The 'New' Number One Reason We Know there is No God . . . :D

[Danmark]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_re ... traditions lists a very length assemblage of religions and cultures. I submit it is woefully incomplete. It is a fair assumption that the only ones that made it on the list are one's we have historical references to. This assertion is self defining. We can assume there were/are thousands more we are not aware of.

The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

[cnorman18]

Never mind about the link, I just find a nice online Torah to read.

Just skimming through Leviticus I don't see where it's any different from the Christian Old Testament.

All through it is keeps saying:

"And the Lord spoke to Moses saying,...."

And then it goes on to describe how people must behaving and the Lord is telling people how to behave through Moses.

So where do the Jews get off saying, "Well we don't take that literally".

What's that supposed to mean? The texts are clearly stating that God is telling Moses what to say to people. How can you dismiss that by saying that you don't take it literally?

Why can't YOU understand that you are still INSISTING that we take it literally, and that we look at the Bible as carrying an ultimate authority that a work of LITERATURE simply cannot claim to have? And that you do so by using a literal reading of the Bible YOURSELF as the reason for your insistence?

Why won't you respond to my contention that you are therefore BEGGING THE QUESTION on reading the Bible literally?

You STILL haven't responded to a single one of my questions or arguments. Not one.

You haven't even acknowledged that you present a rigid, up/down dichotomy here -- either we read the Bible as the absolute and authoritative Word of God, or we discard it completely -- never mind trying to JUSTIFY that false choice. You haven't responded to my entirely factual remarks about the nature of Judaism in Jesus's day, including the FACT that Jesus came out of the Pharisaic tradition himself.

Strangely, you DO acknowledge the untrustworthiness of Paul -- while still clinging to the idea that the NT, for which Paul's ideas were primarily responsible, is a legitimate source for knowledge about Judaism.

You know so little about these subjects that you apparently, even now, did not know that the Torah and the first five books of the Christian Old Testament are essentially IDENTICAL. That would indicate that you also don't know that the difference is not in the WORDS, but in how they are UNDERSTOOD.

I say over and over again; you can't determine the teachings of the Jewish religion by an unaided reading of the Bible, but you continue to insist that that is all you need.

Amazingly, you STILL claim that your views are supported by the fact that we Jews have never loudly and emphatically proclaimed that the NT is a distortion of Judaism. Do you not remember my noting that there might have been a REASON for that silence -- that the Jews have, for centuries on end, been a tiny minority in overwhelmingly Christian (or Muslim) lands, where they were ALREADY under constant, unrelenting and often murderous persecution, even WITHOUT adding fuel to that fire?

Really, now. You haven't presented a new argument on this subject in months; you just keep repeating your NT conclusions and your literal, surface reading of the Biblical text. Nothing else. At the same time, you have NEVER, NOT ONCE, responded to or rebutted any of my own arguments, preferring simply to repeat your mantras and shibboleths.

I give up. Read a BOOK on the subject, DI. Start with Judaism for Dummies, or Milton Steinberg's Basic Judaism, or The Idiot's Guide to Understanding Judaism. The first and third are not insults; they are very good books, and the fact that there is a NEED for them rather clearly demonstrates that there are many misconceptions about my religion around.

None of these books are heavy going; Steinberg's in particular is rather short, and is intended to teach the basics to laypeople, not scholars or clergy.

Why won't you just pick up one of these and read it? It's a reasonable suggestion, given the intensity of our arguments here. I've read Hitchens, Dawkins, and any number of other books in response to debates here -- and I have learned a lot thereby.

I'll call it a CHALLENGE. Will you take it? Will you ACTUALLY READ one of these books -- and take it seriously as an attempt to LEARN something, as opposed to merely SKIMMING it for ammunition -- and get back to me? After all, if I'm wrong, you'll then be well equipped and prepared to prove it.

I'm laying down that challenge right now. Pick one -- I have others I can recommend easily -- and read it. If you won't, I'll feel free to continue to challenge you every time you make a statement that is provably and clearly FALSE about the nature and history of my religion, and I'll continue to point out that you have NOTHING to back up your statements here but your own assumptions, prejudices, and objectively unsupported opinions.

Will you do it? If not, why not? Is there something that you're afraid of, or don't WANT to know?

I can't think of any other reasons, since "I already know all I need to" isn't a legitimate claim, and you wouldn't take that stand on ANY OTHER SUBJECT (and by the way, that is yet ANOTHER argument of mine that you've refused to answer).

So there it is. I challenge you to READ A BOOK on Judaism, and then revisit all your claims and contentions.

Let me add this; like you, this isn't personal for me. But I am mystified at your bizarre refusal to actually ENGAGE on this subject, as opposed to merely continuing to exhibit your lack of knowledge and your paucity of understanding. Here's a chance for you to prove me wrong. WIll you go for it, or back away?

ETA: I'll even personally GIFT you one of these books, either a print edition or, for Judaism for Dummies, an online E-book. Your choice. I'll put up my money for this challenge. Will you give a little time?

The challenge is there on the table. Will you pick it up?

[Divine Insight]

Why can't YOU understand that you are still INSISTING that we take it literally, and that we look at the Bible as carrying an ultimate authority that a work of LITERATURE simply cannot claim to have? And that you do so by using a literal reading of the Bible YOURSELF as the reason for your insistence?

What you have just said here makes no sense Charles.

The Bible does claim to be the word of God. In other words this is LITERATURE that claims to be the word of God.

You are the one who is refusing to accept what the LITERATURE is Literally Claiming.

Moreover, if is it the Jewish position that Jews don't take this stuff to have seriously come from any God, then all you are suggesting to me that the Jews may as well be using something like the tales of Cinderella as the basis of their religion.

You seem to be acting like you can totally ignore that these stories claim to be instruction from a God, all the while you paradoxically act like it should be considered some sort of cultural RELIGION.

That is total inconsistency as far as I'm concerned.

Why won't you respond to my contention that you are therefore BEGGING THE QUESTION on reading the Bible literally?

And where do you get off demanding that what the Bible LITERALLY has to say can be totally ignored and waved-off like as if it isn't even making any such claims.

I honestly can't see how you can be serious.

You STILL haven't responded to a single one of my questions or arguments. Not one.

That's because you keep misrepresenting my position.

You haven't even acknowledged that you present a rigid, up/down dichotomy here -- either we read the Bible as the absolute and authoritative Word of God, or we discard it completely -- never mind trying to JUSTIFY that false choice.

I think it is a valid dichotomy.

You either accept that the Bible has something to do with the will and commandments of a God (as the Bible LITERALLY claims that is does), or you reject that in which case you have just reduced it to having no more spiritual validity than Peyter Cottontail hopping down the Bunny Trail.

I mean you either accept it is the word of God (as it claims) or you reject it.

How can you claim to have some other vague middle-of-the-road interpretation?

So from my perspective, YES, it does come down to an ON/OFF dichotomy. You either believe it is the directives of some God or you don't.

You haven't responded to my entirely factual remarks about the nature of Judaism in Jesus's day, including the FACT that Jesus came out of the Pharisaic tradition himself.

It's irrelevant. This is again a false claim of yours. I'm not demanding that the New Testament defines Judaism and I never have. I also don't accept your claim that Jesus came out of the Pharisaic tradition. I think that is highly controversial, and I'm quite sure that there are many theologians who would argue otherwise.

In fact, Jesus clearly believed in an afterlife and a Heaven and supposedly the Pharisaic Jews did not. I personally feel that if this man Jesus actually existed he was not in harmony with the beliefs of the Pharisees. If he taught in their synagogs it was more likely that he had simply been born into the Pharisaic sect. But that doesn't mean that he agreed with it.

Also, I don't see anywhere in the New Testament that Jesus was ever officially ordained or accepted as one of the Pharisees to teach in their synagogues as a rabbi. I always got the impression he was just speaking out on his own, not with any authority of being a rabbi.

It seems to me that if Jesus has been an rabbi he would have had other rabbi friends who would have taken his side on some of these issues.

Strangely, you DO acknowledge the untrustworthiness of Paul -- while still clinging to the idea that the NT, for which Paul's ideas were primarily responsible, is a legitimate source for knowledge about Judaism.

It was Mark and John who proclaimed that Jesus was the son of God, not Paul.

My view of the New Testament is mainly focused on the four gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. I reject Paul entirely. I don't consider Paul's writing to even be among the "Gospels".

I was always taught that there are FOUR Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The writings of Paul are not considered to be part of the Gospels. That's always been my understanding of Christianity.

You know so little about these subjects that you apparently, even now, did not know that the Torah and the first five books of the Christian Old Testament are essentially IDENTICAL. That would indicate that you also don't know that the difference is not in the WORDS, but in how they are UNDERSTOOD.

Hey, that's exactly what I thought.

My point is that these texts clearly state that God is speaking all of these directives and commandments through Moses, etc.

What is there to UNDERSTAND? These texts claim that God is directing all of this.

For you to suggest to me that we can simply sweep that under the carpet and pretend that it isn't so under some pretense that we can interpret them to be saying something other than this is, well quite frankly, absurd.

I don't see where you have a case for your arguments.

As far as I can see all you are trying to convince me of is that the Jews should be able to pretend that these ancient texts don't really mean what they say at all, and they can pretend that they are saying something else.

That's utter nonsense.

Like I say, the Christians have been pulling that same baloney too. It doesn't hold water, IMHO.

I say over and over again; you can't determine the teachings of the Jewish religion by an unaided reading of the Bible, but you continue to insist that that is all you need.

And again I reject that as being baloney.

All you are basically telling me is that I need to ignore what these texts actually say and be "brainwashed" by a Jewish Rabbi or whatever to believe that they are saying something other than what is actually written in the text.

The Christians make precisely these same claims. They claim that non-Christians can't read the Bible and understand it. The only way to understand the Bible is through Christian Brainwashing sessions called "Bible School".

I've been to Christian Bible School and trust me, it's nothing but absolutely absurd and lame excuses to deny everything the Christians don't want to believe and support everything they would like to believe.

I'm sure the Jews are basically doing the same sort of thing.

I don't buy into the excuse that non-religious people can't read these texts properly. That's utter baloney.

Besides, if you claim that it's NOT the word of any God, then why should I care what your interpretations even are?

You may as well be telling me your interpretation of what you think the Lord of The Rings means.

Why should I even care if it has nothing to do with any God?

At least the Christians are claiming that their Bible is the word of God, thus giving other people to supposedly care what it has to say.

But your Jewish arguments are totally absurd. You claim that the Bible is NOT the word of God and then claim that I need a Jewish Rabbi to understand stand it?

But what's to understand if it's not the word of any God?

Why should anyone care what the Bible says if it's just the ramblings of ancient Jews?

Amazingly, you STILL claim that your views are supported by the fact that we Jews have never loudly and emphatically proclaimed that the NT is a distortion of Judaism.

No that's not what I said (unless I made a typo which is very possible)

What I was asking was why haven't the Jews loudly and emphatically proclaimed that the Christian OT is a distortion of Judaism?

But you have since confessed that it's not. In fact, you have stated that it's basically identical. Which is precisely what I had originally believed to be true.

So I rest my case.

The OT claims to be the "Word of God" (and we can restrict this to the first 5 books of the OT which is more than sufficient)

If Jews claim that Judaism does not claim to be the "Word of God" then it's the Jews who are deluding themselves. Because the first 5 books of the OT most certainly do claim to be the words and directives of God.

The Jews are clearly wrong about their own religious texts.

[cnorman18]

Why can't YOU understand that you are still INSISTING that we take it literally, and that we look at the Bible as carrying an ultimate authority that a work of LITERATURE simply cannot claim to have? And that you do so by using a literal reading of the Bible YOURSELF as the reason for your insistence?

What you have just said here makes no sense Charles.

The Bible does claim to be the word of God. In other words this is LITERATURE that claims to be the word of God.

You are the one who is refusing to accept what the LITERATURE is Literally Claiming.

Moreover, if is it the Jewish position that Jews don't take this stuff to have seriously come from any God, then all you are suggesting to me that the Jews may as well be using something like the tales of Cinderella as the basis of their religion.

You seem to be acting like you can totally ignore that these stories claim to be instruction from a God, all the while you paradoxically act like it should be considered some sort of cultural RELIGION.

That is total inconsistency as far as I'm concerned.

Why won't you respond to my contention that you are therefore BEGGING THE QUESTION on reading the Bible literally?

And where do you get off demanding that what the Bible LITERALLY has to say can be totally ignored and waved-off like as if it isn't even making any such claims.

I honestly can't see how you can be serious.

I can't believe that you can't see what is right in front of your eyes.

Yes, the Bible DOES claim to be the Word of God.

ACCEPTING that claim would be reading the Bible LITERALLY, and not as a work of LITERATURE.

Can't you see the problem there? Can you LITERALLY not SEE it?

You STILL haven't responded to a single one of my questions or arguments. Not one.

That's because you keep misrepresenting my position.

So tell me HOW I'm doing that! In every case here, you CONFIRM my understanding of your position as ENTIRELY ACCURATE. If I'm wrong, tell me WHY and HOW.

All you've been doing is REPEATING the same old circular arguments ("Bible is literature, but it says it's the Word of God, so you have to read it that way, and not as literature") and empty appeals to the NT and to the literal text of the Bible. You're doing it again RIGHT HERE.

You haven't even acknowledged that you present a rigid, up/down dichotomy here -- either we read the Bible as the absolute and authoritative Word of God, or we discard it completely -- never mind trying to JUSTIFY that false choice.

I think it is a valid dichotomy.

You either accept that the Bible has something to do with the will and commandments of a God (as the Bible LITERALLY claims that is does), or you reject that in which case you have just reduced it to having no more spiritual validity than Peyter Cottontail hopping down the Bunny Trail.

I mean you either accept it is the word of God (as it claims) or you reject it.

How can you claim to have some other vague middle-of-the-road interpretation?

So from my perspective, YES, it does come down to an ON/OFF dichotomy. You either believe it is the directives of some God or you don't.

Well, thanks for admitting that.

Now explain to me why OTHER books that AREN'T the Word of God can have value, and why the Bible CAN'T.

THAT'S the false dichotomy. There IS something between "literal Word of God" and "totally worthless fable." I don't understand why you can't see that THAT is irrational, either.

Hey, the Iliad claims to be literal truth, too -- the gods and goddesses of Olympus coming down and interfering in human affairs. I'll bet you don't demand that THOSE claims be accepted as literal truth or the book discarded as trash. Or do you?

You haven't responded to my entirely factual remarks about the nature of Judaism in Jesus's day, including the FACT that Jesus came out of the Pharisaic tradition himself.

It's irrelevant. This is again a false claim of yours. I'm not demanding that the New Testament defines Judaism and I never have. I also don't accept your claim that Jesus came out of the Pharisaic tradition. I think that is highly controversial, and I'm quite sure that there are many theologians who would argue otherwise.

FINALLY you appeal to an authority outside your own mind.

Fine. Find me some legitimate theologians, historians, or Bible scholars who agree with you on that. Oh, it's not hard to find fundamentalists who are enraged by the idea; but most scholars agree that Jesus's teachings had far more to do with the Pharisees' approach than with any other group at the time.

Want some sources? Okay. Look here -- "It is generally accepted that in most of his beliefs and practices, Jesus was closer to the Pharisees than to other contemporary groups..." and, further down, ""To understand the teaching of Jesus... one must be open to the teaching of the Pharisees, for in many ways he showed himself to be one of them."

And here -- "Jesus was sufficiently Pharisaic in general outlook to consider the Pharisees as true heirs and successors of Moses. Although Jesus would probably not have defined himself as a Pharisee, his beliefs, especially his moral beliefs, are similar to the Pharisaic school of Hillel which stresses the love of God and neighbor."

And of course here; "Some have speculated that Jesus was himself a Pharisee and that his arguments with Pharisees is a sign of inclusion rather than fundamental conflict (disputation being the dominant narrative mode employed in the Talmud as a search for truth, and not necessarily a sign of opposition). Jesus' emphasis on loving one's neighbor (see Great Commandment), for example, echoes the teaching of the school of Hillel. Jesus' views of divorce, however, are closer to those of the school of Shammai, another Pharisee."

Okay; now what have YOU got?

In fact, Jesus clearly believed in an afterlife and a Heaven and supposedly the Pharisaic Jews did not.

Uh, no, it was the Sadducees who denied the Resurrection. That's clear even in the NT itself. Wrong again.

I personally feel that if this man Jesus actually existed he was not in harmony with the beliefs of the Pharisees. If he taught in their synagogs it was more likely that he had simply been born into the Pharisaic sect. But that doesn't mean that he agreed with it.

Also, I don't see anywhere in the New Testament that Jesus was ever officially ordained or accepted as one of the Pharisees to teach in their synagogues as a rabbi. I always got the impression he was just speaking out on his own, not with any authority of being a rabbi.

There was no "ordination" then.

It seems to me that if Jesus has been an rabbi he would have had other rabbi friends who would have taken his side on some of these issues.

Then you'd be arguing with the NT itself again. The disciples addressed him as "rabbi" rather often -- I guess you didn't know that, either. Want the references? Okay: Matthew 26:25, 26:41, 26:49; Mark 9:5, 10:51, 11:21; 14:45; John 1:38, 1:49, 3:2, 3:26, 4:31, 6:25, 9:2, 11:8, 20:16.

Strangely, you DO acknowledge the untrustworthiness of Paul -- while still clinging to the idea that the NT, for which Paul's ideas were primarily responsible, is a legitimate source for knowledge about Judaism.

It was Mark and John who proclaimed that Jesus was the son of God, not Paul.

My view of the New Testament is mainly focused on the four gospels of Mark, Matthew, Luke and John. I reject Paul entirely. I don't consider Paul's writing to even be among the "Gospels".

I was always taught that there are FOUR Gospels. Matthew, Mark, Luke and John. The writings of Paul are not considered to be part of the Gospels. That's always been my understanding of Christianity.

You don't acknowledge that the ENTIRE New Testament was heavily influenced by Paul's writings, which predate the Gospels and indeed everything in the NT? You really don't know that -- even though I mentioned that FACT in my last?

You know so little about these subjects that you apparently, even now, did not know that the Torah and the first five books of the Christian Old Testament are essentially IDENTICAL. That would indicate that you also don't know that the difference is not in the WORDS, but in how they are UNDERSTOOD.

Hey, that's exactly what I thought.

My point is that these texts clearly state that God is speaking all of these directives and commandments through Moses, etc.

What is there to UNDERSTAND? These texts claim that God is directing all of this.

For you to suggest to me that we can simply sweep that under the carpet and pretend that it isn't so under some pretense that we can interpret them to be saying something other than this is, well quite frankly, absurd.

So, once again, you DEMAND that these books be read LITERALLY or not at all.

Thanks for clarifying.

I don't see where you have a case for your arguments.

I quite agree; you DON'T see. You don't see a LOT of things, even though they're right in front of your eyes. Like, for instance, what the word "LITERATURE" actually means.

As far as I can see all you are trying to convince me of is that the Jews should be able to pretend that these ancient texts don't really mean what they say at all, and they can pretend that they are saying something else.

That's utter nonsense.

Of course it is; and that's why I've never said that.

I said that we don't grant those texts the AUTHORITY that you DEMAND that we grant them. That's quite different from saying that they "say something else."

Like I say, the Christians have been pulling that same baloney too. It doesn't hold water, IMHO.

There you go, equating Jews with Christians again, and assuming that we are the same -- out of a pure lack of comprehension of these ideas.

I say over and over again; you can't determine the teachings of the Jewish religion by an unaided reading of the Bible, but you continue to insist that that is all you need.

And again I reject that as being baloney.

All you are basically telling me is that I need to ignore what these texts actually say and be "brainwashed" by a Jewish Rabbi or whatever to believe that they are saying something other than what is actually written in the text.

No. I'm saying that if you're going to study ANY ancient text, whether it be the Bible, the Vedas, the Analects, the Ugaritic texts, or even a medieval manuscript, you'd consult a commentary, a scholarly study edition, or some other study aid, in order to understand -- not the plain meaning of the words, but their SIGNIFICANCE to those who first read them, and, in this case, to those who read them today.

You keep saying I'm trying to convince you that these texts don't say what they actually say. That is a plain falsehood. I'm trying to help you understand that we don't accept them as AUTHORITATIVE or BINDING today, and that in point of fact, they probably never WERE regarded in that way, at least as far back as BEFORE Jesus's day. That's NOT a fine distinction, and you keep trying to blur it and put those words in my mouth.

The Christians make precisely these same claims. They claim that non-Christians can't read the Bible and understand it. The only way to understand the Bible is through Christian Brainwashing sessions called "Bible School".

I never said that non-Jews can't read the Bible and understand it; I've often referred to consulting Christian and secular/academic scholars as well as Jewish ones. This isn't about doctrinal correctness; it's about HISTORY and SCHOLARSHIP and understanding the development of belief and practice.

What it's NOT about is a LITERAL READING and KOWTOWING TO a collection of ancient documents, which you keep saying is the ONLY way it can or should be understood.

I've been to Christian Bible School and trust me, it's nothing but absolutely absurd and lame excuses to deny everything the Christians don't want to believe and support everything they would like to believe.

I'm sure the Jews are basically doing the same sort of thing.

Then, as I say, you haven't been listening -- only ASSUMING that Jews are just like Christians. You even ADMIT that your views of Judaism are colored by your experiences with Christians, but you won't even begin to consider what that might MEAN, as far as your own misconceptions and misunderstandings are concerned.

And I am about to PROVE that, through YOU.

I don't buy into the excuse that non-religious people can't read these texts properly. That's utter baloney.

Good, because I agree, and I've never said any such thing.

Besides, if you claim that it's NOT the word of any God, then why should I care what your interpretations even are?

You may as well be telling me your interpretation of what you think the Lord of The Rings means.

Why should I even care if it has nothing to do with any God?

Beats me. Do you think I'm trying to CONVERT you? I'm just trying to get you to see that there might be another perspective on the Bible, and in fact there IS such a perspective in the Jewish religion. I don't care if you AGREE or not; but it's beyond ludicrous that you continue to deny that such a thing is even POSSIBLE.

At least the Christians are claiming that their Bible is the word of God, thus giving other people to supposedly care what it has to say.

But your Jewish arguments are totally absurd. You claim that the Bible is NOT the word of God and then claim that I need a Jewish Rabbi to understand stand it?

Please quote me directly where I said that.

But what's to understand if it's not the word of any God?

Why should anyone care what the Bible says if it's just the ramblings of ancient Jews?

Why should anyone care what Euclid says, or Aristotle, or Shakespeare, or ANYONE, if those books are just the ramblings of old guys in another historical epoch?

Can't you see the INSANITY of that kind of statement?

Amazingly, you STILL claim that your views are supported by the fact that we Jews have never loudly and emphatically proclaimed that the NT is a distortion of Judaism.

No that's not what I said (unless I made a typo which is very possible)

What I was asking was why haven't the Jews loudly and emphatically proclaimed that the Christian OT is a distortion of Judaism?

But you have since confessed that it's not. In fact, you have stated that it's basically identical. Which is precisely what I had originally believed to be true.

I think I've made it clear that the Jewish approach to READING it is NOT identical. Again, that's NOT a fine distinction, and it's also perfectly true.

So I rest my case.

Not quite yet, you don't. See below.

The OT claims to be the "Word of God" (and we can restrict this to the first 5 books of the OT which is more than sufficient)

If Jews claim that Judaism does not claim to be the "Word of God" then it's the Jews who are deluding themselves. Because the first 5 books of the OT most certainly do claim to be the words and directives of God.

The Jews are clearly wrong about their own religious texts.

Enough of these unsupported claims and uninformed judgments.

I have issued a CHALLENGE to you. I will PAY FOR any one of three (or more) books on basic Judaism, if you will agree to READ it. You can even say ahead of time that you will read it in order to prove your contentions and judgments RIGHT and my own contentions to be WRONG. I'm putting my money where my mouth is; all you have to risk is a little of your time.

Will you accept that challenge, made at MY expense?

Or will you just ignore the challenge, refuse to acknowledge it, and pretend it wasn't issued, as you did just now?

(Sorry about the font change. I just wanted to make sure you SAW it. Let's not ignore it this time, OK?)

[EduChris]

...The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

You seem to imagine that the "God" question is primarily an intellectual one. For most people of faith, the issue is not primarily intellectual, but rather subjective, affectual, emotional. The non-theistic worldview is similarly a matter of subjective, emotional preference (thus the high level of emotional vehemence exhibited by many non-theist posters on this and other similar forums).

Anyway, given the above, it would seem that the choice of "Which god(s)?" has been narrowed down to today's major world theisms--those faith traditions which still have a viable following today. Such would include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and perhaps a few more, depending on your criteria. Going further, I would say that the God of Judaism is one and the same as the God of Christianity. The eastern religious traditions provide an alternate perspective, but these differing perspectives need not be thought of as incompatible with the Biblical perspective. Other theistic traditions have all but died out, due to the fact that the ancient notion of contingent gods has been unable to compete in the religious marketplace for the past 1500 years or so.

Islam is a unique case, but for me all of the signs point to one individual's (i.e., Mohammad's) calculated effort to co-opt Judaism and Christianity for militaristic purposes.

[The Quick]

[Replying to post 1 by Danmark]

Firstly I would defer to this conference I attended a couple of years ago:

I believe Ravi gives a more than adequate answer.

Secondly, an argument from diversity hardly makes a much better reason than the last Number One Reason

The mere existence of different worldviews does not discredit Christianity. If I were to think up a hundred alternate theories of how the universe began would that dissuade you in your mind at all from the Big Bang?

[Zzyzx]

.

...The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

You seem to imagine that the "God" question is primarily an intellectual one. For most people of faith, the issue is not primarily intellectual, but rather subjective, affectual, emotional.

I agree that the choice of gods and worship practices is EMOTIONAL (and its derivatives) rather than reasoned or intellectual.

The non-theistic worldview is similarly a matter of subjective, emotional preference (thus the high level of emotional vehemence exhibited by many non-theist posters on this and other similar forums).

Correction: It is not emotional to say "I have encountered no reason to accept that any of the proposed 'gods' exist."

Anyway, given the above, it would seem that the choice of "Which god(s)?" has been narrowed down to today's major world theisms--those faith traditions which still have a viable following today.

Why must a "true god", if such exists, be one favored by a currently popular major religion?

Since no major (or minor) religion can provide compelling evidence that their favorite god is real, there is no sound reason to favor one over others.

Unless – popularity is the preferred selection criterion

[Danmark]

...The question for debate is, "Why is YOUR particular version of "God" correct and the tens of thousands, or millions, of others wrong?

You seem to imagine that the "God" question is primarily an intellectual one. For most people of faith, the issue is not primarily intellectual, but rather subjective, affectual, emotional. The non-theistic worldview is similarly a matter of subjective, emotional preference (thus the high level of emotional vehemence exhibited by many non-theist posters on this and other similar forums).

Anyway, given the above, it would seem that the choice of "Which god(s)?" has been narrowed down to today's major world theisms--those faith traditions which still have a viable following today. Such would include Judaism, Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, and perhaps a few more, depending on your criteria. Going further, I would say that the God of Judaism is one and the same as the God of Christianity. The eastern religious traditions provide an alternate perspective, but these differing perspectives need not be thought of as incompatible with the Biblical perspective. Other theistic traditions have all but died out, due to the fact that the ancient notion of contingent gods has been unable to compete in the religious marketplace for the past 1500 years or so.

Islam is a unique case, but for me all of the signs point to one individual's (i.e., Mohammad's) calculated effort to co-opt Judaism and Christianity for militaristic purposes.

Do you have some evidence that "the high level of emotional vehemence exhibited by many non-theist posters" actually exists, or exists at a level greater than that of theists? Theists have been banned here at a much higher rate than non theists due to their refusal to follow the rules, generally about making personal attacks.

To me the question of whether this theistic God exists is primarily factual, not emotional or 'intellectual.' As to why most theistic traditions have 'died out' I suggest it is because their cultures have died out. Religion is purely a creature of culture. When those cultures die or are assimilated by a larger one, their religions share the same fate. For me, the religion is not the key, the version of it is. This primitive fundamentalist version that mistakes the symbol for reality; that worships the messenger instead of the message, is the "religion" that is most false and most dangerous.

[Danmark]

I have issued a CHALLENGE to you. I will PAY FOR any one of three (or more) books on basic Judaism, if you will agree to READ it. You can even say ahead of time that you will read it in order to prove your contentions and judgments RIGHT and my own contentions to be WRONG. I'm putting my money where my mouth is; all you have to risk is a little of your time.

Will you accept that challenge, made at MY expense?

Or will you just ignore the challenge, refuse to acknowledge it, and pretend it wasn't issued, as you did just now?

Do you have a particular three in mind? Preferably one available in a Kindle edition. I would guess you could direct us to an appropriate online site, or Ebook in the public domain.

[EduChris]

...Do you have some evidence that "the high level of emotional vehemence exhibited by many non-theist posters" actually exists...

I think we all pretty much know who the anti-theistic zealots are on this forum. Just look at those who start the majority of threads here.

...or exists at a level greater than that of theists?...

The point is that the subject is an emotional one for many, regardless of which side of the fence they're on.

...Theists have been banned here at a much higher rate than non theists due to their refusal to follow the rules, generally about making personal attacks...

Well, that's one explanation...

...To me the question of whether this theistic God exists is primarily factual...

That's a bit like deciding whether chocolate or vanilla tastes better, strictly based on the "facts." Faith (or lack thereof) is a subjective matter of the heart. The facts can be interpreted in numerous ways, and our interpretations tell us what sort of person we are.

...As to why most theistic traditions have 'died out' I suggest it is because their cultures have died out...

Christianity has been adopted by more people in more cultures on more continents and in more languages and across more socio-economic-ethnic boundaries than any other faith tradition.

...Religion is purely a creature of culture...

Religion also shapes cultures, so it cannot be "purely a creature of culture."

...For me, the religion is not the key, the version of it is. This primitive fundamentalist version that mistakes the symbol for reality; that worships the messenger instead of the message, is the "religion" that is most false and most dangerous.

Perhaps.

[Danmark]

For example the practice of keeping the 'Word of the Lord' bound on the head or body by use of Tefillin or phylacteries.

And here I have to shake my head in astonishment and drop it to my desk with a feeling of deeply depressing futility.

Tefillin, small leather boxes containing certain specific quotes from the Torah handwritten on parchment and mounted on leather straps, are worn on the left arm and head in morning services, except for Sabbath services, by both Orthodox and Conservative Jewish males of post-Bar Mitzvah age -- and even by some Reform Jews. I have a set myself; I rarely wear them, or "lay" them as we say, since I rarely go to weekday morning services. They aren't required; many men don't bother -- but those who regularly attend morning minyan are likely to be older, retired men who are devoted to the traditions of the faith, and most will wear them. There is no deep belief significance or mystical or magical aspect to them; they are just a convention, like wearing a yarmulke -- or a coat and tie to Christian services, for that matter.

How has my question about Tefillin demonstrated "ignorance" that moves one to "a feeling of deeply depressing futility." Was my description inaccurate? I would not dispute or be surprised that, depending on the individual, the laying or not laying of the Tefillin would have differing significance. I am well aware that there are Christian blogs and individuals who only see Jewish customs from the point of view of Jesus' criticism in Matthew:

“Everything they do is done for men to see: They make their phylacteries wide and the tassels on their garments long; 6 they love the place of honor at banquets and the most important seats in the synagogues; 7 they love to be greeted in the marketplaces and to have men call them ‘Rabbi.’"

This criticism is likely apt in some cases, certainly it applies to Christians who wear their beliefs on their sleeves, dangle large crosses from their necks and tote Bibles wherever they go, "praising the Lord" for any event that strikes their fancy; the boxer who has just inflicted brain damage on his now unconscious opponent, "Gives the Glory to God;" the football player who points to the sky when he scores a touchdown.[/img]