Accuracy of the Bible

[Autodidact]

What matters is what the founder of Christianity believed and taught. Jesus clearly taught that Adam and Eve were historical people, as did his followers in the first century. If Adam was not created by God and sinned against God, then the ransom sacrifice of Christ would have no value. Either we accept the truthfulness of God's word or we don't. This portraying the Bible record as allegory is, in truth, a patent denial of the Bible's truthfulness and inspiration by God.

So if the first people were NOT named Adam and Eve, and did not live in the middle east, and were not created out of dust and a rib, respectively, and did not eat the wrong fruit and so forth, your faith flies out the window?

Because I've got some very bad news for you.

 

[TheKnight]

No, with all due respect, I am not even close to using the same logic to conclude what counts as justification for my actions. I require objective reasons where you require none. Even if I believed in a god, never in a million years could you convince me killing someone purely on the whim of that god was the moral action, no matter how great the miracle he offered in exchange. Might makes right is not one of my principles. I absolutely deny you or anyone else your "right" to kill or harm me or anyone else purely on the command of any person or any deity, and would actively try and prevent you or anyone else from exercising such behavior.

I guess everyone has their hypocrisy.

Yeah, I know, and you can say that with a straight face?

Why shouldn't I be able to?

To say that you do not obey because of the explicit reason that you agree with his motivations is one thing, but to say that you would not disobey on the grounds of disagreeing with his motivations is another. God or Devil, you would follow both with equal zeal?

I'm not sure I understand your last question.

What's the difference unless you're a hypocrite or lack a conscience. Sure, we never know how we would react in a certain situation, I would not ask you to answer that. However, what we think (hope) we would do and what we think we should do should be the same, should they not? If that's not the case with you, please answer both.

I did in that post later on in the post. Theoretically speaking one should obey. However, in such a case, one should make an attempt to get out of obeying because, as we all know, killing people isn't something we should go do willingly. Hence, when God goes to Moses in Exodus 32 about killing all the Israelites, Moses disagrees. When God goes to Abraham about killing the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham disagrees. Obviously there is a precedent of disagreeing with God, and a precedent of God relenting.

I would at least attempt that. However, if He still ordered me to do it after I made my disagreement, then I would. But I wouldn't just blatantly accept it.

Would disobeying a law be the ethical, moral thing to do if you had strong objective reasons for thinking obeying it would be immoral and harmful in that situation or in general? Yes, absolutely. I can give you various examples of such situations, , but I think it's pretty obvious, isn't it? You don't seem to understand it's not about liking or disliking something that makes it prohibited in a society (or at least, it shouldn't). Do you not understand what objective reasons mean?

You didn't ask for objective reasons. You said "would it not matter if you disagreed?"
I already told you that I would object to it. But that's how you put the question. Laws and rules do not and should not have anything to do with what I like and dislike. They should be based on an external objective authoritative source. Too many people believe that morality should be in step with their likes and dislikes, personally, I find it disgusting.

If not speeding would cause some horrible thing to happen (for instance, kill a person) and you had the chance to avoid that from happening by disobeying that law - yes, you should speed. You should disobey the law, absolutely. It's not a matter of liking or disliking it. I'll repeat the question: do you not understand what objective reasons mean?

Again, you weren't asking about objective reasons. You were asking about disagreement. Disagreement is based in my desire one way or another. That's what the feeling that we call disagreement comprises.

Well, now I've heard it all, I think.

On the one hand, you claim it is moral to obey god, even if he asks you to kill someone, without further justification, on the other hand you claim you would not do as god commands. Are you simply a hypocrite, or is this a freudian slip exposing your true convictions? And if this paradox of reasoning is to somehow be explained, what would that imply for your god?

Either option would be correct. There are cases in Jewish law where two contradictory options could both be correct. It's not a paradox. It's simply a matter of not viewing every little thing in the framework of a dichotomy.

Either he has made a mistake in telling you what the moral thing is, or it is something akin to a test of faith. Let's explore both options. If god has made a mistake, well...that can't be, right? That completely shatters your worldview. If, however, this was some sort of test, that it is worse still - now you have no way of knowing when god is telling the truth and when he is testing you. No longer is your scripture a source of absolute truth, but rather a source of perplexion and confusion. Which parts, if any, convey the true guidelines and which are there to be discussed and abandoned? And as for god's commands - they are irrelevant - questions rather than answers. If you are being tested, the best you can do is follow your principles, on reason, no?

Did Moses win an argument or fail the test? I wonder, can you really swallow all that and refer back to "The Good Book"?

It's not a matter of testing. Neither is it a matter of God making a mistake. Remember, I explained that Judaism views action as a form of partnership with God. Every time we act, that action is a part of a co-partnership with God. If God tells us to do something. We have two options, to do it or not to do it. Those aren't contradictory. Sure, they're mutually exclusive (we can't do them both) but they're not contradictory. In some cases, to do and not to do would both be appropriate steps to take.

In essence, God comes to me and tells me to kill people. I can either agree and do it. Thus acting with God and creating the world a certain way. Or I can disagree with God (offering legitimate reasons to Him) and He can relent and I would still being acting in tandem with God.

It's not a matter of it being a test, it's a matter of God giving us the option to decide how we want our world to be. What we want the outcome to be, etc.

Forget, for a moment, this "parents" nonsense, which I will address shortly. You've missed the point in the outset. My objection was not prompted mainly by the concearn for the suffering and damnation of the person or the people that god will have commanded to be killed. No, no. It's the claim that an all-loving god would create such a violent and destructive situation in the first place. That he would deem it necessary to provide whole nations, doomed and depraved, for us to destroy, to murder their children and rape their daughters. If there is a lesson to be learned by such an event, surely it is not a lesson of love and compassion. How can you deem such a god all-loving? Even if there was a certain lesson to be learned which could be the purpose of such an event - surely god, all-powerful and all-loving as you claim him to be, could have found a way not so clearly despicable.

God did not make them to do the actions that led to their death sentence. God made them people fully capable of obeying God's will. They chose not to obey that will and that choice means death. God places us in this world, He gives us rules, and He tells us that to disobey said rules is to give up your right to be here.

My first objection with your parent analogy would be that life is not suffering and pain (for most) and death is not something to be feared but rather to be considered as an end to a good experience, nothing more. So the gamble, from most potential parent's (not all), is worth it. God, for all his power, does not have the same privilege. For him, no uncertainty exists and no surprises. To really apply god to your analogy, you would have to consider something monstrous and disturbing. Parents that not only knew for sure that their child would be doomed to eternal suffering and damnation, a faith which we would not wish on our worst enemies, but parents that, despite having all the power in the world to do anything they wanted, intentionally decided to genetically engineer their child to live such a life. Despite having, not only the option not to do that, but to genetically engineer a normal, happy child.

Do I even need to list my other objections?

Your first objection doesn't even work. When parents have children, they know that someday the children will die. When God made the Midianites, He knew that someday they would die. Indeed, with every person ever created God knows, when He makes them, that they will die eventually.

I'm not sure what the point of your "deemed to eternal suffering and damnation" comment was. Because Judaism does not believe in eternal damnation, and nothing about the account in Numbers suggests that they are eternally damned.

Lastly, God did not engineer the Midianites to go and seduce the Israelites into idolatry. He created them with drives and desires (which are healthy) and gave them a way to control those desires appropriately (the commandments). They chose to act as they did. It's not like He forced them into that.

You should and you won't. I've already addressed this issue - you're either a hypocrite or you are not honest in your beliefs.

Wrong. My beliefs allow for something to be "I should and would not" and still be correct. Judaism is a religion where we have an immense amount of choice (not completely free license to do whatever we want) within the commandments we are given. As I said, my disagreement would be based off of Torah precedents of people disagreeing with what God commands. Disagreeing with God is not a sin, so long as we know when we are supposed to obey in spite of disagreement.

 

[TheKnight]

Continued...

Am I to understand from that that you believe the 9/11 attack were not an act of terrorism?

I do believe that 9/11 was an act of terrorism. There are better methods to make your point than that.

No, no, you said it, I was not making an assumption:

That wasn't a disagreeing statement. You did say that I believe because of hearsay and then when I comment on the fact that I do, you say "You're ignoring what I really said."

Pray tell, what is this evidence? Mind you, you cannot use the Torah as a source for this answer. I hope you'll understand why, but be sure I'll take the time to explain it if you were to miss the point.

As I said, I believe because of a chain of people all the way up to the first Jews who witnessed the event firsthand. I believe because 3300 years ago, 3 million Jews stood at the foot of a mountain and heard God speak. From that point on, the have stood proclaiming the testimony of what they witnessed faithfully and under intense duress. No other religion has that sort of thing to back it up.

Reading in a book that "this is what must happen in order for you to do whatever is asked of you" can hardly be considered an objective reason to abandon all your other principles.

If my other principles are based on the book (which they are) then it's not abandoning my principles to follow the guidelines of the book.

As much as I don't mind, even enjoy being called ignorant sometimes, please also explain which part of this is incorrect.

None of it is. I had misunderstood your statements before.

So I'll take it your previous answer that "there is no record of any previous contradictory revelation" is a bit...ahem...incomplete? Misleading? False?

You are now adding conditions that you could add only after you have already accepted the Torah as truth, so I'll just ask it again then: How can you (assuming that you have not yourself withnessed a grandiose miracle and assuming that a miracle 3000 years ago was an actual event) be sure that the supposed miracle you base your faith on didn't contradict what god had said even before that? How can you be sure that the "first revelation" was, in fact, first?

I would say that your argument boils down to - this one has the biggest miracle and a group of people really believe in it strongly.

The reason I believe in the Torah is because:

1. God revealed Himself to 3 million people
2. Those people have existed under intense duress and pressure, proclaiming the same message since that time, with a direct chain and lineage back to those who first witnessed it, in such a manner that no other nation, religious group, or people has ever done or experienced.

The only way you could convince me of the validity of some other manuscript, would be to have better reasons than those for which I believe in the Torah.

Yes, I believe because a group of people witnessed a miracle and have, since that miracle, proclaimed faithfully the message heard there.

 

[Humanistheart]

The reason I believe in the Torah is because:

1. God revealed Himself to 3 million people
2. Those people have existed under intense duress and pressure, proclaiming the same message since that time, with a direct chain and lineage back to those who first witnessed it, in such a manner that no other nation, religious group, or people has ever done or experienced..

1: When did this occur? Prove it.
2: I don't think that's entirely accurate. Is this assertion based purely on the Tanack? Please explain further.

 

[TheKnight]

1: When did this occur? Prove it.

That is not the point of this thread.

2: I don't think that's entirely accurate. Is this assertion based purely on the Tanack? Please explain further.

It's based on the fact that there are Jewish people who are currently proclaiming the message of Torah because their parents were told by their parents who were told by their parents all the way back to the first Jews that witnessed it. They have continually proclaimed the message of Torah under the kind of pressure and persecution that no other group or people has experience and survived. To make matters even better, they predicted it.

 

[Humanistheart]

That is not the point of this thread.

Then your previous comment to which mine was addressed also must not have been relevant to this thread.

It's based on the fact that there are Jewish people who are currently proclaiming the message of Torah because their parents were told by their parents who were told by their parents all the way back to the first Jews that witnessed it. They have continually proclaimed the message of Torah under the kind of pressure and persecution that no other group or people has experience and survived. To make matters even better, they predicted it.

First jews that witnessed it? When was that? And yes the jewish people follow Torah but it's not the same Torah that was practiced say, 3000 years ago, I would argue that the word 'continually' would not be entirely apt in this context.

 

[Commoner]

I guess everyone has their hypocrisy.

I like one-liners as much as the next guy, but not when the don't address my points. I guess it's possible I didn't make myself clear enough, so let me try again and let me make some basic assumptions:

1. An objective reason, something with which one could justify one's actions (idealy to anyone), would have to take the form capable of providing insight into explaining the impact of your actions/inaction on other people. That is, "it was right for me to do this, because otherwise this and this would/might have happened". For instance: "Unless I shot Johnny, he would have murdered Benny".

2. In order for our actions to be justified, we must be aware of these objective reasons. For instance, we must know that a probable outcome of our inaction would lead to Benny being killed. If we did not have this knowledge beforehand, we would not be justified in killing Johnny, regardless of the fact that Benny would have died in this case. We simply did not know what was about to happen.

I think you'll agree with both assumptions, but I'll let you comment on that. My point in the previous post was, a "command from god" does not imply that there is such a reason (as presented in the first assumption) and more or less suggests that you don't know the reason (otherwise you could simply do it on the basis of that reason and no command would be necessary). On these grounds I conclude you do not require an objective reason to kill. Arguing that "god's command" is an objective reason is false as it has no specific explanatory power (specific to the event), even though you might want to assume that a sufficient explanation exists. In other words, you cannot tell me what negative effect your inaction would have had in order to warrant your actions. Wouldn't you agree?

I'm not sure I understand your last question.

You would follow god, no matter what his character turned out to be. As you've said - even if you were to find out that god's motivations aren't "good", you would still not disobey (although now you say that you might challenge it but would ultimately obey anyway). it was a rhetorical question anyway as I already knew the answer.

I did in that post later on in the post. Theoretically speaking one should obey. However, in such a case, one should make an attempt to get out of obeying because, as we all know, killing people isn't something we should go do willingly. Hence, when God goes to Moses in Exodus 32 about killing all the Israelites, Moses disagrees. When God goes to Abraham about killing the inhabitants of Sodom and Gomorrah, Abraham disagrees. Obviously there is a precedent of disagreeing with God, and a precedent of God relenting.

I would at least attempt that. However, if He still ordered me to do it after I made my disagreement, then I would. But I wouldn't just blatantly accept it.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that's any better, you would still ultimately do what you are told. You know, I find your answers to be a bit dishonest. I your previous post you implied that you would not kill if commanded by god, without mentioning what you've explained now. Now you're admiting that, ultimately, you would - but only after voicing your objections. Well, bravo!

So which was morally correct? To kill or not to kill? If it was correct to kill - god will most likely insist on that (as well he should, if he is to be called "good"). If the moral thing to do was to not kill, why was the command given in the first place? I would argue that a situation in which god commands someone to be killed and, after being challenged, changes his mind, is...of questionable character. If killing is moral, god must not change his mind, if it is not, god must not command it. Seems pretty clear to me that killing someone in a situation is either the correct course of action or the incorrect course of action, both cannot be true, unless you were to argue that the decision to kill or not kill can be arbitrary. In neither case does god changing his mind match with the image of "moral authority" that god is supposed to represent.

You didn't ask for objective reasons. You said "would it not matter if you disagreed?"
I already told you that I would object to it. But that's how you put the question. Laws and rules do not and should not have anything to do with what I like and dislike. They should be based on an external objective authoritative source. Too many people believe that morality should be in step with their likes and dislikes, personally, I find it disgusting.

Again, you weren't asking about objective reasons. You were asking about disagreement. Disagreement is based in my desire one way or another. That's what the feeling that we call disagreement comprises.

Of course I was asking for objective reasons. You disagree with arguments because you don't "like" them? Not because they are flawed? In that case, that's your problem, I do not share it. When I disagree with a positon it is because I find it to be incorrect. Of course, this little semantic argument of yours is irrelevant as you have admitted that you would not brake the law - you would not disobey god. You might challenge him, but in the end you would not disobey, regardless of god's motivation. So, I'll just repeat: Would disobeying a law be the ethical, moral thing to do if you had strong objective reasons for thinking obeying it would be immoral and harmful in that situation or in general? Yes, absolutely. You have not contested this point at all, nor do I feel you should.

"If not speeding would cause some horrible thing to happen (for instance, kill a person) and you had the chance to avoid that from happening by disobeying that law - yes, you should speed. You should disobey the law, absolutely."

I would hope you'd agree with the above statement. Yet, if I apply your claims regarding following god's command - you would try and find a way to solve a problem that would not require you to brake the law (challenge god), but if you could not find it, you would still not brake the law (disobey god) in order to avoid dissaster. I find this position immoral.

Either option would be correct. There are cases in Jewish law where two contradictory options could both be correct. It's not a paradox. It's simply a matter of not viewing every little thing in the framework of a dichotomy.

Sure, I agree that's possible in Jewish law, but in that case you're stating that disobeying god (not simply challenging him and then obeying anyway)is also correct. In that case you would have a point. But I doubt you're willing to say that.

It's not a matter of testing. Neither is it a matter of God making a mistake. Remember, I explained that Judaism views action as a form of partnership with God. Every time we act, that action is a part of a co-partnership with God. If God tells us to do something. We have two options, to do it or not to do it. Those aren't contradictory. Sure, they're mutually exclusive (we can't do them both) but they're not contradictory. In some cases, to do and not to do would both be appropriate steps to take.
In essence, God comes to me and tells me to kill people. I can either agree and do it. Thus acting with God and creating the world a certain way. Or I can disagree with God (offering legitimate reasons to Him) and He can relent and I would still being acting in tandem with God.It's not a matter of it being a test, it's a matter of God giving us the option to decide how we want our world to be. What we want the outcome to be, etc.

Ok, let's say I agree with you (only for the sake of argument) that there are situations in which killing a person and not killng a person would be equally good choices (one option is not better than the other). Why then would a command be necessary or rational? The decision is irrelevant if both options are equally valid. Is god playing games with you?

God did not make them to do the actions that led to their death sentence. God made them people fully capable of obeying God's will. They chose not to obey that will and that choice means death. God places us in this world, He gives us rules, and He tells us that to disobey said rules is to give up your right to be here.

Let me again make some assumptions (in this case, I'm fairly sure you'd have to agree with them):

1. God is omnipotent and omniscient
2. God created everything
3. God intended to create this universe and us, exactly as we are - his actions were intentional, not random

I can only conclude, if you agree with those assumptions, that god - at the moment he created everything, knew everything that was about to transpire in every point in time and in every point in space. He could have chosen to create any universe he wanted, any (in)finite chain of events, yet he chose this one. Therefore God did decide what would happen, he did decide there would be wars and tragedies. You might have been given the will to decide, yet all your actions are known to god in advance - to god, the world is completely deterministic and completely known. To deny that would be to deny one of the three assumptions, which would make your concept of god incorrect (unless one of the assumptions about your faith is incorrect). Oops!

 

[Commoner]

Your first objection doesn't even work. When parents have children, they know that someday the children will die. When God made the Midianites, He knew that someday they would die. Indeed, with every person ever created God knows, when He makes them, that they will die eventually.

Dying is not the issue at all. It's a simple "end game". It's the violence and the despicable situations god knew would transipire when he chose to create the world as it is. it is the violence that he chose. There's just no way around this, unless your god is not as you describe him to be.

I'm not sure what the point of your "deemed to eternal suffering and damnation" comment was. Because Judaism does not believe in eternal damnation, and nothing about the account in Numbers suggests that they are eternally damned.

Alright, I did jump to christianity there for a moment, but the point is the same, even if the punishment was finite.

Lastly, God did not engineer the Midianites to go and seduce the Israelites into idolatry. He created them with drives and desires (which are healthy) and gave them a way to control those desires appropriately (the commandments). They chose to act as they did. It's not like He forced them into that.

Please explain. Did god turn his omniscience off while creating them? Did he not choose to create them exactly as they were and did he not know their faith at that time? You see the problem with that, don't you?

None of it is. I had misunderstood your statements before.

Well, ok, no problem. But you don't find my conclusion a bit disturbing?

 

[TheKnight]

Then your previous comment to which mine was addressed also must not have been relevant to this thread.

It was in response to something that was relevant to this thread. Proving what I believe is not relevant to this thread.

And yes the jewish people follow Torah but it's not the same Torah that was practiced say, 3000 years ago, I would argue that the word 'continually' would not be entirely apt in this context.

I would disagree with that.

Wouldn't you agree?

Not really. In essence, you're saying that God's command doesn't count as an objective reason. I believe that it does. If my reasons for acting are based on what God commands, then the reasons behind His commanding are not relevant to my action because my action is based on what He commands not His reasons for it.

You would follow god, no matter what his character turned out to be. As you've said - even if you were to find out that god's motivations aren't "good", you would still not disobey (although now you say that you might challenge it but would ultimately obey anyway). it was a rhetorical question anyway as I already knew the answer.

What's so wrong with that? My perspective is as such:

1. I am God's creation.
2. I am living within God's created realm.
3. I have two options when it comes to the things that God commands me to do:
A. Obey
B. Disobey
4. I have no logical basis to disobey other than my own personal lack of desire to do as He commands, therefore I obey.
5. His reasons for commanding me to do X do not change 1-4. Therefore obedience is always the best possible option.

Without morality defined by Him, I have no basis on which to judge whether or not His character is "good". Therefore His character is not relevant to how I behave.

I'm sorry, I don't see how that's any better, you would still ultimately do what you are told. You know, I find your answers to be a bit dishonest. I your previous post you implied that you would not kill if commanded by god, without mentioning what you've explained now. Now you're admiting that, ultimately, you would - but only after voicing your objections. Well, bravo!

If I objected and He said "You're right, don't kill them." then I would not. If He said, "I don't care, kill them anyways" then I would. There was no dishonesty. I simply like to be specific and intentional in my wording.

So which was morally correct? To kill or not to kill? If it was correct to kill - god will most likely insist on that (as well he should, if he is to be called "good"). If the moral thing to do was to not kill, why was the command given in the first place? I would argue that a situation in which god commands someone to be killed and, after being challenged, changes his mind, is...of questionable character. If killing is moral, god must not change his mind, if it is not, god must not command it. Seems pretty clear to me that killing someone in a situation is either the correct course of action or the incorrect course of action, both cannot be true, unless you were to argue that the decision to kill or not kill can be arbitrary. In neither case does god changing his mind match with the image of "moral authority" that god is supposed to represent.

I think you're looking too much on God's character and not enough on the significance of His asking me to kill.

Suppose that when God commands me to kill, it is up to me to decide which decision is correct. By objecting with Torah reasons, I can make it incorrect. By obeying, I could make it correct. In essence, the outcome and the morality of it is determined by my action. It is, in essence, a choice that God leaves up to me.

Of course I was asking for objective reasons. You disagree with arguments because you don't "like" them?

How is disagreeing with a command given by the Creator of the universe the same as disagreeing with an argument?

Besides, we're discussing morality, and in my opinion morality is based on what God commands. There is no logical way to object to that outside of the framework of His commands.

Not because they are flawed?

I'm saying that the impetus to my disagreement is my not liking the command. There is no need to disagree with it if I like it.

In that case, that's your problem, I do not share it. When I disagree with a positon it is because I find it to be incorrect. Of course, this little semantic argument of yours is irrelevant as you have admitted that you would not brake the law - you would not disobey god. You might challenge him, but in the end you would not disobey, regardless of god's motivation. So, I'll just repeat: Would disobeying a law be the ethical, moral thing to do if you had strong objective reasons for thinking obeying it would be immoral and harmful in that situation or in general? Yes, absolutely. You have not contested this point at all, nor do I feel you should.

It depends. If we're talking about laws made by people, then I agree. If we're talking about laws made by the Creator of the universe, then I disagree.

I find this position immoral.

Based on what morality? What makes it immoral? "Immoral", by itself, doesn't mean anything. When you use the word "immoral" in reference to my position, what do you mean?

Sure, I agree that's possible in Jewish law, but in that case you're stating that disobeying god (not simply challenging him and then obeying anyway)is also correct. In that case you would have a point. But I doubt you're willing to say that.

Disobedience would not be correct. Objecting yes, disobeying no.

 

[TheKnight]

Ok, let's say I agree with you (only for the sake of argument) that there are situations in which killing a person and not killng a person would be equally good choices (one option is not better than the other). Why then would a command be necessary or rational? The decision is irrelevant if both options are equally valid. Is god playing games with you?

Because human beings have this thing called desire which causes them to do things that they shouldn't and normally wouldn't do. The command makes it clear.

Let me again make some assumptions (in this case, I'm fairly sure you'd have to agree with them):

1. God is omnipotent and omniscient
2. God created everything
3. God intended to create this universe and us, exactly as we are - his actions were intentional, not random

I can only conclude, if you agree with those assumptions, that god - at the moment he created everything, knew everything that was about to transpire in every point in time and in every point in space. He could have chosen to create any universe he wanted, any (in)finite chain of events, yet he chose this one. Therefore God did decide what would happen, he did decide there would be wars and tragedies. You might have been given the will to decide, yet all your actions are known to god in advance - to god, the world is completely deterministic and completely known. To deny that would be to deny one of the three assumptions, which would make your concept of god incorrect (unless one of the assumptions about your faith is incorrect). Oops!

The third assumption is incorrect. "God created the world imperfect that we might perfect it, incomplete that we might complete it."

In essence, God knows the outcome of the world. The outcome is the Messianic era. However, we are currently not in that state, nor were we ever in that state. When God created the world, He created it in such a way that it could survive, but that it was not completely as it would be in its finished product.

Why? So that mankind, God's most prized creation, could have a part in the completion of this world.

That said, all the wars, tragedies, chaos, etc. The existence of those things and for how long they exist is entirely up to us. Yes, God created this world in a certain fashion, but He did not create the finished product. In essence, this world is to be a coordinated effort between us and God. My actions are known in advance, but God's knowledge of my future actions is caused by my future actions.

Dying is not the issue at all. It's a simple "end game". It's the violence and the despicable situations god knew would transipire when he chose to create the world as it is. it is the violence that he chose. There's just no way around this, unless your god is not as you describe him to be.

God did not choose the "violence and despicable situations". I guess the best way to describe how we believe God created the world is this:

God created the world in limbo. It has a destination (the era of Mashiach) and it has numerous ways to get to that destination. All God did was create the world and the framework for our decision. The methodology of how we get to the destination is mostly, if not entirely, up to us.

Alright, I did jump to christianity there for a moment, but the point is the same, even if the punishment was finite.

Is your point that God knew that they would be punished and created them anyways?

Please explain. Did god turn his omniscience off while creating them? Did he not choose to create them exactly as they were and did he not know their faith at that time? You see the problem with that, don't you?

I see what you're saying. But I don't believe what you're saying. You're saying that He created them a certain way, knew how they would be, and that they have no choice but to operate in that way.

That's not how Hasidism sees things. God created the world in limbo. In essence, in the past when God created the Midianites, He created them a certain way. He does not, did not, and will not force their hands as to what they do. When they were created, the choice was entirely theirs whether or not they would end up committing idolatry and seducing the Israelites into it. Knowing how something will happen does not mean you directly influenced how it would happen.

Well, ok, no problem. But you don't find my conclusion a bit disturbing?

Not really. It appears that you aren't exactly clear on what it is I believe about Creation, God's part in it, and our part in it.

 

[Commoner]

Not really. In essence, you're saying that God's command doesn't count as an objective reason. I believe that it does. If my reasons for acting are based on what God commands, then the reasons behind His commanding are not relevant to my action because my action is based on what He commands not His reasons for it.

What's so wrong with that? My perspective is as such:

1. I am God's creation.
2. I am living within God's created realm.
3. I have two options when it comes to the things that God commands me to do:
A. Obey
B. Disobey
4. I have no logical basis to disobey other than my own personal lack of desire to do as He commands, therefore I obey.
5. His reasons for commanding me to do X do not change 1-4. Therefore obedience is always the best possible option.

Well, I've told you what's wrong with it - you don't know how your actions will affect other people. You don't know what the possible consequences of your inaction might be. In effect, you don't know what you're doing. You cannot answer - what would have happened had I not done so? I mean, the least I would expect from god is a reason. I don't see how obeying without knowing what you're doing can be considered a virtue.

Do you have an actual specific objection regarding my two assumptions that would invalidate them as necessary to establish an objective reason?

Without morality defined by Him, I have no basis on which to judge whether or not His character is "good". Therefore His character is not relevant to how I behave.

So before you accepted your current religion, you had no moral principles? You didn't know right from wrong? You didn't understand the real time consequences of your actions? That's as interesting as it is untrue. Come on now, let's not start with the that nonsense.

I think you're looking too much on God's character and not enough on the significance of His asking me to kill.

Suppose that when God commands me to kill, it is up to me to decide which decision is correct. By objecting with Torah reasons, I can make it incorrect. By obeying, I could make it correct. In essence, the outcome and the morality of it is determined by my action. It is, in essence, a choice that God leaves up to me.

It's not about you deciding one way or the other, that's perfectly fine. You've missed the point. If it was correct to kill - god will most likely insist on that (as well he should, if he is to be called "good"). If the moral thing to do was to not kill, why was the command given in the first place? If god is to be seen as the moral authority, he simply cannot change his mind at this point. Once the command was given, the damage has already been done, so to speak.

There is one other option which you rejected - that god might be testing you.

How is disagreeing with a command given by the Creator of the universe the same as disagreeing with an argument?

How is it different? It's a matter of principle. Whether I'm saying something or god is, is not relevant if you have free will to decide on your own.

Besides, we're discussing morality, and in my opinion morality is based on what God commands. There is no logical way to object to that outside of the framework of His commands.

Meh, forget morality. Whatever you want to call the principles you have. They all come from god? I simply will not intentionally harm anyone unless I have an objective reason to do so (as per my two assumptions). Whether you call that morality or principles or a brain fart is completely irrelevant.

I'm saying that the impetus to my disagreement is my not liking the command. There is no need to disagree with it if I like it.

There are plenty of situation when we disagree on principle even though we would like to see that thing happen. For instance, I would love for creationists to shut up. But I would disagree with actions that would prevent them from exercising their free speech. This distinction isn't obvious to you?

It depends. If we're talking about laws made by people, then I agree. If we're talking about laws made by the Creator of the universe, then I disagree.

Might makes right is not a principle I consider to be a virtue.

Based on what morality? What makes it immoral? "Immoral", by itself, doesn't mean anything. When you use the word "immoral" in reference to my position, what do you mean?

Based on my moral principles and the moral principles of society. "Immoral" is causing unnecessary harm.

Disobedience would not be correct. Objecting yes, disobeying no.

So you were incorrect.

 

[Smoke]

Let me just respond to your issue with the geneologies of Christ.
The difference in nearly all the names in Luke’s genealogy of Jesus as compared with Matthew’s is quickly resolved in the fact that Luke traced the line through David’s son Nathan, instead of Solomon as did Matthew. (Lu 3:31; Mt 1:6, 7) Luke evidently follows the ancestry of Mary, thus showing Jesus’ natural descent from David, while Matthew shows Jesus’ legal right to the throne of David by descent from Solomon through Joseph, who was legally Jesus’ father.

The problem with that theory is that it flatly contradicts what Luke says.

I've often said that nobody could read the Bible attentively and believe it was inerrant, but that theory, of course, doesn't take into account those people who "rescue" the inerrancy of the Bible by arguing that it doesn't mean what it says.

What matters is what the founder of Christianity believed and taught. Jesus clearly taught that Adam and Eve were historical people, as did his followers in the first century. If Adam was not created by God and sinned against God, then the ransom sacrifice of Christ would have no value. Either we accept the truthfulness of God's word or we don't. This portraying the Bible record as allegory is, in truth, a patent denial of the Bible's truthfulness and inspiration by God.

I'm familiar with your point of view, but it is a point of view that one can only hold onto by ignoring the obvious. A religion that requires its adherents accept things that are obviously not factual as infallibly factual is a religion that is destined to be peopled by fools and dominated by liars.

 

[Commoner]

Because human beings have this thing called desire which causes them to do things that they shouldn't and normally wouldn't do. The command makes it clear.

Makes what clear? If you are going to argue that in the same situation killing and not killing a person is of equal value, the decision is clear. No benefit could come from any action so the logical stance is inaction - there simply is no motivation present. A command to kill in this situation would be completely irrational and redundant. I adds no value.

The third assumption is incorrect. "God created the world imperfect that we might perfect it, incomplete that we might complete it."

That does not conflict with my assumption which simply states that god's actions are intentional. They are "his will", if you will.

In essence, God knows the outcome of the world. The outcome is the Messianic era. However, we are currently not in that state, nor were we ever in that state. When God created the world, He created it in such a way that it could survive, but that it was not completely as it would be in its finished product.

Why? So that mankind, God's most prized creation, could have a part in the completion of this world.

That said, all the wars, tragedies, chaos, etc. The existence of those things and for how long they exist is entirely up to us. Yes, God created this world in a certain fashion, but He did not create the finished product. In essence, this world is to be a coordinated effort between us and God. My actions are known in advance, but God's knowledge of my future actions is caused by my future actions.

It is up to you as far as it has been decided for you. You cannot have your cake and eat it too - an omniscient god that created everything, simply must be held responsible for everything.

God did not choose the "violence and despicable situations". I guess the best way to describe how we believe God created the world is this:

God created the world in limbo. It has a destination (the era of Mashiach) and it has numerous ways to get to that destination. All God did was create the world and the framework for our decision. The methodology of how we get to the destination is mostly, if not entirely, up to us.

That's ok, only it does not invalidate the stance that your omniscient god had to have known in advance which road we would take - even if we seem to have multiple choices. If he didn't want violence, he simply should have made the roads different. Or he should have chosen to create such a world in which the path we will have eventually taken is without such horrors.

Is your point that God knew that they would be punished and created them anyways?

Yes, indeed. And not only that, he would have to have created them for that specific reason, purpose.

I see what you're saying. But I don't believe what you're saying. You're saying that He created them a certain way, knew how they would be, and that they have no choice but to operate in that way.

The choice is theirs, for them. But not for god - he knows everything. he simply does not have the luxury of chance.

That's not how Hasidism sees things. God created the world in limbo. In essence, in the past when God created the Midianites, He created them a certain way. He does not, did not, and will not force their hands as to what they do. When they were created, the choice was entirely theirs whether or not they would end up committing idolatry and seducing the Israelites into it. Knowing how something will happen does not mean you directly influenced how it would happen.

It does if you choose to do that (in the case of your god, create everything). If you knew that, let's say - going out for dinner would result in you getting mugged and you decided to go out for dinner, did you not determine the outcome of events?

Not really. It appears that you aren't exactly clear on what it is I believe about Creation, God's part in it, and our part in it.

No, I'm fairly clear on what your religion states, but my argument was not at all about your particular brand of faith. Are you sure you remember what the point of the argument you're refering to was?

 

[Dirty Penguin]

It is up to you as far as it has been decided for you. You cannot have your cake and eat it too - an omniscient god that created everything, simply must be held responsible for everything.



That's ok, only it does not invalidate the stance that your omniscient god had to have known in advance which road we would take - even if we seem to have multiple choices. If he didn't want violence, he simply should have made the roads different. Or he should have chosen to create such a world in which the path we will have eventually taken is without such horrors.



The choice is theirs, for them. But not for god - he knows everything. he simply does not have the luxury of chance.

I've come to this same conclusion long ago and even on this forum. If the god (of christianity, judaism, islam) is an omnipotent and omniscient god then why didn't he just make it all good. Why the theatrics. If it created you knowing full well your outcome because that is how he designed it then why would he be expecting you to do anything other than what you are already doing...what he created you to do..?

 

[TheKnight]

Well, I've told you what's wrong with it - you don't know how your actions will affect other people. You don't know what the possible consequences of your inaction might be. In effect, you don't know what you're doing. You cannot answer - what would have happened had I not done so? I mean, the least I would expect from god is a reason. I don't see how obeying without knowing what you're doing can be considered a virtue.

A reason would be nice. However, from the position of the Israelites and in my position had God commanded me, there would be no reason to believe that by obeying God, something good would not result. Considering His track record with them it would only make sense to obey.

Do you have an actual specific objection regarding my two assumptions that would invalidate them as necessary to establish an objective reason?

No. I don't disagree with your two assumptions.

So before you accepted your current religion, you had no moral principles? You didn't know right from wrong? You didn't understand the real time consequences of your actions? That's as interesting as it is untrue. Come on now, let's not start with the that nonsense.

Before I accepted my current religion, I was a Christian. And so far as my current religion is concerned, Christians are completely within the bounds of ethical behavior save for the Trinity.

Before I was a Christian, I was a child not old enough to understand the results of my actions ( ages 1-3) and therefore did not have moral principles.

It's not about you deciding one way or the other, that's perfectly fine. You've missed the point. If it was correct to kill - god will most likely insist on that (as well he should, if he is to be called "good"). If the moral thing to do was to not kill, why was the command given in the first place? If god is to be seen as the moral authority, he simply cannot change his mind at this point. Once the command was given, the damage has already been done, so to speak.

There is one other option which you rejected - that god might be testing you.

God tests me for me. It is possible that God could be testing me when He commands me. However, that's an entirely different ballgame and would take us relatively far off topic.

How is it different? It's a matter of principle. Whether I'm saying something or god is, is not relevant if you have free will to decide on your own.

Sure it is. In the one case there is an authority (God) in the other there is not (you).

Meh, forget morality. Whatever you want to call the principles you have. They all come from god? I simply will not intentionally harm anyone unless I have an objective reason to do so (as per my two assumptions). Whether you call that morality or principles or a brain fart is completely irrelevant.

Yes.

There are plenty of situation when we disagree on principle even though we would like to see that thing happen. For instance, I would love for creationists to shut up. But I would disagree with actions that would prevent them from exercising their free speech. This distinction isn't obvious to you?

In that case you have two competing desires. Your desires for Christians to shut up and your desires for equal rights. In that case, you place more weight on your desire for equal rights.

Might makes right is not a principle I consider to be a virtue.

It's not a might makes right principle. It's a If your the Creator of the universe then you know more than your creations know principle.

Based on my moral principles and the moral principles of society. "Immoral" is causing unnecessary harm.

So in this case, of God commanding the Israelites to kill the Midianites, killing them all is unnecessary?

So you were incorrect.

In wording, yes.

Makes what clear? If you are going to argue that in the same situation killing and not killing a person is of equal value, the decision is clear. No benefit could come from any action so the logical stance is inaction - there simply is no motivation present. A command to kill in this situation would be completely irrational and redundant. I adds no value.

As I said, people have desires. Suppose some desire to kill the Midianites and others don't. God commanding their death makes it clear which option is correct.

That does not conflict with my assumption which simply states that god's actions are intentional. They are "his will", if you will.

God's actions are intentional. They are His will.

It is up to you as far as it has been decided for you. You cannot have your cake and eat it too - an omniscient god that created everything, simply must be held responsible for everything.

And where do you get that idea from? I'm not sure how that makes any sense at all. Sure, God is responsible (in a larger sense) for what happens. However, that does not negate the fact that the Midianites are also responsible.

That's ok, only it does not invalidate the stance that your omniscient god had to have known in advance which road we would take - even if we seem to have multiple choices. If he didn't want violence, he simply should have made the roads different. Or he should have chosen to create such a world in which the path we will have eventually taken is without such horrors.

He left the choice of whether or not there would be violence up to us.

Yes, indeed. And not only that, he would have to have created them for that specific reason, purpose.

God did not create them specifically to be destroyed/punished.

The choice is theirs, for them. But not for god - he knows everything. he simply does not have the luxury of chance.

I'm not sure what you mean by this.

It does if you choose to do that (in the case of your god, create everything). If you knew that, let's say - going out for dinner would result in you getting mugged and you decided to go out for dinner, did you not determine the outcome of events?

No. You can't control what happens to you. Knowing that something will happen if you do X doesn't make your responsible for the something happening unless the happening was directly caused by your doing X. In this case, God created the world, but that didn't make the Midianites do what they did. They could have chosen not to.

No, I'm fairly clear on what your religion states, but my argument was not at all about your particular brand of faith. Are you sure you remember what the point of the argument you're refering to was?

Yes.

 

[blackout]

Is the accuracy of the Bible important? Why or why not?

If the bible holds literal importance to you sure.
Literal accuracy is important to literalism.

If the bible holds metaphorical/allegorical significance to you, no.
Why would it?

 

[Commoner]

A reason would be nice. However, from the position of the Israelites and in my position had God commanded me, there would be no reason to believe that by obeying God, something good would not result. Considering His track record with them it would only make sense to obey.

No. I don't disagree with your two assumptions.

Therefore, you require no objective reason. Can it be any clearer?

Before I accepted my current religion, I was a Christian. And so far as my current religion is concerned, Christians are completely within the bounds of ethical behavior save for the Trinity.

Before I was a Christian, I was a child not old enough to understand the results of my actions ( ages 1-3) and therefore did not have moral principles.

Well that's a heavy duty religius life you've lead. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it that I have my principles and I have the ability to assess situations and decide which option is moral, just as much as you do. There is no great mystery to it, once you realize that without exibiting such behaviour, society would become unstable and therefore not "live to see the day". I wonder, Knight, what do you think of evolution?

God tests me for me. It is possible that God could be testing me when He commands me. However, that's an entirely different ballgame and would take us relatively far off topic.

Ah, yes. The problem is, in essence, once you've excepted that god might be testing you at times, you must except that there are commands that you are expected to challenge. This goes for scripture as well. Are there parts you were meant to challenge? It's simply not as clear cut as you'd like it to be.

Sure it is. In the one case there is an authority (God) in the other there is not (you).

Yes, but the real "decider" should be the actual consequences of your actions, no? There is no reason for god not to give a reason. It would be appropriate - there's no value in blind belief, no progress to humanity to "do" without understanding why, surely if I can realize that so can he.

In that case you have two competing desires. Your desires for Christians to shut up and your desires for equal rights. In that case, you place more weight on your desire for equal rights.

I did not say "Christians"!!! :no:

Oh, of course, but this is not the same "like" that you used in your previous argument. It is not a selfish desire that leads me to such an action - or even if it is it is incidental, it is not the justification for my actions. There are objective reasons and I've already explain what I mean by that.

It's not a might makes right principle. It's a If your the Creator of the universe then you know more than your creations know principle.

Your whole way of establishing those assumption is by ways of witnessing a big giant miracle. In essence, it really is might makes right. You know, if I could go back in time 3000 years ago, you can be damn sure I could produce such a miracle using technology. Am I the creator of the universe or just another science geek? You do not establish god's motivation, not try to. All of it is based on his bag of tricks. Really, name me a distinction between god revealing himself and Spock fooling some Earthlings into submission. Do you have a way to distinguish between the two?

So in this case, of God commanding the Israelites to kill the Midianites, killing them all is unnecessary?

Yes.

As I said, people have desires. Suppose some desire to kill the Midianites and others don't. God commanding their death makes it clear which option is correct.

No, clearly not, if one can challenge that command. And that option is not correct.

God's actions are intentional. They are His will.

Yes, that's the esence of my third assumption.

And where do you get that idea from? I'm not sure how that makes any sense at all. Sure, God is responsible (in a larger sense) for what happens. However, that does not negate the fact that the Midianites are also responsible.

I agree, it does not negate that. My argument still stands. It could have easily been avoided. There is no added value to having war in my life, no added value in having to kill or be killed. Especialy not, if there is a world waiting for me, in which I will not have to compete with other primates for my survival.

He left the choice of whether or not there would be violence up to us.

He knew the choice we would make.

God did not create them specifically to be destroyed/punished.

Yes, he must have, otherwise he would have chosen a different path. If everything has a purpose, this had to have been one of their purposes.

No. You can't control what happens to you. Knowing that something will happen if you do X doesn't make your responsible for the something happening unless the happening was directly caused by your doing X. In this case, God created the world, but that didn't make the Midianites do what they did. They could have chosen not to.

EXACTLY! I cannot control what happens to me. I do not know the future, god does - he can control what happens. Yes, Knight, knowing does make you responsible. Are you being serious?

Knowing (without a doubt) that eating all the food in the fridge will make your father so angry he will kill your mother does not make you responsible for your mothers death (if you choose to eat the food)? Both you and your father are responsible for the event.

 

[TheKnight]

Therefore, you require no objective reason. Can it be any clearer?

The fact that an objective reason is not required does not mean that logic is not required.

Well that's a heavy duty religius life you've lead. I guess you'll just have to take my word for it that I have my principles and I have the ability to assess situations and decide which option is moral, just as much as you do. There is no great mystery to it, once you realize that without exibiting such behaviour, society would become unstable and therefore not "live to see the day". I wonder, Knight, what do you think of evolution?

Your moral principles and mine are, for the most part, the same. That being said, there really is no reason for me to abandon my religion because of your moral principles because they are pretty much the same and seeing as how my religion came long before either of us, we probably got our moral values from that religion.

Additionally, the difference between religiosity and non-religiosity is that the non-religious really don't have a good reason to be "moral". There would be no logical reason to be selfless if there were no God. Therefore selflessness, in an Atheist mindset, really would make no sense.

Ah, yes. The problem is, in essence, once you've excepted that god might be testing you at times, you must except that there are commands that you are expected to challenge. This goes for scripture as well. Are there parts you were meant to challenge? It's simply not as clear cut as you'd like it to be.

No. That's not it. The problem is that I'd have to explain to you how my religion views a test. In short, everything is a test. I wake up in the morning, I am hungry when I wake up, I am tested. I can either eat or take 10-15 minutes to pray. I'm driving to work and someone cuts me off, I am tested. I can either get angry or forget about it and continue. I get to work and there's a transient sitting outside. I have two options, I can keep my precious money or I can give him some. My religion is all about the fact that humans are two-sided creatures. We are creatures of desire and creatures of divinity. Due to the fall, we place a huge amount of bearing on our desires in our decision making. Judaism, and Hasidism specifically, is about taking those drives and desires and directing them appropriately in order to make the world a better place.

That being said, everything is a test. From waking up in the morning all the way until we fall asleep again. We are being tested.

Yes, but the real "decider" should be the actual consequences of your actions, no? There is no reason for god not to give a reason. It would be appropriate - there's no value in blind belief, no progress to humanity to "do" without understanding why, surely if I can realize that so can he.

Except that there can be progress. Not knowing why you're doing something at the moment does not mean that you will not later on realize why. For instance, little children rarely comprehend the benefit of being made to wake up every morning to go to school and learn. Twenty years later when they graduate from college with a degree from a University, they'll look back and (hopefully) be thankful to their parents for making them go to school. Even if they don't fully comprehend why when they're young.

I did not say "Christians"!!!

:no:

Oh, of course, but this is not the same "like" that you used in your previous argument. It is not a selfish desire that leads me to such an action - or even if it is it is incidental, it is not the justification for my actions. There are objective reasons and I've already explain what I mean by that.

I'm sorry, you did say creationists, not Christians.

Do you have a way to distinguish between the two?

Does it matter? I have no reason to believe that it was a trick. Unless there is evidence for me to believe that it was anything other than what the Jews said they witnessed then I have no reason to fantasize theories about how it might have happened. Only people who start out thinking that it's false do that.

Yes.

Do you think that maybe it's possible that there are factors which you cannot see? That killing them all might be necessary, you just don't know that yet?

No, clearly not, if one can challenge that command. And that option is not correct.

What?

I agree, it does not negate that. My argument still stands. It could have easily been avoided. There is no added value to having war in my life, no added value in having to kill or be killed. Especialy not, if there is a world waiting for me, in which I will not have to compete with other primates for my survival.

It could have been avoided at the price of the Midianites freedom of choice. It could have been avoided if God had taken away their ability to make their own decisions and, as a result, participate in the creation of this world.

Suppose that God is not willing to sacrifice their potential to participate in the creation of this world (which is why they were created) for the sake of the consequences of their bad decisions?

He knew the choice we would make.

He could have stopped it. But at what cost? He would have had to take the will of the Midianites away in order to do that. And if He was going to do that, then He might as well not have created them. He values their ability to choose far more than He is worried about the harm that their actions will cause. Why? The answer would be because their existence will bring about more good than it will evil.

Yes, he must have, otherwise he would have chosen a different path. If everything has a purpose, this had to have been one of their purposes.

Now you're saying things that Judaism simply doesn't believe.

EXACTLY! I cannot control what happens to me. I do not know the future, god does - he can control what happens. Yes, Knight, knowing does make you responsible. Are you being serious?

Knowing (without a doubt) that eating all the food in the fridge will make your father so angry he will kill your mother does not make you responsible for your mothers death (if you choose to eat the food)? Both you and your father are responsible for the event.

Wrong. My father alone is responsible for the death of my mother. Think about what your saying. If I know that my going to the bathroom is going to cause some guy across the street to kill his children should I hold it and never go? If I know that by feeding a crying child, the child's father will stab the child 16 times in the chest should I let the child stave?

The fact that our good actions will cause someone else to do something bad does not mean that we are responsible for what happens when they do it. Each person is responsible for his/her own actions. That means that if you kill my mom because I ate a hamburger. Even if I knew that by eating the hamburger you would kill my mom, YOU are still wholly and entirely responsible for killing my mom. Why? Because you were not forced to kill her by my eating the hamburger. Just like the Midianites were not forced to seduce the Israelites by their being created.

Imagine my father going to court and saying "I only killed her because my son ate all the food in the fridge." Would you agree that the court should convict us both? I don't think so.

 

[jtartar]

I think it's important to understand that the bible is a book about spiritual truths and for spiritual guidance. It is NOT a science book and was never meant to be. Much of it is not even a history book and wasn't meant to be. It is not even ONE book - it is a collection of different literary forms by a myriad of authors over a span of 2000 years.

There's a lot of talk about inaccuracies in the Bible. In my experiences many of these "inaccuracies" are overblown, exxagerated, and shaky when truly studied in context. Often, they are absolutely UNIMPORTANT when it comes to whatever spiritual truth or teaching is the central point of whatever chapter or book is being discussed.

I have yet to meet a "biblical inaccuracy" that "impressed" me as important or theologically devastating.

Kathryn,
Even though the Bible is not a science book, every place where it mentions anything about science it is 100% accurate. Some people seem to believe in what is called TWOFOLD TRUTH. They believe that truth may be different for Theological things and Philosophical things. This is completely false!!! TRUTH is always truth, ans false is false.
The Bible was INERRANT when written. This means that it had NO errors, and was understood completely by people of the time it was written. The Bible, or parts have been copied thousands of times. Since it is impossible for any man to copy the Holy Scriptures entirely without error, some errors crept in God's word. These errors are called RANDOM ERRORS, and Systematic Errors. Since the errors were not the same in each copy, the errors were easliy determined by comparison and corrected. Bible scholars today know that the Holy Scriptures today have the correct message given to man by God. The only errors that ever crept in were numbers and names, and many people in ancient times had several names so it is not really known for sure that errors about names were really errors at all. In Hebrew numbers were closely related to words, with many words having a numerical symbol, and Hebrew did not have a single word of large numbers, therefore a combination of words needed to be used, which could have led to some unimportant errors. NO errors have ever become part of the Bible that has made any difference as to doctrine, and the message of God to man.
God Himself, has had recorded that He is going to Judge the world by His son, and on the things written in His word, Acts 17:31. Since God NEVER does anything unrighteous, God could never allow His word to become adulterated. If He did He could not Judge people by an inaccurrate book, Deut 32:4. God has even had recorded that He will preserve and protect His word forever, Ps 12:6,7, Isa 40:8, 1Pet 1:25.

 

[Commoner]

There would be no logical reason to be selfless if there were no God. Therefore selflessness, in an Atheist mindset, really would make no sense.

What does "selfless" mean to you, Knight? Describe to me a selfless act.

Does it matter? I have no reason to believe that it was a trick. Unless there is evidence for me to believe that it was anything other than what the Jews said they witnessed then I have no reason to fantasize theories about how it might have happened. Only people who start out thinking that it's false do that.

Well, it would not matter if your arguments did not hinge on some very strong assumptions (like, god created everything) that have no basis. I mean, even if I believe the Sinai story, there's nothing to warrant that assumption. There is no evidence that god provided which would suggest that he is the creator of the universe. I mean, if we take things in perspective, how great was the miracle? Was is any greater then events that have already transpired up to that point. Was it any greater than a supernova? Was it greater than an earthquake? Was it something even we, stupid mammals, could not replicate today? I mean, think about it, how does it warrant all those very specific assumptions.

Well, I consider it resonable to not believe claims by default. My starting position is always disbelief (at least regarding non-trivial matters).

Do you think that maybe it's possible that there are factors which you cannot see? That killing them all might be necessary, you just don't know that yet?

No, it's not really about that, you're missing the point. It's that it came to that situation that is unnecessary, not that once they were in that situation it was unnecessary.

It could have been avoided at the price of the Midianites freedom of choice. It could have been avoided if God had taken away their ability to make their own decisions and, as a result, participate in the creation of this world.
He could have stopped it. But at what cost? He would have had to take the will of the Midianites away in order to do that. And if He was going to do that, then He might as well not have created them. He values their ability to choose far more than He is worried about the harm that their actions will cause. Why? The answer would be because their existence will bring about more good than it will evil.
Suppose that God is not willing to sacrifice their potential to participate in the creation of this world (which is why they were created) for the sake of the consequences of their bad decisions?

Tell me, Knight, did you choose to exist or was it imposed upon you? Did you choose not to be able to fly? Your "free will" gives you, at best, the choice to choose between the available options. Just as you have no option to start flapping your hands up and down and fly away, so should there not be an option in which a people gets killed, their children murdered and their women raped. Things like that are easily avoidable without sacrificing "free will" if you are god.

The solution is simple, do not "install" the option.

Now you're saying things that Judaism simply doesn't believe.

Possibly, sorry. Are you objecting to my assumption that "everything has a purpose"?:help:

Wrong. My father alone is responsible for the death of my mother.

That's...ludicrous. That's like saying that a gun is responsible for killing, even though you pulled the trigger. You have willingly caused the death of your mother. That your father was "the murder weapon" is incidential. (of course, this only applies if you had a complete insight into what would happen). You would go ahead and empty the fridge, knowing it would result in your mother dying, and not feel guilty? And not be guilty? If prior knowledge could be proven in a court of law, you can be sure you'd be serving a looooong prison sentence. (of course, such knowledge would probably be impossible to prove in this hypothetical case.)

Think about what your saying. If I know that my going to the bathroom is going to cause some guy across the street to kill his children should I hold it and never go?

Well, you won't be able to, but if you were able to, YES!

If I know that by feeding a crying child, the child's father will stab the child 16 times in the chest should I let the child stave?

That depends on which you find more merciful (and assuming that no other course of action is possible, either starve to death or be stabbed to death) - in this case you're responsible for harm that you could have avoided, had you chosen the option that would result in least harm. (whether or not you're capable of assessing that is besides the point)

The fact that our good actions will cause someone else to do something bad does not mean that we are responsible for what happens when they do it.

No, of course not. Unless you knew what was going to happen and did it anyway, even though you could have avoided it.

Each person is responsible for his/her own actions. That means that if you kill my mom because I ate a hamburger. Even if I knew that by eating the hamburger you would kill my mom, YOU are still wholly and entirely responsible for killing my mom.

No, of course you're not responsible in this case. You had no idea I would kill your mother if you ate the burger. But what if I took out a gun and told you, "eat that burger and your mother get's it"? If you believed my threat and ate the burger anyway, you're responsible as well.

Why? Because you were not forced to kill her by my eating the hamburger. Just like the Midianites were not forced to seduce the Israelites by their being created.

A lion (or a psychopath) is not forced to kill if you let him out of a cage. But he will, you know he will and you do it anyway. Try and find a courtroom that would not convict you.

Imagine my father going to court and saying "I only killed her because my son ate all the food in the fridge." Would you agree that the court should convict us both? I don't think so.

See, you're missing the point. The guilt comes from the fact that you had perfect prior knowledge (such as an omniscient god would have) and that the event could have been avoided. If such knowledge could be proven, yes - a court would convict you both! Absolutely! Your father is no less guity than he was, but you are guilty as well.