It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
A Simple Question to Christians
page: 5share:
God = genocide committing malicious being filled with rage
Satan = never does anything evil, unless specifically instructed by God to do so
Quite honestly, that's one of the best arguments I've read against the Bible. There's a hole in that argument, though.
Did God command the Jews to commit genocide when taking Canaan? He certainly did. Is God the same yesterday, today and tomorrow? He certainly is. So, how, then, can a genocidal God be seen as good, merciful and gracious?
What is Satan capable of in scripture? Other than Revelation and some extremely symbolic passages in the major prophets, all we have to base Satan on is Job, and in Job, Satan seeks God's permission to do anything we would consider evil.
So, it would appear that Satan is a minion of a genocidal God, and Satan is taking the heat for what God commanded him to do.
And with a cursory glance at all of scripture, that is a shocking revelation. However, just like many physics theories that made sense but the math proved them wrong, so too is this interpretation.
The Bible indicates that everything in scripture is pointing to Christ -- Christ is a focal point of history, so to speak. Initially, God created man with the ability to choose to love Him, but with the purpose of loving Him. This is what Genesis is about. Man chose knowledge over God. In a society that cherishes knowledge over everything, why this is wrong can seem strange. Yet, for a recent historical example, read about the reaction of every scientist who was involved in the Manhattan Project after 1950.
In order to genuinely love someone, you have to have the ability not to love them. Otherwise, you're an automaton, and that's not really love. So God allowed us to choose. And we did. This is Genesis.
God's response was clear. Before we turned from Him, He said the cost of sin was death. Sin was His way of saying rejecting Him. When man rejected Him, the cost was death. God demonstrated this, again in Genesis, by killing some animals and giving man their skins to cover him. This was how God indicated man must pay for his choices through time rejecting Him.
Come Moses, God gave the law, stating what man had to do to be right with God. You see, God wanted man to be with Him, but He really didn't like us rejecting Him. So, to put it in simpler terms, He had a heart to heart with humanity saying, essentially, "When you do these things, it really hurts, and I think you're demonstrating a lack of love when you do them."
He didn't leave it at that, though. If He did, I agree, it would seem rather petty. Instead, he created a people dedicated to those rules. When He took them out of Egypt, He told them they had to keep themselves separate from the world, because if they didn't, they would compromise themselves and chase after other loves. To use modern terms, it would be like a wife asking her husband not to surf porn, because it makes her feel unloved. In addition, that surfing porn led to affairs and hiring prostitutes. If you were/are married, would your wife be okay with that? Would you like it if your husband did that?
Yet, despite this, there was a remnant of those people who stayed true to God. It was through these people that God provided a remedy. You see, thanks to the love letter the Jews had from God, we, all of humanity, were able to see it was impossible to love God completely, as He loved us. As He pointed out, our rejection of Him was death -- He was our breath, we are a reflection of Him. To reject that is to reject who we are, and who we were created to be. It is death. Sacrifice, death, was the cost of that, but He provided us a scapegoat. Originally, for the Jews, it was animal sacrifices, always reminding humanity of the cost of sin and cause of our dying.
Yet, providing the perfect sacrifice, one completely clean of sin, which, as you'll remember, was rejection of God, that price could be paid for all. Part of that sacrifice had to come from God -- humanity bound itself to this strange fascination with rebellion that carried into our children stronger than it was in ourselves. Part of that came from from the people God provided to show us how far from Him we'd come. From a people that could show us that, even when specifically chosen and spoken to, we would reject God for a golden cow. For a pole. For a statue. For a cause. In so doing, He showed us that separation, and He showed us the way back.
As in the desert with Moses, God asked us to simply perform an act of faith. Though we hurt Him with our actions at times, He asked us to just turn to Him despite our actions, and we could continue to love one another. Like a husband and wife hurt each other, so we do God, but, like a husband and wife forgive one another and love one another despite, so does God. He asked us to trust that His Son's sacrifice was that bridge.
God is just, and in being just, and in being just, He cannot abide our rejection of Him. Yet, rather than being like the law, locking us up or heavily fining us, He paid the cost. Before paying the cost, though, He wanted us to know the cost He was paying. This required a separate people, the Jews, as well as His Son to sacrifice His life. Just as someone paying a fine we owe holds out the money or check to us, so He asks us simply to reach out and take the gift He's offering. He offers His love, through Christ, and simply asks us to embrace it.
The action of Satan, on the other hand, is to prevent us from embracing that love. Every act of Satan in the Bible drives people to look to themselves and look to what will serve them best. Christ said loving your neighbor as yourself was equally as important as loving God, and every act of Satan in scripture seeks to subvert that. Satan's goal throughout scripture is to get us to look to ourselves, either in pity or pride. Either, what can I do for me, or woe is me, why me? The evil is subtle in a world where we embrace that kind of attitude. Yet, it is there, and every person, to one degree or another, recognizes that selfishness and arrogance are not desirable traits.
So that's the long answer, and why I think your question is a good one. It requires the whole Gospel to answer, but the whole Gospel is what we need to know, not just parts of it. And the whole gospel does answer it. Satan is our enemy, and God isn't filled with rage.
Originally posted by zroth
Originally posted by bogomil
Smurfs
You should change your name to gargamel because christians are like smurfs to you.
Peace
I appreciate your comment, but alas, I can't claim any wisdom, only experience because of old age. Somewhat adhering to philosophical scepticism (even more to the Jain version of it), I can not relate to any ultimate 'absolutes', and thus never claim any absolute 'answers'.
And while it seems completely off topic, the name 'Bogomil' (being a result of chinese-box european humour), is relevant to most deeper-loding existential considerations (e.g. religion and theology, philosophy of science, epistemology etc):
The practically always ignored aspect of cosmic dynamics, which is, or could be, THE meeting-point of mundane and non-mundane systematic methodologies for 'truth/reality' searching. The, albeit wishy-washy and tainted by answer-before-facts, christian 'intelligent design' is such a misguided effort to create a solid platform for common communication.
As it is now, it's just opposing camps yelling at each other.
Originally posted by junglejake
reply to post by bogomil
If someone, as an athiest, recognized the Bible as a moral authority, I would, if I were able to pick up my jaw, have to call hypocrite!
Regarding the original post, if we are going to take the Bible as an authority regarding Satan, he seems to oppose God in the scriptures. His role is more foggy in the Old Testament than in the New, but even Orthodox Jews recognize an angel of God's who seeks to turn His people away from Him.
As far as wanting to go to Hell to kill Satan... Well, if we're going to take scripture as a whole, meaning the entire content of the Bible, as being accurate, that would be idiotic. The Bible states when and how Satan would be defeated. So if you, completely believing the Bible, decided you wanted to kill Satan, and looked to the Bible to see how to do so, you would see it is only God who could end Satan's reign, and even then, it's not clear if Satan is "dead" as we understand dead.
Not being an atheist myself, I'll let atheists answer to how they regard the bible.
Concerning the OP, it's my understanding, that the author refers to the bible as a text, he can analyse (just as a literary critic can read a book and evaluate it
from a broader context).
He (the author) uses expressions like: "ACCORDING to the bible" and "the CONCEPT of heaven and hell" (my emphasis). I can't find anywhere in the OP, where it's said, that the bible-texts are to be evaluated on bible-premises. This is an imposition added by christians on this thread.
Concerning Satan (considered as a character in the bible) you must, as a knower of the bible, be aware of the general confusion around this entity. You have already brought up the OT connection of Job, but in that context Satan is on relatively friendly terms with 'god', fullfilling his role as something between a public prosecuter and an agent provocateur. He's simply a public employee in the divine administration.
'Job' takes place some time AFTER the Eden incident, where the talking snake fell in disgrace, so it's unlikely, that Satan and the talking snake are the same. And as to Lucifer, who appears in Isaiah 14:12-15 and possibly in rev. 22:16 (where he can be interpretated as being Jesus???), he seems to have little to do with either Satan or the talking snake.
In the course of the bible's texts, Satan's relationship to god deteriorates, seemingly because he is taking his role as agent provocateur to seriously, and exceeds his authority. If I can understand the chronology of Revelations, this culminates with his fight with Michael, where he around the time of Jesus birth is cast out of heaven, down to earth. Only later (in what I understand as the endtime scenario part of Revelations) is he imprisoned in a 'hell'. A 'hell' which apparantly is a later christian adaption of one of the two jewish hells.
So my former request of knowing WHO, WHAT and HOW we are talking about, before going on, is legitimate. If I wanted to introduce non-christian versions of 'bad guys' into this debate and used a sloppy categorization, calling Loki, Mara, Hel, Iblis etc for "that crowd" it would worthless. Some precision is needed, e.g. to establish (amongst other things) if Satan is acting on orders or not.
Highlighted Quote: ["As far as wanting to go to Hell to kill Satan... Well, if we're going to take scripture as a whole, meaning the entire content of the Bible, as being accurate, that would be idiotic."]
I'll agree with you, that the OP suggestion of 'killing' Satan is an exaggeration. Whereas 'fighting' Satan in a literal (not only spiritual) sense is a possibility. After all Jacob fought an angel physically to an impasse, and Jacob not exactly being a paragon of virtue shows, that even imperfect humans can get away with fighting angels.
edit on 21-4-2011 by bogomil because: paragraphing
reply to post by graphuto
You wrote:
["Isn't the whole idea of what the OP talking about Satan and God not BIBLICAL in nature?"]
and
quote: [" His whole post is regarding what the BIBLE says!
What other reference point are we to use when we're talking about the BIBLE!?"]
I have answered to that in my post to Junglejake.
Quote: ["Or did you not read the OP's post?"]
Is this a serious question, or are you just being rhetorical for debate-tactical reasons? But......yes, I did. Several times.
Quote: ["You're arguing for the sake of arguing."]
And some extremist christians resort to such a standard of debating, when they have nothing else to come with.
You wrote:
["Isn't the whole idea of what the OP talking about Satan and God not BIBLICAL in nature?"]
and
quote: [" His whole post is regarding what the BIBLE says!
What other reference point are we to use when we're talking about the BIBLE!?"]
I have answered to that in my post to Junglejake.
Quote: ["Or did you not read the OP's post?"]
Is this a serious question, or are you just being rhetorical for debate-tactical reasons? But......yes, I did. Several times.
Quote: ["You're arguing for the sake of arguing."]
And some extremist christians resort to such a standard of debating, when they have nothing else to come with.
Originally posted by graphuto
Are there some mental filters at work, so deeply embedded in your psyches, that a non-believer mindset is something impossible?
Absolutely.
Not being able or willing to accept that there ARE legitimate opposing positions
and
not trying to understand or fathom the basics of opposing positions
can only lead to ideological fascism.
reply to post by newcovenant
Hi Newcovenant,
thanks for your answer, which I find both corteous and a basis for real communication.
You wrote:
["But my friend, the poster boondocksaint gave a harmless statement that criticized no one, no religion no agnostic and no atheist yet you saw fit to disparage this as if he were trying actively to control your mind. There is a difference between proselytizing, which I despise as well, and simple heartfelt expression and yet you seem to slap at anything that moves."]
My response here is to be taken friendly, not accusatory. But I couldn't find any comment I have made to/on Boondocksaint, whose post normally wouldn't inspire me to any vehement attitudes. IF I have done so, I can only apologize to Boondocksaint and repeat that apology, when I'm aware of, where I went wrong.
Quote: ["I do not want to argue nor return to Satan God or moral values because I know very little about any of those, but face facts - the OPs thread here would not be much different if he began why are you people so stupid?"]
True enough. There's a (sometimes camouflaged, sometimes more open) proselytizing taking place between the extremes of philosophical positivist materialism and theism, resulting in antagonistic polarization. Actually my own basic position is not a sitting on the fence between the two, but having the third option of metaphysics.
While this position of mine, theoretically a target for atheists, never has been challenged from atheist directions, the extremist-theist super-impositions of whatever specific religion they belong to on everything is at least an academic threat, I respond to. And then there are the few theists, who openly propagate for a return to OT values.
I've wondered, if a special subforum called 'preacher's corner' wouldn't clear up the atmosphere.
Quote: ["But as well people should respect each others freedom to believe or not as they wish."]
This quote is the conclusion of a paragraph. And again I agree, which is why I a considerable part of my time here strongly support egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy. I do not believe tolerance can be taught or enforced, but we can at least create a society, where there are formal rules for how far you can go in your relationship with other individuals, groups or society as a whole. And I'm as critical to political systems, where philosophical materialism rules exclusively (making life difficult for religionists), as I am to theocracies.
Quote: ["Even defend your choice to criticize someone who does, but wait until they are forcing doctrine on you or being oppressive or doing something to warrant the attack."]
Sadly there are some not playing with true colours, trying to rig semantic traps. It does create a wariness, where you already from the first step will insist on clarity, clear definitions, position and methodology.
Quote: [" Unprovoked springing on people who do not even fit the mold of spoonfed missionary or whacked out evangelist to me is not cool."]
Personally I'm slowly getting used to the pre-dominantly US christian-right attitudes, and as I learn, I try to avoid confrontations with the more conciliatory and decent christians, whom I actually try to establish good relations to, as they are as much victims of extremism as are e.g. targets for proselytizing.
Fortunately I live in a country, where the devil-scare tactics would be considered a joke. But even here, with a very strongly secular society, there's a constant pressure from religionist groups to achieve extra-parliamentary influence. An influence I'm old enough to remember as existing in my youth. I have no clear lines to draw, either socially or academically, but as I said before: There must be a limit somewhere for pushing self-appointed absolutes and claiming special privileges. Before it's to late.
And after a year on ATS on this forum, I can only regret to say, that I have no high opinion of the integrity or honesty of evangelizing christians.
Hi Newcovenant,
thanks for your answer, which I find both corteous and a basis for real communication.
You wrote:
["But my friend, the poster boondocksaint gave a harmless statement that criticized no one, no religion no agnostic and no atheist yet you saw fit to disparage this as if he were trying actively to control your mind. There is a difference between proselytizing, which I despise as well, and simple heartfelt expression and yet you seem to slap at anything that moves."]
My response here is to be taken friendly, not accusatory. But I couldn't find any comment I have made to/on Boondocksaint, whose post normally wouldn't inspire me to any vehement attitudes. IF I have done so, I can only apologize to Boondocksaint and repeat that apology, when I'm aware of, where I went wrong.
Quote: ["I do not want to argue nor return to Satan God or moral values because I know very little about any of those, but face facts - the OPs thread here would not be much different if he began why are you people so stupid?"]
True enough. There's a (sometimes camouflaged, sometimes more open) proselytizing taking place between the extremes of philosophical positivist materialism and theism, resulting in antagonistic polarization. Actually my own basic position is not a sitting on the fence between the two, but having the third option of metaphysics.
While this position of mine, theoretically a target for atheists, never has been challenged from atheist directions, the extremist-theist super-impositions of whatever specific religion they belong to on everything is at least an academic threat, I respond to. And then there are the few theists, who openly propagate for a return to OT values.
I've wondered, if a special subforum called 'preacher's corner' wouldn't clear up the atmosphere.
Quote: ["But as well people should respect each others freedom to believe or not as they wish."]
This quote is the conclusion of a paragraph. And again I agree, which is why I a considerable part of my time here strongly support egalitarian, liberal, secular democracy. I do not believe tolerance can be taught or enforced, but we can at least create a society, where there are formal rules for how far you can go in your relationship with other individuals, groups or society as a whole. And I'm as critical to political systems, where philosophical materialism rules exclusively (making life difficult for religionists), as I am to theocracies.
Quote: ["Even defend your choice to criticize someone who does, but wait until they are forcing doctrine on you or being oppressive or doing something to warrant the attack."]
Sadly there are some not playing with true colours, trying to rig semantic traps. It does create a wariness, where you already from the first step will insist on clarity, clear definitions, position and methodology.
Quote: [" Unprovoked springing on people who do not even fit the mold of spoonfed missionary or whacked out evangelist to me is not cool."]
Personally I'm slowly getting used to the pre-dominantly US christian-right attitudes, and as I learn, I try to avoid confrontations with the more conciliatory and decent christians, whom I actually try to establish good relations to, as they are as much victims of extremism as are e.g. targets for proselytizing.
Fortunately I live in a country, where the devil-scare tactics would be considered a joke. But even here, with a very strongly secular society, there's a constant pressure from religionist groups to achieve extra-parliamentary influence. An influence I'm old enough to remember as existing in my youth. I have no clear lines to draw, either socially or academically, but as I said before: There must be a limit somewhere for pushing self-appointed absolutes and claiming special privileges. Before it's to late.
And after a year on ATS on this forum, I can only regret to say, that I have no high opinion of the integrity or honesty of evangelizing christians.
edit on 21-4-2011 by bogomil because: added a word for clarification
reply to post by junglejake
You wrote:
["The Bible indicates that everything in scripture is pointing to Christ -- Christ is a focal point of history, so to speak. Initially, God created man with the ability to choose to love Him, but with the purpose of loving Him. This is what Genesis is about. Man chose knowledge over God. In a society that cherishes knowledge over everything, why this is wrong can seem strange. Yet, for a recent historical example, read about the reaction of every scientist who was involved in the Manhattan Project after 1950."]
This is basically where any serious debate on bible-related manifestations should start. That this is not the case, is maybe symptomatic for the pro-/contra- theism on this subforum.
Quote: [In order to genuinely love someone, you have to have the ability not to love them. Otherwise, you're an automaton, and that's not really love. So God allowed us to choose. And we did. This is Genesis."]
Apart from it only being a PART of genesis (there's also the cosmogony/cosmology part), I am with you.
Quote: ["God's response was clear. Before we turned from Him, He said the cost of sin was death. Sin was His way of saying rejecting Him. When man rejected Him, the cost was death."]
Or it can be taken as putting a couple of ethical morons (they didn't know ethics BEFORE eating the fruit) to an obedience test.
Quote: ["You see, God wanted man to be with Him, but He really didn't like us rejecting Him"]
This is the point, where it for a non-beliver starts getting absurd. An alleged omni-everything 'god' NEEDING something?! And filling out the explanation gap with 'ineffability' can 'explain' every weird postulate ever made by anybody.
Quote: [" "When you do these things, it really hurts, and I think you're demonstrating a lack of love when you do them"]
Only a sociopath would condemn this transgression with death. So are we back to ineffability again, as a self-defined and self-contained absolute (god) according to the circle-argument can't be evaluted from 'lesser' value-norms? Only possible to accept from a subjective faith position.
Quote: ["He didn't leave it at that, though. If He did, I agree, it would seem rather petty. Instead, he created a people dedicated to those rules."]
From a non-beliver position he created a slave-race and -nation. As been done by some of the christianities later, with what was then called 'inferior races'.
Quote: ["To use modern terms, it would be like a wife asking her husband not to surf porn, because it makes her feel unloved."]
You christians love your allegories, don't you? Maybe the wife is a dried-up frigid, a result of too much exposure to christian 'moral' on sexuality.
Quote: ["In addition, that surfing porn led to affairs and hiring prostitutes. If you were/are married, would your wife be okay with that? Would you like it if your husband did that?"]
Yes, and drinking tea can be PROVED to lead to drug-abuse, as all drug-abusers have tried tea somewhere earlier in their lives. Please, non-believers do NOT believe in embellished tales, we prefer a certain amount of rational reasoning.
Quote: ["Yet, despite this, there was a remnant of those people who stayed true to God."]
They were killed, if they didn't.
Quote: ["As He pointed out, our rejection of Him was death"]
To stay at your level of allegories, does that mean that it's OK to kill people, who scorn your emotional advances? Or is it another circle-argumentatory postulate allowing a 'god' to do as he pleases.
Quote: ["Yet, providing the perfect sacrifice, one completely clean of sin,"]
Whoa, you haven't convinced anybody except those already believing of the validity of the 'sin' concept, and now you prematurely wants to build further arguments on top of it.
Quote: ["Part of that sacrifice had to come from God"]
If he hadn't had this unmanagable urge to be worshipped and obeyed from the start, all of this would have been unnecessary.
Quote: ["humanity bound itself to this strange fascination with rebellion that carried into our children stronger than it was in ourselves."]
Speak for yourself. I'm all FOR this kind of rebellion.
Quote: ["Though we hurt Him with our actions at times, He asked us to just turn to Him despite our actions...]
Or else...!! And you're still ahead of yourself, by building layer upon layer on your tale, which from the start is resting on quicksand.
Quote: ["Like a husband and wife hurt each other, so we do God, but, like a husband and wife forgive one another and love one another despite, so does God."]
Most generous to forgive us for a 'creation' he messed up because of his divine sociopathy.
Quote: ["He asked us to trust that His Son's sacrifice was that bridge."]
To which an increasing part of mankind says no, because the tale mostly is non-sense.
Quote: ["God is just, and in being just, and in being just,...]
To your standards, not mine.
Quote: ["He cannot abide our rejection of Him"]
For once we agree (that is as from a textual analysis, I'm not considering this as a description of any 'reality'. With the possible exception of Jahveh being an alien or inter-dimensional entity).
Quote: ["The action of Satan, on the other hand, is to prevent us from embracing that love."]
Not that I mind the initial back-ground description, but this is directly related to topic, where I would like to hang on.
Quote: [" Every act of Satan in the Bible drives people to look to themselves and look to what will serve them best."]
Shall we in future posts look at Job?
Quote: ["Christ said loving your neighbor as yourself was equally as important as loving God,"]
The christian version of the golden rule is conditional, and better versions exist elsewhere. I wouldn't like much to be a neighbour of some of the extremist christians I've met on ATS and be exposed to their 'love'.
Quote: ["The evil is subtle in a world where we embrace that kind of attitude."]
From my perspective the evil lies in being exposed to doctrines like the ones you present.
Quote: ["and God isn't filled with rage."]
I agree. Only anger, jealousy, unreasonableness and incompetence.
You wrote:
["The Bible indicates that everything in scripture is pointing to Christ -- Christ is a focal point of history, so to speak. Initially, God created man with the ability to choose to love Him, but with the purpose of loving Him. This is what Genesis is about. Man chose knowledge over God. In a society that cherishes knowledge over everything, why this is wrong can seem strange. Yet, for a recent historical example, read about the reaction of every scientist who was involved in the Manhattan Project after 1950."]
This is basically where any serious debate on bible-related manifestations should start. That this is not the case, is maybe symptomatic for the pro-/contra- theism on this subforum.
Quote: [In order to genuinely love someone, you have to have the ability not to love them. Otherwise, you're an automaton, and that's not really love. So God allowed us to choose. And we did. This is Genesis."]
Apart from it only being a PART of genesis (there's also the cosmogony/cosmology part), I am with you.
Quote: ["God's response was clear. Before we turned from Him, He said the cost of sin was death. Sin was His way of saying rejecting Him. When man rejected Him, the cost was death."]
Or it can be taken as putting a couple of ethical morons (they didn't know ethics BEFORE eating the fruit) to an obedience test.
Quote: ["You see, God wanted man to be with Him, but He really didn't like us rejecting Him"]
This is the point, where it for a non-beliver starts getting absurd. An alleged omni-everything 'god' NEEDING something?! And filling out the explanation gap with 'ineffability' can 'explain' every weird postulate ever made by anybody.
Quote: [" "When you do these things, it really hurts, and I think you're demonstrating a lack of love when you do them"]
Only a sociopath would condemn this transgression with death. So are we back to ineffability again, as a self-defined and self-contained absolute (god) according to the circle-argument can't be evaluted from 'lesser' value-norms? Only possible to accept from a subjective faith position.
Quote: ["He didn't leave it at that, though. If He did, I agree, it would seem rather petty. Instead, he created a people dedicated to those rules."]
From a non-beliver position he created a slave-race and -nation. As been done by some of the christianities later, with what was then called 'inferior races'.
Quote: ["To use modern terms, it would be like a wife asking her husband not to surf porn, because it makes her feel unloved."]
You christians love your allegories, don't you? Maybe the wife is a dried-up frigid, a result of too much exposure to christian 'moral' on sexuality.
Quote: ["In addition, that surfing porn led to affairs and hiring prostitutes. If you were/are married, would your wife be okay with that? Would you like it if your husband did that?"]
Yes, and drinking tea can be PROVED to lead to drug-abuse, as all drug-abusers have tried tea somewhere earlier in their lives. Please, non-believers do NOT believe in embellished tales, we prefer a certain amount of rational reasoning.
Quote: ["Yet, despite this, there was a remnant of those people who stayed true to God."]
They were killed, if they didn't.
Quote: ["As He pointed out, our rejection of Him was death"]
To stay at your level of allegories, does that mean that it's OK to kill people, who scorn your emotional advances? Or is it another circle-argumentatory postulate allowing a 'god' to do as he pleases.
Quote: ["Yet, providing the perfect sacrifice, one completely clean of sin,"]
Whoa, you haven't convinced anybody except those already believing of the validity of the 'sin' concept, and now you prematurely wants to build further arguments on top of it.
Quote: ["Part of that sacrifice had to come from God"]
If he hadn't had this unmanagable urge to be worshipped and obeyed from the start, all of this would have been unnecessary.
Quote: ["humanity bound itself to this strange fascination with rebellion that carried into our children stronger than it was in ourselves."]
Speak for yourself. I'm all FOR this kind of rebellion.
Quote: ["Though we hurt Him with our actions at times, He asked us to just turn to Him despite our actions...]
Or else...!! And you're still ahead of yourself, by building layer upon layer on your tale, which from the start is resting on quicksand.
Quote: ["Like a husband and wife hurt each other, so we do God, but, like a husband and wife forgive one another and love one another despite, so does God."]
Most generous to forgive us for a 'creation' he messed up because of his divine sociopathy.
Quote: ["He asked us to trust that His Son's sacrifice was that bridge."]
To which an increasing part of mankind says no, because the tale mostly is non-sense.
Quote: ["God is just, and in being just, and in being just,...]
To your standards, not mine.
Quote: ["He cannot abide our rejection of Him"]
For once we agree (that is as from a textual analysis, I'm not considering this as a description of any 'reality'. With the possible exception of Jahveh being an alien or inter-dimensional entity).
Quote: ["The action of Satan, on the other hand, is to prevent us from embracing that love."]
Not that I mind the initial back-ground description, but this is directly related to topic, where I would like to hang on.
Quote: [" Every act of Satan in the Bible drives people to look to themselves and look to what will serve them best."]
Shall we in future posts look at Job?
Quote: ["Christ said loving your neighbor as yourself was equally as important as loving God,"]
The christian version of the golden rule is conditional, and better versions exist elsewhere. I wouldn't like much to be a neighbour of some of the extremist christians I've met on ATS and be exposed to their 'love'.
Quote: ["The evil is subtle in a world where we embrace that kind of attitude."]
From my perspective the evil lies in being exposed to doctrines like the ones you present.
Quote: ["and God isn't filled with rage."]
I agree. Only anger, jealousy, unreasonableness and incompetence.
edit on 21-4-2011 by bogomil because: missing words
Let me preface this by saying, my analogies aren't perfect -- if you hyper-analyze them, there will be holes. I make no claim to be able to perfectly
represent God through humanity's creation, or even His. So I ask that you take them as they are stated, and not beyond that
Ahh, but I never said "Need", I said it was what He desired. It was what He wanted.
If I make a television (CRT style), and give it to you with the warning not to play with its innards because it could kill you, that doesn't make me a sociopath. I am sharing something with you that I believe you will enjoy, but there are restrictions, because if you tinker with its innards and touch the primary capacitor in there, you're dead. Does that make the television evil? No. Does that make the person who gave you the television evil? No. If God created the world, and in such a way that certain actions (can you jump 20 stories and just aim for a bush to be fine?) lead to death, then warns us about some of those actions that may not be intuitively obvious, does that make Him a sociopath? Going back to the television analogy, if you know a little about electricity, it wouldn't make sense that touching bare copper wire inside the television while its unplugged could be dangerous, but there it is.
Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. I struggled with this, too. It seems like we were given the world, then told to only play in a 10' x 10' sandbox. As you said, this is the perspective from a non-believer. Let's go back to the electricity analogy. Throughout much of the world, there are power lines laid out. In order to have access to the internet, you need to be connected to these power lines (see note above regarding analogies ). When you are in these areas, you have access to all the information in the world. When away, you have access to only what you already know. We were given the world, and told by God how to live this life He created to the fullest based on His design. We said, "nope, how about this way instead?" Surprise, surprise, it didn't work as well. This is like unplugging your desktop and getting angry with electricity for shutting your computer down. There's a right way and a wrong way to surf the internet -- one way opens you to the world, and the other confines you to the limits of your regions knowledge.
So it is with life. When we turn from God and tell Him we can do this life thing without wasting our time on the manual, we continue to live life, but we have no idea what living life to the fullest entails. The manual shares the metaphysical rules for this universe just as a cellphone shares the programmatic rules for using the phone optimally.
As to the Christian "moral" on sexuality... What the Bible says and what medieval Catholicism considered acceptable sexuality are radically different. Being someone who sees the Bible as authoritative, I'm going to go with the Bible over culture.
Now, now, I was using that as an analogy. Just as folks who smoke one cigarette can go the rest of their lives not smoking again, there are folks that die because of that first cigarette. Would you respond to someone who, when talking about a friend who died from lung cancer after smoking for 40 years, that says, "smoking killed them," with something along the lines of, "That's an embellished tale, let's be serious here"? After all, smoking hasn't 100% been tied to cancer, it just seems pretty typical that one leads to the other. In this case, regarding the Jewish nation, porn led to prostitution, so to speak. Not the way it always goes. The way it went in this case.
Check out 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Chronicles. That was the law of Israel, yeah, as God handed it down. Not as it was practiced, and not as it was documented in the Bible.
No, it means it is ok to give people televisions despite the fact they can kill the person. Or cars. Or lights. Or toasters. Or hairdryers. etc.
Desire. Have you ever courted after someone who didn't feel the same way? After you moved on, did you believe you were wrong for your having loved them?
You're ok with an anarchistic survival of the fittest? That if you can take something from someone, that very superiority gives you the right to it? That if someone bothers you, is better than you, gets the girl you want, and you have the ability to kill them, you have the right to do so because you, in that moment, are stronger than them? That's the kind of rebellion I speak of -- one against charity and order.
Yes, or else. Just as a doctor who gives you antibiotics for your infection tells you to take them daily or else. Is the doctor wrong for their warning?
If we were designed to love God, God asks us to love Him, and we say no, why is God obliged to hang out with us? If we reject God here on Earth, He rejects us -- we get what we wanted -- an eternity without Him. We are essentially a 110 volt appliance that decides we want to be plugged into a 220 volt outlet when we reject God and say we don't want him. If you've never done that, let me tell you, it doesn't go well.
Quote: ["Like a husband and wife hurt each other, so we do God, but, like a husband and wife forgive one another and love one another despite, so does God."]
And, sadly, an increasing part of mankind has decided vaccinations are unhealthy, and it has caused some pretty nasty diseases to crop up. But as Ghandi didn't say, if the whole world believes what is right is wrong, it makes what was right now wrong and what was wrong now right. Right? If we all agree on some new laws of aerodynamics, people will fly...
However, I think we may still disagree, because I didn't state that very clearly. He cannot abide our rejection of Him, and, as a result, chooses not to stay with us. Going back to the unrequited love, if someone you care for deeply spits on you every time they see you, yells at you, tells you they never want to see you, that they hate you, how long would you be willing to hang out with them?
Sure. Just because a plan doesn't work doesn't mean the planner intended it to fail.
Care to share?
And, nowhere did I say people do this well or correctly. Some people suck at love, Christian and otherwise. I'm talking about what Christians are called to be, not what they are, just as Windows is called to be an effective operating system, it just happens to be a bit buggy.
Like what? What idea is so powerful someone has no choice but to believe it? What idea is so dangerous it must be outlawed? And why? Is that dangerous idea so much more powerful than the truth that the truth cannot stand against it, and instead simply dies?
Originally posted by bogomil
This is the point, where it for a non-beliver starts getting absurd. An alleged omni-everything 'god' NEEDING something?! And filling out the explanation gap with 'ineffability' can 'explain' every weird postulate ever made by anybody.
Ahh, but I never said "Need", I said it was what He desired. It was what He wanted.
A sociopath? One incapable of feeling emotion? I disagree. And yes, I do enjoy allegories
Only a sociopath would condemn this [rejection] transgression with death.
If I make a television (CRT style), and give it to you with the warning not to play with its innards because it could kill you, that doesn't make me a sociopath. I am sharing something with you that I believe you will enjoy, but there are restrictions, because if you tinker with its innards and touch the primary capacitor in there, you're dead. Does that make the television evil? No. Does that make the person who gave you the television evil? No. If God created the world, and in such a way that certain actions (can you jump 20 stories and just aim for a bush to be fine?) lead to death, then warns us about some of those actions that may not be intuitively obvious, does that make Him a sociopath? Going back to the television analogy, if you know a little about electricity, it wouldn't make sense that touching bare copper wire inside the television while its unplugged could be dangerous, but there it is.
From a non-beliver position he created a slave-race and -nation. As been done by some of the christianities later, with what was then called 'inferior races'.
Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. I struggled with this, too. It seems like we were given the world, then told to only play in a 10' x 10' sandbox. As you said, this is the perspective from a non-believer. Let's go back to the electricity analogy. Throughout much of the world, there are power lines laid out. In order to have access to the internet, you need to be connected to these power lines (see note above regarding analogies ). When you are in these areas, you have access to all the information in the world. When away, you have access to only what you already know. We were given the world, and told by God how to live this life He created to the fullest based on His design. We said, "nope, how about this way instead?" Surprise, surprise, it didn't work as well. This is like unplugging your desktop and getting angry with electricity for shutting your computer down. There's a right way and a wrong way to surf the internet -- one way opens you to the world, and the other confines you to the limits of your regions knowledge.
So it is with life. When we turn from God and tell Him we can do this life thing without wasting our time on the manual, we continue to live life, but we have no idea what living life to the fullest entails. The manual shares the metaphysical rules for this universe just as a cellphone shares the programmatic rules for using the phone optimally.
Yes, because if you don't recognize the Bible as authoritative, there is the rest of the world to relate God to you. After all, He created nature, science, and the tenants in scripture (like marriage) so, in their optimal form and understanding, they should point to Him. Since I cannot command all information in existence, I have to use what I have, which isn't complete, to try to help folks who don't believe to relate and understand where I'm coming from. Allegories and illustrations are very effective at doing this
Quote: ["To use modern terms, it would be like a wife asking her husband not to surf porn, because it makes her feel unloved."]
You christians love your allegories, don't you? Maybe the wife is a dried-up frigid, a result of too much exposure to christian 'moral' on sexuality.
As to the Christian "moral" on sexuality... What the Bible says and what medieval Catholicism considered acceptable sexuality are radically different. Being someone who sees the Bible as authoritative, I'm going to go with the Bible over culture.
Quote: ["In addition, that surfing porn led to affairs and hiring prostitutes. If you were/are married, would your wife be okay with that? Would you like it if your husband did that?"]
Yes, and drinking tea can be PROVED to lead to drug-abuse, as all drug-abusers have tried tea somewhere earlier in their lives. Please, non-believers do NOT believe in embellished tales, we prefer a certain amount of rational reasoning.
Now, now, I was using that as an analogy. Just as folks who smoke one cigarette can go the rest of their lives not smoking again, there are folks that die because of that first cigarette. Would you respond to someone who, when talking about a friend who died from lung cancer after smoking for 40 years, that says, "smoking killed them," with something along the lines of, "That's an embellished tale, let's be serious here"? After all, smoking hasn't 100% been tied to cancer, it just seems pretty typical that one leads to the other. In this case, regarding the Jewish nation, porn led to prostitution, so to speak. Not the way it always goes. The way it went in this case.
Quote: ["Yet, despite this, there was a remnant of those people who stayed true to God."]
They were killed, if they didn't.
Check out 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Chronicles. That was the law of Israel, yeah, as God handed it down. Not as it was practiced, and not as it was documented in the Bible.
Quote: ["As He pointed out, our rejection of Him was death"]
To stay at your level of allegories, does that mean that it's OK to kill people, who scorn your emotional advances? Or is it another circle-argumentatory postulate allowing a 'god' to do as he pleases.
No, it means it is ok to give people televisions despite the fact they can kill the person. Or cars. Or lights. Or toasters. Or hairdryers. etc.
Quote: ["Part of that sacrifice had to come from God"]
If he hadn't had this unmanagable urge to be worshipped and obeyed from the start, all of this would have been unnecessary.
Desire. Have you ever courted after someone who didn't feel the same way? After you moved on, did you believe you were wrong for your having loved them?
Quote: ["humanity bound itself to this strange fascination with rebellion that carried into our children stronger than it was in ourselves."]
Speak for yourself. I'm all FOR this kind of rebellion.
You're ok with an anarchistic survival of the fittest? That if you can take something from someone, that very superiority gives you the right to it? That if someone bothers you, is better than you, gets the girl you want, and you have the ability to kill them, you have the right to do so because you, in that moment, are stronger than them? That's the kind of rebellion I speak of -- one against charity and order.
Quote: ["Though we hurt Him with our actions at times, He asked us to just turn to Him despite our actions...]
Or else...!!
Yes, or else. Just as a doctor who gives you antibiotics for your infection tells you to take them daily or else. Is the doctor wrong for their warning?
If we were designed to love God, God asks us to love Him, and we say no, why is God obliged to hang out with us? If we reject God here on Earth, He rejects us -- we get what we wanted -- an eternity without Him. We are essentially a 110 volt appliance that decides we want to be plugged into a 220 volt outlet when we reject God and say we don't want him. If you've never done that, let me tell you, it doesn't go well.
Quote: ["Like a husband and wife hurt each other, so we do God, but, like a husband and wife forgive one another and love one another despite, so does God."]
Quote: ["He asked us to trust that His Son's sacrifice was that bridge."]
To which an increasing part of mankind says no, because the tale mostly is non-sense.
And, sadly, an increasing part of mankind has decided vaccinations are unhealthy, and it has caused some pretty nasty diseases to crop up. But as Ghandi didn't say, if the whole world believes what is right is wrong, it makes what was right now wrong and what was wrong now right. Right? If we all agree on some new laws of aerodynamics, people will fly...
Quote: ["He cannot abide our rejection of Him"]
For once we agree (that is as from a textual analysis, I'm not considering this as a description of any 'reality'. With the possible exception of Jahveh being an alien or inter-dimensional entity).
However, I think we may still disagree, because I didn't state that very clearly. He cannot abide our rejection of Him, and, as a result, chooses not to stay with us. Going back to the unrequited love, if someone you care for deeply spits on you every time they see you, yells at you, tells you they never want to see you, that they hate you, how long would you be willing to hang out with them?
Quote: [" Every act of Satan in the Bible drives people to look to themselves and look to what will serve them best."]
Shall we in future posts look at Job?
Sure. Just because a plan doesn't work doesn't mean the planner intended it to fail.
Quote: ["Christ said loving your neighbor as yourself was equally as important as loving God,"]
The christian version of the golden rule is conditional, and better versions exist elsewhere. I wouldn't like much to be a neighbour of some of the extremist christians I've met on ATS and be exposed to their 'love'.
Care to share?
And, nowhere did I say people do this well or correctly. Some people suck at love, Christian and otherwise. I'm talking about what Christians are called to be, not what they are, just as Windows is called to be an effective operating system, it just happens to be a bit buggy.
Quote: ["The evil is subtle in a world where we embrace that kind of attitude."]
From my perspective the evil lies in being exposed to doctrines like the ones you present.
Like what? What idea is so powerful someone has no choice but to believe it? What idea is so dangerous it must be outlawed? And why? Is that dangerous idea so much more powerful than the truth that the truth cannot stand against it, and instead simply dies?
reply to post by junglejake
Thanks for your answer.
A few comments first: Being a grumpy extremist-critic as I am, I'm probably experienced as being intolerably intolerant. At least from a fanatic's mindset, which can only operate on the grounds of: "If you're not for me, you're against me". This oversimplification of my position is convenient for debate-tactical reasons, but far too narrow.
By putting social limits to the extent of extremist activities, this also PROTECT extremist minorities.
You wrote:
["Let me preface this by saying, my analogies aren't perfect -- if you hyper-analyze them, there will be holes. I make no claim to be able to perfectly represent God through humanity's creation, or even His. So I ask that you take them as they are stated, and not beyond that"]
What you call 'analogies', I would call 'allegories' (but no matter...this was just for the record). As my initial comments tell, I'm not a very 'siding' active participant on the black/white ideological pushing market, except by saying "put your extremism, where the sun doesn't shine" to all extremists who, directly or indirectly, appear to be suggesting monopoly.
There are more 'reality-checks' * on ideology, than the ideologers like to admit, ranging from a relatively mild-mannered academic approach, via more or less heated pro/contra verbal forum exchanges to open violence. I try to position myself according to the situation. So I don't shoot mosquitos with cannons.
Out of respect for your faith and with a certain amount of courtesy, I didn't expose you to much of a reality-check, but partly played by your rules. But my own position is nonetheless, that your basic tale mainly (as presented on an average by the various christians here on ATS) is a fabulation, presented as 'truth'.
The 'loving parent' allegory is rather common, and usually delievered in a form as sticky-sweet as candied fruit and with semantic shufflings to cover up the gaps. I am really curious as to know, if christian believers REALLY think this way, or if it's just an old routine, which pops up from sheer habit. For a non-believer like me, it's kind of embarrasing to read. So (on 'god's needs):
Quote: ["Ahh, but I never said "Need", I said it was what He desired. It was what He wanted."]
I can without qualms give you a semantic 'benefit of doubt' and change 'needs' to 'desire' ('desire' not as a 'need-derivate' which it sometimes can mean, but as a choice) or to 'wanting'. So (disregarding reality-checking) this bible-character CHOOSE to put up a situation, (which as he is said to be able to see all time also?) contains options of much suffering, FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. How does that make it better?
Quote: ["A sociopath? One incapable of feeling emotion? I disagree. And yes, I do enjoy allegories"]
A sociopath is able to experience emotions. He/she is incapable of empathy. Seen from a non-believer position Jahveh has all the signs of a sociopath. It's not an allegory for such as me. From your position it's possibly an allegory, self-contained as much of your position is.
Quote: [" If I make a television (CRT style), and give it to you with the warning not to play with its innards because it could kill you, that doesn't make me a sociopath."]
I don't know what CRT style is, but I believe, I get the meaning.
Being able to see into the future, though without interfering; .... seeing an option of brutal suffering on your conditions, if your test of obedience doesn't fall out to your satisfaction; ..... with creatures created without any understanding of morals put to a test only based on their understanding of obedience; .....and they fail; ...and on YOUR pre-arranged conditions then they must suffer and die (it could have been arranged differently, I have a suggestion); .....AND their descendants suffering the consequences; ...all this for your own egotistical purposes
Yes, then you are a sociopath.
Quote: ["If God created the world, and in such a way that certain actions (can you jump 20 stories and just aim for a bush to be fine?) lead to death, then warns us about some of those actions that may not be intuitively obvious, does that make Him a sociopath?"]
THIS allegory semantically mixes two perspectives. One in which the 'natural laws' of visible existence are there observably and to be respected; sofar without any answer on purpose/no-purpose behind these 'natural laws'. Another perspective where some postulated purpose exists on the hows and whys on existence.
Are you confused on your own position on this by blending two incompatible perspectives into one allegory, or do you try to confuse me? It's my impolite guess, that you possibly won't understand, what I just said, so I can clarify on request.
Quote: ["Going back to the television analogy, if you know a little about electricity, it wouldn't make sense that touching bare copper wire inside the television while its unplugged could be dangerous, but there it is."]
Exactly. It's not about knowledge, it's about authority and obedience.
Quote: ["Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. I struggled with this, too. It seems like we were given the world, then told to only play in a 10' x 10' sandbox."]
Somewhat immodestly I can suggest, that the perspectives (etc) I have as my base and operate from are more extensive than the few black/white views in a 10 by 10. I have e.g. never/seldom (?) out of desperation arrived at answers, before the 'facts' I possess are in order (I'm a philosophical scepticist, but that's another more extensive subject).
Quote: ["We were given the world, and told by God how to live this life He created to the fullest based on His design."]
Seemingly you can't help it. Allegories supporting alleged absolutes, or alleged absolutes supporting allegories...depending on which fits best for the situation. It's just another example of the big elaborate christian circle-argument attitude, which like the worm Ouroboros bites its own tail.
God did or decreed this or that..absolute, supportin allegories, which are supporting the absolutes, which are ........
I will not accuse you of discarding deductive logic (you appear to be intelligent), and as a philosophical scepticist I will not claim deductive logic to be THE exclusive way. But some inclusion of it wouldn't be amiss, it does function rather well in many contexts. E.g. arguments.
Quote: ["So it is with life. When we turn from God and tell Him we can do this life thing without wasting our time on the manual, we continue to live life, but we have no idea what living life to the fullest entails."]
Personally I'm not prone to be convinced, because the same argument is repeated several times (with just changing the packaging).
Quote: ["The manual shares the metaphysical rules for this universe just as a cellphone shares the programmatic rules for using the phone optimally."]
There are several manuals for metaphysical existence (with- or without including the visible universe). I'm familiar with quite a few of them, and yours is amongst those with least reality-check credibility.
Quote: ["Yes, because if you don't recognize the Bible as authoritative, there is the rest of the world to relate God to you. After all, He created nature, science, and the tenants in scripture (like marriage) so, in their optimal form and understanding, they should point to Him."]
Very true. They SHOULD point to him...reality-check.
Quote: ["Since I cannot command all information in existence, I have to use what I have, which isn't complete, to try to help folks who don't believe to relate and understand where I'm coming from."]
There's a big difference between presenting various 'facts', which have been reality-checked, and presenting subjective fabulations, fantasies, faiths or fabrications AS 'facts'. The last is no help to anybody.
Quote: ["Allegories and illustrations are very effective at doing this"]
Sometimes. More often they are brainwashing indoctrination. To avoid being rude to you, I can mention the cold-war propaganda between stalinism and McCarthy'ism as an example.
Quote: [" As to the Christian "moral" on sexuality... What the Bible says and what medieval Catholicism considered acceptable sexuality are radically different. Being someone who sees the Bible as authoritative, I'm going to go with the Bible over culture."]
Another option for a broad side-stepping into relevant and parallel (but minor on this thread) topic. Homesexuality...laws on rape-situations in OT!! Is the bible's authority on this superseding contemporary laws?
Quote: ["Now, now, I was using that as an analogy. Just as folks who smoke one cigarette can go the rest of their lives not smoking again, there are folks that die because of that first cigarette. Would you respond to someone who, when talking about a friend who died from lung cancer after smoking for 40 years, that says, "smoking killed them," with something along the lines of, "That's an embellished tale, let's be serious here"? After all, smoking hasn't 100% been tied to cancer, it just seems pretty typical that one leads to the other. In this case, regarding the Jewish nation, porn led to prostitution, so to speak. Not the way it always goes. The way it went in this case."]
I like your introduction of an element of deductive logic here. But I can't see how this recent addition to your initial allegory on marital sexuality as a parallel to love between god and mankind says anything except that NOT being a christian/jew is spiritual prostitution. Sorry, it's YOUR allegories, carried to your purposes. If you don't like my anylyzing of yout allegories find better ones or stop them.
Quote: ["Check out 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Chronicles. That was the law of Israel, yeah, as God handed it down. Not as it was practiced, and not as it was documented in the Bible."]
As to unbelievers being killed, I remember a massacre taking place, when Moses came down from the mountain. Don't cherry-pick me. People being killed are people being killed, whether it's done by bigots in the NAME of religion or by bigots claiming religious LAWS as an excuse.
Quote: ["Desire. Have you ever courted after someone who didn't feel the same way? After you moved on, did you believe you were wrong for your having loved them?"]
Exactly. So I suggest that both christians and 'god' move on, and leave the rest of us in peace.
Quote: ["You're ok with an anarchistic survival of the fittest?"]
Is that how you read my words? I'm generally known on ATS to be an annoyingly supporter of egalitarian, liberal, secular society, strongly critisizing extra-parliamentary activites (such as bible-law above secular law). Maybe my philophical scepticism confuses you to take a position of black/white politics concerning me.
Quote: ["That if you can take something from someone, that very superiority gives you the right to it? That if someone bothers you, is better than you, gets the girl you want, and you have the ability to kill them, you have the right to do so because you, in that moment, are stronger than them? That's the kind of rebellion I speak of -- one against charity and order."]
That 'charity and order' is one of your postulated absolutes. Non-believers see the extremist-christian version of this 'charity and order' as fascist ideology. Another option for a reality-check.... unencumbered by allegories.
Quote: ["Yes, or else. Just as a doctor who gives you antibiotics for your infection tells you to take them daily or else. Is the doctor wrong for their warning?"]
Allegorically.... non-believers see your 'god' as the disease. Not as the cure.
Quote: ["If we were designed to love God, God asks us to love Him, and we say no, why is God obliged to hang out with us?"]
Aren't we going in circles? This is back to square one; but for the fun of it, I'll momentarily accept the 'if'. Non-believers aren't asking 'god' to hang out with us, we're actually asking him to get the heck away and leave us in peace. It's you guys wanting him.
Quote: ["If we reject God here on Earth, He rejects us -- we get what we wanted -- an eternity without Him."]
Fine with me. Besides I actually have several more attractive (and 'believable') options for eternity. You choose yours, I choose mine.
Quote: ["And, sadly, an increasing part of mankind has decided vaccinations are unhealthy, and it has caused some pretty nasty diseases to crop up."]
Being a vegetarian myself, with strong, but not fanatic sympathies towards 'natural medicine', I can only agree. But I don't share your pre-occupation with black/white positions. I find that a considered balance will do fine. Do you want us to live in caves to satisfy your religious zeal?
Quote: [" But as Ghandi didn't say, if the whole world believes what is right is wrong, it makes what was right now wrong and what was wrong now right. Right? If we all agree on some new laws of aerodynamics, people will fly..."]
I AM familiar with epistemology, thank you.
Quote: [" However, I think we may still disagree, because I didn't state that very clearly. He cannot abide our rejection of Him, and, as a result, chooses not to stay with us. Going back to the unrequited love, if someone you care for deeply spits on you every time they see you, yells at you, tells you they never want to see you, that they hate you, how long would you be willing to hang out with them?"]
I understood it the first time. But I can repeat my own answer (again momentarily on bible premises): 'God' will do me a favour, if he stays away. Then mankind will get a chance to clear up the mess he created and left us with.
Quote: [" Sure. Just because a plan doesn't work doesn't mean the planner intended it to fail."]
Aaaaah, finally did the 'mysterious ways' and 'ineffability' turn up openly. If 'absolutes' and allegories should fall short, a little bit of magic to fill in the gaps should do it. But then, ....surely the flying spaghetti monster and his quirks are real also, because they are magical and invisble.
Quote (on the golden rule): ["Care to share?"]
The buddhist version is unconditional and it's more encompassing than the christian version.
Quote: [" I'm talking about what Christians are called to be, not what they are, just as Windows is called to be an effective operating system, it just happens to be a bit buggy."]
And on my premises for liking/not-liking or accepting/not-accepting this is why I like christians who work in soup-kitchens without a price-tag of sermons or preachings attached to the charity. And why I dislike christians who are all big words on 'faith' and full of endless christian scholastics, or carrying around literal or verbal noisy manifestations of their monopoly seeking.
Quote: ["What idea is so powerful someone has no choice but to believe it?"]
Fortunately none (that's why I'm a philosophical scepticist). But this doesn't prevent evangelists from acting as if they ARE in possession of THE one monopoly 'truth'.
Quote: ["What idea is so dangerous it must be outlawed?"]
The idea, that anyone has any elitist privileges putting him/her above other peoples' individual rights or society's parliamentary functions.
Quote; ["And why?"]
If it isn't obvious to you, we can take it up under 'epistemology' later.
Quote: ["Is that dangerous idea so much more powerful than the truth that the truth cannot stand against it, and instead simply dies?"]
Yes, it is.
Human history is filled with extremist violence, performed by extremists who only care about propagating THEIR truth. Read some political philosophy on the subject.
* With reality-check I don't mean anything so simplistic or one-eyed as e.g. reductionist materialistic science.
Thanks for your answer.
A few comments first: Being a grumpy extremist-critic as I am, I'm probably experienced as being intolerably intolerant. At least from a fanatic's mindset, which can only operate on the grounds of: "If you're not for me, you're against me". This oversimplification of my position is convenient for debate-tactical reasons, but far too narrow.
By putting social limits to the extent of extremist activities, this also PROTECT extremist minorities.
You wrote:
["Let me preface this by saying, my analogies aren't perfect -- if you hyper-analyze them, there will be holes. I make no claim to be able to perfectly represent God through humanity's creation, or even His. So I ask that you take them as they are stated, and not beyond that"]
What you call 'analogies', I would call 'allegories' (but no matter...this was just for the record). As my initial comments tell, I'm not a very 'siding' active participant on the black/white ideological pushing market, except by saying "put your extremism, where the sun doesn't shine" to all extremists who, directly or indirectly, appear to be suggesting monopoly.
There are more 'reality-checks' * on ideology, than the ideologers like to admit, ranging from a relatively mild-mannered academic approach, via more or less heated pro/contra verbal forum exchanges to open violence. I try to position myself according to the situation. So I don't shoot mosquitos with cannons.
Out of respect for your faith and with a certain amount of courtesy, I didn't expose you to much of a reality-check, but partly played by your rules. But my own position is nonetheless, that your basic tale mainly (as presented on an average by the various christians here on ATS) is a fabulation, presented as 'truth'.
The 'loving parent' allegory is rather common, and usually delievered in a form as sticky-sweet as candied fruit and with semantic shufflings to cover up the gaps. I am really curious as to know, if christian believers REALLY think this way, or if it's just an old routine, which pops up from sheer habit. For a non-believer like me, it's kind of embarrasing to read. So (on 'god's needs):
Quote: ["Ahh, but I never said "Need", I said it was what He desired. It was what He wanted."]
I can without qualms give you a semantic 'benefit of doubt' and change 'needs' to 'desire' ('desire' not as a 'need-derivate' which it sometimes can mean, but as a choice) or to 'wanting'. So (disregarding reality-checking) this bible-character CHOOSE to put up a situation, (which as he is said to be able to see all time also?) contains options of much suffering, FOR HIS OWN PURPOSES. How does that make it better?
Quote: ["A sociopath? One incapable of feeling emotion? I disagree. And yes, I do enjoy allegories"]
A sociopath is able to experience emotions. He/she is incapable of empathy. Seen from a non-believer position Jahveh has all the signs of a sociopath. It's not an allegory for such as me. From your position it's possibly an allegory, self-contained as much of your position is.
Quote: [" If I make a television (CRT style), and give it to you with the warning not to play with its innards because it could kill you, that doesn't make me a sociopath."]
I don't know what CRT style is, but I believe, I get the meaning.
Being able to see into the future, though without interfering; .... seeing an option of brutal suffering on your conditions, if your test of obedience doesn't fall out to your satisfaction; ..... with creatures created without any understanding of morals put to a test only based on their understanding of obedience; .....and they fail; ...and on YOUR pre-arranged conditions then they must suffer and die (it could have been arranged differently, I have a suggestion); .....AND their descendants suffering the consequences; ...all this for your own egotistical purposes
Yes, then you are a sociopath.
Quote: ["If God created the world, and in such a way that certain actions (can you jump 20 stories and just aim for a bush to be fine?) lead to death, then warns us about some of those actions that may not be intuitively obvious, does that make Him a sociopath?"]
THIS allegory semantically mixes two perspectives. One in which the 'natural laws' of visible existence are there observably and to be respected; sofar without any answer on purpose/no-purpose behind these 'natural laws'. Another perspective where some postulated purpose exists on the hows and whys on existence.
Are you confused on your own position on this by blending two incompatible perspectives into one allegory, or do you try to confuse me? It's my impolite guess, that you possibly won't understand, what I just said, so I can clarify on request.
Quote: ["Going back to the television analogy, if you know a little about electricity, it wouldn't make sense that touching bare copper wire inside the television while its unplugged could be dangerous, but there it is."]
Exactly. It's not about knowledge, it's about authority and obedience.
Quote: ["Believe it or not, I understand what you're saying. I struggled with this, too. It seems like we were given the world, then told to only play in a 10' x 10' sandbox."]
Somewhat immodestly I can suggest, that the perspectives (etc) I have as my base and operate from are more extensive than the few black/white views in a 10 by 10. I have e.g. never/seldom (?) out of desperation arrived at answers, before the 'facts' I possess are in order (I'm a philosophical scepticist, but that's another more extensive subject).
Quote: ["We were given the world, and told by God how to live this life He created to the fullest based on His design."]
Seemingly you can't help it. Allegories supporting alleged absolutes, or alleged absolutes supporting allegories...depending on which fits best for the situation. It's just another example of the big elaborate christian circle-argument attitude, which like the worm Ouroboros bites its own tail.
God did or decreed this or that..absolute, supportin allegories, which are supporting the absolutes, which are ........
I will not accuse you of discarding deductive logic (you appear to be intelligent), and as a philosophical scepticist I will not claim deductive logic to be THE exclusive way. But some inclusion of it wouldn't be amiss, it does function rather well in many contexts. E.g. arguments.
Quote: ["So it is with life. When we turn from God and tell Him we can do this life thing without wasting our time on the manual, we continue to live life, but we have no idea what living life to the fullest entails."]
Personally I'm not prone to be convinced, because the same argument is repeated several times (with just changing the packaging).
Quote: ["The manual shares the metaphysical rules for this universe just as a cellphone shares the programmatic rules for using the phone optimally."]
There are several manuals for metaphysical existence (with- or without including the visible universe). I'm familiar with quite a few of them, and yours is amongst those with least reality-check credibility.
Quote: ["Yes, because if you don't recognize the Bible as authoritative, there is the rest of the world to relate God to you. After all, He created nature, science, and the tenants in scripture (like marriage) so, in their optimal form and understanding, they should point to Him."]
Very true. They SHOULD point to him...reality-check.
Quote: ["Since I cannot command all information in existence, I have to use what I have, which isn't complete, to try to help folks who don't believe to relate and understand where I'm coming from."]
There's a big difference between presenting various 'facts', which have been reality-checked, and presenting subjective fabulations, fantasies, faiths or fabrications AS 'facts'. The last is no help to anybody.
Quote: ["Allegories and illustrations are very effective at doing this"]
Sometimes. More often they are brainwashing indoctrination. To avoid being rude to you, I can mention the cold-war propaganda between stalinism and McCarthy'ism as an example.
Quote: [" As to the Christian "moral" on sexuality... What the Bible says and what medieval Catholicism considered acceptable sexuality are radically different. Being someone who sees the Bible as authoritative, I'm going to go with the Bible over culture."]
Another option for a broad side-stepping into relevant and parallel (but minor on this thread) topic. Homesexuality...laws on rape-situations in OT!! Is the bible's authority on this superseding contemporary laws?
Quote: ["Now, now, I was using that as an analogy. Just as folks who smoke one cigarette can go the rest of their lives not smoking again, there are folks that die because of that first cigarette. Would you respond to someone who, when talking about a friend who died from lung cancer after smoking for 40 years, that says, "smoking killed them," with something along the lines of, "That's an embellished tale, let's be serious here"? After all, smoking hasn't 100% been tied to cancer, it just seems pretty typical that one leads to the other. In this case, regarding the Jewish nation, porn led to prostitution, so to speak. Not the way it always goes. The way it went in this case."]
I like your introduction of an element of deductive logic here. But I can't see how this recent addition to your initial allegory on marital sexuality as a parallel to love between god and mankind says anything except that NOT being a christian/jew is spiritual prostitution. Sorry, it's YOUR allegories, carried to your purposes. If you don't like my anylyzing of yout allegories find better ones or stop them.
Quote: ["Check out 1 Kings, 2 Kings, 1 Chronicles, and 2 Chronicles. That was the law of Israel, yeah, as God handed it down. Not as it was practiced, and not as it was documented in the Bible."]
As to unbelievers being killed, I remember a massacre taking place, when Moses came down from the mountain. Don't cherry-pick me. People being killed are people being killed, whether it's done by bigots in the NAME of religion or by bigots claiming religious LAWS as an excuse.
Quote: ["Desire. Have you ever courted after someone who didn't feel the same way? After you moved on, did you believe you were wrong for your having loved them?"]
Exactly. So I suggest that both christians and 'god' move on, and leave the rest of us in peace.
Quote: ["You're ok with an anarchistic survival of the fittest?"]
Is that how you read my words? I'm generally known on ATS to be an annoyingly supporter of egalitarian, liberal, secular society, strongly critisizing extra-parliamentary activites (such as bible-law above secular law). Maybe my philophical scepticism confuses you to take a position of black/white politics concerning me.
Quote: ["That if you can take something from someone, that very superiority gives you the right to it? That if someone bothers you, is better than you, gets the girl you want, and you have the ability to kill them, you have the right to do so because you, in that moment, are stronger than them? That's the kind of rebellion I speak of -- one against charity and order."]
That 'charity and order' is one of your postulated absolutes. Non-believers see the extremist-christian version of this 'charity and order' as fascist ideology. Another option for a reality-check.... unencumbered by allegories.
Quote: ["Yes, or else. Just as a doctor who gives you antibiotics for your infection tells you to take them daily or else. Is the doctor wrong for their warning?"]
Allegorically.... non-believers see your 'god' as the disease. Not as the cure.
Quote: ["If we were designed to love God, God asks us to love Him, and we say no, why is God obliged to hang out with us?"]
Aren't we going in circles? This is back to square one; but for the fun of it, I'll momentarily accept the 'if'. Non-believers aren't asking 'god' to hang out with us, we're actually asking him to get the heck away and leave us in peace. It's you guys wanting him.
Quote: ["If we reject God here on Earth, He rejects us -- we get what we wanted -- an eternity without Him."]
Fine with me. Besides I actually have several more attractive (and 'believable') options for eternity. You choose yours, I choose mine.
Quote: ["And, sadly, an increasing part of mankind has decided vaccinations are unhealthy, and it has caused some pretty nasty diseases to crop up."]
Being a vegetarian myself, with strong, but not fanatic sympathies towards 'natural medicine', I can only agree. But I don't share your pre-occupation with black/white positions. I find that a considered balance will do fine. Do you want us to live in caves to satisfy your religious zeal?
Quote: [" But as Ghandi didn't say, if the whole world believes what is right is wrong, it makes what was right now wrong and what was wrong now right. Right? If we all agree on some new laws of aerodynamics, people will fly..."]
I AM familiar with epistemology, thank you.
Quote: [" However, I think we may still disagree, because I didn't state that very clearly. He cannot abide our rejection of Him, and, as a result, chooses not to stay with us. Going back to the unrequited love, if someone you care for deeply spits on you every time they see you, yells at you, tells you they never want to see you, that they hate you, how long would you be willing to hang out with them?"]
I understood it the first time. But I can repeat my own answer (again momentarily on bible premises): 'God' will do me a favour, if he stays away. Then mankind will get a chance to clear up the mess he created and left us with.
Quote: [" Sure. Just because a plan doesn't work doesn't mean the planner intended it to fail."]
Aaaaah, finally did the 'mysterious ways' and 'ineffability' turn up openly. If 'absolutes' and allegories should fall short, a little bit of magic to fill in the gaps should do it. But then, ....surely the flying spaghetti monster and his quirks are real also, because they are magical and invisble.
Quote (on the golden rule): ["Care to share?"]
The buddhist version is unconditional and it's more encompassing than the christian version.
Quote: [" I'm talking about what Christians are called to be, not what they are, just as Windows is called to be an effective operating system, it just happens to be a bit buggy."]
And on my premises for liking/not-liking or accepting/not-accepting this is why I like christians who work in soup-kitchens without a price-tag of sermons or preachings attached to the charity. And why I dislike christians who are all big words on 'faith' and full of endless christian scholastics, or carrying around literal or verbal noisy manifestations of their monopoly seeking.
Quote: ["What idea is so powerful someone has no choice but to believe it?"]
Fortunately none (that's why I'm a philosophical scepticist). But this doesn't prevent evangelists from acting as if they ARE in possession of THE one monopoly 'truth'.
Quote: ["What idea is so dangerous it must be outlawed?"]
The idea, that anyone has any elitist privileges putting him/her above other peoples' individual rights or society's parliamentary functions.
Quote; ["And why?"]
If it isn't obvious to you, we can take it up under 'epistemology' later.
Quote: ["Is that dangerous idea so much more powerful than the truth that the truth cannot stand against it, and instead simply dies?"]
Yes, it is.
Human history is filled with extremist violence, performed by extremists who only care about propagating THEIR truth. Read some political philosophy on the subject.
* With reality-check I don't mean anything so simplistic or one-eyed as e.g. reductionist materialistic science.
edit on 22-4-2011 by bogomil because: spelling
reply to post by junglejake
I apologize for the length of my last post. But I believe, you're capable of taking it in.
I apologize for the length of my last post. But I believe, you're capable of taking it in.
Originally posted by bogomil
reply to post by junglejake
I apologize for the length of my last post. But I believe, you're capable of taking it in.
No worries, I'm long winded, too Plus, what we're discussing can't really be done in depth with pithy one-liners. I probably won't be able to say anything until after Easter, though. Busy weekend for us believers, as well as many others!
Speaking of pithy comments, though, I do have one regarding your statement of telling extremists to put their extremism into an Arctic winter. From the context, it sounds as if you define extremists as people who say it's my way or the highway, I'm right, you're wrong, this is the way it is, deal with it. Is this a universal dislike, or selective?
I only ask because mathematicians have been making these audacious claims for millennium, as have physicists, and even chemists. When a zoologist says, "That's a giraffe!" Most people don't jump down their throat for forcing their opinions on people.
Silly comparison, I know, since mathematicians, physicists, chemists, and even zoologists in some senses provide examples, rules and concepts that truly represent reality. Yet they, by the qualifications of extremism I understand from above, are seen differently than someone like me who says Jesus Christ is the way, the truth and the life, and no one comes to God except through Him. What if, just what if, this is true, though? Does that still make me an extremist, saying something is true and something else is not?
I don't understand the nuance of half (well, more than half) of the things I read about physics, math and chemistry, but I'm confident they're accurate, insofar as the current data allows. I assume you do, too. So if you can believe in atoms, something invisible, molecules, the combination of the invisible through differing electrical and chemical bonds, and the math behind them, an abstract method to quantify reality, why so convinced about God, an invisible fabricator of the universe, designing its rules and laws and setting it into motion?
new topics
-
This is our Story
General Entertainment: 2 hours ago -
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections: 4 hours ago -
Ode to Artemis
General Chit Chat: 5 hours ago -
Ditching physical money
History: 9 hours ago -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry: 9 hours ago -
Don't take advantage of people just because it seems easy it will backfire
Rant: 9 hours ago -
VirginOfGrand says hello
Introductions: 10 hours ago -
Should Biden Replace Harris With AOC On the 2024 Democrat Ticket?
2024 Elections: 10 hours ago
top topics
-
University student disciplined after saying veganism is wrong and gender fluidity is stupid
Education and Media: 13 hours ago, 12 flags -
Police clash with St George’s Day protesters at central London rally
Social Issues and Civil Unrest: 16 hours ago, 9 flags -
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections: 4 hours ago, 9 flags -
TLDR post about ATS and why I love it and hope we all stay together somewhere
General Chit Chat: 17 hours ago, 7 flags -
Should Biden Replace Harris With AOC On the 2024 Democrat Ticket?
2024 Elections: 10 hours ago, 6 flags -
Don't take advantage of people just because it seems easy it will backfire
Rant: 9 hours ago, 4 flags -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry: 9 hours ago, 4 flags -
God lived as a Devil Dog.
Short Stories: 14 hours ago, 3 flags -
Ditching physical money
History: 9 hours ago, 3 flags -
VirginOfGrand says hello
Introductions: 10 hours ago, 2 flags
active topics
-
The Reality of the Laser
Military Projects • 33 • : ADVISOR -
Terrifying Encounters With The Black Eyed Kids
Paranormal Studies • 71 • : FlyersFan -
This is our Story
General Entertainment • 1 • : Encia22 -
whistleblower Captain Bill Uhouse on the Kingman UFO recovery
Aliens and UFOs • 17 • : vance2 -
DerBeobachter - Electric Boogaloo 2
Introductions • 13 • : DerBeobachter2 -
One Flame Throwing Robot Dog for Christmas Please!
Weaponry • 7 • : OzBiker -
University student disciplined after saying veganism is wrong and gender fluidity is stupid
Education and Media • 26 • : DerBeobachter2 -
President BIDEN Vows to Make Americans Pay More Federal Taxes in 2025 - Political Suicide.
2024 Elections • 4 • : 727Sky -
British TV Presenter Refuses To Use Guest's Preferred Pronouns
Education and Media • 128 • : Consvoli -
Tucker Carlson UFOs are piloted by spiritual entities with bases under the ocean and the ground
Aliens and UFOs • 42 • : Jukiodone