Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Theoretical Skeptic on October 24, 2020, 02:03:27 PM
-
The meaning of the Bible can be summed up briefly as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
The tree of the knowledge of good and bad represented, to Adam, Jehovah God's sovereignty. That is, his right, as our creator, to decide for us what was good and what was bad until we, like children, matured to the point where we could do that for ourselves within the parameters of that sovereignty.
God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve.
The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence.
By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential.
On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done. When we would have accomplished this we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period, of creation continues to this day. So the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty.
This is why, once Adam rejected that concept by deciding for himself what was good and bad before he had matured in able to best do that, Jehovah had to shorten his life from living forever to eventually dying. Because if he and his offspring, mankind, were allowed to live forever under those conditions, they would never reach that maturity and they would bring about an endless series of chaos and destruction.
So, in effect, Satan charged Jehovah with the crime of withholding some knowledge from mankind. He knew this wasn't true, but he wanted to try and seize control of the power that Jehovah's sovereignty represented even if it meant destroying all that it represented and everything else in the process. Even destroying himself. Like a jealous child breaking a toy so no one else can have it.
But to Jehovah justice is very important. You can't just wave away a crime due to the damage that has been incurred. So he allowed the charges against him to be tried, as in a court of law. He allowed Satan's theory to be tested in a manner of speaking. With the stipulation that 1. he wasn't going to allow it to prevent his original purpose for the angels and mankind from being fulfilled beyond what was necessary to establish his defense. That they should live forever in peace, in heaven and on earth respectively. And 2. that justice would be done.
From Jehovah's perspective the life he created, the life he gave us, is sacred. Belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. So the blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession.
Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.
So immediately after Adam's sin Jehovah put in motion the plan for all of this to take place while Satan's theory was being tested. In a basic sense the steps were as follows.
1. Select a group of people.
2. Form a nation for those people.
3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature of their lack of the aforementioned maturity.
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ.
-
TS,
Thank you for explaining your take on what the Bible means. Just out of interest do you have any reason to think that any of that stuff actually happened too, or is it just the creation myth that happens to entertain you more than others do?
-
Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.
This god character is rather a bloodthirsty and vindictive, isn't it?
-
All I see is a bunch of middle-eastern religious superstitions dating from antiquity, elements of the cultures of those times, a dash of travelogue here and there, various anecdotes of uncertain provenance, some poetry and some fantastical claims: given the risks of exaggeration, mistakes and lies I'd say that, with the possible exceptions of geographical information and some real historical characters and events, most of it is indistinguishable from fiction.
No doubt it is of cultural and historical interest, as is its role in political and social terms over the centuries since, but I'm constantly surprised that these days it is taken seriously at all.
-
BHR,
I believe it did happen and it is happening. I've dedicated nearly 30 years to it's study, with the examination of the perspective of its critics as a priority and I've yet to see any reason to doubt it.
-
TS,
I believe it did happen and it is happening.
Seriously? Wow! Why though?
I've dedicated nearly 30 years to it's study, with the examination of the perspective of its critics as a priority and I've yet to see any reason to doubt it.
Um, how about because unqualified and fantastical assertions are non-investigable and unverifiable?
-
Seriously? Wow! Why though?
I've already stated. Why not?
Um, how about because unqualified and fantastical assertions are non-investigable and unverifiable?
The limitations of the non-investigable and unverifiable are not the fault of things outside of our scope. We don't understand much of anything, and that we do claim to understand is uncertain.
I think the atheists have an intellectual insecurity that creates an unrealistic need for concrete answers which baffles me since science is a method of investigation rather than a belief system.
Science has a nasty habit of laughing at the notion of flight until some bloke invents the airplane. At the behaviour of apes until a secretary goes out and lives among them. A nasty habit of jumping on the bandwagon and taking credit for stuff science had nothing to do with the creation of.
So, if you feel good about the ever changing dogma of science as some intellectual crutch which limits itself into a stagnant pool, by all means, have at it; but don't feel so smug and self-righteous in criticizing that which you don't understand.
If science can't test the supernatural then no one can make any real scientific claims negating the supernatural and keep in mind, at one time giant squid and whales were supernatural.
-
TS,
I've already stated. Why not?
Because there’s no way to investigate or verify your claims. That’s why not.
In Hindu mythology the world rests on the backs of four elephants who stand on the shell of a turtle. That’s no more fantastical than your speculations about angels and the like. You should therefore believe the Hindu myth too. After all, why not?
The limitations of the non-investigable and unverifiable are not the fault of things outside of our scope. We don't understand much of anything, and that we do claim to understand is uncertain.
But absent any method at investigate such claims, how do you know these “things” to exit at all?
I think the atheists have an intellectual insecurity that creates an unrealistic need for concrete answers which baffles me since science is a method of investigation rather than a belief system.
Ad hominem – yet another fallacy. “Atheists” don’t have a need for “concrete answers” at all. Rather they/we simply ask for reasons to justify beliefs that aren’t wrong. So far, you haven’t been able to suggest any.
Science has a nasty habit of laughing at the notion of flight until some bloke invents the airplane.
“Science” is incapable of laughing at anything, and it was because of science that human flight became possible.
At the behaviour of apes until a secretary goes out and lives among them. A nasty habit of jumping on the bandwagon and taking credit for stuff science had nothing to do with the creation of.
What are you even trying to say here?
So, if you feel good about the ever changing dogma of science as some intellectual crutch which limits itself into a stagnant pool, by all means, have at it; but don't feel so smug and self-righteous in criticizing that which you don't understand.
Oh dear. All that’s happening is that you’re being asked to provide arguments to justify your beliefs. So far at least, all you have is assertions – and fantastical ones at that.
If science can't test the supernatural…
It’s claims about “the supernatural”. You can’t just assert the supernatural into existence - that’s called reification (another fallacy). Your problem isn’t that science can’t investigate and verify claims of the supernatural, it’s that nothing else can either. Absent a method of any kind, “the supernatural” is just white noise.
…then no one can make any real scientific claims negating the supernatural…
Science doesn’t claim to negate claims of the supernatural – it’s indifferent to them because its methods and tools have no way to engage with these claims. The problem though is that nor can anything else.
…and keep in mind, at one time giant squid and whales were supernatural.
No they weren’t.
-
I believe it did happen and it is happening. I've dedicated nearly 30 years to it's study, with the examination of the perspective of its critics as a priority and I've yet to see any reason to doubt it.
I've already stated. Why not?
You seem to have got the burden of proof completely arse about face. What reason do you have to take any of it seriously in the first place?
-
I assume from that that you're a JW.
-
I assume from that that you're a JW.
I am not. I wouldn't ever be a part of any organised religion.
-
You seem to have got the burden of proof completely arse about face. What reason do you have to take any of it seriously in the first place?
There is no burden of proof in faith. I have lots of reasons to take it seriously. When you read my posts you begin to see what they are. I've never been presented with any reason not to, that's for sure.
-
BHR,
I believe it did happen and it is happening. I've dedicated nearly 30 years to it's study, with the examination of the perspective of its critics as a priority and I've yet to see any reason to doubt it.
The more |I have read your posts during these last few days, the more my amazement has grown at your credulity.
On another forum some years ago I started a topic, the title of which was 'What do theologians know, actually know, about God?'
It went on for many pages and tailed off without, of course, anyone producing one single piece of objective information about God. (And yes, this was the Abrahamic Christian God being referred to.)
I can safely say, you cannot produce one either.
By the way, I agree with above posts, by critical thinkers.
-
All I see is a bunch of middle-eastern religious superstitions dating from antiquity, elements of the cultures of those times, a dash of travelogue here and there, various anecdotes of uncertain provenance, some poetry and some fantastical claims: given the risks of exaggeration, mistakes and lies I'd say that, with the possible exceptions of geographical information and some real historical characters and events, most of it is indistinguishable from fiction.
No doubt it is of cultural and historical interest, as its role in political and social terms over the centuries since, but I'm constantly surprised that these days it is taken seriously at all.
A masterly summation.
-
TS,
There is no burden of proof in faith.
Then there’s no reason to take its claims seriously. It also gives you the problem that any faith claim from any tradition is as (in)valid as any other.
Does that not trouble you at all?
I have lots of reasons to take it seriously.
Then why keep them a secret?
When you read my posts you begin to see what they are.
I can’t. So far, all I’ve seen is unqualified assertions and fallacious reasoning to justify them.
I've never been presented with any reason not to, that's for sure.
Clearly not true. A pretty big reason is that you cannot (or will not) demonstrate a logically sound argument to justify your beliefs.
-
You say you're not a JW, and I don't doubt your word as far as membership of the organisation is concerned, but your OP is pure JWism, including the idea that Christ and Michael are the same, and referring to God as 'Jehovah'.
-
There is no burden of proof in faith.
That doesn't make sense. How can you decide what to have faith in, without a burden of proof? You'd have to take every single faith claim equally seriously.
I have lots of reasons to take it seriously.
Such as?
When you read my posts you begin to see what they are.
Haven't seen anything like that in them yet.
I've never been presented with any reason not to, that's for sure.
How about it's just an old myth with zero supporting evidence or reasoning? Not having some positive reason to take something seriously is quite enough reason to dismiss it, if you're being rational.
-
Since TS has spent so many years studying the Bible and, it seems, giving it a status of almost infallibility,, it seems he is still trying to convince himself that his interpretation and understanding are right; although still unsuccessfully it would seem since, if he had in fact succeeded, he would be able to pass on this indisputable information to us. It saddens me to think of so many people spending so much time and energy on a never-ending trail trying to find an ever-elusive pot of gold.
-
Since TS has spent so many years studying the Bible and, it seems, giving it a status of almost infallibility,, it seems he is still trying to convince himself that his interpretation and understanding are right; although still unsuccessfully it would seem since, if he had in fact succeeded, he would be able to pass on this indisputable information to us. It saddens me to think of so many people spending so much time and energy on a never-ending trail trying to find an ever-elusive pot of gold.
You atheists are all alike, really, aren't you. Always blowing your own horn just like you like it to be blown.
I try and convince myself that my interpretation and understanding is wrong, which is why I'm here on an atheist forum and have a response to an atheist website. You all on the other hand are here for . . . well, you get the picture.
-
TS,
You atheists are all alike, really, aren't you. Always blowing your own horn just like you like it to be blown.
I try and convince myself that my interpretation and understanding is wrong, which is why I'm here on an atheist forum and have a response to an atheist website. You all on the other hand are here for . . . well, you get the picture.
If you want to convince yourself that your interpretation and understanding is wrong all you have to do is to consider the absence of cogent reasoning to justify your beliefs. I suspect though that, having invested so heavily for so long in those beliefs, that’s the last thing you want to do.
-
Since TS has spent so many years studying the Bible and, it seems, giving it a status of almost infallibility,, it seems he is still trying to convince himself that his interpretation and understanding are right; although still unsuccessfully it would seem since, if he had in fact succeeded, he would be able to pass on this indisputable information to us. It saddens me to think of so many people spending so much time and energy on a never-ending trail trying to find an ever-elusive pot of gold.
Don't worry...it's all coming to an end. A new heavens and a new Earth will erupt out of the chaos that many here, seem to enjoy. People inspired by the Holy Bible are many...It's much harder to build than it is to destroy and the Dawkinists seem to enjoy destruction of the solid health pattern that the Holy Bible leads us towards. A natural disaster is looming and those following righteousness as Jesus alone taught is will be in with a shout because the science behind it all isn't conducive with failure.
-
Sparky,
Don't worry...it's all coming to an end. A new heavens and a new Earth will erupt out of the chaos that many here, seem to enjoy. People inspired by the Holy Bible are many...It's much harder to build than it is to destroy and the Dawkinists seem to enjoy destruction of the solid health pattern that the Holy Bible leads us towards. A natural disaster is looming and those following righteousness as Jesus alone taught is will be in with a shout because the science behind it all isn't conducive with failure.
Madder than a monkey on a tricycle.
-
Since TS has spent so many years studying the Bible and, it seems, giving it a status of almost infallibility,, it seems he is still trying to convince himself that his interpretation and understanding are right; although still unsuccessfully it would seem since, if he had in fact succeeded, he would be able to pass on this indisputable information to us. It saddens me to think of so many people spending so much time and energy on a never-ending trail trying to find an ever-elusive pot of gold.
S D, I know I rattle on about world fame but perhaps that's exactly what T S is looking for.
I've no idea how to put a bet on in a betting shop but in T S's case it maybe it doesn't matter.
Regards Susan, ippy.
-
TS,
If you want to convince yourself that your interpretation and understanding is wrong all you have to do is to consider the absence of cogent reasoning to justify your beliefs. I suspect though that, having invested so heavily for so long in those beliefs, that’s the last thing you want to do.
If any of you can point out where, how and why my beliefs are wrong I strongly encourage you to do so, keeping in mind, however, that merely repeating that it is wrong, incoherent, blah, blah, blah isn't, by any means, in fact, coming close to concluding. You have to say where, how and or why they are wrong in a manner which transcends your own personal vacuous ideology.
-
Don't worry...it's all coming to an end. A new heavens and a new Earth will erupt out of the chaos that many here, seem to enjoy. People inspired by the Holy Bible are many...It's much harder to build than it is to destroy and the Dawkinists seem to enjoy destruction of the solid health pattern that the Holy Bible leads us towards. A natural disaster is looming and those following righteousness as Jesus alone taught is will be in with a shout because the science behind it all isn't conducive with failure.
I have no idea what you're talking about. The American atheist bullshit answer tends to be slightly less involved so this might take some getting used to.
-
The meaning of the Bible can be summed up briefly as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
The tree of the knowledge of good and bad represented, to Adam, Jehovah God's sovereignty. That is, his right, as our creator, to decide for us what was good and what was bad until we, like children, matured to the point where we could do that for ourselves within the parameters of that sovereignty.
God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels. Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve.
The angels existed for a very long time before man was created, and they had time to mature, like children, so that they knew what was good and bad from their creator. It is important that you understand that being created perfect is much like being born a baby. Parents see their newborn children as perfect, but think about it. They can't walk, talk, feed themselves, go to the bathroom properly - they are bald, toothless, chubby, defenseless little creatures. Perfect in the sense that they have great potential and innocence.
By the time man was created the angels had already reached their potential.
On the seventh day, when the creation was complete, God "rested." This doesn't mean that God was tired or that he stopped working, it means he set aside a period of time in which we were allowed to mature, as the angels had done. When we would have accomplished this we could, as the Bible says, enter into God's day of rest. In other words, the seventh "day" or more accurately, period, of creation continues to this day. So the knowledge of what is good and what is bad is the eventual possession of that maturity. The ability to decide for ourselves what was good and what was bad, predicated upon an acknowledgement of our own accord, of our creator, Jehovah's rightful sovereignty.
This is why, once Adam rejected that concept by deciding for himself what was good and bad before he had matured in able to best do that, Jehovah had to shorten his life from living forever to eventually dying. Because if he and his offspring, mankind, were allowed to live forever under those conditions, they would never reach that maturity and they would bring about an endless series of chaos and destruction.
So, in effect, Satan charged Jehovah with the crime of withholding some knowledge from mankind. He knew this wasn't true, but he wanted to try and seize control of the power that Jehovah's sovereignty represented even if it meant destroying all that it represented and everything else in the process. Even destroying himself. Like a jealous child breaking a toy so no one else can have it.
But to Jehovah justice is very important. You can't just wave away a crime due to the damage that has been incurred. So he allowed the charges against him to be tried, as in a court of law. He allowed Satan's theory to be tested in a manner of speaking. With the stipulation that 1. he wasn't going to allow it to prevent his original purpose for the angels and mankind from being fulfilled beyond what was necessary to establish his defense. That they should live forever in peace, in heaven and on earth respectively. And 2. that justice would be done.
From Jehovah's perspective the life he created, the life he gave us, is sacred. Belonging to God. According to the Bible our soul is our life, represented by our blood, so blood is sacred. To kill someone, or take their soul, requires the payment of the killer's own soul because it is taking something sacred to Jehovah. So the blood sacrifices represented a respect for or acknowledgement of his created life granted to us. For example, if a person was found murdered and no one knew who did the killing then they had to sacrifice a bull and spill its blood on the ground as a symbolic acknowledgement of God's possession.
Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.
So immediately after Adam's sin Jehovah put in motion the plan for all of this to take place while Satan's theory was being tested. In a basic sense the steps were as follows.
1. Select a group of people.
2. Form a nation for those people.
3. Demonstrate to them what was going on by establishing a law which they couldn't keep due to their imperfection, or the incomplete nature of their lack of the aforementioned maturity.
4. Provide a way out through a Messiah or Christ, namely, Michael, who volunteered due to his love for mankind and his father, Jehovah's purpose. So Michael came to earth as a man, Jesus the Christ.
Thoroughly enjoyed reading that. I couldn't find any fault in it. It is obviously inspired by much study and spiritual insight...and I learnt a few things. What a relief to find a righteous thinker on this board who actually believes in the wonderful faith inspired by the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
-
I have no idea what you're talking about. The American atheist bullshit answer tends to be slightly less involved so this might take some getting used to.
I think and hope you have misunderstood what I was saying...It was aimed at Susan Doritt's response to you. I have just read your opening post and was quite impressed. Even so...Revelation clearly states that this system is coming to an end, and I can't wait. The atheists here deserve a last chance because the science behind it all is too complicated for them but the fiery lake of sulphur is on its way and the evidence is etched in the distressed skies in particular, the Sun and the Moon.
-
If any of you can point out where, how and why my beliefs are wrong I strongly encourage you to do so, keeping in mind, however, that merely repeating that it is wrong, incoherent, blah, blah, blah isn't, my any means, in fact, coming close to starting. You have to say where, how and or why they are wrong in a manner which transcends your own personal vacuous ideology.
Do you seriously not get it? You've told us a fantastical story, that's all. You have provided no reason as to why you think it corresponds to reality. It's not a question of saying why it's wrong if you've given us no reason to take it seriously in the first place.
-
I think and hope you have misunderstood what I was saying...It was aimed at Susan Doritt's response to you.
Was it. Well, I have no idea what you were talking about. Either that has to do with it being English or I've picked the wrong time to stop smoking.
I have just read your opening post and was quite impressed. Even so...Revelation clearly states that this system is coming to an end, and I can't wait.
That I can dig.
The atheists here deserve a last chance because the science behind it all is too complicated for them but the fiery lake of sulphur is on its way and the evidence is etched in the distressed skies in particular, the Sun and the Moon.
Science is a temporal method of investigation. It's like lava lamps and bellbottoms. Here today, gone tomorrow. Atheists like to think that science is the representation of logic and reason. It's nothing to do with those. Science is always wrong until it isn't science anymore.
-
Thoroughly enjoyed reading that.
Well, thank you. Glad you enjoyed it.
I couldn't find any fault in it.
There probably is. I often read over my posts and marvel at how wrong they are. I didn't mean to say that. That is the opposite of what I meant to say. That's just wrong. Et cetera. It's funny that no one ever calls me on the stuff that's actually wrong, but only the stuff they disagree with. Except for when I misinterpret what someone is saying which is often.
[Sigh]
It is obviously inspired by much study and spiritual insight...and I learnt a few things.
Good. I'm glad.
What a relief to find a righteous thinker on this board who actually believes in the wonderful faith inspired by the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
Nah. You'll not find any of those. If you see someone claiming to be a righteous thinker stand back. There isn't such a thing. It certainly isn't me.
"If my thought dreams could be seen, they'd probably put my head in a guillotine." Bob Dylan
-
May I suggest to the mods that they create a separate board for TS and NM which the rest of us can then ignore?! :)
-
May I suggest to the mods that they create a separate board for TS and NM which the rest of us can then ignore?! :)
Then, when the atheists get tired of patting each other on the back - and believe it or not it would eventually happen - our board would be the most popular because an atheist can't be right until they think someone is wrong.
-
Then, when the atheists get tired of patting each other on the back - and believe it or not it would eventually happen - our board would be the most popular because an atheist can't be right until they think someone is wrong.
;D ;D ;D
-
Science is always wrong until it isn't science anymore.
Really? Can you demonstrate this with reference to our understanding of the boiling point of water?
Or are you just redefining the word science to fit into your own theory?
-
The meaning of the Bible can be summed up briefly as the vindication of Jehovah God's name through the ransom sacrifice of Christ Jesus.
Why does an all-loving deity require a blood-sacrifice? Is it really a sacrifice if Jesus comes back after two days - isn't that a weekend off?
The tree of the knowledge of good and bad represented, to Adam, Jehovah God's sovereignty.
Until Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, how could you they understand that disobedience was bad? If God really didn't want them eating the fruit, why did he put it were two innocents could reach it? Even if this is true, how does Adam and Eve's transgression justify threatening the rest of humanity throughout history with eternal punishment?
That is, his right, as our creator, to decide for us what was good and what was bad until we, like children, matured to the point where we could do that for ourselves within the parameters of that sovereignty.
As a 'creator' I don't have a right to decide what's good or bad for my children, I have a duty to teach them to decide for themselves what's good or bad. I have a responsibility to myself to try to set them an example, I don't get to lay down blanket rules as some sort of moral dictator.
God created Michael first. Then Michael, as Jehovah's master worker, created everything through Jehovah's Holy Spirit or active force. The first thing that was created was the spiritual heavens. This was followed by the spirit beings, often called angels.
With all these divine beings in the pantheon, how come Judao-Christianity is depicted as a monotheism?
Then the physical heavens, or space as we know it, including Earth, the stars, sun and moon. Then everything on Earth eventually concluding with Adam and Eve.
The sequence depicted in the stories makes no sense in light of what we understand about the origins of the universe, the solar system, the planet and the emergence of life upon it.
Since we inherited sin through Adam then the only man who could pay the price for the blood of Adam, which had been perfect and without sin from the start until he did sin - was the blood of a man who was without sin.
Very little in what you've said so completely destroys the concept of this being a justifiable system as the idea that children who inherit traits from their parents can be somehow 'blamed' or 'punished' for manifesting them - even if those traits are somehow undesirable, you don't punish people for what's inherent in their nature.
O.
-
As a 'creator' I don't have a right to decide what's good or bad for my children, I have a duty to teach them to decide for themselves what's good or bad. I have a responsibility to myself to try to set them an example, I don't get to lay down blanket rules as some sort of moral dictator.
.
Sanctimonious humanist clap trap. If you are not prepared to examplify good or bad how can you possibly teach others to decide? Well meaning cobblers.
-
Sanctimonious humanist claptrap. If you are not prepared to exemplify good or bad how can you possibly teach others to decide? Well-meaning cobblers.
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
-
Talk about the pot calling the kettle black!
Sanctimonious? moi?
-
TS,
Science is a temporal method of investigation.
Maybe, but until something else is found with a more verifiably robust way of understanding the world we live in it’s the only show in town.
It's like lava lamps and bellbottoms. Here today, gone tomorrow.
What makes you think it’ll be gone tomorrow? You do realise that science is a method as well as an agglomeration of facts right? What method do you think will one day replace it?
Atheists like to think that science is the representation of logic and reason.
Well, a representation at least and it’s scientists (and other reasoning people) who do that – not just atheists.
It's nothing to do with those.
It has everything to do with those. Science is the practical application of logic and reason.
Science is always wrong until it isn't science anymore.
Flat wrong. Science is right inasmuch as it establishes workable truths – ‘planes fly, penicillin cures. Your mistake is to imply it makes claims to certainty, which it doesn’t – that’s why it establishes theories that, in principle at least, are falsifiable.
Then, when the atheists get tired of patting each other on the back - and believe it or not it would eventually happen - our board would be the most popular because an atheist can't be right until they think someone is wrong.
It’s atheism (not atheists) and it the arguments people attempt to justify their beliefs, not “someone”. And yes, atheism stands in relation to theism in the same way that a-leprechaunism stands in relation to leprechaunism - and for the same reason.
-
Why does an all-loving deity require a blood-sacrifice? Is it really a sacrifice if Jesus comes back after two days - isn't that a weekend off?
O.
I think I can help here...you see...at that time human sacrifice was all the rage. The high-priests realising that fear kept people obedient will have rituals demanding human sacrifice but Almighty God, in His wisdom led the Jewish nation out of that horrible practice by demanding a blood letting of animals that would die anyway. Painful for the owners who didn't enjoy losing their best livestock. Jesus was the last sacrifice introducing us to the space-age where we had the chance to be much less savage...but the high-priests still have their blood lusts and so many wars and rumours of wars to keep us all fearful...whilst they rule the roost.
-
TS,
Maybe, but until something else is found with a more verifiably robust way of understanding the world we live in it’s the only show in town.
The only science show in town, you mean.
-
but the fiery lake of sulphur is on its way and the evidence is etched in the distressed skies in particular, the Sun and the Moon.
Good, a positive statement.
Starting with the moon in particular. Could you please demonstrate accurately, the distress to which you refer?
-
Vlad,
Sanctimonious humanist clap trap. If you are not prepared to examplify good or bad how can you possibly teach others to decide? Well meaning cobblers.
"examplify"?
Anyway, if you aren't prepared to "examplify" good and bad aesthetics how can you possibly teach others to decide which paintings are better than others?
You never have understood the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy you so often fall into have you.
-
Vlad,
The only science show in town, you mean.
No, the only show in town that's more reliably investigable and verifiable than just guessing (or, as religious people call it, "faith").
-
It has everything to do with those. Science is the practical application of logic and reason.
I think that minimises the role of empiricism in science. I think French enlightenment science was carried out more by reason than experimentation but British empiricism made a greater mark. I think it might be more correct therefore to state that Science is the practical application of empiricism since logic and reason are also part of philosophy and philosophy and science aren't a perfect fit.
-
Vlad,
"examplify"?
Anyway, if you aren't prepared to "examplify" good and bad aesthetics how can you possibly teach others to decide which paintings are better than others?
You never have understood the argumentum ad consequentiam fallacy you so often fall into have you.
Unfortunately neither Outrider nor you you have any way of moral arbitration so neither of you can possibly teach anything about good or bad or how to reach it.
-
Vlad,
No, the only show in town that's more reliably investigable and verifiable than just guessing (or, as religious people call it, "faith").
Guessing or hypothesising as it is sometimes known is part of the scientific process meaning effectively you have been denigrating science for years.
-
Outrider
I really like your reply - the contrast of TS's and your words is, or rather, would be hilarious … if it was not also so sad that people believe all this stuff.
-
Good, a positive statement.
Starting with the moon in particular. Could you please demonstrate accurately, the distress to which you refer?
Look up in the skies yourself and see it first hand. I can tell you the full outcome because our Saviour...the Lord Jesus Christ/Yahshua, made it known to us 2000 years ago...and there is a place in it reserved for you unless you can repent, and quickly. Try reading Revelation and see low it all matches up. Then you will realise that, out of Christian love, I want to spare you all from it.
-
Vlad,
I think that minimises the role of empiricism in science. I think French enlightenment science was carried out more by reason than experimentation but British empiricism made a greater mark. I think it might be more correct therefore to state that Science is the practical application of empiricism since logic and reason are also part of philosophy and philosophy and science aren't a perfect fit.
I didn’t say that all reason and logic is testable scientifically – I just said that science is the practical application of reason and logic.
Unfortunately neither Outrider nor you you have any way of moral arbitration so neither of you can possibly teach anything about good or bad or how to reach it.
FFS – will you at least look up “argumentum ad conseqeuntiam” before you fall into it again?
And of course you can “arbitrate” morality without claiming absolute moral good and bad, just as you can “arbitrate” good and bad paintings without claiming absolute aesthetics.
Why is this difficult for you to grasp?
Guessing or hypothesising as it is sometimes known is part of the scientific process meaning effectively you have been denigrating science for years.
Wrong again. Guessing is the first part of the scientific process, but the process also requires finding evidence, testing it, peer review, making reliable predictions etc. By contrast, guessing is the beginning of theology but it’s also the end of it. Just calling it “faith” doesn’t get you off that hook.
-
And of course you can “arbitrate” morality without claiming absolute moral good and bad, just as you can “arbitrate” good and bad paintings without claiming absolute aesthetics.
What you are describing is called ''let's pretend''.
Wrong again. Guessing is the first part of the scientific process, but the process also requires finding evidence, testing it, peer review, making reliable predictions etc. By contrast, guessing is the beginning of theology but it’s also the end of it. Just calling it “faith” doesn’t get you off that hook.
Sorry I know the difference between guessing something and realising it, at the time and for me, as a troubling reality. You, for dogmatic reasons, cannot countenance the latter. So guessing or hypothesising is not the end of it. I too have science and therefore lack nothing you have apart from the scientism you have chosen to spin out of what we both hold. Since I once thought like you I know it is more in line with a guess.
-
Vlad,
What you are describing is called ''let's pretend''.
No it isn’t, any more than all of secular moral philosophy is “let’s pretend”. That some people don’t look up their morality in a book you happen to think to be authoritative (or in different books with different moral rules that other people think to be authoritative) doesn’t invalidate their morality.
For some reason you keep avoiding it, but the same applies to aesthetics – why is discussion about good and bad art also not “let’s pretend” without a “holy” book to look up those rules in your view?
Sorry I know the difference between guessing something and realising it, at the time and for me, as a troubling reality.
Absent a method to know whether you’ve “realised” something as true rather than just guessed it to be true because that’s the way it feels, how do you “know” that difference?
You, for dogmatic reasons, cannot countenance the latter.
If you want to call reason “dogma”, go right ahead.
So guessing or hypothesising is not the end of it.
It is insofar as your religious beliefs are concerned. That’s why you’re forced to call it “faith” to fill the void.
I too have science and therefore lack nothing you have…
Which has nothing to say to your faith claims…
…apart from the scientism you have chosen to spin out of what we both hold.
I’ve never subscribed to scientism, as I’ve expressly explained to you many times. Just lying about that doesn’t change the fact.
Since I once thought like you I know it is more in line with a guess.
What do you think it is that I actually argue for that’s “more in line with a guess” exactly?
-
Vlad,
No it isn’t, any more than all of secular moral philosophy is “let’s pretend”.
Indeed some secularists are moral realists who can't understand holding a supposed disdain of making shit up while simultaneously having a moral philosophy with no actual means of moral arbitration.
Scientism is part of your blood group.
-
Look up in the skies yourself and see it first hand. I can tell you the full outcome because our Saviour...the Lord Jesus Christ/Yahshua, made it known to us 2000 years ago...and there is a place in it reserved for you unless you can repent, and quickly. Try reading Revelation and see low it all matches up. Then you will realise that, out of Christian love, I want to spare you all from it.
I do look at the skies regularly.
I need something more specific from you in order to see to what you are referring.
If there is something to look at specifically I will.
You I presume can still see this event/item?
What is it, where is it? (Hint, the sky is a big place, you will need to he accurate in your description.) Do you have coordinates perhaps, accurate ones?
-
Vlad,
Indeed some secularists are moral realists who can't understand holding a supposed disdain of making shit up while simultaneously having a moral philosophy with no actual means of moral arbitration.
So no answer then. Thought so.
Scientism is part of your blood group.
So's your interest in underage girls.
See, just making up positions people have expressly and consistently told you they don't hold so as to attack your own straw men is both hopeless and dishonest. You should stop doing it.
-
Unfortunately neither Outrider nor you you have any way of moral arbitration so neither of you can possibly teach anything about good or bad or how to reach it.
You know how you've got all these religions, and within these religions all these various sects, and within those various sects you have cults of one persuasion or another, and you choose which one it is that you feel aligns with your understanding - that's the moral arbitration we do, that's the sense of moral judgement we use. You've decided there are parts of the moral teachings that you accep and parts you don't, and you've selected a creed based on that (which may or may not broadly align with one of the traditional sects); I've done the same, it's just that the bits I've rejected included the superstition and the unsupported ideas like 'holy', 'gods', 'divinity' and 'spirit'.
O.
-
Sanctimonious humanist clap trap. If you are not prepared to examplify good or bad how can you possibly teach others to decide? Well meaning cobblers.
I teach principles, not tenets, I model behaviour rather than be an authoritarian enforcer of it; I'll defend my behaviour based on my principles, and I expect my kids to do the same.
O.
-
I think I can help here...you see...at that time human sacrifice was all the rage. The high-priests realising that fear kept people obedient will have rituals demanding human sacrifice but Almighty God, in His wisdom led the Jewish nation out of that horrible practice by demanding a blood letting of animals that would die anyway. Painful for the owners who didn't enjoy losing their best livestock. Jesus was the last sacrifice introducing us to the space-age where we had the chance to be much less savage...but the high-priests still have their blood lusts and so many wars and rumours of wars to keep us all fearful...whilst they rule the roost.
So God will threaten the entirety of humanity with eternal torment because two people who didn't know better were tempted by a divine being; yet he'll compromise with a select group in an isolated community in the middle-East knowingly defying his will and conducting sacrifices, by... conducting a blood sacrifice?
Which, of course, fails to address why God was so actively asking for sacrifices in the Old Testament?
If the sacrifice of Jesus has already been made, why are we still being threatened with punishment?
O.
-
I think I can help here...you see...at that time human sacrifice was all the rage. The high-priests realising that fear kept people obedient will have rituals demanding human sacrifice but Almighty God, in His wisdom led the Jewish nation out of that horrible practice by demanding a blood letting of animals that would die anyway. Painful for the owners who didn't enjoy losing their best livestock. Jesus was the last sacrifice introducing us to the space-age where we had the chance to be much less savage...but the high-priests still have their blood lusts and so many wars and rumours of wars to keep us all fearful...whilst they rule the roost.
When was human sacrifice rife?
Assuming that the nation of Israel first came into existance sometime between c.110-1000 BC, please give examples of neigbouring nations practicing human sacrifice at that time, giving SCIENTIFIC proofs.
Thanks.
-
Unfortunately neither Outrider nor you you have any way of moral arbitration...
What's yours?
-
NTtS,
What's yours?
He looks it up in a compendium of books. But only in the compendium he’s decided is the right one, as opposed to the other “holy” books with moral instructions in them. This compendium also just happens to be the one most proximate to him culturally. Except there are also many moral questions the authors of these books never thought of, so for those he has to find some other way to “arbitrate”. We don't know what that way is though. Oh, and some of the moral instructions in his choice of books are morally disgusting by modern standards, so he doesn’t subscribe to those ones. Only how he arbitrates that is a mystery too.
Something like that anyway.
-
NS,
He looks it up in a book. But only in the book he’s decided is the right one, as opposed to the other “holy” books with moral instructions in them. This book also just happens to be the one most proximate to him culturally. Except there are also many moral questions the authors of this book never thought of, so for those he has to find some other way to “arbitrate”. We don't know what that way is though. Oh, and some of the moral instructions in his choice of books are morally disgusting by modern standards, so he doesn’t subscribe to those ones. Only how he arbitrates that is a mystery too.
Something like that anyway.
Just to avoid confusion, it's NToS you are replying to rather than me.
-
NS,
Just to avoid confusion, it's NToS you are replying to rather than me.
I know, sorry for the mistake. I changed it a fraction of a second before your correction.
-
What's yours?
Probably the same as yours but I don't dissociate myself from how I do it, when I discuss it intellectually, or indeed state that it is merely a matter of aesthetics and then expect others to take it like it isn't.
-
Probably the same as yours but I don't dissociate myself from how I do it...
How do you do it?
-
Vlad,
Probably the same as yours...
I'm pretty sure he doesn't take his morals from some ancient texts.
...but I don't dissociate myself from how I do it,...
How would we know that as "how I do it" seems to be a secret?
...when I discuss it intellectually...
Very funny.
..or indeed state that it is merely...
Who said "merely"? It wasn't me.
...a matter of aesthetics...
Actually analogous to aesthetics, but I guess "analogy" is another idea you've never grasped.
...and then expect others to take it like it isn't.
Who's done that? No-one here that I recall.
-
Vlad,
So no answer then. Thought so.
So's your interest in underage girls.
See, just making up positions people have expressly and consistently told you they don't hold so as to attack your own straw men is both hopeless and dishonest. You should stop doing it.
Me Hillside You are a sceintismatist.
Hillside. If I'm that you are a paedophile.
This forum has fallen into the completely ridiculous.
Who would have thought it.
-
Vlad,
Me Hillside You are a sceintismatist.
Hillside. If I'm that you are a paedophile.
This forum has fallen into the completely ridiculous.
Who would have thought it.
Dear god but you struggle with even the simplest of arguments don't you. No-one was seriously suggesting that you're a paedophile - what was being explained to you was that if you insist on calling someone something they're expressly not, then anyone else can play the same game back at you. What that something happens to be is irrelevant for this purpose.
-
Vlad,
Dear god but you struggle with even the simplest of arguments don't you. No-one was seriously suggesting that you're a paedophile - what was being explained to you was that if you insist on calling someone something they're expressly not, then anyone else can play the same game back at you. What that something happens to be is irrelevant for this purpose.
You are seriously fooling yourself.
-
Vlad,
You are seriously fooling yourself.
If that narrative makes you feel better about being unable to grasp simple arguments knock yourself out. It doesn't though change the fact that you consistently misrepresent the positions of others here, so you're on thin ice when it's done to you.
-
Why does an all-loving deity require a blood-sacrifice?
Because for justice to be done, Adam had to die for his sin - that was the penalty - or else someone who had no sin of his own to pay the penalty for, had to die in his place.
Is it really a sacrifice if Jesus comes back after two days - isn't that a weekend off?
It wouldn't have been a sacrifice if he had not died.
Until Adam and Eve ate the fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, how could you they understand that disobedience was bad?
They couldn't, it was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil because you only knew disobedience was bad once you'd disobeyed.
If God really didn't want them eating the fruit, why did he put it were two innocents could reach it?
Because he wanted them to be able to choose to refuse it. He told them to rule over the animals, so they knew they were meant to take God's word over the snake's.
Even if this is true, how does Adam and Eve's transgression justify threatening the rest of humanity throughout history with eternal punishment?
God hasn't threatened humanity with punishment without providing a means by which they can be saved from it.
As a 'creator' I don't have a right to decide what's good or bad for my children, I have a duty to teach them to decide for themselves what's good or bad. I have a responsibility to myself to try to set them an example, I don't get to lay down blanket rules as some sort of moral dictator.
But you would also expect them to obey you if you prohibited something.
With all these divine beings in the pantheon, how come Judao-Christianity is depicted as a monotheism?
I think our friend has got it wrong here: if Michael is the Angel of Jehovah and therefore Jesus, then God did not create him, as Jesus always existed. If Michael is just an (arch)angel, then he was created along with the other angels.
The sequence depicted in the stories makes no sense in light of what we understand about the origins of the universe, the solar system, the planet and the emergence of life upon it.
The New heavens and Earth too - no sun, God is its light.
Very little in what you've said so completely destroys the concept of this being a justifiable system as the idea that children who inherit traits from their parents can be somehow 'blamed' or 'punished' for manifesting them - even if those traits are somehow undesirable, you don't punish people for what's inherent in their nature.
O.
Children sometimes have to suffer as a consequence of their parents' actions though. Again, God has provided a way for each individual to be saved.
-
I am not. I wouldn't ever be a part of any organised religion.
And yet the beliefs you have summarised are very close to those of the Jehovah's Witnesses. Certainly closer than those of our own Nicholas Marks (unless you are his more lucid alter-ego.) I know of no other sect which equates Christ with the Archangel Michael.
-
Because for justice to be done, Adam had to die for his sin - that was the penalty - or else someone who had no sin of his own to pay the penalty for, had to die in his place.
That's not justice, it's primitive barbarism.
They couldn't, it was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil because you only knew disobedience was bad once you'd disobeyed.
Which makes it even less like justice.
God hasn't threatened humanity with punishment without providing a means by which they can be saved from it.
Only an evil monster would threaten it in the first place, just for the actions of two people.
Children sometimes have to suffer as a consequence of their parents' actions though.
Unfortunately they do, but only an evil monster would make it so by design.
-
Thoroughly enjoyed reading that. I couldn't find any fault in it. It is obviously inspired by much study and spiritual insight...and I learnt a few things. What a relief to find a righteous thinker on this board who actually believes in the wonderful faith inspired by the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
No, Nick. He was obviously brainwashed by the Jehovah's Witnesses at some stage, like yourself. There's no 'spiritual insight' involved. And then, I'm pretty sure that he, like you, was 'disfellowshipped' by them for wanting to indulge in his own individual interpretations - or in your case fantasies. But neither of you have the critical intelligence or the guts to see what a complete pile of pants the original teaching is. No matter what individual embroidery you indulge in, you can't make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. In your case, you simply make matters worse, because the original JW teaching, though mostly garbage, is at least clear. And one can take it or leave it. Fortunately there are enough people who have come under the influence of the JWs, yet have had the wisdom to leave it.
-
Because for justice to be done, Adam had to die for his sin - that was the penalty - or else someone who had no sin of his own to pay the penalty for, had to die in his place.
A temporal 'crime' of curiosity whilst innocent (mitigated by God's failure to adequately control identified risks) results in the death penalty? That doesn't seem a little harsh?
It wouldn't have been a sacrifice if he had not died.
Given that he reportedly came back, that doesn't sound like a sacrifice - I'm not pretending that the process would have been pleasant if it had happened as described, but it's not a sacrifice if you're around to talk about it afterwards, is it?
They couldn't, it was called the tree of knowledge of good and evil because you only knew disobedience was bad once you'd disobeyed.
Which makes the idea of a punishment all the more repugnant - we have the concept of diminished responsibility, and it's potentially open to abuse at times, but this sort of lack of awareness is what it was put into place for. If someone genuinely doesn't understand what they're doing is wrong, how can we - or a perfectly moral deity - punish them for it?
Because he wanted them to be able to choose to refuse it.
What is the value of a choice made by someone who doesn't understand the consequences of the 'wrong' choice? How does an all-knowing God not already know which way they'll go?
He told them to rule over the animals, so they knew they were meant to take God's word over the snake's.
But the serpent wasn't a snake at the time - it was his subsequent punishment to crawl on his belly in the dust... and it spoke - animals don't speak, don't reason. This was a divine creature, with supernatural powers of temptation of its own, working on naive people with literally no moral understanding at all...
God hasn't threatened humanity with punishment without providing a means by which they can be saved from it.
Even if that were the best way forward, and I'd question that, it's the idea of an eternal punishment for a temporal activity, even if you define an atheist life (or the wrong theistic life) as something inherently worthy of punishment. Notwithstanding the authoritarian nature of 'my arbitrary, illogical way or hellfire', isn't an eternity of punishment excessive? Punishment not tempered with mercy isn't justice, it's revenge; when it's a punishment transposed from someone else's actions that's even less justice and becomes just sadism.
But you would also expect them to obey you if you prohibited something.
No, I'd expect them to understand when I explain to them why I don't think they should be doing things; until they're old enough to understand and make informed decisions they don't get to disobey because they aren't left alone.
I think our friend has got it wrong here: if Michael is the Angel of Jehovah and therefore Jesus, then God did not create him, as Jesus always existed. If Michael is just an (arch)angel, then he was created along with the other angels.
The specifics aren't necessarily the point - the various ranks of angels are divine beings, God and Jesus and the word of God/Holy Spirit are three independent (if 'spiritually' linked) divine beings... this isn't a monotheism.
The New heavens and Earth too - no sun, God is its light.
I appreciate most believers are ready to accept that the depiction of creation in Genesis is at least partially metaphoric - that was a point aimed at what seemed like a particularly literal interpretation.
Children sometimes have to suffer as a consequence of their parents' actions though.
No, they don't 'have to' - sometimes we lack the nuance, subtlety, compassion, time or sadly just the will to implement a system where it doesn't happen, sometimes we lack the ability to prevent it, but that's not the same as deliberately implementing the system so that it punishes individuals for the sins of their predecessors.
Again, God has provided a way for each individual to be saved.
That would be more meaningful if it wasn't God's apparent malice that we needed saving from. Even if you follow the teaching that salvation can be 'earned', not being eternally punished for something someone with no moral understanding did doesn't make god gracious or beneficent. People don't worship me because I don't kill the descendants of, say, slave traders... that's not holy, that's just the minimum standard of not being a tyrant.
O.
-
A temporal 'crime' of curiosity whilst innocent (mitigated by God's failure to adequately control identified risks) results in the death penalty? That doesn't seem a little harsh?
Given that he reportedly came back, that doesn't sound like a sacrifice - I'm not pretending that the process would have been pleasant if it had happened as described, but it's not a sacrifice if you're around to talk about it afterwards, is it?
Which makes the idea of a punishment all the more repugnant - we have the concept of diminished responsibility, and it's potentially open to abuse at times, but this sort of lack of awareness is what it was put into place for. If someone genuinely doesn't understand what they're doing is wrong, how can we - or a perfectly moral deity - punish them for it?
What is the value of a choice made by someone who doesn't understand the consequences of the 'wrong' choice? How does an all-knowing God not already know which way they'll go?
But the serpent wasn't a snake at the time - it was his subsequent punishment to crawl on his belly in the dust... and it spoke - animals don't speak, don't reason. This was a divine creature, with supernatural powers of temptation of its own, working on naive people with literally no moral understanding at all...
Even if that were the best way forward, and I'd question that, it's the idea of an eternal punishment for a temporal activity, even if you define an atheist life (or the wrong theistic life) as something inherently worthy of punishment. Notwithstanding the authoritarian nature of 'my arbitrary, illogical way or hellfire', isn't an eternity of punishment excessive? Punishment not tempered with mercy isn't justice, it's revenge; when it's a punishment transposed from someone else's actions that's even less justice and becomes just sadism.
No, I'd expect them to understand when I explain to them why I don't think they should be doing things; until they're old enough to understand and make informed decisions they don't get to disobey because they aren't left alone.
The specifics aren't necessarily the point - the various ranks of angels are divine beings, God and Jesus and the word of God/Holy Spirit are three independent (if 'spiritually' linked) divine beings... this isn't a monotheism.
I appreciate most believers are ready to accept that the depiction of creation in Genesis is at least partially metaphoric - that was a point aimed at what seemed like a particularly literal interpretation.
No, they don't 'have to' - sometimes we lack the nuance, subtlety, compassion, time or sadly just the will to implement a system where it doesn't happen, sometimes we lack the ability to prevent it, but that's not the same as deliberately implementing the system so that it punishes individuals for the sins of their predecessors.
That would be more meaningful if it wasn't God's apparent malice that we needed saving from. Even if you follow the teaching that salvation can be 'earned', not being eternally punished for something someone with no moral understanding did doesn't make god gracious or beneficent. People don't worship me because I don't kill the descendants of, say, slave traders... that's not holy, that's just the minimum standard of not being a tyrant.
O.
You take a very legalistic approach and thus imv. make yourself prone to look for loopholes.
This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship. However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship. If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.
I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.
It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.
-
Vlad,
You take a very legalistic approach and thus imv. make yourself prone to look for loopholes.
Isn’t the a priori problem that the story has loopholes at all rather than that it (supposedly) takes a particular approach to identify them?
This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship.
An alienation that we’re told this “god” made inevitable to start with remember – “he made us sick and commanded us to be well” as Christopher Hitchens used to say.
However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship.
Yeah, sadists sometimes behave that way – wreck everything, then offer to fix it in exchange for love, fealty etc.
If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.
Only if you believe the sorry mess of the morally contemptible myth to begin with. Oh, and doesn’t the price of non-alienation – craven “worship” of a capricious monster, Stockholm syndrome style – seem a bit high to you?
I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.
That he rigged to happen in the first place. How much more monstrous could this supposed god be would you say?
It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.
Of course it doesn’t sound like that. Real world actions have consequences anyway – that’s true whether or not you introduce an iron-age sky fairy superstition into the equation.
-
This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship. However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship. If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.
I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.
It's truly staggering how the utter monstrous absurdity of this story fails to register with (apparently) otherwise morally normal people. Visiting the 'crimes' of just two people on all their descendants is unjust, petty, and vindictive, even if you offer some way out. As for the bizarre sadomasochistic notion of god becoming a human and then making sure that he's tortured to death (only to be magicked back to life) meaning that we get a way out of the initial monstrous injustice, well, words fail me.
It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.
I prefer a system in which consequences are not randomly scattered on the innocent. The amount of doublethink needed to accept this horrific story and present it as justice is breathtaking.
-
It's truly staggering how the utter monstrous absurdity of this story fails to register with (apparently) otherwise morally normal people. Visiting the 'crimes' of just two people on all their descendants is unjust, petty, and vindictive, even if you offer some way out. As for the bizarre sadomasochistic notion of god becoming a human and then making sure that he's tortured to death (only to be magicked back to life) meaning that we get a way out of the initial monstrous injustice, well, words fail me.
I prefer a system in which consequences are not randomly scattered on the innocent. The amount of doublethink needed to accept this horrific story and present it as justice is breathtaking.
It's only horrific when you guys misrepresent it. You think it's all about crime and all you need to get out of that is a good lawyer. However it's relational and God has done what he can to keep that open so it's not just a question of supposed crime but bad will and alienation... on our part. The way to a relationship with God is open. Will you take it? and if not, why not?
-
An alienation that we’re told this “god” made inevitable to start with remember – “he made us sick and commanded us to be well” as Christopher Hitchens used to say.
Not in the Bible he didn't. Man walks happily with God in the beginning. That is how God made him. He doesn't command us to be well. The sick need a doctor.
Christopher Hitchen's was wrong on that account.
-
Vlad,
It's only horrific when you guys misrepresent it. You think it's all about crime and all you need to get out of that is a good lawyer. However it's relational and God has done what he can to keep that open so it's not just a question of supposed crime but bad will and alienation... on our part. The way to a relationship with God is open. Will you take it? and if not, why not?
Because I've never seen a sound argument to indicate that such a god exists at all. I also happen to think that that's a good thing - if there was a god as morally contemptible as you unwittingly suggest (and, apparently, as you worship) the idea of it would be just too depressing.
-
Vlad,
Not in the Bible he didn't. Man walks happily with God in the beginning. That is how God made him. He doesn't command us to be well. The sick need a doctor.
Christopher Hitchen's was wrong on that account.
Wrong again. He was referring to the Christian concept of original sin and redemption though Jesus. Christians (or most of them apparently) believe they were created sick (original sin) and ordered to be well (they must believe in Christ or be sent to hell).
Here’s CH’s take on it:
“What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.
And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties.”
And you choose to worship that "god"? Really though?
-
It's only horrific when you guys misrepresent it.
In what way?
You think it's all about crime...
Well that's how it's presented. Spud just used legal terms such as 'justice' and 'penalty' to defend it.
...and all you need to get out of that is a good lawyer.
No idea what this is supposed to mean. Why do I need to get out of anything?
However it's relational and God has done what he can to keep that open so it's not just a question of supposed crime but bad will and alienation... on our part.
This is just nonsensical. In the story, Adam and Eve did something wrong (although they apparently didn't even know right from wrong until afterwards) and everybody else has to live with the consequences. Relationships are between people, you don't blame the somebody's children for the breakdown of a relationship with their parents.
The way to a relationship with God is open. Will you take it? and if not, why not?
Firstly, I have zero reason to think any of this horrific nonsense is anything to do with reality, and secondly, if I thought for a moment it was, then god is a monster and I want nothing to do with it.
-
In what way?
Well that's how it's presented. Spud just used legal terms such as 'justice' and 'penalty' to defend it.
No idea what this is supposed to mean. Why do I need to get out of anything?
This is just nonsensical. In the story, Adam and Eve did something wrong (although they apparently didn't even know right from wrong until afterwards) and everybody else has to live with the consequences. Relationships are between people, you don't blame the somebody's children for the breakdown of a relationship with their parents.
Firstly, I have zero reason to think any of this horrific nonsense is anything to do with reality, and secondly, if I thought for a moment it was, then god is a monster and I want nothing to do with it.
I think you have got the story wrong though. God has reopened the door to himself through Jesus Christ. The horror story would be if God had slammed the door on all of us. The story as presented by the bible is that God, in Jesus Christ has opened the door to all of us. If the door is ever slammed shut it is because we are the ones that slam it.
Biblically, Christ reverses the ''work'' of Adam.
Putting yourself onto a forum where the most popular board is the Christian board is a strange way of not wanting anything to do with God.
-
I think you have got the story wrong though.
Why is it that every time you repeat it with different words, it's just as horrific? You seem to be completely blind to the implications.
God has reopened the door to himself through Jesus Christ.
Why was it closed in the first place? Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong (according to the story) until afterwards and nobody else got to choose. Why does the bizarre sadomasochistic incarnation, tortured to death and magicked back to life nonsense make any difference?
If the door is ever slammed shut it is because we are the ones that slam it.
But in the story nobody but Adam and Eve (who didn't even know right from wrong) got a genuine choice. All the rest of us are created sick (sinners).
-
Vlad,
Wrong again. He was referring to the Christian concept of original sin and redemption though Jesus. Christians (or most of them apparently) believe they were created sick (original sin) and ordered to be well (they must believe in Christ or be sent to hell).
Here’s CH’s take on it:
“What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.
And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties.”
And you choose to worship that "god"? Really though?
When Hitchens talks about critical faculties I rather think he means contrarianism.
Hitchens misses that biblically Jesus reverses the ''work'' of Adam. The door to God is unlocked. The only person asking critical faculties to be surrendered is Hitchens who exhorts us to surrender self critical faculties. His supposed concern for his faculties as I understand it extended to rewarding them on a frequent basis with copious amounts of alcohol.
And you choose to worship that? Really though?
-
“What we have here, picked from no mean source, is a distillation of precisely what is twisted and immoral in the faith mentality. Its essential fanaticism, its consideration of the human being as raw material, and its fantasy of purity.
Once you assume a creator and a plan, it makes us objects, in a cruel experiment, whereby we are created sick and commanded to be well. I'll repeat that. Created sick, and then ordered to be well.
And over us to supervise this, is installed a celestial dictatorship; a kind of divine North Korea. Exigent, I would say, more than exigent greedy for uncritical praise from dawn until dusk. And swift to punish the original sins with which it so tenderly gifted us in the very first place. An eternal, unalterable, judge, jury and executioner, against whom there could be no appeal. And who wasn't finished with you even when you died. However! Let no one say there's no cure! Salvation is offered! Redemption, indeed, is promised, at the low price, of the surrender of your critical faculties.”
A dogs dinner conflating earthly dictatorship. Balls. If Hitchen's wants to carry out an eternal rebellion against God he is free to do so. North Korea? There seems no compunction to give any show of phoney love. He conflates God and the church here too.
-
Why was it closed in the first place? Adam and Eve didn't know right from wrong (according to the story) until afterwards
They were told they would die if they ate it. Do you think it is unfair that they were denied the tree of life having disobeyed?
Also, if they then realized they had done wrong and decided to carry on doing wrong - after all, "tomorrow we die" - is it fair that God would close the door to them at the last judgment?
-
Vlad,
When Hitchens talks about critical faculties I rather think he means contrarianism.
Hitchens misses that biblically Jesus reverses the ''work'' of Adam. The door to God is unlocked.
The whole sadistic parlour game having been constructed by your supposedly good god in the first place remember?
The only person asking critical faculties to be surrendered is Hitchens who exhorts us to surrender self critical faculties.
If not for with critical faculties, how else would you propose anyone distinguish between true and not true? Faith? Seriously though?
His supposed concern for his faculties as I understand it extended to rewarding them on a frequent basis with copious amounts of alcohol.
Do grow up.
And you choose to worship that? Really though?
I don’t worship anything – I leave that self-loathing idiocy to the credulous.
A dogs dinner conflating earthly dictatorship. Balls. If Hitchen's wants to carry out an eternal rebellion against God he is free to do so. North Korea? There seems no compunction to give any show of phoney love. He conflates God and the church here too.
Are you feeling unwell or something? It’s your myth – you deal with its consequences.
-
Vlad,
The whole sadistic parlour game having been constructed by your supposedly good god in the first place remember?
Do grow up.
I don’t worship anything – I leave that self-loathing idiocy to the credulous.
Are you feeling unwell or something? It’s your myth – you deal with its consequences.
Christopher Hitchens telling of it isn't my myth either yet there you are quoting it.
-
Vlad,
Christopher Hitchens telling of it isn't my myth either yet there you are quoting it.
I have no idea what your myth is - whatever it is though, it seems to change more often than you change your socks. What CH was describing however was mainstream Christian theology - you can subscribe to that or not as you wish.
-
You take a very legalistic approach and thus imv. make yourself prone to look for loopholes.
This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship. However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship. If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.
I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.
It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.
Lorks alorky! "God" and "god". Have you suddenly adopted the Arian heresy? Maybe you've been influenced by the two latter-day Arians on this board. Watered down, lapsed JWs they may be, but the spirit of Arius has reached down through the ages, via the JWs to you.
Old 'Arry didn't die of a rectal prolapse in vain!
-
Lorks alorky! "God" and "god". Have you suddenly adopted the Arian heresy? Maybe you've been influenced by the two latter-day Arians on this board. Watered down, lapsed JWs they may be, but the spirit of Arius has reached down through the ages, via the JWs to you.
Old 'Arry didn't die of a rectal prolapse in vain!
Dicky......I may call you Dicky Mayn't I?
When I read this first on my smart phone I thought you'd written ''The spirit of Anus''.
We will now sing hymn number 33 ''Hark the sound of Barrels scraping''
-
Vlad,
I have no idea what your myth is - whatever it is though, it seems to change more often than you change your socks. What CH was describing however was mainstream Christian theology
No he wasn't. Have a nice day.
-
No he wasn't. Have a nice day.
So describe mainstream Christian theology.
-
So describe mainstream Christian theology.
Hitchens makes 2 or 3 mistakes. He takes a totally legalistic point of view, He seems to ignore that when we started as a race that we were in communion with God. He seems to ignore the new testament declaration that Christ has overturned the work of Adam.
There also seems to be the suggestion that God has trapped humanity, that he is a cosmic dictator and that you can only be redeemed or otherwise because of what you intellectually assent to.
In terms of mainstream christianity, original sin only comes in with Augustine and the augustinian understanding is not universal anyway.
Mainstream christianity states that relationship with God is available through Jesus Christ. There is no recourse to redemption through commandment obedience but through the merits of Jesus Christ which open the way to a relationship with God.
-
The basic problem of discussing virtually anything about the Bible is the fact that it does not take a literary genius to make it say just about anything you might want it to.
-
They were told they would die if they ate it. Do you think it is unfair that they were denied the tree of life having disobeyed?
If they didn't know right from wrong, then they shouldn't have been punished for anything. If god wanted them to make a real choice then they should have known that it was right to obey god and wrong to believe the talking snake.
Also, if they then realized they had done wrong and decided to carry on doing wrong - after all, "tomorrow we die" - is it fair that God would close the door to them at the last judgment?
Why "close the door" on all of their descendants because of what they did? That's not justice, it being spiteful and vindictive.
-
Hitchens makes 2 or 3 mistakes. He takes a totally legalistic point of view, He seems to ignore that when we started as a race that we were in communion with God...
If that was brought to an end for everyone because of the actions of two people (or whatever they represent), that makes god unjust and unfair.
He seems to ignore the new testament declaration that Christ has overturned the work of Adam.
Which is where we run in to an even more bizarre parody of justice in the bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, incarnation, tortured to death, and magicked back to life nonsense.
There also seems to be the suggestion that God has trapped humanity, that he is a cosmic dictator and that you can only be redeemed or otherwise because of what you intellectually assent to.
In terms of mainstream christianity, original sin only comes in with Augustine and the augustinian understanding is not universal anyway.
However you dress it up, most versions of Christianity claim that we are all sinners, which directly corresponds to being created sick and then being condemned for it, unless we swallow the absurd nonsense about Jesus.
If everybody sins, that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.
Mainstream christianity states that relationship with God is available through Jesus Christ.
But only if you're prepared to accept this bizarre nonsense and its monstrous god.
-
If that was brought to an end for everyone because of the actions of two people (or whatever they represent), that makes god unjust and unfair.
Which is where we run in to an even more bizarre parody of justice in the bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, incarnation, tortured to death, and magicked back to life nonsense.
However you dress it up, most versions of Christianity claim that we are all sinners, which directly corresponds to being created sick and then being condemned for it, unless we swallow the absurd nonsense about Jesus.
If everybody sins, that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.
But only if you're prepared to accept this bizarre nonsense and its monstrous god.
There is no design flaw since the Adam and Eve are described as walking with God i.e. a situation where they are neither sinning sinners, or in a state of sin. This is how mankind is 'designed' as you put it. Sin, sinning and sin are self mods if you like.
-
There is no design flaw since the Adam and Eve are described as walking with God i.e. a situation where they are neither sinning sinners, or in a state of sin. This is how mankind is 'designed' as you put it. Sin, sinning and sin are self mods if you like.
I didn't mod myself. According to your story book, it was god that introduced the modification when he had a hissy fit at Adam and Eve and decided to blame the whole of humanity from that time on.
-
If that was brought to an end for everyone because of the actions of two people (or whatever they represent), that makes god unjust and unfair.
Which is where we run in to an even more bizarre parody of justice in the bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, incarnation, tortured to death, and magicked back to life nonsense.
However you dress it up, most versions of Christianity claim that we are all sinners, which directly corresponds to being created sick and then being condemned for it, unless we swallow the absurd nonsense about Jesus.
If everybody sins, that isn't a choice, it's a design flaw.
But only if you're prepared to accept this bizarre nonsense and its monstrous god.
But it's only a story of bizareness and monstrosity in your version of it.
The way to God, thanks to Christ, is open to you. You are not especially evil so it doesn't apply to you too.
-
But it's only a story of bizareness and monstrosity in your version of it.
So (regarding the bizarreness) you think it's normal that god can forgive us only if it incarnates itself, then arranges to be tortured to death, and then gets magicked back to life? This strikes you as normal and reasonable, does it?
The monstrosity follows from sadomasochistic nature of the bizarreness and in injustice of making us all sinners because of what Adam and Eve did.
-
I didn't mod myself. According to your story book, it was god that introduced the modification when he had a hissy fit at Adam and Eve and decided to blame the whole of humanity from that time on.
Since humanity is nurtured by er, humans we find our selves in a sinful environment so sinlessness is never an example also we have the capacity to self mod. Note self not God. As many eastern patristic christians have commented, we recaptulate Adam's sin ourselves.
However your response exemplifies the common error of atheists...They only give one part of the story and omit the part where Christ undoes Adam's sin. Any subsequent sin is of our own design.
The omission of Christ's work from the atheist version is not the only omission.
Man walking with God in a state of sinlessness is also ignored.
I guess we don't like owning up to being the guilty party in all this.
God has provided the remedy in Jesus Christ.
-
I didn't mod myself. According to your story book, it was god that introduced the modification when he had a hissy fit at Adam and Eve and decided to blame the whole of humanity from that time on.
Any displeasure on God's part happens after Adam's self modification.
-
Since humanity is nurtured by er, humans we find our selves in a sinful environment so sinlessness is never an example also we have the capacity to self mod. Note self not God. As many eastern patristic christians have commented, we recaptulate Adam's sin ourselves.
Again, if that's what everybody does, it can't be a free choice. Regardless of the details, your story says we are all sinners, so we are being judged for being the way god made us and being in the environment that god put us in.
However your response exemplifies the common error of atheists...They only give one part of the story and omit the part where Christ undoes Adam's sin. Any subsequent sin is of our own design.
This is patently false - I've addressed it multiple times and you've just ignored my comments on it. What's more it's obviously false that "Christ undoes Adam's sin" otherwise Christians could be sinless, which they're obviously not.
Man walking with God in a state of sinlessness is also ignored.
Again, this is not ignored. The opportunity to do this was only afforded to Adam and Eve - hence the injustice.
I guess we don't like owning up to being the guilty party in all this.
According to your story book and any credible notion of justice, we aren't the guilty parties, the guilt is with your monstrous god.
Any displeasure on God's part happens after Adam's self modification.
And applying it to every human since is monstrously unjust and unfair.
-
Again, if that's what everybody does, it can't be a free choice. Regardless of the details, your story says we are all sinners, so we are being judged for being the way god made us
No, we are judged on what we make of us. Don't forget, Adam's work has been overturned by Christ's work. It's now down to us. The way to God is open. What will each one of us make of that?
-
Don't forget, Adam's work has been overturned by Christ's work.
Obviously not, otherwise we'd be in Eden and have the same choice as Adam and Eve had.
What will each one of us make of that?
The story clearly makes your god a monster. This really is as plain as day, yet Christians seem totally blind to monstrous, perverse absurdity of it all.
-
Obviously not, otherwise we'd be in Eden and have the same choice as Adam and Eve had.
We do have the same choice.... namely trust God or not.
As for Eden,or Utopia as it is now morphed into.......
-
We do have the same choice.... namely trust God or not.
Drivel. Firstly they had the advantage of a "state of sinlessness" (as you put it). Secondly, we have no objective reason to think there even is a god, it doesn't come round for a chat like in your story book, we have to play its cruel game of hide-and-seek (assuming it exists). Thirdly, the whole story is contradictory nonsense that makes the god character a perverse monster.
-
You take a very legalistic approach and thus imv. make yourself prone to look for loopholes.
It's a discussion about, effectively, allegations of crime and punishment, so some parallels with the legal system are perhaps inevitable - that said, I've not been citing technical interpretations or particular phrasings, I've been talking to the substantive heart of the matter, the 'spirit' of the law if you will. Whether or not 'sin' - this alleged spiritual marker of guilt - is something that can be inherited or not, whether we can justify the punishment of people with what we would these days describe as a mental deficiency these are not nitpicky details, these are fundamental questions about system of justice.
This story though is looked at relationally. God, like any good parent takes the penalty of the breakdown of the relationship(alienation) on himself through Christ (god) in an effort to reopen the relationship.
There is no 'relationship' - there is a dictator handing down rules - in some instances rules that appear totally arbitrary - from on high and demanding unquestioning obedience.
However it still requires us to accept the offer of the restored relationship.
Do as you are told or suffer eternal punishment isn't an 'offer' - except, perhaps, in the mafioso-styling of an offer you can't refuse - it's a threat. This isn't something on a line from 'no relationship' to 'relationship' this somewhere between coercion and blackmail.
If we want alienation then we have repeated Adam's actions as it were.
Why is all the onus on us? You make the comparison of a parent and child, which I appreciate is slightly limited but it's perhaps the best we've got: I don't expect my children to have to change to accommodate me, I change to accommodate them, because it's not their fault they're here it's mine.
I also though think Spud's take is fair enough. There is nothing monstrous about God given that he has opened the way of restoration.
He closed it; him offering to open it up if we do as we're told is not being nice, it's being controlling.
It sounds like you prefer a system whereby there are no actual consequences either for Christ or yourself.
I prefer a system where punishments are doled out to the people at fault for things that have actually caused harm or problems, not people who got their feelings hurt because they didn't child-proof their house and their kids disobeyed them. If someone's kids are unruly, we rightly look at least in part at the parents...
O.
-
Drivel. Firstly they had the advantage of a "state of sinlessness" (as you put it). Secondly, we have no objective reason to think there even is a god, it doesn't come round for a chat like in your story book, we have to play its cruel game of hide-and-seek (assuming it exists). Thirdly, the whole story is contradictory nonsense that makes the god character a perverse monster.
yes they did have the advantage of living aimlessly then they chose the sin option and thus create the background for us all.
You yourself talk of a virtuous moral norm. Since morality is never impersonal that is where and what God is. That is hardly hidden.
-
yes they did have the advantage of living aimlessly...
So you're saying god's initial creation made human lives aimless? Perhaps it's no wonder they tried something else, then...?
...then they chose the sin option and thus create the background for us all.
According to the rules that god made - making said god a monster.
Since morality is never impersonal that is where and what God is. That is hardly hidden.
Gibberish.
-
It's a discussion about, effectively, allegations of crime and punishment, so some parallels with the legal system are perhaps inevitable - that said, I've not been citing technical interpretations or particular phrasings, I've been talking to the substantive heart of the matter, the 'spirit' of the law if you will. Whether or not 'sin' - this alleged spiritual marker of guilt - is something that can be inherited or not, whether we can justify the punishment of people with what we would these days describe as a mental deficiency these are not nitpicky details, these are fundamental questions about system of justice.
There is no 'relationship' - there is a dictator handing down rules - in some instances rules that appear totally arbitrary - from on high and demanding unquestioning obedience.
Do as you are told or suffer eternal punishment isn't an 'offer' - except, perhaps, in the mafioso-styling of an offer you can't refuse - it's a threat. This isn't something on a line from 'no relationship' to 'relationship' this somewhere between coercion and blackmail.
Why is all the onus on us? You make the comparison of a parent and child, which I appreciate is slightly limited but it's perhaps the best we've got: I don't expect my children to have to change to accommodate me, I change to accommodate them, because it's not their fault they're here it's mine.
He closed it; him offering to open it up if we do as we're told is not being nice, it's being controlling.
I prefer a system where punishments are doled out to the people at fault for things that have actually caused harm or problems, not people who got their feelings hurt because they didn't child-proof their house and their kids disobeyed them. If someone's kids are unruly, we rightly look at least in part at the parents...
O.
If this is a divine dictatorship why arent atheists in the dungeon. Right now the doors of the Kingdom are open. There is no enforced entry.
In any case your argument merely makes you a rebel rather than an atheist surely.
What is it you are rebelling against?
-
Vlad,
If this is a divine dictatorship why arent atheists in the dungeon.
Presumably because the story describes a divine dictatorship. There’s no reason to suppose a word of it actually to be true though.
Right now the doors of the Kingdom are open. There is no enforced entry.
So you assert with no cogent reasoning or evidence to support the claim. You might also note though that there are countless other such stories from different faith traditions. Can you think of a good reason for someone to believe yours rather than any of the others?
Personally I’m rather fond of the faith belief of the Kastom people in the Yaohnanen village of Tanna. According to ancient Yaohnanen tales, the son of a mountain spirit travelled over the seas to a distant land. There, he married a powerful woman and in time would return to them. Naturally, Prince Philip is therefore the real god. All you have to do is to embrace the truth.
In any case your argument merely makes you a rebel rather than an atheist surely.
No, because not for a minute has he suggested that he believes a word of it.
What is it you are rebelling against?
If he thinks as I do, the only “rebelling” here is to object to the overreaching of the religious who demand that their guessing (or, as they call it, “faith”) should have special privileges in the public space.
Incidentally, it’s hard to tell what with your long history of near pathological lying here, but you seem now actually to believe your guff to be literally true. Is that the case? Are you shifting ground from just misrepresenting the arguments that falsify you to eructating fundie assertions?
-
If this is a divine dictatorship why arent atheists in the dungeon.
For the same reason we're not still clearing up Sauron's mess from the end of the third age...
Right now the doors of the Kingdom are open. There is no enforced entry.
There's just the threat of eternal punishment if you don't 'choose' to go in...
In any case your argument merely makes you a rebel rather than an atheist surely.
I'm making the case for why that particular Christian argument makes no sense, you've surely heard of accepting certain premises for the sake of the argument?
What is it you are rebelling against?
Authoritarian world-views with deleterious effects on human happiness and wellbeing. And marshmallows, but mainly the authoritarian world-view thing.
O.
-
yes they did have the advantage of living aimlessly then they chose the sin option and thus create the background for us all.
How is them, without understanding the idea of 'sin', choosing the 'sinful' option something worthy of punishment? How is it that people with no understanding of right and wrong are considered to be at fault, but the so-called adult in the room doesn't bear the responsibility for negligence?
O.
-
[/quote]How is them, without understanding the idea of 'sin', choosing the 'sinful' option something worthy of punishment? How is it that people with no understanding of right and wrong are considered to be at fault, but the so-called adult in the room doesn't bear the responsibility for negligence?
O.
I think I would say they had understood ''right'' since right was focussed on God and chose to do wrong, to turn away and sin and court the consequences of alienation against God and each other. However God reopens the way to himself through Jesus Christ. Adam therefore is now not an excuse for why one still turns away from God. You are your own ''adult in the room.''
-
I think I would say they had understood ''right'' since right was focussed on God and chose to do wrong, to turn away and sin and court the consequences of alienation against God and each other.
Except that this is a decision taken before they have eaten from the tree whose fruit grants an understanding of right and wrong, is it not?
However God reopens the way to himself through Jesus Christ. Adam therefore is now not an excuse for why one still turns away from God. You are your own ''adult in the room.''
This would be a god that closed that way because he couldn't adequately look after Adam and Even? This would a god that closed himself away until he went all drama-queen blood-sacrifice on himself in order to feel like we'd apologised and atoned for his lack of adequate care in the first place? You are so, so right that I would be adult in that room...
O.
-
Except that this is a decision taken before they have eaten from the tree whose fruit grants an understanding of right and wrong, is it not?
The decision comes before the consequence yes.
-
Except that this is a decision taken before they have eaten from the tree whose fruit grants an understanding of right and wrong, is it not?
This would be a god that closed that way because he couldn't adequately look after Adam and Even?
The decision and the act constitute the fall since it is the decision to turn from God. The way to God is reopened because of Jesus Christ. To miss it requires continuing in the manner and act of turning away as Adam did. It seems, then, peculiar to choose to turn away from God and expect it to be the same as turning toward God.
-
The decision comes before the consequence yes.
More to the point, the decision comes before the accused have the capacity to judge...
O.
-
The decision and the act constitute the fall since it is the decision to turn from God.
A decision by two other people for which I am still having to overcome the threat of punishment? A decision by two people not capable of appreciating the impact?
The way to God is reopened because of Jesus Christ.
Why was a blood sacrifice required? Why was the way to God closed for those who had nothing to do with the initial situation?
To miss it requires continuing in the manner and act of turning away as Adam did.
To miss it requires developing a capacity for determining right and wrong for yourself - what is it about moral independence that your god doesn't like?
It seems, then, peculiar to choose to turn away from God and expect it to be the same as turning toward God.
It seems, then, peculiar to come to that conclusion from what's been said.
O.
-
The way to God is reopened because of Jesus Christ.
Via the bizarre and barbaric sadomasochistic blood sacrifice nonsense.
To miss it requires continuing in the manner and act of turning away as Adam did.
To 'see' it requires us to swallow this absurd, nonsensical story of a barbaric and monstrous god, for which there is bugger all reasoning or evidence.
-
A decision by two other people for which I am still having to overcome the threat of punishment?
Again you have completely ignored the overturning work of Jesus Christ.
A Blood sacrifice? Tackling humanity and it's spiritual death is a bloody business but the physical anguish is accompanied by the spiritual anguish.
-
the fiery lake of sulphur is on its way and the evidence is etched in the distressed skies in particular, the Sun and the Moon.
Hi Nick.
Been lovely clear skies here over the last few nights.
I've been looking at the moon with added accuracy and I have yet to see any change let alone "distress".
Could you help by giving some accurate and specific information in order that I might confirm your statement?
-
Again you have completely ignored the overturning work of Jesus Christ.
I'm not the one ignoring it - if Jesus sacrifice was supposed to be worth anything, why are we still under threat of eternal punishment? What's changed because of it - you can still be damned for working on Saturday and/or Sunday, rape and slavery are still not prohibited, but these days you can choose your own haircut...
A Blood sacrifice?
'This is my blood, do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me...'
Tackling humanity and it's spiritual death is a bloody business but the physical anguish is accompanied by the spiritual anguish.
Our bodies are temporal, salvation sees the physical body stripped away and the physical concerns cast off, the afterlife is a spiritual concern - why is a corporeal sacrifice required?
O.
-
I'm not the one ignoring it - if Jesus sacrifice was supposed to be worth anything, why are we still under threat of eternal punishment? What's changed because of it - you can still be damned for working on Saturday and/or Sunday, rape and slavery are still not prohibited, but these days you can choose your own haircut...
I think you are ignoring the point that Jesus has opened the way back do God in spite of sin. That is the essence of forgiveness....Taking the cost of another's transgression on yourself. However if the way is opened to a relationship with God, you are still not going to be forced into it if that is your choice.
There are Christian universalists and tendencies in people who I am sure enjoy relationship with Jesus to be universalists but one wonders why they are christian and yet we still have atheists. In other words you seem to be asking the strange question '' If Jesus and God have forgiven me why should I not continue to disbelieve him and argue that if he does exist he is a monster?'' It seems to me at this point you would need to concede belief in Christ and be a Christian universalist.'This is my blood, do this as often as you drink it in remembrance of me...'
Our bodies are temporal, salvation sees the physical body stripped away and the physical concerns cast off, the afterlife is a spiritual concern - why is a corporeal sacrifice required?
O.
Bodies are important in fact Biblically we will receive spiritual bodies so bodies are never off the table presumably because personal delineation is a good thing. But then it is important to realise what is also going on at the crucifixion since Christ, because he takes our alienation from God on himself experiences God Forsakenness himself ''My God, My God why have you forsaken me?''
-
I think you are ignoring the point that Jesus has opened the way back do God in spite of sin.
I think you're ignoring the point that the problems I'm indicating predate the story of Jesus - the purported behaviour of your god was problematic before the idea of manifesting an avatar as a blood sacrifice to not actually atone for someone else's transgressions was thrown out as a soft reboot.
That is the essence of forgiveness....Taking the cost of another's transgression on yourself.
Except that the story is actually the exact opposite, it's a god blaming the naive for his own failures, then transferring the punishment for that to the descendants of the blameless, then going through a full-blown 'look at me' drama-queen event to... not actually atone, and it's still on us. This is God putting his transgression on humanity, then making a big scene about how gracious he is to allow us to grovel for forgiveness still.
However if the way is opened to a relationship with God, you are still not going to be forced into it if that is your choice.
Given the depiction, why would I want one?
...you seem to be asking the strange question '' If Jesus and God have forgiven me why should I not continue to disbelieve him and argue that if he does exist he is a monster?''
No, I'm asking the question 'if Jesus death was supposed to be atonement, and we're forgiven, why are we still be threatened with infinite punishment?'
It seems to me at this point you would need to concede belief in Christ and at be a Christian universalist.
It seems to me, at this point, that you don't appear to understand how 'for the sake of argument...' works.
Bodies are important in fact Biblically we will recieve spiritual bodies so bodies are never off the table presumably because personal delineation is a good thing.
Is that a widely held understanding - I'd always been of the impression that the afterlife is a purely spiritual affair, that no physical bodies are involved?
But then it is important to realise what is also going on at the crucifixion since Christ, because he takes our alienation from God on himself experiences God Forsakenness himself ''My God, My God why have you forsaken me?''
Why is our alienation from god on us, when he kicked Adam and Eve and their descendants out of the garden? He closed the gate and stationed the Angel with the burning sword to guard it - mankind didn't run from God, God sent mankind away.
O.
-
I think you're ignoring the point that the problems I'm indicating predate the story of Jesus - the purported behaviour of your god was problematic before the idea of manifesting an avatar as a blood sacrifice to not actually atone for someone else's transgressions was thrown out as a soft reboot.
Except that the story is actually the exact opposite, it's a god blaming the naive for his own failures, then transferring the punishment for that to the descendants of the blameless, then going through a full-blown 'look at me' drama-queen event to... not actually atone, and it's still on us. This is God putting his transgression on humanity, then making a big scene about how gracious he is to allow us to grovel for forgiveness still.
Given the depiction, why would I want one?
No, I'm asking the question 'if Jesus death was supposed to be atonement, and we're forgiven, why are we still be threatened with infinite punishment?'
It seems to me, at this point, that you don't appear to understand how 'for the sake of argument...' works.
Is that a widely held understanding - I'd always been of the impression that the afterlife is a purely spiritual affair, that no physical bodies are involved?
Why is our alienation from god on us, when he kicked Adam and Eve and their descendants out of the garden? He closed the gate and stationed the Angel with the burning sword to guard it - mankind didn't run from God, God sent mankind away.
O.
I think the point of the way being open to God is not lost but being deliberately ignored by you.
Doubtless this allows you to maintain your ''unreasonable God stance''. A walk with God has never been impossible because of what Christ has done. He will not though force you into it.
The only thing I think stopping you is that you want the moral high ground over him.
This makes you the rebel rather than the atheist.
-
I think you are ignoring the point that Jesus has opened the way back do God in spite of sin.
Nobody is ignoring this - you are just ignoring people's answers.
But then it is important to realise what is also going on at the crucifixion since Christ, because he takes our alienation from God on himself experiences God Forsakenness himself ''My God, My God why have you forsaken me?''
This is still insane, patently unjust barbarism and certainly has nothing to to with anything remotely like a parent child relationship.
This monster god of yours imposed the alienation on all of humanity because of the actions of two people, then incarnated itself, made sure it was horribly tortured to death and imposed the alienation on itself, and in some bizarre, utterly deranged way, that was supposed to make things all right again, except that it didn't really reverse it because we are all still sinners and alienated unless we accept this insane nonsense.
It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. It's totally barking, carpet chewing mad.
-
Nobody is ignoring this - you are just ignoring people's answers.
This is still insane, patently unjust barbarism and certainly has nothing to to with anything remotely like a parent child relationship.
This monster god of yours imposed the alienation on all of humanity because of the actions of two people, then incarnated itself, made sure it was horribly tortured to death and imposed the alienation on itself, and in some bizarre, utterly deranged way, that was supposed to make things all right again, except that it didn't really reverse it because we are all still sinners and alienated unless we accept this insane nonsense.
It makes no fucking sense whatsoever. It's totally barking, carpet chewing mad.
How did God impose alienation on humanity when humanity was originally not alienated and then decided to alienate itself?
Jesus died at the hands of his enemies. In war people die to attain an objective under circumstances of virtual certainty. As I believe Socrates once said. If the perfect human appeared it would be inevitable that some would move to kill them.
He did reverse from alienation because we need no longer be alienated from him and turn to him. He will not force this on us though.
I suppose it's a bit like someone dropping a legal case against you. You might be free from that but still have the same negative and destructive attitude to the person who has absorbed the cost you owe them.
Yes he was physically broken but who knows what the cost of sin in the world did to his spirit.
-
How did God impose alienation on humanity when humanity was originally not alienated and then decided to alienate itself?
In the story, it wasn't humanity, it was just two humans. Nobody asked me if I wanted to be alienated and unavoidably a sinner.
Jesus died at the hands of his enemies. In war people die to attain an objective under circumstances of virtual certainty. As I believe Socrates once said. If the perfect human appeared it would be inevitable that some would move to kill them.
Get your act together, we had Spud talking about justice, then you saying it's a relationship, now it's turned into war. So if Jesus' enemies hadn't killed him, how would it have turned out? Did his enemies have free will?
He did reverse from alienation because we need no longer be alienated from him and turn to him. He will not force this on us though.
It's simply not reversed, otherwise we'd be in the same state as Adam and Eve, instead of being unavoidably sinners and condemned unless we accept this nonsensical drivel, with zero reason or evidence to tell us that it has any chance of being true. And even then, we still end up sinners (we never get back to the "sinless state" of Adam and Eve).
Yes he was physically broken but who knows what the cost of sin in the world did to his spirit.
In what way was putting all this shit on god incarnate supposed to make any difference? It's a totally nonsensical story - there is no justice, there is nothing like a relationship, and there isn't even anything like a war - it's just insane nonsense.
-
This makes you the rebel rather than the atheist.
Once more you show no understanding of reductio ad absurdum. ::)
-
In the story, it wasn't humanity, it was just two humans. Nobody asked me if I wanted to be alienated and unavoidably a sinner.
Get your act together, we had Spud talking about justice, then you saying it's a relationship, now it's turned into war. So if Jesus' enemies hadn't killed him, how would it have turned out? Did his enemies have free will?
It's simply not reversed, otherwise we'd be in the same state as Adam and Eve, instead of being unavoidably sinners and condemned unless we accept this nonsensical drivel, with zero reason or evidence to tell us that it has any chance of being true. And even then, we still end up sinners (we never get back to the "sinless state" of Adam and Eve).
In what way was putting all this shit on god incarnate supposed to make any difference? It's a totally nonsensical story - there is no justice, there is nothing like a relationship, and there isn't even anything like a war - it's just insane nonsense.
Two humans....or however many humans there were. All of them in perfect relationship with God. Mankind then in self alienation.
Does it matter how many humans broke relationship or whether one 'genius' introduced it to mankind(not historically speaking unknown) Christ though overturns that although it seems alienation is not disinvented. The way is open to a new relationship.
In terms of relationships. Somebody who thinks they should be forgiven by someone while continually damning them at one and the same time i.e. wanting forgiveness for their alienation from God and it's benefits while keeping the luxury of continuing to be alienated from God and it's benefits is hardly a consultant on relationships.
-
Two humans....or however many humans there were. All of them in perfect relationship with God. Mankind then in self alienation.
Does it matter how many humans broke relationship or whether one 'genius' introduced it to mankind(not historically speaking unknown)
Of course it does, unless god is a vindictive monster. The only fair way is to give each individual the same choice. Mankind (as a whole) can only have been alienated due to the choice of a few, by an unjust, vindictive god
Christ though overturns that although it seems alienation is not disinvented. The way is open to a new relationship.
We now get even more injustice despite to bizarre sadomasochistic nonsense of god torturing itself to death.
In terms of relationships. Somebody who thinks they should be forgiven by someone while continually damning them at one and the same time i.e. wanting forgiveness for their alienation from God and it's benefits while keeping the luxury of continuing to be alienated from God and it's benefits is hardly a consultant on relationships.
What the hell makes you think I want to be forgiven? If I thought for a second any of this nonsense is actually true, god is a perverse monster that I want nothing to do with. It's god that should be begging humanity for forgiveness.
You still seem to be struggling with the idea of highlighting the internal inconsistencies of something by assuming its truth and pointing out the absurd conclusions if it were; reductio ad absurdum.
-
Vlad,
In terms of relationships. Somebody who thinks they should be forgiven by someone while continually damning them at one and the same time i.e. wanting forgiveness for their alienation from God and it's benefits while keeping the luxury of continuing to be alienated from God and it's benefits is hardly a consultant on relationships.
Does it no occur to that, if there was a word of truth in your contemptible superstitions, then it’s your god who should be asking for forgiveness from us?
-
Vlad,
Does it no occur to that, if there was a word of truth in your contemptible superstitions, then it’s your god who should be asking for forgiveness from us?
What is contemptable about it...in general and for you personally?
Why should God be asking forgiveness from us and you personally? What do you think he has done to you?
-
Of course it does, unless god is a vindictive monster. The only fair way is to give each individual the same choice.
Each individual has the same choice. Why do you think things are different for you from everybody else.
God is a vindictive monster because someone chooses to be isolated from God with all it's benefits but also have the benefits of not being isolated from God?
-
I think the point of the way being open to God is not lost but being deliberately ignored by you.
It implies that things are more open than they were, but this puts the onus on humanity to apologise for being human, to grovel to a god that threw his toys out of the pram because he failed to take fairly obvious precuations. God has apparently forgiven us through a human sacrifice, except that the sacrifice is magically back to life and we're still not actually forgiven... I'm not deliberately ignoring the idea of there being a 'way to god', I just don't see it as some reality-shattering gesture of magnanimity, given the context of the story.
Doubtless this allows you to maintain your ''unreasonable God stance''.
I note you've not actually countered any of my positions to say how they're justifiable - you apparently think this idea of god is just as unreasonable, but you don't have as much of an issue with that.
A walk with God has never been impossible because of what Christ has done. He will not though force you into it.
He won't force it, he'll just punish you for eternity if you don't do it... but it's entirely your choice. Passive-aggressive much?
The only thing I think stopping you is that you want the moral high ground over him.
It doesn't matter if I want it, the way the story is written I could dig through to Australia and bathe in the blood of infants and I'd still have the moral high ground.
This makes you the rebel rather than the atheist.
And, again... look up 'for the sake of argument'. Try https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/for-the-sake-of-argument (https://www.ldoceonline.com/dictionary/for-the-sake-of-argument) or https://www.lexico.com/definition/for_the_sake_of_argument (https://www.lexico.com/definition/for_the_sake_of_argument) or here https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/for+the+sake+of+argument (https://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/for+the+sake+of+argument).
O.
-
Vlad,
What is contemptable about it...in general and for you personally?
See below.
Why should God be asking forgiveness from us and you personally? What do you think he has done to you?
According to the story, I was born “sinful” because of something someone else did.
Your god should apologise to me for that.
-
Each individual has the same choice. Why do you think things are different for you from everybody else.
Are you being deliberately dim? The same choice as Adam and Eve, i.e. about becoming alienated in the first place.
God is a vindictive monster because someone chooses to be isolated from God with all it's benefits but also have the benefits of not being isolated from God?
Same question: are you being deliberately dim? Nobody has suggested anything like that. Try to address the arguments that have actually been made.
-
It implies that things are more open than they were, but this puts the onus on humanity to apologise for being human
No being Human originally meant walking with God obviously sin alienates but because of Christ Adamic separation was overturned. Self alienation as a maintained choice cannot be said to be a human trait since people do accept the work of Christ.
You seem to be saying that to be authentically human you have to be a successful rebel against God and his works. Rebellion against God seems to common but the effects are dealt with in Christ but eternal rebellion against cannot be said to be common.
In other words you can still be human and walk with God.
-
Are you being deliberately dim? The same choice as Adam and Eve, i.e. about becoming alienated in the first place.
You have the choice not to be alienated from God. The work of Adam has been overturned by Christ.
-
You have the choice not to be alienated from God. The work of Adam has been overturned by Christ.
You really aren't paying attention, are you? It clearly hasn't been overturned because I don't have the same choice as Adam and Eve. I am not in a sinless state and god doesn't come for a chat in the garden. Instead I'm supposed believe this barking mad story, for which there is bugger all evidence or supporting reasoning, and which makes god a vindictive bloodthirsty monster, that's insane enough to think torturing itself to death is a way to make things right, and ask for its forgiveness, when it should be the one begging for my forgiveness if any of this nonsensical drivel were actually true.
-
You really aren't paying attention, are you? It clearly hasn't been overturned because I don't have the same choice as Adam and Eve. I am not in a sinless state and god doesn't come for a chat in the garden. Instead I'm supposed believe this barking mad story, for which there is bugger all evidence or supporting reasoning, and which makes god a vindictive bloodthirsty monster, that's insane enough to think torturing itself to death is a way to make things right, and ask for its forgiveness, when it should be the one begging for my forgiveness if any of this nonsensical drivel were actually true.
You have the choice to walk with God, what more can there be than that? If you are not in a sinless state, do you not think, if Jesus has overturned the effect of alienation which originally estranged man from God, that subsequent sin was in fact instigated by yourself? You seem to think this is all about getting off breaking commandment and working against the spirit. It is about your relationship with God. To turn away from God permanently means permanently turning away from God.
Supposing you were made sinless what would you choose to do.
I think you might figure that if you were sinless you could argue that you didn't need God's forgiveness that in fact you could do without him. And so Adam's sin is thus recapitulated.
Well you are offered a walk with God because God in Christ has opened the door by taking the effects of the fall on himself.
-
No being Human originally meant walking with God obviously sin alienates but because of Christ Adamic separation was overturned.
If god can wash away the sin, why was a sacrifice required? Why are humanity made to feel guilty for God's failure to adequately care for the creatures that he deliberately created as naive?
Self alienation as a maintained choice
God is allegedly all-powerful, but his means of sending an invitation is a poorly documented tale of magic amongst innumerable equally poorly evidenced tales of magic - self-alienation is not a 'choice' it's a consequence of the lack of reliable evidence.
You seem to be saying that to be authentically human you have to be a successful rebel against God and his works.
Is that how it seems to you? That's not how I read it. I'm saying that curiosity is a human trait, and the story pits that curiosity in the Garden of Eden against ... nothing, because the moral understanding that we'd also consider a part of human nature these days is, in the story, not something that's been acquired. That's on God, not on humanity, as the purported creator. If curious humans manifest curiosity, why is god punishing them?
Rebellion against God seems to common but the effects are dealt with in Christ but eternal rebellion against cannot be said to be common.
Rebellion against tyranny is justified, though, is it not?
In other words you can still be human and walk with God.
I'm sure you can, but what doesn't seem to be possible is to be the god that's depicted in the Old (and, to a lesser extent, the New) Testamant and still be considered in any way a fount of morality. What isn't possible to read the story, as written, and see that humanity has anything to atone for, or that god is all loving: god is a controlling narcissist making veiled and unjustifiable threats under a mask of 'punishment' in order to enforce arbitrary standards of behaviour.
O.
-
You have the choice to walk with God, what more can there be than that?
Well, I dunno, maybe the first hint of any sensible reason to think any of this nonsense about a god is true? Then a story that doesn't mean that god itself would be a bloodthirsty, barbaric, unjust, insane monster.
I'm sure I could think of more but that will do for starters.
If you are not in a sinless state, do you not think, if Jesus has overturned the effect of alienation which originally estranged man from God, that subsequent sin was in fact instigated by yourself?
Either humans, in their present state, have a genuine choice to be sinless (and not need forgiveness) or they don't. If they do, at least some of them would take that choice and we wouldn't all be sinners. If they don't, god is unjust.
You seem to think this is all about getting off breaking commandment and working against the spirit. It is about your relationship with God. To turn away from God permanently means permanently turning away from God.
You're still ignoring the points. I'm not actually turning away from anything because I have no reason to think your god is a reality, and if it were, it would be a monster (for reasons you keep on totally ignoring), which would deserve to be turned away from.
Supposing you were made sinless what would you choose to do.
How can I possibly know?
I think you might figure that if you were sinless you could argue that you didn't need God's forgiveness that in fact you could do without him. And so Adam's sin is thus recapitulated.
Well this is the same situation as before. Either everybody would do that, and it's not a genuine choice, or not everybody would and it was unjust of god not to give us all the chance.
Well you are offered a walk with God because God in Christ has opened the door by taking the effects of the fall on himself.
This "taking the effects of the fall on himself" brings us right back to the utterly bizarre, vindictive, bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, barking mad god.
-
Well, I dunno, maybe the first hint of any sensible reason to think any of this nonsense about a god is true? Then a story that doesn't mean that god itself would be a bloodthirsty, barbaric, unjust, insane monster.
I'm sure I could think of more but that will do for starters.
Either humans, in their present state, have a genuine choice to be sinless (and not need forgiveness) or they don't. If they do, at least some of them would take that choice and we wouldn't all be sinners. If they don't, god is unjust.
You're still ignoring the points. I'm not actually turning away from anything because I have no reason to think your god is a reality, and if it were, it would be a monster (for reasons you keep on totally ignoring), which would deserve to be turned away from.
How can I possibly know?
Well this is the same situation as before. Either everybody would do that, and it's not a genuine choice, or not everybody would and it was unjust of god not to give us all the chance.
This "taking the effects of the fall on himself" brings us right back to the utterly bizarre, vindictive, bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, barking mad god.
I don't actually know whether you are following God but your perception of him as mad and monstrous suggests you may not be. Do you think you would like the benefits of walking with God while walking away from him. In other words walk away from him but be treated otherwise?
What makes you think God isn't giving you the chance to walk with him?
You seem to be conflating active rebelling against with not believing in. They are not the same.
-
This "taking the effects of the fall on himself" brings us right back to the utterly bizarre, vindictive, bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, barking mad god.
Ah, well, he's doing it to himself - three in one. Not three gods but One, doncha know?
-
I don't actually know whether you are following God but your perception of him as mad and monstrous suggests you may not be.
I'm commenting on the bible stories and what you and Spud have said about them - I don't believe in any gods, so of course I'm not following one of them.
Do you think you would like the benefits of walking with God while walking away from him. In other words walk away from him but be treated otherwise?
What benefits? The god you are talking about appears to be a bloodthirsty, barbaric, vindictive monster.
What makes you think God isn't giving you the chance to walk with him?
The complete lack of any evidence or reasoning that suggests that it exists and the nonsensical drivel in the bible and in what you and Spud have said.
You seem to be conflating active rebelling against with not believing in. They are not the same.
You seem unable to grasp that I'm criticising a story on its own terms. For fuck's sake, this isn't difficult. If somebody tells somebody a nonsensical story, and they say "but if that were true, then..." do you really get all confused about what is going on? Is that completely beyond your intellectual ability to cope with?
-
Either humans, in their present state, have a genuine choice to be sinless (and not need forgiveness) or they don't. If they do, at least some of them would take that choice and we wouldn't all be sinners. If they don't, god is unjust.
You're still ignoring the points. I'm not actually turning away from anything because I have no reason to think your god is a reality, and if it were, it would be a monster (for reasons you keep on totally ignoring), which would deserve to be turned away from.
How can I possibly know?
Well this is the same situation as before. Either everybody would do that, and it's not a genuine choice, or not everybody would and it was unjust of god not to give us all the chance.
This "taking the effects of the fall on himself" brings us right back to the utterly bizarre, vindictive, bloodthirsty, sadomasochistic, barking mad god.
I'm sorry I'm not ignoring those reasons for thinking God is an unjust monster, I am just not convinced by them. Wanting not to walk with God but experience walking with God makes no sense unless you are merely after the benefits. But God himself is the benefit. Separating from God is separating with God.
Even if there were sinless people, namely, people in perfect unbroken communion with God, is that you?
Since sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ God is still open to you should you so choose. If you choose to walk away from God how can you be in communion with him. In other words, if you don't want him is it reasonable to complain that you do not have him?
Taking the effects of of the fall on himself doesn't mean you are monstrous. Would you not relieve your offspring of the harm they might do to themselves by taking the cost of their actions on yourself?
-
Wanting not to walk with God but experience walking with God makes no sense unless you are merely after the benefits.
Who are you talking about? I don't believe any of this, so it can't be me. I'm arguing that the god in the story is condemned by its own actions.
Even if there were sinless people, namely, people in perfect unbroken communion with God, is that you?
Since sins are forgiven through Jesus Christ God is still open to you should you so choose. If you choose to walk away from God how can you be in communion with him. In other words, if you don't want him is it reasonable to complain that you do not have him?
It's got nothing to do with me. As I said (and you're still ignoring), in the story, either we (humans in general) have a choice to be sinless or we don't. If we do then some people would make that choice, and the bible is wrong to call us all sinners. If we don't then god is unjust in condemning us for being the way it chose to make us.
Back in the real world, there is no reason to take the idea of this god seriously in the first place, so it's not a question of "walking away". If this god of yours exists in reality, it's compounding its injustice by playing a cruel game of hide-and-seek.
Taking the effects of of the fall on himself doesn't mean you are monstrous. Would you not relieve your offspring of the harm they might do to themselves by taking the cost of their actions on yourself?
But it's god that made up the monstrous and unjust "effects" in the first place, and it's god who decided that the bizarre act of torturing itself to death would make things all right again. It's like a parent deciding that their child should be beaten with a big stick if it eats an extra biscuit before dinner and then, when they do, takes to self-flagellation instead (and then still threatens the kid with the beating if they don't worship them).
Look, the story goes that god made two people with no knowledge of good and evil, put a fruit tree in the garden, told them not to eat the fruit, and then added a talking snake to encourage them to do just that. One really doesn't have to be omniscient to imagine how it might go wrong. Then it visited the consequences on the whole of humanity, when it wouldn't even have been fair to do it to Adam and Eve themselves (because they didn't know right from wrong), and then instigated this bizarre sadomasochistic nonsense with the incarnation, torturing to death, and magicking back to life, so that if we now grovel enough and believe this silliness, we might not be condemned for being condemned for something somebody else did a long time ago.
This is nothing like justice and it's nothing like a parent-child relationship - it's just bizarre, nonsensical, and horrifying.
-
Who are you talking about? I don't believe any of this, so it can't be me. I'm arguing that the god in the story is condemned by its own actions.
It's got nothing to do with me. As I said (and you're still ignoring), in the story, either we (humans in general) have a choice to be sinless or we don't. If we do then some people would make that choice, and the bible is wrong to call us all sinners. If we don't then god is unjust in condemning us for being the way it chose to make us.
Back in the real world, there is no reason to take the idea of this god seriously in the first place, so it's not a question of "walking away". If this god of yours exists in reality, it's compounding its injustice by playing a cruel game of hide-and-seek.
But it's god that made up the monstrous and unjust "effects" in the first place, and it's god who decided that the bizarre act of torturing itself to death would make things all right again. It's like a parent deciding that their child should be beaten with a big stick if it eats an extra biscuit before dinner and then, when they do, takes to self-flagellation instead (and then still threatens the kid with the beating if they don't worship them).
Look, the story goes that god made two people with no knowledge of good and evil, put a fruit tree in the garden, told them not to eat the fruit, and then added a talking snake to encourage them to do just that. One really doesn't have to be omniscient to imagine how it might go wrong. Then it visited the consequences on the whole of humanity, when it wouldn't even have been fair to do it to Adam and Eve themselves (because they didn't know right from wrong), and then instigated this bizarre sadomasochistic nonsense with the incarnation, torturing to death, and magicking back to life, so that if we now grovel enough and believe this silliness, we might not be condemned for being condemned for something somebody else did a long time ago.
This is nothing like justice and it's nothing like a parent-child relationship - it's just bizarre, nonsensical, and horrifying.
I dont think we can choose sinlessness except in the expectation in the next life. In any case walking with God is the route. IM NOT SURE YOU FULLY REALISED THIS.
-
I dont think we can choose sinlessness except in the expectation in the next life.
Which means it's in our nature and god is unjust to judge us for being the way it made us.
IM NOT SURE YOU FULLY REALISED THIS.
I'm not sure you're taking the slightest bit of notice of what I'm saying. It's an insane story; I don't get how Christians can be totally blind to how daft it is.
-
Which means it's in our nature and god is unjust to judge us for being the way it made us.
I think it's environmentally extremely difficult to be accounted as sinless. Babies may be sinless but that may well be a condition which environmentally speaking is impossible to maintain. By environment I mean cultural, social, personal environment as well as physical environment. The effect of humanity and human sin on these is I would have thought undeniably toxic.
Man created/evolves
Man walks with God
Mankind spiritually breaks with God
Mankind's subsequent efforts modify his previous environment detrimentally.
God offers way in which man can again walk with God overturning the spiritual divide.
At what point do you think God is culpable?
-
I think it's environmentally extremely difficult to be accounted as sinless. Babies may be sinless but that may well be a condition which environmentally speaking is impossible to maintain. By environment I mean cultural, social, personal environment as well as physical environment. The effect of humanity and human sin on these is I would have thought undeniably toxic.
If it's not a choice that any human can practically make (for whatever reason), then it's unjust for god to judge us for not making it.
Mankind spiritually breaks with God
Mankind's subsequent efforts modify his previous environment detrimentally.
'Mankind' doesn't do anything, individuals do. In your storybook, it's just two individuals who didn't even know right from wrong - and we all get to pay the price.
God offers way in which man can again walk with God overturning the spiritual divide.
A bizarre perverse and barbaric way that wouldn't have been necessary if it wasn't for the initial injustice and doesn't even work in restoring the previous state.
-
If it's not a choice that any human can practically make (for whatever reason), then it's unjust for god to judge us for not making it.
The choice is now whether we accept the opening back to God as achieved by Jesus Christ.
But you are ignoring that the spiritual separation due to adam's sin has been counteracted by Christ despite me pointing that out. Spiritual separation or spiritual connection leading to sinlessness is now our choice.
If you chose not to be with God, how is God culpable for that choice?
-
The choice is now whether we accept the opening back to God as achieved by Jesus Christ.
So you claim, not only without reasoning or evidence, but while totally ignoring the insanity of the story it's based on.
But you are ignoring that the spiritual separation due to adam's sin has been counteracted by Christ despite me pointing that out.
Patently false. I have referred to it (and its absurdity) multiple times.
Spiritual separation or spiritual connection leading to sinlessness is now our choice.
Once again ignoring the insanity and injustice of the story behind it, and the fact that there is no reasoning or evidence to support the idea that it's true.
If you chose not to be with God, how is God culpable for that choice?
I refer you to the whole series of points I've already made and that you've totally ignored.
-
So you claim, not only without reasoning or evidence, but while totally ignoring the insanity of the story it's based on.
Patently false. I have referred to it (and its absurdity) multiple times.
Once again ignoring the insanity and injustice of the story behind it, and the fact that there is no reasoning or evidence to support the idea that it's true.
I refer you to the whole series of points I've already made and that you've totally ignored.
Or... God is not culpable for your choice. You cannot argue that it is impossible to make the choice for God because some do.
You do not think the story absurd you have used your understanding to conclude God culpable. But of what? That to me is not actually explained by you.
I even staged the process for you....what stages did you think God was culpable?.....I don't think you said.
Christ has broken the spiritual separation wrought by Adam. The only channel for spiritual separation is your own choice. There is no way God is culpable.
-
Or... God is not culpable for your choice. You cannot argue that it is impossible to make the choice for God because some do.
You do not think the story absurd you have used your understanding to conclude God culpable. But of what? That to me is not actually explained by you.
I even staged the process for you....what stages did you think God was culpable?.....I don't think you said.
Christ has broken the spiritual separation wrought by Adam. The only channel for spiritual separation is your own choice. There is no way God is culpable.
Who made the rule that sins have to be punished by death? Was it not God?
Who made the rule that it is acceptable for somebody else to take your punishment for you? Was it not God?
Who made the rule that a death sentence still counts if the person is magicked alive again afterwards? Was it not God?
If God was so determined to let us all off the hook, why didn't he just forgive us instead of going through the whole death and resurrection pantomime?
-
Who made the rule that sins have to be punished by death? Was it not God?
Who made the rule that it is acceptable for somebody else to take your punishment for you? Was it not God?
Who made the rule that a death sentence still counts if the person is magicked alive again afterwards? Was it not God?
If God was so determined to let us all off the hook, why didn't he just forgive us instead of going through the whole death and resurrection pantomime?
The bible talks of the wages of sin. Yes sin has consequences. One of which is separation or alienation from God. If you alienate yourself from God why does it need me to point out that one of the consequences of that is alienation from God. Without Christ there is no undoing of the spiritual alienation wrought by the first decisions to alienate from God. But without doubt we have Christ and the way is open to a relationship with God.
Jesus' act is forgiveness writ large. When we forgive we take the cost on ourselves, By burying retaliation and even justice in oneself. In Jesus God takes the costs on himself namely the spiritual consequences of alienation and it's corruption on ourselves. If we choose alienation in spite of Christ we are unsurprisingly, alienated.
-
Or... God is not culpable for your choice. You cannot argue that it is impossible to make the choice for God because some do.
I think you mean some people choose to follow several different, and mutually contradictory, religions. I see no evidence or reasoning to support the notion that there is a god at all.
Going back to the barking mad story, you seem to be confusing choosing to grovel to god for forgiveness with choosing to not sin in the first place. If the later is impossible, god is unjust to judge us for it.
You do not think the story absurd you have used your understanding to conclude God culpable. But of what? That to me is not actually explained by you.
I even staged the process for you....what stages did you think God was culpable?.....I don't think you said.
- Judging Adam and Eve despite the fact that they didn't know right from wrong.
- Visiting the consequences on all of humanity.
- Judging modern day humans for something they (apparently) have no control over (being sinners).
- Proscribing an a barbaric, bloodthirsty, and absurd punishment.
- Engaging in the absurd, sadomasochistic, unjust, nonsense of incarnation, torture, death, and magicked back to life, in order to forgive us for being the way it decided we should be in the first place.
- Withholding the forgiveness if we don't believe this nonsensical drivel.
- An ineffective 'solution' to the problem it made, because even if we do accept this nonsense it doesn't actually restore the relationship and sinless state Adam and Eve started with.
- Playing a cruel game of hide-and-seek by giving us no evidence that it even exists.
Christ has broken the spiritual separation wrought by Adam.
Obviously not.
The only channel for spiritual separation is your own choice. There is no way God is culpable.
It's not a choice. I find the whole story absurd and there is no evidence or reasoning to suggest it's true (thankfully). I can't choose to find this nonsensical drivel credible or believable and I can't just decide to be convinced when there's a total lack of any evidence or reasoning.
-
I think you mean some people choose to follow several different, and mutually contradictory, religions. I see no evidence or reasoning to support the notion that there is a god at all.
Going back to the barking mad story, you seem to be confusing choosing to grovel to god for forgiveness with choosing to not sin in the first place. If the later is impossible, god is unjust to judge us for it.
- Judging Adam and Eve despite the fact that they didn't know right from wrong.
- Visiting the consequences on all of humanity.
- Judging modern day humans for something they (apparently) have no control over (being sinners).
- Proscribing an a barbaric, bloodthirsty, and absurd punishment.
- Engaging in the absurd, sadomasochistic, unjust, nonsense of incarnation, torture, death, and magicked back to life, in order to forgive us for being the way it decided we should be in the first place.
- Withholding the forgiveness if we don't believe this nonsensical drivel.
- An ineffective 'solution' to the problem it made, because even if we do accept this nonsense it doesn't actually restore the relationship and sinless state Adam and Eve started with.
- Playing a cruel game of hide-and-seek by giving us no evidence that it even exists.
Obviously not.
1: Any spiritual alienation caused by Adam and Eve's choice to disregard God is undone by Jesus Christ.
2: Sounds like you want to live in a consequence free universe. The point is absurd.
3: The spiritual effect of Adam's sin is overturned, the way back to God is open. Intelligence involves judgment, separation is therefore one's own choice.
4: People perpetratred this but the real cost is spiritual suffering of God through taking on sin.
5: How can separating from God possibly be forgiven when forgiveness is being with God in a right relationship. Tell me if God forgave you for walking away from you what form could that forgiveness possible be that overcame the consequence of walking away.
6: Allowing you to be with God is the only way of being allowed to be with God. What more can be done in this respect? I don't see why this eludes you.
7: How do you mean the relationship cannot be restored by Christ. Please state how this isn't possible?
8: I think you are making two errors here firstly that you yourself cannot ever enter a relationship with God and secondly that humanity is in the same boat as you.
-
The bible talks of the wages of sin.
Who set the rule that the ways of sin are death? Was it not God?
If the death is subsequently rescinded have the wages really been paid?
Without Christ there is no undoing of the spiritual alienation wrought by the first decisions to alienate from God.
Who made that rule? Was it not God?
When we forgive we take the cost on ourselves,
Do we? Who made that rule? Was it not God?
In Jesus God takes the costs on himself namely the spiritual consequences of alienation and it's corruption on ourselves. If we choose alienation in spite of Christ we are unsurprisingly, alienated.
What are the costs of our sins? Who made the rule that, if you sin you have to die? Was it not God?
-
Who set the rule that the ways of sin are death? Was it not God?
Everything has consequence. It is reasonable that if you choose to be with God you will in fact be with God and if you choose to walk away from God you will in fact have walked away from God. For these not to be the case would be plainly absurd.
If the death is subsequently rescinded have the wages really been paid?
Who made that rule? Was it not God?
The wages of Adam's sin certainly. There are biblical statements that if you reject God you will die in your OWN sins. There are christians who believe that Jesus death is only effective for those who choose the entry Christ has opened for them. What is certain is that if you walk away you are in fact walking away
What are the costs of our sins? Who made the rule that, if you sin you have to die? Was it not God?
There is a cost. The cost being alienation from God, others and ourselves. To think you can alienated in this way and not be alienated in this way is plainly absurd.
-
1: Any spiritual alienation caused by Adam and Eve's choice to disregard God is undone by Jesus Christ.
Doesn't address the point even if it were true, which it isn't (even in the story).
2: Sounds like you want to live in a consequence free universe. The point is absurd.
Drivel. Deliberately visiting the consequences of parents' actions on all future generations is manifestly unjust.
3: The spiritual effect of Adam's sin is overturned, the way back to God is open. Intelligence involves judgment, separation is therefore one's own choice.
Drivel for the reasons I've outlined multiple times.
4: People perpetratred this but the real cost is spiritual suffering of God through taking on sin.
Doesn't address the point.
5: How can separating from God possibly be forgiven when forgiveness is being with God in a right relationship. Tell me if God forgave you for walking away from you what form could that forgiveness possible be that overcame the consequence of walking away.
Doesn't address the point.
6: Allowing you to be with God is the only way of being allowed to be with God. What more can be done in this respect? I don't see why this eludes you.
Doesn't address the point.
7: How do you mean the relationship cannot be restored by Christ. Please state how this isn't possible?
FFS, why can't you pay attention? Because we don't end up back in the sinless state, strolling around a garden having nice chats with god, even if we do swallow the nonsensical gibberish.
8: I think you are making two errors here firstly that you yourself cannot ever enter a relationship with God and secondly that humanity is in the same boat as you.
Gibberish. There is no evidence and no reasoning that I have ever seen that in any way points to this nonsense being true.
-
Drivel. Deliberately visiting the consequences of parents' actions on all future generations is manifestly unjust.
Changing the physical universe into a consequence free absurdity to handwave consequence away would have been manifestly unjust.
Sending Jesus to keep the channels open is manifestly highly Just.
-
Changing the physical universe into a consequence free absurdity to handwave consequence away would have been manifestly unjust.
This is misrepresentation, I never suggested that the universe should be consequence free. What you are trying to defend here is akin to the state saying the punishment for breaking the law (even unknowingly) is for you, your children, and all their descendants to be taken into slavery.
Sending Jesus to keep the channels open is manifestly highly Just.
You have a bizarre and perverse idea of justice then, or, perhaps more likely, you can't bring yourself to see your superstition as being based on a bizarre and perverse idea of justice.
-
This is misrepresentation, I never suggested that the universe should be consequence free. What you are trying to defend here is akin to the state saying the punishment for breaking the law (even unknowingly) is for you, your children, and all their descendants to be taken into slavery.
I think a better analogy is if the parents are unhappy with each other, get a house and Garden smash it up and have old cars in the Garden it isn't going to be a nice place to grow up in.
You are IMHO advocating a consequence free existence spiritually Jesus has settled the consequence and the way to God is now open. Christians will testify to being able to get their ''house'' in order after finding Christ.
-
You have a bizarre and perverse idea of justice then, or, perhaps more likely, you can't bring yourself to see your superstition as being based on a bizarre and perverse idea of justice.
I find nothing perverse or unjust in God offering a relationship with us.
You strike me as having the attitude of the RAF pilot in Armstrong and Miller who bombs Bristol and complains that they blamed him for it as if it was his fault.
-
I think a better analogy is if the parents are unhappy with each other, get a house and Garden smash it up and have old cars in the Garden it isn't going to be a nice place to grow up in.
Except it's nothing like that at all. The consequences in your mad story are by design - god made the rules and made a deliberate decision that the consequences should extend to all of humanity.
You are IMHO advocating a consequence free existence...
Then you're simply not paying attention.
...spiritually Jesus has settled the consequence...
We are not in the same place as Adam and Eve started from, so he hasn't.
...and the way to God is now open.
Only if we accept the nonsensical, barbaric, unjust, horrific nonsense and ask for forgiveness for being punished for what somebody else did a long time ago and without knowledge of good and evil. All without the first hint of a morsel of a scintilla of evidence or reasoning to suggest that this implausible nonsense might be true.
Christians will testify to being able to get their ''house'' in order after finding Christ.
As will any number of people in other religions, sects, and cults, with contradictory stories. ::)
-
I find nothing perverse or unjust in God offering a relationship with us.
More 'misunderstanding'. I didn't suggest that there was - it's the perverse and unjust details that are the problem.
-
Except it's nothing like that at all. The consequences in your mad story are by design - god made the rules and made a deliberate decision that the consequences should extend to all of humanity.
Then you're simply not paying attention.
We are not in the same place as Adam and Eve started from, so he hasn't.
Only if we accept the nonsensical, barbaric, unjust, horrific nonsense and ask for forgiveness for being punished for what somebody else did a long time ago and without knowledge of good and evil. All without the first hint of a morsel of a scintilla of evidence or reasoning to suggest that this implausible nonsense might be true.
As will any number of people in other religions, sects, and cults, with contradictory stories. ::)
God doesn't ask you to ask for forgiveness for what other people did a long time ago. Christ has dealt with that. There is though, the matter of your own standing with God.
-
God doesn't ask you to ask for forgiveness for what other people did a long time ago. Christ has dealt with that. There is though, the matter of your own standing with God.
And round and round and round you go, never actually addressing the points. According to the mad story, I am not given the choice Adam and Eve were and, so it seems, find myself in the situation of being (unavoidably) a sinner because of the consequences of their choice. Christ has not dealt with the consequences otherwise I would have the same choice (from a sinless starting point) as Adam and Eve.
-
And round and round and round you go, never actually addressing the points. According to the mad story, I am not given the choice Adam and Eve were and, so it seems, find myself in the situation of being (unavoidably) a sinner because of the consequences of their choice. Christ has not dealt with the consequences otherwise I would have the same choice (from a sinless starting point) as Adam and Eve.
They had the choice to continue there lives with God....and you have the choice to continue your life with God and you have the same choice as everybody else. A sinless start is patently irrelevent to the choice to be with God or to not be with God.
-
They had the choice to continue there lives with God....and you have the choice to continue your life with God and you have the same choice as everybody else. A sinless start is patently irrelevent to the choice to be with God or to not be with God.
Drivel - they had no need to grovel for forgiveness or swallow the patently unjust, barbaric, bloodthirsty nonsense. They also had direct evidence and experience of god (and the talking snake), all they lacked was any sense of right and wrong - it seems your god will do anything but offer anybody a fully just and fair choice.
-
Drivel - they had no need to grovel for forgiveness or swallow the patently unjust, barbaric, bloodthirsty nonsense. They also had direct evidence and experience of god (and the talking snake), all they lacked was any sense of right and wrong.
They had direct and evidence experience of God and yet still disregarded him. They had a sense of right because they had direct evidence and experience of God.
What is it you are against Grovelling or forgiveness. Whether they grovelled for the forgiveness that is there because of Christ I know not.
I am confused as to what more or else could you want than a relationship with God which is on offer......other of course than not having a relationship with God?
-
They had direct and evidence experience of God and yet still disregarded him.
Perhaps because they had no knowledge of good and evil?
They had a sense of right because they had direct evidence and experience of God.
Without a knowledge of good and evil how would they know god was good and the talking snake was evil?
What is it you are against Grovelling or forgiveness.
Because if this absurd story about a barbaric, unjust, sadomasochistic, mad as a box of frogs god is in the least bit accurate, it's god that should be grovelling for humanity's forgiveness.
I am confused as to what more or else could you want than a relationship with God which is on offer......other of course than not having a relationship with God?
I'm not going to go though everything all over again. You haven't directly addressed a single one of my points.
-
Perhaps because they had no knowledge of good and evil?
They had knowledge of Good because they had direct experience and evidence of God as you put it. They were in personal relationship and able even to maintain this until they chose to disregard God and put their trust in something else.
God had given them a warning about evil.
Now I don't understand why you insist that you or humanity are irrevokeably under condemnation rather than being offered a relationship.
Also I think you are still under the impression that you can be sinless and Godless.
Explain how you think that would work.
-
They had knowledge of Good because they had direct experience and evidence of God as you put it. They were in personal relationship and able even to maintain this until they chose to disregard God and put their trust in something else.
God had given them a warning about evil.
Well now you're contradicting what was said earlier. Also, what was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" if they already had that knowledge?
Now I don't understand why you insist that you or humanity are irrevokeably under condemnation rather than being offered a relationship.
Try reading what I said and responding to it instead of answering what you'd rather I'd have said (which appears to be what you've been doing throughout this conversation).
-
Well now you're contradicting what was said earlier. Also, what was the "tree of the knowledge of good and evil" if they already had that knowledge?
Try reading what I said and responding to it instead of answering what you'd rather I'd have said (which appears to be what you've been doing throughout this conversation).
They were told by God not to eat from the tree and they disregarded God. Bang!....there's the fall and the separation.
A metaphor for disregarding God.
-
They were told by God not to eat from the tree and they disregarded God. Bang!....there's the fall and the separation.
A metaphor for disregarding God.
What god? I see no god(s) to disregard. And you're still ignoring everything I've actually been saying.
-
They were told by God not to eat from the tree and they disregarded God. Bang!....there's the fall and the separation.
A metaphor for disregarding God.
The key to understanding this first sin, for me, is that it was the first act of sorcery. Where Satan, who had a full righteous knowledge took the innocence of this couple and duped them. They should have remained true to God's righteous instructions, but, not really understanding the value behind this act, they allowed themselves to be duped, and there innocence was snatched away from them. What they had done started the slow and disastrous path of our genetic downfall...a path we are still falling down today. It's all coming to a head now...everyone seems to be practicing the art of deception...we call it conmanship but the real conners are never really seen...they are hidden from view whilst the lies and deceit that are spun up by them are keeping us all confused and genetically frustrated, but it always involves the innocent...those who believe they are being told the truth whilst the con artist doesn't know what truth is. I could name a few of these con artists who have devastated the modern world...but we are best following accurate righteous teaching and keep them out of our lives...and then...who knows...our genetic health might return, because that's the Christian promise.
-
They had the choice to continue there lives with God....and you have the choice to continue your life with God and you have the same choice as everybody else. A sinless start is patently irrelevent to the choice to be with God or to not be with God.
It's that time of year again Vlad, topnotchsigns.co.uk the sandwich board people don't forget the usual, 'YOUR SINS ARE THE WAGES OF DEATH', or something like that, also don't forget to keep a lookout for any obstructions if you decide to go out with the full overhead regalia, yes topnotchsigns.co.uk Vlad they'll see you alright.
ippy.
-
It's all coming to a head now...everyone seems to be practicing the art of deception...we call it conmanship
....like someone saying that they can see something amiss with the moon, but not qualifying their assertion with actual facts?
That kind of deceiving or conmanship?
Yes, it's everywhere!
-
...everyone seems to be practicing the art of deception...
Yourself being a good example. You're not actually very good at it but 10 out of 10 for effort, with all the meaningless nonsense and blatant falsehoods about science.
...whilst the con artist doesn't know what truth is.
Again, one Nicholas Marks and his ignorance of science springs to mind.
-
The key to understanding this first sin, for me, is that it was the first act of sorcery. Where Satan, who had a full righteous knowledge took the innocence of this couple and duped them ..
So why did God not protect them from that ? Was it because he didn't want to, or because he isn't actually all that mighty, after all ?
-
It's all coming to a head now...everyone seems to be practicing the art of deception...we call it conmanship.
One way to expose a conman is to require of them to substantiate their claims; and if they can't, they tend to disappear for a while, or sometimes they try to tough it out with smoke and mirrors and misdirection. This is why you continually get challenged to justify your claims when you pop on here from time to time.
-
One way to expose a conman is to require of them to substantiate their claims; and if they can't, they tend to disappear for a while, or sometimes they try to tough it out with smoke and mirrors and misdirection. This is why you continually get challenged to justify your claims when you pop on here from time to time.
The problem with that is that the Holy Bible exists but your refusal to take in any of its content means you can't see the wonderful truth presented from within it. That's ok. You don't want to know what is in our future or what is occurring right now which will impact upon all our futures...You can't accept that having an indestructible spirit can be a good thing or a terrible thing depending upon the residence of that spirit which will either be here on planet Earth, in the flesh, in good health, happiness, and good order...or aboard a fiery lake of sulphur with no remission and a whole lot of time to dwell on what could have been...Again, a natural event, but one that Almighty God has warned us about and takes full responsibility for because it is an expression of his Mighty Power...and He has done His best to steer us away from it.
-
The problem with that is that the Holy Bible exists but your refusal to take in any of its content means you can't see the wonderful truth presented from within it. That's ok. You don't want to know what is in our future or what is occurring right now which will impact upon all our futures...You can't accept that having an indestructible spirit can be a good thing or a terrible thing depending upon the residence of that spirit which will either be here on planet Earth, in the flesh, in good health, happiness, and good order...or aboard a fiery lake of sulphur with no remission and a whole lot of time to dwell on what could have been...Again, a natural event, but one that Almighty God has warned us about and takes full responsibility for because it is an expression of his Mighty Power...and He has done His best to steer us away from it.
So why should we believe this drivel? Not only have you failed to provide any hint of evidence or reasoning to support it, your track record of making totally false and nonsensical statements about science, suggest that you care very little about truth and accuracy.
-
The problem with that is that the Holy Bible exists but your refusal to take in any of its content means you can't see the wonderful truth presented from within it. That's ok. You don't want to know what is in our future or what is occurring right now which will impact upon all our futures...You can't accept that having an indestructible spirit can be a good thing or a terrible thing depending upon the residence of that spirit which will either be here on planet Earth, in the flesh, in good health, happiness, and good order...or aboard a fiery lake of sulphur with no remission and a whole lot of time to dwell on what could have been...Again, a natural event, but one that Almighty God has warned us about and takes full responsibility for because it is an expression of his Mighty Power...and He has done His best to steer us away from it.
There is no evidence for an 'indestructible spirit' though. In fact, we understand this, that nothing lasts forever. That is the nature of reality and you are just dodging it.
-
Everything has consequence.
Yes but who set the rule that the wages of sin are death? Was it not God?
It is reasonable that if you choose to be with God you will in fact be with God and if you choose to walk away from God you will in fact have walked away from God. For these not to be the case would be plainly absurd.
Nothing in the above implies you have to die for choosing not to be with God though. Who made the rule that you have to be punished for walking way from God? Was it not God?
The wages of Adam's sin certainly. There are biblical statements that if you reject God you will die in your OWN sins. There are christians who believe that Jesus death is only effective for those who choose the entry Christ has opened for them. What is certain is that if you walk away you are in fact walking away
Is that a long winded way of admitting that God did make the rule that dying and then coming alive again is enough to pay the wages of sin? Why could he not make a rule that involves not dying at all? Or, if killing himself in the form of his son and bringing himself back to life works, why not just kill everybody and bring them all back to life?
There is a cost. The cost being alienation from God
I'm already alienated from God (assuming he exists). I can tell you right now that it isn't really much of a punishment.
The thing is (in case you haven't twigged already) that all of these rules you are quoting - "the wages of sin are death", "the price has to be paid" etc - were set in place by your god (assuming he exists). In that light, pretty much everything to do with Jesus' "perfect" not-really-a-sacrifice looks stupid.
Notwithstanding the fact that it's totally bonkers that other people can step in and take the punishment for crimes I have done, the idea that I can take back my "payment" after a few days is complete nonsense. If the government allowed you to pay your speeding fine but then, after three days, gave you the money back and rescinded the points, you'd just laugh at them for being utterly stupid. This is the eact situation we have with Jesus' crucifixion.
-
They had knowledge of Good because they had direct experience and evidence of God as you put it. They were in personal relationship and able even to maintain this until they chose to disregard God and put their trust in something else.
God had given them a warning about evil.
Can you give a Bible reference to the bit where God warned Adam and Eve about evil?
Spoiler: he didn't.
Even if God did warn Adam and Eve about evil (which he didn't), can you explain how Adam and Eve could be expected to recognise evil without knowledge of good and evil?
Why did God not warn Adam and Eve not to listen to the Serpent?
Also I think you are still under the impression that you can be sinless and Godless.
We are all sinless because there is no god.
-
So why should we believe this drivel? Not only have you failed to provide any hint of evidence or reasoning to support it, your track record of making totally false and nonsensical statements about science, suggest that you care very little about truth and accuracy.
When all truth is revealed you will find that I haven't told you anything which cannot be substantiated. It is all too advanced for you but we have got to tune in quickly because there are no brakes on the phenomenon we are all warned about.
Jesus Christ died to show us the mechanics of our Spirit. It responds to healthy universal stimulus...that is, the same energy that Almighty God is a living manifestation of. It is the raw material behind all atoms and all stars but we need special laws to make it wholesome and to assist us in our daily lives, and they are all contained within the accurate teaching of Yahshua/Jesus Christ.
If Almighty God, Yhwh/Jehovah, is made from this material and is invisible, that is an indicator that this energy is also invisible and in its purest form we can never see it...but the invisible things of God are seen by those things that are visible...a reference again to the fact that all stars and atoms are made from it...and modern science is bordering on this knowledge but I'm not sure that we have time to explore it fully...but by taking in the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ we don't need to.
-
When all truth is revealed you will find that I haven't told you anything which cannot be substantiated. It is all too advanced for you...
You have made multiple statements about science that are simply wrong or meaningless. Being more "advanced" is not going to make wrong statements right, nor will it make sense of meaningless gibberish. If you had a more advanced understanding, you would be outlining the differences and starting with what is known, instead of spouting ignorant, inaccurate nonsense.
-
When all truth is revealed you will find that I haven't told you anything which cannot be substantiated. It is all too advanced for you but we have got to tune in quickly because there are no brakes on the phenomenon we are all warned about.....
So, no justification, no response to criticism then, just as predicted, just a bunch more incoherent waffle hoping to bury the fact that you never justify your bizarre assertions. Your strategy here is one of pompous condescension, as if that is going to cut it with people that want answers. Reminds me of the Emperor's New Clothes, where people were goaded into affecting belief in absurd claims, not by well reasoned arguments, but by being told their unbelief was a symptom of stupidity.
Nothing new under the Sun, Nick, we can all see straight through you.
-
Can you give a Bible reference to the bit where God warned Adam and Eve about evil?
Spoiler: he didn't.
Even if God did warn Adam and Eve about evil (which he didn't), can you explain how Adam and Eve could be expected to recognise evil without knowledge of good and evil?
Why did God not warn Adam and Eve not to listen to the Serpent?
We are all sinless because there is no god.
I take the definition of sin from the anglican liturgy where we acknowledge sin against God and our fellow men. I'm sure then you would acknowledge sin against our fellow men.
God warned Adam and Eve, given he did not then force them it was obviously there decision to depart. For there not to be consequences one would de facto be arguing for some kind of absurd consequence free universe.
In terms of the snake, that is a metaphor IMV for turning away from Valuing God to valuing something lesser.
Since you have said there is no God, that is a positive assertion. Can you prove it?
-
The problem with that is that the Holy Bible exists but your refusal to take in any of its content means you can't see the wonderful truth presented from within it. That's ok. You don't want to know what is in our future or what is occurring right now which will impact upon all our futures...You can't accept that having an indestructible spirit can be a good thing or a terrible thing depending upon the residence of that spirit which will either be here on planet Earth, in the flesh, in good health, happiness, and good order...or aboard a fiery lake of sulphur with no remission and a whole lot of time to dwell on what could have been...Again, a natural event, but one that Almighty God has warned us about and takes full responsibility for because it is an expression of his Mighty Power...and He has done His best to steer us away from it.
the con artist doesn't know what truth is.
the lies and deceit that are spun up by them are keeping us all confused
.everyone seems to be practicing the art of deception..
Hmmmmm
-
God warned Adam and Eve, given he did not then force them it was obviously there decision to depart. For there not to be consequences one would de facto be arguing for some kind of absurd consequence free universe.
Once again ignoring what has actually been said and coming up with the absurd false dilemma between blighting the whole of humanity for the actions of two people who didn't know about good and evil, and a "consequence free universe".
-
God warned Adam and Eve,
Not against evil.
given he did not then force them it was obviously there decision to depart.
Have you even read the story? God threw them out. It wasn’t their decision at all.
For there not to be consequences one would de facto be arguing for some kind of absurd consequence free universe.
But the consequences you are talking about were made up by God.
In terms of the snake, that is a metaphor IMV for turning away from Valuing God to valuing something lesser.
irrelevant. In the story the Serpent is real. In the story God could have warned Adam and Eve about it.
Since you have said there is no God, that is a positive assertion. Can you prove it?
[/quote]
No. Can you prove me wrong?
-
Once again ignoring what has actually been said and coming up with the absurd false dilemma between blighting the whole of humanity for the actions of two people who didn't know about good and evil, and a "consequence free universe".
And again I am addressing what you are saying by calling it an appeal for a consequence free universe.
As I keep pointing out, sin and it's consequences should have cut off mankind from God. But in Christ Jesus God takes the effects on himself thus the way to God is open. Should you choose not to take that route it is not because of anything Adam did, it is because you choose not to take that route.
-
Not against evil.
Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
-
Which makes the idea of a punishment all the more repugnant - we have the concept of diminished responsibility, and it's potentially open to abuse at times, but this sort of lack of awareness is what it was put into place for. If someone genuinely doesn't understand what they're doing is wrong, how can we - or a perfectly moral deity - punish them for it?
So my original answer that they didn't understand the concept of good and evil until they actually disobeyed, was apparently wrong.
God said, "dying you shall die"; the repetition of the word made sure they understood that it was wrong. It's the principle that "A matter must be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses" (Deut. 19:15)
-
And again I am addressing what you are saying by calling it an appeal for a consequence free universe.
So you're just lying about what I said, then.
As I keep pointing out, sin and it's consequences should have cut off mankind from God.
Which is manifestly unjust for the actions of two people who didn't know good from evil. And there's no 'should have' in your silly story, it did cut it off.
But in Christ Jesus God takes the effects on himself thus the way to God is open.
Back to the barking mad, barbaric, sadomasochistic nonsense - that doesn't work unless you believe this drivel and grovel for forgiveness for being a human being.
Should you choose not to take that route it is not because of anything Adam did, it is because you choose not to take that route.
There is no evidence any of this nonsense if true - so if it is, that's another injustice.
-
You have made multiple statements about science that are simply wrong or meaningless. Being more "advanced" is not going to make wrong statements right, nor will it make sense of meaningless gibberish. If you had a more advanced understanding, you would be outlining the differences and starting with what is known, instead of spouting ignorant, inaccurate nonsense.
Even if you don't agree with me on this point of reference, made here, which I made recently on a YouTube site, you will have to agree that it is pretty profound and offers a better solution than science who say that nothing, with an immense explosive force built everything, from a space no bigger than a flea's bottom...
Black-holes, to me, are an indicator of the mechanics that produced that galaxy...out of, guess what??...dark matter. It also is an indicator of the two dimensions that underpin the entire galaxy. If we take apart a black-hole, piece by piece, we would find the eyes of many tornadoes all swirled into one black-hole, and these tornado eyes are the remnant of the massive electric storms that once existed within that pre-galaxy cloud of dark matter...for more information...consult the Holy Bible
...and even if you don't like it...have you got a better solution.
Now I can take it through its many stages from the beginning to the end...which makes me just a little bit more on cue than the average guy, but the knowledge carries a heavy responsibility to the Owner and Creator of it all...and the thrust behind understanding this knowledge is the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ.
ps...I know your response before you respond.
-
So you're just lying about what I said, then.
Which is manifestly unjust for the actions of two people who didn't know good from evil. And there's no 'should have' in your silly story, it did cut it off.
Back to the barking mad, barbaric, sadomasochistic nonsense - that doesn't work unless you believe this drivel and grovel for forgiveness for being a human being.
There is no evidence any of this nonsense if true - so if it is, that's another injustice.
So what you are saying is that your half story of how God relates to mankind, the one without the restoration is the one you prefer. Is this because it fits in with your back up position that God is the evil villain? Is it the version you think adequately justifies ignoring Gods offer?
Once again I think you are confusing sinlessness with Godlessness. Are you frightened that if your sins are forgiven you will cease to be human?
-
Even if you don't agree with me on this point of reference, made here, which I made recently on a YouTube site, you will have to agree that it is pretty profound and offers a better solution than science...
None of your nonsense is in the least bit profound. Your scientifically illiterate drivel isn't a solution to anything, let alone a better one than real science.
...who say that nothing, with an immense explosive force built everything, from a space no bigger than a flea's bottom...
More scientific illiteracy.
Black-holes, to me, are an indicator of the mechanics that produced that galaxy...out of, guess what??...dark matter. It also is an indicator of the two dimensions that underpin the entire galaxy. If we take apart a black-hole, piece by piece, we would find the eyes of many tornadoes all swirled into one black-hole, and these tornado eyes are the remnant of the massive electric storms that once existed within that pre-galaxy cloud of dark matter...for more information...consult the Holy Bible...
This is baseless evidence-free assertion that doesn't even make sense. Quite apart from anything else, you still don't seem to have grasped that 'dimension', in the way you use the word, is from tacky science fiction programs and has no meaning in real science.
And none of this gibberish is in the bible - that appears to be a barefaced lie.
...and even if you don't like it...have you got a better solution.
Yes - it's called real science.
Now I can take it through its many stages from the beginning to the end...which makes me just a little bit more on cue than the average guy...
You don't have even a hint of the first clue about science. You appear to have never been to a science class in your life. You know nothing about the subject.
-
Vlad,
Are you frightened that if your sins are forgiven you will cease to be human?
Why are you persisting with this nonsense? He’s made perfectly clear that he doesn’t believe any of the whole ghastly confection to be true – god, sin, divine forgiveness, you name it. All he’s doing is discussing the moral implications of the story, nothing more. It’s as if I was arguing an Aesop fable to be morally uplifting, you disagreed with me and then I stated asking you about your fears of actual hares and tortoises.
Whether the story suggests a morally good god or a morally bad god says nothing at all to whether you think this supposed god is also real.
-
So what you are saying is that your half story of how God relates to mankind, the one without the restoration is the one you prefer.
More dishonest misrepresentation. It's very telling that you seem unable to deal with what has actually been said, and have to address your own straw man version instead.
Is this because it fits in with your back up position that God is the evil villain?
I've explained this multiple times and am still waiting for you to address the actual points.
Is it the version you think adequately justifies ignoring Gods offer?
I see no offer.
Are you frightened that if your sins are forgiven you will cease to be human?
I'm not frightened at all - except perhaps about how much religion can undermine basic reasoning and make Christians try to defend the indefensible.
-
More dishonest misrepresentation. It's very telling that you seem unable to deal with what has actually been said, and have to address your own straw man version instead.
I've explained this multiple times and am still waiting for you to address the actual points.
I see no offer.
I'm not frightened at all - except perhaps about how much religion can undermine basic reasoning and make Christians try to defend the indefensible.
you seem to be flipping between wanting a consequence free universe and God declaring you sinless so you can then tell him he isnt needed.
-
Vlad,
you seem to be flipping between wanting a consequence free universe and God declaring you sinless so you can then tell him he isnt needed.
He’s suggested neither. What do you get from lying like this?
-
you seem to be flipping between wanting a consequence free universe and God declaring you sinless so you can then tell him he isnt needed.
I have never once suggested either.
-
Vlad,
He’s suggested neither. What do you get from lying like this?
He said earlier he wanted to be restored to Adam's sinless state. He thinks God is a monster for creating a universe where the consequences of Adam's sin. He seems to be rejecting Gods solution to Mans predicament. Therefore my Impression of what he is saying is fully justified.
.
As I have said Jesus has opened the way back to God.
-
Vlad,
He said earlier he wanted to be restored to Adam's sinless state.
As he’s an atheist does that not seem a little unlikely to you? He said no such thing of course.
He thinks God is a monster for creating a universe where the consequences of Adam's sin.
No, he argues that the story you favour about a god implies a monstrous god.
He seems to be rejecting Gods solution to Mans predicament.
No, he’s rejecting both your interpretation of the story and your a priori assertion of god as a fact.
Therefore my Impression of what he is saying is fully justified.
No it isn’t. It's just more lying.
As I have said Jesus has opened the way back to God.
And as I have said, Jack never should have bought those magic beans.
Your turn.
-
He said earlier he wanted to be restored to Adam's sinless state.
No I did not. I said that if Jesus had really reversed the "work of Adam" as you suggested, then we (all of us) would be back in the sinless state. That is nothing like saying that I wanted to be declared sinless.
In fact, I haven't said anything about what I want at all. I'm commenting on your daft story.
He thinks God is a monster for creating a universe where the consequences of Adam's sin.
I have said that consequences did not fit the 'crime'. It is unjust to blight the whole of humanity because of the actions of two people, doubly so as they didn't know about good and evil.
That is nothing like saying I want a consequence-free universe.
He seems to be rejecting Gods solution to Mans predicament.
I'm rejecting the story as being absurd and its god character to be unfair and unjust, not to mention bloodthirsty and totally insane.
Therefore my Impression of what he is saying is fully justified.
False.
-
When all truth is revealed you will find that I haven't told you anything which cannot be substantiated. It is all too advanced for you but we have got to tune in quickly because there are no brakes on the phenomenon we are all warned about.
Jesus Christ died to show us the mechanics of our Spirit. It responds to healthy universal stimulus...that is, the same energy that Almighty God is a living manifestation of. It is the raw material behind all atoms and all stars but we need special laws to make it wholesome and to assist us in our daily lives, and they are all contained within the accurate teaching of Yahshua/Jesus Christ.
If Almighty God, Yhwh/Jehovah, is made from this material and is invisible, that is an indicator that this energy is also invisible and in its purest form we can never see it...but the invisible things of God are seen by those things that are visible...a reference again to the fact that all stars and atoms are made from it...and modern science is bordering on this knowledge but I'm not sure that we have time to explore it fully...but by taking in the accurate teaching of Jesus Christ we don't need to.
I'm sure most people do their best, overall, to live a decent moral/ethical life with the hope that they may have left this world a little better a place than it was before entering, the stories, in your manual, because that's all they are stories, make very little difference to this general behaviour any more than any other fictional work.
Most of us act the way we do out of respect for our fellow persons/citizens without having a single thought about gaining brownie points! Some others do these deeds hoping they'll be seen by yours truly and their deeds will add up to a cosy rewarding leg up into the sky nearer to this imaginary friend.
It could be said where atheists aren't looking for rewards when doing good deeds makes your average atheist a far more squeaky clean and moral person than your ordinary every day average religious believer Nick.
The main objection I have to religious belief, in this case believers, only one of many objections, is when the religious are always insistently teaching their religious beliefs to particularly very young and vulnerable children as though they are dealing with facts, instead of being honest and teaching them at the same time the exact difference between fact and belief.
So in all Nick you religious lot in my opinion haven't got a lot going for them and people like yourself do no favours for your fellow believers or belief with your ridiculous ideas that you think are scientific but are in fact rather sad for you and almost laughable.
ippy.
-
He said earlier he wanted to be restored to Adam's sinless state. He thinks God is a monster for creating a universe where the consequences of Adam's sin. He seems to be rejecting Gods solution to Mans predicament. Therefore my Impression of what he is saying is fully justified.
.
As I have said Jesus has opened the way back to God.
That would be St Paul's solution.
Well, that would be if you accepted St Paul's bizarre scenario of what Jesus is supposed to have done for us.
"Jesus became a curse for us" ("anyone hanging on a tree is cursed")
"Jesus, our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed"
Are you really surprised that most non-believers find this utter nonsense?
The 2nd person of the Trinity sacrifices himself to appease the 1st person of the Trinity (and they're all bits of the same God, but each bit also God in him/itself)
-
That would be St Paul's solution.
Well, that would be if you accepted St Paul's bizarre scenario of what Jesus is supposed to have done for us.
"Jesus became a curse for us" ("anyone hanging on a tree is cursed")
"Jesus, our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed"
Are you really surprised that most non-believers find this utter nonsense?
The 2nd person of the Trinity sacrifices himself to appease the 1st person of the Trinity (and they're all bits of the same God, but each bit also God in him/itself)
Non believers seem quite happy to have a version where mankind is innocent and God is a monster and they hold this for the obvious reason that everybody sees themselves as the hero, and the good guy and taking the blame is difficult.
So let's get into what you are saying. First of all there is the hint of the fallacy of modernity.
People in a time of warfare would recognise the logic of the younger generation making sacrifice. We don't fully understand this not because we are better than these people but because we haven't by and large experienced what they have.
Secondly, There is a misunderstanding of the unity within the trinity God gave his only son for the world see previous point and yet again God is incarnated n Jesus Christ and takes the cost and consequence of sin on himself. That is why he incarnates to completely identify with the consequences of sin. As with all forgiveness it involves taking the costs and consequences for the transgressor.
Many non believers like considering the penalty aspect without thinking about the consequences. In modern times the criticism that the focus is on the treatment of the perpetrator rather than the effect of the victim. Enlightened justice recognises also the effect of the crime on the perpetrator themself.
Finally you of all people should know there are many interpretations of the atonement in christian theology.
-
Non believers seem quite happy to have a version where mankind is innocent and God is a monster and they hold this for the obvious reason that everybody sees themselves as the hero, and the good guy and taking the blame is difficult.
You really are quite funny sometimes. You started out talking about "non believers" and then gave a reason for what say say that would only make sense if they believed. It can't be about not wanting to take the blame for people who think it's just a silly fairytale.
What's more, you've been given the actual reasons and all you've done is ignore them and construct an army of straw men for you to attack, as is your wont with most arguments.
-
I'm sure most people do their best, overall, to live a decent moral/ethical life with the hope that they may have left this world a little better a place than it was before entering, the stories, in your manual, because that's all they are stories, make very little difference to this general behaviour any more than any other fictional work.
Most of us act the way we do out of respect for our fellow persons/citizens without having a single thought about gaining brownie points! Some others do these deeds hoping they'll be seen by yours truly and their deeds will add up to a cosy rewarding leg up into the sky nearer to this imaginary friend.
It could be said where atheists aren't looking for rewards when doing good deeds makes your average atheist a far more squeaky clean and moral person than your ordinary every day average religious believer Nick.
The main objection I have to religious belief, in this case believers, only one of many objections, is when the religious are always insistently teaching their religious beliefs to particularly very young and vulnerable children as though they are dealing with facts, instead of being honest and teaching them at the same time the exact difference between fact and belief.
So in all Nick you religious lot in my opinion haven't got a lot going for them and people like yourself do no favours for your fellow believers or belief with your ridiculous ideas that you think are scientific but are in fact rather sad for you and almost laughable.
ippy.
Jesus Christ can save us from all dangers but in particular the dangers that are in our backyard right now. Disbelief is not a lasting option. We will either finish up cruising around the universe in a fiery lake of sulphur else living an honest peaceful life here, on planet Earth, in the flesh. You say that atheists are good people who live upstanding lives but then why have they made it their life's ambition to crush the only loving word that exists in this blasphemous world?? The word of Jesus brings calm into chaos and so by your stance you want to destroy that calm and that isn't very nice or very caring. The fact that it is all part of a universal science that cannot fail seems to incite atheists even more because they have put all their trust in the wrong science.
-
That would be St Paul's solution.
Well, that would be if you accepted St Paul's bizarre scenario of what Jesus is supposed to have done for us.
"Jesus became a curse for us" ("anyone hanging on a tree is cursed")
"Jesus, our Paschal lamb has been sacrificed"
Are you really surprised that most non-believers find this utter nonsense?
The 2nd person of the Trinity sacrifices himself to appease the 1st person of the Trinity (and they're all bits of the same God, but each bit also God in him/itself)
If you bothered to read the Holy Bible you will know, like Paul, as did Peter and John that Jesus, whilst earning the status of Almighty God and was made higher than the angels, Jesus himself, wouldn't put himself in competition with God. This suggests two beings, each bearing witness of the other, which is also what we are told. Jesus died to be resurrected and show us the mechanics behind resurrection and rebirth. He died to give us a new chance in life so that we can repair from the crumbling state of our genetic health, and he died so that we could talk to Almighty God in our prayers because before Jesus spoke to God on our behalf Almighty God wouldn't associate with sinners in any way, shape, or form...so we have a lot to be grateful for...especially as we all now know, if we care to examine the truth, that we each have an indestructible spirit which benefits our current existence, our future existence...and when we get the science right...our eternal existence.
You may frown on talking to God, but science, the catholics, the psychiatrists, and the Samaritans, have all found that it is good to talk. Now...I wonder how you will twist that against me.
-
Jesus Christ can save us from all dangers but in particular the dangers that are in our backyard right now. Disbelief is not a lasting option. We will either finish up cruising around the universe in a fiery lake of sulphur else living an honest peaceful life here, on planet Earth, in the flesh. You say that atheists are good people who live upstanding lives but then why have they made it their life's ambition to crush the only loving word that exists in this blasphemous world?? The word of Jesus brings calm into chaos and so by your stance you want to destroy that calm and that isn't very nice or very caring. The fact that it is all part of a universal science that cannot fail seems to incite atheists even more because they have put all their trust in the wrong science.
Nick, tell me, without the long drawn out sermon, how does anyone disbelieve in something that so unlikely to be there in the first place to enable them to disbelieve in well, to disbelieve in nothing.
Something like I disbelieve in the contents of an empty box, something else daft coming from your direction.
Nick, why do you think all communications with your postings end up being mostly senseless and daft?
ippy.
-
Nick, tell me, without the long drawn out sermon, how does anyone disbelieve in something that so unlikely to be there in the first place to enable them to disbelieve in well, to disbelieve in nothing.
Something like I disbelieve in the contents of an empty box, something else daft coming from your direction.
Nick, why do you think all communications with your postings end up being mostly senseless and daft?
ippy.
The reason for your last comment is Dawkinism...It is the standard attack upon anyone who supports the Holy Bible.
The answer to your second comment is that millions over the generations have found huge comfort from the teaching of Jesus Christ...especially in war zones and other stressful times...and that is proof positive that a science is at work.
With reference to your first question it is the simple fact that one man saw it worthy of extreme pain and suffering to show the more caring and compassionate amongst us that there is hope at the end of the tunnel...and that the reason the world is in the state it is in is because people with no real caring for humanity pretend that they do have whilst they undermine and try to destroy it.
It might sound a bit harsh but you wanted me to be brief.
-
you wanted me to be brief.
..beautiful full moon tonight Nick.
Had a good close look at it through my wee telescope.
No sign if anything amiss up there.
If you could just be brief and explain what it is that you are claiming to personally see that is a problem with the moon, I would be grateful.
-
If you bothered to read the Holy Bible you will know, like Paul, as did Peter and John that Jesus, whilst earning the status of Almighty God and was made higher than the angels, Jesus himself, wouldn't put himself in competition with God. This suggests two beings, each bearing witness of the other, which is also what we are told. Jesus died to be resurrected and show us the mechanics behind resurrection and rebirth. He died to give us a new chance in life so that we can repair from the crumbling state of our genetic health, and he died so that we could talk to Almighty God in our prayers because before Jesus spoke to God on our behalf Almighty God wouldn't associate with sinners in any way, shape, or form...so we have a lot to be grateful for...especially as we all now know, if we care to examine the truth, that we each have an indestructible spirit which benefits our current existence, our future existence...and when we get the science right...our eternal existence.
You may frown on talking to God, but science, the catholics, the psychiatrists, and the Samaritans, have all found that it is good to talk. Now...I wonder how you will twist that against me.
My last remarks regarding the Trinity were directed specifically to Vlad, who is a Trinitarian. I know perfectly well that you are not. I also know very well how you both justify your views using the Bible.
Since I am not a believer of any kind, I will leave it to you to continue your battles with the Trinitarians, since you seem to think the matter important. I don't.
-
The reason for your last comment is Dawkinism...It is the standard attack upon anyone who supports the Holy Bible.
The answer to your second comment is that millions over the generations have found huge comfort from the teaching of Jesus Christ...especially in war zones and other stressful times...and that is proof positive that a science is at work.
With reference to your first question it is the simple fact that one man saw it worthy of extreme pain and suffering to show the more caring and compassionate amongst us that there is hope at the end of the tunnel...and that the reason the world is in the state it is in is because people with no real caring for humanity pretend that they do have whilst they undermine and try to destroy it.
It might sound a bit harsh but you wanted me to be brief.
I know being brief is very difficult for you Nick, now referring to your last paragraph, again preferably without the sermon, evidence?
There is no evidence for any of the magical, mystical or superstition based parts of your manual and the evidence for the rest of it is a long way from anyone being able to substantiate much if any of the rest of this manual of yours.
So Nick unless you have some channel that's unknown to the rest of humanity, this would be including people that still believe in spite of the lack of evidence they have, how can you or anyone else legitimately claim the knowledge you say you have?
Don't forget Nick, NO SERMON WANTED OR NEEDED, some form of sensible answer will do very nicely thank you.
ippy.
-
I know being brief is very difficult for you Nick, now referring to your last paragraph, again preferably without the sermon, evidence?
There is no evidence for any of the magical, mystical or superstition based parts of your manual and the evidence for the rest of it is a long way from anyone being able to substantiate much if any of the rest of this manual of yours.
So Nick unless you have some channel that's unknown to the rest of humanity, this would be including people that still believe in spite of the lack of evidence they have, how can you or anyone else legitimately claim the knowledge you say you have?
Don't forget Nick, NO SERMON WANTED OR NEEDED, some form of sensible answer will do very nicely thank you.
ippy.
Your wilful desire not to accept anything referring to the Holy Bible is not only scientific neglect but it is also down right foolishness. Almighty God said that He created the universe and, as you might guess, He has massaged this knowledge into His Word so that all those who obey Him can have access to that science and especially the Gospels where Jesus showed us what happens to our spirit in death. If we were righteous we could be resurrected but because we are not we must settle for rebirth and there are many examples of rebirth on YouTube...but, if we are ignorant of this truth, or refuse to acknowledge the purpose of Jesus Christ's great sacrifice, we will be just left swirling around the ether until it is emptied into the fiery lake of sulphur...coming soon.
-
Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
That's not warning them against evil, it's warning them against eating from a particular tree.
Or put it this way. If I change the bolding in your quotation.
Genesis 2:16-17
And the LORD God commanded the man, saying, 'Of every tree of the garden you may freely eat; but of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil you shall not eat, for in the day that you eat of it you shall surely die."
Is God warning Adam and Eve against good? A yes or no answer will suffice.
-
That's not warning them against evil, it's warning them against eating from a particular tree.
Or put it this way. If I change the bolding in your quotation.
Is God warning Adam and Eve against good? A yes or no answer will suffice.
It's Garden metaphor.
He's warning them against the consequences of knowing both Good and evil.
-
It's Garden metaphor.
He's warning them against the consequences of knowing both Good and evil.
That's not the same as warning them against evil. Thinking about it, there's no point in warning them about evil if they do not know what evil is.
Similarly, there's no point in threatening them with death if they don't know what death is. So I wonder why he did it.
-
That's not the same as warning them against evil. Thinking about it, there's no point in warning them about evil if they do not know what evil is.
Similarly, there's no point in threatening them with death if they don't know what death is. So I wonder why he did it.
They broke faith and relationship with God, Began to take more store of lesser sources than God. They had intimate knowledge of God.
Yet you are saying that you are sinless but you know evil and know what death is without being dead. I have never tried inhaling solvent because I trust those who tell me they can be instantaneously deadly. If I ignore the warnings.
I think the trouble is you are stretching the metaphors but it is said of atheists that they share the same biblical literalism as er, Biblical literalists.
-
They broke faith and relationship with God, Began to take more store of lesser sources than God.
1. Nobody told them that it was wrong to do that. As I said before: it would have been helpful if God had warned Adam and Eve not to trust the Serpent.
2. The Serpent turned out to be right.
They had intimate knowledge of God.
What's that supposed to mean? Were they sexually abusing him?
Yet you are saying that you are sinless but you know evil and know what death is without being dead.
I know what death is because it is a fact of human experience. It wasn't part of Adam and Eve's experience though.
I have never tried inhaling solvent because I trust those who tell me they can be instantaneously deadly. If I ignore the warnings.
But you know what death is.
I think the trouble is you are stretching the metaphors but it is said of atheists that they share the same biblical literalism as er, Biblical literalists.
I can't both be stretching the metaphors and sharing Biblical literalism. Literalism is the idea that it isn't metaphor at all.
-
1. Nobody told them that it was wrong to do that. As I said before: it would have been helpful if God had warned Adam and Eve not to trust the Serpent.
2. The Serpent turned out to be right.
What's that supposed to mean? Were they sexually abusing him?
I know what death is because it is a fact of human experience. It wasn't part of Adam and Eve's experience though.
But you know what death is. I can't both be stretching the metaphors and sharing Biblical literalism. Literalism is the idea that it isn't metaphor at all.
I think we are talking about spiritual death. Now there can be understanding of that both intellectual and spiritual even though nobody living yet knows what final spiritual death is nobody living has experienced physical death first hand. What they did know is God but chose to not trust him. The first thing to be surrendered then was a right relationship with God which frankly is the main point.
Yes we know what death is and yes we see evil.....but that does not seem to be any deterrent to people trying solvent abuse or doing the wrong thing.
-
Your wilful desire not to accept anything referring to the Holy Bible is not only scientific neglect but it is also down right foolishness. Almighty God said that He created the universe and, as you might guess, He has massaged this knowledge into His Word so that all those who obey Him can have access to that science and especially the Gospels where Jesus showed us what happens to our spirit in death. If we were righteous we could be resurrected but because we are not we must settle for rebirth and there are many examples of rebirth on YouTube...but, if we are ignorant of this truth, or refuse to acknowledge the purpose of Jesus Christ's great sacrifice, we will be just left swirling around the ether until it is emptied into the fiery lake of sulphur...coming soon.
Couldn't see any evidence for this god idea of yours there Nick, as you should know asserting, well we can all assert anything we like so where's this elusive evidence for the existence of god gone?
ippy.
-
It's Garden metaphor.
He's warning them against the consequences of knowing both Good and evil.
Actually, I suspect that this is a message in parable form...cleaned up a little so that the innocent who read it aren't overwhelmed by it...and suitable for children. I say this because both Adam and Eve covered their intimate parts just as a child tries to hide the evidence of its wrongdoing, but in doing so give clear indication of their misbehaviour, like say, denying eating chocolate, even before being asked and whilst having the evidence all over their mouth. Sin is a misbehaviour that is destructive to our health...to our genetic health in particular...and we can deduce that Adam and Eve's sin impacted upon their genetic health. The inference being that we can repair our genetic malfunctions if we yield to righteousness which is the expressed code of Jesus Christ. This thinking is reinforced by the next parable based teaching that the serpent would grovel on its belly deceiving women and the women would kick him in the head whilst deceiving the serpent...all concerning a massive abuse that impacted upon Almighty God's new project in a nasty and spiteful way...an abuse we are still paying for because God knew we would have to reach this point in our history to realise just how massive that sin was. I think that Almighty God wants us to see it in the terms He described for the reasons I described and that's how it should remain.
-
Couldn't see any evidence for this god idea of yours there Nick, as you should know asserting, well we can all assert anything we like so where's this elusive evidence for the existence of god gone?
ippy.
It's all in the Holy Bible. The book you refuse to acknowledge but which tells us exactly where the good, the bad, and the ugly will finish up. No one is going to Heaven except the 144000 to wait for the Judgement when they will return with the Son of Man and set up the righteous kingdom that is to come...the new heavens and the new Earth. Many here on Earth are practicing for that event all with varying Christian codes, but with willing hearts and as long as the individual relates to the righteous code of Jesus they will be saved. The ugly will go into the fiery lake of sulphur...they had their chance and fluffed it...The bad can repent but I'm not convinced that many will...but I'll pray for them anyway.
When our Deity say that there is only one accurate path to righteousness and we know that science is embedded within every aspect of the universe we know that righteousness is the science that we need to understand, to enable us to understand all other sciences...otherwise it would all clash...and as is proven by Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Jesus Christ, and Almighty God, Himself...everything is energy, and this energy is all around us all the time...especially in the construction and maintenance of the living cell.
Think outside the box for a change and think yourself into the Holy Bible...the master scientific book showing us how the spiritual mechanics of the universe belong to a space-age science...that we will all be heading into except for the awkward, the difficult, the spiteful, the unrighteous, and the followers of Satan...summed up in Revelation 21:8.
-
It's all in the Holy Bible. The book you refuse to acknowledge but which tells us exactly where the good, the bad, and the ugly will finish up. No one is going to Heaven except the 144000 to wait for the Judgement when they will return with the Son of Man and set up the righteous kingdom that is to come...the new heavens and the new Earth. Many here on Earth are practicing for that event all with varying Christian codes, but with willing hearts and as long as the individual relates to the righteous code of Jesus they will be saved. The ugly will go into the fiery lake of sulphur...they had their chance and fluffed it...The bad can repent but I'm not convinced that many will...but I'll pray for them anyway.
When our Deity say that there is only one accurate path to righteousness and we know that science is embedded within every aspect of the universe we know that righteousness is the science that we need to understand, to enable us to understand all other sciences...otherwise it would all clash...and as is proven by Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Jesus Christ, and Almighty God, Himself...everything is energy, and this energy is all around us all the time...especially in the construction and maintenance of the living cell.
Think outside the box for a change and think yourself into the Holy Bible...the master scientific book showing us how the spiritual mechanics of the universe belong to a space-age science...that we will all be heading into except for the awkward, the difficult, the spiteful, the unrighteous, and the followers of Satan...summed up in Revelation 21:8.
First paragraph largely from the Jehovah's Witnesses manual (except the bit about the Lake of Fire)
The rest straight from NM's fantasies about what he thinks science is.
-
...and as is proven by Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Jesus Christ, and Almighty God, Himself...everything is energy, and this energy is all around us all the time...especially in the construction and maintenance of the living cell.
Yet another blatant falsehood about science. Everything is not energy, in fact nothing at all is energy - energy is a property of things.
So, are you totally ignorant about science or are you just a liar?
-
And again I am addressing what you are saying by calling it an appeal for a consequence free universe.
Any moral judgement is beyond inevitable consequence and into judgements, a very different classification of events. Pots breaking when they fall off a shelf is a consequence - punishment for breaking the pots is a socially and culturally influenced judgement.
As I keep pointing out, sin and it's consequences should have cut off mankind from God.
Why? If sin is in us because God failed to adequately arrange the garden so that Adam and Eve were not at risk of eating the fruit, why should we be 'cut off from God'? Why are we punished for Adam and Eve's actions whilst under God's insufficient care?
But in Christ Jesus God takes the effects on himself thus the way to God is open.
Nothing changes. We were liable to punishment if we didn't atone/repent/get lucky, God makes himself a temporary scapegoat, and we're still liable to punishment if we don't atone/repent/get lucky... It's another pointless piece of bloodshed.
Should you choose not to take that route it is not because of anything Adam did, it is because you choose not to take that route.
It's because the onus shouldn't be on us to apologise for the malice of a substandard carer over-reacting to the actions of a mentally incapable ward.
O.
-
Any moral judgement is beyond inevitable consequence and into judgements, a very different classification of events. Pots breaking when they fall off a shelf is a consequence - punishment for breaking the pots is a socially and culturally influenced judgement.
An important part of this is, is the judgment that the pot, a metaphor for the relationship with God is broken.
Why? If sin is in us because God failed to adequately arrange the garden so that Adam and Eve were not at risk of eating the fruit, why should we be 'cut off from God'? Why are we punished for Adam and Eve's actions whilst under God's insufficient care?
This would remove the option of choosing to be or remain in relation to God.Nothing changes. We were liable to punishment if we didn't atone/repent/get lucky, God makes himself a temporary scapegoat, and we're still liable to punishment if we don't atone/repent/get lucky... It's another pointless piece of bloodshed.
Whatever damage Adam did to our relationship with God Christ has overturned. What remains is the choice to be or not be with God.
It's because the onus shouldn't be on us to apologise for the malice of a substandard carer over-reacting to the actions of a mentally incapable ward.
You arentrequired to answer for Adams sins or his breaking of the relationship. All you have in regard to God are your own actions and whether you choose or reject him.
-
An important part of this is, is the judgment that the pot, a metaphor for the relationship with God is broken.
When the relationship between parent and child breaks down, do you blame the child?
This would remove the option of choosing to be or remain in relation to God.
No, the default could be 'you are saved, unless you do something grotesque and earn punishment in your own right'. You still have the option, but the starting position is not 'punishment for someone else's actions'.
Whatever damage Adam did to our relationship with God Christ has overturned.
In what way? We were judged and liable for punishment for someone else's actions before Jesus, and we still are now... what's changed?
What remains is the choice to be or not be with God.
And, again, I'll point out that such a 'choice' isn't really a choice, it's a threat.
You aren't required to answer for Adams sins or his breaking of the relationship.
You might want to tell pretty much every Christian denomination in history that, because I'm pretty sure Adam and the fall of man leading to our inherently sinful nature is a pretty big part of pretty much all the doctrine.
All you have in regard to God are your own actions and whether you choose or reject him.
And his threats. And his judgement of me based on someone else's activities. And his apparent rejection of any responsibility for his failings in the Garden of Eden. Apart from that, all I have are my own actions (which according to some denominations make no difference, as I recall - Calvinism?) .
O.
-
When the relationship between parent and child breaks down, do you blame the child?
No, You take any damage incurred on the break up on yourself and you remain open for your Child to reopen relationship as per their choice. If they return you do all you can to reduce damage incurred during there estrangement.
Rather like God has done.
-
When the relationship between parent and child breaks down, do you blame the child?
No, the default could be 'you are saved, unless you do something grotesque and earn punishment in your own right'. You still have the option, but the starting position is not 'punishment for someone else's actions'.
Salvation is a relationship with God.
The starting position is that Adams fault is negated.And that even availled for Adam.
-
Vlad,
No, You take any damage incurred on the break up on yourself and you remain open for your Child to reopen relationship as per their choice. If they return you do all you can to reduce damage incurred during there estrangement.
Rather like God has done.
If it was my child I wouldn’t have ended the relationship in the first place, and it would be unconditional – I wouldn’t make its continuance subject to the child meeting certain conditions and jumping through various hoops.
But hey that’s just me – I guess that means I'm a better parent than the manipulative monster you “worship”.
-
No, You take any damage incurred on the break up on yourself and you remain open for your Child to reopen relationship as per their choice.
So why doesn't God appear capable of that level of understanding? Why is God's response a threat of 'come to me or suffer eternally'?
If they return you do all you can to reduce damage incurred during there estrangement.
Of course, but you try to ensure that any offer of openness is a genuine one.
Rather like God has done.
Completely unlike the threat that God appears to deliver in the guise of an offer of salvation from his wrath...
Salvation is a relationship with God.
Salvation is, apparently, acquiescence to the terms of a domineering and controlling narcissist.
The starting position is that Adams fault is negated.
Notwithstanding the above where I feel I've shown adequately that God blaming Adam is just an obvious piece of scapegoating for his own ineptitude, you still haven't shown how anything has changed following the temporary sacrifice of Jesus - what's different afterwards to before?
O.
-
Vlad,
Salvation is a relationship with God.
"...Terms & Conditions apply."
-
So why doesn't God appear capable of that level of understanding? Why is God's response a threat of 'come to me or suffer eternally'?
Of course, but you try to ensure that any offer of openness is a genuine one.
Completely unlike the threat that God appears to deliver in the guise of an offer of salvation from his wrath...
Salvation is, apparently, acquiescence to the terms of a domineering and controlling narcissist.
Firstly why do you think the offer opened to you is not genuine.
God does offers salvation and has demonstrated it in a temporal act and an eternal act in the incarnation and death of Christ.
As Christ says I don’t call you slaves but friends. But if you were in a relationship how do you think he would domineer and control you all for his benefit and none for yours?
-
Vlad,
Firstly why do you think the offer opened to you is not genuine.
Your inability to demonstrate your premises (“god” etc) in the first place is a pretty good reason. What makes you think the leprechauns’ offer of gold at the ends of rainbows is not genuine?
God does offers salvation and has demonstrated it in a temporal act and an eternal act in the incarnation and death of Christ.
So the myth claims. So?
In the story “He” also loads the offer with Ts & Cs, which is the morally grim part.
As Christ says I don’t call you slaves but friends. But if you were in a relationship how do you think he would domineer and control you all for his benefit and none for yours?
Then Christ’s (supposed) words and his actions contradict each other. Do you make your friendships with others conditional on them worshipping you, following your rules etc? At least with actual slaves you can escape the slave owner by dying…
-
Vlad,
Your inability to demonstrate your premises (“god” etc) in the first place is a pretty good reason. What makes you think the leprechauns’ offer of gold at the ends of rainbows is not genuine?
So the myth claims. So?
In the story “He” also loads the offer with Ts & Cs, which is the morally grim part.
Then Christ’s (supposed) words and his actions contradict each other. Do you make your friendships with others conditional on them worshipping you, following your rules etc? At least with actual slaves you can escape the slave owner by dying…
Hi would expect my friends to realise who I was, and what I was about and not to be my friends for Expediancy or enemy for expediency.
-
Vlad,
Hi would expect my friends to realise who I was, and what I was about and not to be my friends for Expediancy or enemy for expediency.
But the question concerned whether your offer of friendship would be conditional on your potential friends worshipping you, not having other friends, following your rules and instructions etc.
-
Firstly why do you think the offer opened to you is not genuine.
I never suggested that it wasn't, I have no insight into the intention of God; I pointed out, though, that whilst it might be intended and pitched as an offer, it's actually a threat veiled as benificence, it's classic abusive relationship behaviour.
God does offers salvation and has demonstrated it in a temporal act and an eternal act in the incarnation and death of Christ.
If the salvation in question is from his threat, then it's not really an offer in good faith. How has the somehow both temporal and eternal act of Jesus dying changed anything?
As Christ says I don’t call you slaves but friends.
People say a lot of things, but people lie.
But if you were in a relationship how do you think he would domineer and control you all for his benefit and none for yours?
It doesn't really matter for whose benefit he's controlling, it's still controlling; notwithstanding that, if it were for my benefit why not let it stand on those merits, why the accompanying threat? Why the need to justify the threat as 'punishment' for something I have no control over so can't even start to try to mount a defence?
O.
-
Vlad,
But the question concerned whether your offer of friendship would be conditional on your potential friends worshipping you, not having other friends, following your rules and instructions etc.
No you missed what I said you want your friends to know you what you are like and what you are about. He says he doesn’t call them slaves. Somehow you’ve added all of this and somehow come up with Ming the merciless.
It sounds like you want what God has granted.
-
I never suggested that it wasn't, I have no insight into the intention of God; I pointed out, though, that whilst it might be intended and pitched as an offer, it's actually a threat veiled as benificence, it's classic abusive relationship behaviour.
If the salvation in question is from his threat, then it's not really an offer in good faith. How has the somehow both temporal and eternal act of Jesus dying changed anything?
People say a lot of things, but people lie.
It doesn't really matter for whose benefit he's controlling, it's still controlling; notwithstanding that, if it were for my benefit why not let it stand on those merits, why the accompanying threat? Why the need to justify the threat as 'punishment' for something I have no control over so can't even start to try to mount a defence?
O.
The salvation is having God. If you do not want God It would be absurd to baulk against not having him. Also absurd is wanting heaven but not God.
-
Vlad,
No you missed what I said you want your friends to know you what you are like and what you are about.
What you said was just avoidance – it didn’t answer the question you were asked. Funny that.
He says he doesn’t call them slaves. Somehow you’ve added all of this and somehow come up with Ming the merciless.
Wrong again – I just explained to you that what “He” (supposedly) said and what “He” (supposedly) did are misaligned. Either the (supposed) offer of (supposed) “salvation” comes loaded with Ts & Cs or it doesn’t. Make your mind up.
It sounds like you want what God has granted.
Very funny. So far, all I “want” is for or you or for anyone else to make an argument for a non-mythic “god” that isn’t hopeless. Given your track record, that really doesn’t seem likely now does it.
Ah well.
-
Vlad,
What you said was just avoidance – it didn’t answer the question you were asked. Funny that.
Wrong again – I just explained to you that what “He” (supposedly) said and what “He” (supposedly) did are misaligned. Either the (supposed) offer of (supposed) “salvation” comes loaded with Ts & Cs or it doesn’t. Make your mind up.
Very funny. So far, all I “want” is for or you or for anyone else to make an argument for a non-mythic “god” that isn’t hopeless. Given your track record, that really doesn’t seem likely now does it.
Ah well.
The way to God is now open should you want that. It's has been opened by Christ thete is nothing you can add to make God happier. OF COURSE HE ISNT GOING TO MAKE YOU COME TO HIM. That would deprive you of the choice you now appear to desire. The chance to oppose him. How anyone can be a tyrant for honouring someone's choice I know not.
-
Vlad,
The way to God is now open should you want that. It's has been opened by Christ thete is nothing you can add to make God happier. OF COURSE HE ISNT GOING TO MAKE YOU COME TO HIM. That would deprive you of the choice you now appear to desire. The chance to oppose him. How anyone can be a tyrant for honouring someone's choice I know not.
Aw, say it ain’t so Vladdy. I ask you (repeatedly) why you believe what you believe, and you just tell me (repeatedly) what you believe. Imagine if I said “leprechauns are real”, you asked me why I think that, and I just repeated “leprechauns are real”.
Over and over and over again…
Oh, and for no apparent reason I might even throw in too a “sounds like you really want to take that offer of a pot of gold”. You know, just for funsies.
And just to return to your myth for a moment: the tyranny part comes from making your love conditional rather than unconditional. I don’t know whether you have children but if you have you should know that already. You really should.
-
So why doesn't God appear capable of that level of understanding? Why is God's response a threat of 'come to me or suffer eternally'?
Of course, but you try to ensure that any offer of openness is a genuine one.
Completely unlike the threat that God appears to deliver in the guise of an offer of salvation from his wrath...
Salvation is, apparently, acquiescence to the terms of a domineering and controlling narcissist.
Notwithstanding the above where I feel I've shown adequately that God blaming Adam is just an obvious piece of scapegoating for his own ineptitude, you still haven't shown how anything has changed following the temporary sacrifice of Jesus - what's different afterwards to before?
O.
I get the impression that you are coming at this from the perspective of your own profession in the area of health and safety. Don't forget that your job is to do with observing rules that protect us from ourselves and each other. The rules set by God in Eden were to do with our relationship with him, so I don't think it is enough to apply health and safety thinking to Genesis 3. For example, if I work for someone it is a given that I show some sign of respect, indicating that I submit to him. If I don't do that, I won't keep the job. I think that is what the point of the tree of knowledge was.
-
I ask you (repeatedly) why you believe what you believe, and you just tell me (repeatedly) what you believe. Imagine if I said “leprechauns are real”, you asked me why I think that, and I just repeated “leprechauns are real”.
I'm not surprised you think leprechauns are real. If ape men were real why not leprechauns.
Pity.
-
I think we are talking about spiritual death.
God didn't say "spiritual death" in Genesis. Why would you think we are talking about it now?
-
TS,
I'm not surprised you think leprechauns are real.
I don't. Why is it that so many of the theists here don’t understand the word “analogy"?
If ape men were real why not leprechauns.
What do you even think you mean by “ape men”?
Pity.
What is?
-
Vlad,
Aw, say it ain’t so Vladdy. I ask you (repeatedly) why you believe what you believe, and you just tell me (repeatedly) what you believe. Imagine if I said “leprechauns are real”, you asked me why I think that, and I just repeated “leprechauns are real”.
Over and over and over again…
Oh, and for no apparent reason I might even throw in too a “sounds like you really want to take that offer of a pot of gold”. You know, just for funsies.
And just to return to your myth for a moment: the tyranny part comes from making your love conditional rather than unconditional. I don’t know whether you have children but if you have you should know that already. You really should.
since neither of us believe in Leprechauns perhaps it’s high time we find some other explanation for your atheism and my theism.
I can possess unconditional love for say, Richard Dawkins but that does not suggest he has it for me. That is my tragedy.
Similar with the unconditional love of God for individuals.
-
It's all in the Holy Bible. The book you refuse to acknowledge but which tells us exactly where the good, the bad, and the ugly will finish up. No one is going to Heaven except the 144000 to wait for the Judgement when they will return with the Son of Man and set up the righteous kingdom that is to come...the new heavens and the new Earth. Many here on Earth are practicing for that event all with varying Christian codes, but with willing hearts and as long as the individual relates to the righteous code of Jesus they will be saved. The ugly will go into the fiery lake of sulphur...they had their chance and fluffed it...The bad can repent but I'm not convinced that many will...but I'll pray for them anyway.
When our Deity say that there is only one accurate path to righteousness and we know that science is embedded within every aspect of the universe we know that righteousness is the science that we need to understand, to enable us to understand all other sciences...otherwise it would all clash...and as is proven by Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Jesus Christ, and Almighty God, Himself...everything is energy, and this energy is all around us all the time...especially in the construction and maintenance of the living cell.
Think outside the box for a change and think yourself into the Holy Bible...the master scientific book showing us how the spiritual mechanics of the universe belong to a space-age science...that we will all be heading into except for the awkward, the difficult, the spiteful, the unrighteous, and the followers of Satan...summed up in Revelation 21:8.
Nick, I'm sure you're a good person, kind to animals etc, but you are totally unable to see just how much over the top you are with these strange posts you keep sending.
Have a look at the type of post most people send and try to take them as examples, your posts are rather unusual, it is odd to keep on going of into one every time you post Nick.
Wish you well Nick, ippy.
-
I'm not surprised you think leprechauns are real. If ape men were real why not leprechauns.
Technically all humans are apes.
-
I don't. Why is it that so many of the theists here don’t understand the word “analogy"?
You may call lerprechauns and ape men analogy or science, I call it myth.
What do you even think you mean by “ape men”?
You know those drawings they showed you in grade school with Brutish Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble stooped over a fire after a hard days work of beating their ugly women over the head with a tree and dragging them around by the hair. With big cool looking Dinosaurs, giant lizards that roared and chased the monkey men into caves. Sure, it was just an artist's imagination and the monkey men turned out to be fake; fragments from a pigs jawbone and the cool Dinosaurs turned out to be big dumb chickens that go "squawk," but a bunch of geeks in lab coats managed to brainwash the young ignorant masses, in between visits to the planetarium, into thinking that science was "cool."
What is?
Well, that some people are so afraid of being accountable to God Almighty that they will believe anything. Not to mention stoners at the Pink Floyd planetarium show. And Pluto isn't a normal planet.
-
Technically all humans are apes.
See, I think that's why scientists are so lonely on Saturday nights. Technically all humans are apes isn't much of a pick up line is it?
Mammals (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xat1GVnl8-k)
-
Vlad,
since neither of us believe in Leprechauns perhaps it’s high time we find some other explanation for your atheism and my theism.
Neither of us need to believe in leprechauns for it to be useful as an analogy. What is the problem with theists and analogies?
I can possess unconditional love for say, Richard Dawkins but that does not suggest he has it for me. That is my tragedy.
Also irrelevant.
Similar with the unconditional love of God for individuals.
But your (supposed) god’s (supposed) love isn’t unconditional at all is it. It comes loaded with conditions and rules which, if not met in full, cause the love to be withdrawn. That’s pretty much the opposite of good parenting. You should know this already, whether or not you’re a parent. Why don’t you?
-
I get the impression that you are coming at this from the perspective of your own profession in the area of health and safety.
It certainly informs my view, inevitably, but that field is a legislative area implemented to try to protect the needy from the powerful.
Don't forget that your job is to do with observing rules that protect us from ourselves and each other.
It's partly for protecting us from ourselves in some instances, but it's also to protect us from exploitation by those in positions of influence and power.
The rules set by God in Eden were to do with our relationship with him, so I don't think it is enough to apply health and safety thinking to Genesis 3. For example, if I work for someone it is a given that I show some sign of respect, indicating that I submit to him. If I don't do that, I won't keep the job. I think that is what the point of the tree of knowledge was.
The tree of knowledge is depicted as somehow enabling an understanding of morality - I appreciate that it's probably some kind of metaphor for humanity having a concept of 'good' and 'evil' when it seems the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't, but it's still depicted as having that sense somehow inherently makes us 'stained'.
I don't want to put words into your mouth - there are range of beliefs around the story, and I was addressing a fairly literalist take on it which I'm not sure you'd necessarily support.
Whether it's because the metaphor doesn't follow through well or not, the story doesn't make sense in a number of areas, some of which flow through to common Christian belief.
At its heart, we are judged because of a human understanding of good and evil: whether that's 'inherited sin' for Adam's actions, or if that's an allegory for human understanding which we can only presume was the intent of God in his creation doesn't make very much difference to the idea that we are essentially pre-judged as guilty which is fundamentally at odds with what we see as a moral stance.
O.
-
Vlad,
Neither of us need to believe in leprechauns for it to be useful as an analogy. What is the problem with theists and analogies?
I only have trouble with your poor analogies.
Also your non application of analogies. Leprechauns and empiricism, materialism, naturalism etc .
You cannot have it both ways. It’s either crap analogy you are peddling or you are only selectively applying the principle.
-
since neither of us believe in Leprechauns perhaps it’s high time we find some other explanation for your atheism and my theism.
I can possess unconditional love for say, Richard Dawkins but that does not suggest he has it for me. That is my tragedy.
Similar with the unconditional love of God for individuals.
Theism's the odd one out and complicated to explain whereas all Atheism amounts to is:
Because there's no verifiable evidence that god or gods exist there's no reason to suppose there is any such thing as a god or gods!
ippy.
-
Theism's the odd one out and complicated to explain whereas all Atheism amounts to is:
Because there's no verifiable evidence that god or gods exist there's no reason to suppose there is any such thing as a god or gods!
ippy.
There is no verifiable evidence for the following philosophies for how reality is
Empiricism, Materialism, physicalist, Naturalism, scientism. I shall leave it to you to decide which of those underpins your atheism.
-
But your (supposed) god’s (supposed) love isn’t unconditional at all is it. It comes loaded with conditions and rules which, if not met in full, cause the love to be withdrawn. That’s pretty much the opposite of good parenting. You should know this already, whether or not you’re a parent. Why don’t you?
What conditions and rules did you have in mind other than If you reject God you reject God and who is withdrawing love in that instance? Which doesn’t seem to be a rule that could be broken without an absurdity..
-
TS,
You may call lerprechauns and ape men analogy or science, I call it myth.
There’s a lot of wrong in that sentence.
First, analogies are comparisons between different objects with a common characteristic. In this case the objects (god/leprechauns) are different, but the characteristic (the justifying argument) is the same. The purpose is to show that, if an argument that seeks to justify the claim “god” works just as well for the outcome “leprechauns”, then it’s probably a bad argument.
Second, there’ no such thing as “ape men”. There are apes, which include the family Hominidae. This family (called hominids) is the great apes, which include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.
Put simply, taxonomically we are apes.
You know those drawing they showed you in grade school with Brutish Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble stooped over a fire after a hard days work of beating their ugly women over the head with a tree and dragging them around by the hair. With big cool looking Dinosaurs, giant lizards that roared and chased the monkey men into caves. Sure, it was just an artist's imagination and the monkey men turned out to be fake; fragments from a pigs jawbone and the cool Dinosaurs turned out to be big dumb chickens that go "squawk," but a bunch of geeks in lab coats managed to brainwash the young ignorant masses, in between visits to the planetarium, into thinking that science was "cool."
I suppose treating the Flintstones as a factual reference work will lead you into this kind of nonsense. Taxonomy on the other hand - the science of naming, describing and classifying organisms using morphological, behavioural, genetic and biochemical observations – tends to be more reliable. You should try to find out something about it rather than rely on cartoons for your information – you might find it interesting. And enlightening.
Well, that some people are so afraid of being accountable to God Almighty that they will believe anything. Not to mention stoners at the Pink Floyd planetarium show. And Pluto isn't a normal planet.
So you assert. Why though would anyone be afraid of something they’ve been given no good reason to think exist in the first place? Are you afraid of Godzilla? Why not?
(See what I did there by the way – that was an a -n -a -l -o -g- y. Can you see how they work now?)
-
You know those drawings they showed you in grade school with Brutish Fred Flintstone and Barney Rubble stooped over a fire after a hard days work of beating their ugly women over the head with a tree and dragging them around by the hair. With big cool looking Dinosaurs, giant lizards that roared and chased the monkey men into caves.
You seem to be confusing school with cartoons. If you were really taught that early humans lived alongside dinosaurs you should take legal action.
Well, that some people are so afraid of being accountable to God Almighty...
Now you're confusing primitive superstition with reality. Are you afraid of ghosts and werewolves too?
-
It certainly informs my view, inevitably, but that field is a legislative area implemented to try to protect the needy from the powerful.
It's partly for protecting us from ourselves in some instances, but it's also to protect us from exploitation by those in positions of influence and power.
The tree of knowledge is depicted as somehow enabling an understanding of morality - I appreciate that it's probably some kind of metaphor for humanity having a concept of 'good' and 'evil' when it seems the rest of the animal kingdom doesn't, but it's still depicted as having that sense somehow inherently makes us 'stained'.
I don't want to put words into your mouth - there are range of beliefs around the story, and I was addressing a fairly literalist take on it which I'm not sure you'd necessarily support.
Whether it's because the metaphor doesn't follow through well or not, the story doesn't make sense in a number of areas, some of which flow through to common Christian belief.
At its heart, we are judged because of a human understanding of good and evil: whether that's 'inherited sin' for Adam's actions, or if that's an allegory for human understanding which we can only presume was the intent of God in his creation doesn't make very much difference to the idea that we are essentially pre-judged as guilty which is fundamentally at odds with what we see as a moral stance.
O.
But we like to be able to set our own moral standards, and the point of Genesis 3 onwards is that when we try to do that we mess things up. The reality is we need God to tell us what is right and wrong. We have the choice to accept it straight off or learn it the hard way. Adam realised he was naked and unable to cover himself properly. This realisation was an outward manifestation of inward shame, and he couldn't deal with either of them himself. The outward shame required a blood sacrifice to provide a covering (an animal skin), and the inward shame and estrangement from God could only be dealt with by someone being tempted and not yielding to that temptation, on Adam's behalf, though it resulted in his murder by the same people he came to save.
Just trying to answer your original question of why God requires a blood sacrifice.
-
But we like to be able to set our own moral standards, and the point of Genesis 3 onwards is that when we try to do that we mess things up.
And yet the moral standard we're given alongside Genesis is overly simplistic, lacking in key areas and just flat out unsupportable in others; the calibration of relative infractions is woeful, with issues regarding haircuts deemed at some point to be an egregious matter whilst rape and slavery are never decried.
The reality is we need God to tell us what is right and wrong.
The reality is that people choose the god, and the denomination of that god, which fits the morality they're comfortable with, and the source materials are so loosely written and even more loosely translated that if they look far enough they can probably find one that fits; if they can't, they just go all John Smith on it and write their own.
We have the choice to accept it straight off or learn it the hard way.
Except that if you read a different book we have innumerable chances to get it right, going round and round in spiritual reincarnating circles until we achieve it and get to step off the hamster wheel; or we have one chance to achieve glory and be taken to Valhalla; or we have one chance to get it right and be weighed against Ma'at's feather by Anubis...
Adam realised he was naked and unable to cover himself properly. This realisation was an outward manifestation of inward shame, and he couldn't deal with either of them himself.
So Adam was, purportedly, created without a sense of what? Notwithstanding that the Judao-Christian attitude regarding nudity and sexuality - particularly female nudity and sexuality - has been more of a hindrance on morality than a benefit, why SHOULD Adam feel shame at his nudity?
The outward shame required a blood sacrifice to provide a covering (an animal skin), and the inward shame and estrangement from God could only be dealt with by someone being tempted and not yielding to that temptation, on Adam's behalf, though it resulted in his murder by the same people he came to save.
Adam covered his nudity with leaves; it wasn't until he was thrown out of the Garden into a less temperate locale that a more robust clothing was required. Even then there isn't a need for a sacrifice, you can make a jacket out of the skin of an animal that's died of natural causes.
Just trying to answer your original question of why God requires a blood sacrifice.
You're raising practical reasons why killing might have become necessary for human livelihoods, fair enough, but that doesn't explain why God's forgiveness required a human sacrifice - or, indeed, any sacrifice at all - nor why we need God's forgiveness for something we've not done and arguably wasn't the responsibility of Adam even if he did do it.
O.
-
Vlad,
I only have trouble with your poor analogies.
A supposed poorness you’re unable to demonstrate. Until you can, the god/leprechauns analogy is fine when the argument that produces each outcome is the same.
Also your non application of analogies. Leprechauns and empiricism, materialism, naturalism etc .
Gibberish.
You cannot have it both ways. It’s either crap analogy you are peddling or you are only selectively applying the principle.
What idea in that skip fire of a mind are you trying to express now?
There is no verifiable evidence for the following philosophies for how reality is
Empiricism, Materialism, physicalist, Naturalism, scientism. I shall leave it to you to decide which of those underpins your atheism.
You’ve been corrected on this idiocy so many times it’s not even funny now. As you just refuse to engage with the falsification, I see no point in repeating it. You’re just wrong. Deal with it.
-
Vlad,
A supposed poorness you’re unable to demonstrate. Until you can, the god/leprechauns analogy is fine when the argument that produces each outcome is the same.
Gibberish.
What idea in that skip fire of a mind are you trying to express now?
You’ve been corrected on this idiocy so many times it’s not even funny now. As you just refuse to engage with the falsification, I see no point in repeating it. You’re just wrong. Deal with it.
Leprechauns not established by physical evidence, philosophical physicalism not established by physical evidence.
You comparing philosophical physicalism with Leprechauns....never witnessed.
-
Vlad,
Leprechauns not established by physical evidence, philosophical physicalism not established by physical evidence.
You comparing philosophical physicalism with Leprechauns....never witnessed.
Doncha hate it when you drop the Scrabble set and the letters go everywhere...
-
Vlad,
Doncha hate it when you drop the Scrabble set and the letters go everywhere...
Use of Leprechauns is a horses laugh argument. Particularly if used selectively.
I guess the psychology is "You believe that your beliefs are big, I think they are tiny" ......playground mentality which laddies of your age should be beyond.
-
there’ no such thing as “ape men”. There are apes, which include the family Hominidae. This family (called hominids) is the great apes, which include four genera comprising three extant species of orangutans and their subspecies, two extant species of gorillas and their subspecies, two extant species of chimpanzees and their subspecies, and one extant species of humans in a single extant subspecies.
Put simply, taxonomically we are apes.
Do you see how believing nonsensical dogma warps your perception?
Let's say you have been interrogated by an evil tyrant who gets his kicks out of doing harm to people. Though he's evil he's also honest. He has determined that you are innocent, and allows you to leave. However, he takes you to a pair of doors; one marked "Apes" and the other "Humans." Which would you choose?
It really is a matter of observation isn't it? Science could be said to be a form of observation. Are you familiar with the Biblical kind? Animals and plants were created as kinds. So, dogs produce dogs and tomato plants produce tomatoes. This, we all know because we all observe it. No one has ever observed anything other than that as far as kinds go.
The Bible is true. Evolution isn't. Unless, like ape men, that is, humans being apes, is a classification by idiots who don't observe reality because they believe in nonsense.
-
Vlad,
Use of Leprechauns is a horses laugh argument. Particularly if used selectively.
No it isn’t. It’s a reductio ad absurdum. You know this already because it’s been explained to you many times. Just ignoring the explanation and repeating your mistake is dishonest.
I guess the psychology is "You believe that your beliefs are big, I think they are tiny" ......playground mentality which laddies of your age should be beyond.
Then you guess wrongly. The reductio ad absurdum is about the arguments attempted to justify beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. As you seem unable to grasp this, perhaps you should ask a grown up to help you with it?
-
Vlad,
No it isn’t. It’s a reductio ad absurdum. You know this already because it’s been explained to you many times. Just ignoring the explanation and repeating your mistake is dishonest.
Then you guess wrongly. The reductio ad absurdum is about the arguments attempted to justify beliefs, not the beliefs themselves. As you seem unable to grasp this, perhaps you should ask a grown up to help you with it?
Nope it's an open and shut case of appeal to ridicule.
-
TS,
Do you see how believing nonsensical dogma warps your perception?
Oh no – now look what you’ve done. I just had delivered a top of the line, lead cased, military grade irony meter and now you’ve broken it. Shame on you.
Let's say you have been interrogated by an evil tyrant who gets his kicks out of doing harm to people. Though he's evil he's also honest. He has determined that you are innocent, and allows you to leave. However, he takes you to a pair of doors; one marked "Apes" and the other "Humans." Which would you choose?
Been a while since someone hard of thinking here tried the false dilemma fallacy:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_dilemma
It really is a matter of observation isn't it? Science could be said to be a form of observation.
It starts with observation, yes. It then applies methods and tools to provide explanations.
Are you familiar with the Biblical kind?
Yes, it’s a meaningless religious term with no clarifying definition.
Animals and plants were created as kinds.
And you know this remarkable reason- and evidence-free assertion to be true how exactly?
So, dogs produce dogs and tomato plants produce tomatoes. This, we all know because we all observe it. No one has ever observed anything other than that as far as kinds go.
Yes they have. They’ve observed it from multiple sources in fact – the fossil record, DNA analysis etc. Hey, if you were able to live for millions of years you’d observe it in real time too.
The Bible is true.
And you know this evidence-free claim to be true how?
Evolution isn't.
And you know this evidence-denying claim to be true how?
Unless, like ape men, that is, humans being apes, is a classification by idiots who don't observe reality because they believe in nonsense.
What is it about reason- and evidence-based knowledge that frightens you so?
-
Do you see how believing nonsensical dogma warps your perception?
Yes, you're a living, breathing example.
Let's say you have been interrogated by an evil tyrant who gets his kicks out of doing harm to people. Though he's evil he's also honest. He has determined that you are innocent, and allows you to leave. However, he takes you to a pair of doors; one marked "Apes" and the other "Humans." Which would you choose?
Human is more precise, is all. Apes is just a more general term that covers several species.
It really is a matter of observation isn't it? Science could be said to be a form of observation. Are you familiar with the Biblical kind? Animals and plants were created as kinds. So, dogs produce dogs and tomato plants produce tomatoes. This, we all know because we all observe it. No one has ever observed anything other than that as far as kinds go.
Yes, I'm familiar with the comical biblical 'kind'. No evolution denier has ever, to my knowledge, properly defined it, except in the sense that if the evidence that two organisms are related is so overwhelming they can't even deny it to their ignorant, credulous followers, then they must be the same kind.
The Bible is true. Evolution isn't.
Stamping your little foot, sticking your fingers in your ears, and making baseless assertions is not going to convince anybody - doubly so when you have admitted to ignorance of the subject.
-
Vlad,
Nope it's an open and shut case of appeal to ridicule.
"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Let me know if it ever sinks in.
-
Vlad,
"In logic, reductio ad absurdum (Latin for '"reduction to absurdity"'), also known as argumentum ad absurdum (Latin for "argument to absurdity"), apagogical arguments, negation introduction or the appeal to extremes, is the form of argument that attempts to establish a claim by showing that the opposite scenario would lead to absurdity or contradiction.[1][2] It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion,[3] or to prove a statement by showing that if it were false, then the result would be absurd or impossible.[4][5] Traced back to classical Greek philosophy in Aristotle's Prior Analytics[5] (Greek: ἡ εἰς τὸ ἀδύνατον ἀπόδειξις, lit. "demonstration to the impossible", 62b), this technique has been used throughout history in both formal mathematical and philosophical reasoning, as well as in debate.[6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reductio_ad_absurdum
Let me know if it ever sinks in.
Since you have wikipedia on hand look up appeal to ridicule.
-
Vlad,
Since you have wikipedia on hand look up appeal to ridicule.
As you're still not getting it, here's the bit specifically you should have grasped by now:
"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."
Just keep repeating it until it sinks in. You can do this!
-
Vlad,
As you're still not getting it, here's the bit specifically you should have grasped by now:
"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."
Just keep repeating it until it sinks in. You can do this!
What absurdity do Leprechauns and God share?
-
What absurdity do Leprechauns and God share?
Magic, and there unfalsifiability.
O.
-
Magic, and there unfalsifiability.
So unfalsifiability equals absurd.
That is an appeal to philosophical empiricism
Which is er, unfalsifiable.
-
Vlad,
What absurdity do Leprechauns and God share?
Nope, still not getting it. Here it is again with the bits that are foxing you in bold:
"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."
Can you see it now? The reductio ad absurdum here is NOT a comparison of god and leprechauns - it's actually the falsification of an argument attempted to justify the claim "god" when the argument also leads equally well to leprechauns.
Take your time. You'll get there...
...or perhaps not?
-
So unfalsifiability equals absurd.
That is an appeal to philosophical empiricism
Which is er, unfalsifiable.
No, magic is absurd, it's a problem because it leads inevitably to unfalsifiability. Which has nothing to say about empiricism, any number of concepts can be demonstrated false without resorting to empiricism.
O.
-
Vlad,
Nope, still not getting it. Here it is again with the bits that are foxing you in bold:
"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."
Can you see it now? The reductio ad absurdum here is NOT a comparison of god and leprechauns - it's actually the falsification of an argument attempted to justify the claim "god" when the argument also leads equally well to leprechauns.
Take your time. You'll get there...
...or perhaps not?
Yes I wont mention ridicule because any definition appealing to ridicule is by definition an appeal to ridicule. SO I ask you once again what absurdity do God and Leprechauns have in common? And for that matter what absurdities do they not share.
Nobody argues that God is unfalsifiable so therefore he exists.
Your belief that Leprechauns are not unfalsifiable isnt universally shared since the requisite evidence for Leprechauns has been discussed already today on another thread.
-
No, magic is absurd, it's a problem because it leads inevitably to unfalsifiability. Which has nothing to say about empiricism, any number of concepts can be demonstrated false without resorting to empiricism.
O.
magic is unfalsifiable which also leads to philosophical
Physicalism being unfalsifiable.
-
Vlad,
Yes I wont mention ridicule because any definition appealing to ridicule is by definition an appeal to ridicule.
In a reductio ad absurdum argument what do you think the “absurdum” bit means? The analogous outcome is supposed to be ridiculous ffs.
SO I ask you once again what absurdity do God and Leprechauns have in common? And for that matter what absurdities do they not share.
Groan. Here’s a different example of a reductio ad absurdum:
Person A: “I rub my lucky rabbit’s foot before an exam because it gets me a pass.”
Person B: “In that case I should rub it so I’ll win the lottery.”
Can you see what Person B did there? He took the argument (that rubbing the rabbit’s foot brings luck) and showed it to be false by taking exactly the same argument to a ridiculous outcome. That’s what the god/leprechauns reductio ad absurdum does too.
What you’re doing here is the same as asking me what absurdity exam passing and winning the lottery share. The answer is none at all, just as it’s none at all for gods/leprechauns. That’s not the point of the reductio ad absurdum though is it.
Can you finally now see why?
Nobody argues that God is unfalsifiable so therefore he exists.
No-one says that anyone does argue that. It’s (yet another) of your straw men.
Your belief that Leprechauns are not unfalsifiable isnt universally shared since the requisite evidence for Leprechauns has been discussed already today on another thread.
As has the requisite evidence for your god on numerous occasions – intervening to cure illness for example. As it’s irrelevant to the reductio ad absurdum point though, I’ll leave you to your personal grief about this.
-
Vlad,
Nope, still not getting it. Here it is again with the bits that are foxing you in bold:
"It can be used to disprove a statement by showing that it would inevitably lead to a ridiculous, absurd, or impractical conclusion..."
Yes for the third time what is it that is absurd and let's have the justification.
-
Vlad,
Yes for the third time what is it that is absurd and let's have the justification.
See previous Reply.
-
magic is unfalsifiable which also leads to philosophical Physicalism being unfalsifiable.
No, the unfalsifiability of 'philosophical Physicalism' is unfalsifiable regardless of the unfalsifiability of claims of magic, they are independent concepts. Now, if someone were claiming that 'Physicalism' was fact that might be an issue, but as nobody's doing that it seems it's just another of your attempts at 'whataboutism' to avoid accepting the point.
O.
-
Outy,
No, the unfalsifiability of 'philosophical Physicalism' is unfalsifiable regardless of the unfalsifiability of claims of magic, they are independent concepts. Now, if someone were claiming that 'Physicalism' was fact that might be an issue, but as nobody's doing that it seems it's just another of your attempts at 'whataboutism' to avoid accepting the point.
Quite so. His recent cheat is to lump physicalism (an absolute position about reality that no-one here argues for) with empiricism (a functional position on reality with no absolutist underpinnings). What’s odd (or just dishonest) is that, no matter how many times it’s explained to him, he just ignores the explanation and repeats the same mistake over and over again. He’s Vladbot.
-
Vlad,
See previous Reply.
I'm having to complete this for you.
Arguments for God are good for Leprechauns and Leprechauns are ridiculous.
That is immediately a fallacy. Appeal to ridicule.
Leprechauns are absurd because they are unfalsifiable
So is philosophical physicalism.
Also Leprechauns are falsifiable since they are little green men.
That is an empirical observation. And there are other things about them which would count as evidence of the physical variety
So it really does come down to absurdity. Which you are now invited again to comment on.
Ridicule I think has well and truly had it.
-
No, the unfalsifiability of 'philosophical Physicalism' is unfalsifiable regardless of the unfalsifiability of claims of magic, they are independent concepts. Now, if someone were claiming that 'Physicalism' was fact that might be an issue, but as nobody's doing that it seems it's just another of your attempts at 'whataboutism' to avoid accepting the point.
O.
I think I see it as a chain magic to physicalism via unfalsifiability.
If you are going to say unfalsifiability makes something absurd the suggestion is it makes everything unfalsifiable absurd.
-
Vlad,
I'm having to complete this for you.
Arguments for God are good for Leprechauns and Leprechauns are ridiculous.
That is immediately a fallacy. Appeal to ridicule.
Leprechauns are absurd because they are unfalsifiable
So is philosophical physicalism.
Also Leprechauns are falsifiable since they are little green men.
That is an empirical observation. And there are other things about them which would count as evidence of the physical variety
So it really does come down to absurdity. Which you are now invited again to comment on.
Ridicule I think has well and truly had it.
I don’t know what’s wrong with you. I really don’t. I’ll correct you latest dull incomprehension/dishonesty for you:
Arguments for God are good for Leprechauns and Leprechauns are ridiculous.
Wrong: the reductio ad absurdum tells you that only the arguments for “god(s)” that are also good for leprechauns are ridiculous arguments.
That is immediately a fallacy. Appeal to ridicule.
Your straw man distortion may be, but the actual god/leprechauns reductio ad absurdum isn’t.
Leprechauns are absurd because they are unfalsifiable
Leprechauns are absurd for several reasons. Unfalsifiability isn’t one of them. Something unfalsifiable may also be not absurd just as a matter of dumb luck.
So is philosophical physicalism.
Which is why no-one I know of argues for it.
Also Leprechauns are falsifiable since they are little green men.
Able to flit in and out of their supernatural state at will. I know this because that’s my “faith”. Thus they’re not falsifiable after all.
That is an empirical observation. And there are other things about them which would count as evidence of the physical variety
As is god curing little Timmy of his rickets. So?
So it really does come down to absurdity.
Of the arguments, yes – why have you just ignored that?
Which you are now invited again to comment on.
I have. Why haven’t you commented on the argument that falsifies you?
Ridicule I think has well and truly had it
No it doesn’t. Try again. Which part of the rabbit’s foot example has you confused still?
-
I think I see it as a chain magic to physicalism via unfalsifiability.
How you choose to get from 'magic' to physicalism which appear to be pretty much polar opposites to everyone else is entirely up to you, but don't expect the rest of us to follow you.
If you are going to say unfalsifiability makes something absurd the suggestion is it makes everything unfalsifiable absurd.
If I were going to you might have a point, but given that I expressly said that I wasn't, is there a danger of you verging towards a valid point at all?
O.
-
Vlad,
I don’t know what’s wrong with you. I really don’t. I’ll correct you latest dull incomprehension/dishonesty for you:
Wrong: the reductio ad absurdum tells you that only the arguments for “god(s)” that are also good for leprechauns are ridiculous arguments.
Your straw man distortion may be, but the actual god/leprechauns reductio ad absurdum isn’t.
Leprechauns are absurd for several reasons. Unfalsifiability isn’t one of them. Something unfalsifiable may also be not absurd just as a matter of dumb luck.
Which is why no-one I know of argues for it.
Able to flit in and out of their supernatural state at will. I know this because that’s my “faith”. Thus they’re not falsifiable after all.
As is god curing little Timmy of his rickets. So?
Of the arguments, yes – why have you just ignored that?
I have. Why haven’t you commented on the argument that falsifies you?
No it doesn’t. Try again. Which part of the rabbit’s foot example has you confused still?
Any appeal to ridicule is an appeal to ridicule which is a fallacy.
Where also is the ridiculum in reductio ad absurdum?
-
Vlad,
Any appeal to ridicule is an appeal to ridicule which is a fallacy.
No it isn’t. Is the exam/lottery example an “appeal to ridicule”? Why not?
Where also is the ridiculum in reductio ad absurdum?
Gibberish.
Explaining to you that when the arguments you attempt to justify your claim “god” work just as well to justify my claim “leprechauns” they’re therefore bad arguments is a reductio ad absurdum. It’s a logically sound argument. Deal with it or not as you wish, but at least stop lying about it.
-
There is no verifiable evidence for the following philosophies for how reality is
Empiricism, Materialism, physicalist, Naturalism, scientism. I shall leave it to you to decide which of those underpins your atheism.
I'm not saying anything about the isms on your list Vlad or promoting them, so I've no need to justify or support any of them, on the other hand theists in general wish to promote the god things that without the necessary evidence that right up until now only exist inside your/their heads.
ippy.
-
I'm not saying anything about the isms on your list Vlad or promoting them, so I've no need to justify or support any of them, on the other hand theists in general wish to promote the god things that without the necessary evidence that right up until now only exist inside your/their heads.
ippy.
Lord love you all in your delusion that you are not arguing from any position.
-
Vlad,
Lord love you all in your delusion that you are not arguing from any position.
Of course we argue from a "position" - the position that reason and logic and evidence are more reliable and robust ways to establish truths than just guessing about stuff. That these positions are different from the position you desperately and dishonestly keep trying to paint some of us into (ie, physicalism) is a separate matter.
-
Vlad,
Of course we argue from a "position" - the position that reason and logic and evidence are more reliable and robust ways to establish truths than just guessing about stuff. That these positions are different from the position you desperately and dishonestly keep trying to paint some of us into (ie, physicalism) is a separate matter.
Evidence? Back to physicalism again.
Logic and reason. Horses laugh argument? You must be Guildford and Woking.
-
Vlad,
Of course we argue from a "position" - the position that reason and logic and evidence are more reliable and robust ways to establish truths than just guessing about stuff.
More reliable....or only way?
-
Horses laugh argument?
Seriously, Vlad? Are you still making this basic, basic mistake?
-
See, I think that's why scientists are so lonely on Saturday nights. Technically all humans are apes isn't much of a pick up line is it?
It's not meant to be. It is, however, a statement of fact.
-
See, I think that's why scientists are so lonely on Saturday nights. Technically all humans are apes isn't much of a pick up line is it?
Is it a close call against 'Have you heard the word of our Lord and Saviour?', though?
O.
-
Lord love you all in your delusion that you are not arguing from any position.
Simples Vlad, to most people:
It doesn't make any sense to believe in things like Leprechauns without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
It doesn't make any sense to believe in things like god or gods without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
If you don't understand the above, it can only be that you don't want to understand it Vlad, your name's not Nick!
ippy.
-
It's all in the Holy Bible. The book you refuse to acknowledge but which tells us exactly where the good, the bad, and the ugly will finish up. No one is going to Heaven except the 144000 to wait for the Judgement when they will return with the Son of Man and set up the righteous kingdom that is to come...the new heavens and the new Earth. Many here on Earth are practicing for that event all with varying Christian codes, but with willing hearts and as long as the individual relates to the righteous code of Jesus they will be saved. The ugly will go into the fiery lake of sulphur...they had their chance and fluffed it...The bad can repent but I'm not convinced that many will...but I'll pray for them anyway.
When our Deity say that there is only one accurate path to righteousness and we know that science is embedded within every aspect of the universe we know that righteousness is the science that we need to understand, to enable us to understand all other sciences...otherwise it would all clash...and as is proven by Albert Einstein, Nikola Tesla, Jesus Christ, and Almighty God, Himself...everything is energy, and this energy is all around us all the time...especially in the construction and maintenance of the living cell.
Think outside the box for a change and think yourself into the Holy Bible...the master scientific book showing us how the spiritual mechanics of the universe belong to a space-age science...that we will all be heading into except for the awkward, the difficult, the spiteful, the unrighteous, and the followers of Satan...summed up in Revelation 21:8.
I note Nick you still haven't supplied any viable evidence for the existence of your god again in this post of yours.
You seem to think if you quote something or other, doesn't seem to matter what, from your manual, that because the words you're using come from this book well that's as though that's enough, all that's needed?
I have to tell you Nick you haven't supplied one single piece of viable evidence, if there were any, that supports the possibility that the words in your book are factual in any way, so if you would Nick, forget the irrelevant and pointless sermons, and do your best to supply some viable evidence.
You haven't answered me when all I ask of you is for some viable evidence you go all around the houses put out sermons etc, most likely out of of embarrassment because you can't find any viable evidence that would support the words of your bible?
ippy.
-
Simples Vlad, to most people:
It doesn't make any sense to believe in things like Leprechauns without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
It doesn't make any sense to believe in things like god or gods without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
If you don't understand the above, it can only be that you don't want to understand it Vlad, your name's not Nick!
ippy.
I dont believe in Leprechauns but I do believe in God.
Unless you are here just to thump your particular guess you should be interested in how people can both disbelieve in Leprechauns yet believe in God.
-
Vlad,
Evidence? Back to physicalism again.
Not even close. For all I (or you) know we’re part of a computer simulation programmed to think it hurts if we jump out of the window. Physicalism is impossible to justify, which is why no-one argues for it – regardless of your constant lying about that.
Logic and reason. Horses laugh argument? You must be Guildford and Woking.
Your dull incomprehension/dishonesty is noted.
More reliable....or only way?
More reliable.
I dont believe in Leprechauns but I do believe in God.
Even though, on the rare occasion you try to justify your beliefs, most of the arguments you attempt work equally well to justify leprechauns?
Unless you are here just to thump your particular guess you should be interested in how people can both disbelieve in Leprechauns yet believe in God.
He probably would be if ever you felt like telling us why you believe in one and not the other when the justifying arguments for each are the same. Do you have any arguments to justify your belief “god” that wouldn’t also justify the belief “leprechauns”?
Something?
Anything at all?
-
Vlad,
Not even close. For all I (or you) know we’re part of a computer simulation programmed to think it hurts if we jump out of the window. Physicalism is impossible to justify, which is why no-one argues for it – regardless of your constant lying about that.
Your dull incomprehension/dishonesty is noted.
More reliable.
Even though, on the rare occasion you try to justify your beliefs, most of the arguments you attempt work equally well to justify leprechauns?
He probably would be if ever you felt like telling us why you believe in one and not the other when the justifying arguments for each are the same. Do you have any arguments to justify your belief “god” that wouldn’t also justify the belief “leprechauns”?
Something?
Anything at all?
I think there are arguments which show that it is reasonable to propose God. The simulated or constructed universe theory which covers De grasse Tyson, Bostrom and Lane Craig, The argument from contingency, the moral argument.
What argument have you Got ?
-
Vlad,
I think there are arguments which show that it is reasonable to propose God.
Then tell us what they are, and while you’re about it tell us why you go a lot further than “proposing” something and actually believe it too.
The simulated or constructed universe theory which covers De grasse Tyson, Bostrom and Lane Craig,…
No it doesn’t, and in any case it’s not a speculation that would justify the claim “god”.
The argument from contingency,…
Easily falsified…
…the moral argument.
Even more easily falsified...
What argument have you Got ?
That yours are demonstrably shit. That’s all I need.
-
I dont believe in Leprechauns but I do believe in God.
Unless you are here just to thump your particular guess you should be interested in how people can both disbelieve in Leprechauns yet believe in God.
Tried to make it a bit more simples for you Vlad:
It doesn't make any more sense to believe in things like Leprechauns or Gods without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
It doesn't make any more sense to believe in things like gods or Leprechauns without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
ippy.
-
Tried to make it a bit more simples for you Vlad:
It doesn't make any more sense to believe in things like Leprechauns or Gods without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
It doesn't make any more sense to believe in things like gods or Leprechauns without first finding some form of supporting evidence that, would if there were any, verify the given evidence.
ippy.
If you say it makes as much sense to believe in God as Leprechauns I have to say you are wrong.
I put it down to all that shit the NSS is filling your head with.
-
Vlad,
If you say it makes as much sense to believe in God as Leprechauns I have to say you are wrong.
He doesn’t. He says that when an argument to justify the claim “god” also justifies the claim “leprechauns” you have no grounds to believe in one but not the other if that’s the argument you need.
I put it down to all that shit the NSS is filling your head with.
Wrongly so.
-
The reality is that people choose the god, and the denomination of that god, which fits the morality they're comfortable with, and the source materials are so loosely written and even more loosely translated that if they look far enough they can probably find one that fits; if they can't, they just go all John Smith on it and write their own.
They all have in common submission to their god, which is the essence of the tree of knowledge story.
-
And yet the moral standard we're given alongside Genesis is overly simplistic, lacking in key areas and just flat out unsupportable in others; the calibration of relative infractions is woeful, with issues regarding haircuts deemed at some point to be an egregious matter whilst rape and slavery are never decried.
What's not to like about no adultery, rights for slaves, strange haircuts a sign of ungodly attitude so forbidden. Do you mean relative interactions?
-
Vlad,
He doesn’t. He says that when an argument to justify the claim “god” also justifies the claim “leprechauns” you have no grounds to believe in one but not the other if that’s the argument you need.
Wrongly so.
Is your name Ippy?
-
They all have in common submission to their god, which is the essence of the tree of knowledge story.
You were suggesting, though, that people need someone to tell them their morality, when the reality is that they are choosing their own morality and then adopting a sect which affirms it.
What's not to like about no adultery
Depends on if your definition of adultery involves an overly restrictive view of marriage..
rights for slaves
You don't legislate slavery, you abolish it.
strange haircuts a sign of ungodly attitude so forbidden.
Enforced conformity to aid in tribalism...
Do you mean relative interactions?
No, the calibration of relative infractions - so, for instance, eating shellfish and having the wrong haircut were considered worse infractions than keeping slaves, forced marriage of the conquered was actively encouraged but crop rotation and mixed fabric clothing was frowned upon, murder was on a par with working on the wrong day... the calibration, even if you accept that all of those should in some way be considered problematic, is just unfathomable.
O.
-
Is your name Ippy?
ippy
-
If you say it makes as much sense to believe in God as Leprechauns I have to say you are wrong.
I put it down to all that shit the NSS is filling your head with.
This rule would also apply to superbly wonderful ippies, it'd make no sense to believe in the superb wonderfulness of all ippies, without supporting viable evidence.
This rule would also apply to god or gods, it'd make no sense to believe in these gods or god, without the supporting viable evidence either.
I will fully and freely admit to a touch of bias here.
ippy.
-
You don't legislate slavery, you abolish it.
So to summarize my point of view as previously discussed:
You abolish the type that involves kidnapping an innocent person and forcing them to work for you, yes.
There are circumstances where forms of slavery can be justified (and therefore must be legislated for); for example, we might legislate that when someone commits murder, they should be imprisoned for life and do some sort of labour and earning their own money and possessions. Considering that they deserve to forfeit their life, this would be a concession. Or, in a culture where sex before marriage is considered wrong, when a man seduces and sleeps with an unmarried woman he should be forced to marry her, as in the OT law.
Or if someone pledges his labour to someone for life in return for food and housing, in order to stay alive.
Or (a typical OT scenario) where a person becomes a slave for life when a neighboring country attacks Israel and gets beaten, and Israel takes prisoners of war and enslaves them. Or if someone from a neighboring country is already a slave and is sold to an Israelite.
Bear in mind, they could get out of this situation if their master mistreated them.
The word 'slave' was associated with cruelty during the Egyptian captivity, and this type of slavery was not permitted in Israel.
-
Plus the fact that we are all slaves to the ground, since it won't produce much for us to eat unless we cultivate it.
-
Plus the fact that we are all slaves to the ground, since it won't produce much for us to eat unless we cultivate it.
You never heard of hunter-gatherers - they seemed to manage. In fact agriculture is a pretty recent development in the evolution of human societies.
-
You were suggesting, though, that people need someone to tell them their morality, when the reality is that they are choosing their own morality and then adopting a sect which affirms it.
I think the reality is that we don't always naturally want to do the right thing and have to be told.
-
Enforced conformity to aid in tribalism...
So if we enforce say, drinking in moderation, is that tribalism?
-
No, the calibration of relative infractions - so, for instance, eating shellfish and having the wrong haircut were considered worse infractions than keeping slaves, forced marriage of the conquered was actively encouraged but crop rotation and mixed fabric clothing was frowned upon, murder was on a par with working on the wrong day... the calibration, even if you accept that all of those should in some way be considered problematic, is just unfathomable.
Well forced marriage of the conquered never involved actively attacking a country. Only the child-sacrificing Canaanite nations were attacked.
-
You never heard of hunter-gatherers - they seemed to manage. In fact agriculture is a pretty recent development in the evolution of human societies.
I did see a brilliant documentary about an Amazon tribe - that Scottish guy went out to visit them.
-
eating shellfish
Was prohibited on the basis that they don't have fins and scales, a simple way to distinguish something that could transmit a disease.
-
Plus the fact that we are all slaves to the ground, since it won't produce much for us to eat unless we cultivate it.
https://youtu.be/H-a7mLqjP_c
-
Is it a close call against 'Have you heard the word of our Lord and Saviour?', though?
O.
That nearly worked on me once, but I answered with "is he the saviour of the other apes too?" That put a damper on things.
-
Plus the fact that we are all slaves to the ground, since it won't produce much for us to eat unless we cultivate it.
The key thing about slavery is not that you have to work but that you are property of somebody else and you have to work for them. It makes no sense to say we are slaves to the ground except as a metaphor.
-
Was prohibited on the basis that they don't have fins and scales, a simple way to distinguish something that could transmit a disease.
Fish with fins and scales can transmit disease. Also, quite often shellfish do not transmit disease. I've eaten them many times and I usually don't get ill.
-
Was prohibited on the basis that they don't have fins and scales, a simple way to distinguish something that could transmit a disease.
I wasn't suggesting I thought it would have practical difficulties in implementation, I was pointing out that to adjudge it as somehow unacceptable behaviour but to raise no strong objections to the institution of slavery and to actively encourage forcing the marriage of the womenfolk of defeated enemy tribes doesn't really speak well of a perfect moral being.
O.
-
So if we enforce say, drinking in moderation, is that tribalism?
Depends on why you do it - if, rather than 'enforcing drinking in moderation' you have a special magical ritual for the intiated with alcohol and bread, then yes, if you set a blanket prohibition on anyone being drunk in public, then no.
O.
-
Fish with fins and scales can transmit disease. Also, quite often shellfish do not transmit disease. I've eaten them many times and I usually don't get ill.
My bad. Its symbolic, which we know because Noah, who didn't eat meat before the Flood, knew about unclean animals. We may not know for certain how clean animals symbolized holiness, but in the case of shellfish it may be to do with drifting aimlessly with the current, and not having the armour plating of scales to protect them from the environment.
-
but in the case of shellfish it may be to do with drifting aimlessly with the current, and not having the armour plating of scales to protect them from the environment.
When was the last time you tried eating a prawn with it's outer "unprotective" layer still attatched?
-
My bad. Its symbolic, which we know because Noah, who didn't eat meat before the Flood, knew about unclean animals.
Are you claiming nobody ate meat before the Flood? That would make the thing about unclean animals completely nonsensical to Noah.
We may not know for certain how clean animals symbolized holiness, but in the case of shellfish it may be to do with drifting aimlessly with the current, and not having the armour plating of scales to protect them from the environment.
Have you ever eaten moules marinière? If you do, one of the first things you'll notice is that mussels do have significant armour plating. In fact, most shellfish have... well, shells. Wouldn't it be amazing if God had got it wrong and he really meant jellyfish.
-
Are you claiming nobody ate meat before the Flood? That would make the thing about unclean animals completely nonsensical to Noah.
Noah used clean animals for sacrifices. Also, God gave Noah all the animals for food, it was not until Moses that unclean were prohibited. So the reason for the distinction must be to do with outward symbolism of purity of heart.
-
Depends on why you do it
To prevent drunkenness in public.
-
To prevent drunkenness in public.
Then that seems to me to be a reasonable 'public health/safety' benefit - and, as it applies to everyone it's difficult to see it as tribalism. Can you suggest a similar benefit to a special haircut?
O.
-
I wasn't suggesting I thought it would have practical difficulties in implementation, I was pointing out that to adjudge it as somehow unacceptable behaviour but to raise no strong objections to the institution of slavery
The institution of slavery was in some ways essential to society. Exodus 22:3 says, "A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft."
Kidnapping and selling a person as a slave, however, was a crime.
and to actively encourage forcing the marriage of the womenfolk of defeated enemy tribes doesn't really speak well of a perfect moral being.
Maybe it was the only alternative to the women having to fend for themselves?
-
The institution of slavery was in some ways essential to society.
Absolute nonsense. It may have been as essential to that particular society as it was to, say, British Colonial society in the 17th and 18th century, but it is in no way essential to society or we'd still need it now.
Exodus 22:3 says, "A thief must make full restitution. If he is unable, he is to be sold because of his theft."
Yes, that's my point, your 'holy' book advocates slavery, advocates the buying and selling of people as property...
Kidnapping and selling a person as a slave, however, was a crime.
That's a degree of being terrible people, it's not avoiding being terrible people.
Maybe it was the only alternative to the women having to fend for themselves?
On a practical level, in a rampantly misogynistic society, it possibly was one solution, but this is supposed to be a supremely moral being sending down teachings, isn't it?
O.
-
Absolute nonsense. It may have been as essential to that particular society as it was to, say, British Colonial society in the 17th and 18th century, but it is in no way essential to society or we'd still need it now.
It's an interesting question. Could the Roman empire, for example, have survived as it did without slaves. I've always thought they were essential to ancient civilisations. But there is an alternate viewpoint that says slavery actually held them back. If you've got an inexhaustible supply of humans to till the field, why develop better technology to do it?
Yes, that's my point, your 'holy' book advocates slavery, advocates the buying and selling of people as property...
I don't think that specific example works. Being sold into slavery is clearly a punishment for the thief. That's not advocacy of slavery in general, just as a means of punishment. If I say rapists need to be locked up, it's not advocacy of forced incarceration for just anybody.
There are plenty of other examples in the Bible where slavery is condoned though. God frequently tells the Israelites to make slaves of their vanquished enemies (at least of the women, the men were usually killed).
-
I don't think that specific example works. Being sold into slavery is clearly a punishment for the thief. That's not advocacy of slavery in general, just as a means of punishment. If I say rapists need to be locked up, it's not advocacy of forced incarceration for just anybody.
If the very institution of slavery is unacceptable, then the fact that it was being done to criminals doesn't excuse it - it might be, as a matter of degree, not quite as bad as the whole taking people from rival tribes, but slavery isn't justifiable under any circumstances.
There are plenty of other examples in the Bible where slavery is condoned though. God frequently tells the Israelites to make slaves of their vanquished enemies (at least of the women, the men were usually killed).
Indeed, as a collection of works, slavery is at best tolerated and at worst actively encouraged.
O.
-
If the very institution of slavery is unacceptable, then the fact that it was being done to criminals doesn't excuse it
There are lots of things that are considered unacceptable but that have, nevertheless, been done to criminals. For example they were often put to death in the past but that doesn't mean the people who advocated capital punishment thought it was acceptable for everybody to be put to death.
- it might be, as a matter of degree, not quite as bad as the whole taking people from rival tribes, but slavery isn't justifiable under any circumstances.
Well it isn't now. However, the citizens of Rome who depended on slaves bring in the harvest so they wouldn't starve to death might disagree with you.
The Bible treats slavery as just a fact of life and tries to legislate for it. Slavery isn't good or bad in the Bible, it just is. That makes it problematic (if that's not too much of an understatement) as a moral guide for us because we believe treating people as property is morally abhorrent.
-
There are lots of things that are considered unacceptable but that have, nevertheless, been done to criminals. For example they were often put to death in the past but that doesn't mean the people who advocated capital punishment thought it was acceptable for everybody to be put to death.
Agreed, but there are people in the modern day who believe it isn't, and never has been, right for anyone to be put to death for crimes. Generally speaking, collectively as humanity, we're all pretty much in agreement that slavery is just morally unacceptable, and always should have been.
Well it isn't now. However, the citizens of Rome who depended on slaves bring in the harvest so they wouldn't starve to death might disagree with you.
That society was built around slave labour as a component, the British Colonies as I said above also were, but my point was that it wasn't a necessary element in order to have a society at that time, it wasn't as though there was no way to get by without having slavery.
The Bible treats slavery as just a fact of life and tries to legislate for it. Slavery isn't good or bad in the Bible, it just is. That makes it problematic (if that's not too much of an understatement) as a moral guide for us because we believe treating people as property is morally abhorrent.
Exactly - this is supposed to be, depending on who you talk to, the inspired word of a perfectly moral being, and he can't speak out against slavery?
O.
[/quote]
-
When was the last time you tried eating a prawn with it's outer "unprotective" layer still attatched?
I had some prawn cocktail crisps a few days ago.
-
Absolute nonsense. It may have been as essential to that particular society as it was to, say, British Colonial society in the 17th and 18th century, but it is in no way essential to society or we'd still need it now.
Yes, that's my point, your 'holy' book advocates slavery, advocates the buying and selling of people as property...
In the absence of a prison system, that particular verse uses the concept of buying and selling as property to describe making a thief pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that the person owns him until the value is paid off.
A law like the one in Leviticus 25:45-6 can be illustrated by a murder of a young person, whose unborn children are also murdered with him. This means that not only can the murderer not pay back his victim but he can't pay back his victim's unborn children. So in the language of the Mosaic law, his punishment is for his labour to be sold for life, and his descendants should share in that sentence. That of course is the alternative to capital punishment and prisons.
-
Even sittin in the sea
I see food, sea food sees me. [/Just eat ad]
-
In the absence of a prison system, that particular verse uses the concept of buying and selling as property to describe making a thief pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that the person owns him until the value is paid off.
A law like the one in Leviticus 25:45-6 can be illustrated by a murder of a young person, whose unborn children are also murdered with him. This means that not only can the murderer not pay back his victim but he can't pay back his victim's unborn children. So in the language of the Mosaic law, his punishment is for his labour to be sold for life, and his descendants should share in that sentence. That of course is the alternative to capital punishment and prisons.
And this is the work of the font of all morality? This is the considered output of the perfect, all-knowing being?
O.
-
And this is the work of the font of all morality? This is the considered output of the perfect, all-knowing being?
O.
Leaving aside Leviticus 25:45 for now, what problem do you have with Exodus 22:3 as I've explained it, ie using the concept of selling a thief to describe making him pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that he is 'sold' until the value is paid off.
-
Leaving aside Leviticus 25:45 for now, what problem do you have with Exodus 22:3 as I've explained it, ie using the concept of selling a thief to describe making him pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that he is 'sold' until the value is paid off.
Only the description 'slave' usually consists of brutality inflicted as part of the normality of the life of the slave.
Also, most of the slaveowners of the American South were hard-arsed Christians and many insisted that their slaves attend church.
-
Leaving aside Leviticus 25:45 for now, what problem do you have with Exodus 22:3 as I've explained it, ie using the concept of selling a thief to describe making him pay back the value of the stolen goods. If he can't pay for the goods the only thing he has left in exchange for them is his labour, and it's in that sense that he is 'sold' until the value is paid off.
The idea of selling people, the idea of dehumanising people to the point where they can be traded as a commodity - you don't have a problem with that?
O.
-
Only the description 'slave' usually consists of brutality inflicted as part of the normality of the life of the slave.
Brutality is not necessary for making a thief work to pay someone back.
Also, most of the slaveowners of the American South were hard-arsed Christians and many insisted that their slaves attend church.
Hard-arsedness is not Christianity. Plus, if slaves had been transported to America then to send them back would have meant they would likely either be recapured or not survive. The root of the problem was the slavers and tribal chiefs who sold Africans to them.
-
The idea of selling people, the idea of dehumanising people to the point where they can be traded as a commodity - you don't have a problem with that?
O.
Just going by what Exodus 22:3 says, the reason the idea of selling and trading was used is because the money from the sale would go to the robbed person.
Couldn't you equally say that locking people up dehumanises them?
-
Just going by what Exodus 22:3 says, the reason the idea of selling and trading was used is because the money from the sale would go to the robbed person.
Fining people, reparations, these aren't concepts I take issue with.
Couldn't you equally say that locking people up dehumanises them?
No, not really - we don't lock up other animals for crimes, we restrict the freedoms of people in response to abuses of those freedoms by those people. We sell pigs; we own cattle; people are not a commodity to be traded.
O.
-
Brutality is not necessary for making a thief work to pay someone back.
Slavery was not necessary! Just getting them to labour for a reduced wage would have achieved reparation.
Hard-arsedness is not Christianity. Plus, if slaves had been transported to America then to send them back would have meant they would likely either be recaptured or not survive. The root of the problem was the slavers and tribal chiefs who sold Africans to them.
My dear Spud, you cannot just disown people who do not follow your views of Christianity. These people attended Church, took Communion and were blessed by the priest in the name of Jesus Christ!
They WERE CHRISTIAN whether you like it or not!
Your twisted religion preaches some terminally distasteful things which should have been written out of that unpleasant book yonks back in human history.
(Comment deleted in an act of self-preservation of my membership of this Forum!)
And as to returning them after being sent to America THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED TO AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE!
)O(
-
Fining people, reparations, these aren't concepts I take issue with.
No, not really - we don't lock up other animals for crimes, we restrict the freedoms of people in response to abuses of those freedoms by those people. We sell pigs; we own cattle; people are not a commodity to be traded.
O.
Do you think making someone sit in a cell all day is better for them in terms of learning not to rob, than making them work to pay back what they stole? What would prevent re-offending more effectively?
-
Slavery was not necessary! Just getting them to labour for a reduced wage would have achieved reparation.
I think you're conflating making someone work to pay someone back, with taking an innocent person and selling them as a slave, which I would say is what slavery is.
My dear Spud, you cannot just disown people who do not follow your views of Christianity. These people attended Church, took Communion and were blessed by the priest in the name of Jesus Christ!
Christianity is obeying Christ. If these guys believed they were helping the slaves by paying a slaver for them, treating them well and giving them freedom after a certain time then they weren't doing anything wrong.
They WERE CHRISTIAN whether you like it or not!
In name only, if they were hard-arsed.
Your twisted religion preaches some terminally distasteful things which should have been written out of that unpleasant book yonks back in human history.
Which bits do you think should be taken out?
(Comment deleted in an act of self-preservation of my membership of this Forum!)
And as to returning them after being sent to America THEY SHOULD NOT HAVE BEEN TRANSPORTED TO AMERICA IN THE FIRST PLACE!
)O(
Precisely, and it was this that had to be stopped, or changed to a system of temporary work in exchange for freedom to live as free men.
-
Do you think making someone sit in a cell all day is better for them in terms of learning not to rob, than making them work to pay back what they stole? What would prevent re-offending more effectively?
Well, firstly, neither of those is actually a particularly effective means of rehabilitation, but to an extent that's beside the point; the point is that neither of them requires people to be classified as property and owned in order to implement. I ask again, because I note that you didn't directly address the question the last time, do you not have a problem with the idea of people being reduced to a commodity to be traded?
O.
-
I think you're conflating making someone work to pay someone back, with taking an innocent person and selling them as a slave, which I would say is what slavery is.
Agree. Exodus 22:3:
The thief shall make restitution, but if unable to do so, shall be sold for the theft.
What do you think being sold means in this context? I think it means they will be sold as a slave.
Christianity is obeying Christ. If these guys believed they were helping the slaves by paying a slaver for them, treating them well and giving them freedom after a certain time then they weren't doing anything wrong.
I would say not freeing them as soon as they could is not exactly right.
In name only, if they were hard-arsed.
Henry VIII was an exemplary Christian. The Pope commended him for it, but he was pretty hard arsed. You are perpetrating the No True Scotsman fallacy.
Which bits do you think should be taken out?
I don't go much on putting people to death for being gay or adulterers or being raped and not crying out or working on the Sabbath.
Precisely, and it was this that had to be stopped, or changed to a system of temporary work in exchange for freedom to live as free men.
Given that slaves were transported to the Americas, it was pretty much impossible to send them back once they gained their freedom. Firstly, the Atlantic crossing would have been quite dangerous and would have killed many of them. Secondly, there were probably very few first generation slaves left at the time they achieved emancipation. It would have been an act of cruelty to send people to a different continent to the one on which they had been living their whole lives.
You also couldn't just say "hey you're free" and leave them to their own devices. That would have been pretty cruel too.
The above considerations about freeing slaves is just one aspect of why they should never have been made slaves in the first place.
-
Why do I get the feeling that discussing Christianity with a Christian is very similar to discussing Arab/Israeli politics with the Wailing Wall?
Owlswing
)O(
-
What do you think being sold means in this context? I think it means they will be sold as a slave.
As a slave in the full sense of the word? It means to be exchanged for money, presumably for an agreed amount of time.
Henry VIII was an exemplary Christian. The Pope commended him for it, but he was pretty hard arsed. You are perpetrating the No True Scotsman fallacy.
It's not for me to say whether or not he repented to God, but judging by his actions, he didn't.
I don't go much on putting people to death for being gay or adulterers or being raped and not crying out or working on the Sabbath.
These were the punishments that those offences deserved because they manifested rebellion against God. The NT says that the law was intended to make Israel conscious of sin. In John 8 Jesus said that anyone who is without sin could stone an adulteress; that meant that the deserved punishment was no longer appropriate. They have served their purpose. These punishments were temporary, to show God's standard and how we fall short of it.
-
But if someone can't make restitution, what should be done? Let him off without punishment?
You could try forgiveness: I understand that many Christians are quite keen on forgiveness.
Agreed, but if they reduce themselves to the level of an animal by stealing, then they can expect to be treated like one.
Thank God (pun intended) that I'm not a Christian if this is an example of how some (but not all) Christians think.
-
You could try forgiveness: I understand that many Christians are quite keen on forgiveness.
Thank God (pun intended) that I'm not a Christian if this is an example of how some (but not all) Christians think.
Come on Gordon, you know as well as I, it is repeatedly shown on this forum, that Christians are incapable of thinking without a Bible to hand to search for answers! Usually bloody silly ones, but that just about describes all Christians!
Init!
-
Come on Gordon, you know as well as I, it is repeatedly shown on this forum, that Christians are incapable of thinking without a Bible to hand to search for answers! Usually bloody silly ones, but that just about describes all Christians!
Init!
No, there have been a number of Christians both capable of thought, and lovely people. Anchorman and Gonnagle spring to mind. Also given most of my family are practising Christians, including me sainted mother, I don't find this sort of generalisation useful.
-
No, there have been a number of Christians both capable of thought, and lovely people. Anchorman and Gonnagle spring to mind. Also given most of my family are practising Christians, including me sainted mother, I don't find this sort of generalisation useful.
OK! Sorry. but it seems that there are very few comments that I make that you find acceptable for one reason or another, usually, with justification, my mangling of the English language..
On the other side of the coin I find few if any of the comments made by the Christians on here to be acceptable either.
I should also, perhaps, point out that my comments are addressed specifically to posters on this Forum and not to members of your family whom I didn't realise read the posts here.
I have had comments made about my religious beliefs that belong back in the Burning Times and no-one sees fit to complain about that! Except Ippy if I remember rightly.
I'm truly sorry if these comments offend but I can only say that they were only ever directed at my detractors, my detractors who seem to still live as if during the Burning Times, and find it easy to show contempt for my beliefs while complaining about my contempt for theirs.
I do, however, have the distinct advantage on my side of the argument in that I was brought up High Church Anglican (I doubt if any of my Christian detractors have ever been Pagan) by a father who strongly believed in the tenet of 'Spare the rod and spoil the child', I once got a thrashing because I made a mistake in saying the Lord's prayer at age 6 or 7.
As to my criticism of Christians, I wear a ring with a pentacle motif and have lost count of the times I have been accosted and harangued about being a witch (which is totally legal) in the kind of strident tones, and at the volume of a heavy metal concert, asking if , as a witch, I really do eat Christian babies and that I should be burnt at a stake in Hyde Park, all this, usually, by people wearing the crucifix.
I hope that, as a result of the above, you would consider I have a reason to be a bit touchy about anti pagan/witch comments.
Owlswing
)O(
-
Come on Gordon, you know as well as I, it is repeatedly shown on this forum, that Christians are incapable of thinking without a Bible to hand to search for answers! Usually bloody silly ones, but that just about describes all Christians!
Init!
Nope - tarring all Christians with the unpleasant views expressed by just some of them, and probably a minority, is simply unfounded and is a sweeping generalisation.
-
Nope - tarring all Christians with the unpleasant views expressed by just some of them, and probably a minority is simply unfounded and is a sweeping generalisation.
OK OK I get the message! Loud and clear!
Owlswing!
-
You could try forgiveness: I understand that many Christians are quite keen on forgiveness.
Made a lot easier if the person makes the effort to repair the damage. Suppose someone, suppose its your son, takes your credit card and runs up a debt on it. You would forgive him, but you'd also make him do something to earn at least some of the debt back.
Thank God (pun intended) that I'm not a Christian if this is an example of how some (but not all) Christians think.
Sorry - I don't really understand Outrider's post 364, and how making someone work to pay for stolen goods is more dehumanising than locking someone up. Maybe it is, I don't see his point about 'other animals'.
-
Made a lot easier if the person makes the effort to repair the damage. Suppose someone, suppose its your son, takes your credit card and runs up a debt on it. You would forgive him, but you'd also make him do something to earn at least some of the debt back.
Making an attempt at reparation is always welcome but we (Mrs G and I), and I suspect other parents of older/adult children might agree with us, feel that supporting our children so that they learn from their mistakes is more important than 'pay back': we don't stop loving and supporting our children just because they make mistakes or act like idiots.
Sorry - I don't really understand Outrider's post 364, and how making someone work to pay for stolen goods is more dehumanising than locking someone up. Maybe it is, I don't see his point about 'other animals'.
There is no doubt that us humans are animals, but your use of the term had unpleasant pejorative overtones. Us humans can, and do, own animals as property but that is rather different from us owning our fellow humans as property which, if I recall, was the point that Outrider was flagging up to you, and which you seem to be having difficulty in understanding - it is possible for people to make reparations without them also becoming the property of those they are compensating.
-
NS,
No, there have been a number of Christians both capable of thought, and lovely people. Anchorman and Gonnagle spring to mind. Also given most of my family are practising Christians, including me sainted mother, I don't find this sort of generalisation useful.
I agree with the sentiment of course, but I have to say too that it’s been a disappointment to me that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too have been unable to justify the claim – whether with arguments at all or with arguments that aren’t plainly false. I had hoped when Theoretical Sceptic joined for something better, but he went batshit crazy pretty fast and seems to have flared out shortly afterwards.
I’ve asked this before, but where are the Christians with the wit and ammunition to mount cogent arguments for me to take their beliefs seriously?
-
But if someone can't make restitution, what should be done?
Maybe look at why we're in a situation where people in society can't make reparations and see if, and how, that contributed to the situation where they need to, perhaps?
Let him off without punishment?
Again, seeing punishment as somehow the solution is missing the point that punishment isn't a very effective tool - re-education, rehabilitation, these work, but punishment does not.
Agreed, but if they reduce themselves to the level of an animal by stealing, then they can expect to be treated like one.
Animals can't steal, they have no concept of ownership. We reduce people to the level of just animals when we take away their capacity to be something more than animals; such as when we deny them the self-direction of freedom and make them someone else's property.
O.
-
NS,
I agree with the sentiment of course, but I have to say too that it’s been a disappointment to me that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too have been unable to justify the claim –whether with arguments at all or with arguments that aren’t plainly false. I had hoped when Theoretical Sceptic joined for something better, but he went batshit crazy pretty fast and seems to have flared out shortly afterwards.
I’ve asked this before, but where are the Christians with the wit and ammunition to mount cogent arguments for me to take their beliefs seriously?
Well said Blue, my sentiments entirely!
Most people take the weirdest of facts seriously when backed up with a sufficient quality of evidence, something that seems to have escaped the attention of all the religious communities, well right up till now anyway.
ippy.
-
NS,
I agree with the sentiment of course, but I have to say too that it’s been a disappointment to me that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too have been unable to justify the claim – whether with arguments at all or with arguments that aren’t plainly false. I had hoped when Theoretical Sceptic joined for something better, but he went batshit crazy pretty fast and seems to have flared out shortly afterwards.
I’ve asked this before, but where are the Christians with the wit and ammunition to mount cogent arguments for me to take their beliefs seriously?
I get bored with this simplistic idea that you treat Christians as single mass of people. it's the same with Vlad's fatuous talking about atheists as if they are all the same. I know people who are Christian who would never make the claim of objective truth in the way you use here so that's a strawman for them.
I also find the 'I agree with the sentiment' with the but added feels like an attempt to just ignore a lazy and incorrect generalisation by Owlswing to then make a slightly more nuanced one based on the aforementioned strawman. Anyone who is Christian on here is not there to be a performing seal for your demand.
-
Well said Blue, my sentiments entirely!
Most people take the weirdest of facts seriously when backed up with a sufficient quality of evidence, something that seems to have escaped the attention of all the religious communities, well right up till now anyway.
ippy.
Simplistic generalisation
-
NS,
I get bored with this simplistic idea that you treat Christians as single mass of people.
I expressly referred only to the Christians who post here. Here in fact: “…that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here…”. Perhaps you missed that?
…it's the same with Vlad's fatuous talking about atheists as if they are all the same.
No it isn’t. Vlad refers to “atheists” as a group; I referred only the Christians (and to other theists) who post here.
I know people who are Christian who would never make the claim of objective truth in the way you use here so that's a strawman for them.
I expressly did no such thing by referring only to those who do. Here in fact: “…and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too”. Why are you misrepresenting me?
I also find the 'I agree with the sentiment' with the but added feels like an attempt to just ignore a lazy and incorrect generalisation by Owlswing to then make a slightly more nuanced one based on the aforementioned strawman.
So just to be clear: I state clearly that I agree that generalising like this is wrong, and you decide that what meant instead is that I’m actually ignoring the wrongness of generalisation in order to attempting a “slightly more nuanced” attempt at the same thing, even though I expressly did no generalise at all. Is that right?
Anyone who is Christian on here is not there to be a performing seal for your demand.
Have you been on Vlad’s strawmanning 101 course or something? Again, I made no reference to “Christians on here” as a whole – I expressly said something other than that. Did you really miss that?
And yes, if such people assert by right that their faith beliefs should be imposed on me and mine in various ways then damn right they should be “performing seals” if by that you mean they should argue their case rather than just presume it.
-
NS,
I expressly referred only to the Christians who post here. Here in fact: “…that the Christians (and other theists for that matter) who do post here…”. Perhaps you missed that?
No it isn’t. Vlad refers to “atheists” as a group; I referred only the Christians (and to other theists) who post here.
I expressly did no such thing by referring only to those who do. Here in fact: “…and who claim their beliefs to be objectively true for me too”. Why are you misrepresenting me?
So just to be clear: I state clearly that I agree that generalising like this is wrong, and you decide that what meant instead is that I’m actually ignoring the wrongness of generalisation in order to attempting a “slightly more nuanced” attempt at the same thing, even though I expressly did no generalise at all. Is that right?
Have you been on Vlad’s strawmanning 101 course or something? Again, I made no reference to “Christians on here” as a whole – I expressly said something other than that. Did you really miss that?
And yes, if such people assert by right that their faith beliefs should be imposed on me and mine in various ways then damn right they should be “performing seals” if by that you mean they should argue their case rather than just presume it.
. Yep, I read you wrongly, my apologies.
-
NS,
. Yep, I read you wrongly, my apologies.
That's gracious of you - thank you. No harm done, so on we go....
-
Making an attempt at reparation is always welcome but we (Mrs G and I), and I suspect other parents of older/adult children might agree with us, feel that supporting our children so that they learn from their mistakes is more important than 'pay back': we don't stop loving and supporting our children just because they make mistakes or act like idiots.
There is no doubt that us humans are animals, but your use of the term had unpleasant pejorative overtones. Us humans can, and do, own animals as property but that is rather different from us owning our fellow humans as property which, if I recall, was the point that Outrider was flagging up to you, and which you seem to be having difficulty in understanding - it is possible for people to make reparations without them also becoming the property of those they are compensating.
Both points taken. it seems that the way I worded my points was offensive, maybe because there is truth in them and I don't know how to unoffensivize that? For example, is it the case that turning to crime makes us more animal-like, or not? Also, do we discipline children or not?
-
Both points taken. it seems that the way I worded my points was offensive, maybe because there is truth in them and I don't know how to unoffensivize that?
It isn't a matter of 'truth' though, but opinion: it seems very clear that your opinion is that you think there are some circumstances where it is acceptable for some people to own other people. Moreover, it also seems you regard people who are enslaved as having a status equivalent to species of animals that are exploited by humans, such as cattle: I find that position to be quite offensive no matter how you phrase it.
For example, is it the case that turning to crime makes us more animal-like, or not? Also, do we discipline children or not?
I'd have thought that criminal behaviour, as in people exploiting other people purely for gain, as opposed to survival, was a particularly human trait that society generally regards as being counter-productive, hence we have social norms that discourage such exploitation. To leap from this, as you do, to 'disciplining' children seems like a leap too far for me, since it seems you regard children being corrected for, say, a lack of consideration or care as being somehow equivalent to criminal behaviour by adults.
You do seem awfully keen on punishing people, including children.
-
Both points taken. it seems that the way I worded my points was offensive, maybe because there is truth in them and I don't know how to unoffensivize that?
For me it's not the way you phrased it, I don't think, it's that you seem to think there's a justification for owning people - we're both accepting that some degree of punishment for wrongdoing is likely to be a part of any society, we're both accepting that some degree of reparations is also likely to be a part, and realistically I think we'd both agree that some degree of both of those would be necessary to make a society work. We might quibble over the degree of one or the other, or the balance between them, but we don't appear to have any deep-seated moral objection to either of those concepts.
Owning people, though, treating people as though they could be considered as property, isn't something I can accept as justifiable, regardless of their nature. There are people who don't think the death penalty can ever be supported - I'm not one of them, but I understand the argument - and I stand in a similar place on slavery and it seems as though you don't. If I'm not mischaracterising it, then that's where our disagreement lies, not in how you've chosen to phrase it.
For example, is it the case that turning to crime makes us more animal-like, or not?
No, crime and criminality require a moral conscience which is something we generally consider beyond the rest of the animal kingdom, it's one of the things that sets us apart. Animals can't commit crimes, how can committing a crime make us more animal-like? Forgoing our moral conscience and acting more animalistic can make us behave criminally, but it doesn't work the other way around.
Also, do we discipline children or not?
Rending people to the level of property is not 'discipline'.
O.
-
Made a lot easier if the person makes the effort to repair the damage. Suppose someone, suppose its your son, takes your credit card and runs up a debt on it. You would forgive him, but you'd also make him do something to earn at least some of the debt back.
Sorry - I don't really understand Outrider's post 364, and how making someone work to pay for stolen goods is more dehumanising than locking someone up. Maybe it is, I don't see his point about 'other animals'.
There's a difference between making them pay and selling them into slavery.
-
Well, firstly, neither of those is actually a particularly effective means of rehabilitation,
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/av/world-europe-35936290
but to an extent that's beside the point; the point is that neither of them requires people to be classified as property and owned in order to implement. I ask again, because I note that you didn't directly address the question the last time, do you not have a problem with the idea of people being reduced to a commodity to be traded?
O.
I think Exodus 22:3 shows that it was the slave's labour that was owned (in that context, until he paid for the theft) not the person.
-
It isn't a matter of 'truth' though, but opinion: it seems very clear that your opinion is that you think there are some circumstances where it is acceptable for some people to own other people.
Hi Gordon, my aim here has been to try and defend the Bible. Leviticus 25:44 is the problematic verse, which states an Israelite could own a foreigner. Was thinking about this this morning, having had a break from it.
We know that Israelites were only allowed to become 'slaves' (servants, really) of fellow countrymen temporarily. This doesn't seem to be a problem, morally, given the rules on them being treated fairly and being released after a certain time.
Regarding Leviticus 25:44, I think I may have said this before but not explained fully: there was an underlying issue which may explain why such a law existed. The land was to be owned only by male descendants of Jacob, since God had promised Jacob that his descendants would inherit the land. The only options for a foreigner were to purchase a house in a walled city, if he had money or was employed as a hired worker, or to become attached to an Israelite as a bondservant. Given the provisions made for the latter in the law, the word slave isn't appropriate to describe this status.
This is open to misinterpretation, of course, as was the case when white Americans believed their land was given to them only. In the case of Israel, they had been freed from oppressive slavery and were intended as a blessing for all the nations.
-
Far from Israel being a blessing for all nations, it has been more like a curse, imo. >:(
-
Far from Israel being a blessing for all nations, it has been more like a curse, imo. >:(
I know you don't mean it to be read as anti semitic because I know you are not but your post could be read that way.
-
I know you don't mean it to be read as anti semitic because I know you are not but your post could be read that way.
I have no problem with Jews but plenty with Israel.
-
I have no problem with Jews but plenty with Israel.
Phrasing a statement that Israel is a curse though echoes, even if not deliberately, deeply anti semitic rhetoric.
-
Phrasing a statement that Israel is a curse though echoes, even if not deliberately, deeply anti semitic rhetoric.
I don't see it that way. Apparently there are many Jews who don't support the stance Israel has taken over the years since it came into being.
-
I don't see it that way. Apparently there are many Jews who don't support the stance Israel has taken over the years since it came into being.
But in the context of this thread which is about the Bible, "Israel" can easily be taken as a synonym for Judaism or all Jews. If you are criticising the modern state of Israel or even the ancient kingdom that existed in the early part of the first millennium BCE, that's fine, but a bit of a non sequitur on this thread.
-
I don't see it that way. Apparently there are many Jews who don't support the stance Israel has taken over the years since it came into being.
Does that mean that they, as the extremists in Iran, see the existence of the state of Isreal of a curse?
-
Hi Gordon, my aim here has been to try and defend the Bible. Leviticus 25:44 is the problematic verse, which states an Israelite could own a foreigner. Was thinking about this this morning, having had a break from it.
We know that Israelites were only allowed to become 'slaves' (servants, really) of fellow countrymen temporarily. This doesn't seem to be a problem, morally, given the rules on them being treated fairly and being released after a certain time.
Regarding Leviticus 25:44, I think I may have said this before but not explained fully: there was an underlying issue which may explain why such a law existed. The land was to be owned only by male descendants of Jacob, since God had promised Jacob that his descendants would inherit the land. The only options for a foreigner were to purchase a house in a walled city, if he had money or was employed as a hired worker, or to become attached to an Israelite as a bondservant. Given the provisions made for the latter in the law, the word slave isn't appropriate to describe this status.
This is open to misinterpretation, of course, as was the case when white Americans believed their land was given to them only. In the case of Israel, they had been freed from oppressive slavery and were intended as a blessing for all the nations.
When people start with apologetic nonsense like this, it's often a good idea to check what the Bible actually says and to examine the context
If any who are dependent on you become so impoverished that they sell themselves to you, you shall not make them serve as slaves. 40 They shall remain with you as hired or bound laborers. They shall serve with you until the year of the jubilee. 41 Then they and their children with them shall be free from your authority; they shall go back to their own family and return to their ancestral property. 42 For they are my servants, whom I brought out of the land of Egypt; they shall not be sold as slaves are sold. 43 You shall not rule over them with harshness, but shall fear your God. 44 As for the male and female slaves whom you may have, it is from the nations around you that you may acquire male and female slaves. 45 You may also acquire them from among the aliens residing with you, and from their families that are with you, who have been born in your land; and they may be your property. 46 You may keep them as a possession for your children after you, for them to inherit as property. These you may treat as slaves, but as for your fellow Israelites, no one shall rule over the other with harshness.
It's clearly saying you can't make Israelites slaves but you can make other people slaves whether they come from foreign lands or live in your country. If the god of the Israelites considered slavery to be morally wrong, as I assume you believe your god does, this passage would not be there. It would just say "don't make or keep slaves".
It clearly says you can pass your foreign slaves on to your children. The word "slave" is utterly appropriate to describe their status.
-
When people start with apologetic nonsense like this, it's often a good idea to check what the Bible actually says and to examine the context
It's clearly saying you can't make Israelites slaves but you can make other people slaves whether they come from foreign lands or live in your country. If the god of the Israelites considered slavery to be morally wrong, as I assume you believe your god does, this passage would not be there. It would just say "don't make or keep slaves".
It clearly says you can pass your foreign slaves on to your children. The word "slave" is utterly appropriate to describe their status.
God must have considered the treatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians to be morally wrong, because he brought them out of Egypt. So God is not telling the Israelites they can be like the Egyptians. But given that he says the land belongs to the Israelites, this means foreigners could only settle there as guests or servants. I think that is the meaning.
-
God must have considered the treatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians to be morally wrong, because he brought them out of Egypt. So God is not telling the Israelites they can be like the Egyptians. But given that he says the land belongs to the Israelites, this means foreigners could only settle there as guests or servants. I think that is the meaning.
But that only works if god exists - a claim that is devoid of evidence.
If there is no god then this assertion merely means that the Israelites didn't like the treatment they received from the Egyptians (not unreasonable), were able to escape to Palestine and declared that that land belongs to them (but as so often happens with religious sects, claimed their right to the land didn't emanate from themselves but from 'god', for which there is no evidence).
Having done that the Israelites determined that they should be able to have slaves, probably reflecting the treatment they'd received by thinking they should be able to dish it out as well as receive it. Again claiming this to be god's will - see earlier point on existence of god.
So all this amounts to is the classic mantra of: 'oh look, we are special in the eyes of god, he want is to have this land, he agrees we should be able to have slaves' etc etc. Same old, same old - trotted out by religious groups the world over through the centuries.
-
But that only works if god exists - a claim that is devoid of evidence.
If there is no god then this assertion merely means that the Israelites didn't like the treatment they received from the Egyptians (not unreasonable), were able to escape to Palestine and declared that that land belongs to them (but as so often happens with religious sects, claimed their right to the land didn't emanate from themselves but from 'god', for which there is no evidence).
Don't forget that prior to them taking Palestine, some of them wanted to return to Egypt as they thought they would be better off there than in the desert. The journey was not one they would have made of their own choice, but one of faith. There was also the fact that the Canaanites were bad people, as described at the end of Leviticus 18. Driving them out, destroying or enslaving them would have been the right thing to do, as was the world's combined effort to get rid of Isis. Taking away their land prevented them from continuing to be bad.
Having done that the Israelites determined that they should be able to have slaves, probably reflecting the treatment they'd received by thinking they should be able to dish it out as well as receive it. Again claiming this to be god's will - see earlier point on existence of god.
Your choice of the word 'slave' there reflects the assumption that they would be treating them in the way they had been treated in Egypt. In context, however, 'servant' would be the right word. See for example the sabbath commandment (whether it came from God or was made up) in Deut. 5:14-15, which clearly indicates a distinction between a slave and a servant. Also the Israelites' servants were not bound to their masters in the way that the Pharaoh had bound the Israelites. If they escaped, they were not forced to return.
So all this amounts to is the classic mantra of: 'oh look, we are special in the eyes of god, he want is to have this land, he agrees we should be able to have slaves' etc etc. Same old, same old - trotted out by religious groups the world over through the centuries.
The Israelites' right to live as free people came with the condition of good conduct.
-
Don't forget that prior to them taking Palestine, some of them wanted to return to Egypt as they thought they would be better off there than in the desert. The journey was not one they would have made of their own choice, but one of faith. There was also the fact that the Canaanites were bad people, as described at the end of Leviticus 18. Driving them out, destroying or enslaving them would have been the right thing to do, as was the world's combined effort to get rid of Isis. Taking away their land prevented them from continuing to be bad.
Your choice of the word 'slave' there reflects the assumption that they would be treating them in the way they had been treated in Egypt. In context, however, 'servant' would be the right word. See for example the sabbath commandment (whether it came from God or was made up) in Deut. 5:14-15, which clearly indicates a distinction between a slave and a servant. Also the Israelites' servants were not bound to their masters in the way that the Pharaoh had bound the Israelites. If they escaped, they were not forced to return.
The Israelites' right to live as free people came with the condition of good conduct.
What evidence is there to support your statements? The Bible has never been evidence.
-
Spud,
Driving them out, destroying or enslaving them would have been the right thing to do,...
So you're a proponent of ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery then. Do you have any sense at all of how morally corrupted your religious faith has made you?
-
What evidence is there to support your statements? The Bible has never been evidence.
A lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen as recorded.
-
A lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen as recorded.
Ah - the dear old NPF is getting an outing.
If I 'record' that I have a dragon in my garage would that be sufficient for you to accept that I have a dragon in my garage and would you go as far (putting Covid restrictions to one side for the sake of argument) to venture northwards to check?
-
A lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen as recorded.
True, but if that something is less than credible, like a lot of things stated in the Bible, its veracity should be questioned.
-
A lack of evidence does not prove something did not happen as recorded.
It’s a great reason for not believing something happened though, and that’s the point.
-
Spud,
So you're a proponent of ethnic cleansing, genocide and slavery then.
No. You need to look at the big picture: 24“ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18
Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Deuteronomy 7
-
No. You need to look at the big picture: 24“ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18
You worship a murdering thug.
-
You worship a murdering thug.
And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
-
And he passed in front of Moses, proclaiming, "The LORD, the LORD, the compassionate and gracious God, slow to anger, abounding in love and faithfulness,
Sorry, you worship an arrogant lying murderous thug.
-
No. You need to look at the big picture: 24“ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18
Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Deuteronomy 7
So, the 'bigger picture' reveals that being merciless trumps being merciful, and intolerance trumps inclusivity.
-
So, the 'bigger picture' reveals that being merciless trumps being merciful, and intolerance trumps inclusivity.
The discussion about slavery having been derailed through my reply to #403, I will attempt to answer that post again.
-
But that only works if god exists - a claim that is devoid of evidence.
But how do you know there isn't a God? And in a world where, morally, everyone should work to provide for their basic needs such as roof over head/food/clothes, how do you justify imposing your belief in God's non-existence on Israelite society, even when all the immoral aspects of slavery are eliminated for them (hence the KJV always translates slave as 'servant' or 'bondservant')?
-
But how do you know there isn't a God? And in a world where, morally, everyone should work to provide for their basic needs such as roof over head/food/clothes, how do you justify imposing your belief in God's non-existence on Israelite society, even when all the immoral aspects of slavery are eliminated for them (hence the KJV always translates slave as 'servant' or 'bondservant')?
Excuses, excuses! ::)
-
But how do you know there isn't a God?
I, for one, don't claim to know that there isn't a 'God'.
And in a world where, morally, everyone should work to provide for their basic needs such as roof over head/food/clothes, how do you justify imposing your belief in God's non-existence on Israelite society, even when all the immoral aspects of slavery are eliminated for them (hence the KJV always translates slave as 'servant' or 'bondservant')?
I don't have a belief in the non-existence of 'God', and it seems to me that you really don't understand what atheism normally entails.
-
If a god does exist it doesn't do it any credit that its existence is merely a matter of belief.
-
I, for one, don't claim to know that there isn't a 'God'.
I don't have a belief in the non-existence of 'God', and it seems to me that you really don't understand what atheism normally entails.
So are you open to the possibility that Israel had an experience of God?
-
So are you open to the possibility that Israel had an experience of God?
Only if the claim is underpinned by an argument, or evidence, that isn't easily refuted - so I'd need a lot more that anecdotes in an old book of uncertain provenance. In addition, this argument, or evidence, would need to be robust enough to counter any objections to any other arguments advanced for 'God'.
I'm not holding my breath though.
-
Only if the claim is underpinned by an argument, or evidence, that isn't easily refuted - so I'd need a lot more that anecdotes in an old book of uncertain provenance. In addition, this argument, or evidence, would need to be robust enough to counter any objections to any other arguments advanced for 'God'.
I'm not holding my breath though.
What about if the society to which the custom of having servants (as 'property') pertains, believes it has experienced God? If that society obeys all the instructions on fair treatment, won't it appear to onlookers to be a system that works? For example, we might see that servants love their masters as described in Exodus 21:5, or an example where a master gives his daughter to his foreign servant in marriage (1 Chronicles 2:34-35). Could that be evidence that they had experienced God?
-
What about if the society to which the custom of having servants (as 'property') pertains, believes it has experienced God? If that society obeys all the instructions on fair treatment, won't it appear to onlookers to be a system that works? For example, we might see that servants love their masters as described in Exodus 21:5, or an example where a master gives his daughter to his foreign servant in marriage (1 Chronicles 2:34-35). Could that be evidence that they had experienced God?
NO!
-
What about if the society to which the custom of having servants (as 'property') pertains, believes it has experienced God?
There are two issues there: that they believed in 'God' and that they sanctioned slavery, and if the two are related in the sense that they decided this 'God' encouraged or permitted slavery, and therefore they felt justified in practicing slavery, then one can only conclude that their religious beliefs condoned their dreadful behaviour - so not much of an advert for religion or their cultural arrangements.
If that society obeys all the instructions on fair treatment, won't it appear to onlookers to be a system that works? For example, we might see that servants love their masters as described in Exodus 21:5, or an example where a master gives his daughter to his foreign servant in marriage (1 Chronicles 2:34-35)
Only if said onlookers thought that slavery and 'giving away daughters' was 'fair treatment': and if they did think that then I would question their judgement.
Could that be evidence that they had experienced God?
Aside from you begging the question here, I think it would only be evidence of the social mores of that time, place and culture.
-
There are two issues there: that they believed in 'God' and that they sanctioned slavery,
By not allowing fellow Hebrews to become permanent slaves, they acknowledged that slavery is not a good situation to be in.
Another perspective on non-Hebrew slaves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa1TGshQYwI) is that (like with the prohibition from intermarrying with 'pagans') these slaves were not permitted to be released like Hebrews were because of their background. They came from nations that practiced idolatry, so releasing them would risk them lapsing back into idolatry, which was to be eliminated in the land. This would also explain why they could be vigorously disciplined. If they were circumcised they could share the passover, becoming part of the family and having less need for harsh discipline.
-
By not allowing fellow Hebrews to become permanent slaves, they acknowledged that slavery is not a good situation to be in.
Another perspective on non-Hebrew slaves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa1TGshQYwI) is that (like with the prohibition from intermarrying with 'pagans') these slaves were not permitted to be released like Hebrews were because of their background. They came from nations that practiced idolatry, so releasing them would risk them lapsing back into idolatry, which was to be eliminated in the land. This would also explain why they could be vigorously disciplined. If they were circumcised they could share the passover, becoming part of the family and having less need for harsh discipline.
So, idolatry is more heinous than slavery then, never mind the encouragement given to indulge in a bit of physical mutilation so as to avoid at least a degree of "harsh discipline".
The surprising thing to me is that you don't seem to even recognise just how many truly awful things your are trying to justify here.
-
By not allowing fellow Hebrews to become permanent slaves, they acknowledged that slavery is not a good situation to be in.
Another perspective on non-Hebrew slaves (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oa1TGshQYwI) is that (like with the prohibition from intermarrying with 'pagans') these slaves were not permitted to be released like Hebrews were because of their background. They came from nations that practiced idolatry, so releasing them would risk them lapsing back into idolatry, which was to be eliminated in the land. This would also explain why they could be vigorously disciplined. If they were circumcised they could share the passover, becoming part of the family and having less need for harsh discipline.
What a DISGUSTING post. If your version of god exists and approves of the statement you have made it should be exterminated! >:(
-
What a DISGUSTING post. If your version of god exists and approves of the statement you have made it should be exterminated! >:(
How do you propose to do that?
-
How do you propose to do that?
I am sure human ingenuity could come up with some method of disposing of it.
-
How do you propose to do that?
LR has a pet dalek
-
LR has a pet dalek
I have 4 pet daleks, maybe I should put them to good use. ;D
-
I have 4 pet daleks, maybe I should put them to good use. ;D
Maybe they could team up with Gordon's dragon?
-
Maybe they could team up with Gordon's dragon?
Maybe it would be easier to wipe out Christians rather than their God? It would achieve the same end. Without Christians to do his will, he would be totally impotent in the world!
-
Maybe it would be easier to wipe out Christians rather than their God? It would achieve the same end. Without Christians to do his will, he would be totally impotent in the world!
Already been tried, problem was then more people became Christians.
-
Already been tried, problem was then more people became Christians.
When and by whom?
Owlswing
)O(
-
Spud,
No. You need to look at the big picture: 24“ ‘Do not defile yourselves in any of these ways, because this is how the nations that I am going to drive out before you became defiled. 25Even the land was defiled; so I punished it for its sin, and the land vomited out its inhabitants. 26But you must keep my decrees and my laws. The native-born and the foreigners residing among you must not do any of these detestable things, 27for all these things were done by the people who lived in the land before you, and the land became defiled. 28And if you defile the land, it will vomit you out as it vomited out the nations that were before you.
Leviticus 18
Make no treaty with them, and show them no mercy. 3Do not intermarry with them. Do not give your daughters to their sons or take their daughters for your sons, 4for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods, and the Lord’s anger will burn against you and will quickly destroy you.
Deuteronomy 7
That’s not the big picture at all. It’s the very narrow picture of selective quoting from ancient (and by modern standards crude) attempts at moral philosophy. Since then we’ve had a vast amount of more developed reasoning to bring to the table, and thereby arrived at moral positions that paint yours as despicable. That’s the "big picture".
-
So, idolatry is more heinous than slavery then, never mind the encouragement given to indulge in a bit of physical mutilation so as to avoid at least a degree of "harsh discipline".
The surprising thing to me is that you don't seem to even recognise just how many truly awful things your are trying to justify here.
The covenant of circumcision was a sign of fidelity to God, but this was temporal - now obsolete.
The conquest of Canaan was also not something that can be repeated. The emphasis was on driving out the idolatrous inhabitants of the land where the holy God was literally present.
But regarding the passage (Lev 25) the key phrase is "they (the Hebrews) are my servants (v.42)". Contrast this with Deut. 7:3 "for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods".
We see the choice is between serving God or other gods.
-
The covenant of circumcision was a sign of fidelity to God, but this was temporal - now obsolete.
The conquest of Canaan was also not something that can be repeated. The emphasis was on driving out the idolatrous inhabitants of the land where the holy God was literally present.
But regarding the passage (Lev 25) the key phrase is "they (the Hebrews) are my servants (v.42)". Contrast this with Deut. 7:3 "for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods".
We see the choice is between serving God or other gods.
There is no evidence to support the existence of any god, which are most likely human inventions.
-
The covenant of circumcision was a sign of fidelity to God, but this was temporal - now obsolete.
Have you informed the Chief Rabbi of this?
The conquest of Canaan was also not something that can be repeated. The emphasis was on driving out the idolatrous inhabitants of the land where the holy God was literally present.
Which doesn't excuse what you say happened in the first place.
But regarding the passage (Lev 25) the key phrase is "they (the Hebrews) are my servants (v.42)". Contrast this with Deut. 7:3 "for they will turn your children away from following me to serve other gods".
We see the choice is between serving God or other gods.
These days other choices are available that don't involve enslaving people or encouraging the acceptance of mutilation for the sake of religious tradition: perhaps you try should not taking these ancient stories, albeit they may well have been cultural norms back in antiquity, too seriously as being relevant moral guidance for current times.
-
God must have considered the treatment of the Israelites by the Egyptians to be morally wrong, because he brought them out of Egypt. So God is not telling the Israelites they can be like the Egyptians. But given that he says the land belongs to the Israelites, this means foreigners could only settle there as guests or servants. I think that is the meaning.
Why doesn't it say that then?
Why is it that God can never inspire the Bible writers to use plain language?
You look at this exactly backwards. You have moral principles which include "slavery is bad" so, when you see a passage in the Bible that simply accepts slavery as a fact of life instead of condemning it, you have to find a way to spin it.
I see four possibilities
1. God inspired the Bible and it says what he wants it to say. i.e. he's OK with slavery
2. God inspired the Bible and it says something he didn't want t to say but you can cleverly interpret it differently. i.e. God is an idiot who can't communicate.
3. Humans wrote the Bible and it says what they want it to say. i.e. they're OK with slavery
4. Humans wrote the Bible and it says something they didn't want t to say but you can cleverly interpret it differently. i.e.Humans are idiots who can't communicate.
Take your pick.
-
How do you propose to do that?
If everybody stops believing in it, it will be gone.
-
What a DISGUSTING post.
You may be right: I interpreted verse 46 as meaning that the Hebrews could not treat fellow Hebrews harshly, but they could do so with their foreign servants.
It's clear that "rule with vigor" (verse 46) means "Labour beyond the person's strength, or labor too long continued, or in unhealthy or uncomfortable places and circumstances, or without sufficient food, etc." (Clarke (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/leviticus/25.htm))
See Exodus 1:14 which uses the same word, "rigor".
Having looked at this again I think what it means is that they were not to overwork a fellow Hebrew (who might be working to pay off debts, for example); instead they were to take manservants and maidservants from among the foreigners, in order to spread the labour between more people so that said Hebrew workers wouldn't be overworked.
-
Hmmmmmmmmmm! ::)
-
When last I mentioned modern slavery here a few posters said it wasn't real slavery. I find that more concerning than past slavery.
People decry hebraic slavery of long ago but don't seem to register roman slavery of the same period.
I'm Spartacus by the way.
-
You may be right: I interpreted verse 46 as meaning that the Hebrews could not treat fellow Hebrews harshly, but they could do so with their foreign servants.
It's clear that "rule with vigor" (verse 46) means "Labour beyond the person's strength, or labor too long continued, or in unhealthy or uncomfortable places and circumstances, or without sufficient food, etc." (Clarke (https://biblehub.com/commentaries/clarke/leviticus/25.htm))
See Exodus 1:14 which uses the same word, "rigor".
Having looked at this again I think what it means is that they were not to overwork a fellow Hebrew (who might be working to pay off debts, for example); instead they were to take manservants and maidservants from among the foreigners, in order to spread the labour between more people so that said Hebrew workers wouldn't be overworked.
Spud - are you an American?
Owlswing
)O(
-
Only if the claim is underpinned by an argument, or evidence, that isn't easily refuted - so I'd need a lot more that anecdotes in an old book of uncertain provenance. In addition, this argument, or evidence, would need to be robust enough to counter any objections to any other arguments advanced for 'God'.
I'm not holding my breath though.
At the time, the claim was underpinned by evidence. This is Rahab talking to the spies:
"We have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea a for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. b 11When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the Lord your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below."
Joshua 2
That doesn't necessarily prove it for us, but it does justify the ownership of the land of Israel by the descendants of Jacob (given to them by God), in the story at least.
-
These days other choices are available that don't involve enslaving people or encouraging the acceptance of mutilation for the sake of religious tradition: perhaps you try should not taking these ancient stories, albeit they may well have been cultural norms back in antiquity, too seriously as being relevant moral guidance for current times.
The point is that to be eligible to have servants you have to first be a servant, according to this passage.
-
Why doesn't it say that then?
The passage as a whole is about the Israelites retaining possession of the land.
You look at this exactly backwards. You have moral principles which include "slavery is bad" so, when you see a passage in the Bible that simply accepts slavery as a fact of life instead of condemning it, you have to find a way to spin it.
Slavery in the sense of war captives is part of the judgment on Canaan. Other than that, the Bible condemns it.
-
The passage as a whole is about the Israelites retaining possession of the land.
But no passage accepts slavery.
Any passage that regulates slavery without saying "don't do it" is accepting slavery and there are plenty of those in the Bible.
-
Any passage that regulates slavery without saying "don't do it" is accepting slavery and there are plenty of those in the Bible.
See my edit of last post. Slavery in the sense of war captives is part of the judgment on Canaan. Other than that, the Bible condemns it.
-
It does not allow kidnapping, or return of escaped servants, or harsh treatment.
-
It does not allow kidnapping, or return of escaped servants, or harsh treatment.
I am beginning to wonder if you have ever read the Bible! ::) Harsh treatment is its stock in trade especially in the OT.
-
See my edit of last post. Slavery in the sense of war captives is part of the judgment on Canaan.
I suppose that's OK since the alternative was annihilation.
Other than that, the Bible condemns it.
No it doesn't.
-
I am beginning to wonder if you have ever read the Bible! ::) Harsh treatment is its stock in trade especially in the OT.
Can you give some examples? I'll start off with Deut. 20:11, in which which most modern translations say cities that surrender would be subject to forced labour. You would be justified in interpreting this as harsh treatment, however three literal translations (Young's, Smith's and Literal Standard) render it "they will be tributaries to you and will serve you". Not quite the same.
-
Can you give some examples? I'll start off with Deut. 20:11, in which which most modern translations say cities that surrender would be subject to forced labour. You would be justified in interpreting this as harsh treatment, however three literal translations however (Young's, Smith's and Literal Standard) render it "they will be tributaries to you and will serve you". Not quite the same.
Assuming the Biblical god actually exists and what is written about it in the Bible is factual, it is an evil entity, that seems to enjoy human suffering. You appear to be making excuses for its barbaric behaviour and that of its Biblical stooges! >:(
-
At the time, the claim was underpinned by evidence. This is Rahab talking to the spies:
"We have heard how the Lord dried up the water of the Red Sea a for you when you came out of Egypt, and what you did to Sihon and Og, the two kings of the Amorites east of the Jordan, whom you completely destroyed. b 11When we heard of it, our hearts melted in fear and everyone’s courage failed because of you, for the Lord your God is God in heaven above and on the earth below."
Joshua 2
That doesn't necessarily prove it for us, but it does justify the ownership of the land of Israel by the descendants of Jacob (given to them by God), in the story at least.
It's an anecdote, Spud: not evidence.
-
Looks like John MacArthur disagrees with me. He says a slave is someone owned by another person, and so we should not be scared to translate 'slave' in those contexts.
A Christian is owned by Christ and thus is his slave. If you call someone Lord then you are his slave. When Jesus said no-one can serve two masters he was talking about slaves, not servants (since a servant can serve more than one master but a slave is owned by only one).
Link to sermon (https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/GTY129/servant-or-slave)
-
Looks like John MacArthur disagrees with me. He says a slave is someone owned by another person, and so we should not be scared to translate 'slave' in those contexts.
A Christian is owned by Christ and thus is his slave. If you call someone Lord then you are his slave. When Jesus said no-one can serve two masters he was talking about slaves, not servants (since a servant can serve more than one master but a slave is owned by only one).
Link to sermon (https://www.gty.org/library/sermons-library/GTY129/servant-or-slave)
It is WRONG to own anyone that includes Jesus.
-
It is WRONG to own anyone that includes Jesus.
Jesus is known in some christian circles as the servant king.
-
Jesus is known in some christian circles as the servant king.
Assuming Jesus existed, he was a very human guy with faults and failings just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his words and deeds.
-
Assuming Jesus existed, he was a very human guy with faults and failings just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his words and deeds.
To what moral source or authority are you appealing to?
-
To what moral source or authority are you appealing to?
Ehhhhhhhhhh?
-
Assuming Jesus existed, he was a very human guy with faults and failings just like the rest of us, that is clear from the Biblical accounts of his words and deeds.
I disagree. The Bible accounts of Jesus suggest that he was executed but then came alive again. That's not a very human guy. Several of the Bible accounts claim that he is God, again, not characteristic of a human guy.
-
I suppose that's OK since the alternative was annihilation.No it doesn't.
If it prohibits kidnapping, then logically the foreign 'slaves' it refers to in Leviticus 25 must have been in that situation voluntarily or if the law had required them to be, for example if they were required to make restitution for theft.
-
If it prohibits kidnapping, then logically the foreign 'slaves' it refers to in Leviticus 25 must have been in that situation voluntarily or if the law had required them to be, for example if they were required to make restitution for theft.
You are trying to make excuses for the Biblical take on slavery! >:(
-
You are trying to make excuses for the Biblical take on slavery! >:(
If that were case, then I suppose I would be, yes.
-
If that were case, then I suppose I would be, yes.
Slavery is evil, >:( any god which doesn't condemn it is evil too.
-
Slavery is evil, >:( any god which doesn't condemn it is evil too.
I agree, but let's look at the passage again. Suppose we are the Israelites. We are the owners of the country. If one of us goes into debt, he can live with another one of us until the year of jubilee, when his debt is to be cancelled and he goes back to his property. There are some foreigners living among us who are allowed to own houses in the towns. If one of them goes into debt, he can also live with an Israelite, but the jubilee rule doesn't apply. If they want to remain in Israel, they have to be servants because they have no inheritance. This ensured that the land remained in the possession of the Israelites. If the foreign servant wanted to leave he was free to, as he couldn't be forced to return to his master, but was allowed to choose whom he wanted to work for.
There was no capturing and enslaving involved, unless he had committed a crime. It was equivalent to indentured servitude. I would compare it to the class system, where you have lower and higher class: it is no more evil than that.
-
I agree, but let's look at the passage again. Suppose we are the Israelites. We are the owners of the country. If one of us goes into debt, he can live with another one of us until the year of jubilee, when his debt is to be cancelled and he goes back to his property. There are some foreigners living among us who are allowed to own houses in the towns. If one of them goes into debt, he can also live with an Israelite, but the jubilee rule doesn't apply. If they want to remain in Israel, they have to be servants because they have no inheritance. This ensured that the land remained in the possession of the Israelites. If the foreign servant wanted to leave he was free to, as he couldn't be forced to return to his master, but was allowed to choose whom he wanted to work for.
There was no capturing and enslaving involved, unless he had committed a crime. It was equivalent to indentured servitude. I would compare it to the class system, where you have lower and higher class: it is no more evil than that.
Oh spud you have made all that nonsense up! There is never any excuse for slavery.
-
I would compare it to the class system, where you have lower and higher class: it is no more evil than that.
Except, of course, that the class system is pretty evil.
-
Except, of course, that the class system is pretty evil.
Agreed.
-
Oh spud you have made all that nonsense up! There is never any excuse for slavery.
It's actually there in leviticus 25, if you look: the land belonging to the Israelites, the foreigner living among them. The passage does not describe slavery as we would define it.
-
It's actually there in leviticus 25, if you look: the land belonging to the Israelites, the foreigner living among them. The passage does not describe slavery as we would define it.
So how is slavery described in Leviticus 25?
-
So how is slavery described in Leviticus 25?
In some manner that whitewashes the Christians using the slaves?
Owlswing
)O(
-
So how is slavery described in Leviticus 25?
Depends on the translation. For instance, in the NIV verse 6 says, "Whatever the land yields during the sabbath year will be food for you—for yourself, your male and female servants, and the hired worker and temporary resident who live among you," Then in verse 44 it says, "Your male and female slaves are to come from the nations around you".
The italics show how confused the NIV is: in both verses the Hebrew reads "your ebed (servant) and your amah (maid)". But, in verse 6 the NIV uses the word 'servant' and in 46 the word 'slave'.
The female part of the pair, amah, is a different Hebrew word altogether. The male part, ebed, derives from the verb abad, meaning to work or serve. There is actually no Hebrew word for 'slave', suggesting that when a translator uses 'slave' it is because he believes the context portrays the servant as being oppressed in some way.
But in Leviticus 25 there is no indication that an Israelite could oppress a foreign servant.
If a servant is exchanged for silver, that doesn't make him a slave. Footballers are bought and sold. He's a slave if he is forced to work for his master against his will.
The best translation for the phrase would be "your servant and your maid".
-
Except, of course, that the class system is pretty evil.
Class can lead to envy but that envy is not evil unless it goes unchecked.