Originally posted by FetchmyjunkHey, other religious moron. Not only are you saying in believe something when I have mentioned multiple times I believe the exact opposite - thereby doing precisely what GOAD, Divegeester and FMF continuously accuse you of - but you also still need to present me your most compelling evidence for the existence of god in that other thread, as you promised.
If you believe in moral absolutes who would you posit as the universal law giver for the moral absolute that you have just stated? Or are you making a moral judgement based upon your subjective opinions that apply only to yourself and to no one else?
So stop asking me dumb questions, and get your ass over to that other thread to present your evidence.
3 edits
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI like the analogy of the dad. In much of Christian thinking, this image is marred by the principle of condemnation for sin. My earthly father never condemned me like that when I screwed up. So why can't the heavenly father also cut his kids a little slack?!
I like the analogy of the dad. In much of Christian thinking, this image is marred by the principle of condemnation for sin. My earthly father never condemned me like that when I screwed up. So why can't the heavenly father also cut his kids a little slack?!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
You say this because you don't realize that there is such a thing as forgiveness which is unrighteous.
You don't care about how you escape condemnation, whether the procedure is righteous or unrighteous. As long as you get saved from condemnation you don't care. Any procedure will do as long as you are free from condemnation. If such release involves God in being unrighteous, what is that to you? As long as you get free from condemnation, who cares ? What's the loss?
If you cannot see in the New Testament that God longs to justify sinners, forgiving them and justifying them, then your eyes must have been plucked out. God will indeed save us from condemnation. But He will not do so in a way that involves Him in forgiving sloppily, sentamentally, unrighteously, and with a failure to manifest His perfect holiness, glory, and righteousness.
God will only save from condemnation in a way that demonstrates the dept has been paid, not permissively overlooked with not thought of His perfect being. The kind of "cutting us some slack" you envision involves God in a "backdoor" favoritism which actually will encourage more sinning - a sloppy forgiveness which reasons -
"Well couldn't You just not be eternally perfect in righteousness just for awhile ? Loosen up. Be more like Barney the Dinosaur."
God saves us from condemnation with a universal demonstration that the dept has been paid. We become forgiven forever not because our dept was overlooked, but because it was paid on our behalf.
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemI didn't say words interpreted themselves. The interpretation of the Word of God is done by comparing scripture with scripture. The Word of God is not interpreted by any particular individual. We simply cannot do it with any accuracy. We simply cannot have every Tom, Dick and harry coming up with their own interpretation. We didn't write the book. The Book exists by inspiration and it is it's own commentary. It's as simple as that.
Agree that "injecting" meaning and ignoring context are dubious ways of reading.
Disagree that words can interpret themselves. Only an intelligence can interpret.
Also disagree that there is always one, correct, interpretation. This changes the Bible from a Living Word into a dead one.
As to there being only one correct interpretation, this is true. What you don't understand is, is that there are many applications.
For example: "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." It has one meaning, but many applications. Ten words with resounding implications.
Further examination of its meaning and implications are found by comparing scripture with scripture, and not by anyone's personal opinions or ideas.
It would be a dead book indeed if it were.
Originally posted by twhiteheadDoesn't acceptance involve making a judgment that something is more likely true than not? [Even if the reason you think it's likely true is person X said it and they know their stuff.]
Sure, you may learn from it, but ultimately you are not accepting its dictates but rather judging it. This may be fine when following a political philosophy or human leader, but doesn't work so well for religion.
[b]I'm surprised to see a logical person such as yourself repeating a statement like, "if you can't trust all of it, then why should you trus ...[text shortened]... to be illogical to accept some at random and equally illogical to only accept the ones you like.
So you're really going to make me do this. All right.
Books are written by humans. Humans make mistakes. This happens even after careful study by subject matter experts who then write a book on that subject.
Say I'm reading a chess book that overall has very solid analysis. But one of the example problems has a flaw in it. I don't trust the solution because I can see the flaw. By your logic, I am not allowed to trust anything else in the book.
So I'm throwing out a good book just because the author made one mistake on an example problem. That makes no seems to me.
Now, to address some of the things you added in your recent post.
"Trust", to me, is more complex than just "the need to take something on its own authority", and I see no reason to accept the premise that I must reject or accept ANY book's claims without supporting evidence or argument. Trust is given in greater degree as a pattern of reliability is established in the mind of the truster. A book's claims can be supported by evidence or argument, sometimes within other parts of the same book, or without, from other sources.
Originally posted by sonship(I appreciate that you're passionate about your faith and to you it makes perfect sense.)
[b] I like the analogy of the dad. In much of Christian thinking, this image is marred by the principle of condemnation for sin. My earthly father never condemned me like that when I screwed up. So why can't the heavenly father also cut his kids a little slack?!
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ ...[text shortened]... ome forgiven forever not because our dept was overlooked, but because it was paid on our behalf.[/b]
But this is where you and me are on very different spiritual paths. I tried and tried to force that very paradigm of yours to make sense to me, tried to embrace it. Sorry, but no can do. To me it comes across as peculiar, bizarre, morally impoverished, and even meaningless at times. (For example, what the hell does "eternally perfect in righteous" even mean?! Don't answer; it's a rhetorical question.)
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemHeck if you couldn't cherry pick your mind would explode
"Cherry picking" is what sane people do when they read things.
"Cherry picking" when it comes to the Bible is to be expected. It can hardly be avoided. The Bible is a large collection of books written about a large variety of topics. It's only natural that some of them will resonate more than others with each reader.
Most people who've read the ...[text shortened]... sary, even inevitable perhaps, step, we wouldn't have any Young-Earth Creationists, for example.
Originally posted by twhiteheadYou don't seem to demonstrate what "resonate" means here 😉
But when you take a large body of work and cherry pick it, then you cannot claim to be 'following' the body of work. If you pick stuff that 'resonates' with you, then you are basically just agreeing with what you already believe. A surprising number of people do this but don't realise it is what they are doing and attribute to the Bible some magical power ...[text shortened]... reationists do have a point. If you can't trust all of it, then why should you trust any of it.?
Originally posted by BigDoggProblemIf you are cherry picking what they say, then clearly you do not believe that they 'know their stuff'.
Doesn't acceptance involve making a judgment that something is more likely true than not? [Even if the reason you think it's likely true is person X said it and they know their stuff.]
So you're really going to make me do this. All right.
Yes 🙂
Books are written by humans. Humans make mistakes.
Even divinely inspired humans?
Say I'm reading a chess book that overall has very solid analysis. But one of the example problems has a flaw in it. I don't trust the solution because I can see the flaw. By your logic, I am not allowed to trust anything else in the book.
Exactly. You have clear evidence that the writer made one mistake. You should assume he is capable of making other mistakes.
So I'm throwing out a good book just because the author made one mistake on an example problem. That makes no seems to me.
I never said you should throw out the book. I said you should not blindly trust what he says.
Now, to address some of the things you added in your recent post.
A book's claims can be supported by evidence or argument, sometimes within other parts of the same book, or without, from other sources.
I think the biggest problem you have with the Bible is that if you drop the claim that it is divinely inspired, then you have to immediately recognise that it is a collection of books by a multitude of writers many of whom were making stuff up. So, to some extent you are putting your trust in the Council of Nicea or just blindly trusting one writer because his work just happened to end up in a collection with another writer.
I think the moment you drop the 'divinely inspired' claim, the Bible looses all credibility and you will quickly become an atheist (or move to another religion).
1 edit
Originally posted by Great King RatI figured that this would be your response. You are so predictable.
You're a sick puppy, Whodey. You're an example of what religion does to an already disturbed mind.
God did not command Abraham to kill his son to show that sacrificing is wrong, he did it to test Abe's loyalty to God. This is what is required of you religious freaks; unconditional loyalty to your leader.
God blessed Abraham after stopping him l ...[text shortened]... st've been for the child.
And still, I bet you love Your Lord, right? F***ing mindless drone.
I suppose you think we are above child sacrifice from the days of old when men would sacrifice their children to the gods for such things as victory in battle, a good harvest, or fertility, as ironic as that may sound.
Yes rat man, the Abrahamic religion took a stand against that like it or not and it is sill doing so today as men like yourself continue to use child sacrifice to get ahead money wise in the form of abortion so they don't have to take a hit economically paying to care for their children. Once again, its all about the love of money. It really is the root of all evil.
But don't worry, since abortion is a billion dollar industry, don't look for politicians who are bought and paid for do anything about it.
Originally posted by whodeyYou haven't responded to a single point I've made. You've not responded to god's disgusting treatment of Abe's son, you've not responded to Abe's willingness to murder his son because god said so, you've not responded to Abe's need to still make a blood sacrifice for his god, you've not responded to Abe receiving blessings even though he would've murdered his son. There is nothing in this particular story that points to anyone wanting to make a point about child sacrifice being bad; you've not responded to god commanding Abe because he wanted to test Abe's obedience.
I figured that this would be your response. You are so predictable.
I suppose you think we are above child sacrifice from the days of old when men would sacrifice their children to the gods for such things as victory in battle, a good harvest, or fertility, as ironic as that may sound.
Yes rat man, the Abrahamic religion took a stand against that lik ...[text shortened]... on dollar industry, don't look for politicians who are bought and paid for do anything about it.
"Once again, its all about the love of money. It really is the root of all evil."
As part of the blessing Abe received for his willingness to murder his son because your beloved god wanted to be sure of Abe's obedience, Abe and his descendants were blessed with prosperity. But Your Lord did that, so it's okay I suppose?
You've not responded to anything, because you're a sheep following the sickness that is religion. You can't criticize what has blinded you ever since your parents started to inject all the biblical nonsense into your impressionable mind.