I can't deny that if I was born in Iraq there is a chance I would currently be a Muslim.

Neither could I deny that if I was born in a remote tribe I could worship monkeys and think cannibalism gives me super powers.

As an atheist I can believe this without my world falling apart. A believer would have to conceded there belief is based on geography.

(it is)

I am a religious person and I accept that my experiences, beliefs, and attitudes are heavily influenced and conditioned by where and when I was born. That is true even though I was not raised in a religious family, and was an atheist as a teenager.

You say that belief is "based" on Geography as if it was the only possible parameter or the only one that matters, but that's clearly false. If it weren't false, you couldn't possibly be an atheist.

You make a valid point to the extent that there do exist religious folks with an overly fundamentalist and simple understanding of the "absolute truth" of their religious views, but you make the mistake of thinking you're saying something that is fundamentally true of religion as a human phenomena.

I can agree that my beliefs depend at least in part on my geography in the same way you do. My world has not fallen apart. Tell me why it should.

How does any of this undermine something that I believe?

There are laws pertaining to conquering territory in Deuteronomy, not to mention the practicality that a new government needs to overthrow an old one.

I was going for, the benefits of the OT governmental structure (X) outweigh benefits of possible alternatives (Y), and this is a sufficient reason to (for anyone) obey Gods tenets (which essentially are X but you say they're distinct and therefore Z, so...how about X is a subset of Z)

edit (or z is a subset of x), but just Z is fine

I'm not remembering this, so can you provide a reference?

But that's still not relevant to the point. I don't see how this document can support two completely different types of governmental structures while still being called a "prescribed government." It doesn't really make sense.

It's not relevant, and would probably cause more confusion.

Yea, I would say the government of the OT - the one that results from obeying its laws and commands should a people adopt it, isn't going to be compatible with any other governments.

Change prescribed to mandated by God

I was probably being a bit simplistic.. There are of course more factors than geography. It is a massive one though, which the maps on the wiki page highlight very well.

I just don't see how someone can base their whole life around a religion which would be different if they were born somewhere else. Ie God is the only true God, if I worship any other I will go to hell... Unless I was born elsewhere obviously.


This isn't a universal truth for everyone's particular belief system.. I understand it's a big generalisation. But I would think it is one that applies to the majority.

If I come across as offensive, blunt or confrontational.. It isn't meant to be. I really just can't get into the head of a believer.

I'm not a big fan of this either.

My 30k foot view is that in a lot of respects "traditional" religion has failed. Or at least it involves the adoption of a worldview that is no longer believable for a lot of people. On the other hand, nor am I a fan of a lot of the so-called new-age religious movements.

But, and perhaps hopefully, religion has never been a static thing, neither in terms of beliefs, nor practices, nor cultures. Even within a single "religion". There is this sort of culture war between western fundamentalist Christianity and the surrounding increasingly secular culture. Or between fundamentalist Islam and the western world. I think there is a problem in that it tends to lead those involved into a false dichotomy about what religion is.

The history of religion in the world is complex, and clearly it's not all good. Whatever meaning "God" and "religion" can have, it's not a matter of an absolutely revealed truth, where "my side" is right and everyone else is wrong, and it's all neat and tidy and only a question of accepting it or not. But that is a caricature of religious thought anyway.

I think the development of modern science and naturalism has a purifying effect on religious belief and practice that has become stagnant in a lot of ways. But I also think there is a lot of value and wisdom and depth to be found in religion, both ancient and modern. Not just in Christianity but pretty universally. However untenable the worldview of the stereotypical Christian seems, this "I look at cold facts and evidence" worldview is equally so, in different ways. That is my opinion. There is an openness to something more that is possible. There is an experience of the Divine that is possible. I don't really think that everyone should become Christian in some specific sense. I think everyone would benefit from cultivating an awareness of that "something more"

This article by WLC which he dubs "A rigorous attempt to answer the problem of the fate of the unevangelized and the challenge of religious pluralism" is worth the read. He touches on many relevant points.

Here is an excerpt on the specific challenge of cultural relativism:

The "prescribed" part isn't the problem. There's no functional difference between "prescribed" and "mandated."

The issue is "government."

You base your whole life around a set of ideas, interpretations, and understandings of the world around you that would be different if you were born somewhere else. Maybe you don't want to call it "religion" but they're both referring to the same fundamental worldview issues.

The Torah is governmental rulebook in a similar way that the U.S. Constitution is a governmental rule book, but additional legislation is forbidden in the Torah, while there's a heap load of legislation in the U.S.

let's compare benefits and see which is better:

God's gov benefits-

Males receive a free estate to grow their own food
No limit on number of wives
low tax rate (10% of produce)
a sense of well being and harmony with the universe


U.S. benefits -

freedom of religion (at least in speech)
no laws against homosexuality for men (for those who swing that way)
governmental assistance with healthcare
buyable politicians (a benefit if you're rich)

I think it's right that the argument that some specific belief can't be correct because it's correlated to living in a particular area is a kind of fallacy. The conclusion doesn't follow from the premise.

But I think he may also miss that there is a valid point hiding in there anyway. It's not a matter of logical argument but about the attitudes religious people sometimes have about their beliefs and the level of certainty or objectivity. It's more of an abductive argument about it being implausible that a God with certain attributes or goals exists given the actual state of affairs in the world.

WLC touches on some of those points as well, give it a quick skim, but I agree with you to some degree.

The U.S. Constitution isn't a governmental rule book. So I don't see how this works.

How would you categorize it?

The U.S. Constitution sets up a structure inside of which laws can be created.

The Torah is like a set of laws that have been created.

N_R: I think this:

is to be preferred over this:

Which is about as reasonable as the assumptions involved when the disciples asked Jesus "who sinned, this man or his parents, that he was born blind". Sure, he's correct as a matter of logic. It's not logically impossible. But I think he's grasping a bit too much to say it's reasonable.

And of course the former amounts again to embracing a kind of pluralism. I'm sympathetic to a defense of Christian particularism insofar as pluralism doesn't amount to pretending that there aren't real differences between religion, and it's absolutely true that the "scandal" of Christianity is its specificity. God became particularly this man. But bending a logical argument into pretzels to try to rationalize that an all-good, omniscient and omnipotent God sends people to hell who do not adopt a particular Christian expression of belief doesn't really appeal.

and yet I post

"The Torah is governmental rulebook in a similar way that the U.S. Constitution is a governmental rule book, but additional legislation is forbidden in the Torah, while there's a heap load of legislation in the U.S."

and you respond

"The U.S. Constitution isn't a governmental rule book. So I don't see how this works."


What do you think about my benefit comparisons?

I don't think you realize what you're saying. You don't see the difference between a set of laws and what the U.S. Constitution is and does?

I think they're completely irrelevant. It's like making a list of 4 tax rules from different sets of tax codes and trying to determine which one is better. It's not a meaningful comparison to do it that way.

Irrelevant is a little strong don't you think?

So you are saying you'd like to compare the entire sets of tax codes? If so fair enough, but fwiw, I pretty much hit the most relevant benefits. (for the average male anyway)

No. It's a superficial comparison at best, and it's not even comparing contemporary structures.

I'm not saying I want to. I'm saying that your argument requires that you do so. But then again, you're not even doing the right type of comparison to make your argument move forward.

There is no specific governmental structure that can be built entirely upon the Torah. And it's not immediately obvious that the OT laws as a complete collection are meaningfully comparable to the US system of laws. It's just a very strange argument to be trying to make.

Irrelevant (the contemporary part)

Well you still might want to, considering it's not optional according to God, and Jesus endorses it (I'm assuming you're a theist)

"For truly I say to you, until heaven and earth pass away, not the smallest letter or stroke shall pass from the Law until all is accomplished. "Whoever then annuls one of the least of these commandments, and teaches others to do the same, shall be called least in the kingdom of heaven; but whoever keeps and teaches them, he shall be called great in the kingdom of heaven.

Not really. If the early colonists followed God's model, they would have divided the land into lots for farming (numbers 33:54) forbade any legislation (Deut 4:2) and passed their land on to their sons. (daughters if no sons) Instead, they put in a system that has resulted in an entire nation of oppressed servants with the biggest sell outs doing ok.

So, you're removing the laws from any historical context?

Theologically, most Christians would disagree with you that those words mean what you're trying to say they mean.

Your historical analysis is pretty worthless.

They're clearly timeless in intent. If you want to make an argument that time is a factor...go for it. I just doubt it will turn out to be relevant.

And hence the nightmare that is christianity and the world today, (see deut ch. 28 and 29)

My historical was what they should have done according to God, and my analysis of the present is spot on.