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.

Thesis: Conservative Christian morality is flawed, and it's position on homosexuality is an example of that (this post is kind of meant to be chill though, just as a bit of a clear start to a new American dawn considering it's relevance in Christian movements).

(This post will be focussing on conservative Christianity. You can still have a say if you aren't conservative, just that this will be the focus).

(Also, there will be some talk here of recent politics, I hope the mods don't mind. Let me know if it's off).

Hi,

So it was ironic reading about climate change last night, and just seeing the results pour in. I'm not even American, yet am still very anxious about what it means, so my condolences go out to my fellow skeptics and progressives, especially in the US.

And for conservative Christians here, I hope it was worth it (I know not all of y'all like Trump strictly, but from what I could gather based on previous discussions, the actual politics advocated for by Trump are worth it over the opposition but do correct me if I'm wrong on that).

Anyways, onto actual I guess debating points. Just wanted to check in with what Christians and skeptics here think about it, since I like to think we've kind of formed a community here even if it's a debate one idk. Like siblings.

So, Christian morality is confusing and often contradictory.

Let's look at homosexuality as an example, since this is a personal topic to me, but this applies with basically any other point of contention. On the one hand, many arguments against this that Christians use are based in a sort of logic, something where everyone could agree that if it's true, it's a bad thing.

For example, the argument of not being able to have or support kids, so they break down family structure and naturally speaking are just wrong.

In respect to these arguments, they don't tend to hold up.

For a start, bisexual and pansexual people exist, who can still have kids in straight relationships anyways, but even for gay people (who statistically make up a small minority of the population), they can have kids still, so it essentially assumes individuals must stay in monogamous relationships. I guess that makes sense from a conservative viewpoint, but for instance there's a film that explores the idea of everyone being in gay relationships, but they occasionally meet with the opposite sex just to have kids, then go back to their relationships.

Furthermore, you get infertile straight people. Should they be allowed to be in relationships, even though they cannot have kids?

As for it being natural, many animals show homosexual behaviours such as bonobos. Evolutionarily speaking, there's no reason why homosexuality is wrong, because species are complex and there's a lot that goes into social interactions and the benefits gained from these, and since animals can help other animals to raise their young, it may even be somewhat beneficial for the population generally speaking, since evolution does act on populations primarily. So, I guess God designed animals this way. Unless you argue it's because of the Fall, but that's a bit of an arbitrary solution that can essentially debunk any ideas of the world being designed by simply saying that the holes in this idea are actually because of this creation story.

And for the argument that gay people cannot support kids themselves, research would disagree, as gay people very much can guide and raise their kids to be happy and well.

https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/131/4/e1374/31926/Promoting-the-Well-Being-of-Children-Whose-Parents

https://www.jstor.org/stable/3556565
https://doi.org/10.1037/0002-9432.77.4.550

Additional arguments include the argument of sexually transmitted diseases (for a start, gay people don't have to have sex, and don't have to have 'riskier' sex).

Also, interestingly, straight people actually have more risk of some types of sexually transmitted diseases, so it depends on what you are talking about https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/6893897/

Furthermore, there are other measures that can be taken to lower the risks of this, such as testing and using protection: https://www.cdc.gov/sti/about/about-stis-and-gay-men.html

And of course, that's not getting into how dangerous pregnancy is for women in straight relationships. But, I guess that risk is fine.

So, the other category of argument against homosexuality is Biblical, as in, God says it's wrong, so it's wrong. Why? Usually, apologists say it's because God is all-good, and can do no wrong, whereas humans are imperfect, so shouldn't question God.

Hence, good = God. And good loses meaning outside of this.

So, morality is simply defined as whatever God approves of. This is not only contradictory to the logical arguments which suggest there's actual reasoning in reality, but also to the Bible itself.

Genesis talks about how after eating the fruit, Adam and Eve now know what evil is. They literally understand what is good or wrong, as evident by them feeling shame by being naked and going to hide. They understand what good and bad means and what things are bad.

Furthermore, Paul lists the fruits of the spirit in Galatians 5:22, such as love, joy, peace, kindness and patience. So, there is more to good than just God. Rather, there are certain qualities that God seems to hold in high regard, perhaps for similar reasoning secular humanists use, such as doing things that help people out.

Overall, the arguments from conservative Christianity against homosexuality as an example of a moral point of debate, are flawed, as they either do not hold up to logical scrutiny with evidence, or they are contradictory to scripture itself.

Thank you for taking the time to read, I was debating with myself whether to make a post like this, and not being able to decide on the wording or direction to take it in. But, this election inspired me.

Have a good day all

Theism debate aside I think it's not reasonable to think particularly Jesus has anything to do with god or was risen from the dead.

I think lot's of Christians think about events described in the bible in the context of Christianity the way it exists today. Most historian however agree that during life of Jesus Christianity had fairly small following - nothing like today - that is more similar to a cult than a widespread religion. So the argument then goes like this:

• P1. If it is not uncommon for humans to organise in cults and collectively believe false things about reality to a point that they are willing to sacrifice their own life for those beliefs AND extremely uncommon for people to rise from the dead then it's reasonable to think that early Christianity was a cult and Jesus didn't rise from the dead
• P2. It is not uncommon for humans to organise in cults and collectively believe false things about reality to a point that they are willing to sacrifice their own life for those beliefs
• P3. It is extremely uncommon for people to rise from the dead
• C. It's reasonable to think that early Christianity was a cult and Jesus didn't rise from the dead.

In support of premises I'd say this: I don't know if you know many people who've been in a cult or 've been in a cult yourself. I've been a part of something a kin to one. I have to say that proclaiming that someone was risen from the dead or that dead people were seen by a large group would be very common occurrence. Group leader would say "XYZ is happening" and everyone would repeat it. Over the years it would become an unquestionable belief.

I grant that Christianity is special in a way that it's very uncommon for the cult to gain following like Christianity did but I would like to see a connection between popularity and truth. By the time Christianity gained popularity Jesus was long gone from earth, so Jesus or his alleged resurrection couldn't have had anything to do with it. Early followers were very convincing, sure, but that has nothing to do with truth either, does it.

And just to give you a flavour of what cults are like, let me introduce you to:

Heavensgate

Origin: Founded in 1970 and lasted until 1997. Had over 200 members

Beliefs: For over 20 years members believed that they were aliens inhabiting human bodies and that they could transcend to a higher existence by leaving Earth. They were convinced that a spaceship following the Hale-Bopp comet would take them to a new world.

Supernatural Claims: For over 20 years members claimed to witness and experience signs of alien activity together, including visions and telepathic communication with otherworldly beings. They mass-suicided.

Apostles touching resurrected Jesus few times and being prosecuted for their beliefs is completely mundane compared to these folks.

You can google other cults like this one.

Slavery is perfectly okay if it’s done in a Godly way

For God even said that it’s okay to beat slaves as long as they don’t die in 2-3 days (Exodus 21:20-21)

And that you must not treat Israelite slaves harshly, meaning foreigners can be treated like that (Leviticus 25:39-46)

Bear with me, as I'm still trying to make this argument clearly.

Essentially I'm frustrated by Christians judging atheists for not believing in God. I don't have a problem with people believing, but I do struggle with the lack of empathy for nonbelievers.

So here's the argument in the form of two questions. I'll make it about hell instead of God.

1. What would you have to see or experience to change your belief in hell? Specifically, what would it take to convince you hell does not exist?

2. Why do you think non-believers should believe in hell? Specifically, what evidence or logic do you believe should sway them into thinking hell is a real thing?

My argument is that there should be a direct relationship between your answers to #1 and #2.

Meaning: if you say "nothing would convince me hell isn't real" then it isn't reasonable to say "XYZ should convince you that hell is real".

If you say "the only thing that would convince me that hell isn't real is if Jesus himself showed up in person and told me so" then it should be acceptable for an atheist to say "I don't believe in Hell unless Jesus himself shows up in person and tells me hell is real"

What I'm getting at is that believe in God and belief in hell are generally matters of faith, a deeply health conviction that has developed through a combination of your spiritual experiences, in your community, and perhaps your sense of reason.

So treating your belief in God or hell as if it is evidence-based or logic based and that any reasonable person should share that belief, isn't fair to an atheist who was raised in a different community, with a different set of spiritual experiences, and raised with different ways of reasoning.

In short, I'm tired of people saying "God is there if you just listen" as if that quiet voice they hear when they pray is all it takes to convince them of god. If that was the case, then if that quiet voice wasn't there one day their belief should vanish. But most likely it wouldn't vanish, because that belief is also informed by their culture, by their history, by their community, and by the varied experiences of their life.

Therefore it is not unreasonable for an atheist to lack belief, because they did not have the experiences and community etc to support that belief.

Am I getting my point across?

1. God has precedence of ordering infants and children be put to death per 1 Samuel 15: 2-3:

This is what the Lord Almighty says: ‘I will punish the Amalekites for what they did to Israel when they waylaid them as they came up from Egypt. Now go, attack the Amalekites and totally destroy all that belongs to them. Do not spare them; put to death men and women, children and infants, cattle and sheep, camels and donkeys.’”

And

2. One cannot claim "God would never order this" per 1 Corinthians 2:11

For who knows a person’s thoughts except their own spirit within them? In the same way no one knows the thoughts of God except the Spirit of God. 

It is reasonable to infer that God may again order infants and children be put to death.

My question for the Christians here is: if God orders this, will you obey?

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.

Both these verses make it impossible for Jesus to be the One Almighty God, YWHW. Scripture teaches and Jesus is the only begotten SON of God, not God Himself. The Father is One and only true God.

Question 1: Who is the only true God, according to Jesus?

John 17:3 “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom You have sent.

Answer 1: The Father.

Question 2: Who is the One God, according to Paul?

1 Corinthians 8:4-6

4 Therefore, concerning the eating of things sacrificed to idols, we know that an idol is nothing in the world, and that there is no God but one.

5 For even if there are so-called gods whether in heaven or on earth, as indeed there are many gods and many lords,

6 yet for us there is one God, the Father, from whom are all things and we exist for Him, and one Lord, Jesus Christ, by whom are all things, and we exist through Him.

Answer 2: The Father.

Thesis: The bible's advice and instructions for parents encourages them to abuse their children.

For this post, I am going to be using the observable world as much as possible to justify morals, since we cannot get an answer on record from God. Some of you might say "but the bible is very clear about what's right and what's wrong," but when you compare notes with your neighbor you realize you have different interpretations yourselves.

My focus here is on depictions and instructions to human parents in the bible, not the heavenly father.

For example, I consider love to be good. Love encourages forgiveness, forgiveness encourages trust, trust encourages honesty, and honesty helps us all make progress together. Ownership and possession are completely counter to love. There is no trust there, that's a contract.

The main thing I've noticed about children in the bible is that they are treated like possessions. Children are treated as extensions of their parents instead of their own people. Their accomplishments glorify their parents, yet infanticide is not off the table. They dehumanize their own human children. I realize they're young, but they are sentient. They have feelings, thoughts, and experiences. You may have created the child, but you do not own the child. You are not entitled to an obedient child. They are alive and they make their own decisions. This is not an excuse to abandon or neglect them. It's about finding a balance of trust.

This gave me 100 verses about parenting: https://www.openbible.info/topics/parenting

It politely omitted verses about child sacrifices, maybe a topic for another time. Some of the verses from that list overlap and some of them don't actually mention parenting. I've grouped the rest here.

Children as possessions:

Behold, children are a heritage from the Lord, the fruit of the womb a reward. Like arrows in the hand of a warrior are the children of one's youth. Blessed is the man who fills his quiver with them! He shall not be put to shame when he speaks with his enemies in the gate.

Grandchildren are the crown of the aged, and the glory of children is their fathers.

The proverbs of Solomon. A wise son makes a glad father, but a foolish son is a sorrow to his mother.

The righteous who walks in his integrity— blessed are his children after him!

Expecting/Demanding obedience whether right or wrong:

Fathers, do not provoke your children to anger, but bring them up in the discipline and instruction of the Lord.

Train up a child in the way he should go; even when he is old he will not depart from it.

Discipline your son, and he will give you rest; he will give delight to your heart.

Hear, my son, your father's instruction, and forsake not your mother's teaching, for they are a graceful garland for your head and pendants for your neck.

And these words that I command you today shall be on your heart. You shall teach them diligently to your children, and shall talk of them when you sit in your house, and when you walk by the way, and when you lie down, and when you rise. You shall bind them as a sign on your hand, and they shall be as frontlets between your eyes. You shall write them on the doorposts of your house and on your gates.

“Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long in the land that the Lord your God is giving you.

Children, obey your parents in the Lord, for this is right. “Honor your father and mother” (this is the first commandment with a promise), “that it may go well with you and that you may live long in the land.”

It is for discipline that you have to endure. God is treating you as sons. For what son is there whom his father does not discipline? If you are left without discipline, in which all have participated, then you are illegitimate children and not sons. Besides this, we have had earthly fathers who disciplined us and we respected them. Shall we not much more be subject to the Father of spirits and live? For they disciplined us for a short time as it seemed best to them, but he disciplines us for our good, that we may share his holiness. For the moment all discipline seems painful rather than pleasant, but later it yields the peaceful fruit of righteousness to those who have been trained by it.

Discipline your son, for there is hope; do not set your heart on putting him to death.

I almost put that one in physical or psychological abuse, but I would need more context.

He must manage his own household well, with all dignity keeping his children submissive,

Listen to your father who gave you life, and do not despise your mother when she is old.

Children, obey your parents in everything, for this pleases the Lord.

The eye that mocks a father and scorns to obey a mother will be picked out by the ravens of the valley and eaten by the vultures.

My son, do not despise the Lord's discipline or be weary of his reproof, for the Lord reproves him whom he loves, as a father the son in whom he delights.

Every one of you shall revere his mother and his father, and you shall keep my Sabbaths: I am the Lord your God.

“Whoever strikes his father or his mother shall be put to death.

In most cases I don't believe it is right to strike your parents, but sometimes it can be.

Honor widows who are truly widows. But if a widow has children or grandchildren, let them first learn to show godliness to their own household and to make some return to their parents, for this is pleasing in the sight of God.

I like the idea of helping widows. It is not the kids' responsibility.

Likewise, you who are younger, be subject to the elders. Clothe yourselves, all of you, with humility toward one another, for “God opposes the proud but gives grace to the humble.” Humble yourselves, therefore, under the mighty hand of God so that at the proper time he may exalt you,

But understand this, that in the last days there will come times of difficulty. For people will be lovers of self, lovers of money, proud, arrogant, abusive, disobedient to their parents, ungrateful, unholy, heartless, unappeasable, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not loving good, treacherous, reckless, swollen with conceit, lovers of pleasure rather than lovers of God, having the appearance of godliness, but denying its power. Avoid such people.

Encouraging physical abuse:

Whoever spares the rod hates his son, but he who loves him is diligent to discipline him.

Do not withhold discipline from a child; if you strike him with a rod, he will not die.

Folly is bound up in the heart of a child, but the rod of discipline drives it far from him.

“If a man has a stubborn and rebellious son who will not obey the voice of his father or the voice of his mother, and, though they discipline him, will not listen to them, then his father and his mother shall take hold of him and bring him out to the elders of his city at the gate of the place where he lives, and they shall say to the elders of his city, ‘This our son is stubborn and rebellious; he will not obey our voice; he is a glutton and a drunkard.’ Then all the men of the city shall stone him to death with stones. So you shall purge the evil from your midst, and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

The rod and reproof give wisdom, but a child left to himself brings shame to his mother.

I had that last one under "good parenting" at first because I was reading the verse wrong. I thought it meant a child left alone, neglected, brings shame to their parents. But it's actually saying, "If you don't hit your child with a stick, you're a bad parent."

Encouraging neglect:

Whoever loves father or mother more than me is not worthy of me, and whoever loves son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me.

Mixed bag:

As a father shows compassion to his children, so the Lord shows compassion to those who fear him.

Encouraging children to fear their parents or God is psychological abuse.

And those twelve stones, which they took out of the Jordan, Joshua set up at Gilgal. And he said to the people of Israel, “When your children ask their fathers in times to come, ‘What do these stones mean?’ then you shall let your children know, ‘Israel passed over this Jordan on dry ground.’ For the Lord your God dried up the waters of the Jordan for you until you passed over, as the Lord your God did to the Red Sea, which he dried up for us until we passed over, so that all the peoples of the earth may know that the hand of the Lord is mighty, that you may fear the Lord your God forever.”

Teaching your kids is great, but please make sure you're teaching them true information. It's also a bit outdated for modern world; we don't need standing stones and oral history, our children can read what happened.

Do not be anxious about anything, but in everything by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving let your requests be made known to God. And the peace of God, which surpasses all understanding, will guard your hearts and your minds in Christ Jesus.

Calming anxiety is good, but relying on intangible cures produces very inconsistent results.

And so train the young women to love their husbands and children,

Women are not cattle, they can love who they want. Of course, if they choose to get married and have children, they should love them, but do not put those expectations on a young woman.

And, finally:

Good parenting:

Fathers, do not provoke your children, lest they become discouraged.

Here for the third time I am ready to come to you. And I will not be a burden, for I seek not what is yours but you. For children are not obligated to save up for their parents, but parents for their children.

Show yourself in all respects to be a model of good works, and in your teaching show integrity, dignity,

So by my count (I'll update if someone spots an error), out of a random sample of 36 bible quotes about how parents and children should treat each other, we have:

• 4 describing children as property or extensions of their parents
• 19 encouraging blind submission to authority
• 5 encouraging physical abuse
• 1 encouraging neglect
• 4 that have some bad and some good, or can be good if done carefully
• 3 that I consider good parenting, taken at face value

Only 11-19% are good (depending on how many you count in the mixed bag).

Another 28% encourage control, violence, and neglect.

53% of the verses from our random sample tell children to obey their parents whether the parents are right or wrong. And since psychological abuse, physical abuse, neglect, and murder are all encouraged at various points, what is stopping parents from acting those out on their children? The justification is irrelevant, the children are expected to obey. At no point is a child given the means to protect themselves if their parents are wrong.

I also have personal experience being on the receiving end of the biblical parenting style. This whole thing is very personal, but we are here to debate: Based on the arguments and quotes I've provided, do you agree or disagree that the bible has mostly harmful attitudes about parenting?

Thank you.

The following verses were previously counted, but comments pointed out they're not specifically about parenting:

Dismissed:

But if anyone does not provide for his relatives, and especially for members of his household, he has denied the faith and is worse than an unbeliever.

Everyone should try to carry their weight. It has nothing to do with faith. "Worse than an unbeliever" is some "no true scotsman" bunk.

"Relatives" and "members of his household" are vague, although I could argue that "especially" implies wife and children, with "his household" referring to the father.

The biggest defender of the Kalam, among many who have be mislead by him, William Lane Craig, frequently and repeatedly cites the BGC Theorem as a way of proving his second premise in the Kalam: the universe had a beginning.

And yet, Craig is wrong. He often quotes Alex Vilenkin, one of the authors of the BGV Theorem, to assert the claim that the BGV proves that the universe had a beginning. Now whether Craig misunderstands Vilenkin, is removing his quote from important context, or if the quote is a result of Vilenkin misspeaking, or voicing an opinion that he has changed, is unknown.

What is known is that not Vilenkin, nor any of the BGV theorem authors, believe that they have proven the universe had a beginning. Here's an interview full of fantastic discussions with the authors, where by they all clear up the misconception.

The quote Craig uses from Vilenkin is from a speech in 2018 and the interview is from 2023. It's stated quite clearly: the BGV does not prove the universe had a beginning. Not according to the authors and not according to the theorem itself. Craig has been spotted continually spreading misinformation, either intentionally or accidentally, by misquoting the BGV Theorem. Don't be like Craig and don't believe anyone who says the BGV proves the universe had a beginning. Believe the authors of the theorem when they say it doesn't. Or do the experimentation yourself and find out.

And the Lord God said, “The man has now become like one of us, knowing good and evil. He must not be allowed to reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life and eat, and live forever.”

First, it implies that god is not the abrahamic god, but instead a being that is simply god because it knows good and evil, and that any other creature that knows good and evil is also a god, in the Mesopotamian sense of polytheism.

Second is gods nature being like the gods of ancient Mesopotamia being that he can’t stop adam from eating the apple and fears Adam will become a god like him, so he kicks out adam and puts gaurds around the tree, when the abrahamic god does not function like that, he is all-knowing, all-powerful, all-wise and all-capable.

And third, the obvious one is the speech of god in this verse is strikingly similar to the speech of the gods in different near East stories predating the Bible, showing their thought process before doing an action, so the structure usually goes like, “since man did bla bla bla, us gods will do bla bla bla” and then a serious action is done, this type of speech front the “gods” is in many of the flood myths predating the Bible, and just many stories in general.

Also, it doesn’t imply the royal “we” but instead implies multiply gods when he says “since man has become LIKE ONE OF US”.

Just off reading the text alone you can understand that a god is considered to be a being that knows good and evil, can create, and lives forever, and that there were many gods, and that against their will there was a tree in the garden of Eden which bore fruit that would make anyone who ate it a god just like them, but because they weren’t like the abrahamic god, they didn’t have omnipotence and didn’t know Adam was approaching the tree and being deceived by the serpent and upon figuring out they cursed all three and kicked them out and guarded the tree out of fear. And this is what Muslims mean when we say the Bible is corrupted, it’s real text is mixed and mashed with other pagan sources, and some writers and entire books have pagan writers.

Just look at Isaiah, job and psalms speaking about the leviathan, scholars say it was likely ripped directly from a ugaritic text predating it called KTU

KTU 1.3 ii 38-42 "Surely I fought Sea (ym), the Beloved of El, Surely I finished off River, the Great God, Surely I bound the dragon (tnn) and destroyed him. I fought the Twisty Serpent, The Potentate with Seven Heads."

Isaiah 27:1 "In that day Yahweh will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent... Even Leviathan the twisted serpent; And he will kill the dragon (thîn) who lives in the sea (yãm)." This binding of the the reptilian 'tnn' also Aligns with Yahweh binding Leviathan in Job 41.

"Though you smote Litan the wriggling serpent (Itn.btn.brh), finished off the writhing serpent (btn. q/tn), Encircler with seven heads" (KTU 1.5 i 1-3; translation from Nick Wyatt's Religious Texts From Ugarit)

"On that day Yahweh with his cruel and great and strong sword will punish Leviathan the fleeing serpent (Iwytn nhs brh), Leviathan the twisting serpent (nhs qltwn), and he will kill the dragon that is in the sea" (Isaiah 27:1; cf. Psalm 74:14 on Yahweh crushing the "heads" of Leviathan and Revelation 12:3 on combat with the seven-headed dragon)

And just look at the book of kings and certain parts of psalms and Samuel in the Bible that have clear pagan verses and undertones in stark contrast to other books of the Bible.

And off-topic, but funnily enough, Christian’s can accuse the Quran of taking from other sources when the Bible is RIDDLED with plagiarizing and basically every single early part of the Bible is from a previous text or myth, sometimes traceable word by word.

Evidence points to Jesus as being a follower of John the Baptist, and at some point even being a rival to John. John 3:22-30. The obvious question is, why would Jesus, free of sin, need to be baptized? In addition, Mary and Elizabeth were related which would mean that Jesus and John grew up together and shared the same context of upbringing and influences. Lastly, Jesus did not begin his ministry until after John was imprisoned and many of John’s disciples became disciples of Jesus. All of this points to Jesus as a continuance of John’s ministry and modern Christianity being an invention, for lack of a better word, after the imprisonment and death of John.

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 NWT is correct in translating theos in John 10:33 as "god" small g. I am not a JW but I think they are correct.

Let's look at conventional trinitarian bible, the LSB:

John 10:33-36

33 The Jews answered Him, “For a good work we do not stone You, but for blasphemy; and because You, being a man, make Yourself God.”

34 Jesus answered them, “Has it not been written in your Law, ‘I SAID, YOU ARE GODS’?

35 “If he called them gods, to whom the word of God came (and the Scripture cannot be broken),

36 do you say of Him, whom the Father sanctified and sent into the world, ‘You are blaspheming,’ because I said, ‘I am the Son of God’?

If the Jews in verse 33 were accusing Jesus of making Himself the Almighty God, capital G, then how does Jesus answer their charge in verse 34 and onwards?

The response Jesus gave does not make any sense at all if "theos" in verse 33 is capital G. But His answer makes perfect sense if it was "a god" small g (meaning divine, exalted). Therefore, the same can be applied to John 1 and is demonstrated as well in Hebrews 1:8-9.

Per the regulative principle of worship, the Christian recognizes that it is sinful to worship God in any way beyond or different from what He has mandated. No where in Scripture is any religious holiday beyond the 52 Lord’s Days (the Sabbath, Sunday) commanded as an element of the worship of God under the present administration of the covenant. Therefore, to invent new days as being in themselves ways to worship God is not authorized, and is rather sinful rebellion and a denial of the sufficiency and veracity of Scripture. Thus, Christmas, Easter, Good Friday, etc., as being unique or special or additional ways of the worship of God ought to be rejected.

That all said, that Christmas and Easter are today particularly celebrated in a secular manner, devoid of any false pretenses of worship, is a positive development. There is no Scriptural prohibition on sharing a meal with family and exchanging gifts with one another — indeed, such can surely be done to the glory of God. While a religious celebration of such days amounts to sin, the secular celebration is not necessarily sinful and can even be conducted unto God’s glory.

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.

Most varieties of christianity have this dogma as very essential to their religious doctrines. According to it, based on the biblical texts of the gospels of Matthew and Luke, Jesus of Nazareth had a miraculous birth in Bethlehem born of a virgin named Mary. But for long historians know the historical basis for this is very fragile at best. First off, I think it's better I put on some of the basic ideas of New Testament scholarship, which are as follows: the oldest texts in the New Testament are the authentic epistles of Paul (for my arguments here though, we don't have however to worry about the problem of the authorship of the pseudepigraphic or the disputed epistles); of the four canon gospels, three of them, Matthew, Mark and Luke, are what we call synoptic, meaning they can be all read together because they follow the same pattern; and this pattern of the synoptic gospels requires an explanation as to why they were written so similar one to another, and this explanation needs to put one of them serving as model for the others. So far so good. Now, historians almost unanimously consider the gospel of Mark as the first to have been written, because of many reasons which I think it would be unnecessary to treat here for my argument. Even if someone is to pick a minority view of the gospel of Mark not being the first, my arguments would still be strong enough for my conclusion, so I hope I can just take for granted the Marcan priority. To add to that, most scholars also believe in an old hypothetical written source, called Q, so that both the authors of Matthew and Luke based their accounts on the gospel of Mark, and also on Q- Q is posited to explain the similarities between the gospels of Matthew and Luke which are not in the gospel of Mark.

Now, to the virgin birth and its historical problems. As said above already, this story is found only on the gospels of Matthew and Luke in the Bible. In the extrabiblical later sources in which it appears- like famously the gospel of James for example- it’s dependent on these two biblical accounts. So these two are really the only thing we have. Well, then, the first problem becomes obvious: why is it not in the earlier gospel of Mark? And also, it’s supposedly not in Q either, since, as we shall see, the two accounts we do have differ a lot one from another (so that if Q talked about a virgin birth, it was to be expected the accounts of it in Matthew and Luke would be more similar). This means so far that the earliest accounts of Jesus’ life (gospel of Mark and supposedly Q) do not have the virgin birth. It appears for the first time after these accounts were written.

And now, Paul’s epistles also don’t mention it. One could say they mention very little about Jesus’ life, which is true, but a small clue is still a clue, and, moreover, they had perhaps one ideal place they could mention it- in Galatians 4:4 (“God sent his son born of woman, born under the law”)- and yet they failed to do it. The thing is that this also points to the idea that if Paul knew about the virgin birth, he would perhaps have written it there (since God sent a son not only born of any woman, but of a virgin also, this seems worthy of a mention), and not doing so means that he probably didn’t know about a virgin birth. Of course, he may have known it and still just choose not to mention it, but as I said, this a small clue on the whole of my argument, but a clue nonetheless. In concluding, I say Paul didn’t know it, and the reason he didn’t was because it is a later legend not present in the beginning of christianity. But we will get there.

So far, what we have is this: the earliest sources we have on christianity do not mention the virgin birth. We see it for the first time in two later accounts. Now we have to examine these accounts.

First, the gospel of Matthew. It is attributed to an apostle of Jesus, Matthew, but almost no modern scholar would accept this attribution. The text is too dependent on another source- the gospel of Mark- to be the work of an eyewitness, and the traditional attribution seems to depends in part on a fragment from the church father Papias which is not very credible. In any case, even if it were written by Matthew, this would still change nothing in my argument, since Matthew wasn’t an eyewitness of Jesus’ birth after all. As for the date, since the gospel of Mark is generally thought to have been written around 70 CE, the gospel of Matthew must be after this. Now, the gospel of Luke. It was probably not written by Luke either, but as this Luke was a companion of Paul, not an eyewitness of any aspect of Jesus’ life, it doesn’t matter in the slightest.

So now we can go on to see both accounts. The surprising thing about the infancy narratives of Jesus’ life is that they agree on nothing aside from the general idea: Jesus was born in Bethlehem of a virgin named Mary, who was betrothed to a man named Joseph, in the reign of Herod. Aside, from that, they tell stories surrounding this which differ on everything. On Luke, Joseph and Mary lived in Nazareth and will travel to Bethlehem later thanks to the census of Quirinius (which I will speak about later). On Matthew they appear to live in Bethlehem. On Luke, an angel appears to Mary. On Matthew, the angel appears to Joseph. On Luke, shepherds adore the baby Jesus. On Matthew, it’s the Magi who adore him. Then only Matthew has the whole story about the flight into Egypt and the massacre of the innocents.

Some christian apologists try to defend these differences by putting on just one big account of it: so, Matthew does begin with Joseph and Mary already in Bethlehem, but it doesn’t explicitly say they lived there, which is what would contradict Luke; the angel would have appeared more than one time, first to Mary and then to Joseph; Jesus was visited both by shepherds and by magi, etc. The problem with this explanation is that it’s essentially non-historical. You don’t have this big narrative of Jesus’ birth in any text, you are making it up for the manifest purpose of justifying everything. No serious scholar accepts this. Even religious scholars admit some of the things there are legendary, while believing on the central point of the virgin birth. And now we arrive at one more problem.

There is one thing at least in each account which is at odds with the historical context at large too. For Luke, it’s the census of Quirinius. It happened on 6 CE. But the same gospel says Jesus was born during Herod’s reign, and Herod was dead by the time of the census. Worse still, the gospel says Joseph had to come back to Bethlehem for the census because his supposed ancestor, King David one thousand years ago, was from there. This absolutely makes no sense at all, neither from a practical point (imagine if we had to do that today!) nor from historical roman practice in censuses. Some apologists have invented all manners of justifying this, but again, no serious scholar will even consider it.

Now, for Matthew, it’s the massacre of the innocents. We know from the ancient historian Flavius Josephus a good deal about Herod’s reign. In no place he mentions this massacre, and he does mention a lot of terrible things Herod did. Safe to say, if he knew about the massacre, he would have mentioned it. Now, some apologist may say here that the massacre was just localized and small enough that Josephus didn’t come to know it. But, from everything else in my post, I point to the final conclusion that the simplest explanation is that it’s all legend.

And so we can conclude. The virgin birth is legend, not history, and we know that because it appears only in later accounts, which have their own problems and discrepancies, and because there was a clear reason the christian communities of the first century would come up with this legend. It was an interpretation of two texts of the Old Testament: Micah 5:2, interpreted to say the Messiah would come from Bethlehem, and the greek translation of Isaiah 7:14 (which was a faulty translation from the original hebrew meaning), interpreted to say the Messiah would be born from a virgin. There it goes.

Just for one final word, I know some religious scholars who believe in the virgin birth, and can be indeed respected in academy. But they admit to believe in it out of faith, and admit pure historical research does point otherwise. From the top of my head, if I’m not mistaken, these were the positions of Raymond Brown and of John Meier. One may have no problems with this position, but then, why be a christian at all? If God really exists and revealed christianity, couldn’t he have done it in a more obvious way, without all these difficulties?

P1: Christian god is omniscient, omnibenevolent, and omnipotent

P2: God cannot fail with respect to his desires (omnipotent)

P3: evil exists

C1: God desires evil to exist

C2: We have reached a contradiction with omnibenevolence, and therefore the original assumption that Christian god exists is false

Many Christians, not all of them, like to say that Atheists can't judge God's actions as being evil. Nor others, for we don't believe in objective morality. And without it, how could we say something is wrong? Many say.

I honestly find this topic rather futile and shallow. Saying that an Atheist can't say something is evil, because there would be no "objective morality" for me sounds a little...dumb? How have we always determined what should and should not be practiced? With personal feelings, opinions and lots of observations. Then we have come together on some periods of history to make laws, so that they can override the will of those who think differently from us, it has always been this way. The only way to say that something is evil is by using our personal opinion, feelings, and observation on how it affects society.

Because there is no morality. There is a word for it, but this is a highly adaptive human concept to define certain things. What I mean is that we have always used our own opinions, feelings and observations to see what we should or should not do, and then we classified these things as "evil" or "good".

So, yes, I can say raping is evil. Not because there is an object called evil. But because I'm using my opinion, feelings and observations to define it as something that is highly damaging to the victim and society as a whole, thus; "Evil" Many people have found it damaging as well and made it forbidden. Not based on a higher power, but on personal opinions, observation and others.

This is literally the only way for us to know what is evil or good. Because evil and good don't actually exist, we simply define these things we usually find questionable or benefitial this way. Because even if a higher power dictated what was good or evil, how would we know that their commandments were good or evil, if not by personal feelings, opinions and observations?

So, I believe the question "Can we have objective morality without God" completely misses the point. Because morality doesn't even exist. Only as a word and as a highly adaptive and ever-changing human concept. So, Atheists also have the freedom to use these words and classify something as evil or good. Not inherently evil, for evil doesn't exist, but simply evil, in the human sense of what is evil.

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.

I’m basically saying, Jesus is considered as a prophet according to

1.Passages from the New Testament

2. Prophecies from the Old Testament that Christian’s say are mentioning Jesus

And if so, considering the following,

-Prophets are only sent to the world precisely so that god doesn’t go himself

Then if,

-Jesus is a prophet, AND god, then that would defeat the whole purpose of him being a prophet because prophets are only sent to the world so that god doesn’t go himself.

So,

-Jesus is either god or a prophet, he can’t be both.

And god only sends prophets so that he himself doesn’t have to go, because if not, he would just send an angel or go himself.

Old Testament proof: Dueteronomy 18:15-19

New testament proof: Acts 3:22

Since the dynamic of the trinity with three persons in one making up the word god, functions the exact same as if one was to say three gods make up one god (like let’s say hinduism), then Christianity is polytheism and the word “persons” means absolutely nothing.

The trinity functions the same as three gods=one god because

-No one can say the difference between a person and a god

-No one can explain how the relationship between the three persons are uniquely monotheistic enough to be distinct from a possible relationship between three gods that identify as one

Three gods do not become one god because of shared goals, because if any one of them have even a sliver of indepedant thinking/acting/ability then they are three distinct beings simply cooperating, and if there is no difference in their thinking/acting/ability, then what separates a person from a person?

Thief on The Cross Contradiction

Mark and Matthew, the two thieves mock him and there is no dialogue between Jesus and the two thieves. But only in Luke does the dialogue between the two thieves take place and only one mock Jesus while the other is promised eternal life.

Matthew 27:38-44 (ESV) 38 Then two robbers were crucified with him, one on the right and one on the left. 39 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads 40 and saying, “You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, save yourself! If you are the Son of God, come down from the cross.” 41 So also the chief priests, with the scribes and elders, mocked him, saying, 42 “He saved others; he cannot save himself. He is the King of Israel; let him come down now from the cross, and we will believe in him. 43 He trusts in God; let God deliver him now, if he desires him. For he said, ‘I am the Son of God.’” 44 And the robbers who were crucified with him also reviled him in the same way.

Mark 15:27-32 (ESV) 27 And with him they crucified two robbers, one on his right and one on his left. 28 And the Scripture was fulfilled that says, “He was numbered with the transgressors.” 29 And those who passed by derided him, wagging their heads and saying, “Aha! You who would destroy the temple and rebuild it in three days, 30 save yourself, and come down from the cross!” 31 So also the chief priests with the scribes mocked him to one another, saying, “He saved others; he cannot save himself. 32 Let the Christ, the King of Israel, come down now from the cross that we may see and believe.” Those who were crucified with him also reviled him.

In both accounts, the mocking is emphasized, particularly by the crowd and the religious leaders, along with the two robbers.

The thing is one can only be true. It’s either they both mocked Jesus or only one. But which ever it may be that must mean one of the gospel accounts are not literally or historically accurate when it comes to the exactness of what happened.