Suffering for the Sins of the World

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Sorry, I was trying.  To address it in your terms, I simply see it as where we are on the dispensation timeline....post Christ, pre judgement.  Per the story, there was a time where God was with the people, parted the waters, manna, and gave them forgiveness for not understanding and rejecting Him.  Now I see it as largely a test of whether we acknowledge our shortcomings and work accordingly or keep rejecting and blame.  In other words, He already did.  If you had lived in those days, I expect you wouldn't have rejected as you do now.  Why do you not see this....or think differently.

 

A point of order, Edgarcito.

 

 

There was a time where God was with ONLY his chosen people.

 

But he was not with anyone else in the entire world.

 

There was a time when he was briefly a carpenter's son in Israel.

 

But he was not with anyone else in the entire world.

 

So, god's direct intervention in human affairs has been extremely limited.

 

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Sorry, I was trying.  To address it in your terms, I simply see it as where we are on the dispensation timeline....post Christ, pre judgement.  Per the story, there was a time where God was with the people, parted the waters, manna, and gave them forgiveness for not understanding and rejecting Him.  Now I see it as largely a test of whether we acknowledge our shortcomings and work accordingly or keep rejecting and blame.  In other words, He already did.  If you had lived in those days, I expect you wouldn't have rejected as you do now.  Why do you not see this....or think differently.

 

And if god gave some people his forgiveness for not understanding and rejecting him, why didn't he give the two most important people in the world his forgiveness for not understanding his command, "Do not eat the fruit of that tree"?

 

That way no children would ever have starved.

 

?

 

[Edgarcito]

18 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

You keep missing the point, though.  The point being that the little boy is still suffering all this time while god plays his little mind-fuck games.  If this is god's plan, then obviously allowing the child to starve is part of it.  What are we do do with a god whose plan allows for children to starve?  What are we to do with a god whose plan is so flimsy that it can be thwarted by finite men?  What are we to do with god’s omnipotence if he can't even feed a child because neither Jew nor Gentile has the heart or the cash to see it done? 

You can pick your own standard I expect and live per that choice.

[walterpthefirst]

13 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You can pick your own standard I expect and live per that choice.

 

But the people who god never directly interacted with (i.e., everyone in the world except for the Israelites) could not pick any kind of standard.

 

Their choice was taken away from them without them knowing, when things went bad in Eden.

 

They had death, disease and starvation thrust upon them and god did not make himself known to them.

 

You asked what is a choice in another thread, Edgarcito.

 

Did god give the rest of the world any choice?

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

44 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You can pick your own standard I expect and live per that choice.

No.  You're wrong there.  I have no choice in this matter.  How can I believe in a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent when the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly to the contrary?  How can I trust that he suffered the sins of the world when I can still clearly see hear feel experience the same suffering that has been present since time immemorial?

 

Because of my standard, which is obviously higher than god's, I have no choice but to reject him and his wretched plan.

[Edgarcito]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  You're wrong there.  I have no choice in this matter.  How can I believe in a god who is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent when the evidence demonstrates overwhelmingly to the contrary?  How can I trust that he suffered the sins of the world when I can still clearly see hear feel experience the same suffering that has been present since time immemorial?

 

Because of my standard, which is obviously higher than god's, I have no choice but to reject him and his wretched plan.

It's all good J.  Hope the conversation helped.

[duderonomy]

4 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

A point of order, Edgarcito.

 

 

There was a time where God was with ONLY his chosen people.

 

But he was not with anyone else in the entire world.

 

There was a time when he was briefly a carpenter's son in Israel.

 

But he was not with anyone else in the entire world.

 

So, god's direct intervention in human affairs has been extremely limited.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

That's just a dumb thing to say, Walter IMHO.

 

You obviously overlook the Holy Spirit and the Bible verses that explain (claim) that its God is everywhere, etc. Unless you have another source for your information?

 

If you are going to use the Bible in your apologetics, I'm going to have to assume that you believe it has some authority, and I'm starting to wonder if you ever got the plot in the first place.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

5 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

That's just a dumb thing to say, Walter IMHO.

 

You obviously overlook the Holy Spirit and the Bible verses that explain (claim) that its God is everywhere, etc. Unless you have another source for your information?

 

If you are going to use the Bible in your apologetics, I'm going to have to assume that you believe it has some authority, and I'm starting to wonder if you ever got the plot in the first place.

 

 

 

With all due respect Duderonomy, I beg to disagree.

 

First, I am not engaging in bible-based apologetics.  Instead I'm playing devil's advocate, which is a well-known and entirely acceptable position to take in a debate.

 

Second, in the NT the holy spirit was only given after Jesus was resurrected and then only to believers.  In the OT the holy spirit is mentioned only by believers.  And therefore my point about god interreacting in an extremely limited way stands.  He only did so to and through his chosen people, Israel.  He never interacted with anyone else in the world.

 

Even the first chapter of Romans doesn't help, despite the fact that it says that the whole world is without excuse because god's eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen to all.  That's because even if the Aztecs or the Inuit had realized who god was before any Christian missionaries reached them, it would have have done them no good in the end.

 

Romans 10 : 11 - 15

 

11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 

15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

 

See that?

Nobody can call upon god unless they believe, nobody can believe unless they hear and nobody can hear unless the Word is preached to them.

 

So, even if an Aztec or an Inuit realized who god was and gave him glory, doing that cannot save them from hell.  They could only be saved by hearing the Word preached to them.  And for 99.9 of the world the Word of god was not preached to them for 99.9% of human history.

 

Do you now see what I mean when I wrote that most of the world was never given given a choice?  They were doomed to hell by living and dying before any Christian missionaries could ever save them.

 

So, there's no need for you to wonder if I ever got the plot in the first place Duderonomy.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

10 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

It's all good J.  Hope the conversation helped.

Mighty cordial of you, E.

[duderonomy]

On 8/22/2022 at 6:56 AM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

How, who, and why did you have in mind when you asked the question?

 

 

It gets a little crazy after a while, doesn't it Prof?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

It gets a little crazy after a while, doesn't it Prof?

Few things ever really make sense, when you try to make sense of them.

[duderonomy]

On 8/23/2022 at 3:56 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

With all due respect Duderonomy, I beg to disagree.

 

First, I am not engaging in bible-based apologetics.  Instead I'm playing devil's advocate, which is a well-known and entirely acceptable position to take in a debate.

 

Second, in the NT the holy spirit was only given after Jesus was resurrected and then only to believers.  In the OT the holy spirit is mentioned only by believers.  And therefore my point about god interreacting in an extremely limited way stands.  He only did so to and through his chosen people, Israel.  He never interacted with anyone else in the world.

 

Even the first chapter of Romans doesn't help, despite the fact that it says that the whole world is without excuse because god's eternal power and divine nature are clearly seen to all.  That's because even if the Aztecs or the Inuit had realized who god was before any Christian missionaries reached them, it would have have done them no good in the end.

 

Romans 10 : 11 - 15

 

11 As Scripture says, “Anyone who believes in him will never be put to shame.”

12 For there is no difference between Jew and Gentile—the same Lord is Lord of all and richly blesses all who call on him, 

13 for, “Everyone who calls on the name of the Lord will be saved.”

14 How, then, can they call on the one they have not believed in? And how can they believe in the one of whom they have not heard? And how can they hear without someone preaching to them? 

15 And how can anyone preach unless they are sent? As it is written: “How beautiful are the feet of those who bring good news!”

 

See that?

Nobody can call upon god unless they believe, nobody can believe unless they hear and nobody can hear unless the Word is preached to them.

 

So, even if an Aztec or an Inuit realized who god was and gave him glory, doing that cannot save them from hell.  They could only be saved by hearing the Word preached to them.  And for 99.9 of the world the Word of god was not preached to them for 99.9% of human history.

 

Do you now see what I mean when I wrote that most of the world was never given given a choice?  They were doomed to hell by living and dying before any Christian missionaries could ever save them.

 

So, there's no need for you to wonder if I ever got the plot in the first place Duderonomy.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

You strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel. Or maybe you are making a mountain out of a molehill? I don't know.

 

I wonder though, what's your problem with Jesus and Heaven and so on?  I mean, eternity will never end and we are launching new probes and Hubble/James Webb telescopes and moon missions and Mars probes and for the love of God, it's like humans are reaching out to the heavens and from Sputnik to the James Webb telescope we are admitting that we don't know everything.

For every Bible verse you can throw at me, I can throw two Bible verses back.  You believe them or you don't, but you don't know everything yet, do you?

 

You said:  "First, I am not engaging in bible-based apologetics.  Instead I'm playing devil's advocate, which is a well-known and entirely acceptable position to take in a debate."

 

If you were playing "devil's advocate" Walter, I think that as an unbeliever you would be promoting the point of a believer, but that's just my opinion. 

 

If what you are getting at is that you aren't using Bible based apologetics, why are you quoting so many Bible verses in your post and then commenting on them?

 

I'm just thickening the soup Walter. I think it's ok to slow down and think things through now and again, and I think you do too.

 

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

You strain at a gnat, but swallow a camel. Or maybe you are making a mountain out of a molehill? I don't know.

 

I wonder though, what's your problem with Jesus and Heaven and so on?  I mean, eternity will never end and we are launching new probes and Hubble/James Webb telescopes and moon missions and Mars probes and for the love of God, it's like humans are reaching out to the heavens and from Sputnik to the James Webb telescope we are admitting that we don't know everything.

 

Perhaps my 'problem' is that I'm a sceptic who was once a believer?  If so, then I'm in good company in this forum.

 

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

For every Bible verse you can throw at me, I can throw two Bible verses back.  You believe them or you don't, but you don't know everything yet, do you?

 

I know enough about scripture to reject the god described there.  In this forum, that's plenty.

 

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

You said:  "First, I am not engaging in bible-based apologetics.  Instead I'm playing devil's advocate, which is a well-known and entirely acceptable position to take in a debate."

 

If you were playing "devil's advocate" Walter, I think that as an unbeliever you would be promoting the point of a believer, but that's just my opinion. 

 

How can that be?  By playing devil's advocate I've demonstrated that god has damned everyone who hasn't been saved by hearing his Word.  

 

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

If what you are getting at is that you aren't using Bible based apologetics, why are you quoting so many Bible verses in your post and then commenting on them?

 

I quote only as many as I need and comment only as much as I need to.

 

12 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

I'm just thickening the soup Walter. I think it's ok to slow down and think things through now and again, and I think you do too.

 

 

You've hit the nail on the head, Duderonomy.  As a sceptic I now think things through.  When I was a believer, I didn't.

[duderonomy]

On 8/27/2022 at 1:46 PM, walterpthefirst said:

You've hit the nail on the head, Duderonomy.  As a sceptic I now think things through.  When I was a believer, I didn't.

 

Really? What changed? Faith, knowing, believing, This Time I Know I'm Right!, age, experience, standing at the top of Mount Everest and looking up?

 

 

On 8/27/2022 at 1:46 PM, walterpthefirst said:

On 8/27/2022 at 12:50 AM, duderonomy said:

 

If what you are getting at is that you aren't using Bible based apologetics, why are you quoting so many Bible verses in your post and then commenting on them?

 

I quote only as many as I need and comment only as much as I need to.

 

Why? Are you afraid of what the Bible says? Do you have only a cursory knowledge of it and you are afraid to take a deep dive? 

Why would you 'need to' quote and comment only as much as you feel you need to?

 

Playing "Devil's Advocate" means taking the viewpoint of the opposite side and promoting it to make a point. Am I wrong?

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Really? What changed? Faith, knowing, believing, This Time I Know I'm Right!, age, experience, standing at the top of Mount Everest and looking up?

 

I've already said what changed Duderonomy.  I started to think things through, whereas when I was a believer I didn't.

 

2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

Why? Are you afraid of what the Bible says? Do you have only a cursory knowledge of it and you are afraid to take a deep dive? 

Why would you 'need to' quote and comment only as much as you feel you need to?

 

Fear is not what dictates how much or how little of the bible that I quote.  Sufficiency is.  

 

2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Playing "Devil's Advocate" means taking the viewpoint of the opposite side and promoting it to make a point. Am I wrong?

 

Yes, you are wrong.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

 

In common language, the phrase 'playing devil's advocate' describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid.

[duderonomy]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

23 hours ago, duderonomy said:

Playing "Devil's Advocate" means taking the viewpoint of the opposite side and promoting it to make a point. Am I wrong?

 

Yes, you are wrong.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Devil's_advocate

 

In common language, the phrase 'playing devil's advocate' describes a situation where someone, given a certain point of view, takes a position they do not necessarily agree with (or simply an alternative position from the accepted norm), for the sake of debate or to explore the thought further using valid reasoning that both disagrees with the subject at hand and proves their own point valid.

 

Are you daft? Your own response shows that I'm right, for I have said what thou hast said, and clearly I said it first.

[duderonomy]

20 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

I've already said what changed Duderonomy.  I started to think things through, whereas when I was a believer I didn't.

 

Did you hit a wall? Are you still thinking? 

 

It seems to me that you made up your mind and this time you are absolutely sure.

 

Not saying. Just sayin'. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

13 minutes ago, duderonomy said:

 

Are you daft? 

 

 

Have you read the book, GAMES PEOPLE PLAY, by Eric Berne?

[walterpthefirst]

17 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Are you daft? Your own response shows that I'm right, for I have said what thou hast said, and clearly I said it first.

 

Perhaps our confusion stems from the 'point' you believe that I'm making when I play devil's advocate, Duderonomy?

 

So, what point do you think that I'm making?

 

 

[duderonomy]

On 9/3/2022 at 11:11 PM, Weezer said:

 

Have you read the book, GAMES PEOPLE PLAY, by Eric Berne?

 

Me? No. Why would I?

 

Does it have more authority/truth about human nature/rules to live by than any other book?

 

Edited to change too to to.

[duderonomy]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Perhaps our confusion stems from the 'point' you believe that I'm making when I play devil's advocate, Duderonomy?

 

So, what point do you think that I'm making?

 

 

 

 

Wouldn't it be more productive if you told me what point you are trying to make than to ask me what point I think you are trying to make?

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

 

Wouldn't it be more productive if you told me what point you are trying to make than to ask me what point I think you are trying to make?

 

Touché!   

 

Perhaps the best way to describe my point Duderonomy is to refer you to something I wrote yesterday, when I was debating with Edgarcito.

 

 As an atheist and a sceptic I have yet to see any convincing evidence for god. 

 

This is the position I prefer to take and try to hold to.  Therefore, when I am playing devil's advocate with the contents of the bible I don't do so from an anti-biblical position where my point is to undermine and refute what that book says.  If I were doing that then you'd be right on target.  I would have made up my mind and I would be absolutely sure.

 

Doing that would be incompatible with the open mindedness that I should practice as a sceptic waiting to see any convincing argument for god.  So, instead what I do is to work through the internal logic of the bible and see where this leads.  So far, by doing that I've found that the bible is it's own worst enemy, showing god to be a judgmental and sadistic monster rather than a loving father who cares for his children.  

 

Interestingly, what I've found so far agrees very well with something said by Matt Dillahunty on the Atheist Experience show.  He's on record as saying that the best way to stop being a Christian is to actually read what the bible says.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[walterpthefirst]

Thinking about this a little more Duderonomy, there's a good worked example in my favourite sport - Formula 1 Motor racing.  Each team has two drivers and a third driver who never competes in any races.  This test driver is there to put the car through its paces and to verify that its working as well as can be expected.

 

A test driver doesn't begin his day with the belief that the car is going to fail in some way, nor does he believe that everything is going to function perfectly.  He's simply there to test it and see what works and what doesn't.

 

And I'd like to think that this is what I'm doing when I play devil's advocate with the content of the bible.  As an open-minded sceptic I shouldn't start with the belief that the bible is wrong, nor should I begin with the belief that it's right.  Instead I should just work through the logic of what's written in scripture and see where that takes me.

 

If doing that rains on the parade of Christian apologists, then so be it.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

20 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Me? No. Why would I?

 

 

I thought you might be interested in seeing the mind games people play with others, and why they play them.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

20 hours ago, duderonomy said:

 

Does it have more authority/truth about human nature/rules to live by than any other book?

 

 

No rules to live by.  Just some insights into human behavior.