Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What are the qualifications for God to respond to human sin besides dying and rising for it and offering redemption and healing to all?

Qualifications to respond? The ability to respond is qualification enough.

You wrote in response to the Tracie Harris quote about the difference between herself and the god of the Bible is that if she could prevent the rape of a child, she would. I answered, "You're missing the point. Why isn't God doing it? And what makes it God's work if He won't?"

And now this from you. Can we just assume that when you choose to not answer a question, that you don't have an answer that you want to give?

That's understandable. I realize that there is no good answer for you and that you don't have one, which is the value of the question. Such questions that are really more of a statement than a request for information are called rhetorical questions.

The Christian claims that his god is infinitely good, and a question is asked that challenges that faith based assumption. No answer is answer enough.

And notice that you've deflected. You've turned the discussion to sin. Sure, the child rapist is sinning in the Christian sense of the word, but the moral argument is not about the rapist. It's about the rape victim and the god sitting idly by watching.

American law would find that god culpable just as it does the wives of terrorists who were aware of terrorist plots and sat idly by watching, as a recent example from the news, or a mother who sits idly by watching her boyfriend shaking her baby.

Skeptics are asking why that standard isn't appropriate for judging a god doing the same.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Which Bible "version" had the word "rape" in Deut 22, the Skeptics' Annotated? That is ridiculous.

You are also looking through your presentist lens--even Muslim apologists say multiple marriages were to defend and protect widows and not rape them.

IF you shaved off the woman's hair so she could mourn AND you were still loving her after 30 days then you MIGHT marry her and give her all rights and properties as a proper Jewish wife BUT your children wouldn't be full Israelites. It was a loaded provision.

And again, the Deut 22 can't be rape, since if a woman cried out during an assault the man was killed. Deut 22 here is a provision for consensual sex between two adults. The "he has violated her" means "he took her virginity [which she gave to take]." It's not "you break, you buy," it's "no milk without the cow being married".

The problem is we need to use common sense when looking at these passages, not presentism.

Now you're making the skeptic's argument. The moral codes of the past can be understood as purely human creations that have been evolving with man. That's a naturalistic view.

But there is no place for a god in such a process. Yet presumably, you think that the Bible is also the word of God.

So where does the god fit into your argument to apply cultural relativism and recognize that these were ancient men with limited knowledge living in a more brutal world that might justify or mitigate somewhat what appear to be moral errors by modern standards? Are you asserting that at the same time, we consider other passages the timeless words of an unchanging god? How does one choose when to toggle from one mode to the other - naturalistic to supernaturalistic? It seems arbitrary to me.

******

Regarding the passage to which you refer, it is about rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

You can review multiple translations of the first verse of that passage here at Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, . The one cited is the New International Version

Then there are these four:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered,

International Standard Version
"However, if a man meets a girl who isn't engaged to be married, and he seizes her, rapes her, and is later found out,

NET Bible
Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered.

This Bible says "seizes her"

New American Standard Bible
"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,

And many, like the KJV, say "lay hold on her"

King James Bible
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

These are describing violent, non-consensual acts. That's apparent to others. Perhaps you might want to address that, since that's the perspective of much of your audience. Bringing a faith-based white-washing to the matter using mistranslation arguments and cultural relativism isn't going to persuade such people that the god of the Bible isn't depicted permitting rape.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Luke 16 shows someone in Hell carrying on a conversation, not screaming.

There is a lake of fire, yes. Now try reading more than three words [lake of fire] and read Luke 16 to see a far more complete picture of perdition.

I see that you're in condescension mode now. Getting frustrated? I understand.

So tell me about this lake of fire - what you believe happens there and why.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What I see here is that you feel God should disallow all suffering, yet He allowed the Christ to suffer to pay for your sin and redeem you. If God disallowed all suffering, you would indeed live forever--as a fallen sinner in an imperfect world, subject to . . . suffering.

I just know what I would do if I had the knowledge and power of the god of Christian Bible. I would not have a concept of sin. I would not judge you. I would welcome all of my creatures. And I would protect them from harm and give them the best lives I could. I did that for my wife and kids, and do that now for my dogs. That is what love is in my worldview.

The Christian concept of love seems to be different.

If you are claiming that the behavior described for this god is loving, then you should be prepared to explain how that behavior reconciles with what I just described as love - how it can involve harsh judgment, intolerance of human behavior, blood sacrifice, sitting idly by watching children getting raped and murdered, and dropping souls into a lake of fire. None of those fit into my vision of love.

The atheist utopia has no suffering, no Christ, and no benefits to suffering.

Straw man. Atheism has no ideology - no world view or utopia.

Secular humanism seeks the best of all possible worlds through the use of reason and empathy. There is no claim that such a world will be utopian, just better than this one. Isn't that good enough?

By contrast, the Christian worldview is dystopian. According to the Christian narrative, the world is a horrible place and getting worse, a place which one should not be too involved. Man is a failed and spiritually sick creature getting sicker every decade as he plunges further and further into depravity and self-destruction, which is just fine, because the Christian god intends to destroy everything in a fiery apocalypse anyway.

Could a worldview be any more nihilistic or pessimistic?

I like the humanist worldview that you mock with hyperbole better. It feels better. It's more enabling and less deflating and debilitating. It give is reason to care, to hope, and to try. It gives us incentive to try to preserve our planet and find ways to get along. Where do we find that in this:

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

Do you have any thoughts about that?

*****

You mentioned the benefit of suffering. Let me share a little with you from Mother Teresa on suffering:

"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering." - Mother Teresa

Do you agree with that?

Pleas address all three questions to you.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

If 90% of religious histories are fictitious, why accept the testimony of other Jews (most of non-Messianic Jews have read not one verse of the NT) as opposed to my testimony (I've STUDIED both testaments at length, with care).

You're not going to make an ad populum argument, I hope.

Jews wouldn't study the New Testament as an authoritative work of divine provenance. Those Jews that study it - and I knew one, a Jewish professor of comparative religions whom I once studied under for a semester - study it as literature, and a work of historical and cultural importance, and nothing more.

The Jews rule out the divinity of the New Testament by the description of what it call their messiah. It misses the mark in several places. I'm sure that you're very well aware of this argument and can cite the discrepancies Jews cite off the top of your head.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

What is the Hebrew phrase used for lay hold on her, and how are you interpreting it?

Why do atheists only cite this passage--ever--and skip including the passages regarding punishment for a man who actually assaults a woman (she cries out when he takes her)?

The passages to which you refer don't apply to the ones cited. The cited passages contradict the others. Nowhere do they say anything about the woman screaming or resisting having any bearing. That would be expected if they were captives.

Why won't you own the passage? Why do you keep deflecting to contradictory passages. The biblical position on rape is defined by considering them all collectively. As usual, it offers a menu of choices. Pick the scripture that most suits your needs and try to explain why the others don't mean what they say.

 

[Thumper]

What is the Hebrew phrase used for lay hold on her, and how are you interpreting it?

Why do atheists only cite this passage--ever--and skip including the passages regarding punishment for a man who actually assaults a woman (she cries out when he takes her)?

If you think I want to get into any kind of conversation with you, you are sadly mistaken. You asked a specific question which I answered, nothing more.

 

[Fire_Monkey]

Been seeing this one a lot. We have a box but don't know what, if anything, is in it. Or we have a jar of something, but don't know if there's an odd or even amount. Supposedly, the theist position is a claim to know exactly what's in the box, or a claim to know there's an odd or even amount of things in the jar. The atheist, on the other hand, simply does not know what is in the box, or does not know if the items are even or odd.

This analogy doesn't really match the actual philosophy. Yes, gnostic theism claims to know exactly what's in the box, but theism in general simply believes *something* is in the box. However the atheist is not convinced anything is in the box, that it's likely empty. For the atheist to simply be unsure what's in the box would first require them the accept something is in it, basically an acceptance that gods exist, but no certainty on which gods or their nature. Likewise, atheists aren't arguing about whether there are an even or odd amount of gods/things in the jar, they're arguing that the jar seems empty.

Why does the minor difference matter? Atheists try to use these examples to show atheism as simply not taking a stance, rather than a belief in emptiness. This is dishonest, a twist on the position to make it seem it is not a belief. The analogy also ignores agnosticism, in order to make it seem that atheism and agnosticism are identical in the examples. Just more dishonesty, what else can be expected!

The difference is that we atheist only accept things as being true or factual if they are proven to be so. Or if, at the least, some level of observation or experimentation has shown the answer to be more likely than not.

Where as theists will take an unproven, groundless claim...like the one for a personal god, and accept it as fact just because their bible tells 'em so. Or because they were taught to believe that way as kids.

This is why we will never be wrong about what inside your hypothetical box. We will never presume to know the answer until we have investigated the matter through the proper, scientific, empirical method.

Where as Theists, just as they do with god, will take their chosen answer with simply a groundless leap of faith. And so, just, again, as with their notions of gods and heaven and hell, be proven wrong when the true answer is revealed.

FM

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Then how does a particular moral value become an objective moral value? How can there be such a thing?

Once upon a time, rape, as commanded in the Old Testament, was acceptable under certain circumstances. If it was commanded by God, it had to be righteous. (Divine Command Theory of ethics)

At some point, the idea that rape is never right began to ascend. That minority position surely would have been deemed a subjective moral principle at that time. Somehow, today, it is being called an objective moral principle. That sounds like going from subjective to objective to me.

From an objective point of view, rape is detrimental to the well being and survival of a society and its citizens. It was always objectively wrong.

Let's try a different tack. Is it an objective moral truth that lying is wrong?

I'm sure that you can see where I'm going. I'm going to propose a contrived situation analogous to the German hiding Jews in Nazi Germany and being asked by the SS agent if there are Jews in the house.

Can we do the same for the value "Rape is immoral"? Can it ever be trumped by another consideration? How would you judge a man who was ordered to rape his daughter, who was also prisoner in the same room in the same room, or they would both be killed. Suppose that the woman would rather die, and would not cooperate, but the man wanted them both to live.

Or the last two people on earth were a fertile man and woman, and she refused to procreate with him willingly. How would you judge his choice to impregnate her anyway?

The reason I ask is not because I am defending the idea that rape can be moral, but that to say that it is objectively immoral might be problematic if it can be deemed not immoral in contrived circumstances.

To repeat, this is not about right and wrong, but about subjective and objective.

 

[Curious George]

Then how does a particular moral value become an objective moral value? How can there be such a thing?

Once upon a time, rape, as commanded in the Old Testament, was acceptable under certain circumstances. If it was commanded by God, it had to be righteous. (Divine Command Theory of ethics)

At some point, the idea that rape is never right began to ascend. That minority position surely would have been deemed a subjective moral principle at that time. Somehow, today, it is being called an objective moral principle. That sounds like going from subjective to objective to me.



Subjectively objective? Is that the same as objective? That's the language we've been discussing. What are we claiming is true when we call a moral principle objectively right? Does an objective moral principle exist outside of minds like the rest of objective reality?

I don't know what subjectively objective means, but if you call it the closest approximation we have to objective, then I think you saying that there are no objective moral principles, that they are subjective, but as they become more universally agreed upon, they approach universality, which is being called objective reality.

Do any moral principles have a reality outside of minds? Are they disembodied universal principles like gravity that awaited the evolution of minds capable of discerning them, a kind of ethical platonism? That's the claim in some theologies. Christians claim to hold what they variously call objective and absolute moral imperatives, and they mean rules of conduct that existed before and outside of our universe.

Does that sound correct? Do we understand one another?

I am suggesting that we cannot know anything apart from our subjective existence therefore on some level everything can be said to be subjective. This goes for your lemonade as well as what you ought to do.

When we talk about specifics such as rape, we are not discussing something that is objectively immoral. Objectively immoral would exist regardless of society, culture, location. They are abstract principles that are so because of evolution. They are fundamental parts of how we process the world and are what gives rise to our subjective morality.

 

[Thumper]

Here's a fascinating tidbit --

There's this Filipino hill tribe called the Ilongots, who are headhunters and who believe that war is immoral. They said, "How can one person tell others to give up their lives, to put themselves so at risk that it's highly likely they'll lose their lives?" That is their moral threshold.
Of Headhunters and Soldiers

In order to argue for "objective morals" one would have to show that there is a moral precept that spans all high order species, or at least most. This would of course include major primates and possibly some others which we consider "civilized".

Without this baseline, the most that can be said is that our morals are subject to our human understanding of the value of life and societal cohesion. (Which seems fine to me.)

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

I am suggesting that we cannot know anything apart from our subjective existence therefore on some level everything can be said to be subjective. This goes for your lemonade as well as what you ought to do.

When we talk about specifics such as rape, we are not discussing something that is objectively immoral. Objectively immoral would exist regardless of society, culture, location. They are abstract principles that are so because of evolution. They are fundamental parts of how we process the world and are what gives rise to our subjective morality.

We might be coming to an agreement here.

 

[ArtieE]

Let's try a different tack. Is it an objective moral truth that lying is wrong?

I'm sure that you can see where I'm going. I'm going to propose a contrived situation analogous to the German hiding Jews in Nazi Germany and being asked by the SS agent if there are Jews in the house.

Can we do the same for the value "Rape is immoral"? Can it ever be trumped by another consideration? How would you judge a man who was ordered to rape his daughter, who was also prisoner in the same room in the same room, or they would both be killed. Suppose that the woman would rather die, and would not cooperate, but the man wanted them both to live.

Or the last two people on earth were a fertile man and woman, and she refused to procreate with him willingly. How would you judge his choice to impregnate her anyway?

The reason I ask is not because I am defending the idea that rape can be moral, but that to say that it is objectively immoral might be problematic if it can be deemed not immoral in contrived circumstances.

To repeat, this is not about right and wrong, but about subjective and objective.

Are you confusing objective with universal? It is objectively wrong to rape somebody when the act is more detrimental than beneficial to the well-being and survival of the society and its citizens. If theoretically the act was more beneficial to the well-being and survival of the society and its citizens than detrimental it would be objectively right. Just like killing is sometimes objectively right and objectively wrong. The reason we say rape is wrong is because it is generally detrimental.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I don't agree that any law was suspended at the Big bang and don't know where you got that from. What I wrote in response to your comment, "the Law of Conservation of matter and energy is a pretty good indication that special creation occurred" was, "Not to me. What would a god need with a law like that? A god could create or destroy matter and energy at will. A godless universe running on autopilot needs laws if it is to be orderly and comprehensible."

I don't know what a law being open to intervention means. Did you mean interpretation?

And you might consider answering the question asked of you. What would an amnipotent god need with an energy-matter conservation law? There would be the amount of matter and energy wherever it wanted it whenever it wanted it, and the total could be more or less than yesterday - noconservation.

Why isn't the idea of a law of conservation of matter and energy an equally good if not better indication that the universe is godless and is unfolding unconsciously, unplanned and undesigned, under the influence of a handful of laws and constants that arose at random during the symmetry breaking events that characterized the initial instants of the Big Bang?



I have always agreed to that possibility. Most atheists do, although only in the same sense that they are agreeing to the possibility of anything that cannot be shown to be impossible.

In fact, I did so yesterday on this thread at Just Addressing Yet Another Absurd, Dishonest Atheistic Argument

"But regarding generic gods in general, there is no evidence against them, There is no test, measurement, argument, observation, or algorithm that can rule out gods in general."

Would you try to make an effort to learn what an atheist is and what he believes? You'd be a much more effective representative for your faith. Making mistakes, especially the same ones repeatedly, undermines your ethos.

In the study of argumentation, ethos refers to how the writer or speaker is perceived by his audience. It's a combination of perceptions such as, Is he knowledgeable about that which speaks? Is he fair? Is he polite? Can he be trusted? Does he have any unstated purpose? - in short, his character and credibility.

This is all separate from the argument or message itself (logos). If you're not perceived favorably, your message will probably not be well received. You start off at a disadvantage.

You roam over a number of points above, some of them contradicting others.

I meant intervention from God, not interpretation. The Law of C&M is considered inviolate except for when it wasn't, at the time of the Big Bang. It is admitted that there was no universe as we know it, then there was. This is called by theologians creatio ex nihilo.

I'm not particularly tied to the Big Bang. I believe in the Genesis account. Fortunately for us, however, in most all points, Big Bang theory aligns with Genesis beautifully.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Qualifications to respond? The ability to respond is qualification enough.

You wrote in response to the Tracie Harris quote about the difference between herself and the god of the Bible is that if she could prevent the rape of a child, she would. I answered, "You're missing the point. Why isn't God doing it? And what makes it God's work if He won't?"

And now this from you. Can we just assume that when you choose to not answer a question, that you don't have an answer that you want to give?

That's understandable. I realize that there is no good answer for you and that you don't have one, which is the value of the question. Such questions that are really more of a statement than a request for information are called rhetorical questions.

The Christian claims that his god is infinitely good, and a question is asked that challenges that faith based assumption. No answer is answer enough.

And notice that you've deflected. You've turned the discussion to sin. Sure, the child rapist is sinning in the Christian sense of the word, but the moral argument is not about the rapist. It's about the rape victim and the god sitting idly by watching.

American law would find that god culpable just as it does the wives of terrorists who were aware of terrorist plots and sat idly by watching, as a recent example from the news, or a mother who sits idly by watching her boyfriend shaking her baby.

Skeptics are asking why that standard isn't appropriate for judging a god doing the same.

I did answer the question. But you disliked the answer.

Jesus was tortured, bled and died for the sins that both the rapist and rape victim have committed and will commit.

Your question was "why didn't God intervene or respond"?

He did.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Now you're making the skeptic's argument. The moral codes of the past can be understood as purely human creations that have been evolving with man. That's a naturalistic view.

But there is no place for a god in such a process. Yet presumably, you think that the Bible is also the word of God.

So where does the god fit into your argument to apply cultural relativism and recognize that these were ancient men with limited knowledge living in a more brutal world that might justify or mitigate somewhat what appear to be moral errors by modern standards? Are you asserting that at the same time, we consider other passages the timeless words of an unchanging god? How does one choose when to toggle from one mode to the other - naturalistic to supernaturalistic? It seems arbitrary to me.

******

Regarding the passage to which you refer, it is about rape.

Deuteronomy 22:28-29 - "If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay her father fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the young woman, for he has violated her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."

You can review multiple translations of the first verse of that passage here at Deuteronomy 22:28 If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married and rapes her and they are discovered, . The one cited is the New International Version

Then there are these four:

Holman Christian Standard Bible
If a man encounters a young woman, a virgin who is not engaged, takes hold of her and rapes her, and they are discovered,

International Standard Version
"However, if a man meets a girl who isn't engaged to be married, and he seizes her, rapes her, and is later found out,

NET Bible
Suppose a man comes across a virgin who is not engaged and overpowers and rapes her and they are discovered.

This Bible says "seizes her"

New American Standard Bible
"If a man finds a girl who is a virgin, who is not engaged, and seizes her and lies with her and they are discovered,

And many, like the KJV, say "lay hold on her"

King James Bible
If a man find a damsel that is a virgin, which is not betrothed, and lay hold on her, and lie with her, and they be found;

These are describing violent, non-consensual acts. That's apparent to others. Perhaps you might want to address that, since that's the perspective of much of your audience. Bringing a faith-based white-washing to the matter using mistranslation arguments and cultural relativism isn't going to persuade such people that the god of the Bible isn't depicted permitting rape.

I guess the issue here is, one of us has studied the original languages of the Bible, and has a degree in biblical studies and religion.

The other is making a case from one witness statement, "Verse X says rape!" and is ignoring witness two, "Put male rapists to death".

Please don't be a judge or juror, although you'd make a heck of an attorney for someone to sift the facts of a case.

 

[BilliardsBall]

I see that you're in condescension mode now. Getting frustrated? I understand.

So tell me about this lake of fire - what you believe happens there and why.

I believe what happens there is best described in Luke 16. Have you read it yet?

 

[BilliardsBall]

I just know what I would do if I had the knowledge and power of the god of Christian Bible. I would not have a concept of sin. I would not judge you. I would welcome all of my creatures. And I would protect them from harm and give them the best lives I could. I did that for my wife and kids, and do that now for my dogs. That is what love is in my worldview.

The Christian concept of love seems to be different.

If you are claiming that the behavior described for this god is loving, then you should be prepared to explain how that behavior reconciles with what I just described as love - how it can involve harsh judgment, intolerance of human behavior, blood sacrifice, sitting idly by watching children getting raped and murdered, and dropping souls into a lake of fire. None of those fit into my vision of love.



Straw man. Atheism has no ideology - no world view or utopia.

Secular humanism seeks the best of all possible worlds through the use of reason and empathy. There is no claim that such a world will be utopian, just better than this one. Isn't that good enough?

By contrast, the Christian worldview is dystopian. According to the Christian narrative, the world is a horrible place and getting worse, a place which one should not be too involved. Man is a failed and spiritually sick creature getting sicker every decade as he plunges further and further into depravity and self-destruction, which is just fine, because the Christian god intends to destroy everything in a fiery apocalypse anyway.

Could a worldview be any more nihilistic or pessimistic?

I like the humanist worldview that you mock with hyperbole better. It feels better. It's more enabling and less deflating and debilitating. It give is reason to care, to hope, and to try. It gives us incentive to try to preserve our planet and find ways to get along. Where do we find that in this:

"We don't have to protect the environment, the Second Coming is at hand" - James Watt, Secretary of the Interior under Reagan (note his position ad responsibilities)

Do you have any thoughts about that?

*****

You mentioned the benefit of suffering. Let me share a little with you from Mother Teresa on suffering:

"There is something beautiful in seeing the poor accept their lot, to suffer it like Christ's Passion. The world gains much from their suffering." - Mother Teresa

Do you agree with that?

Pleas address all three questions to you.

**
Secular humanism seeks the best of all possible worlds through the use of reason and empathy. There is no claim that such a world will be utopian, just better than this one. Isn't that good enough?

No, it isn't good enough, since I'm offering a look at a utopian world. No, it isn't good enough on Earth because secular humanism hasn't reduced crime rates or anything else. I appreciate those parts of humanism that emphasize achievement and self-actualization, but neither self-mortification nor meditation nor humanism can add self-control to a sinner. Jesus helps.

**
Could a worldview be any more nihilistic or pessimistic?

You do paint a horrible picture there, except this is wrong: "According to the Christian narrative, the world is a horrible place and getting worse, a place which one should not be too involved." I'm fully involved, as they say at Firehouse Subs. Did you read the gospels? Jesus was more than fully involved. Jesus's disciples are to all be fully involved. Give me true premises and I'll try to answer your questions better. I know atheists are indeed pessimistic, but Christians, optimistic. Both perspectives are backed by worldview for sure.

**
Do you have any thoughts about that?

The Christian is to be a steward of the environment. Adam and Eve were stewards of creation. Revelation says God will punish men in part for "the harm they have done to the Earth".

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

Are you confusing objective with universal?

Maybe, but I don't think so. Why do you ask?

It is objectively wrong to rape somebody when the act is more detrimental than beneficial to the well-being and survival of the society and its citizens. If theoretically the act was more beneficial to the well-being and survival of the society and its citizens than detrimental it would be objectively right. Just like killing is sometimes objectively right and objectively wrong. The reason we say rape is wrong is because it is generally detrimental.

I think we're going in circles. I agree with your moral judgements, just not about what to call such ideas. To me, all of this is fundamentally subjective, and therefore, the word objective doesn't apply. It all requires making a judgment call. There is no external standard to turn to in moral judgments. We can only look to ourselves and one another for answers.

 

[BilliardsBall]

Jews wouldn't study the New Testament as an authoritative work of divine provenance. Those Jews that study it - and I knew one, a Jewish professor of comparative religions whom I once studied under for a semester - study it as literature, and a work of historical and cultural importance, and nothing more.

The Jews rule out the divinity of the New Testament by the description of what it call their messiah. It misses the mark in several places. I'm sure that you're very well aware of this argument and can cite the discrepancies Jews cite off the top of your head.

Jews = All Jewish people.

Me = A Jew.

The word "some" would make this post less hurtful to my feelings.

You say "the Jews" because you are outside. I say "we Jews" from the inside.

Know this--all the NT authors were Jews. They believed and died.