Theism? Seriously? EVERYTHING from NOTHING?

[Waiting4evidence]

In a recent post, a theist grossly mischaracterized the atheist position.

Instead of accepting the simple definition that an atheist is one who does not believe in deities, he just made up the definition that an atheist is one who believes that the entire universe came from nothing.

We do not know how the universe came into existence, and we don't even know if the universe ever came into existence.

We make NO conclusion based on our ignorance of the universe's origin.

We do NOT, as per the theist's allegation, say "We don't know, therefore nothing did it". We just say "We don't know, therefore let's not pretend we know, but rather let's try to find out".

So, I am hoping we can put that bogus accusation to rest.


But there is another ramification of the theist's absurd accusation.

He (rightly) claims that it's wronng - given our current knowledge - to hold the dogmatic belief that the universe came from nothing.

At the same time, he believes that an entity much more complex than the universe exists.

So I can't help but ask. If it's absurd to think that something as complex as the universe can come into existence from nothing, then how do you account for the existence of something even more complex than the universe?

How did God come into existence? "You don't know therefore nothing did it"?

Do you see the absurdity of your position, given that you accuse atheists of holding a fatal flaw in their belief, while in reality they do not hold that belief, but you do?

[bernee51]

bernee51[/url]
Do you believe god exists (other than as a human construct)? If not do you claim to KNOW that god does not exists (or otherwise)?

a) No, I do not 'believe' god exists other than as a human construct.
b) I do not know.

If the answer to the first question is no, then you are an atheist. If the answer to the second is also no then you are also an agnostic.

I disagree, I am agnostic and I have my beliefs. I don't reject anything as an Atheist would.

Above you claim to not believe in god - that makes you an atheist.

What 'beliefs' make you an agnostic?

Much as I hate risking a false dichotomy, either you have a belief in god or you do not, there is no middle path

The defintion of agnosticism you present is also fallacious in that it confuses knowledge and belief.

Well, you're not arguing with me really here, but rather with the Merriam Webster Dictionary which is a division of the Encyclopaedia Britannica.

I prefer the Oxford Dictionary myself.

agnostic

atheist

here is another way of looking at it......

Very interesting, although you state that "you either believe in a god, or not" you then post information that grey-lines all the areas into partial beliefs.

It does not do that at all...do you know how a Venn diagram works?

I believe that some people believe there is a god, I believe that their belief in a god is nothing more than an archetypal structure and can very well exist to the person that believes in it (as do all archetypal images).

I agree entirely. If a person believes a god exists and acts as if that god exists then for all intents and purposes that god does exist for that person. If the belief aligns with the belief of others then the belief is reinforced.

We are allowed our own paradigms, I just don't have to agree with them.
Does this make it any less or more real? What IS reality?

Only that is real that does not change nor cease to exist.

What do you know of (if anything) that meets that criterion?

With that I will thank you for the interchange and bid you good night (it is 12.20am in my neck of the woods).

[Tired of the Nonsense]

In my opinion, you are Agnostic. Because you admit that you "don't know". Because you have weighed the information presented to you and decided for yourself that the information is inconclusive does not make you an Atheist. An Atheist is as blind as his opponent the Theist, in that they have based their decision on Faith and not fact.

I'm sorry, but this is silly. An atheist is someone who is without theology, a person who expressly has no belief in the existence of the supernatural. The definition is right there in the word. For any mortal human to claim that they know something to the exclusion of all possible error would require powers of infinite knowledge, powers which would necessarily be of a supernatural nature. An atheist EXPRESSLY does not believe that such abilities exist. The main difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheists tend to retain some interest in the subject of theology, while agnostics by in large just simply could care less about the whole idea. A-gnostic, without knowledge. Don't know, don't care.

[Ankhhape]

Good night, yes it was excellent debating with you . . . we'll take this up later.
Thank you.

[Ankhhape]

In my opinion, you are Agnostic. Because you admit that you "don't know". Because you have weighed the information presented to you and decided for yourself that the information is inconclusive does not make you an Atheist. An Atheist is as blind as his opponent the Theist, in that they have based their decision on Faith and not fact.

I'm sorry, but this is silly. An atheist is someone who is without theology, a person who expressly has no belief in the existence of the supernatural. The definition is right there in the word. For any mortal human to claim that they know something to the exclusion of all possible error would require powers of infinite knowledge, powers which would necessarily be of a supernatural nature. An atheist EXPRESSLY does not believe that such abilities exist. The main difference between atheists and agnostics is that atheists tend to retain some interest in the subject of theology, while agnostics by in large just simply could care less about the whole idea. A-gnostic, without knowledge. Don't know, don't care.

I believe we have already been down this street Tired.

[cnorman18]

That is one way of being Jewish. In a sense, one born Jewish is a Jew forever, but that does not obligate one to practice the Jewish religion; very many Jews leave it, and many are indifferent, as your friends may be. Some Jews proudly self-identify as Jews without having any interest in the religion whatever; Albert Einstein, Woody Allen, Isaac Asimov, and many others come to mind.

This I suppose is the heart of my question. I was born into Christianity but I no longer subscribe to the most fundamental of Christian beliefs on the existence of God and the divinity of Jesus. As a result I no longer consider myself or call myself a Christian. I know various other individuals like myself who were raised Christians but who no longer consider themselves to be such. But even atheistic Jews still consider themselves to be Jews. One never hears the claim "I used to be a Jew." The retention of a sense of identity as a special and separate people is amazingly strong even after the passage of more than three millennia.

That is because being a Jew is very much more than a matter of religious belief, and always has been. Religious belief is, in fact, optional. It is also a common heritage, which includes a deep respect and even reverence for study and learning, for critical thought, for rational debate, and of course a deep and central concern for ethics and justice -- which includes, in turn, a deep and central concern for human rights and liberty. To anticipate some of my arguments below, all that seems to conflict pretty directly with your assertions about the supposed “overriding purpose� of the Torah.

When it comes to the persistent sense of identity of Jews as Jews, the teachings of the Torah are probably a good deal less relevant than the LOOOONG history of relentless ostracism and persecution of Jews for more than two millenia. When a people is forced into isolation for centuries on end, it does tend to forge a rather strong sense of identity. Even a casual glance at Jewish history shows that, in most times and places in both the Christian and Muslim world, Jews did not constitute a part of the greater society in any sense; they were considered outsiders, everywhere. Until the Enlightenment, a Jew who lived in Germany, Poland, Spain, Egypt, or any of the many Arab sheikhdoms and states was not considered a citizen or subject of those states; he was a Jew, and that only. We were allowed to live in many of these nations only by paying tribute, an additional tax, for the privilege of existing. We were not allowed to own land, join the guilds, or, by Papal order and Imam edict, even have casual friendships with non-Jews. Jewish communities were physically separate from those of Gentiles, as well.

And in spite of all that, you will see very little bigotry or prejudice against the “outsider� in Jewish literature or tradition; indeed, the Torah itself says, in multiple places and in no uncertain terms, that it is forbidden to oppress or discriminate against the outsider in any way. There was no separate law, no separate second-class citizenship, for the non-Jew in Jewish society. “And if a stranger dwells with you in your land, you shall not mistreat him.  The stranger who dwells among you shall be to you as one born among you, and you shall love him as yourself; for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.� (Leviticus 19:33-34) This has nothing whatever to do with your “overriding purpose� of controlling the masses, and it appears multiple times in the Torah and is very heavily emphasized.

Too, the fact that Jewish identity remains a near-constant (there ARE Jews who have left the community entirely and have no interest in Judaism as either a culture or religion) even among Jews who have been atheists for generations and have no interest nor belief in Torah, rather proves, it seems to me, that the Torah’s supposed “agenda� has little to do with that fact, and probably more to do with the other factors in the Jewish heritage that I mentioned above.

You're quite welcome, but the idea that the Bible, or even any substantial part of it, carries water for the kind of political agenda you're advocating here isn't going to cut much ice with Christians, either; the liberal Christians know all the stuff I've been telling you, and the fundamentalists have their own imposed-after-the-fact agenda of their own to root for.

We were discussing the Torah.

Excuse me, but YOU brought up the fact that you regarded this debate as “practice� for debating with Christians.

And, yes, the Torah does serve a multitude of functions. It's most important overall function however was to give the Jewish tribes, which after all were not always in complete accord with each other, a sense of national unity by recounting their connected historical origins, their mutual historical tribulations, and the eventual historical triumph of their forbears. A triumph which was achieved through the divine intervention of their national god, a god who had not only delivered them from bondage but had chosen them to be his special people.

As ONE of the objectives of the Torah, I’d agree with that. But you go much farther:

To effect obedience to their national god hundreds of strictures and requirements were placed on the Jewish nation, and are detailed in the pages of "the law," the book of the Torah. Strictures which must be obeyed by all of the people all of the time, because when god's wrath falls, it falls on the entire nation. Everyone had to work together constantly to keep God's law, a condition which also served to provide a strong sense of national identify and unity. And a perfect condition for establishing and maintaining a form of national governance; an ideal situation for those in the position of governing.

Not so fast. You are clearly saying that the ONLY reason for the laws was to control the masses and maintain the power of the ruling class, no? If that were the case, then -- to cut to the chase -- why doesn’t the CORE Of the Law, the Ten Commandments, exhibit that concern even tangentially? The Ten Words are not about control; they are overwhelmingly about ethics, about treating others with justice and fairness. “Thou shalt obey the priests without question� is not in there.

Further, why are there so MANY laws that have nothing to do with that agenda? Not oppressing the stranger, the non-Jew, is just a start ; when one’s enemy’s ox falls in a ditch, one is obligated to pull it out. The rights of women in divorce are guaranteed. There are even rules given for warfare -- one may not destroy the fruit trees of one’s enemy when laying seige to one of his cities. One may not even oppress animals -- a lamb or calf may not be slaughtered in the presence of its mother, nor even a wild bird taken along with its young.

Seems there are very many concerns here that have more to do with ethics than with controlling the people. Further:

The Torah was written and revised more or less continuously over the course of several centuries, a task which required a good deal of time and effort, and indicates a strong and practical motivation for doing so. If, as we both agree, the terms and language to be found in the Torah was not "inspired" by any celestial Being, then clearly the humans who composed the Torah had a very rather human agenda in mind.

This goes back to one of my first observations. Saying that the Torah, or the entire Hebrew Bible, was not written by God is not the same thing as saying that it was consciously fabricated by conniving humans with a political agenda. The Hebrew Bible is literature. It consists of oral tradition, passed down for at least a thousand years before it was ever written down. The most important reason for most of it being included in the canon is simply that the redactors believed it to be true, in the sense of it being part of their cultural and historical heritage. There was no distinction made between “fiction� and “objective history� at that time; it was all just story, the stories told by ancestors and passed down for that reason and that reason alone. Those stories contain polemic, as we have already established; but to say that the Torah, or the Hebrew Bible, consists of nothing else that does not serve that agenda, or even that that is its PRIMARY concern, is simply and objectively false.

So if one asks the question, "who most directly benefited from the hundreds of rules and strictures which are to be found in the Torah," then the obvious and immediate answer is that the priests and the king or government were the clear beneficiaries of the terms and details established in the Torah. For the general population however, well not so much. The rules were often times quite restrictive and onerous. And yes, resentment is reflected in the other books of the Bible. The sweet heart terms accorded to the Levites in the Torah are blatantly and even shockingly self serving.

We’ll take a closer look at that in a moment.

No surprise, since clearly the Levite priests were responsible for the writing and ongoing revision of the Torah.

What is your evidence for that assertion? For starters, you are saying that the Torah’s agenda was maintaining the power and authority of the priesthood AND the monarchy. Has it not occurred to you that those are TWO agendas, not one, and they they are rather often in conflict? If “the Levite priests were responsible for the writing and ongoing revision of the Torah,� whence cometh the passages that serve the agenda of the monarchy? That’s a separate problem from the passages which speak AGAINST the power of BOTH; how did those passages stay in the Bible, if the priests were in charge of creating and revising the text?

And the Torah perfectly suited the needs of the government by insuring the obedience and conformity of the population. Not by human law, but by divine decree. No surprise then that the origins of the Torah date back to the time of Solomon, legendary for his wisdom. A written covenant with God is a brilliant solution to the problem of governing through insuring the conformity of the governed by the those attempting to govern them. There can by no resistance to the Will of God, after all.

There again, you are assuming that the whole thing was fabricated out of whole cloth with a definite political agenda in mind. Sorry, that idea just doesn’t hold water -- unless one cherrypicks passages that serve that conclusion and resolutely ignores the very many that do not, some of which we have already discussed. See above.

So does the Torah serve multiple functions? Of course it does. There is an awful lot going on in those pages. And all of those functions meld together to serve an overriding purpose... establishing and maintaining control of the Jewish population.

Nope. If it did, all those other passages, which do NOT serve that “overriding purpose,� would have been suppressed. They were not. Ergo, your “overriding purpose� was not as “overriding� as you claim.

For their own good of course. And certainly for the good of the Levites. The extent to which the Levites are singled out as the privileged class in the Torah is astounding. It also gives a good indication of just how much power they were wielding over the rest of the Jewish population that they managed to pull it off for several centuries.

Not so fast, again; as I indicated earlier, that bears a closer examination. You are ignoring the restrictions and laws placed upon the Levites themselves, first and foremost the fact that, alone of all the tribes, the Levites were given no land of their own. They had no property; no way of making a living independently of the predictably grudging support of the rest of the tribes (why do you suppose there were laws about not offering defective stock to the Temple? If it hadn’t been a problem, there would have been no need for such laws). They were not ALLOWED to be the guardians and servants of the Tabernacle, and later the Temple; they were not allowed to be anything else. The priests were not allowed to marry converts, and those who did lost their status as priests; priests were forbidden to enter certain places or to engage in certain activities; the working times of the Levites were determined by law, not by themselves; and so on.

For a “privileged ruling class,� the priests and Levites had rather fewer privileges and liberties than the ordinary folk that they supposedly ruled. What if a young Levite man just wanted to be a farmer, or a shepherd, or a craftsman? Tough break; you will serve the Temple, boy, and here are the days and times that you will do it.

What if a Levite boy wanted to grow up to be King? Tough break again; that privilege was reserved for members of the tribe of Judah -- and, in case you didn’t take notice of it, that tribe has no other exclusive privileges reserved to it at all.

The living and “income� of the Levites and the priests was fixed. Since actual wealth was never going to come to any Levite from service at the Temple, still less to any priest, even the High Priest, one wonders just how much the Levites appreciated their great “privilege� and enormous “power.�

Was the Torah written with an agenda in mind? Well, do humans do things for self serving reasons? In fact isn't this GENERALLY true? The agenda is right there in the text of the Torah itself. It's hard to miss, unless one really doesn't want to acknowledge it to begin with.

Um, sorry, that’s a polemic technique itself; you don’t get to claim that others disagree with your ideas for no other reason than that they know you’re right and just won’t admit it. Not to put too fine a point on it, but I hear that argument rather often from fundamentalists who tell me that Jews KNOW that Jesus was our Messiah, but obstinately and sinfully refuse to admit it. I’m not buying it from you, either.

YOUR assumption is that the Torah was wholly fabricated for political reasons, and that just doesn’t jibe with the nature of the documents themselves, nor with responsible Biblical scholarship from Jewish, Christian and secular sources alike.

Are people still buying into it three thousand years later? Well do Jews still consider themselves to be a special and separate people after more than three millennia?

But since that applies to Jews who are atheists and have no knowledge of nor interest in the Torah, that doesn’t seem to support your thesis. I have proposed a number of OTHER factors in the Jewish heritage, on the other hand, that do.

Further, there is a faint odor there of the “Chosen People� canard, that Jews think themselves SUPERIOR to other people. Some few do, of course; but that is not and never has been the meaning of “Chosen People,� and that has never been a teaching of the Jewish religion.

Special? What people does NOT consider itself special? Separate? That is beyond question, but the separation was not OUR doing, for the last two or three millenia.

And of course the influence of the Bible now extends well beyond the people it was originally intended for. For it's impact on world history no other work even comes close. I often say that no one should consider themselves to be truly educated who has not read the entire Bible at least once, both Old and New Testaments, and have made at least some reasonable effort to understand all that is contained there. A large order, certainly.

And I would agree with all that; but I think, still, that you are horrendously oversimplifying and falsifying the structure and nature of the Hebrew Bible, to serve your OWN overriding agenda. Once again; the idea that the Bible, or even the majority of it, was consciously and cynically fabricated to serve a political-control agenda just doesn’t stand up to examination.

Let us remember, too, that in the time and place where the Bible’s documents originated, there was no such thing as “government by the people.� ALL peoples were ruled by kings, sheikhs, tribal leaders, and the like; there was nothing like “democracy� in existence circa 1000 BCE, when the J documents were probably first conceived. Saying that a body of religious literature was consciously conceived to maintain “control of the masses,� when in fact there was no system extant that did not do just that already, is more than a little silly. Why fabricate laws that served that agenda when that mindset and culture were already in place? More to the point, why include so very MUCH material that not only did not serve that agenda, but actually worked AGAINST it?

Sorry, I'm still not buying it, and since I am no literalist and do not believe that "God wrote the Bible," I'm not buying the idea that my disagreement comes from some sort of Bible-worshipping obstinacy, either. I say, "look at the Bible as it IS, without imposing your OWN agenda and assumptions." That is what scholars have been doing for a VERY long time, and your assumption of "overriding purpose" just doesn't make the cut. PARTS of the Bible serve political agendas, certainly; but the idea that that was the raison d'être for this whole body of literature and the reason it was preserved, and that that agenda still holds sway today, is just another set of personal assumptions imposed on the Bible documents after the fact, not unlike the claim that the Hebrew Bible is all about Jesus and "salvation." The "proof" of it consists of cherrypicking, selective omissions. and misrepresentations of the actual effects, not to mention the remarkable absence of practical applications, of the laws contained in those documents. For starters, even a faint familiarity with the Prophets indicates that the "masses" of Jews were never particularly good at following these laws nor very well "controlled." If they had been, the Prophets would have had little to say. That pretty clearly wasn't the case.

[cnorman18]

It's worth noting that I myself am a convert -- 30-some years ago, I was a Methodist minister -- and I converted for precisely the kind of reasons that Goat speaks of here. My conversion was intellectually based, not emotional.

This I find intensely interesting. Presumably as a Jewish convert you reached the conclusion that Jesus is not a deity. By process of elimination therefore you no longer believe in the resurrection. What led you, a former Christian minister, to reach such a conclusion? I only ask because I reached the same conclusion myself at about age 13. But I was never a minister.

My thinking was rather from the other direction. I had always been interested in the Jewish understanding of religious and other matters, even from childhood (I was told I had a "Jewish sense of humor" before I was twelve, and told that I had a "Talmudic mind" not long thereafter). It was clear to me pretty early on that Jesus could not have been the Jewish Messiah, and that Messiah and Christ were two very different offices -- just as Judaism and Christianity are two very different religions. We share a common historical heritage, in that Jesus and many early Christians were Jews; a largely common ethic; and of course we share a body of common literature, though we read it in very different and often mutually exclusive ways. But other than that, the two faiths have little in common. They have different goals, different priorities, and different attitudes and teachings about almost every matter of "religious concern" from the nature of God and the authority of Scripture to the nature (or existence) of an Afterlife.

I have embraced the Jewish community and the Jewish approach to life and religion. My opinion on the Resurrection is no longer of any particular importance, of course, but since you ask, it was not a factor in my leaving the Christian faith, and in fact has not changed. Very many liberal Christians, particularly those who have been seminary-educated and are familiar with modern Christian theology, no longer regard the Resurrection as necessarily an objectively factual and historical event. It is often said that the "Historical Jesus" if of minor importance to the Christian religion; it is the "Christ of faith" that matters. This is nothing new. Rudolf Bultmann spoke of "demythologizing" the New Testament in the 1920s. That's really pretty routine, among mainline Protestant ministers.

My conversion to Judaism, in short, did not entail a negation of Christianity; like most Jews, I do not regard Christianity (or Islam, or any other faith, for that matter) as a "false religion." I say that it is not MY religion, and that's about as far as I go.

We're speaking here of "doctrinal" matters, of course, those of "proper belief." Judaism has no prescribed "doctrines" or "beliefs," and regards that whole business as trivial, unimportant, and a matter of personal taste. As I have put it among my Jewish friends as well as on this forum (to appreciative laughter from both), "Your new wife doesn't believe in God? That's not a problem. She serves the gefilte fish hot?!? Oy! Let's talk..."

But when it comes to the practices of other religions or sects, we feel free to comment as we choose. Picketing funerals to serve an agenda of vicious homophobic bigotry, for instance, is clearly wrong; whether or not faith in Jesus can save Christians from their sins -- on that, I have no comment and no opinion. Not my business, not my concern. "Maybe." As with most other matters, we leave judgment to God.

[East of Eden]

It's worth noting that I myself am a convert -- 30-some years ago, I was a Methodist minister -- and I converted for precisely the kind of reasons that Goat speaks of here. My conversion was intellectually based, not emotional.

This I find intensely interesting. Presumably as a Jewish convert you reached the conclusion that Jesus is not a deity. By process of elimination therefore you no longer believe in the resurrection. What led you, a former Christian minister, to reach such a conclusion? I only ask because I reached the same conclusion myself at about age 13. But I was never a minister.

My thinking was rather from the other direction. I had always been interested in the Jewish understanding of religious and other matters, even from childhood (I was told I had a "Jewish sense of humor" before I was twelve, and told that I had a "Talmudic mind" not long thereafter). It was clear to me pretty early on that Jesus could not have been the Jewish Messiah, and that Messiah and Christ were two very different offices -- just as Judaism and Christianity are two very different religions. We share a common historical heritage, in that Jesus and many early Christians were Jews; a largely common ethic; and of course we share a body of common literature, though we read it in very different and often mutually exclusive ways. But other than that, the two faiths have little in common. They have different goals, different priorities, and different attitudes and teachings about almost every matter of "religious concern" from the nature of God and the authority of Scripture to the nature (or existence) of an Afterlife.

I have embraced the Jewish community and the Jewish approach to life and religion. My opinion on the Resurrection is no longer of any particular importance, of course, but since you ask, it was not a factor in my leaving the Christian faith, and in fact has not changed. Very many liberal Christians, particularly those who have been seminary-educated and are familiar with modern Christian theology, no longer regard the Resurrection as necessarily an objectively factual and historical event. It is often said that the "Historical Jesus" if of minor importance to the Christian religion; it is the "Christ of faith" that matters. This is nothing new. Rudolf Bultmann spoke of "demythologizing" the New Testament in the 1920s. That's really pretty routine, among mainline Protestant ministers.

My conversion to Judaism, in short, did not entail a negation of Christianity; like most Jews, I do not regard Christianity (or Islam, or any other faith, for that matter) as a "false religion." I say that it is not MY religion, and that's about as far as I go.

Logically speaking, two conflicting ideas cannot both be true. Jesus Christ is either the Messiah, or He is not.

[cnorman18]

It's worth noting that I myself am a convert -- 30-some years ago, I was a Methodist minister -- and I converted for precisely the kind of reasons that Goat speaks of here. My conversion was intellectually based, not emotional.

This I find intensely interesting. Presumably as a Jewish convert you reached the conclusion that Jesus is not a deity. By process of elimination therefore you no longer believe in the resurrection. What led you, a former Christian minister, to reach such a conclusion? I only ask because I reached the same conclusion myself at about age 13. But I was never a minister.

My thinking was rather from the other direction. I had always been interested in the Jewish understanding of religious and other matters, even from childhood (I was told I had a "Jewish sense of humor" before I was twelve, and told that I had a "Talmudic mind" not long thereafter). It was clear to me pretty early on that Jesus could not have been the Jewish Messiah, and that Messiah and Christ were two very different offices -- just as Judaism and Christianity are two very different religions. We share a common historical heritage, in that Jesus and many early Christians were Jews; a largely common ethic; and of course we share a body of common literature, though we read it in very different and often mutually exclusive ways. But other than that, the two faiths have little in common. They have different goals, different priorities, and different attitudes and teachings about almost every matter of "religious concern" from the nature of God and the authority of Scripture to the nature (or existence) of an Afterlife.

I have embraced the Jewish community and the Jewish approach to life and religion. My opinion on the Resurrection is no longer of any particular importance, of course, but since you ask, it was not a factor in my leaving the Christian faith, and in fact has not changed. Very many liberal Christians, particularly those who have been seminary-educated and are familiar with modern Christian theology, no longer regard the Resurrection as necessarily an objectively factual and historical event. It is often said that the "Historical Jesus" if of minor importance to the Christian religion; it is the "Christ of faith" that matters. This is nothing new. Rudolf Bultmann spoke of "demythologizing" the New Testament in the 1920s. That's really pretty routine, among mainline Protestant ministers.

My conversion to Judaism, in short, did not entail a negation of Christianity; like most Jews, I do not regard Christianity (or Islam, or any other faith, for that matter) as a "false religion." I say that it is not MY religion, and that's about as far as I go.

Logically speaking, two conflicting ideas cannot both be true. Jesus Christ is either the Messiah, or He is not.

I have posted my personal opinion on this matter before. I personally think that Jesus may very well have been sent by God to be a "savior" for Gentiles; that is not my business, and I have no warrant to say that He did not. That is my opinion, and an offhand one at that in which I have no particular investment. I do not claim it to be fact.

But that Jesus was not the Jewish Messiah is not up for discussion. That determination may only be made by the Jewish community, and it was, two thousand years ago, and has been reaffirmed in every generation since. That's the end of debate on that subject, as far as I and other Jews are concerned.

If you don't agree, that is YOUR business, but it has nothing whatever to do with us. (The fact that some Jews become Christians is as irrelevant as the fact that some Christians, e.g. me, become Jews.)

Bottom line: Non-Jews don't get a vote on matters that have to do only with the Jewish religion. Should Christians accept non-Christians making pronouncements about what they should and should not believe?

Whether or not Jesus was the Jewish Messiah is not something I will debate any further. He wasn't.

[Tired of the Nonsense]

Sorry, I'm still not buying it, and since I am no literalist and do not believe that "God wrote the Bible," I'm not buying the idea that my disagreement comes from some sort of Bible-worshipping obstinacy, either. I say, "look at the Bible as it IS, without imposing your OWN agenda and assumptions." That is what scholars have been doing for a VERY long time, and your assumption of "overriding purpose" just doesn't make the cut. PARTS of the Bible serve political agendas, certainly; but the idea that that was the raison d'être for this whole body of literature and the reason it was preserved, and that that agenda still holds sway today, is just another set of personal assumptions imposed on the Bible documents after the fact, not unlike the claim that the Hebrew Bible is all about Jesus and "salvation."

Again, my original reference was to the five books of the Torah, not the entire Hebrew Bible. And we have both clarified our opinions on the matter, which is about the most that can be done. Thank you for the exchange.

[cnorman18]

Sorry, I'm still not buying it, and since I am no literalist and do not believe that "God wrote the Bible," I'm not buying the idea that my disagreement comes from some sort of Bible-worshipping obstinacy, either. I say, "look at the Bible as it IS, without imposing your OWN agenda and assumptions." That is what scholars have been doing for a VERY long time, and your assumption of "overriding purpose" just doesn't make the cut. PARTS of the Bible serve political agendas, certainly; but the idea that that was the raison d'être for this whole body of literature and the reason it was preserved, and that that agenda still holds sway today, is just another set of personal assumptions imposed on the Bible documents after the fact, not unlike the claim that the Hebrew Bible is all about Jesus and "salvation."

Again, my original reference was to the five books of the Torah, not the entire Hebrew Bible. And we have both clarified our opinions on the matter, which is about the most that can be done. Thank you for the exchange.

My pleasure. Were my remarks on the Resurrection helpful?