The “God works in mysterious ways” theodicy presupposes that God’s logic is incomprehensible to the human mind. The reason this is such a big deal is that if God’s ways are incomprehensible, you can’t know that they’re good.

Basically, you cannot argue that God's logic is mysterious to prove that God is all good. It is a self-defeating argument.

Additionally, if we cannot comprehend God's logic, the concept of goodness itself loses meaning when applied to God. Goodness, as we understand it, involves qualities like justice, kindness, and fairness. If God operates in ways entirely foreign to these concepts, calling God "good" becomes a meaningless statement. It's as though we're using the word "good" to describe something we admit we do not understand.

Let's consider typical characteristics of cult leader and see if Jesus fits (this is list based off my research, feel free to add more to it):

1. Claiming Exclusive Access to Truth - fit- Jesus claimed to be the exclusive way to salvation (John 14:6) and positioned himself as the unique revelation of God’s truth.
2. Demand for Unquestioning Obedience - fit - His demand to follow him above all other ties (Luke 14:26) could be seen as requiring a strong degree of obedience to his message and mission. It's unclear if he demanded obedience in trivial matters, but "only through me can you be saved or else" seems like a strong motivator of obedience.
3. Followers believed he has Supernatural Power - fit - Jesus is attributed with performing miracles and claiming divine authority, although whether he exaggerated or genuinely performed these miracles is debated. The claims are historically significant and form a key part of his identity.
4. Control Over Followers' Personal Lives - fit - Jesus required his followers to radically change their lives, including leaving their families and careers (Matthew 4:18–20), embracing poverty, and adopting a new set of values. He exercised significant influence over their personal choices and priorities, especially their relationships and livelihoods.
5. Creating a Sense of Urgency and Fear - fit -Does Jesus fit? Yes. Jesus spoke about judgment, hell, and the need for urgent repentance (Mark 9:43, Matthew 25:46), framing his message in terms of a radical call to action with eternal consequences.
6. Use of Isolation and Control of Information - fit - Jesus and his followers formed a close-knit community, often living and traveling together, and while they were not physically isolated from the broader world, there was social and spiritual isolation. His followers were set apart from the religious authorities and mainstream Jewish society. Additionally, Jesus did control information in some ways, such as teaching in parables that were not immediately understood by the general public (Matthew 13:10–17).
7. Charismatic Personality - fit -Jesus was clearly a charismatic figure who attracted large crowds and deeply impacted those around him. His authority and ability to inspire and transform people were central to his following.
8. Manipulation of Guilt and Shame - fit - Jesus introduced the concept of original sin in the Christian understanding of it that is significantly different from Jewish understanding at the time, emphasized repentance for sin, inducing sense of guild.
9. Promise of Salvation or Special Status - fit - Jesus promised salvation to those who followed him and identified his followers as the chosen ones who would inherit the kingdom of God (Matthew 5:3–12). He offered a unique path to salvation through himself, positioning his followers as distinct in this regard.
10. Unverifiable or Arbitrary Claims About Reality - fit - Jesus made many metaphysical claims about the nature of God, the afterlife, and his role in salvation that are unverifiable. These claims require faith rather than empirical evidence and form the foundation of Christian belief.
11. Creating a Us vs. Them Mentality - fit - Jesus drew clear lines between his followers and those who rejected his message, particularly the religious authorities (Matthew 23:13-36). His teachings often positioned his followers against the mainstream Jewish leadership and, in a broader sense, against those who rejected his message.

Conclusion: Jesus was likely a cult leader

Addressing some of the objections:

1.But his coming was predicted by Jewish prophecies

When considering jewish prophecies one must consider the jewish theology and how Jesus teachings fit in it (not well).

2. But he actually performed miracles

Plenty of cults claim to regularly perform miracles. Heavensgate cultists (200 people) for example believed for some 20 years that there are physical aliens living inside of them and actual aliens coming to them on a space ship who they regularly bodily communicated with. Before committing suicide to go home on a comet.

3. But there are people who started believing in him because of miracles who weren't cultists originally

Claims of cultists have an impact on some non-cultists. That's how cults grow. Once non-cultists convert they start making claims similarly to the ones cultists made all along.

4. But early Christianity wasn't a cult

I am not claiming that early Christianity (some 10-20+ years after Jesus died) was a cult. I claim that claims of cultists were so convincing that they started a religion.

This thread is for whatever. Casual conversation, simple questions, incomplete ideas, or anything else you can think of.

All rules about antagonism still apply.

Join us on discord for real time discussion.

This post is for fostering ecumenical debates. Are you a Calvinist itching to argue with an Arminian? Do you want to argue over which denomination is the One True Church? Have at it here; and if you think it'd make a good thread on its own, feel free to make a post with your position and justification.

If you want to ask questions of Christians, make a comment in Monday's "Ask a Christian" post instead.

Non-Christians, please keep in mind that top-level comments are reserved for Christians, as the theme here is Christian vs. Christian.

Christians, if you make a top-level comment, state a position and some reasons you hold that position.

The Protestant Reformation, while primarily a movement for reforming perceived abuses and doctrinal errors within the Roman Catholic Church, inadvertently introduced theological relativism by decentralizing interpretative authority and promoting individual access to scripture. This process disrupted the long-standing unity of interpretation held by the Catholic Church, which claimed to possess the singular, authoritative understanding of Christian doctrine.

1. Rejection of Centralized Authority

• One of the foundational tenets of the Reformation was sola scriptura—the belief that Scripture alone is the supreme authority in matters of faith and practice. While this principle sought to liberate Christians from what Reformers saw as the overreach of Catholic tradition, it also meant rejecting the Pope and the Magisterium as the final arbiters of biblical interpretation.
• This rejection created a vacuum of authority, leading to a proliferation of interpretations of the Bible. Without a central interpretative body, various groups developed their own doctrines, often contradicting one another.

2. Proliferation of Denominations

• The decentralization of authority during the Reformation gave rise to numerous Protestant denominations, each with its unique interpretations of Scripture and doctrinal emphases. For instance:
  • Lutherans emphasized justification by faith alone.
  • Calvinists stressed predestination and the sovereignty of God.
  • Anabaptists advocated adult baptism and radical separation from worldly institutions.
• This fragmentation demonstrated that without a central authority, Christian doctrine could be understood in multiple, often conflicting, ways. Over time, this doctrinal diversity fostered a sense of theological relativism, where no single interpretation could claim universal authority.

3. Empowerment of Individual Conscience

• Martin Luther's declaration at the Diet of Worms—"My conscience is captive to the Word of God"—emphasized the role of individual conscience in interpreting Scripture. This principle, though empowering, introduced subjectivity into theology. Each believer became their own interpreter, leading to varied and sometimes contradictory understandings of faith.
• This shift laid the groundwork for theological relativism, as the individual's interpretation of Scripture became equally valid (or at least debatable) alongside traditional or communal interpretations.

4. Dissolution of Doctrinal Uniformity

• Over time, the Reformation's principles contributed to an environment where doctrinal disagreements were tolerated and even expected. The lack of a universally accepted arbiter of truth allowed theological disputes to persist without resolution, reinforcing the idea that multiple interpretations could coexist.
• This environment not only shaped Protestantism but also influenced broader Western thought, leading to an eventual embrace of religious pluralism and relativism.

5. Cultural and Philosophical Ripple Effects

• The Reformation's focus on personal interpretation and freedom of conscience resonated with Enlightenment ideals of individualism and reason. These movements further eroded the idea of absolute theological truth, favoring a relativistic approach where religious truth was considered subjective and context-dependent.
• The Protestant emphasis on questioning authority also encouraged skepticism toward any claims of absolute truth, reinforcing a cultural relativism that extended beyond theology into philosophy, politics, and ethics.

Conclusion

While the Reformers did not intend to introduce theological relativism, their principles of sola scriptura, the rejection of centralized authority, and the empowerment of individual conscience inevitably led to a fragmented and pluralistic Christian landscape. The resulting diversity of beliefs, coupled with an emphasis on individual interpretation, created an environment where theological relativism could thrive. In this sense, the Protestant Reformation marked a significant shift in the Christian world, moving from a unified doctrinal framework to a more subjective, decentralized understanding of faith.

This thread is for all your questions about Christianity. Want to know what's up with the bread and wine? Curious what people think about modern worship music? Ask it here.

In Gen 48, we read:

^(17) When Joseph saw that hisfather laid his right hand on the head of Ephraim, it displeased him, and he took his father's hand to move it from Ephraim's head to Manasseh's head. ^(18) And Joseph said to his father, “Not this way, my father; since this one is the firstborn, put your right hand on his head.” ^(19) But his father refused and said, “I know, my son, I know. He also shall become a people, and he also shall be great. Nevertheless, his younger brother shall be greater than he, and his offspring shall become a multitude of nations.”

Clearly this never took place historically.

Ephraim was (according to the Biblical narrative) dominant within the northern kingdom of Israel but lost any power after its destruction by the Assyrians.

Thereafter, Ephraimites persisted either as the Samaritans (a small powerless nation repeatedly oppressed by Jews, Romans, Muslims etc.) or simply disappeared into wherever Assyrians had deported them (in reality Assyrian records say only 27,000 people were deported from Israel).

Ephraim thus never became a "multitude of nations" in any meaningful sense.

Bible therefore lies/promotes failed prophecy.

QED

1. Sacrificial Systems in Pagan Religions

Many ancient religions, including those of Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, and Rome, revolved around sacrificial systems to appease the gods and secure divine favor. In these systems:

• Substitutionary Sacrifices: The idea of a substitute bearing the guilt or punishment of another appears in numerous pagan practices. For example:

  • In Mesopotamian rituals, animals (or even humans) were sacrificed to avert the wrath of the gods and bring restoration to the community.
  • In Greek religion, the scapegoat (the pharmakos) ritual involved expelling or sacrificing an individual to cleanse the community of sin or misfortune.

• Atonement for Divine Wrath: Many pagan deities were seen as requiring appeasement through offerings to atone for humanity's offenses. This parallels the idea in penal substitutionary atonement, where Christ's sacrifice satisfies God's wrath.

2. Legal and Transactional Views of Salvation

Pagan religions often framed divine-human relationships in legalistic or transactional terms, akin to penal substitutionary atonement:

• Roman Contractual Piety (Do ut des): The principle of “I give so that you may give” reflects a transactional approach to divine favor, similar to the notion of Christ's sacrifice fulfilling divine justice.
• Zoroastrianism's Judgment Motif: In Zoroastrian thought, cosmic justice is achieved through a savior figure who restores balance, bearing some resemblance to the Christian concept of Christ as the one who satisfies divine justice.

3. Hellenistic Philosophy and Ethics

The synthesis of Greek philosophy with religion influenced early Christian theology:

• Platonic Ideas of Purification: Plato’s philosophy emphasized the soul’s need for purification from sin or imperfection, resonating with the Christian emphasis on redemption.
• Stoic Logos Theology: The Stoic understanding of the Logos as the divine principle ordering the universe was incorporated into Christian theology, particularly in John’s Gospel (e.g., John 1:1–14).

4. Shared Cultural Context of the Ancient Near East

Christianity emerged in a milieu where Jewish, Greco-Roman, and broader Near Eastern traditions interacted. The Jewish sacrificial system, with its focus on atonement through blood sacrifices, already reflected broader Near Eastern practices, which were likely influenced by or analogous to surrounding pagan rituals.

• The Day of Atonement (Yom Kippur) in Jewish tradition shares structural similarities with pagan expiatory rituals.
• The early Christian interpretation of Christ as the ultimate sacrificial lamb draws on both Jewish and broader ancient sacrificial traditions.

5. Theological Reframing Rather Than Innovation

While Christianity claims to reveal divine truths, its doctrines often reinterpret existing ideas. Redemption and penal substitutionary atonement can be seen as theological reframings of universal religious concepts:

• The idea of a sacrificial figure bearing guilt is present in both pagan and Jewish contexts.
• The Christian narrative of Christ's death and resurrection incorporates the mythic archetype of the dying-and-rising god but reinterprets it through a monotheistic lens.

The parallels between pre-Christian pagan practices and Protestant Christian doctrines of redemption and penal substitutionary atonement suggest that these concepts are not unique to Christianity. Instead, they reflect broader religious themes that were recontextualized.

Based on one question.

Is god capable of deception?

Yes: all knowledge is sacrificed, as we can't know what he has lied about or when.

No: how can you know?

I don't know: all knowledge is sacrificed, as we can't know IF he has lied or when.

The ramifications of this, of course, is that if an omni god exists, reality is indistinguishable from illusion.

Edit: Sorry, need to add a question. Would be interested in discussing objections to this rationale. Where is my thought process wrong?

"Omni," in the title, addresses fundamentalist Christians in particular, but more liberal interpretations are welcome to discuss.

And, obviously, there are follow-up questions if the theist answer is "no."

Edit2: I will do my best to reply to everyone. If I've missed you, please spam me, politely, until acknowledged. Offer good for the first 50--ish redditors.

Thesis: The bible is too vague and contradictory to be penned by a deity. A powerful god could easily make it more clear; even a competent human can easily make it more clear. I'm not claiming to be a competent human, but I can present the arguments.

Let's focus on chapter 1, for simplicity, but I'll be happy to repeat this process on other passages.

1 In the beginning, God created the heavens and the earth. ^(2) The earth was formless and empty. Darkness was on the surface of the deep and God’s Spirit was hovering over the surface of the waters.

The earth was formless? Where is this darkness and water? Where did the water come from? What happened before the beginning? Something must have been there, god is there.

A lot of christians like to say that questions are not arguments, but simple questions without answers highlight flaws in this life-or-death belief system. Why did almighty, loving god not explain himself a little more clearly for us? Currently we live in a world where the reasonable thing to believe based on all available evidence is that the bible is a work of fiction created by humans. According to believers, god himself made the world this way. Why would he make a world where his own existence is unbelievable?

An almighty god could have written a book that humans would not question. He could have made humans with slightly better brains or senses so that we could be more receptive to his message. Instead we get this:

^(3) God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. ^(4) God saw the light, and saw that it was good. God divided the light from the darkness. ^(5) God called the light “day”, and the darkness he called “night”. There was evening and there was morning, the first day.

...which might seem fine on its own (if we ignore questions like "who is god talking to," "are these god days or human days," etc), but later we also get this:

^(14) God said, “Let there be lights in the expanse of the sky to divide the day from the night; and let them be for signs to mark seasons, days, and years; ^(15) and let them be for lights in the expanse of the sky to give light on the earth;” and it was so. ^(16) God made the two great lights: the greater light to rule the day, and the lesser light to rule the night. He also made the stars. ^(17) God set them in the expanse of the sky to give light to the earth, ^(18) and to rule over the day and over the night, and to divide the light from the darkness. God saw that it was good. ^(19) There was evening and there was morning, a fourth day.

He said, "let there be light before," but I guess that light wasn't on earth? And also wasn't the sun, moon, or stars? And of course, the moon doesn't generate light, it reflects it.

^(6) God said, “Let there be an expanse in the middle of the waters, and let it divide the waters from the waters.” ^(7) God made the expanse, and divided the waters which were under the expanse from the waters which were above the expanse; and it was so. ^(8) God called the expanse “sky”. There was evening and there was morning, a second day.

Was he not in the sky when he was above the waters at the beginning of the chapter?

^(9) God said, “Let the waters under the sky be gathered together to one place, and let the dry land appear;” and it was so. ^(10) God called the dry land “earth”, and the gathering together of the waters he called “seas”. God saw that it was good. ^(11) God said, “Let the earth yield grass, herbs yielding seeds, and fruit trees bearing fruit after their kind, with their seeds in it, on the earth;” and it was so. ^(12) The earth yielded grass, herbs yielding seed after their kind, and trees bearing fruit, with their seeds in it, after their kind; and God saw that it was good. ^(13) There was evening and there was morning, a third day.

Is the water gathered up in one place? Many places?

Did god himself create the names for these things, unlike the animals he allowed Adam to name? How do we know about that? Why are we given any details if none of them work together?

^(20) God said, “Let the waters abound with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth in the open expanse of the sky.” ^(21) God created the large sea creatures and every living creature that moves, with which the waters swarmed, after their kind, and every winged bird after its kind. God saw that it was good. ^(22) God blessed them, saying, “Be fruitful, and multiply, and fill the waters in the seas, and let birds multiply on the earth.” ^(23) There was evening and there was morning, a fifth day.

I'm going to use the "S" word, so I'll remind everyone that "science" is just a means of observing our real world with our tools and senses.

We have learned through science that birds did not evolve before land animals. The first animals who evolved to fly were insects: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evolution_of_insects

^(26) God said, “Let’s make man in our image, after our likeness. Let them have dominion over the fish of the sea, and over the birds of the sky, and over the livestock, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that creeps on the earth.” ^(27) God created man in his own image. In God’s image he created him; male and female he created them.

Do we look like god? Who is "our" image? How can we be in his likeness when we are all different and always changing, and he is supposedly unchanging? I am also amused that god refers to animals as "live stock," as if he created them specifically for humans to buy and sell, but maybe that's a translation thing.

This chapter also repeatedly asserts that god reviews each step of creation and sees that it is "good." I would love to know what "good" means according to god. That would be very valuable information to we who are supposedly his servants. How can we even serve him when his definition of "good" covers everything from the creation of earth to slavery and genocide? What does he actually want us to do?

And now my attempt at a more clear draft of Genesis 1:

1 God created the universe, the earth, everything on it, within it, and without.

That is it, that is the whole chapter. That is all of the meaningful information we receive. We don't know how or why god created the earth, Moses did not know how or why when he wrote Genesis. He invented the details and contradicted himself in the same chapter and the next chapter, yet we're supposed to treat his bad fables like the divine word of god.

Trying to describe the steps of a process no one has ever seen and using "days" arbitrarily to count the time it took adds a ton of needless confusion. Am I supposed to believe god intentionally made his book worse so it would sell more copies, instead of making humans better?

If you are going to argue against this, I can only say you lack imagination. If god is ALL-POWERFUL, there are no limits. He could have written a bible that literally changes every time we open it. Changes for each person, changes each time, shows us exactly what he wants us to see. He could deliver any message he wants to us in any format, yet he chose the bible? A badly-written book that copies most of its ideas from other sources? And believing it is fiction is not the outcome he wanted?

Don't hide from questions just because you can't answer them, please. This is very important. Challenge all assumptions. Questions are better to have than wrong answers.

Christians refuse to sincerely and intellectually engage with the Quran and this claim is backed up by the evidence of the popular arguments they put forth against the Quran.

Argument 1:It’s so common to hear Christian’s argue that the Quran can’t be a revelation from god because it came 600 years after New Testament and obviously thousands of year after the Torah. But anyone with any ounce in sincerity using any ounce of intellectual effort understands just how flawed that argument is because the new testament came over 600 years after the last book of the Old Testament and thousands of years after the Torah , so by that same logic it would deem it to be invalid, but the point is revelation from god has no timer. And since this argument is elementary and nonsensical and yet is repeated so much by Christian’s, this shows either insincerity in engaging with the Quran or it shows a complete lack of intellectual effort put towards making arguments against the Quran or just engaging with the Quran in general.

Argument 2: My second argument/evidence is when Christian’s say the Quran denies the crucifixion of Jesus (based on chapter 4 verse 157 of the Quran) which is a historical reality and therefore the Quran is invalid because of denying a historical reality. But anyone giving any amount of effort into sincerely reading and understanding the verse understands that Allah said ONE WAS MADE TO LOOK LIKE JESUS AND BE CRUCIFIED IN HIS PLACE, which implies that to the writers of history it APPEARED as if they crucified Jesus, so it’s not denying a guy that looked like Jesus was crucified a thousand years ago by the Jews and Roman’s, it’s denying that Jesus himself was actually crucified but instead someone was made to look like him. Now the point is that this argument is so quickly and easily debunk-able by ANYBODY who thinks about the verse for over 10 seconds, and yet Christian’s still constantly use this argument knowing how baseless it is, and this shows insincerity and dishonesty and a lack of intellectual effort put towards engaging with the Quran.

This thread is for whatever. Casual conversation, simple questions, incomplete ideas, or anything else you can think of.

All rules about antagonism still apply.

Join us on discord for real time discussion.

The phrase God works in mysterious ways is a thought-stopping cliche, a hallmark of cult-like behavior. Phrases like God works in mysterious ways are used to shut down critical thinking and prevent members from questioning doctrine. By suggesting that questioning divine motives is pointless, this phrase implies that the only acceptable response is submission. By saying everything is a part of a "mysterious" divine plan, members are discouraged from acknowledging inconsistencies in doctrine or leadership. This helps maintain belief despite contradictions. Cult-like behavior.

But to be fair, in Christianity, the use of God works in mysterious ways isn't always manipulative, BUT when used to dismiss real questions or concerns, it works as a tool to reinforce conformity and prevent critical thought. So when this phrase is used in response to questions about contradictions, moral dilemmas, or theological inconsistencies, it sidesteps the issue instead of addressing it. This avoidance is proof that the belief lacks a rational foundation strong enough to withstand scrutiny. So using the phrase God works in mysterious ways to answer real questions about contradictions, moral dilemmas, and theological inconsistencies undermines the credibility of the belief system rather than strengthening it. Any thoughts on this?

This post is for fostering ecumenical debates. Are you a Calvinist itching to argue with an Arminian? Do you want to argue over which denomination is the One True Church? Have at it here; and if you think it'd make a good thread on its own, feel free to make a post with your position and justification.

If you want to ask questions of Christians, make a comment in Monday's "Ask a Christian" post instead.

Non-Christians, please keep in mind that top-level comments are reserved for Christians, as the theme here is Christian vs. Christian.

Christians, if you make a top-level comment, state a position and some reasons you hold that position.

Thesis:

The concept of an all-loving, all-powerful, and all-good God is logically inconsistent with the existence of human suffering, the capacity for sin, and the concept of hell.

Arguments:

1. The "Image of God" Paradox If humans are made in God’s image, why are they capable of both good and evil? Being created in His image implies a reflection of His nature, yet God is described as entirely good and incapable of evil. Why, then, are humans not made to reflect this inability to do evil?
2. The Problem of Free Will and Suffering
   • If God is all-loving and all-powerful, why would He create humans knowing they would fail and suffer?
   • Free will is often given as the justification for this, but an all-powerful God could have created beings with free will and the inability to choose evil (just as He is free yet incapable of sinning). Why wasn't this the "best possible solution"?
3. The Inconsistency of Divine Attributes
   • An all-loving being would not permit unnecessary suffering.
   • An all-good being would work to keep all creation in harmony and contentment.
   • An all-powerful being could achieve both without contradiction. If all three attributes are true, why do they fail to manifest in the world we experience?
4. The Sin Counter-Argument
   • If humans need to experience sin to understand goodness, does this mean God needed to experience sin to be perfectly good? If not, why impose such a requirement on humanity?
5. Avoiding Non-Answers Common counters like "God works in mysterious ways" or "You can't compare humans to God" don't address the logical issues raised here. Instead, they deflect, reinforcing doubts rather than resolving them.

Invitation to Debate:

I welcome thoughtful counterarguments rooted in logic and evidence, not vague appeals to mystery or wishful thinking. Let’s have an open discussion.

This thread is for all your questions about Christianity. Want to know what's up with the bread and wine? Curious what people think about modern worship music? Ask it here.

This thread is for whatever. Casual conversation, simple questions, incomplete ideas, or anything else you can think of.

All rules about antagonism still apply.

Join us on discord for real time discussion.

This is the "There can be only ONE" theory where Eastern Orthodoxy turns out to be the winner. Is it true? Or is it absurd?

This is the shorthand version of what it looks like when Eastern Orthodoxy is the winner:

• Rabbinical Judaism from 70 AD to present = 1st Wave Protestantism before Protestantism was "cool."

• Islam = 2nd Wave Protestantism before Protestantism was "cool."

• Catholicism = 3rd Wave Protestantism before Protestantism was "cool."

• Protestantism as we know it today = 4th Wave Protestantism.

Thus therefore, if you're not Eastern Orthodox but happen to be in the "3rd Wave" or "4th Wave" of Protestantism, you are actually some kind of syncretist, pluralist, new-ager, secularist, and maybe even "pagan" depending on how pagan is defined.

And if you're not Eastern Orthodox but saying the line in the Nicene Creed that says: "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church" -- by this theory you're either believing in the wrong one, or if you're an open-minded kind of person and don't mind x-amount of different Christian denominations then you clearly don't actually believe what-you-say-you-believe when you say "we believe in ONE." In fact, you probably believe in 10 to 100 or more denominations. (And their claims of being "apostolic" couldn't be more far-fetched.)

I would say if Christianity is "true" then there should be only ONE church/denomination, and if there is more than one, then Christianity is "false" and therefore Jesus Christ would have to be demoted to any old sage-advice-giver like Lao Tzu, Buddha, Confucius, Yoda, etc.

If Christianity is "true" then all people who say they are Christian are bonded to this game of "Christian Denomination Roulette." This is sort of like Russian Roulette. But it is actually more like the scene in the Last Crusade where Indiana Jones must pick the "true" Holy Grail. And if you deny this game of Christian Denomination Roulette, you may as well be literally of "any other" religion. Like finding "any" therapist in the phone book when you have a problem, or reading "any" advice columnist in a magazine, or reading "any" post on an advice subreddit.

If you find this theory of "Only One" absurd, then you should attempt to be self-congruent and stop saying the line in the Nicene Creed that says: "We believe in one, holy, catholic, and apostolic Church."

Thesis: Goff's argument against God's existence demonstrates the falsity of classical theism.

The idealist philosopher Philip Goff has recently presented and defended the following argument against the existence of God as He is conceived by theologians and philosophers (what some call "The God of the Philosophers"), that is to say, a perfect being who exists in every possible world -- viz., exists necessarily --, omnipotent, omniscient and so on. Goff's argument can be formalized as follows:

P1: It's conceivable that there is no consciousness.

P2: If it is conceivable that there is no consciousness, then it is possible that there is no consciousness.

C1: It is possible that there is no consciousness.

P3: If god exists, then God is essentially conscious and necessarily existent.

C2: God does not exist. (from P3, C1)

I suppose most theist readers will challenge premise 2. That is, why think that conceivability is evidence of logical/metaphysical possibility? However, this principle is widely accepted by philosophers since we intuitively use it to determine a priori possibility, i.e., we can't conceive of logically impossible things such as married bachelors or water that isn't H2O. So, we intuitively know it is true. Furthermore, it is costly for theists to drop this principle since it is often used by proponents of contingency arguments to prove God's existence ("we can conceive of matter not existing, therefore the material world is contingent").

Another possible way one might think they can avoid this argument is to reject premise 3 (like I do). That is, maybe God is not necessarily existent after all! However, while this is a good way of retaining theism, it doesn't save classical theism, which is the target of Goff's argument. So, it concedes the argument instead of refuting it.

This post is for fostering ecumenical debates. Are you a Calvinist itching to argue with an Arminian? Do you want to argue over which denomination is the One True Church? Have at it here; and if you think it'd make a good thread on its own, feel free to make a post with your position and justification.

If you want to ask questions of Christians, make a comment in Monday's "Ask a Christian" post instead.

Non-Christians, please keep in mind that top-level comments are reserved for Christians, as the theme here is Christian vs. Christian.

Christians, if you make a top-level comment, state a position and some reasons you hold that position.

Modern right-wing Christians actually has more in common with the Pharisees and Sadducees than with the teachings of Jesus.

First off—abortion. If you genuinely believe life begins at conception, then abortion would be murder, right? And if that’s the case, no exceptions should be allowed—no matter what. But politicians who run on a "pro-life" platform often endorse exceptions (for rape, incest, even the mother’s life), which means they’re not fully buying into the idea that every abortion is murder. If they really believed this, there would be no gray areas because, logically, you can’t justify “a little murder.” The inconsistency gives away the game—maybe they don’t actually believe what they’re selling, but it sure is a reliable way to get votes.

LGBTQ issues: Here’s the thing: Jesus never mentioned homosexuality, not even once. If this was the pressing moral issue that so many Christians today make it out to be, wouldn’t you expect something in the Gospels? Jesus focused way more on compassion, forgiveness, and humility than on what two consenting adults do in private. Instead, it’s almost always Old Testament law (or Paul’s letters) that people use to justify these views. Paul does bring it up, but it’s debatable what he meant, especially when you dig into the Greek word "arsenokoitai" that he used. Some scholars think this word might have referred to exploitative relationships (like older men with young boys) rather than consensual adult relationships. So why all this outrage when Jesus himself had nothing to say on the subject? If it's an issue, leave it up to God. There certainly isn't this same energy to legislatively fight divorce, infidelity or second marriages.

Now, let’s look at something Jesus did talk about—a lot—economic inequality. Jesus was a champion for the poor and outspoken against wealth, power, and greed. Yet, here we have right-wing Christians supporting policies that take from the poor and benefit billionaires. And often, they’re backing politicians who are personally profiting from this power, sometimes quite literally, like billionaires who’ve ripped off their own supporters. Jesus consistently warned against the danger of wealth accumulation, but who’s actually exploiting the working class today while claiming to be a “party of the people”?

This brings us back to a bigger picture: Jesus was a radical who broke with the religious establishment to emphasize compassion, forgiveness, and love above all else. He flipped the tables on a system of power that abused and oppressed people in the name of “righteousness.” He defended sinners and reached out to those society cast aside. But today’s right-wing Christianity often sides with judgment and legalism, the very things the Pharisees were obsessed with. Jesus wasn’t about enforcing religious law at the cost of humanity and love—he was about finding ways to heal, to unite, and to forgive.

This is the antithesis of the current American right-wing movement that is fueled by division and grievance, and has propped up a man so antithetical to Christ that he not only sins, but revels in sin. And right-wing Christians have made an idol of him in exchange for worldly power.

Right-wing Christians today seem to be missing the point of what Jesus taught and instead have aligned themselves with the values of the very people who nailed him to a cross.

This thread is for all your questions about Christianity. Want to know what's up with the bread and wine? Curious what people think about modern worship music? Ask it here.

God gives us suffering to make us stronger, God has also given us medicine to have good health.

God is said to give us the correct body parts in the womb. Though some babies are born with or without some limbs/organs, some are born with extra.

Things like the appendix bursting is incredibly common. So getting that removed would be considered a sin, no? Getting a amputation of a limb you have gravily injured would also be considered such, same thing with tumors.

God has given us illness and disease (including mental) to overcome, so why do some claim transitioning to male/female is sinful?

Gender dysphoria is a mental illness in the DSM

God created us in his image but God also gave many of us different ailments to overcome through different means. No one's tellng an amputee that they shouldn't get prosthetics because "it's not in God's image". Than why do some also consider gender affirming care as a sin?

Many people get surgeries that remove organs to save their life. Many also get surgeries to add things to their body to save their life, (such as a heart stent). God has given us these challenges to overcome and given us the tools to do so. So, why are sex change operations sinful? For many people these are life saving operations.

• I would really like to hear reasoning behind this, because there doesn't seem to be any.

Hello, I come from a family of believers in Jesus. It's what my parents raised me to believe and although it wasn't particularly central to my personal life, the Christian narrative was the framework of reality that I assumed to be true. Or at least that was the case until I reached young adulthood in the last few years, and really began to question the root of my beliefs, and found that a lot of what i assumed to be true was solely based on upbringing. As my skepticism grew, and I continued to analyse the Christian narrative from a more rational perspective, a key problem rose to the surface. The original sin. As we know, this wasn't Adam and Eve's sin in the garden but rather Satan's rebellion in heaven beforehand.

Now, for those of us raised in a Judeo-Christian upbringing, we are generally taught certain "truths" that can be seen as foundational. One of them is that God is sovereign over all. That means that there was no pre- existing force before God, that God is the only eternal and timeless being and that therefore everything that came into existence is of God's influence. Another foundational truth in Christianity is that God is all good. He is a god of love, of beauty, of order and of grace and all that he created originally reflected those qualities. There is nothing evil either about God himself or that can be directly attributed to him.

However, we then arrive at what can be seen as a problem of sorts. In the book of Ezekiel we are told that Satan was made perfect. "You were the signet of perfection, full of wisdom and perfect in beauty": Ezekiel 28-13. In fact, The passage informs us that Satan was not just any angel but a "guardian cherub" and perhaps the highest of all of God's creations. But then of course, the infamous deviation occurs: "You were blameless in your ways, till unrighteousness was found in you"... and afterwards... "Your heart was proud because of your beauty; you corrupted your wisdom for the sake of your splendor". Essentially, Satan begins to feel prideful of his great qualities and desires to receive glory himself rather than to praise God for giving him these gifts.

But consider the context of these events for a moment. Satan is an all good creature made by an all good creator and living in an all good environment (heaven). So surely, he must've had an all good will when God created him as well. Where then, does that initial seed of evil come from if not from God himself? The common answer to this is usually to point to the free will Satan had and to claim that he " chose evil". The problem with that argument in this circumstance though is that there was no evil to choose. Adam and Eve needed the already fallen Satan to intrude into their otherwise pure hearts in the form of a serpent and tempt them in order to go against the God their hearts were previously aligned with. And every sin that follows that one is a product of the fallen world. But there was no serpent for Satan. There was no one whispering in his ear to tread a wicked path or envy his creator. And yet, Satan became prideful. But pride itself is a sin and therefore had no plausible way of existing in heaven, a sinless realm. Therefore, even with the freest of wills, Satan's actions would've reflected his natural disposition: all good. There would simply not be even the faintest desire to go against his creator. Did Satan create sin? Again, this falls flat because in order to create sin he would've needed to to desire to beforehand, which is in itself a sin. As I pondered this and searched online for an answer, I found a site in which Pastor John Piper is asked about this very question and surprisingly even he concedes and calls it "one of the mysteries in my theology". He even forms the question in a more succinct way: "How could a perfectly good being, with a perfectly good will, and a perfectly good heart, ever experience any imperfect impulse that would cause the will to move in the direction of sin?" However, where Pastor John sees it as a great mystery, I see it as a fundamental problem for which ultimately I can see only God being responsible for. For it is due to these reasons that the sovereign God, the very source of all that is good in this world, is also the sewer of that defiled seed that poisoned Satan's heart and sprung forth the evil of the universe.

Edit: To emphasize the point I brought up previously:

Satan is a perfect being, with a perfect heart, made by a perfect creator, in a perfect environment. (heaven).

Upon creation, Satan's heart was in full alignment with God in a way we can never imagine in our current state. A shift in focus that significant doesn't just happen. And if it does, it has a cause, like everything else that has ever come to exist. Free will allows for things to happen, but free will itself doesn't cause them to happen. There would need to be a cause that would then push Satan to use his free will in a manner that opposes God. Free will here only enables the effect of a prior cause. So what was the cause for this initial deviation in Satan's heart? The bible tells us it's because he became proud of his greatness. But there's a problem with that. The same question comes crawling back, just slightly rearranged: "Then what caused Satan's desire to become proud of his greatness instead of being grateful to God?" Fear? Distrust? Selfishness? These traits are all imperfect products of a fallen world. Imperfect emotions simply don't exist in the perfect kingdom of God. The issue is that all things that began to exist have a cause, so we get lost in an infinite regress of micro-causes until we can find a force that has no cause for its own existence. Since God is the only uncaused force in the argument we've laid out, he is the most reasonable answer to me for the source of Satan's initial desire to take the glory to himself.

Thank you for reading.

My apologies for the long winded explanation. This is my first time visiting this forum and I look forward to hear some other thoughts about this question because I haven't seen much conversation about it. Thank you for reading.

Abstract:

There are plenty of examples of people deluding themselves and believing they have encountered something that is super natural. While I grant that in most cases there is no way to prove that they didn't encounter something that is super natural, we can prove that for your belief in a super natural explanation to be reasonable you have to have access to data that can't be explained naturally. No such data exists when it comes to resurrection, therefore belief in Jesus rising from the dead is not reasonable.

Definitions:

"Miracle": an event that is not explicable by natural causes alone Stanford Encyclopaedia of Philosophy

Proof by contradiction:

1. Assume that when a phenomenon is explicable by natural causes alone it is considered a miracle
2. Then all natural events that are explicable by natural causes alone are miracles
3. But all natural events are not miracles, because they are explicable by natural causes alone
4. All natural events are simultaneously miracles and all natural events are not miracles (P and not P) which is a contradiction
5. C1: Therefore holding to a proposition "when a phenomenon is explicable by natural causes alone it is considered a miracle" entails a contradiction
6. It's not reasonable to hold to a proposition that entails a contradiction
7. C2: Therefore when an event is explicable by natural causes alone it is unreasonable to consider it a miracle
8. All the events (collectively and separately) captured in the bible can be explicable by natural causes alone (for example a phenomenon of people deluding themselves)
9. C3. Therefore, it is unreasonable to consider any of the events captured in the bible to be miracles

David and Goliath is a well-known story. The general storyline is simple. David is a "youth" who is untrained in warfare (1 Samuel 17:33, 42). The giant Goliath comes out to challenge someone to fight him. David takes the challenge, hits Goliath square in the head with a stone, kills him, and then decapitates him.

However, as it often is with the Bible, things aren't that simple. It appears this story is a doublet: one of two stories about David's rise to be in Saul's court. The other is in 1 Samuel 16.

In 1 Samuel 16, David is brought in to play the harp for Saul. David is introduced to Saul and is described as "a man of valor, a man of war," (v. 17) and is later taken into Saul's service as his armor bearer. Saul "loved him greatly." (v. 21-22)

But then in 1 Samuel 17, David is a youth and not a warrior at all. Even more confusing, why is David not at war with Saul as his armor bearer? Worse yet, why would Saul ask "whose son is this youth," "Inquire whose son the boy is," and "whose son are you, young man?" (v. 55-58) Didn't he know David? Apparently not.

Perhaps one could argue this was in reverse, 1 Samuel 17 was actually a story from BEFORE 1 Samuel 16. But this wouldn't make sense either. David became Saul's son in law and a leader in his kingdom! (v. 25, 18:17-19)

These two stories are in complete conflict. But complicating things further, there's another Biblical claimant to be Goliath's killer!

2 Samuel 21:19 "...Elhanan son of Jaare-oregim the Bethlehemite killed Goliath the Gittite. The shaft of his spear was like a weaver’s beam."

So who killed Goliath? Chronicles tried to cover this up by saying Elhanan killed the BROTHER of Goliath, but that's a clear textual interpolation from a text AFTER the Exile... At least 500 years after David. (More technical Hebrew discussion in comments) It is very unlikely that someone would take a famous act of David and attribute it to a nobody. It’s more likely that David would be attributed this great feat

This is a classic case of source criticism. Whoever was compiling the Deuteronomistic History (Deuteronomy - 2 Kings) was working with multiple sources that were combined. They're even named in various parts. This causes minor or even major discrepancies like this, and it helps us better understand the composition of the Bible.

This thread is for whatever. Casual conversation, simple questions, incomplete ideas, or anything else you can think of.

All rules about antagonism still apply.

Join us on discord for real time discussion.

Thesis: Project 2025 is a plan that will result in, among other things, a Christian America.

I am directly quoting the Mandate for Leadership released on Project 2025's website: https://static.project2025.org/2025_MandateForLeadership_FULL.pdf

I included full paragraphs so I can't be accused of taking out of context, and bolded the parts that support my thesis. Page numbers so you can look around that part for yourself in the original.

Please focus on what is true. There is a lot of deceptive and evocative language throughout this document. Words like "God" and "soul" are not clearly defined.

From the forward, under PROMISE #1: RESTORE THE FAMILY AS THE CENTERPIECE OF AMERICAN LIFE AND PROTECT OUR CHILDREN, p. 4:

Today, the American family is in crisis. Forty percent of all children are born to unmarried mothers, including more than 70 percent of black children. There is no government program that can replace the hole in a child’s soul cut out by the absence of a father. Fatherlessness is one of the principal sources of American poverty, crime, mental illness, teen suicide, substance abuse, rejection of the church, and high school dropouts. So many of the problems government programs are designed to solve—but can’t—are ultimately problems created by the crisis of marriage and the family. The world has never seen a thriving, healthy, free, and prosperous society where most children grow up without their married parents. If current trends continue, we are heading toward social implosion.

Under PROMISE #4 SECURE OUR GOD-GIVEN INDIVIDUAL RIGHT TO ENJOY “THE BLESSINGS OF LIBERTY”, p. 13:

BEST EFFORT Ultimately, the Left does not believe that all men are created equal—they think they are special. They certainly don’t think all people have an unalienable right to pursue the good life. They think only they themselves have such a right along with a moral responsibility to make decisions for everyone else. They don’t think any citizen, state, business, church, or charity should be allowed any freedom until they first bend the knee.

The projection here is disturbing.

Chapter 14: DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES, under CENTERS FOR DISEASE CONTROL AND PREVENTION (CDC), p. 453:

These distinct functions should be separated into two entirely separate agencies with a firewall between them. We need a national epidemiological agency responsible only for publishing data and required by law to publish all of the data gathered from states and other sources. A separate agency should be responsible for public health with a severely confined ability to make policy recommendations. The CDC can and should make assessments as to the health costs and benefits of health interventions, but it has limited to no capacity to measure the social costs or benefits they may entail. For example, how much risk mitigation is worth the price of shutting down churches on the holiest day of the Christian calendar and far beyond as happened in 2020? What is the proper balance of lives saved versus souls saved? The CDC has no business making such inherently political (and often unconstitutional) assessments and should be required by law to stay in its lane.

Reminder that "soul" has not been defined. How can we use that as basis for decision-making?

Page 481:

Healthy Marriage and Responsible Fatherhood (HMRF) Program. This program is located within the ACF Office of Family Assistance. Its goal, like that of the HMRE program, is to provide marriage and parenting guidance for low-in- come fathers. This includes fatherhood and marriage training, curriculum, and subsequent research.

I didn't bold anything there, though the patriarchal goal is clear. It becomes more of a problem here:

Fund effective HMRF state programs. Grant allocations should protect and prioritize faith-based programs that incorporate local churches and mentorship programs or increase social capital through multilayered community support (including, for example, job training and social events). Programs should affirm and teach fathers based on a biological and sociological understanding of what it means to be a father—not a gender- neutral parent—from social science, psychology, personal testimonies, etc

We already have a substantial body of such evidence and testimonies, yet they are being rejected in favor of insular "faith-based" sources. Real information is being rejected in favor of baseless fearmongering.

Chapter 17: DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, under DEFENDING THE RULE OF LAW, p. 560:

A recent Supreme Court case illustrates the problems that arise when the DOJ takes a cramped interpretation of the First Amendment in service of a political ideology. In 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, the department argued in favor of the government’s ability to coerce and compel what the lower courts all found to be pure speech. The oral argument made clear the department’s view that it was the viewpoint expressed that gave the government power to censor and compel speech. During oral argument, the United States took the remarkable position that government can compel a Christian website designer to imagine, create, and publish a custom website celebrating same-sex marriage but cannot compel an LGBT person to design a similar website celebrating opposite-sex marriage. In the government’s view, declining to create the latter website was based on an objection to the message, while the former was based on status rather than message, but this argument inevitably turns on the viewpoint expressed. It means that the government gets to decide which viewpoints are protected and which are not—a frightening and blatantly unconstitutional proposition.

In response to that last sentence, of course the government is involved in deciding which viewpoints are protected and which are not. In this particular case, bigotry is not protected, nor should it be. They like to pretend their first amendment is threatened while using it as an excuse to prevent others from expressing themselves.

But surely she shouldn't be forced to make a website for homosexuals if she disagrees with their choices, right? Right, she doesn't have to make websites for anybody. In fact, the request she got from that gay couple was fake: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/303_Creative_LLC_v._Elenis#Background

Chapter 18: DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND RELATED AGENCIES, p. 581:

MISSION STATEMENT At the heart of The Conservative Promise is the resolve to reclaim the role of each American worker as the protagonist in his or her own life and to restore the family as the centerpiece of American life. The role that labor policy plays in that promise is twofold: Give workers the support they need for rewarding, well-paying, and self-driven careers, and restore the family-supporting job as the centerpiece of the American economy. The Judeo-Christian tradition, stretching back to Genesis, has always recognized fruitful work as integral to human dignity, as service to God, neighbor, and family. And Americans have long been known for their work ethic. While it is primarily the culture’s responsibility to affirm the dignity of work, our federal labor and employment agencies have an important role to play by protecting workers, setting boundaries for the healthy functioning of labor markets, and ultimately encouraging wages and conditions for jobs that can support a family.

Genesis has no business inspiring policy. Genesis consists of... We'll say "unfounded claims" for brevity.

How will we actually know what God wants? Whether he is or isn't happy? Who is or isn't doing a good job serving him? Why is it this God specifically?

There are a number of sections after that: Overview, Needed Reforms, Pro-Life Measures.

RELIGION, p. 585:

Provide robust protections for religious employers. America’s religious diversity means that workplaces include people of many faiths and that many employers are faith-based. Nevertheless, the Biden Administration has been hostile to people of faith, especially those with traditional beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality. The new Administration should enact policies with robust respect for religious exercise in the workplace, including under the First Amendment, the Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993 (RFRA),8 Title VII, and federal conscience protection laws.

Why "especially those with traditional beliefs about marriage, gender, and sexuality" and "in the workplace"? It sounds like they're asking for freedom to freely express bigotry at work based on misunderstanding of biology and human nature.

Page 589:

Sabbath Rest. God ordained the Sabbath as a day of rest, and until very recently the Judeo-Christian tradition sought to honor that mandate by moral and legal regulation of work on that day. Moreover, a shared day off makes it possible for families and communities to enjoy time off together, rather than as atomized individuals, and provides a healthier cadence of life for everyone. Unfortunately, that communal day of rest has eroded under the pressures of consumerism and secularism, especially for low-income workers.

Alternative View. While some conservatives believe that the government should encourage certain religious observance by making it more expensive for employers and consumers to not partake in those observances, other conservatives believe that the government’s role is to protect the free exercise of religion by eliminating barriers as opposed to erecting them. Whereas imposing overtime rules on the Sabbath would lead to higher costs and limited access to goods and services and reduce work available on the Sabbath (while also incentivizing some people—through higher wages—to desire to work on the Sabbath), the proper role of government in helping to enable individuals to practice their religion is to reduce barriers to work options and to fruitful employer and employee relations. The result: ample job options that do not require work on the Sabbath so that individuals in roles that sometimes do require Sabbath work are empowered to negotiate directly with their employer to achieve their desired schedule

Why is church forcing itself into state? What job options are they talking about, specifically?

EDUCATION AND VOCATIONAL TRAINING, p. 594:

Congress should expand apprenticeship programs outside of the RAP model, re-creating the IRAP system by statute and allowing approved entities such as trade associations and educational institutions to recognize and oversee apprenticeship programs.

In addition, religious organizations should be encouraged to participate in apprenticeship programs. America has a long history of religious organizations working to advance the dignity of workers and provide them with greater opportunity, from the many prominent Christian and Jewish voices in the early labor movement to the “labor priests” who would appear on picket lines to support their flocks. Today, the role of religion in helping workers has diminished, but a country committed to strengthening civil society must ask more from religious organizations and make sure that their important role is not impeded by regulatory roadblocks or the bureaucratic status quo.

Encourage and enable religious organizations to participate in apprenticeship programs, etc. Both DOL and NLRB should facilitate religious organizations helping to strengthen working families via apprenticeship programs, worker organizations, vocational training, benefits networks, etc.

Why is any of this the government's job or even place? Which religious organizations are they referring to? Is the representation fair, or are they all of a particular faith?

My most important question: Why Judeo-Christian specifically?

Do you think Muslims are included in this? No. The section about the middle east and Africa mentions Christians only:

The U.S. cannot neglect a concern for human rights and minority rights, which must be balanced with strategic and security considerations. Special attention must be paid to challenges of religious freedom, especially the status of Middle Eastern Christians and other religious minorities, as well as the human trafficking endemic to the region.

The word "Muslim" appears once in the document, when describing an event where Voice of America broadcast a Biden ad to Muslims without his knowledge. You can read about the ensuing witch hunt here: https://www.politico.com/news/2020/07/30/deleted-biden-video-sets-off-a-crisis-at-voice-of-america-388571

Compare that to "Christian", which appears 7 times.

I post this because I have seen people try to claim there is no link between Project 2025 and Christianity.

Here are the many links, with none to other religions. I expect comments to take the form of "Yes, Project 2025 is pro Christian Nationalism", but if during the reading of this post you found something to object to, great. Form a coherent, logically-grounded argument, support it with evidence, and we can discuss.

Thank you.

When apologists discuss the "textual reliability" of the Bible, they often focus on the New Testament. Or, if they do focus on the Hebrew Bible, they seem to portray a straightforward narrative of reliability in which "so many hands worked to write it, compile it, and protect it, as historical manuscripts show."

However, the manuscript evidence shows that the Tanakh's text has not been preserved well. There are a few reasons for thinking this.

1. Large Differences In Early Witnesses

There are huge differences between the Masoretic Text (MT) we have preserved today and other, early witnesses of the text. The Septuagint (LXX) in particular preserves significant differences. How significant? A few examples:

• Jeremiah in the LXX is around 15% shorter than in the MT.

• The stories of David, Goliath, and Saul in 1 Samuel 16:17-18:30 are 39 verses shorter in the LXX than the MT.

• In some LXX manuscripts of Esther, the text is changed by about 1/3rd, radically affecting the story. (1)

• In Joshua, the text is shortened, lengthened, and reorganized in several significant ways up to 10%, varying by text.

2. Rampant Redaction

Redacting the text to fit theological, linguistic, or other needs was extremely common. Imagine these small differences building up over the course of up to 800 years. A few examples:

• In the Bible, Chronicles frequently redacts Samuels, for instance, such as in 1Chron. 21:1 or 1Chron 20:5.

• In the Great Isaiah Scroll, there are 2600 differences between the MT. What is significant here is that this textual variance seems purposeful, linguistically updating Isaiah to make sense in the present day Hebrew. (2)

• In Deuteronomy 32:8-9, the original text reads "according to the Sons of God." This interpretation made some Hebrew and Greek scribes uncomfortable, as it implied polytheism. As such, they changed the text to "sons of Israel" and "angels of God" to cover it up.

3. Diverse Tradition

The early Hebrew written textual tradition seems to have been extremely diverse, pulling from multiple sources and freely combining and changing texts and oral tradition. In particular, the Ketef Hinnom amulets uses pieces of scripture to create one text from Exodus, Deuteronomy, Daniel, and Nehemiah, not as individual "verses," but as general ideas. (3)

Conclusion:

The Hebrew Testament we have is hardly "preserved." Instead, it show the history of a text that could change drastically, and we only have around 300 years of the 900 years of evidence, the back 600 of which enter a period of increasing illiteracy, decreased textual preservation, and an increased period of oral transmission.

The fact of the matter is, we cannot even begin to pretend to say "the Bible says it, I believe it, that settles it" with the Tanakh. What we have instead is an organic, changing, ambiguous work.

(1) Fox, Michael; “The Redaction of the Books of Esther: On Reading Composite Texts,” SBLMS 40. Atlanta: Scholars Press, 1991.

(2) Ulrich, Eugene; Flint, Peter W.; Abegg, Jr., Martin G. (2010). “Qumran Cave 1: II : the Isaiah scrolls.” Oxford: Clarendon Press. pp. 59–65

(3) Barkay, G., A.G. Vaughn, M.J. Lundberg and B. Zuckerman, "The Amulets from Ketef Hinnom: A New Edition and Evaluation

This post is for fostering ecumenical debates. Are you a Calvinist itching to argue with an Arminian? Do you want to argue over which denomination is the One True Church? Have at it here; and if you think it'd make a good thread on its own, feel free to make a post with your position and justification.

If you want to ask questions of Christians, make a comment in Monday's "Ask a Christian" post instead.

Non-Christians, please keep in mind that top-level comments are reserved for Christians, as the theme here is Christian vs. Christian.

Christians, if you make a top-level comment, state a position and some reasons you hold that position.