The Meaning Of The Bible

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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? 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Sebastian Toe]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Outrider]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Outrider]

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.

[Anchorman]

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.

[Stranger]

Unfortunately neither Outrider nor you you have any way of moral arbitration...

What's yours?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.     

[Nearly Sane]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Stranger]

Probably the same as yours but I don't dissociate myself from how I do it...

How do you do it?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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. 

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.

[Spud]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Stranger]

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.

[Dicky Underpants]

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.

[Outrider]

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.