The Meaning Of The Bible

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.   

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.     

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[bluehillside Retd.]

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.         

[Spud]

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.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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.

[jeremyp]

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?

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[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.

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.

[jeremyp]

I'm not surprised you think leprechauns are real. If ape men were real why not leprechauns.

Technically all humans are apes.

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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. 

[Theoretical Skeptic]

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

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?   

[Outrider]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[ippy]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

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..

[bluehillside Retd.]

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?)   

[Stranger]

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?

[Spud]

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.