Yuyutsu wrote:<<Dear David,I agree, nice thoughts, though you posted your last comment under the wrong article.>>

I'd like to second that :-).

Yuyutsu wrote: <<One ought to love God with all one's heart, with all one's soul and with all one's means - not to try to understand and analyse God as if He were a mere object.>>

Absolutely. But i think you're being overly critical in your 5 points. At issue for Schroeder (who comes from the Jewish tradition) is whether the account in the Bible is compatible with science.

Of course from the perspective of a Muslim the real issue is whether the Quran is correct in stating the Torah and Injil were originally the Word of God but were subsequently corrupted. The changes may well have been well-intentioned but the result nevertheless would have been the same: some or many parts of these scriptures may be the word of God, but others not.

So without having read all of Schroeder's works, it may be that he (and others) ignore those parts that are not compatible with science or even the God of Abrahamic tradition.

For example, the universe being created in 6 days, with God resting on the 7th could be explained by a desire to encourage Jews to observe the Sabbath. Yet it is not compatible with science nor a God that is beyond any need.

Any thoughts from others, particularly the Christians?

Well I'm glad to see that your foot-stamping only lasted around ten minutes, grateful. Welcome back.

Stepping back into my Christian shoes, I would have to say that I would have probably sided with Dan on this one. The Christian god, as I knew him, was a God that wanted a relationship his creations and had an important message for them, and such a god would not stuff about by being cryptic.

This goes back to the two possibilities that I mentioned earlier. At first, it wasn't so much that I stopped believing in a god, it's more that I acknowledged that such a god wasn't interested in revealing himself to me in any way that a belief in him could be rationally justified, and so I didn't bother with him anymore.

As for scriptural corruption, my opinion was that the Qur'an is a corruption of the true scriptures. An inevitably, as I saw it, given that the Qur'an was around 600 years younger. A longer distance in time from the actual events.

As far as I was concerned, the Bible was Star Wars and the Qur’an was Spaceballs.

How do Muslims reconcile the fact that the Qur'an is the more accurate account given that it's so much younger?

Grateful: Jayb, don't waste your life mixing with such people. AJ was just as condescending to you as the rest of us...and you've been cheering him on!

Actually, I agree with AJ.

Grateful: For example, the universe being created in 6 days, with God resting on the 7th could be explained by a desire to encourage Jews to observe the Sabbath.

I see you agree with "Mans" influence on Sacred Books. Even the Koran?

All the Sacred Books were written with the express purpose of advancing some "Order" into the lives of early peoples from about 8000 BC on, when Man started to settle down into permanent Villages & move away from a Hunter Gatherer lifestyle. There obviously had to be some "Rules" for living in close proximity to each other. Someone had to take charge & what better person than "Gods" to back up the Chief/Headman/Sharman. Sort of, "I'm in Charge here, The Gods are on my side."

The "Rules" were important for the Peace & Good Governance in these early Villages. These "Rules" grew into Religion. Different Villages/Peoples, different Gods. Then came the Warfare over whose God was more powerful, or just who won the Battle which was really over Land, Possessions & Power/Control over people.

In 11000 years nothing has really changed. It really still over Land, Possessions & Power/Control over people. Nothing to do with non-existent Super Entity, Aka, God.

Except some very naive people really by into the non-existent Super Entity, Aka, God, thing.

Dear Grateful,

The Torah could still be the Word of God even if it is factually incorrect and even if it contains internal contradictions.

Bear in mind that the people at the time when the Torah and most other scriptures were written, did not have a notion of objective science like we have today.

In those days' terms, it was not considered a lie to say things that contradicted physical evidence (it was however considered a lie to say "I didn't take it" when you did).

God is not a television set - He is not there to bring you news and documentaries. The "Word of God" as I understand it, is that word which will direct you toward Him. If the Genesis Creation story inspires one to observe the Sabbath, thus take regular time off work to devote to prayer and contemplation/meditation, then we have every justification to call it "The Word of God".

Due to the passage of time and differences in culture, it may well be that the Torah no longer works in the way it used to, but that doesn't change its original divine purpose.

When I was young and scientifically-inclined, I was astonished to read of two presumably-enlightened Tibetan Lamas playing chess. I wondered: since they are both enlightened, they would know everything including who will win, they can foresee all the moves, so why are they playing?

I had the fortune to ask a saint for a personal advice on a particular issue. Some information in his loving reply, I later discovered, was factually incorrect, yet by following his advice I benefited and done the right thing, which I probably wouldn't otherwise. Since that, I learned my lesson on what counts and what is of no consequence. My question about the chess-playing Lamas dissolved as well: knowledge of God is not knowledge of facts.

My criticism of Schroeder is for trying to force rational people to believe in God. The delicate plant of faith needs to grow organically: if you pull it up to try helping it grow, then it will lose its roots.

Yuyutsu,

You still haven’t mentioned when you had the privilege of seeing this Schroder character. It didn’t happen, did it? Just as the field that grateful works in doesn’t exist.

Why is it that you religious folk are so okay with telling porkies? It seems to be a real sickness, and the fact that I wasn’t alright with doing that myself seems to be the difference between my de-conversion story and the story of yours and grateful’s continued clinging to religious faith. That’s evident in his offensively skewed version of events regarding this discussion. I understand that some on OLO consider the pointing out of lies as abuse, and I appreciate that, I really do, but I simply don’t know how else it can be described when it’s so overt.

(If anyone has some advice, then I’d appreciate it.)

Does it not occur to either of you that the fact that your god supposedly requires you to tell untruths means that he doesn’t exist?

Jayb,

Just so you know, and since grateful raises the point, my, “And poor Jayb. Why subject him specifically to it?”, was not meant to be condescending towards you or suggest an inability on your behalf to deal with grateful’s bogus and fallacious claims. I can see now how it may have appeared that way.

(The way in which these people twist one’s meaning makes it impossible to open one’s mouth without having some sort of sinister interpretation extracted from it somehow.)

I’m just so used to having theists speak to me through other people nowadays that I (perhaps too often) presume that posts addressed to other people are actually addressed to me. It sometimes happens when they find they cannot answer a particular argument and respond to me through a post to other people. Perhaps in the hope that I don’t tear the argument down in that particular instance, while still maintaining the illusion that what I have said has been addressed adequately? I’m not sure. Yuyutsu does it sometimes, though.

Either way, I didn’t mean to underestimate you. Sorry if it sounded like that.

AJ: Just so you know, and since grateful raises the point,

It's OK. I got that in the first instance & Yutsie Ok too providing he hasn't been spending time in the Incense Room.

What I find strange is that Theists claim that "Only their Holy Book" is the Word of "The True God."

The Sectarians, of any Religion, are not fighting for Authenticity, but for Power over the People (money) As in the case's of the Catholic Church verses Protestantism, Sunnies verses Shia, Hindus verses Sikhs, etc,.

I like to get back to the beginning/start of things. Even as a kid I pulled thing apart just to see how they worked. I have attempted to do that with Religion, as opposed to Gods (see my earlier Posts) to explore where the concept originated in the mind of Man. I believe I have mostly succeeded in that quest.