What?

He seems to be saying that gravity existed before the universe began. I dont see how thats possible.

Can you explain why hes right?

No I can't, but then I'm not saying that it sounds like nonsense and then wondering if 'maybe' one of the world's foremost Physicists knows 'something I don't' about physics...

There's no 'maybe' about it Neeel, he knows a lot that you don't about Physics.

It does sound like nonsense ( gravity causing the universe to pop into existence), but if someone can explain to me in terms that I can understand, why its not nonsense ( or alternatively, that I have misunderstood what he is saying) , I am all ears.

Jews have a long history of saying shma rather than agreeing to false gods

Depends on the circumstances. (Side note, I am less a theism activist and more interested in the logical arguments).

There's something to be said for courage in your convictions. But if other innocents were involved, or the death was particularly long and nasty, I might have been into self-preservation. I can't say for sure. Baruch HaShem I don't live in ISIS-stan.

Why do you think religions insist on their followers refusing to pretend to convert? What justification might a religion use to give credibility to the idea that a deity would care one way or the other what you profess to believe, especially if you don't actually mean it?

The Jews have been tested many times. Some believe it is a test from God

There's a concept called "Ma'arat Ayin" - literally "appearance to the eye".

Remember, Jews tended to be insular, in communities that generally had limited social interaction with the outside world unless some outside force came on the scene.

If a Jew was seen to be worshipping a false God or worshipping God in an improper way, an onlooker who doesn't know the circumstances might get the wrong idea about what is okay under the law.

I'm sure you can take the logical reasoning from there.

But that sounds ridiculous because I think your question makes a fundamental assumption that misunderstands how Jewish law works. The Torah (including the oral Torah) itself is the law. After that, there are tons of principles that are rabbinic in source. The idea is that the Torah itself is the only unassailable portion of Jewish law. Everything else is rabbinical interpretation, including "buffer" laws, which are often conservative interpretations and prohibitions designed to ensure that the actual law of God is not broken.

In that respect, religious Jews, to varying degrees, don't see themselves as being limited by those rabbinical laws the way we view secular law as limiting our behaviour. These people are striving toward a "holier" life and see following the law as the way to achieve that.

An example: the Torah says to honour Shabbat. That's it. So Jews honour Shabbat (and other "rest days" ie holidays) by not doing thing that they do on other days; drive, conduct business transactions, write, etc.

Why? Obv the Torah doesn't speak to driving a car, but the Halacha does speak to kindling a fire and travel (which has a specific jurisprudence and legal definition in Halacha) as "work" and therefore a "desecration" of honouring the Shabbat. Modern Rabbis interpreted the internal combustion engine and carrying non-essential items outside property lines to violate the the Halacha, which was designed to ensure honouring Shabbat. So Jews don't drive a car or even ride in one unless it's a life-threatening situation. But here's the thing: to them, that's not generally seen as an inconvenience. It's an opportunity to stay true to the principles of Torah and to live a Jewish life.

Back to our main issue. To religious Jews, staying true to their principles, even in the face of death, would be seen as an honour. It wouldn't be seen as "well, **** me, can't fake it, I guess I have to die."

Critique that thinking all you want, but thats a very common way of thinking on a variety of closely-held principles worldwide, and that's the rationale for that.

This is an amazing post. Thank you

I don't think it answered my question. Do you have a justification for why a deity would care what you say about what you believe? Surely a deity would be able to see into your heart and know your true beliefs and surely a deity wouldn't want you to die needlessly?

I think these rules are human inventions designed to retain followers.

The issue could be temptation and testing

Perhaps the other guys are right and God wants those people to be slaughtered.

An offensive statement I know, but RGT has been ripe with threads about "justification" recently, so I find it apt. Because the irony is that every bit of theological logic that can be used to justify belief in a loving God can be used to justify belief in this bloodthirsty God.

And THAT is the problem with religion.

No,that's the problem with LOGIC and it doesn't only apply to religion.

I don't see a lot of logicians running around telling people what is evil and what is good.

Abrahamic religion is exempt from checks and balances. The believers answer to God, and God always agrees with his clergy. It is institutionalized confirmation bias

This thread has really gone far afield from my original point. (Not that that is a bad thing) Which was simply that a person shouldn't feel bad if he lies to some maniac and tells him that he renounces his religion if the lie was to save his families life.

Not criticizing your stance, but am genuinely curious if you (or anyone for that matter) would feel the exact same way, if lying to the maniac was only to save your own life, and no one else you loved was involved?

Based on your value system. Not everyone has to value things as you do. Does that surprise you somehow?

Just to be clear, are you saying that theists MUST believe "that the objective evidence for their own particular religion should be enough to convince those with other beliefs that their particular religion is more likely to be true?" Because if so, you're wrong. Definitely not a requirement for me.

Sigh. It's in there. You just didn't read carefully (hint: it's an irrelevant question. We don't know and therefore can't worry about it. We worry about it for our own reasons, because the Torah itself is actually silent on the matter of being forcibly converted at the tip of a spear).

But I wasn't talking only about my value system. I was asserting that it was probably their own god's value system as well.

Theists who believe that members of other religions can go to heaven are exceptions to my statement.

I'm not convinced of your logic here. Practically, however, you may be correct in that there may not be people in this category that I'm arguing is in fact logically sound.

Jews don't believe in hell

To be clear, what I am saying is that if you think that someone who doesn't convert to your religion will go to hell and if you think that God is just, you must then believe that the evidence for your religion is clearcut to the point that those who are members of other religions are purposely ignoring obvious evidence for some sort of personal gain. Because if their error was caused only due to the evidence being fuzzy, a just God wouldn't condemn them for an honest mistake.

Is that really consistent with the idea of a loving god? Would a loving god cause such misery, suffering and death just to test the faith of his followers when he himself knows exactly how much they believe anyway?

Maybe, but I don't think that addresses the question of why almost every religion has rules about loyalty. They seem more likely to be a way of retaining followers to me, than anything a deity would actually want. I don't believe that a universe creating, all powerful deity would even care what you believed during the brief, mayfly lifespan you had in the corporal realm, after all, you're going to be spending the rest of eternity with him. Everything about organised religion just stinks of control.

How many value systems wouldn't forgive a lie that was intended to save lives? I don't think there's much of a moral dilemma here. And what kind of loving god, who can see the truth of your belief anyway, wouldn't want you to do what it took to stay alive rather than allow yourself and your children to be killed?


Good job, because you wouldn't be able to do it, but that's why we have this situation where faith is necessary.