I ran across your site somehow. I have been a Christian all my life, at least up until the last couple of years. I decided that one could research religion the way one researches other topics. Faith would withstand the logical research, if it was true.

I find the discussions about Biblical inconsistencies trite, as well as the rebuttals. When you stand back and look at the Bible, as if looking at it from the outside for the first time, you realize how absurd the stories really are. For example, I always wondered why the God of Moses was so impotent. The God who created the universe in 6 days, all the world and all the creatures in it, had to resort to turning a staff into a serpent in order to impress Pharaoh enough that he would let God's people go. He then turned strong enough to part the waters of the Red Sea with his breathe. I could go on and on.

Let me assure you of one thing: I don't want to separate anyone else from his or her religion. I just don't want to spend the rest of my life chanting the mantra of the apostles' creed while the potential answer to the secrets of the universe are within my reach.

Let me give you one example of what I would call "examining the lint in one's navel" while missing the lecture of the "master."

Here is your response to the discussion regarding Exodus 20:13 and "thou shalt not kill."

"There are other cases of God ordering the Israelites to kill, but I'll just show this one (which is the one most often used by those trying to claim contradiction). In its original Hebrew, the exodus passage commands us not to murder. Not all killing is murder. In the case presented here, a large group of Israelites were trying to lead Israel away from God. Had they been allowed to live, all of Israel would have perished. God was essentially ordering Israel to prune itself of a branch which would have destroyed it, which is very justified. Not a contradiction."

This clearly shows that we are willing to be assimilated into a religion that was meant for a small tribe. "...Israel would have perished." I have heard the same argument used to justify Exodus 31, and the killing of the male children while letting the female children live. The males would have been a threat. One apologist explains that the killers were really being kind to the male children by killing them, rather than letting them grow up and oppose Israel and it's God.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't fit my definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful God. Such a creature would have been able to teach Israel some small mind control method to change the behaviors of the male children, rather than slaughter them. I watched a show called the "Dog Whisperer" in which a professional dog trainer spends about 30 minutes with a problem dog and turns them around. God should have been able to do this with some impressionable kids. This just shows that Israel, Judaism, and modern apologists, can justify the killing of innocents to preserve a chosen people. God help us now if we are not among God's chosen!

Danny

Hello,

I ran across your site somehow. I have been a Christian all my life, at least up until the last couple of years. I decided that one could research religion the way one researches other topics. Faith would withstand the logical research, if it was true.

I completely agree.

I find the discussions about Biblical inconsistencies trite, as well as the rebuttals.

I kind of agree there, too. I made the "Contradictions" pages about a decade ago. Believing what I believe now, I wouldn't bother making such a page today. If there are minor errors or inconsistencies in the Bible, it's not a big deal. Just because the authors were inspired by God doesn't mean they were perfect.

When you stand back and look at the Bible, as if looking at it from the outside for the first time, you realize how absurd the stories really are. For example, I always wondered why the God of Moses was so impotent. The God who created the universe in 6 days, all the world and all the creatures in it, had to resort to turning a staff into a serpent in order to impress Pharaoh enough that he would let God's people go.

Unless what God did ended up not working out for the best, I don't see what the point in questioning it is. God could have done something bigger, or something smaller. But as long as what God did ultimately worked, who cares? Obviously He knew what He was doing.

He then turned strong enough to part the waters of the Red Sea with his breathe.

Wait, are you saying that on the day God turned the serpent into a staff, God was too weak to part the waters of the Red Sea? Where on Earth are you getting that idea? That God didn't do something bigger on "serpent-to-staff day" is hardly evidence that God was UNABLE to do something bigger, but only evidence that something bigger was unnecessary for His purposes. The smaller miracle was about God's motivation, not about His power.

I could go on and on.

Okay, but can you point me to where God did something which clearly didn't work out for the best in the long run? Or anything which suggests that a miracle that God performed was inadequate for His purposes?

Let me assure you of one thing: I don't want to separate anyone else from his or her religion. I just don't want to spend the rest of my life chanting the mantra of the apostles' creed while the potential answer to the secrets of the universe are within my reach.

I agree that we should always be exploring the secrets of the universe, and keep an open mind. But keep in mind that we're all too limited to ever fully comprehend it all.

Let me give you one example of what I would call "examining the lint in one's navel" while missing the lecture of the "master."   Here is your response to the discussion regarding Exodus 20:13 and "thou shalt not kill."

"There are other cases of God ordering the Israelites to kill, but I'll just show this one (which is the one most often used by those trying to claim contradiction). In its original Hebrew, the exodus passage commands us not to murder. Not all killing is murder. In the case presented here, a large group of Israelites were trying to lead Israel away from God. Had they been allowed to live, all of Israel would have perished. God was essentially ordering Israel to prune itself of a branch which would have destroyed it, which is very justified. Not a contradiction."

This clearly shows that we are willing to be assimilated into a religion that was meant for a small tribe.

Jesus was FROM a small tribe, not FOR a small tribe. The Israelites were the people from whom the Savior for billions of people would arise, so their preservation was essential.

"...Israel would have perished." I have heard the same argument used to justify Exodus 31, and the killing of the male children while letting the female children live. The males would have been a threat. One apologist explains that the killers were really being kind to the male children by killing them, rather than letting them grow up and oppose Israel and it's God.

I disagree that this was an act of kindness towards them, but would say that it was about preserving Israel. Whether, in hindsight, the kids dying younger was better for them personally is hard to say, but that certainly wasn't the motivation for the actions. Giving eternal life to billions was the motivation.

I'm sorry, but this doesn't fit my definition of an all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful God. Such a creature would have been able to teach Israel some small mind control method to change the behaviors of the male children, rather than slaughter them. I watched a show called the "Dog Whisperer" in which a professional dog trainer spends about 30 minutes with a problem dog and turns them around. God should have been able to do this with some impressionable kids.

You seem to think that if God didn't do such-and-such, that means that God was too weak or impotent to do it. Is that right? Personally, I think this is more about God's motivation. God could have used "mind control" techniques on those little kids, or on anyone on Earth, but it would defeat the purpose of His giving us free will. If God favors mind control, Why doesn't He just do mind control on all of us, and make us all do exactly what He wants us to do? That absolutely would assure that all of us get into Heaven, so, yes, you could argue that an all-powerful, all-knowing, merciful God should be doing mind control on us. But what the point of being human at all if we aren't given choices? God's never going to force anyone to be on His side, since that would make the CHOICE to be on His side meaningless.

This just shows that Israel, Judaism, and modern apologists, can justify the killing of innocents to preserve a chosen people.

The problem with a non-believer's approach to the issue is that they (understandably) don't credit God as being the author of life, yet credit Him (at least in terms of the story) as ending their lives, so they're kind of viewing God the way one would view an invader from outer space who is doing things he has no right to do, to people he was no right to do them to. Those Amelakite children wouldn't have existed in the first place had it not been for God. Because of God, they were given life, if just for a little while - a net gain on their part. Letting them live to adulthood was apparently a threat to the Israelites, a threat to God's ultimate plan. So how is it logical to suppose that God should have let them grow up? God should be putting the temporary lives of a handful of people over the eternal life of billions of people? I don't get it.

God help us now if we are not among God's chosen!

Interesting phrasing there. We are not among God's chosen people - those were the Israelites. But God did "help us" by sending the Savior through the chosen ones.

David

What I was really trying to get at with my musings is that I don't believe any of the Biblical stories are real. I have always looked at the Old Testament as "Jewish puffery." The myths are constructed to make a small tribe seem infinitely more important than it really is.

The New Testament is another story altogether. I grew up Southern Baptist, so I never even considered that the stories about Jesus could be anything but the absolute truth. This was so even though I knew in my heart that the verses seemed to have the same ring as Greek, Roman and Norse mythology. I didn't even know about the parallels to the Egyptian gods. Now I approach all my religion with a healthy, logical skepticism. You can't have faith first, and then logic. If what you believe doesn't have any logic behind it, faith won't survive.

I am more of a Deist than anything else. I don't see any evidence of God working on any level in daily life. I believe that some intelligent force created the universe and set things into motion. I don't believe that force cares whether we survive this life or not (visualize a tsunami). I think that what will happen when we die will happen regardless of what we believe or don't believe.

I think that prayer works, because it can change our basic physiology. I believe there is more to the force of nature than we now understand. If Jesus existed at all, I believe that he was trying to teach us this.

I believe that my God, if he had written a book, or inspired one to be written by others, would have taken better care. He would not have said "thou shalt not kill (murder, or whatever)," and then subsequently blessed the massacre of defenseless women and boy children, the hacking to pieces of enemy kings, and on and on. I don't believe His second set of commandments, the ones that survived on stone tablets and were placed in the Ark, would be so radically different from the original ones. Make sure not to boil a kid in its mother's milk, whatever that means.

If you'll search your own heart, you'll know what I'm saying is true. Lord, how I wish that the path to salvation could be as easy as you believe it is. I've searched my own heart, and soul and mind, and I just don't buy into it.

Shalom

Danny

Do you believe that there is a salvation for us? If so, you don't seem to know where the path is yet, but where are you leaning?

What I was really trying to get at with my musings is that I don't believe any of the Biblical stories are real. I have always looked at the Old Testament as "Jewish puffery."

I have my doubts some of the earlier stories, such as Adam and Eve, Job, and Noah's ark. They could easily be parables (in fact, I'm convinced that Job is a parable). It's clear that there was a flood which wiped out the majority of the human race at some point in mankind's past, but whether Noah was a story built around an actual flood or the actual story of how mankind survived it, I don't know. I think whether we get meaning from this stories is more important than whether we take them literally.

The myths are constructed to make a small tribe seem infinitely more important than it really is.

Whether the Israelites aren't so important really depends on whether Jesus was who He claimed to be. If Jesus was truly the savior of billions of people, then, yes, the Israelites were EXTREMELY important. If He was just some philosopher, or a fictional character, then the Israelites weren't any more important than anyone else.

The New Testament is another story altogether. I grew up Southern Baptist, so I never even considered that the stories about Jesus could be anything but the absolute truth. This was so even though I knew in my heart that the verses seemed to have the same ring as Greek, Roman and Norse mythology. I didn't even know about the parallels to the Egyptian gods.

What parallels? If there were significant parallels, why are the Christ-mythers making up non-existent ones in order to prove their points?  I have yet to find a single Christ-myther site which doesn't tell obvious lies, or a single pre-Christian myth with striking parallels to the Jesus story.

Now I approach all my religion with a healthy, logical skepticism. You can't have faith first, and then logic. If what you believe doesn't have any logic behind it, faith won't survive.

It will for some people, but not for you and I.

I am more of a Deist than anything else. I don't see any evidence of God working on any level in daily life.

I believe that God's working in our life is more a spiritual thing. He guides us to the right paths and such. Physical intervention is rare. I believe that's because if it happened too often, we'd end up relying on it too heavily and not take responsibility for our own actions. We'd end up caring more about the gifts than the giver.

I believe that some intelligent force created the universe and set things into motion. I don't believe that force cares whether we survive this life or not (visualize a tsunami).

Isn't it odd how the worst in nature brings out the best in mankind?

I think that what will happen when we die will happen regardless of what we believe or don't believe.  I think that prayer works, because it can change our basic physiology. I believe there is more to the force of nature than we now understand. If Jesus existed at all, I believe that he was trying to teach us this.

Jesus obviously existed. Even when I was an atheist, I believe that much. I don't think there's a reasonable historian who would doubt that the crucifixion happened at the very least. The Gospel authors used enough details that it's clear that they were describing the crucifixion of a specific person. If not Jesus, then who?

I believe that my God, if he had written a book, or inspired one to be written by others, would have taken better care. He would not have said "thou shalt not kill (murder, or whatever)," and then subsequently blessed the massacre of defenseless women and boy children, the hacking to pieces of enemy kings, and on and on.

I believe that God looks at the big picture, while we as humans tend to focus too hard on specifics. Those individuals who died were given their life by God, almost certainly would have perished eventually anyway, so I can't see why it's wrong for God to take them out of the equation if they were a threat to the salvation of billions.

If you'll search your own heart, you'll know what I'm saying is true.

The problem is that some your logic isn't making sense. You said that God only turned a serpent into a snake because He was unable to do anything bigger than that. I can't see how that makes any sense, given that God did much bigger things around that time. I know the killing of the Amelakite children (and others) is a sticking point for a lot of people, but if you look at the big picture there, there wasn't a better option.  If you're right that there was no Savior, and thus no salvation for mankind, then I would agree that the slaughter of the Amelakites was wrong. But if Jesus was who He claimed to be, then the big picture would show that God did the right thing for the human race as a whole. God only ended the temporary lives of a few people (lives that God owns in the first place) in order to give eternal life to billions of people. How is that wrong?

Lord, how I wish that the path to salvation could be as easy as you believe it is.

Why would a loving God make it difficult?

I've searched my own heart, and soul and mind, and I just don't buy into it.

Shalom

Thanks for writing,

David