unless there is some real scientific evidence for a God but I doubt it.

I doubt it too – seeing as science hasn't the sufficient scope to investigate and answer such a question. But then, I don't hold to any of 'Scientistic' philosophical assumptions that you appear to.. who knows, maybe you'll drop them before you're 80 ;)

Isn't that the entire debate going on here?

The part of the discussion in question was you saying that a particular Christian doctrine was silly. You misrepresented that doctrine (which is akin to strawman fallacy) and I pointed that out.

Given the number and variety of denominations of Christianity, I find it incredible that anyone could ever claim they alone hold the correct interpretation, yet they all seem to.

Again, you're missing the point. I'm open to correction – but I'm criticising you for wanting to have your cake and eat it by presenting then criticising a Christian doctrine without being open to such correction. You're not referring to that 34k number again are you? You did read what I wrote about that, right?

(One might also point out that in many areas, including scientific 'interpretation' of evidence, there is disagreement – it's fallacious to imply that disagreement means we can have no confidence in our conclusions)

Are you claiming to speak for all Christianity now? I thought Jesus taught people to be humble?

Cute. Humilty does not mean one cannot defend the classical mainstream understanding of a doctrine, least of all say what it has historically been! Pretending that there is no such thing as classical theology and mainstream views on doctrines like sin doesn't get you off the hook.

Why do you have to go to such great lengths to avoid admitting or considering that you may have been mistaken in your presentation of the doctrine of original sin? I mean, your wriggling here is admirable, I'll give you that, but never-the-less.. my point stands.

"If we're talking about the Christian God, then he is a God who has revealed himself to us in his Word.."

Isn't that the entire debate going on here?

"t if we are talking about the Christian understanding."

Given the number and variety of denominations of Christianity, I find it incredible that anyone could ever claim they alone hold the correct interpretation, yet they all seem to.

"If you're going to talk about what Christians and the bible mean by sin…"

Are you claiming to speak for all Christianity now? I thought Jesus taught people to be humble?

I can make comment about whatever I like,

I didn't say you couldn't, I said that not caring about / believing something doesn't give you free reign to misrepresent it with no liability to correction. I said that you shouldn't make such comments if you're not prepared to actually discuss the correctness of your assertion. But it's a bit rich to make a comment and then, faced with a correction, claim you're not actually interested.

and given there is no way of determining god's desires

If we're talking about the Christian God, then he is a God who has revealed himself to us in his Word, both the living Word and the written Word – that you don't accept this is beside the point if we are talking about the Christian understanding.. If you're going to talk about what Christians and the bible mean by sin, then you can be corrected – you're attempts to get out of that are baseless. You have to face up to the fact that you attempted to portray the Christian doctrine of original sin in a way which does not reflect either classical Christian or biblical understanding of the concept. If you're not prepared to be shown wrong about that (or more specifically, to enter a discussion about such), don't make such comments.

If you're not prepared to actually try to understand what classical theology says about the doctrine, then your 'opinion' and portrayal of the doctrine is baseless.

Oh, and you know that oft-repeating something doesn't make it true, right? Just because you don't find evidence persuasive does not mean there is no evidence.

Or not put the temptation there in the first place.

This too mistakes sin as actions rather than attitudes. Sure, actions are borne out of attitudes, and specifically then sinful actions are borne out of sinful (rebellious) attitudes, but I don't see how one can 'tempt' attitudes. Can a parent, or a government remove temptation for a rebellious attitude? Would you actually condone that?
So you see, even if it wasn't the 'fruit' there would be no avoiding calling people to follow and trust him at some point. Your comment then, is quite simplistic and misguided I think.

It's one thing to say that the emperor has no clothes, and quite another to then say that these alleged clothes look stupid. If you don't want to debate the style of the alleged clothes, don't mention them ;)

Yeah – we are all guilty of the sins of our fathers. Should we execute the sons of murderers? Your god would.

No – we are in a sinful state because of the sin of our representative – our federal head (much like how during WWII the British were at war with the Germans because of the decisions of their federal representatives). Further you seem to be implying that sin is about actions, where as the biblical understanding of sin is about attitude – it is the rejection of God's rightful authority. Thus original sin is not saying that I'm guilty of a specific action, but rather, because of one man's actions (humanity's federal representative) I'm born in a state of rebellion against God – separated from him. I'm still responsible for the things I willingly do, even in such a state (to say that we should punish murderer's sons is quite a false analogy – if the cycle of violence continued, we would of course punish any violence the son also committed). The good news of the gospel, however, is that we can switch sides, as it were, and change our representative – instead of the one man who failed, we can choose to be represented by Jesus, who did not fail, who perfectly obeyed the Father and both takes our rebellion, if we will turn from it; our punishment due for it, and offers us his perfect obedience.

"You have the rest of your life to revise your beliefs and you never know what God has planned to get you past the pearly gates."

Perhaps he sent you to provide some actual evidence instead of emotional appeals, though I doubt it.

"God being gracious would have responded lovingly and made a way out of the snare and entanglement…"

Or not put the temptation there in the first place.

"As per original sin, the problems and tragedies in this world are constant reminders that humanity has failed to properly glorify God."

Yeah – we are all guilty of the sins of our fathers. Should we execute the sons of murderers? Your god would.

"No, God did not require the "brutal torture" of His Son, that came from sinful & cruel human hearts.."

Sin and cruel human hearts (according to you twisted theology) is a result of God's curse against his own creation.

" The devil was on the scene …"

Where did the devil come from again? Did god create him (in his own image)? Did god throw in out of Heaven? For what again?

"It's not a surprise that Jesus got Himself crucified…"

Yet you tell me it was not required. Why did he get himself crucified again?

"God drew those forces of evil onto one place in order to defeat and deal with them there …"

Dismal failure – there is still a lot of evil in the world.

God did not "change his mind" it was His unfolding plan of rescue all along, breaking into human history not just to toss some teaching our way but personally coming to change us via His Spirit.

Your God still requires the brutal torture and killing of his own Son to lift the curse He Himself placed on humanity because we were created curious by his own hand.

I see you love to vilify a non existent God! hehe ;)…No, God did not require the "brutal torture" of His Son, that came from sinful & cruel human hearts. The devil was on the scene so it's no surprise there was a build up of the forces of evil if you like shrieking at Jesus…attacking Him, criticizing Him until finally they nailed Him to a cross. It's not a surprise that Jesus got Himself crucified, what's is a surprise is that he lasted 3 years in public ministry.

God drew those forces of evil onto one place in order to defeat and deal with them there (Calvary) in order to make a new creation beginning with Jesus resurrection and that's why we ultimately have hope…So an unspeakable evil was transformed into an unspeakable good through God's wisdom.

very few have ready and nuanced responses as to why they ascribe to some scripture and not others

It is unfortunately true that many Christians don't have, and generally haven't thought about, good exegesis and hermeneutics (Is it little wonder than that so many ex-Christian anti-theists also have such a lack?).

that video was an argument from authority… while I am aware of a historical case for the existence of someone called Jesus who lived at that time in that region none was actually presented in that clip.

Not quite. Pointing to the scholarly consensus to rebut an a claim about the current state of historical scholarship is perfectly valid. The point was not so much about making arguments for or against Jesus' historical existence, but that the writings of Dawkins and Co. are basically misleading in their portrayal of the state of scholarship, or at the very least, and perhaps more likely, ignorant of it. I recall him mentioning that other videos from CPX deal with the evidence in more depth. I'm sure you realise that there wasn't enough scope in that video. Dickson certainly has other videos which deal with the arguments for the historical Jesus and the historicity of the resurrection.

No, this only slips out when someone starts quoting scripture to me, very few have ready and nuanced responses as to why they ascribe to some scripture and not others. Usually it doesn't take long to reveal they are selectively reading the bible, if at all, to justify and lend support to their own personal opinions in which they feel insecure about holding.

"(regarding your doubt regarding the historical Jesus, without going off on that tangent, please have a look at http://vimeo.com/1763513 – just in case you share those arguments.) "

I have seen the video some time ago but watched it again. The arguments weren't particularly relevant to my own position and I'm not the kind of person who holds any of the 'new atheist' (not a term I particularly identify with) authors to be 100% accurate, I actually don't care they made mistakes on historical culture because it says nothing about the metaphysical claims made by the religion.

However, the only real criticism (as opposed to corrections) in that video was an argument from authority ("no respectable historian claims there was no such man as Jesus" to paraphrase), while I am aware of a historical case for the existence of someone called Jesus who lived at that time in that region none was actually presented in that clip.

I have not heard an argument or evidence-based case made for the existence of a historical God-man who has given humanity the gift of salvation (for a *small* price). That is what I'm interested in, otherwise any argument for a historical Jesus merely explains the beginnings of a cult which became Christianity and says nothing on the metaphysical claims at the heart of the religion which are what make it relevant or not to reality.

I'd be interested to here your argument(s) for your belief(s) and hope you can find the time to synthesise them into a space of some sort.

Come on, you know this crap. There are plenty of denominations of Christianity that have different doctrines

Nathan, if you read more carefully you will note the word 'necessarily' in my sentence. I did not say that there are no differences, I just made the point that different denominations are not necessarily holding different doctrines. Some do, yes, but not necessarily, and for the most part, the mainline protestant denominations (I think it's questionable to say that Mormonism and Jehovah' Witnesses are just 'denominations' of protestant Christianity, but that's actually quite irrelevant at this point) all hold the same core doctrines. You could walk into a Baptist, Anglican, Methodist, Presbyterian or Pentecostal church (and many more) and they would most likely all affirm the Nicene and Apostle's creeds. Indeed, according to the source for this oft-cited statistic, over half of these 34000 are simply independent churches with no greater denominational affiliation. The figure is also a world-wide figure which take into account cultural distinctions of denominations in different countries (that means, for example, the Anglican church in Australia is counted separately to the Anglican church in Kenya). The same stats show only 1200 denominations in North America, and remembering that this is including independent, unaffiliated churches who may very well believe the same things as one another, the figure starts to lose it's impact! Thus, it is highly misleading to suggest that there are 34000 different version of Christianity.

People get killed, everyday, over there different ideas about the bible.

Not quite. Sure, people are killed for faith – the average number of Christians martyred each year is around 171 000. And sure, there is sectarian conflict, but I think it's overly simplistic to suggest that it's purely about interpretation. In general is is much deeper and is cultural. Take the conflict in Northern Ireland – it would be foolish to say it was about transubstantiation or something like that – not only was it heavily political, the religious aspect was primarily a cultural. I think you would have a very difficult time showing that Christians are killing each other everyday over interpretation disputes!

he would have made it easy for people to understand and not mix rules with non rules

I think it's pretty clear when law and instruction is being given.

If i go into a class room most of the time I will find a nice dotted list of dosand don'ts, simple not much room for interpretation. I don't expect to see a big story and the kids are told figure out what the dos and the don't are from that.

Again, I think you're still making the false assumption that it's all about me and what I should and shouldn't do. And in any case, plenty of teachers use stories and narratives to teach children and allow children to learn about issues.

Riiiiiiigghht this makes perfect sense..so he sent his (only)son down to earth, then lets him get killed for shit we did that He(God) had full knowledge of us doing in the first place and caused the problem to begin with. Yep perfectly logical…not.

You're correct – your summary here is logically flawed. You seem to have made the same kind of Post hoc ergo propter hoc fallacy that I pointed out to Andrew above. It's logically flawed to assert that God caused the problem. No, humanity is wholly responsible for it's actions.

Because human sacrifice is wrong, and they all say that. So which one is right?

Just so I can be clear who you're referring to here – who is 'they'?

If he cared he wouldn't need to do that in the first place

How so?

isn't it funny how he sends his son to forgive us of all the sins and yet He(god) and his son are still quite happen to send us to burn in hell forever for not following is crappy written book, and people still suffer.

If someone continues to rebel against him and his authority, and continues to reject his payment, that's on them. God is just, and so sin must be punished – if one chooses to reject the offer of Jesus to take that punishment, then they'll have to bear that themselves.

So what?

I mean as you conceded, people like me don't believe your god (let alone any god) exists, I doubt Jesus even lived, at least as described by the gospels, so the whole book is irrelevant to me. Hermeneutics and exegesis will get you no where with the billions of people who don't believe in the Christian god, either as atheists or as believers of some other faith.

So as always AndrewFinden, so what? So you have a post-hoc way of maintaining some usefulness for the bible (which certainly involves an awful lot of waste) beyond a 'story' of a life lived by a man with a message of salvation. So what?

So much of the discussions here all stem from everybody (including myself) ignoring the biggest question: whether god exists or not. It is as if no ones wants to tap it, no one wants to push the limits on that question and I see no reason why, especially here. To me everything else follows on from there, it is like debating over the score of a game without knowing what sport is being played. You may be defending Christian thinking around maintaining the bible or its relevance to Christians which is fine, you're on point and I fully accept it is often easy for the faithless and free to deride and mock believers. So it is fine to defend Christianity and Christian thought, it would be very simplistic and dishonest to claim a total lack of complexity and nuance to Christian thought. In fact, I freely admit the nuance to Christian thought has provided the first discussions on arguments for God's existence and the development of logical tools such as Occam's Razor.

My issue is I don't recall (and I haven't read everything you've said on this site) you actually laying out an argument, with evidence, to even suggest the god and theology of Christianity is true. Do you have one? Is the most convincing argument, to you, for the truth of Christianity really why you believe? Is the argument actually supported with demonstrable evidence? Is it valid and sound? I'm sure if you wanted you could arrange something with Askegg to have it posted or linked or discussed on the podcast or something, anything!

You've demonstrated a wide range of knowledge and passion for your religion and its history but I haven't seen a demonstration of the truth of its, and your, claims about the universe and concepts of the divine.

I'm just getting tired of saying 'so what?' to myself, and you, whenever I read your posts.

Come on, you know this crap. There are plenty of denominations of Christianity that have different doctrines: JWs still believe in your Jesus but have twisted how;when;who gets into heaven, and how you should live your life; Mormons are the same, same basic story but change all the major details of how;when;who. Example, my mothers church doesn't believe in eating red meat on good Friday, where as my Fathers (the one you and I were part of) don't care about it. Now is it just me of isn't whether you eat the host on the day he was sacrificed an important detail. Cause I would be pissed if I told people not to and they still did.

We are not talking about a piece of art here where it is fine to have different interpretations of the same work because no body dies when thinking something different to what the artist intended. People get killed, everyday, over there different ideas about the bible.

You would think that if it God had half a brain he would have made it easy for people to understand and not mix rules with non rules. If i go into a class room most of the time I will find a nice dotted list of dosand don'ts, simple not much room for interpretation. I don't expect to see a big story and the kids are told figure out what the dos and the don't are from that.

"he didn't 'require' that Jesus be killed, but he graciously allowed his Son to take the punishment we deserved."

Riiiiiiigghht this makes perfect sense..so he sent his (only)son down to earth, then lets him get killed for shit we did that He(God) had full knowledge of us doing in the first place and caused the problem to begin with. Yep perfectly logical…not.

"And why should it be a concern when the new covenant is the one that says Jesus' will pay our debt? " Because human sacrifice is wrong, and they all say that. So which one is right?

"Who said he doesn't care? Indeed, he cared enough to send his own Son so that you needn't suffer."

If he cared he wouldn't need to do that in the first place, and isn't it funny how he sends his son to forgive us of all the sins and yet He(god) and his son are still quite happen to send us to burn in hell forever for not following is crappy written book, and people still suffer.

have a look at this website: http://beginningwithmoses.org/about/what-is-bibli…
and I would highly recommend Graeme Goldsworthy's excellent lay-level book on the subject According to Plan.

I am also thankful that you, out of the 34,0000 denominations of Christianity, have managed to decipher the one true correct interpretation of the holy text.

Firstly, you are no doubt aware that the vast majority of mainline protestant denominations hold the vast majority of core doctrines in common. Different denomination does not necessarily mean different doctrine. Generally the differences lie in organisational structure, ecclesiastic style or in secondary issues. Pretending that there's 34,000 different versions of Christianity is highly misleading.
Secondly, I am not claiming I have found the 'one true interpretation'. I am quite willing to be corrected in my interpretation – good exegesis requires such a willingness. But everyone who reads a text and thinks they know what it is saying / what it means in interpreting – so, Nathan, above, implying that I should stone adulterers is making an interpretation. Everyone makes interpretations – it's just that some are more correct than others. Exegesis is the process by which we seek to find the correct one: that is, what the author intended us to understand, and who the author intended it apply to (if it's instructive). And good exegesis means we must be open to correction.

Your god still requires the brutal torture and killing of his own son in order to lift the curse he himself placed on humanity because we were created curious by his own hand.

>
When, technically he requires payment for our sin – he didn't 'require' that Jesus be killed, but he graciously allowed his Son to take the punishment we deserved. It's a nice little slip of logic you've done there too in suggesting that we deserve punishment because of God's actions.
We (humanity) were under the curse of sin (rebellion) because we chose to indulge in it. That is the step you gloss over. Creating a possibility is not the same as causing the action. To ignore the willing participation you are using bad logic (Post hoc ergo propter hoc).

I am also concerned that the creator of the entire universe has changed his mind and created a "new covenant" with with humanity.

God didn't change his mind, he just started a new covenant, as he always planned to. And why should it be a concern when the new covenant is the one that says Jesus' will pay our debt?

I am also concerned that we had no say in what the conditions of this arrangement

It's a bit of a tangent, so I suffice to link you to an explanation of Federal Headship.

and am deeply worried that your all loving god will not care if I suffer an eternity in the absence of his ultimate love.

Who said he doesn't care? Indeed, he cared enough to send his own Son so that you needn't suffer. If a just magistrate can care and be sorrowful that he must punish wrong doing, why cannot God? Indeed, Ezekial 18:23 & 32 say that is the case.

How can I tell? It's Leviticus – i.e. Levitical (the Levites were the tribe of priests) law for the pre-messianic nation of Israel. Remember the big picture and where it fits in the progressive revelation which has Jesus right at the centre fulfilling the OT law. I thought I'd already explained this process of exegesis above. You also seem to be continuing the false assumption that the bible is all 'application' (like a rule book – how does one 'apply' a poem in the same sense?).

"I am also thankful that you, out of the 34,000 denominations of Christianity, have managed to decipher the one true correct interpretation of the holy text" – that seems to be argument by ridicule.

I do have a few nagging questions however; Your god still requires the brutal torture and killing of his own son in order to lift the curse he himself placed on humanity because we were created curious by his own hand. I am also concerned that the creator of the entire universe has changed his mind and created a "new covenant" with with humanity.

I am also concerned that we had no say in what the conditions of this arrangement are and am deeply worried that your all loving god will not care if I suffer an eternity in the absence of his ultimate love. If you can satisfactorily address these points, I might just convert to Christianity. Again.

Let us take an example, Leviticus 20:13:

"If a man also lie with mankind, as he lieth with a woman, both of them have committed an abomination: they shall surely be put to death; their blood shall be upon them."

If you don't need to carry this out, why not? How can you tell?

(by your 'surely' comment, it's obvious you 'surely' didn't read my comment above)

The point is that the bible, as a collection of documents, is an unfolding, progressive revelation of a redemption. The OT is redemptive history. It uses 'types' – that's not to say that the passover never actually happened (let's leave for the moment the huge tangent of which parts of the OT are historical – indeed it would be wrong to assume that it all is. Job, eg, is wisdom literature). There's no reason, indeed, very good reason, for God, in a redemptive plan to use an historical event to create a model of further spiritual event. In saying that Jesus is the true passover lamb doesn't mean the passover never actually happened.

Further, please note that this Biblical Theology is a meta-narrative – an overarching plot, if you like. Of course, the individual texts can (indeed should) be exegeted more closely, but this over arching context should not be ignored.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'not resolving' the problem of evil, as I see that Jesus both identifies with us in suffering and is the solution to it and evil.

So I really don't see how this is 'slippery eel' kind of stuff – rather, it's 'big picture' stuff. http://beginningwithmoses.org/about/what-is-bibli…

And moreover, it's from Jesus and the apostles – Jesus is the one who said that the law and prophets all pointed to him and were fulfilled in him, and it is the apostles who point out that Jesus is the true high priest and the true sacrifice and passover lamb and the true law keeper, and the true vine etc. etc. (as per the video)

And what do you mean by 'straight' reading? one which is hyper-literal in taking words exactly at face value, ignoring any possible literary devices and the wider context? I'm sure I've expressed my amusement that anti-theists often share a faulty hermeneutic with fundamentalists! To then offer the alternative as allegorising and cherry picking is simply a false dichotomy. Rather, we should seek to understand the texts in their historical and theological contexts – with the unfolding meta-narrative in view, and seek as best we can to understand what the writer intended his audience (some-times cultural removed from us) to understand.