Read more carefully, you'll see that's pretty much what I said. I was explaining to Pyro that not everyone who believes in a Deity is a Christian, therefore his argument was invalid in this thread because we're not debating the merits of Christianity here, we're debating the existence of Deity.



First off, I'd like to ask you not to say things like, "the problem with what you believe." It's pretty condescending. Perhaps try, "The point at which I disagree with your beliefs" next time.

Also the Buddha is not a god. Buddha's actually a title (like Christ is a title, it's not Jesus' last name), meaning, if I remember correctly, "Enlightened One."

The Bible says a lot of things that not only I, but many contemporary Christians, no longer agree with, and I believe that that is because the Bible, like any holy text ever written in any religion, is fallible. It was written by men, no matter Who or What it was inspired by, and men are fallible, and men have their own goals in mind. "Thou shalt have no other God before me," is, I believe, one example of where men messed up the Bible, and I even believe I can deduce their motive for so doing: at that time, people's societal structure was based around religion. If you have converts who worship only one god, your society is more powerful than it might otherwise have been.

I am not saying that I have all of religion and God figured out. I think my belief system is pretty close though. But I don't think any person on the planet, nor any religion at all, has it completely right. And I do believe that God is too important, too incomprehensible to the human mind, too loving, too good, too understanding, to care what name I call Him, Her or It by, because really, getting mad when someone messes up your name is pretty petty.

As a side note: I think you should run your posts through a spell check and a grammar check before you put them in the thread next time.

Not all, but almost all contemporary Christians believe in the infallibility of the Bible in some form (if not the inerrancy).

Again, the majority of Christians do not believe this. If the Bible were divinely inspired, it wouldn't be corrupt in its underlying message.

It's not the name of God that's important; it's the character. It cannot be argued that all conceptions of God are equally correct because some conceptions are contradictory.

I should have been more clear and I apologize for the confusion on one point, that being that many of the Christians I know don't agree with certain parts of the Bible, but not necessarily with my own belief that it "like any holy text ever written, is fallible."

Most of the Christians I know agree that some passages of the Bible (mostly, as I am given to understand, the Old Testament) are at least outdated.

Just a few examples:

Exodus 35:2: Six days shall work be done, but on the seventh day there shall be to you an holy day, a sabbath of rest to the LORD: whosoever doeth work therein shall be put to death.

Deuteronomy 21:18-21: 18If a man have a stubborn and rebellious son, which will not obey the voice of his father, or the voice of his mother, and that, when they have chastened him, will not hearken unto them:

19Then shall his father and his mother lay hold on him, and bring him out unto the elders of his city, and unto the gate of his place;

20And they shall say unto 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.

21And all the men of his city shall stone him with stones, that he die: so shalt thou put evil away from among you; and all Israel shall hear, and fear.

Deuteronomy 22:13-21: 13If any man take a wife, and go in unto her, and hate her,

14And give occasions of speech against her, and bring up an evil name upon her, and say, I took this woman, and when I came to her, I found her not a maid:

15Then shall the father of the damsel, and her mother, take and bring forth the tokens of the damsel's virginity unto the elders of the city in the gate:

16And the damsel's father shall say unto the elders, I gave my daughter unto this man to wife, and he hateth her;

17And, lo, he hath given occasions of speech against her, saying, I found not thy daughter a maid; and yet these are the tokens of my daughter's virginity. And they shall spread the cloth before the elders of the city.

18And the elders of that city shall take that man and chastise him;

19And they shall amerce him in an hundred shekels of silver, and give them unto the father of the damsel, because he hath brought up an evil name upon a virgin of Israel: and she shall be his wife; he may not put her away all his days.

20But if this thing be true, and the tokens of virginity be not found for the damsel:

21Then they shall bring out the damsel to the door of her father's house, and the men of her city shall stone her with stones that she die: because she hath wrought folly in Israel, to play the whore in her father's house: so shalt thou put evil away from among you.

If I am not mistaken, there are parts of the Bible which also advocate slavery, but I don't know those passages, so I may be mis-remembering.



It's not the underlying message with which I disagree. It is certain points in the Bible that I disagree with. Examples include but are not limited to those listed above, as well as the "sin" of homosexuality (but that's a conversation for another debate entirely and I won't go into that here), the concept of Hell as a place of eternal suffering, and the "no other God before me" part.

This is a point at which I admittedly disagree with the majority of Christians. Perhaps I should have been more clear earlier in my post: Many of the Christians whom I personally know today agree that parts of the Bible are outdated, but my own beliefs are my own, and not held by most contemporary Christians.

And so far as the underlying beliefs go -- I think almost every religion, Christianity included, has that part right. Love the Divine, live well, treat people well. It's in the details that I believe every religion, including my own beliefs, is incapable of perfection.



It is my belief that all of humanity's conceptions of Deity are to some degree or another incorrect.

I've stated several times that in my own opinion, no religion has it 100% right. It is my belief that all Deity is One, that humanity anthropomorphizes Deity to better understand the Divine (because I believe that the Divine is too vast and complex an entity for the human mind to encompass), and it is those anthropomorphic faces of Deity (constructs of humanity to try to relate better to the Divine) which contradict, not Deity itself.

I know that my belief in this regard is contradictory to Christian beliefs (and, indeed, to many other beliefs), and I have never stated otherwise. I've only stated what I believe. And I have always stated my beliefs as such -- as belief, never as fact.

And now, as I have done in other posts in which Christianity has been a topic of discussion, I'm going to add this disclaimer:
I've never been Christian. It's been a long time since I've studied Christianity. If I referenced Christian beliefs or Biblical verses and made an error in those references, I apologize -- those errors, if they are there, are mistakes, and at no point am I attempting to distort, skew, or purposely misrepresent anything. If I have made such errors, please point them out and explain them to me.

^ Personally, I don't believe that the Bible tells us to live well, I don't believe it has anything to do with morals, I don't believe that it has anything to do with rules. I find that the Bible mentions what the rules are, I find that the Bible says that morals and stuff are sown in our heart, I find that the Bible says that people tried to be better people, but never once does it really tell me that I have to be a good person or that I have to have morals or that I have to follow the rules to make it to Heaven.

Edit: I will say this, though - the Bible does say that a Christian will walk the path of a Christian (meaning not out of necessity) because it is a spiritual impossibility for a Christian to not do so (like how it is a physical impossibility to jump off of a wall and float. It just doesn't happen).

At risk of merging threads, this is not inherently a leap you can make. Lets take a few theoretical elements for granted so I can make a point:

1) There is a God, and It is the God of the Judeo-Christian tradition
1b) An important aspect here is that God is all-powerful, all-knowing, and eternal
2) This God divinely inspired the Bible
3) The Bible was created as a method of God to communicate and lead Its creations, not for some unknown purpose which could be supposed rhetorically

If you make those assumptions, which as a Christian one almost certainly has, then one can certainly say that some aspects of the Bible are outdated or incorrect without saying the Bible is fallible. God is all-knowing and eternal, It would have known how to inspire a book so that it would be interpreted in certain ways at certain times. In fact, It would have known which passages you would accept and which you would reject and therefore could have made the book seemingly contradictory to approach different people at different times with different messages. It would have to have done this, or the book would be hardly useful considering the plethora of interpretations of scripture starting before Christ's death.

So the book wouldn't be fallible, and you would be unable to misinterpret it.

I thought that the Ten Commandments, things like "Thou Shalt not Kill," were rules for living well? As well as (I believe it was Jesus himself who said these) loving thine enemy and turning the other cheek. Those all appear to me to be moral guidelines and rules.

If I've misread or misinterpreted these, or been misinformed, and they are not actually rules or guidelines, I apologize.



Firaro didn't say that; I did, and I am not a Christian.

And I have explained that I, personally, believe that fallible men wrote the Bible, even if they did have Divine Inspiration, and I believe that nothing that a human being can do can be infallible. Not only are humans fallible, they have free will, and there is another agent through which mistakes can be and often are made.

I accidentally deleted the wrong quote bracket, my mistake.

By "you" I meant "the proverbial you." As in, if somebody is a Christian they do not need to believe that the Bible is fallible to interpret scripture. I am not a believer, either, and therefore I see the Bible as highly fallible. But from the Christian frame of reference, those internal inconsistencies can be justified logically within the rules of their world-view.

The Ten Commandments were laws, and laws are to guide, not a "do" and "don't do" list. He gave it to them so that the people following Moses would know how to have a relationship with God, since they were under Egyptian influence and religion for so long.

I'm going to have to disagree with you there, Oasis. I can't see how it's *not* a do/don't do list.

Do:

• Remember the Sabbath
• Honor your parents

Don't:

• Worship other gods
• Take the name of the Lord in vain
• Murder
• Be adulterous
• Bear false witness
• Covet neighbor's wife or things

I'm not prepared to argue whether the Bible as a whole is prescriptive or descriptive, but the 10 Commandments are very clear that you should or should not do certain things.

^ It's ok, many people get that misconception because of how it looks.

Edit: it is not a list that determines how one gets to Heaven, it is a list that tells the Israelite people what the differences between the Egyptian and Jewish people are. Jewish people don't Worship other gods, they don't murder, they don't cheat on their wives, etc. That is how it is meant to be read.

The Old Testament is focused on the Law as a reminder of God's covenant with Israel (and more broadly, humanity). But the Law is not the fulfillment of the covenant, of God's promise to bring redemption. The Law is and was a reminder that we need redemption. All the commandments of the Old Testament, including the Ten Commandments, while often (though not always) useful guidelines for living a righteous life, are not the central message of the Bible. Christ and his relationship with us humans is the central message. Ultimately the Gospel is the story of Jesus' gift of salvation and a call to follow Christ.

But they're still Commandments. Things to do or not to do. Whether or not they are deciding factors in entry to Heaven, they're still things that God said to do or not to do...

Guys, can we keep the debates over Christianity to one of the four other threads that shouldn't have turned into a debate about Christianity alone but did anyway?

We're talking about the existence of god, not the existence of the Christian god.

True, but in this case rather than someone coming in and saying, "God can't be real because Christianity isn't true," which was the case earlier (though I paraphrased) when the thread was de-railed, this time it kind of happened naturally in the flow of conversation, and was relevant when it began.

Yes, but Christians only have to convince others that the Christian god exists. Atheists have to convince others that the Christian,Muslim,Hindu...etc. probably do not exist.

So it's much easier to just stick to Christianity, which is the most popular religion.

What is God? We can't discuss the issue of God's existence meaningfully unless we've come to an agreement of what we mean by the term, which is difficult if not impossible.

I don't think that the point of this discussion is to "convince" anyone of anything. Let people respectfully voice their own opinions and beliefs without trying to convert anyone else to or from anything else. This is a discussion, not an argument or a proselytizing mission.



I'd tend to disagree. In my opinion, people who believe in a God or any Deity can agree with one another that there is a higher power, and can individually explain why they believe that, without having to agree on the specific details of that higher power; people who don't believe in any higher power can disagree, and explain why they disagree, without necessarily having to categorically explain why they disagree with every religion.

Fine then, what is this "higher power". That's a metaphor of course. Does it mean that which is responsible for the universe's existence? Does it mean the universe as a whole? Does it mean a very great mortal being who most influences events in the universe? Does it mean some sort of underlying universal principle? Does it mean a group of distinct and competing beings of great power? Does it mean a perfect and united entity who created and loves us?

These are non-trivial when we're talking about the existence of something called God. Yes, there are shared experiences and feelings among many theists, and these commonalities are very, very significant. But I think you may also underestimate to some degree the differences between them.

IMNSHO, neither one is evil. Both are hindered by our limited understanding as humans. A perfect understanding would reveal both are one and the same. "Truth is truth, no matter the source." -annon.

All that I am saying is that people can get together and agree or disagree on whether they believe in a higher power regardless of how they see that higher power.

If they then want to debate the specifics of how they view the higher power, that's fine. And if they debate those specifics with respect for one another's beliefs rather than arguing, then it's an interesting conversation.

I don't see God the same way that you do. But you and I can both agree that we believe that there is a Deity; in my own opinion, I think that the fact that two people with different beliefs can agree on something that fundamental is important, even if there are many more things that we don't agree on.

I don't underestimate the differences. I accept them, and I know that the differences in the details define the specific faiths, but in my opinion having faith at all is the most important thing. I choose to make the differences points of interesting conversation rather than points of contention, and I personally think it's sad that others view this as a naive quality on my part. I think if more people would try to focus on what people have in common, and view the differences as something interesting to learn about other people regardless of whether you agree or not, there would be less strife.

I still maintain that we need not be even talking about the same thing when we say "higher power". For all you know, my definition of God could be an all-powerful evil being, which would certainly be a different kind of faith.

I think that you have been missing the point of what my belief is, perhaps I'm not explaining it well enough.

I think that there is one higher power. I think that the various ways in which people view or worship that higher power are their or their religions' interpretations of that higher power. I think that some people and religions have a closer idea than others, and in my own belief, if you did worship an all-powerful evil being, that understanding of the higher power would be your interpretation, and in my opinion it would be a much less correct interpretation than other interpretations which exist.

But this is just how I view Deity and religion; these are my own, personal beliefs. I'm not trying to change your mind or make you agree with me, it just seems to me that you have been misunderstanding the nature of my belief (I'm not offended that you disagree with me, but I'd rather at least have someone understand what I'm saying and disagree with me, than misunderstand and disagree with their misunderstanding), or else I have not been communicating clearly enough.

Also, I still maintain that it doesn't matter whether we're talking about the same higher power or not. We have belief. That's what this thread is about. It's about belief in the existence of a Deity. We don't have to agree on what that Deity is like; this is just a forum for discussing whether or not we believe in a Deity, and why or why not.

I think belief in certain types of deity are possibly more or less justified than others. Since this is an existence of God discussion, it makes sense to me to clarify which god one is discussing before attempting to argue for or against its existence.

I suppose that, in regards to having to limit the view of Deity before discussing whether or not one believes that a Deity exists, I will simply have to respectfully disagree with you.

Very well.