EAC: We're doing a good job!

[Politesse]

You seem to be back to demonstrating what I said. You accept the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Bible that you like but reject the ones attributed to him that you don't like. So, as I said, you seem to be creating your own religion and only call yourself Christian because it sounds good to you.

I tend to be Humanist too so I like how you describe how humans should be, but it's not the way Christians and the Bible teach. People should be nice to each other and help each other because they are humans, not to buy themselves a seat in some heaven.

So according to you, a person is only a "true Christian" if they agree with everything attributed to Jesus in the Bible?

It is a matter of definitions... words have meanings. Only Humpty-Dumpty can get away with claiming that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean. (Because Lewis Carol wrote that as satire)

That's a load of horse shit. Obviously I disagree with your definition, or I wouldn't have commented on it. But have I correctly characterized your position? That's what a "true Christian" is?

 

[skepticalbip]

It is a matter of definitions... words have meanings. Only Humpty-Dumpty can get away with claiming that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean. (Because Lewis Carol wrote that as satire)

That's a load of horse shit. Obviously I disagree with your definition, or I wouldn't have commented on it. But have I correctly characterized your position? That's what a "true Christian" is?

It isn't MY definition. Maybe you need to look up that definition. Are you saying that Christians believe that half of the lessons offered by their deity is pure bull shit and only some of them worth paying attention to? That would make for a damned fallible god to believe in.

My liking much of what Gautama Buddha taught does not make me a Buddhist and my liking some of what Jesus taught does not make me a Christian.

 

[Politesse]

It is a matter of definitions... words have meanings. Only Humpty-Dumpty can get away with claiming that words mean exactly what he wants them to mean. (Because Lewis Carol wrote that as satire)

That's a load of horse shit. Obviously I disagree with your definition, or I wouldn't have commented on it. But have I correctly characterized your position? That's what a "true Christian" is?

It isn't MY definition. Maybe you need to look up that definition. Are you saying that Christians believe that half of the lessons offered by their deity is pure bull shit and only some of them worth paying attention to? That would make for a damned fallible god to believe in.

My liking much of what Gautama Buddha taught does not make me a Buddhist and my liking some of what Jesus taught does not make me a Christian.

Perhaps you can recommend to me a source in which I can look up that definition? I am not finding it.

 

[skepticalbip]

It isn't MY definition. Maybe you need to look up that definition. Are you saying that Christians believe that half of the lessons offered by their deity is pure bull shit and only some of them worth paying attention to? That would make for a damned fallible god to believe in.

My liking much of what Gautama Buddha taught does not make me a Buddhist and my liking some of what Jesus taught does not make me a Christian.

Perhaps you can recommend to me a source in which I can look up that definition? I am not finding it.

Sure dear. Go to your local library and ask the librarian to help you. Ask her to look up "Christian" in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and/or the Merriam-Webster dictionary for you. Your librarian should be familiar with both of those.

 

[Politesse]

It isn't MY definition. Maybe you need to look up that definition. Are you saying that Christians believe that half of the lessons offered by their deity is pure bull shit and only some of them worth paying attention to? That would make for a damned fallible god to believe in.

My liking much of what Gautama Buddha taught does not make me a Buddhist and my liking some of what Jesus taught does not make me a Christian.

Perhaps you can recommend to me a source in which I can look up that definition? I am not finding it.

Sure dear. Go to your local library and ask the librarian to help you. Ask her to look up "Christian" in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and/or the Merriam-Webster dictionary for you. Your librarian should be familiar with both of those.

Not needed, those have online editions. However, neither of them include your definition. Perhaps they forgot?

 

[skepticalbip]

Sure dear. Go to your local library and ask the librarian to help you. Ask her to look up "Christian" in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and/or the Merriam-Webster dictionary for you. Your librarian should be familiar with both of those.

Not needed, those have online editions. However, neither of them include your definition. Perhaps they forgot?

Perhaps abridged. I still suggest you visit the library. The first definition in my home copy of the dictionary (a Merriam-Webster) for Christian is, "A person who believes in the doctrines of Jesus and acknowledges his divinity."

It doesn't define a Christian as someone who thinks some of Jesus' doctrines are good, others not so much. It also doesn't define Christian as someone who doesn't see Jesus as a divinity.

I fall into the category above of what the dictionary doesn't say so I am not a Christian.

 

[HaRaAYaH]

I can't speak to Christianity. But I can say this. You guys need to stop saying "the Bible", The Bible", "The Bible". It's what the particular religion teaches about the Bible. So Judaism <> to the Old Testament and Christianity <> to the New Testament. I don't know enough about Christianity.

But you cannot speak for Judaism by saying the Torah says. It's not what the Torah says. It's how Jews interpret what it says. So, I think the US Constitution says you need to be part of a well regulated Militia to have a gun. The U.S. Supreme court interprets the U.S. Constitution otherwise and that is the law of the land.


Let's look at an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth, a hand for a hand, a foot for a foot; a burn for a burn, a wound for a wound, a bruise for a bruise." (Exodus 21:24-25). Aside from the Pithy saying in Fiddler on the Roof that the whole world would be blind and toothless, No where is there any indication this was ever done and Jewish Law speaks only of monetary compensation

Now let's take a look at the death penalty. There are 36 crimes punishable by death. The Torah is clear about that. Yet, despite the Torah Text clearly indicating the death penalty. Jewish Law put's so many road blocks in the way as to prevent the death penalty from every being carried out. In order for the death penalty to be carried out:

According to the Mishnah, capital cases had to be decided by a Sanhedrin of 23 judges.
If the conviction in a capital case was unanimous, the accused was acquitted.
Perhaps most onerous of all, the offense had to be witnessed by two people who warned the perpetrator immediately prior to committing the act that it was a capital offense.



Such stringencies are often understood to account for the famous Mishnah passage that states that if a Sanhedrin executed one person in seven years, it was considered destructive. Rabbi Elazar Ben Azariah objects that the standard is actually once in 70 years, and Rabbis Tarfon and Akiva say that had they served on the court, no one would have ever been executed.

So basically despite what the text says, Judaism interprets differently.

My point is you are free to differ with the teachings of any religion, Differ with the teachings not the texts. All text's need interpretation. That is why there are courts, to determine what texts mean, And one final thing:

The Sixth Commandment says:

לֹא תִרְצָח ..... DO NOT MURDER​

It doesn't say ......DO NOT KILL......

 

[Politesse]

Sure dear. Go to your local library and ask the librarian to help you. Ask her to look up "Christian" in the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) and/or the Merriam-Webster dictionary for you. Your librarian should be familiar with both of those.

Not needed, those have online editions. However, neither of them include your definition. Perhaps they forgot?

Perhaps abridged. I still suggest you visit the library. The first definition in my home copy of the dictionary (a Merriam-Webster) for Christian is, "A person who believes in the doctrines of Jesus and acknowledges his divinity."

It doesn't define a Christian as someone who thinks some of Jesus' doctrines are good, others not so much. It also doesn't define Christian as someone who doesn't see Jesus as a divinity.

I fall into the category above of what the dictionary doesn't say so I am not a Christian.

If you're going to give me two obviously different definitions, and just sort of insist that they're the same, I've no idea how to proceed.

 

[atrib]

atrib:
We will fall short because the standards are impossible to achieve for humans that were created broken by Biblegod. We will even be judged for the thought crime of coveting things, our neighbors' cattle, their slaves, their wives and so on.

Its difficult to give up worldly things, or control ones own strong emotions giving into harmful desires. Mostly (if not all) they are forgivable! Besides it's good from the POV that the most darkest of thoughts get seen, in manner of speaking. No real nasties gets to hide.

You are missing the point. We were created by god to have a sinful nature. We had no choice in the matter. To hold humans responsible for their actions or even their thoughts which result directly from the sinful nature imprinted on them by God is morally corrupt. To assert that humans have to beg for forgiveness for this sinful nature imprinted on them by God is morally corrupt. Master is always right, even when he is wrong - that is the mentality of a slave.

If I covered my two-year-old in paint and let him run around the house, who would be responsible for the resulting mess? The child or I? What did the child do that requires forgiveness?

And the only way out of a doomed afterlife is to submit to this god, mind and spirit, and spend our lives as slaves. The game was rigged from the start.

I disagree with the slaves and rigged-from-the-start contextual bit. Overall, biblically (and sounding arrogant) as according to scripture... Them's the Rules!

Exactly! Master makes the rules, and Master is always right. Master has the right to punish us any way Master wants, any time he wants. Even for our most intimate thoughts. What would you call this if not slavery?

 

[atrib]

Like murder, rape, abusing chidren and other victims, stealing and robbing from others? Do you stop yourself from doing them?

These are intelligent decisive thoughts for intention, influenced by practises perhaps, from other people seen or heard about, through generations of bad habits, and satan. Animals and beasts in the wild, apparently are not known to do these things naturally.

Are you joking? Have you never seen a documentary in which lions eat a zebra while it is still alive? Or one where a new male lion takes over a pride of females and cubs and then systematically kills all the cubs because they were fathered by another male? So the females will go into heat and mate with him. Or when a lion steals a kill from a cheetah? Or when a dominant chimpanzee male rapes females in its troupe?

What rock have you been living under?

 

[atrib]

God regrets / repents.....as I read it: there was no intention for evil to overun the world. This world was meant to be perfect. Knowledge of "how to" be wicked is all credited to satan and fallen angels (taking wives etc.etc..).

God fucked up his design, and now we have to pay the price.

 

[hurtinbuckaroo]

Like murder, rape, abusing chidren and other victims, stealing and robbing from others? Do you stop yourself from doing them?

These are intelligent decisive thoughts for intention, influenced by practises perhaps, from other people seen or heard about, through generations of bad habits, and satan. Animals and beasts in the wild, apparently are not known to do these things naturally. (Im not righteous myself)

Since animals obviously do all of those things, and more, are they also influenced by satan?

And how does an adult not know that animals do those things?

 

[Learner]

Sorry about delay in responding, its been busy over here with few local disruptions... (just reading posts).

 

[Learner]

Like murder, rape, abusing chidren and other victims, stealing and robbing from others? Do you stop yourself from doing them?

These are intelligent decisive thoughts for intention, influenced by practises perhaps, from other people seen or heard about, through generations of bad habits, and satan. Animals and beasts in the wild, apparently are not known to do these things naturally. (Im not righteous myself)

Since animals obviously do all of those things, and more, are they also influenced by satan?

And how does an adult not know that animals do those things?

I'll add the bit in Rhea's post here

What? Who told you that?
Animals murder, rape and steal. All the time. They also fail to believe in a god, and they never respect the sabbath. They also do the gay.

You need to get your money back for your schoolin’.

You got my attention, interesting. I see what you mean. I should have "realised" that animals have on the "same scale"- seeing and treating with the same equivalence - that they (the animals) have the same natural potential for remorse, guillt, to abstain or having the same desire for doing evil whilst "knowing" these things are wrong.

Thats if.... we are to go by the "natural-universal-animal-kingdom-code-ethic" perhaps? Nice one!

 

[Learner]

You seem to be back to demonstrating what I said. You accept the sayings attributed to Jesus in the Bible that you like but reject the ones attributed to him that you don't like. So, as I said, you seem to be creating your own religion and only call yourself Christian because it sounds good to you.

I tend to be Humanist too so I like how you describe how humans should be, but it's not the way Christians and the Bible teach. People should be nice to each other and help each other because they are humans, not to buy themselves a seat in some heaven.

There's nothing in my previous posts that rejects anything that Jesus said as you like to see it. Don't rely on this (post#92 and #97) as a "strong" indication for any "rejections" you mention about. It isn't.

Edit: Just a tad better imo, if you say: contradiction rather than rejection to be fair.

 

[Learner]

The bible doesn't specify the wickedness that God thought was worth destroying all life minus 8, 4 and 14 of every species. Just wickedness and flights of unlimited imagination. So, gay, perhaps. Do you think gays go to Hell for being gay?

The Righteousness and Purity as God wanted in man, means it was and perhaps still possible for man to possess those virtues to some high level of degree at least - people have done so and still do, I would assume (hopefully), although this would be quite rarely of course.

Corruption of all flesh as written e.g., humans on humans, humans with beasts, human sacrifices to lesser "gods", abominations in various ways on various levels, turning their backs to GOD in defiance. Since the mind and body has tasted the tabooed unkown desires and having knowledge of them and its influencial existence, Satan and co's very advanced knowedge of the human anatomy and form, would find it easy to entice most. Quite a list of wicked-worth really.

Gays don't automatically go to Hell just like people who are not gay, who have the same chances and who can also repent. Sins are forgivable, even if you find it hard and are trying which often brings about why prayers come in here, asking for forgiveness when one falls now and then. Jesus IS the only way basically. Thats what I understand of the Gospels.

Do you think lusting after a woman in your heart is a sin? hard to control that initial reaction. And by some religious traditions, those thoughts condemn us. That whole 'fight, flight, or fuck' response occurs in milliseconds, below our conscious mind. Do we suffer afterlife consequences for those thoughts? Does anyone go to hell for uncontrollable lust in their hearts?

I have a questioning mind. I sought God for a long, long time, trying to find actual evidence of the god i believed in, rather than platitudes and fairy tales and people that got upset i questioned their traditional responses. One day, i realized i had become an atheist. It wasn't a choice i made, just questions that were never answered. I cannot just will myself to believe one of the thousands of offered gods. Am i hellbent for that?
Buuuuut, God doesn't say that man's nature is to be susceptible to Satan. Just that we're inherently wicked-whatever-that-is.

It is on a case by case per indvidual, the severity in each scene and scenario e.g. who does what, against another, why and how, by what means, is for judgement obviously. As I said, sins can be forgivable if not avoided easily.

God regrets / repents.....as I read it: there was no intention for evil to overun the world. This world was meant to be perfect. Knowledge of "how to" be wicked is all credited to satan and fallen angels (taking wives etc.etc..).

A cite would be really handy right here.

You mean other than the Holy scriptures?

Where does it say that we were born wicked, but didn't know how to wicked until evil beings were allowed to teach us?

As in my first paragraph above, its the temptations of the flesh and the enticements to the mind - the knowledge and learning of them, meaning you're not born evil but potentially and influencially pick-it-up from others, through generation to generation - like old habits and old old traditions.

 

[Rhea]

I'll add the bit in Rhea's post here

Let's add in yours, first, for context:

Like murder, rape, abusing chidren and other victims, stealing and robbing from others? Do you stop yourself from doing them?

These are intelligent decisive thoughts for intention, influenced by practises perhaps, from other people seen or heard about, through generations of bad habits, and satan. Animals and beasts in the wild, apparently are not known to do these things naturally. (Im not righteous myself)

That's the goal post, okay? Placed by you. Animals and beasts in the wild "are not known to do" murder, rape, child abuse, stealing and robbing. That's your claim.

How can an adult not know how utterly incorrect this is? Are you so immersed in your bible stories that you fail to observe the world around you?

What? Who told you that?
Animals murder, rape and steal. All the time. They also fail to believe in a god, and they never respect the sabbath. They also do the gay.

You need to get your money back for your schoolin’.

You got my attention, interesting. I see what you mean. I should have "realised" that animals have on the "same scale"- seeing and treating with the same equivalence - that they (the animals) have the same natural potential for remorse, guillt, to abstain or having the same desire for doing evil whilst "knowing" these things are wrong.

Thats if.... we are to go by the "natural-universal-animal-kingdom-code-ethic" perhaps? Nice one!

aaaaand, there's the new goal post. "Oh, I meant with guilt and remorse, you totally know I meant that, right?"
And I will repeat. How can you not know how utterly incorrect this (new goal post) is? You have never seen a dog look guilty? Never seen an animal cower with anticipated social correction? Did you never watch Meercat Manor?

I honestly have no idea why you put quotes around so many of your words, it is confusing to try to figure out if you are trying to play a double entendre or imply something unstated with your "realised" and "same scale." I have no idea what you are trying to convey there.

But here's the thing. other animals, besides the human animal, also engage in murder, rape, abusing chidren and other victims, stealing and robbing from others. They also (the animals) have the same natural potential for remorse, guillt, to abstain or having the same desire for doing evil whilst "knowing" these things are wrong.

In nearly every behavior, animals and humans behave similarly. One obvious difference is humans' ability to abstractly convey meaning to third parties and thereby pass on vast amounts of learning. Though animals are quite adept at making "PRIVATE PROPERTY - KEEP OUT" signs using claws, urine and sound.


So in sum, this idea that you believe in a god who punishes humans for eternity for natural behaviors that are seen in all of the forms of life on the planet, and which include both crime and remorse, yet you think are different and the eternal punishment therefore justified based on a tree-of-knowledge story, and your redemption is based on humans being the only ones with the urges and the only ones with the knowledge.... is completely refuted by the daily and widespread observations of other animals every day.

You need to get your money back on your schoolin'. You got cheated.

 

[Learner]

God regrets / repents.....as I read it: there was no intention for evil to overun the world. This world was meant to be perfect.

But your god couldn’t do it right, eh? Weak loser god? And you pay the price?

God doesn't "fail" anyones god-testing-exam to be God because you simply say so and by your (plura)l devised formulaic test which seems to be trying to get theists to get stumble-blocked so to speak. And.. especially, oddly enough, if HE is the ultimate Creator (at least keep with the theology program). Besides ...as it says in Genesis "Let us make man... etc.." and after other things God made, it says God saw (all that was made) that it was good etc.. which seems to me as spontaneous Creation - no previous plans hence the verses which mention HIS regrets. Resulting ... God sorts it out in the end.

Knowledge of "how to" be wicked is all credited to satan and fallen angels (taking wives etc.etc..).

Can you remind me why god create satan and fallen angels, again?

HE created angels for HIS reasons and those you mentioned, changed simply since the arrival of man which they (the angels) became the fallen.

I never did figure out how a character who supposedly knew everything before it happened got stuck in such a nonsensical plot device.
But there you have it. The god knew in advance that the satan character was going to destroy the rest of the characters, and he made satan anyway. It’s hard to suspend disbelief in a novel with such a swiss cheese story arc, you know?

The problem with this rhetoric is : We are to believe (although accepted) that according to you (atheists plural) that an-all knowing God just knows, without HIS own experience in spontaneous thought and creation. Who knows how one becomes All-knowing? I'll just say I don't know the details here ... so should you imo rather than making the notion thats how GOD would definately be! But it is, I suppose, useful only for some thought-experiment-exercise maybe. Put it this way ..... HE knows NOW! ... that's All-Knowing in my book to be solving it later, e.g. revelation.

But yeah. Why did god make satan?

Equally in the same way HE did with Michael but regretfully as the above about man I would imagine. I don't know everything.



Get back to you on post #117, sorting some things here, but maybe you yourself should think of getting a refund!

 

[Rhea]

God doesn't "fail" anyones god-testing-exam to be call God because you simply say so, especially if HE is the ultimate Creator (Keep with the theology program).

No, he totally does fail the test of whether the human definition of "god" includes the character described in the Christian/Jewish/Muslim books. Words have meaning. A god means a thing.

Your particular god has definitions provided by religions who worship "him". Your stories about your god contradict your definitions of your god.
That's a fail.

I realize that you are totally okay with that. And that's fine. I mean, millions of people on facebook regularly say, "I don't actually believe Mark Zuckerburg is going to give me a car if I post this on my wall for an hour, but you never know! So here it is!" (and then they never delete after an hour! Can you believe it?)

whole bunch of additional claims about your god that don't match your book or your stories ... snipped

It’s hard to suspend disbelief in a novel with such a swiss cheese story arc, you know?

The problem with this rhetoric is : We are to believe (although accepted) that according to you (atheists plural) that an all knowing God just knows, without HIS own experience in spontaneous thought and creation.

LOLz, dude. No, not according to me or atheists. We get our story from ... well, I was going to say from the same place as you, but that's not true since we don't make anything up and assign it to the god. We read the book and interpret what's written. So it's not the same source, but... well, you'll find that when an atheist who engages in these discussions makes a claim about your god, it's based on the game manual.

Job 37:16

Do you know the balancings of the clouds,
the wondrous works of him who is perfect in knowledge.

Psalm 147:5

Great is our Lord and mighty in power;
his understanding has no limit.

1 Samuel 2:3

Talk no more so very proudly,
let not arrogance come from your mouth;
for the LORD is a God of knowledge,
and by him actions are weighed.

Isaiah 55:9

For as the heavens are higher than the earth,
so are my ways higher than your ways
and my thoughts than your thoughts.


Job 28:24

For he looks to the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.

1 John 3:19-20

By this we shall know that we are of the truth and reassure our heart before him; for whenever our heart condemns us, God is greater than our heart, and he knows everything.

Hebrews 4:13

And no creature is hidden from his sight, but all are naked and exposed to the eyes of him to whom we must give account.

Isaiah 46:9

I am God, and there is none like me,
declaring the end from the beginning
and from ancient times things not yet done.

Matthew 10:30

But even the hairs of your head are all numbered.

Psalm 139:4

Even before a word is on my tongue,
behold, O LORD, you know it altogether.

Who knows how one becomes All-knowing? I'll just say I don't know the details here ...

Hold that thought. It's true.

so should you imo rather than suggest thats how GOD would be, but it is useful only for some thought-exercise-experiment maybe.

It's ALL a thought experiment. We take what is defined in your book and the sotries told in your book, and we compare them. Then the thought experiment: If this were true, it would have to...
You got it,. that is indeed the way it works.

Put it this way ... HE knows NOW ... that All-Knowing - solving it later, e.g. revelation.

Remeber that thought you were holding from the paragraph above? Read that again. You don't know.

But yeah. Why did god make satan?

Equally in the same way HE did with Michael but regretfully as the above about man I would imagine.

Learner's version of YHWH is not omniscient. Got it.
"He" is so very human.

 

[Learner]

Ciao