The Word of God

[DavidSMoore]

As I see it, the Christian case is more or less as follows:

• Every biblical author was directly inspired by God, and the process of selecting the texts to be included in the Bible was directed by God.
• Therefore the Bible is the word of God and is absolutely without error.
• The Bible says-- clearly and explicitly-- that Jesus is the Messiah, meaning that Jesus is the person whose coming was predicted by the Old Testament authors.
• Therefore Jesus is the Christ and the one true Son of God.
• Jesus said (in Mark 16:15-16) that you must get baptized and you must have faith (in Jesus) to be saved. If you fail to do as Jesus said your soul will be cast down into hell on the day of judgment to burn for all eternity.

My understanding of the Islamic case goes like this:

• Mohammad was an unlettered man who was enraptured by the spirit of Allah. While in this state of rapture he spoke the words of Allah and scribes wrote down everything he said. The resulting writings became the Koran, which in Arabic means “Recitation,” since Mohammad was simply reciting the words that Allah gave him while he was in rapture.
• Therefore the Koran is the word of Allah and is absolutely without error.
• Those parts of the Bible that specifically refer to Mohammad are also true, but much of the rest of the Bible is suspect, as there are many known examples of copy errors, insertions, deletions, and theologically driven modifications in the text.
• Consequently the Koran supersedes the Bible, and Mohammad is the greatest prophet of Allah.
• The hadith contains many teachings about the law, and it too was revealed by Allah. So it too is the word of Allah.
• You must follow the teachings of both the Koran and the hadith if you want to be saved. If you do not, on the day of judgment you will receive a painful chastisement.

I think the Mormon case is more or less this:

• The Bible is the word of God, just as Christians believe.
• But in addition to the Bible, God also prepared a second text written by God on golden tablets that was hidden by God in the Western hemisphere.
• God showed Joseph Smith where the tablets were hidden and gave him tools for translating the texts from Reformed Egyptian into English. The resulting work is the Book of Mormon.
• Therefore the Book of Mormon is unquestionably the word of God.
• So if you want to be saved you had better read and believe every word of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, because if you don’t your soul will be cast down into hell on the day of judgment to burn for all eternity.

I recognize that there are some variations in these beliefs across the many separate sects of these faiths, but I think the above summary provides an overview that is adequate for the purposes of mutual comparison, at least as concerns the key tenets of each.

The followers of these belief systems all claim to be worshiping the same god, namely the god of Abraham. But as I see it, these various claims cannot possibly all be true. The chief problem with these separate beliefs is their exclusivity. Each is claiming exclusive knowledge of God’s (or Allah’s) word, and that all other beliefs about God’s word are necessarily false. So you’d better sign up with the right belief system or you will inevitably bring eternal torment to your immortal soul.

It seems to me that somebody must be lying-- or at the very least exaggerating. How should one go about determining who is telling the truth and who isn’t? In my view there’s really only one way: you have to read all of these various texts and you have to question the apologists for each on virtually every detail. That, I think, is the only way to make a general assessment of the claims made by the various religious groups to determine who is correct and who is just disseminating propaganda.

I must confess that I’m at a significant disadvantage because I don’t read Hebrew, or Greek, or Arabic. I can only read the Bible, the Koran, and the hadith in translation. And if there are other books written in other languages that I “ought” to read to fully understand God’s word, then I will have to resort to translations for those as well.

I’ve focused my postings on this forum on the Bible because I’m most familiar with the Bible and various claims about it. Here’s a summary of my main line of argument concerning the word of God as related in the Bible:

• In this posting I argued that the Bible contains self-contradictions: Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?
• In this posting I argued that the story of the creation is factually incorrect: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation
• In this posting I argued that Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah: The Messiah. I didn’t say so in the posting, but to me it appears that the New Testament authors-- who all called Jesus the Christ-- were misrepresenting the true nature of Jesus and were therefore propagandists. In the same posting I also mentioned what I consider to be specific examples of false prophesies in both the Old and New Testaments.

So from my viewpoint the Bible contains self-contradictions, factual errors, propaganda, and false prophesies. A collection of religious writings that contains such elements cannot, in my view, be the word of God. It must be the work of humans, not of a divine being.

Note that I am not arguing that the Bible is completely false, or that it isn’t worth reading. I think there is much in the Bible that is beautiful and inspiring. And it is certainly the foundation of much Western literature and thought. So it is certainly worth reading and understanding. I’m merely arguing that it doesn’t seem to me to be the word of God.

I haven’t made any such claims on this forum about either the Koran or the Book of Mormon, but I have read both of them. (I read the Koran in the Arberry translation; I have not read the hadith.) The main impression I have is that both of those works are also human authored texts, fallible and confused. I would write something more detailed about my impressions, but it would likely be a very difficult and time consuming process that would require a lot of research. At the moment I’m not prepared to invest enough time in such an effort to make it worthwhile. And that says nothing about the writings of other faiths, such as Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism that I know little or nothing about.

So in lieu of writing a comprehensive encyclopedia of religious beliefs, I’d like to propose what I think are reasonable guidelines for all religions. Speaking from my own perspective, I would offer something like the following:

• Rewards or punishments in the afterlife should depend on one’s actions in life, not on personal beliefs.
• No exclusive ownership of paradise. A religion may extol the wonders of paradise, but it must not claim exclusive access to it. No chosen people, and no elect. Religions must learn to share the beatific wonders of the afterlife.
• No genocide. A religion shouldn’t identify classes or groups of other people as being so depraved as to warrant annihilation, but should rather be based on the principle that all people are children of God.
• In a democracy, secular law must reign supreme. Religious followers may advocate for laws that they think compatible with their religious views, but must pursue them through the normal processes of secular government. And if religious practices-- such as ritual human sacrifice, or pederasty-- violate secular law, then such practices should be prosecuted in secular courts of law, not religious venues.
• Religion should take scientific findings as a given-- and should understand that science is a human process that can make mistakes. In science it’s okay to be wrong, and it’s perfectly normal for science to revise or reverse views previously held. All scientific knowledge is contingent on the current state of knowledge and is subject to review in light of new information. Science itself is in a constant state of evolution. That is not a weakness of science; it is instead its greatest strength.
• No one should have to learn a foreign language to understand the teachings of the faith. The message of a religion should be simple to communicate in any language, ideally in a couple of short paragraphs.

To me, none of these guidelines should be controversial. Shouldn’t all religions strive for universal appeal? Shouldn’t all religions encourage their followers to do good works? Shouldn’t all religions advocate peace over genocide? Shouldn’t all religions embrace the marvelous wonders that have been revealed to us through many centuries of scientific investigation?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants the right to follow any religion-- with the understanding that the US Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land (US Constitution Article VI). I fully support that right, but I am opposed to any religion that belittles and demeans those who do not share its core beliefs. I think the followers of all religions should be far more tolerant of other religions than they have been in the past. As I see it, we must all live together on just one planet. To me, it would be far better to live in peace and cooperation than in a state of constant suspicion-- especially if such suspicions are based on nothing more than personal interpretations of human authored texts.

 

[Kenny]

OK… you have stated what you believe—a quite extensive and complete viewpoint. And very clear as you view things from a perspective of an atheist..

• In this posting I argued that the Bible contains self-contradictions: Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?

Dealing Fairly with Alleged Bible Contradictions [Part II] - Apologetics Press

[Editor’s Note: Part I of this two-part series appeared in the October issue. Part II follows below and continues, without introductory comments, where the first article ended.] #4—Understanding the Real Nature of a Contradiction It might surprise some to learn that, although skeptics are widely...

apologeticspress.org

there are enough of these around including voluminous books that has satisfied seekers.
https://www.religiousforums.com/thr...the-bible-contains-errors.274664/post-8516648

• In this posting I argued that the story of the creation is factually incorrect: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation

Differences of what people believe doesn’t equate that the story is wrong. It is a matter of how you approach it.
https://www.religiousforums.com/threads/not-even-christians-believe-the-edit-of-creation.276978/

• In this posting I argued that Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah: The Messiah. I didn’t say so in the posting, but to me it appears that the New Testament authors-- who all called Jesus the Christ-- were misrepresenting the true nature of Jesus and were therefore propagandists. In the same posting I also mentioned what I consider to be specific examples of false prophesies in both the Old and New Testaments.

Yes, this is a perspective of atheists. However, your position 2000 years later doesn’t negate the testimonials that are written

So from my viewpoint the Bible contains self-contradictions, factual errors, propaganda, and false prophesies. A collection of religious writings that contains such elements cannot, in my view, be the word of God. It must be the work of humans, not of a divine being.

Which I support your right to have a differing viewpoint even as I have mine.

So, for me, the real question is, “What are you really asking for?"

 

[DavidSMoore]

there are enough of these around including voluminous books that has satisfied seekers.

None of the examples in the publication you cited directly responds to the issues I raised concerning the discrepancies between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies of Jesus. I would appreciate hearing a specific and direct response, as I haven't seen one yet.

Differences of what people believe doesn’t equate that the story is wrong. It is a matter of how you approach it.

Well, in all of the reaction to my posting on the story of the creation, no one argued in favor of any of the following statements:

God fashioned the universe from the pre-existing substances of the Earth and the waters.​

The universe is an ocean of water.​

The Earth's atmosphere is dome shaped and that therefore the Earth itself is a flat disc.​

The Sun, the Moon, and the stars are all contained inside the Earth's atmosphere.​

The main arguments I saw held that the Bible doesn't say any of that. But it does. That's not just a difference of "approach"-- it's an outright denial of the actual words on the page.

So, for me, the real question is, “What are you really asking for?"

I'm not asking everyone-- or even anyone-- to give up their faith and become an atheist. (I haven't advanced any arguments for atheism in any of my postings on this forum.)

In my own country-- the United States-- there is a movement of people who believe, mistakenly, that the nation was founded by Christians for Christians and they are seeking to return it to its original Christian roots. The movement as a whole appears to be highly intolerant of any opposing beliefs, whether theistic or atheistic. There are movements in other countries that are similar in their open hostility to opposing religious views, whether based on Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism, or other faith systems. I would hope that tolerance would be a guiding principle of any faith system. That's why submitted my proposed list of guidelines-- to suggest that there are principles which are higher than faith. And chief among those should be toleration of differing beliefs.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

As I see it, the Christian case is more or less as follows:

• Every biblical author was directly inspired by God, and the process of selecting the texts to be included in the Bible was directed by God.
• Therefore the Bible is the word of God and is absolutely without error.
• The Bible says-- clearly and explicitly-- that Jesus is the Messiah, meaning that Jesus is the person whose coming was predicted by the Old Testament authors.
• Therefore Jesus is the Christ and the one true Son of God.
• Jesus said (in Mark 16:15-16) that you must get baptized and you must have faith (in Jesus) to be saved. If you fail to do as Jesus said your soul will be cast down into hell on the day of judgment to burn for all eternity.

My understanding of the Islamic case goes like this:

• Mohammad was an unlettered man who was enraptured by the spirit of Allah. While in this state of rapture he spoke the words of Allah and scribes wrote down everything he said. The resulting writings became the Koran, which in Arabic means “Recitation,” since Mohammad was simply reciting the words that Allah gave him while he was in rapture.
• Therefore the Koran is the word of Allah and is absolutely without error.
• Those parts of the Bible that specifically refer to Mohammad are also true, but much of the rest of the Bible is suspect, as there are many known examples of copy errors, insertions, deletions, and theologically driven modifications in the text.
• Consequently the Koran supersedes the Bible, and Mohammad is the greatest prophet of Allah.
• The hadith contains many teachings about the law, and it too was revealed by Allah. So it too is the word of Allah.
• You must follow the teachings of both the Koran and the hadith if you want to be saved. If you do not, on the day of judgment you will receive a painful chastisement.

I think the Mormon case is more or less this:

• The Bible is the word of God, just as Christians believe.
• But in addition to the Bible, God also prepared a second text written by God on golden tablets that was hidden by God in the Western hemisphere.
• God showed Joseph Smith where the tablets were hidden and gave him tools for translating the texts from Reformed Egyptian into English. The resulting work is the Book of Mormon.
• Therefore the Book of Mormon is unquestionably the word of God.
• So if you want to be saved you had better read and believe every word of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, because if you don’t your soul will be cast down into hell on the day of judgment to burn for all eternity.

I recognize that there are some variations in these beliefs across the many separate sects of these faiths, but I think the above summary provides an overview that is adequate for the purposes of mutual comparison, at least as concerns the key tenets of each.

The followers of these belief systems all claim to be worshiping the same god, namely the god of Abraham. But as I see it, these various claims cannot possibly all be true. The chief problem with these separate beliefs is their exclusivity. Each is claiming exclusive knowledge of God’s (or Allah’s) word, and that all other beliefs about God’s word are necessarily false. So you’d better sign up with the right belief system or you will inevitably bring eternal torment to your immortal soul.

It seems to me that somebody must be lying-- or at the very least exaggerating. How should one go about determining who is telling the truth and who isn’t? In my view there’s really only one way: you have to read all of these various texts and you have to question the apologists for each on virtually every detail. That, I think, is the only way to make a general assessment of the claims made by the various religious groups to determine who is correct and who is just disseminating propaganda.

I must confess that I’m at a significant disadvantage because I don’t read Hebrew, or Greek, or Arabic. I can only read the Bible, the Koran, and the hadith in translation. And if there are other books written in other languages that I “ought” to read to fully understand God’s word, then I will have to resort to translations for those as well.

I’ve focused my postings on this forum on the Bible because I’m most familiar with the Bible and various claims about it. Here’s a summary of my main line of argument concerning the word of God as related in the Bible:

• In this posting I argued that the Bible contains self-contradictions: Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?
• In this posting I argued that the story of the creation is factually incorrect: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation
• In this posting I argued that Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah: The Messiah. I didn’t say so in the posting, but to me it appears that the New Testament authors-- who all called Jesus the Christ-- were misrepresenting the true nature of Jesus and were therefore propagandists. In the same posting I also mentioned what I consider to be specific examples of false prophesies in both the Old and New Testaments.

So from my viewpoint the Bible contains self-contradictions, factual errors, propaganda, and false prophesies. A collection of religious writings that contains such elements cannot, in my view, be the word of God. It must be the work of humans, not of a divine being.

Note that I am not arguing that the Bible is completely false, or that it isn’t worth reading. I think there is much in the Bible that is beautiful and inspiring. And it is certainly the foundation of much Western literature and thought. So it is certainly worth reading and understanding. I’m merely arguing that it doesn’t seem to me to be the word of God.

I haven’t made any such claims on this forum about either the Koran or the Book of Mormon, but I have read both of them. (I read the Koran in the Arberry translation; I have not read the hadith.) The main impression I have is that both of those works are also human authored texts, fallible and confused. I would write something more detailed about my impressions, but it would likely be a very difficult and time consuming process that would require a lot of research. At the moment I’m not prepared to invest enough time in such an effort to make it worthwhile. And that says nothing about the writings of other faiths, such as Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism that I know little or nothing about.

So in lieu of writing a comprehensive encyclopedia of religious beliefs, I’d like to propose what I think are reasonable guidelines for all religions. Speaking from my own perspective, I would offer something like the following:

• Rewards or punishments in the afterlife should depend on one’s actions in life, not on personal beliefs.
• No exclusive ownership of paradise. A religion may extol the wonders of paradise, but it must not claim exclusive access to it. No chosen people, and no elect. Religions must learn to share the beatific wonders of the afterlife.
• No genocide. A religion shouldn’t identify classes or groups of other people as being so depraved as to warrant annihilation, but should rather be based on the principle that all people are children of God.
• In a democracy, secular law must reign supreme. Religious followers may advocate for laws that they think compatible with their religious views, but must pursue them through the normal processes of secular government. And if religious practices-- such as ritual human sacrifice, or pederasty-- violate secular law, then such practices should be prosecuted in secular courts of law, not religious venues.
• Religion should take scientific findings as a given-- and should understand that science is a human process that can make mistakes. In science it’s okay to be wrong, and it’s perfectly normal for science to revise or reverse views previously held. All scientific knowledge is contingent on the current state of knowledge and is subject to review in light of new information. Science itself is in a constant state of evolution. That is not a weakness of science; it is instead its greatest strength.
• No one should have to learn a foreign language to understand the teachings of the faith. The message of a religion should be simple to communicate in any language, ideally in a couple of short paragraphs.

To me, none of these guidelines should be controversial. Shouldn’t all religions strive for universal appeal? Shouldn’t all religions encourage their followers to do good works? Shouldn’t all religions advocate peace over genocide? Shouldn’t all religions embrace the marvelous wonders that have been revealed to us through many centuries of scientific investigation?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants the right to follow any religion-- with the understanding that the US Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land (US Constitution Article VI). I fully support that right, but I am opposed to any religion that belittles and demeans those who do not share its core beliefs. I think the followers of all religions should be far more tolerant of other religions than they have been in the past. As I see it, we must all live together on just one planet. To me, it would be far better to live in peace and cooperation than in a state of constant suspicion-- especially if such suspicions are based on nothing more than personal interpretations of human authored texts.

No Jewish case? I feel so left out.

 

[Betho_br]

In my own country-- the United States-- there is a movement of people who believe, mistakenly, that the nation was founded by Christians for Christians and they are seeking to return it to its original Christian roots.

I watched plenty of American westerns and internal conflict movies, I always believed in your formation...

 

[IndigoChild5559]

In my own country-- the United States-- there is a movement of people who believe, mistakenly, that the nation was founded by Christians for Christians and they are seeking to return it to its original Christian roots.

If they were only ignorant of history, I could easily forgive. But the fact that they are gaining political power and want to turn the country into a theocracy makes them extremely dangerous.

 

[Betho_br]

Talking about "God's word", in the accounts of Mark 5:21-43 and Luke 8:40-56, we find two intertwined narratives that highlight the healing of a woman with a flow of blood and the resurrection of Jairus's daughter. These Christian Bible texts present the woman who had been suffering from hemorrhage for twelve years and, simultaneously, the twelve-year-old daughter of Jairus who is healed by Jesus.
i
The absence of a genealogy for the woman with the flow of blood can be significant. In biblical contexts, genealogy often serves to establish an individual's identity and social status.

The temporal coincidence between the onset of the woman's bleeding and the birth of Jairus's daughter is intriguing and may invite various interpretations. The number twelve often symbolizes governance and authority, such as the twelve tribes of Israel or the twelve apostles. This coincidence could be seen as a sign of divine intersection or an indication of the harmony of Jesus’s actions, though the interpretation of such events might also be approached as a possible narrative coincidence.

I have yet to ascertain whether there is a moral underlying this temporal relationship; however, something suggests that the esteemed Jewish rabbis possess profound insight into it.

 

[Sir Joseph]

As I see it, the Christian case is more or less as follows:

• Every biblical author was directly inspired by God, and the process of selecting the texts to be included in the Bible was directed by God.
• Therefore the Bible is the word of God and is absolutely without error.
• The Bible says-- clearly and explicitly-- that Jesus is the Messiah, meaning that Jesus is the person whose coming was predicted by the Old Testament authors.
• Therefore Jesus is the Christ and the one true Son of God.
• Jesus said (in Mark 16:15-16) that you must get baptized and you must have faith (in Jesus) to be saved. If you fail to do as Jesus said your soul will be cast down into hell on the day of judgment to burn for all eternity.

My understanding of the Islamic case goes like this:

• Mohammad was an unlettered man who was enraptured by the spirit of Allah. While in this state of rapture he spoke the words of Allah and scribes wrote down everything he said. The resulting writings became the Koran, which in Arabic means “Recitation,” since Mohammad was simply reciting the words that Allah gave him while he was in rapture.
• Therefore the Koran is the word of Allah and is absolutely without error.
• Those parts of the Bible that specifically refer to Mohammad are also true, but much of the rest of the Bible is suspect, as there are many known examples of copy errors, insertions, deletions, and theologically driven modifications in the text.
• Consequently the Koran supersedes the Bible, and Mohammad is the greatest prophet of Allah.
• The hadith contains many teachings about the law, and it too was revealed by Allah. So it too is the word of Allah.
• You must follow the teachings of both the Koran and the hadith if you want to be saved. If you do not, on the day of judgment you will receive a painful chastisement.

I think the Mormon case is more or less this:

• The Bible is the word of God, just as Christians believe.
• But in addition to the Bible, God also prepared a second text written by God on golden tablets that was hidden by God in the Western hemisphere.
• God showed Joseph Smith where the tablets were hidden and gave him tools for translating the texts from Reformed Egyptian into English. The resulting work is the Book of Mormon.
• Therefore the Book of Mormon is unquestionably the word of God.
• So if you want to be saved you had better read and believe every word of both the Bible and the Book of Mormon, because if you don’t your soul will be cast down into hell on the day of judgment to burn for all eternity.

I recognize that there are some variations in these beliefs across the many separate sects of these faiths, but I think the above summary provides an overview that is adequate for the purposes of mutual comparison, at least as concerns the key tenets of each.

The followers of these belief systems all claim to be worshiping the same god, namely the god of Abraham. But as I see it, these various claims cannot possibly all be true. The chief problem with these separate beliefs is their exclusivity. Each is claiming exclusive knowledge of God’s (or Allah’s) word, and that all other beliefs about God’s word are necessarily false. So you’d better sign up with the right belief system or you will inevitably bring eternal torment to your immortal soul.

It seems to me that somebody must be lying-- or at the very least exaggerating. How should one go about determining who is telling the truth and who isn’t? In my view there’s really only one way: you have to read all of these various texts and you have to question the apologists for each on virtually every detail. That, I think, is the only way to make a general assessment of the claims made by the various religious groups to determine who is correct and who is just disseminating propaganda.

I must confess that I’m at a significant disadvantage because I don’t read Hebrew, or Greek, or Arabic. I can only read the Bible, the Koran, and the hadith in translation. And if there are other books written in other languages that I “ought” to read to fully understand God’s word, then I will have to resort to translations for those as well.

I’ve focused my postings on this forum on the Bible because I’m most familiar with the Bible and various claims about it. Here’s a summary of my main line of argument concerning the word of God as related in the Bible:

• In this posting I argued that the Bible contains self-contradictions: Is it possible that Christianity is true, yet the Bible contains errors?
• In this posting I argued that the story of the creation is factually incorrect: Not even Christians believe the *edit* of creation
• In this posting I argued that Jesus could not possibly have been the Messiah: The Messiah. I didn’t say so in the posting, but to me it appears that the New Testament authors-- who all called Jesus the Christ-- were misrepresenting the true nature of Jesus and were therefore propagandists. In the same posting I also mentioned what I consider to be specific examples of false prophesies in both the Old and New Testaments.

So from my viewpoint the Bible contains self-contradictions, factual errors, propaganda, and false prophesies. A collection of religious writings that contains such elements cannot, in my view, be the word of God. It must be the work of humans, not of a divine being.

Note that I am not arguing that the Bible is completely false, or that it isn’t worth reading. I think there is much in the Bible that is beautiful and inspiring. And it is certainly the foundation of much Western literature and thought. So it is certainly worth reading and understanding. I’m merely arguing that it doesn’t seem to me to be the word of God.

I haven’t made any such claims on this forum about either the Koran or the Book of Mormon, but I have read both of them. (I read the Koran in the Arberry translation; I have not read the hadith.) The main impression I have is that both of those works are also human authored texts, fallible and confused. I would write something more detailed about my impressions, but it would likely be a very difficult and time consuming process that would require a lot of research. At the moment I’m not prepared to invest enough time in such an effort to make it worthwhile. And that says nothing about the writings of other faiths, such as Judaism, Hinduism, or Buddhism that I know little or nothing about.

So in lieu of writing a comprehensive encyclopedia of religious beliefs, I’d like to propose what I think are reasonable guidelines for all religions. Speaking from my own perspective, I would offer something like the following:

• Rewards or punishments in the afterlife should depend on one’s actions in life, not on personal beliefs.
• No exclusive ownership of paradise. A religion may extol the wonders of paradise, but it must not claim exclusive access to it. No chosen people, and no elect. Religions must learn to share the beatific wonders of the afterlife.
• No genocide. A religion shouldn’t identify classes or groups of other people as being so depraved as to warrant annihilation, but should rather be based on the principle that all people are children of God.
• In a democracy, secular law must reign supreme. Religious followers may advocate for laws that they think compatible with their religious views, but must pursue them through the normal processes of secular government. And if religious practices-- such as ritual human sacrifice, or pederasty-- violate secular law, then such practices should be prosecuted in secular courts of law, not religious venues.
• Religion should take scientific findings as a given-- and should understand that science is a human process that can make mistakes. In science it’s okay to be wrong, and it’s perfectly normal for science to revise or reverse views previously held. All scientific knowledge is contingent on the current state of knowledge and is subject to review in light of new information. Science itself is in a constant state of evolution. That is not a weakness of science; it is instead its greatest strength.
• No one should have to learn a foreign language to understand the teachings of the faith. The message of a religion should be simple to communicate in any language, ideally in a couple of short paragraphs.

To me, none of these guidelines should be controversial. Shouldn’t all religions strive for universal appeal? Shouldn’t all religions encourage their followers to do good works? Shouldn’t all religions advocate peace over genocide? Shouldn’t all religions embrace the marvelous wonders that have been revealed to us through many centuries of scientific investigation?

The First Amendment of the US Constitution grants the right to follow any religion-- with the understanding that the US Constitution itself is the supreme law of the land (US Constitution Article VI). I fully support that right, but I am opposed to any religion that belittles and demeans those who do not share its core beliefs. I think the followers of all religions should be far more tolerant of other religions than they have been in the past. As I see it, we must all live together on just one planet. To me, it would be far better to live in peace and cooperation than in a state of constant suspicion-- especially if such suspicions are based on nothing more than personal interpretations of human authored texts.

Don't you think that each religion has a world view that matters, attempting to identify reality and to live accordingly? And while each religion may share some traits with other religions, they also contain numerous, significant differences that cannot be reconciled.

Your 6 guidelines intending to harmonize all people and religions reflects your desire to create a new religion yourself. That may sound nice to relativists or others like you, but it doesn't reflect reality or practicality.

After 4500+ years of recorded human history, it seems most likely to me that one of the established religions would be grounded in truth. Our responsibility then is to seek and find that truth, not to formulate a new blend of religions based upon maximum appeasement of society.

I'd suggest that harmony among all the world religions is not possible, nor even a good idea. The evidence is available for discerning the truth among today's world religions and a Christian apologetic study from legitimate sources will clearly steer one down that path.

Like billions of other people throughout world history, I believe:

- that the physical world around us and scientific laws we observe is proof evidence of a supernatural creator we'd call a god,
- that any god creating us would do so for a reason,
- that any such god would want to engage with his creation via communication,
- that the Bible is the only world's religion that demonstrates Divine qualities, and
- that Christianity is thus the one and only true religion.

If that be the case, we cannot dissect and blend the various false religions with the one true religion. The One who rules the universe dictates otherwise. It's His universe and we're all subject to him. Everyone has a choice then, to embrace or reject him, but we don't have the authority (or power) to dictate the religion's terms.

 

[DavidSMoore]

Don't you think that each religion has a world view that matters, attempting to identify reality and to live accordingly? And while each religion may share some traits with other religions, they also contain numerous, significant differences that cannot be reconciled.

My point exactly.

The evidence is available for discerning the truth among today's world religions and a Christian apologetic study from legitimate sources will clearly steer one down that path.

I take it you didn't read any of the posts that I referenced in my original remarks on this thread. From my perspective there is ample evidence that much of what Christians claim to believe doesn't even align with what the Bible actually says. Every major Christian sect claims that the Bible is without error; but I gave the example of what I consider to be the contradictory lineages of Jesus as reported in Matthew and Luke, and no one has thus far refuted anything I said. Christians generally believe that God created the universe from nothing; the Bible's very first sentence says the exact opposite. Christians believe that Jesus was the Messiah (that's why they call themselves Christians); but as I argued previously it doesn't make sense to me that Jesus could have been the person whose coming was predicted by the Old Testament authors. Christians believe that the resurrection of the dead will happen at some time in the future; but Jesus himself said that it would happen before his own generation passed away. Shall I go on?

Like billions of other people throughout world history, I believe:

- that the physical world around us and scientific laws we observe is proof evidence of a supernatural creator we'd call a god,

Does that include the scientific theory of biological evolution? There are many Christians who bitterly object to that theory. After all, that theory says that all life evolved from single celled organisms that first appeared on planet Earth by about 3.5 billion years ago. Many Christians have expressed disgust at that idea.

- that any such god would want to engage with his creation via communication,

Maybe, but that's an assumption. Deists maintain that god does not interact with humankind.

- that the Bible is the only world's religion that demonstrates Divine qualities, and

Muslims, among others, would resoundingly disagree with that statement.

- that Christianity is thus the one and only true religion.

Again, there are a good many people in the world who would disagree. If you expect me to take that claim seriously I would expect direct and explicit responses to every objection I raised previously.

 

[Kenny]

None of the examples in the publication you cited directly responds to the issues I raised concerning the discrepancies between Matthew's and Luke's genealogies of Jesus. I would appreciate hearing a specific and direct response, as I haven't seen one yet.

No problem, but to acknowledge your point, they are definitely different and there is no one here today from that era that can answer it directly and so we use our best logical explanation. (which you don’t have to agree with, of course)

It could be:

"Luke traces Joseph's genealogy through his father, but Matthew traces Joseph's genealogy through his mother. In this view, Jacob would be Joseph's mother's father.

Matthew gives the royal line, while Luke gives Joseph's direct line. This is possible, and since Matthew is written to the Jews, the lineage of Jesus as heir to David's throne is important. But if this other direct royal line existed, it diverged from Joseph's early on, and although Jesus was directly descended from David, it was rather obliquely to the royal line."

or

Matthew gave Joseph's line, while Luke gave Mary's line. There was no word for "son-in-law" for Luke to use in Luke 3:23, and tradition was that the wife's father would consider his sons-in-law as sons. Matthew, writing to the Jews, would have emphasized Jesus' legal right to David's throne. Joseph would have been directly descended from the royal line of David, but since Jesus was adopted by Joseph, He would have avoided the curse in Jeremiah 22:30 that said none of the descendents of Jeconiah (the last of the direct royal line to rule before the exile to Babylon—see 2 Kings 24) would sit on David's throne. Luke, writing to Gentiles, gave Jesus' biological connection to David through Mary. In addition, Luke 1-2 suggests to Bible scholars that much of Luke's information about Jesus' early life came from Mary. She would have been able to give him her genealogy, and he may have been inclined to honor her by including it.” "

Well, in all of the reaction to my posting on the story of the creation, no one argued in favor of any of the following statements:

God fashioned the universe from the pre-existing substances of the Earth and the waters.​

The universe is an ocean of water.​

The Earth's atmosphere is dome shaped and that therefore the Earth itself is a flat disc.​

The Sun, the Moon, and the stars are all contained inside the Earth's atmosphere.​

The main arguments I saw held that the Bible doesn't say any of that. But it does. That's not just a difference of "approach"-- it's an outright denial of the actual words on the page.

The problem with all of our interpretive capacity is that no one was there when it all happened thus one can mine positions to favor one’s point of view (as you have done).

The compilation of books called “the Bible” is a history about man made in God’s image and not a compendium on Creation.

Unless you want to be more specific….

I'm not asking everyone-- or even anyone-- to give up their faith and become an atheist. (I haven't advanced any arguments for atheism in any of my postings on this forum.)

But we do express our viewpoints through the paradigm of our belief systems. We all do that.

In my own country-- the United States-- there is a movement of people who believe, mistakenly, that the nation was founded by Christians for Christians and they are seeking to return it to its original Christian roots. The movement as a whole appears to be highly intolerant of any opposing beliefs, whether theistic or atheistic. There are movements in other countries that are similar in their open hostility to opposing religious views, whether based on Christianity, or Islam, or Hinduism, or other faith systems. I would hope that tolerance would be a guiding principle of any faith system. That's why submitted my proposed list of guidelines-- to suggest that there are principles which are higher than faith. And chief among those should be toleration of differing beliefs.

I think this is a very narrow scope. I do believe that it was founded by Christians and I have enough support through the State Constitutions Pre-Amble and other quotes to be able to support that decision.

It isn’t that we are intolerant of opposing beliefs. On the contrary, we support the freedom of religion. Doesn’t change that fact that it was based on Christian values and faith.

Perhaps you may have simply encountered a subgroup that is radicalized as any group can have? Similarly, there are atheists who are intolerant of religious people. Not all atheists are like that but there are radical atheists who fight tooth and nail to eradicate any semblance of faith or religion in the marketplace or other spheres of influence

 

[DavidSMoore]

No problem, but to acknowledge your point, they are definitely different and there is no one here today from that era that can answer it directly and so we use our best logical explanation. (which you don’t have to agree with, of course)

It could be:

"Luke traces Joseph's genealogy through his father, but Matthew traces Joseph's genealogy through his mother. In this view, Jacob would be Joseph's mother's father.

Matthew gives the royal line, while Luke gives Joseph's direct line. This is possible, and since Matthew is written to the Jews, the lineage of Jesus as heir to David's throne is important. But if this other direct royal line existed, it diverged from Joseph's early on, and although Jesus was directly descended from David, it was rather obliquely to the royal line."

None of that accounts for a difference of 13 generations between Matthew's genealogy and Luke's. And it also doesn't account for the fact that both genealogies include the names of Shealtiel and his son Zerubbabel, both of which are found about midway through. Why would those two names match up when none of the others do? Your explanations are simply not plausible.

or

Matthew gave Joseph's line, while Luke gave Mary's line. There was no word for "son-in-law" for Luke to use in Luke 3:23, and tradition was that the wife's father would consider his sons-in-law as sons. Matthew, writing to the Jews, would have emphasized Jesus' legal right to David's throne. Joseph would have been directly descended from the royal line of David, but since Jesus was adopted by Joseph, He would have avoided the curse in Jeremiah 22:30 that said none of the descendents of Jeconiah (the last of the direct royal line to rule before the exile to Babylon—see 2 Kings 24) would sit on David's throne. Luke, writing to Gentiles, gave Jesus' biological connection to David through Mary. In addition, Luke 1-2 suggests to Bible scholars that much of Luke's information about Jesus' early life came from Mary. She would have been able to give him her genealogy, and he may have been inclined to honor her by including it.” "

Nope. Both genealogies traced Jesus's lineage through Joseph, not Mary. And if you believe in the virgin birth, Joseph wasn't even a blood relation of Jesus. Again, you're grasping at some very flimsy straws.

The problem with all of our interpretive capacity is that no one was there when it all happened thus one can mine positions to favor one’s point of view (as you have done).

The compilation of books called “the Bible” is a history about man made in God’s image and not a compendium on Creation.

Unless you want to be more specific….

Huh? I thought I was quite specific in this posting, which was one of the postings I cited in my very first posting of this thread:

The creation

We don't need to have "been there" to know that the Earth's atmosphere is not dome shaped, that the Earth is not a flat disc, or that the Sun, the Moon, and the stars are not contained within the Earth's atmosphere. There is literally nothing of substance that the Bible's story of the creation got right. Nothing. Here's something I said earlier on this topic:

Details of the creation story

I'm happy to provide more specifics if you want them.

But we do express our viewpoints through the paradigm of our belief systems. We all do that.

That's why science is the only guide we have to understanding the truth about the natural world around us. It's a process that gives us a way to weed out mistaken beliefs. It's the only such process.

I think this is a very narrow scope. I do believe that it was founded by Christians and I have enough support through the State Constitutions Pre-Amble and other quotes to be able to support that decision.

Yes, and we should also note that at the time that of the Federal Convention, four states (Maryland, New Jersey, North Carolina, Pennsylvania) restricted membership in the government to Christians or Protestants only, and one state (South Carolina) explicitly established Protestantism as the state’s religion. So the idea of Christian nationalism was buzzing around throughout the colonies at that time.

That, I suspect, is a major reason why those present at the Federal Convention stated explicitly (in Article VI) that the U.S. Constitution is the supreme law of the land and (in the First Amendment) that the federal government cannot establish a national religion. Those two statements together show that regardless of the personal beliefs of the founders, the federal government is not to be considered "Christian" in any way.

I would challenge you to show me any major elements of the U.S. Constitution that reflect the primary teachings of Jesus: forgiveness of all sins (except blasphemy against the holy spirit) without punishment; eternal life as the reward for baptism and faith; and moral perfection. I don't think there are any such elements, but I'm willing to reconsider if you can show me otherwise.

It isn’t that we are intolerant of opposing beliefs. On the contrary, we support the freedom of religion. Doesn’t change that fact that it was based on Christian values and faith.

Perhaps you may have simply encountered a subgroup that is radicalized as any group can have? Similarly, there are atheists who are intolerant of religious people. Not all atheists are like that but there are radical atheists who fight tooth and nail to eradicate any semblance of faith or religion in the marketplace or other spheres of influence

Huh. I guess you've never heard of Project 2025. The folks behind that all style themselves as Christians. Or, at least, I haven't heard of a single non-Christian who has actively participated in its development. The whole point of that project, as I see it, is to replace the American quasi-democracy with a Christian theocracy. It's an action plan that the people behind Project 2025 want to implement the next time a Republican (Trump or not) is elected. And it's very clear that the plan calls for targeting specific groups of American citizens that they hate: anyone in the LGBTQ community; anyone in the federal government who isn't willing to swear to a loyalty oath, whether to Trump or to the Republican party; anyone who might seek an abortion anywhere in the country; anyone on Social Security or Medicare; ...

I think that's plenty of reason to be afraid.

As for me, I don't have any problem whatsoever with Christian displays of their faith: Christmas trees; Christmas lights (I put my own up every year); creche scenes; crosses-- so long as those displays are NOT on public property. If you want to practice your faith in your home or your church-- fine! I honestly don't care if you're a Christian or a Jew or a Muslim or a Hindu. But I for one do NOT want Christians forcing their way into public school biology classrooms to yell about the "controversy" of the scientific theory of evolution. Keep your worshiping private, away from public lands and buildings, and I'm fine with it.

 

[Questioning]

No Trinitarian listens to what JESUS said about God! WHY?

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

A religion ... should rather be based on the principle that all people are children of God.

Is that not a proposition that all religion should be based on a so-called Judeo-Christian talking point?

 

[wellwisher]

I look at this mention of word of God as connected to the invention of written language, with the God the first word, from which the first written language and alphbet was developed. Spoken language was already around before written language, and by associating letters to sounds and sounds to visual symbols a system was developed that could put words into print. This was key to sustainable civilization; record keeping and studying. Written language allows a reinforcement of memory, in a way that spoken language could not do. For example, I have heard hundreds of good jokes over the years, but they are hard to recall. If I had written these down, I would have a way to refresh my memory and even a way to remember the past when I first heard it.

When you think of language, the average person knows 20,000-35,000 works. The brain can process this data base very similar to an organic AI. You do not have to plan to talk or walk. What you will say in a friendly conversation is processed at the unconscious level and fed to your mouth based on feedback from what you hear the other person say. To the ancient person that would appear as from the spirits, since it was not always a conscious or willful act; reporting data.

Written language by reinforcing, not just words, but also words in sentences and in paragraphs, the organic AI of language advances and starts to prioritize based on what is studied the most, with religion and mythology, way up there in terms of the first ancient writing. This has an impact on thinking and even behaving; divine hand involved. Written knowledge of good and evil; law, was a problem in the sense by being written is would stay in memory too long; outlive it need, and not fade with time; one stuck in time causing repression. Law was supposed to remain fluid; tree was in paradise, and change with time; enjoy but forget the jokes. But repression occurred when it was written, so it shall remain.

If you consider any religion, those who study the sacred books, and are well versed, their organic AI of language processing, using this data base at the top of its priority, leading to directed spirited output, that can often arrange things in new ways.

In the beginning, was the word and the word was God. Adam was made from the dust of the earth; stone dust from writing on stone tablets. Stone carvings are very old, feeding the organic AI of language through the eyes, caused his mind to expand beyond his generation; new type of human; ego appears, God via vision and the language organic AI, breathing life into his nostrils; stone dust, as the invention; hand/eye, advances his mind and imagination.

To show how this could be done; say we start with the word GOD. We sound it out; Gah aww dddd; G O D. Now we have the first three letters. Next, I look for other words of spoken language, that have any one of these sounds; Ocean OO sh nnnnn; O C N, now I have two more letters. As I add more letters, eventually I have enough to represent the small data set of that time. It would be harder if we had 35000 words to start with. With fewer words, the written system was easy to make, and then used to lead new word development. With this system in place all the religious works became systems to feed the human language AI; the spirited output of analysis and prophesy.

 

[Questioning]

The Word was Divine!

 

[IndigoChild5559]

No Trinitarian listens to what JESUS said about God! WHY?

Since your question assumes something not in evidence, I don't think anyone can answer it.

 

[Questioning]

It would be an Admission.