Nineveh, which was unearthed last century. (I wonder what the library penalties were like? )

Josiah, probably one of the best of Judah's kings, played politics when he, too, should have left well alone. God spoke through the Pharaoh Necho who wanted to pass by Judah on the way to Carchemish to aid the Assyrians. Josiah wouldn't let him pass, waged war on Necho, was defeated and killed and so the returning Necho, who was defeated by the opposing Medes and Babylonians, sacked Jerusalem, taking captive the new king, Jehoiakim. Thus Judah was in no great shape to resist the Babylonians when they came to sack Jerusalem, when Zedekiah, one of the next kings, rebelled against Babylonia. They were sitting ducks about to be shot by the hunters.

There is a time for every purpose under Heaven. A time to weep and a time to laugh. A time for peace and a time for war. The trouble is we don't always know what is the right time and the wrong time. I have prayed to find employment so as to rear my children, and much else in life, that either did not happen at all, or only after a longish time and much effort as in the case of the employment. Sometimes we need to be tried first, to be tempered in the fires of adversity. (Isaiah 48:10)

On the other hand, when I lay at death's door, my husband said he prayed so hard I would live, he who thinks much religion is rubbish, and yet his prayer was answered. I hope he hasn't rued it.

And here is evidence of Jehu, the Israelite king paying obeisance to the Assyrian king Shalmaneser III: An obelisk now in the British Museum.

Sorry it's taken me a while to respond, I've been a little under the weather the past few days.

Really been enjoying the recent discussion about Bible history, though!

I'm just going to throw out this question for anyone among the inerrant Bible folk who would like to answer: when were you exposed to the idea of an infallible Bible, and how/when did you get to the point where you truly felt, "Yes, this is for real"? I'm curious how people get from Point A to Point B on that, since I'm obviously having some difficulty there.

And I'm saying that taking Scripture---all of Scripture---seriously as being authoritative and profitable for ordering your life is essential to that relationship. You cannot hope to know God apart from Scripture.

How did early Christians know God? How did the ancient Jews know God? How does someone who gets stranded on an island, sans Bible, know God?

It's like trying to nourish yourself by not eating food.

Heh, I find this kind of ironic considering a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament quite frankly makes me feel ill.

Doubts are good and healthy when they are had from the perspective of faith---that is, if you want your doubts about inerrancy satisfied, you have to approach them as one who believes. St. Anselm of Canterbury says "for unless I believed, I would never understand."

I think I am coming from the perspective of faith. I am open-minded about the Bible's inerrancy, I'm certainly interested in learning about the viewpoints of others on it, and I pray all the time for God to lead me to the truth and to teach me to conquer prejudice and doubt as I seek it.

But what I will not do is pray that I'll see the Bible as an inerrant work of God, because when you do that, you are setting the intent, the desire, to do so. And intent is powerful stuff. The whole thing becomes self-fulfilling. I want to see the Bible as the word of God because it is, not because I decide to believe it is.

I didn't say it wasn't---he later repented of this.

Repented of what? Being troubled by books such as Revelation, or the books he actually relegated to an Apocryphal standing? Whether he repented of anything or not, he still made an enormous impact on what a huge percentage of Christians consider to be Biblical canon. He was picking and choosing what was and wasn't the word of God.

You're right, we're all guilty in this regard---doesn't make the principle any less true. We're all hypocrites in this regard---but understand that what we are called to do is to let Scripture guide us. We want to become more like God and so we mold our lives to His word. Is there risk? Yes---but that's no reason to avoid the call.

How can you let the scriptures guide you if you don't know what the scriptures are, or what they really mean? We're back to picking and choosing again.

We should always try to search for God and truth all our lives, but scripture certainly seems to guide a lot of people in many different directions, and no one is in a particularly good position in this day and age to say which paths are false and which are not.

No, it meant that they were adding to Scripture---making it say what they wanted it to say, rather than letting it shape them. Paul himself makes it clear that "All Scripture is given by the inspiration of God and is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for training in righteousness . . ." (1 Timothy 4:12).

I'll ask you the same question I asked Coura—define "all scripture"? And please, I would really appreciate it if you can explain how it's unequivocally word of God and not just your opinion, because unfortunately God never gave us a list to work from. That really frustrates me, especially when people talk about the importance of believing in the Bible as a whole.

What you are wrestling with here is the fact that it's hard to get two Christians to agree on certain points of doctrine. Fair enough---how does this demonstrate anything about Scripture, though? It seems to me that it says more about the fact that all Christians are sinners saved by grace alone.

Yes, indeed it does. We are saved by grace alone, and not correct interpretation, nor understanding, nor knowledge or even complete acceptance of a group of ancient texts that are notoriously difficult to reach any kind of consensus on.

As for the basic teachings of Christ, I think you'll find that strict adherance to Scripture is one of them. Countless times He berates the Pharisees for neglecting the Scriptural teaching in favor of their own traditions.

Verses, if you please, sir? When I looked them up a moment ago, the one I kept running into was the debate where Jesus is saying that Moses's law about divorce, given to the ancient Jews because of the "hardness of their hearts," was wrong and goes against the will of God.

In other words, take scriptures literally, unless otherwise specified.

Aw, shoot. There are so many unpleasant scriptures I would just love to turn into an elaborate metaphor rather than accept as literal. How do we know the visions are all symbolic, though?

As for different interpretations and denominations, from what I've seen, that usually comes from disregarding scriptures or taking it out of context.

I don't think it's just that. The Bible—when looked at as a whole—seems to contradict itself in many places and themes, and people have to either side one way or another with those contradictions. That surely plays a major role with the creation of denominations.

If someone wants their beliefs to be Biblical, the only way it's going to be truly Biblical is if the person takes the Bible as a whole, not ignoring any parts, and keeping everything in context.

Don't get me started on the "taking the Bible as a whole" thing. . . . Will the real Bible please stand up?!

Your theory is interesting, Ithie, but a lot of Christians from thousands of different denominations read the Bible cover to cover, and I really don't believe anyone can read anything truly impartially. You can't really leave your brain and heart behind when you're reading a book. You still see it through your own eyes, literally and figuratively.

I will certainly have to read the Bible completely, and all of the texts connected with the Bible (it's a good thing I find religion interesting, because this could take a while ), before I can pass my final judgment on it, though. Wouldn't have it any other way.

I actually wasn't talking about sin, disease, tragedy, horror or hate. I was talking about a situation where the "bad thing" in question couldn't possibly be blamed on any human.

You mean natural disasters? I'm not completely convinced those aren't caused by hatred and greed, though innocent people being affected by them is heartbreaking.

In situations such as freak accidents. . . I don't know. I still think it has more to do with the fact that we live in a broken world than it does with God directly ripping our lives to pieces. Our lives are not supposed to be perfect here, that's the whole reason this life is a temporary one, but I don't think the imperfections come from God necessarily. It depends.

I'll think about it, and get back to you if I have any further thoughts on it. I don't think you need to worry about me turning my back on God because of disaster, though.

And what are the small deviations you've seen in their accounts?

Well, the main reason I brought up small deviations was because you said that their accounts were "remarkably similar," which indicates they had some differences. But deviations certainly seem to exist. You can google them if you like. I haven't even read about them all yet, or backed them up thoroughly with my own study, so I can't really comment on them intelligently at this point.

And I'm saying that taking Scripture---all of Scripture---seriously as being authoritative and profitable for ordering your life is essential to that relationship. You cannot hope to know God apart from Scripture.

How did early Christians know God? How did the ancient Jews know God? How does someone who gets stranded on an island, sans Bible, know God?

There are actually two ways to know God: both are through God's "Word". There are two translations of 'word' in the Greek: Logos and Rhema. Logos is the complete, written Word, from which we get the word Logic. The Logos is used in John 1 and in Hebrews 4:12. The Logos is Scripture. It's the Bible. However, the Rhema Word of God is the spoken, personal application Word of God. This is when God, through the Holy Spirit, speaks to us in a personal way. When we read Scripture and it jumps out on us with a brand new meaning that we had not heard before, that is the Rhema. When we are praying and we feel an unction to do something or say something, that is the Rhema. The Sword of the Spirit is the Rhema Word of God. The two will NEVER conflict with each other. This is how we know it is the voice of God.

Now, how does someone on an island without a Bible know God? Through the Rhema word. But also, how do the tribes in Africa, the Amazon, and Polynesia know about God without the Bible? Or the tribes that don't have a written form of their language? There are two books I recommend (I need to read them myself but I know the gist.): Eternity in Their Hearts and Peace Child, both by Don Richardson. What Richardson discovers in his time with these tribes as he tries to translate the Bible is that every single culture in the world has something in their language and understanding that points to a Messiah. In Peace Child, the tribes had no word for Messiah or Savior. But when two tribes wanted peace, the only way they could do it was for the chief of a tribe seeking the treaty to give up his son and give him to the other chief. As long as that son lived, there would be peace between the tribes. Jesus is the "Peace Child".

Something else that is also important to note is that God spoke frequently to people in the Bible who did not have the written Scriptures available. Abraham had no Scriptures when God told him to move or to sacrifice Isaac. Noah didn't have anything written when God told him to build the Ark. And even when the OT prophets and people had just the Law, God spoke addressing very specific issues. Nathan would have had no clue about David's affair with Bathsheba from the Law alone. God spoke to him. God spoke to Daniel and Joseph on how to interpret dreams. That didn't come from Scripture. Daniel only had the Law, which is why he was able to make the stand for not eating the king's meat, but it didn't help him interpret the dreams. Jonah didn't preach the Law to Nineveh, which would have been all he had. He preached what God told him to preach.

Now that being said, some people believe now that the Bible is complete, God doesn't speak anymore. This is bad doctrine. God still spoke in Acts and he still speaks today. For my fencing presentation, none of that would even been conceived if God did not tell me how to do it. When I shared my stuff about forgiveness x pages back, God just revealed it to me. I didn't have to experience it the hard way. God just told me. When people know things about someone else that there is no way they could have known otherwise, this is God speaking (in some cases it's demons, but that is a whole separate issue, and I'm speaking about Godly people here.). But I will also back TBG on this that Scripture must be inerrant if it is the Logos Word of God. And the Rhema and Logos must not conflict or it's not from God.

There are actually two ways to know God: both are through God's "Word". There are two translations of 'word' in the Greek: Logos and Rhema. Logos is the complete, written Word, from which we get the word Logic. The Logos is used in John 1 and in Hebrews 4:12. The Logos is Scripture. It's the Bible. However, the Rhema Word of God is the spoken, personal application Word of God. This is when God, through the Holy Spirit, speaks to us in a personal way. When we read Scripture and it jumps out on us with a brand new meaning that we had not heard before, that is the Rhema. When we are praying and we feel an unction to do something or say something, that is the Rhema. The Sword of the Spirit is the Rhema Word of God. The two will NEVER conflict with each other. This is how we know it is the voice of God.

I find it strange that in your discussion of the Word of God, you do not mention that Christ is the eternal Word. The Scriptures are called the written word of God because they bear witness to the Word and because God speaks through them. You almost appear to be divinizing the Scriptures here - I am sure this is not your intention. But let's be circumspect with the term 'Logos'.

Seeking your prayers,
P.

I did mention that Christ is the Eternal Word. Did you not see my reference to John 1 in the paragraph you quoted? The word used there is Logos, therefore in John 1:1, "In the beginning was the Logos, and the Logos was with God, and the Logos was God." I was merely trying to say that God speaks through his written Word and through speaking to us directly (Rhema). We can confirm the Rhema is God through Scripture, but Scripture is not the only way God speaks.

I was confused because right after that you went on to identify the Logos as Scripture.

How did early Christians know God?

They had the inspired witness of the Apostles.

How did the ancient Jews know God? How does someone who gets stranded on an island, sans Bible, know God?

The ancient Jews knew God because He revealed Himself directly---verbally, giving them the Scriptures. As for desert islands---this is why you commit Scripture to memory.

Heh, I find this kind of ironic considering a lot of the stuff in the Old Testament quite frankly makes me feel ill.

So is the problem with the Bible or with you?

I think I am coming from the perspective of faith. I am open-minded about the Bible's inerrancy

Faith isn't open-minded: faith is sure.

I want to see the Bible as the word of God because it is, not because I decide to believe it is.

Then pray that God would let you see His word for what it is.

Repented of what? Being troubled by books such as Revelation, or the books he actually relegated to an Apocryphal standing? Whether he repented of anything or not, he still made an enormous impact on what a huge percentage of Christians consider to be Biblical canon. He was picking and choosing what was and wasn't the word of God.

I was thinking the books of James and Revelation, actually. The apocryphal books---well, he recognized that those were never Scripture to begin with. This is the distinction you have to understand: we're not deciding what is canon---we are recognizing what God has already inspired.

I'll ask you the same question I asked Coura—define "all scripture"?

We'll go with the 66 books which all Christians recognize. You have to understand that God speaks through both the reading and proclamation of the word. We can go into details later, but there is a broad consensus here, and frankly, the apocrypha issue is a smokescreen.

Yes, indeed it does. We are saved by grace alone, and not correct interpretation, nor understanding, nor knowledge or even complete acceptance of a group of ancient texts that are notoriously difficult to reach any kind of consensus on.

Ah, but you can't say this. On what authority do you have this? Is this God's word speaking, or your own thoughts? I'm not saying I doubt your salvation---I'm saying that without infallible Scripture, you should be the one in doubt about it.

Verses, if you please, sir? When I looked them up a moment ago, the one I kept running into was the debate where Jesus is saying that Moses's law about divorce, given to the ancient Jews because of the "hardness of their hearts," was wrong and goes against the will of God.

Look up Jesus' teachings on the Sabbath. For example, when the Pharisees berated the disciples for picking grain as they walked on the Sabbath. What the Pharisees had done here was to bind consciences beyond the teaching of Scripture (by the way, this is why Reformed Protestants, like myself, hold to Sola Scriptura).

TBG

I'm just going to throw out this question for anyone among the inerrant Bible folk who would like to answer: when were you exposed to the idea of an infallible Bible, and how/when did you get to the point where you truly felt, "Yes, this is for real"? I'm curious how people get from Point A to Point B on that, since I'm obviously having some difficulty there.

Besides the other reasons I gave you a few posts ago, it was when I studied Bible history in school. Though I've forgotten most of it by now (along with everything else I learned in school. ), it explained a lot about the texts, where they came from, how they got to where they are now, and why we don't include some other books as Biblical canon.

In other words, take scriptures literally, unless otherwise specified.

Aw, shoot. There are so many unpleasant scriptures I would just love to turn into an elaborate metaphor rather than accept as literal. How do we know the visions are all symbolic, though?

I haven't studied Revelation or the books of the prophets in-depth yet; so once I do, I may have more to say, or have even changed my perpective on this. But even the visions might not be strictly symbolic, if I remember right. Basically the people to whom the visions were given were seeing things they couldn't possibly understand in full, and weren't really meant to. Things from outside this world, or things from the future. For example, if someone in Bible times had a vision of present days, and wrote the vision down, do you think they would say, "I saw cars"? Or do you think, from their perspective and knowledge, they would be much more likely to write something along the lines of, "I saw great bugs rush past, as fast as wind. People entered the bugs as one enters a building, and the bugs whisked them away"? (Imaginary example I made up, for the record. There's no scripture that says such a thing.) These people wrote down what they saw. And what they saw was something they were shown by Divine Power. Whether they were seeing something in its real form or something symbolic, it might be hard to tell because, either way, they couldn't fully comprehend what they were seeing.

As for different interpretations and denominations, from what I've seen, that usually comes from disregarding scriptures or taking it out of context.

I don't think it's just that. The Bible—when looked at as a whole—seems to contradict itself in many places and themes, and people have to either side one way or another with those contradictions. That surely plays a major role with the creation of denominations.

If they just "pick a side" then it's definitely going to turn out inaccurate, because then they're ignoring the other part. I don't believe there are any true contradictions in the Bible. I think there are some things that might appear at first glance to be a contradiction, but once compared to the rest of scripture -- all of scripture, in its whole -- it makes sense. Confusing scriptures are made clear by other scriptures. Scripture explains scripture. If you haven't seen this yet, it's most likely because you haven't finished reading/studying yet.

If someone wants their beliefs to be Biblical, the only way it's going to be truly Biblical is if the person takes the Bible as a whole, not ignoring any parts, and keeping everything in context.

Don't get me started on the "taking the Bible as a whole" thing. . . . Will the real Bible please stand up?!

I believe the "real Bible" is the 66 books in standard Bibles. That's why I asked for an explanation of why the other books are left out. It helps to know the history.

Your theory is interesting, Ithie, but a lot of Christians from thousands of different denominations read the Bible cover to cover, and I really don't believe anyone can read anything truly impartially. You can't really leave your brain and heart behind when you're reading a book. You still see it through your own eyes, literally and figuratively.

It might be easier than you think. When you read a book of philosophy by someone, you're able to find out what they believe, right? Even if it's different from what you believe? Are your own thoughts and feelings getting in the way of what they're saying, so you're unable to see their point of view? Does it make it so that all their words are twisted to mean what you believe? If you read Nietzsche, would you be able to find out what he was saying, or would your own beliefs get in the way? What about Plato or Socrates? If you read Plato and Socrates, would your brain automatically transform all they say into things you believe? Most likely not. I've seen you listen to other people's perspectives before, and disagree with them. If you're able to disagree with something, than I know you can read something without your heart changing it to mean what you believe. Otherwise, you'd be agreeing with everyone, because all you'd hear were your own beliefs. If you can understand what they say, even if their philosophies are different from yours, I don't see why you couldn't find out the points of view the Bible presents.

I will certainly have to read the Bible completely, and all of the texts connected with the Bible (it's a good thing I find religion interesting, because this could take a while ), before I can pass my final judgment on it, though. Wouldn't have it any other way.

I wouldn't have it any other way either. *E-high-fives* Theology geeks for the win.

I actually wasn't talking about sin, disease, tragedy, horror or hate. I was talking about a situation where the "bad thing" in question couldn't possibly be blamed on any human.

You mean natural disasters? I'm not completely convinced those aren't caused by hatred and greed, though innocent people being affected by them is heartbreaking.
In situations such as freak accidents. . . I don't know. I still think it has more to do with the fact that we live in a broken world than it does with God directly ripping our lives to pieces. Our lives are not supposed to be perfect here, that's the whole reason this life is a temporary one, but I don't think the imperfections come from God necessarily. It depends.
I'll think about it, and get back to you if I have any further thoughts on it. I don't think you need to worry about me turning my back on God because of disaster, though.

I actually wasn't talking about natural disasters or freak accidents either. The only example I can come up with at the moment is a personal one, so... this is one for the PM system. I'll PM it to you when I have some time, (which probably won't be tonight).

And what are the small deviations you've seen in their accounts?

Well, the main reason I brought up small deviations was because you said that their accounts were "remarkably similar," which indicates they had some differences. But deviations certainly seem to exist. You can google them if you like. I haven't even read about them all yet, or backed them up thoroughly with my own study, so I can't really comment on them intelligently at this point.

The "remarkably similar" thing was probably just poor wording on my part. The truth is, I've never seen any deviations myself. I tried googling it before, just for kicks, but couldn't find any "contradictions" that haven't already been refuted properly here on NW.

~Riella

We'll go with the 66 books which all Christians recognize. You have to understand that God speaks through both the reading and proclamation of the word. We can go into details later, but there is a broad consensus here, and frankly, the apocrypha issue is a smokescreen.

There's a broad consensus on those 66 books' canonicity, but there is not a broad consensus on the apocrypha. Surely it is important, no mere smokecreen. If we are reading as Scripture books which do not belong in Scripture, that is important. If we are regarding as spurious books that are Scripture, that is also important. Now if you mean only that recognizing and reading those other books is not necessary to our salvation, I agree. It is not as though without those books, The Truth cannot be learned. If someone is using the doubt surrounding certain books to protest Christianity as unintelligible or 'confused', then the issue does really become a smokescreen. Is that what is happening here?

Minotaur, If you don't even believe in objective morality yourself, why are you judging God by moral standards? If it is because they are our moral standards and you wish to show our view is contradictory,

(Yes, that is the reason why...)

1) why? What is your stake in this?

So you wish to know why I am promulgating my views.

On a level of just in this topic, I'm just debating issues that have been brought up from my perspective.

On a greater level...

If all our money said on it "In God We Don't Trust",
If your schools had all the children say, "One Nation, Not Under God,"
If you had many atheists coming up to your door and trying to de-convert you,
If atheist community centers got special tax cuts that Churches didn't,
If almost all of our politicians were atheists and never prayed about anything,
If admitting an adherence to Christianity while running for office would be political suicide,
And if a former president said, "I don't know that Christians should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots...This is one nation without God..."

you'd probably try to promulgate Christianity too.

2) why not be consistent and give our view of God's transcendence (far from an afterthought or excuse!) a fair hearing as well? You are prejudicing yourself, which is why I, personally, do not see your complaints as genuine.

So far most of the justifications I have seen for God's actions in the Old Testament is that it was normal for culture back then (but of course it wouldn't be okay now). Isn't that just subjective morality?

What's more likely? That an all-powerful being has sort-of halfway communicated to us that he really cares about us doing a bunch of good things, bad things, and bizarre things? Or that some guys just made the whole thing up and convinced others to believe it? The Bible seems to value obedience of commands rather than the moral merit of commands, and discourages questioning the validity of the commands.

For instance, I'll read passages in the bible like this.

If anyone sins because they do not speak up when they hear a public charge to testify regarding something they have seen or learned about, they will be held responsible.

If anyone becomes aware that they are guilty—if they unwittingly touch anything ceremonially unclean (whether the carcass of an unclean animal, wild or domestic, or of any unclean creature that moves along the ground) and they are unaware that they have become unclean, but then they come to realize their guilt; or if they touch human uncleanness (anything that would make them unclean) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt; or if anyone thoughtlessly takes an oath to do anything, whether good or evil (in any matter one might carelessly swear about) even though they are unaware of it, but then they learn of it and realize their guilt—when anyone becomes aware that they are guilty in any of these matters, they must confess in what way they have sinned. As a penalty for the sin they have committed, they must bring to the LORD a female lamb or goat from the flock as a sin offering; the priest shall make atonement for them for their sin, and they will be forgiven. Anyone who cannot afford a lamb is to bring two doves or two young pigeons to the LORD as a penalty for their sin. (Leviticus 5:1-7)

From a theistic perspective, I don't see how to reconcile this. This is the exact same concept of Catholic indulgences - one can receive forgiveness by taking some monetary asset and disposing of it. Also, the fact that there are only two levels of wealth accounted for here doesn't make much sense either. People are wealthy in a whole spectrum of levels. It isn't quite fair that someone who is monstrously rich and has dozens of lambs can be forgiven without much sacrifice, but one who can just barely afford a lamb must sacrifice much more in comparison. (Not to mention earlier passages say that the burnt offering must be done because the aroma is pleasing to the Lord...like an all-powerful, omnipotent being would care about the smell of a few tiny burning carcasses in a universe with billions of galaxies).

But then later on, there is this passage.

These are the regulations for the guilt offering, which is most holy: The guilt offering is to be slaughtered in the place where the burnt offering is slaughtered, and its blood is to be splashed against the sides of the altar. All its fat shall be offered: the fat tail and the fat that covers the internal organs, both kidneys with the fat on them near the loins, and the long lobe of the liver, which is to be removed with the kidneys. The priest shall burn them on the altar as a food offering presented to the LORD. It is a guilt offering. Any male in a priest’s family may eat it, but it must be eaten in the sanctuary area; it is most holy. (Leviticus 7:1-4)

From the bible-was-written-by-humans perspective, it all makes sense now. The priests made up this system so that they got a delicious feast every time someone committed a sin.

I must say, you're delightfully modern and specifically western in your assessment here. If you asked a Ugandan, a Rwandan, or a Polynesian, they would see nothing wrong here---that's what you did to your enemies.

You missed the point. Would it have been okay for Israel to go around burning up whole cities without God telling them to?

The radical thing was in certain cases not taking plunder, slaves, or wives.

Exactly. It appears like God just wanted the Israelites to wipe certain groups of people off of the face of the earth. But this makes me wonder:

Did God give all these groups of people a fair chance, by sending a prophet like Jonah in to warn them ahead of time that they were doomed?

Why didn't God just do the dirty work himself - why have his Chosen People storm cities and go on killing rampages, slaughtering men, women and children? (The psychological effects of constantly doing stuff like this can't be all that great.)

And why it is okay for God to design whole civilizations of people to fail, then destroy them for failing like God knew and planned?

Does it bother you to have to trust that God knows what He's doing here?

Yes, it does...I'll admit it.

And while I pray to the Christian God and ask him to give me faith, I can't help but wonder - shouldn't I do this for every god that anybody through out history has claimed to exist, just in case one of them is the real one?

Christians generally don't go door to door to convert people, that would be the role of Christidelphians and Jehovah's Witnesses.

If all our money said on it "In God We Don't Trust",
If your schools had all the children say, "One Nation, Not Under God,"
If you had many atheists coming up to your door and trying to de-convert you,
If atheist community centers got special tax cuts that Churches didn't,
If almost all of our politicians were atheists and never prayed about anything,
If admitting an adherence to Christianity while running for office would be political suicide,
And if a former president said, "I don't know that Christians should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots...This is one nation without God..."

you'd probably try to promulgate Christianity too.

But do you really think arguing theology with people on the internet will change any of this? I'm sure you already realize it won't. There must be some other reason why you would devote so much of your time to carefully forming out arguments for us to read. One of the arguments you made against Christianity was that you thought it was a time-waster; that the people who spend all their time praying and serving God would end up wasting their lives -- a life which could have been put to better use. Therefore, it would be contradictory for you yourself to waste your time debating religion with people on the internet, if you thought there was no point to it. In a way, you'd be wasting your life on religion, just like you believe Christians do. Therefore, you must think there is some point in it. What is it? In other words, out of curiosity, what is your goal here? (Not meaning that in a rude way, by the way. )

And while I pray to the Christian God and ask him to give me faith, I can't help but wonder - shouldn't I do this for every god that anybody through out history has claimed to exist, just in case one of them is the real one?

I think one of the main reasons TBG and the rest of us have been talking in a manner that singles out the Christian God is because you have been talking in a way that singles out the Christian God. The complaints you present to us have been about our own; and so we answer about our own.

You can pray to any and as many gods as you like. We're not saying you can't. That's totally up to you. But the point you made was about our own God. And when you make inquiries and arguments about strictly our God, we're going to answer accordingly.

~Riella

But do you really think arguing theology with people on the internet will change any of this? I'm sure you already realize it won't. There must be some other reason why you would devote so much of your time to carefully forming out arguments for us to read. One of the arguments you made against Christianity was that you thought it was a time-waster; that the people who spend all their time praying and serving God would end up wasting their lives -- a life which could have been put to better use. Therefore, it would be contradictory for you yourself to waste your time debating religion with people on the internet, if you thought there was no point to it. In a way, you'd be wasting your life on religion, just like you believe Christians do. Therefore, you must think there is some point in it. What is it? In other words, out of curiosity, what is your goal here? (Not meaning that in a rude way, by the way. )

Not wishing to speak for MfA, but I don't think that follows- it could be that, just like a Christian spreading the gospel, he feels he's helping people by bringing them to the truth. There are many Christians who post at religious/scientific discussion forums where most of the posters are atheists; sometimes one thinks one can do good by pointing out to others the error of their ways.

(As well, given his list, he may consider he's helping himself by trying to convert people away from Christianity)

And, of course, some people just like having a serious discussion about important issues.

So far most of the justifications I have seen for God's actions in the Old Testament is that it was normal for culture back then (but of course it wouldn't be okay now). Isn't that just subjective morality?

Not really. Because I don't really know how you define subjective morality and objective morality. Yes, custom is always important. Because custom is what people hold onto and how they get along day to day. And when I read the Bible I see Moses as a human being trying to successfully lead a bunch of people who do not see things his way, who grizzle and groan at every hardship, who for two pins would have stayed in Egypt, no matter how hard the work, and how onerous the slavery. And who, if left to themselves, which they ultimate were, would just go on doing what their kinfolk and neighbours had always done, until brought up with a jolt. Which is what happens in most communities to this day.

Yesterday we celebrated a particularly traumatic event, not only for America. Our own Prime Minister, John Howard, was there in USA, as it happens - did the organisers of that horrendous disaster know that at the time? Because there were Australians who died there, and because that particular event has shaped our history, our Australian viewpoints, and the way we believe or don't believe in God and Jesus Christ, for the past decade. Was it the clash of civilizations or religion gone crazy? I've heard both arguments. And which of these arguments are objective morality and which are subjective morality?

I have been a lifelong student of Biblical and Ancient history, so my viewpoint will always reflect how I marry up my objective knowledge of such subjects with my personal, and therefore my subjective religious beliefs, that is to say that Jesus paid the ultimate price for my sins, that he is the way, the truth and the light, and the fulfilment of undoubted prophecies in the Old Testament.

Sometimes this has been a humourous exercise, such as my last week's analysis of the career of Deborah the Prophetess, who sounds just too fair dinkum and genuine for the Minister's somewhat male chauvinistic arguments in his sermon. However, I can't see myself as Rose-tree Dryad's "inerrant Bible folk", since I see both Testaments not just as a guide to living but also as genuine sources for the study of Ancient History, if that makes sense. I see God as the Almighty, a God of truth and consequences, Who might say at times: Be careful of what you wished for. Who says do unto others as you would want to be done to yourself. And who lets us stew in our own irony when we refuse to listen to what is right.

What's more likely? That an all-powerful being has sort-of halfway communicated to us that he really cares about us doing a bunch of good things, bad things, and bizarre things? Or that some guys just made the whole thing up and convinced others to believe it? The Bible seems to value obedience of commands rather than the moral merit of commands, and discourages questioning the validity of the commands.

No I don't think that "an all-powerful being has sort of half-way communicated to us that he really cares" about us. Abraham who started all this religion business, was definitely real. We have the Cave of Machpelah at Hebron in case you doubt that he existed. There just had to be someone who thought that all those idols, temple goings on etc were just a bunch of rot, and having read the Talmud, or a bit of it, I think Abraham was the one who did it.

I believe in Jesus Christ, a real-life personage, attested to by contemporaries, not only in the Gospels, but also by others who, like Josephus,, a Pharisee, were not Christian sympathisers. Like my Penguin copy of Early Christian writings, Josephus's works are still available in Loeb editions. Jesus died on the cross, a rather drastic action for an imposter. And what Jesus had to say in the Gospels makes sense to me, especially what he said to the Pharisees

On the other hand, though I can believe that Mohammed was inspired by at least one vision of the Archangel Gabriel to call a halt to idolatry and the persecution of female offspring, from what I have read about him, I can't believe that Mohammed is my saviour or someone who consistently and objectively maintained the sort of moral standard you hold God to. Jesus is a different matter. Jesus was the man who told the Pharisees that the one who is without sin is the one who should cast the first stone, whereas to this day, stoning women taken in adultery is a horrifying local custom in places like Afghanistan or Nigeria which hold to Islamic beliefs - they say.

I do see that people who converted many to both faiths compromised with the local customs where they thought they didn't matter very much. That is why we celebrate Easter at the Northern Hemisphere spring equinox, not consistently aligning Good Friday as the day before Passover, as we really should. And we celebrate Christmas on the Northern Hemisphere Winter Solstice, even though it coincides with the Ancient Roman Saturnalia festival. In the case of many ancient Christians like Paul, a noted evangelist, they really did have to be beware of the Roman authorities. Especially as it was the law to pay homage to deified Roman emperors, and those who didn't could find themselves in all sorts of hot water.

The question is, when reading the Bible, especially the Old Testament, is how much is what you criticize as God's 'fault' and how much is due to the Israelites' adoption of local customs?

Why didn't God just do the dirty work himself - why have his Chosen People storm cities and go on killing rampages, slaughtering men, women and children? (The psychological effects of constantly doing stuff like this can't be all that great.)

Why did God create us in the first place? Especially as humans are so competitive, jealous, angry, lazy and much else? Why bother with the likes of us? Why not have a world full of animals - far easier to get along with. Why have life at all, if it is to be destroyed?

I doubt that is the way God works, however. God is life. As for the Israelites, as I mentioned before, that is the sort of thing invaders do. They don't need God, Thor or any other deity as a justification to do what common sense dictates if they want to survive as individuals or as a nation. Failure to do what they did had consequences, the chief of which was that they would not survive themselves for very long. God is a God of survival: do we want to survive, or don't we? That is the question.

How is the Old Testament treatment of pagan Canaanites worse than the treatment the settlers of America doled out to the Amerindians, what Cortez did to the Aztecs and what the British ultimately did to the Tasmanian Aborigines, even if they didn't think they were practising genocide? Although it is defamation, the Canaanites allegedly threw their babies to Moloch, and their Assyrian neighbours were far more cruel than the Israelites ever were. Massacre-ing was something others did as well in that time and age. That was the nature of warfare: it was also what the English did to the Scottish and Irish comparatively recently, and even more so, what the Normans did to the Anglo-Saxons or the Anglo-Saxons did to the Romano-Celts, Christian or not.

For so long in the Bible, it seemed that God needed sacrifices - but then so did other deities. We are told in the Bible that God sent his son so that such sacrifices are now unnecessary, Jesus having been the ultimate sacrifice. Jesus also spoke against some religious practices that had got out of hand, because the 'powers-that-be' were benefitting too much from those customs and the power and the money they got from them. This was revolutionary in those days, wasn't it?