Those Who Reject the Son Reject Also the Father

[TheRedneckProfessor]

23 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

@RNP ....you're not confident in your beliefs at this point....not yet ok with where you are.  Florduh is, Pan is.  Some of the older members.  So you don't argue from a place of confidence.  Just my take.

This isn't the first time you've been wrong.  Won't likely be the last either.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

So, now, Ed, do you have an answer?

[Edgarcito]

3 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, now, Ed, do you have an answer?

Yes, you demonstrate more reason to believe the Bible than you do anything else with your anger and lack of whatever it is you're missing.  

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

This isn't the first time you've been wrong.  Won't likely be the last either.

See, here's your arrogance on display.  Contempt, condescension.... 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

9 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yes, you demonstrate more reason to believe the Bible than you do anything else with your anger and lack of whatever it is you're missing.  

 

8 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

See, here's your arrogance on display.  Contempt, condescension.... 

Listen, I know it's convenient to label anyone who disagrees with you as arrogant, angry, and whatever other ad hominems you can think of, because that shifts the focus away from your inability to defend an untenable position.  I'm not going to play along though.  Have a good day. 

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

Listen, I know it's convenient to label anyone who disagrees with you as arrogant, angry, and whatever other ad hominems you can think of, because that shifts the focus away from your inability to defend an untenable position.  I'm not going to play along though.  Have a good day. 

"taking my toys and quitting now because I don't accept the answer you gave"...   I answered because you asked.  Quit being a little bitch and finish the discussion whether it hurts you or not.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

"taking my toys and quitting now because I don't accept the answer you gave"...   I answered because you asked.  Quit being a little bitch and finish the discussion whether it hurts you or not.

No.  When you can present a reasonable argument without hiding behind insults, we'll have a grown-up conversation.  Until then, have a nice day. 

[Edgarcito]

Tell us where life resides John.  Tell us exactly what is life.  Tell us the origin(s).  Tell us the rationale.  Is life a gift, why and why not.  You are such an extreme ass, asshole, broke-dick cull.  What are you, 40's, 50's?  One of these days you're gonna wake up and understand that you don't have much time left and then your moronic perspective is gonna change.  .....if your're lucky.  

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

No.  When you can present a reasonable argument without hiding behind insults, we'll have a grown-up conversation.  Until then, have a nice day. 

Fuck off.

[Edgarcito]

3 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Here's a question for you, Ed.  I built an argument for rejecting the god of the bible, based largely on what the bible says, and your initial instinct was to quote a scripture verse from the bible.  What possible rationale could you have for thinking that was the best approach to a counter-argument?  If I've already used the bible to reject the bible god, how is adding more bible to the equation going to help your side of the argument?  Especially if the verse you quote simply confirms the bloodlust for which I reject the bible god?

Let me attempt again because you just don't get it.  Part of the answer you were looking for was in the Bible.  What better point of view would be more appropriate that the very source you argue against?  The problem is, you don't want to speculate on how God views life, how it's value is accounted for.  For Christ's sake, we STILL execute people today as atonement for someone's sin.  

 

Wake the fuck up dude.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

20 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Let me attempt again because you just don't get it.  Part of the answer you were looking for was in the Bible.  What better point of view would be more appropriate that the very source you argue against?  The problem is, you don't want to speculate on how God views life, how it's value is accounted for.  For Christ's sake, we STILL execute people today as atonement for someone's sin.  

 

Wake the fuck up dude.

Well, since you're being slightly less insulting, allow me to retort.

 

1.  I don't need to speculate on how god views life or determines its value because the bible already tells me.  (And it ain't a pretty picture).

 

2.  I don't need to speculate on how god views life or determines its value because that has nothing to do with my own moral objection to substitutionary death. 

 

3.  That we execute people ourselves is not a justification for executing people.  I also find the practice barbaric and objectionable; but that is not a topic for this forum.

 

 

[Edgarcito]

42 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Well, since you're being slightly less insulting, allow me to retort.

 

1.  I don't need to speculate on how god views life or determines its value because the bible already tells me.  (And it ain't a pretty picture).

 

2.  I don't need to speculate on how god views life or determines its value because that has nothing to do with my own moral objection to substitutionary death. 

 

3.  That we execute people ourselves is not a justification for executing people.  I also find the practice barbaric and objectionable; but that is not a topic for this forum.

 

 

So you were looking for affirmation from the group here?  Why did you put it in the Lion's Den.  Did Dave prompt you to create content? 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

11 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So you were looking for affirmation from the group here?  Why did you put it in the Lion's Den.  Did Dave prompt you to create content? 

Do you need to speculate on how Kim Jong Un values life in order to determine that the three generations rule is morally repugnant?  If so, we don't just have a communication problem,  we have a tremendous difference in morality.

 

Your entire line of reasoning is nothing but a red herring laced with ad hominem laced with profanity. 

 

Typical...

[Edgarcito]

2 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Do you need to speculate on how Kim Jong Un values life in order to determine that the three generations rule is morally repugnant?  If so, we don't just have a communication problem,  we have a tremendous difference in morality.

Yet you did.  Which was my point about why you did when you just stated in this post that you had no need.  ?????

[Edgarcito]

Watch the Bucket List if you haven't already...  There's a good scene in there about the merits of arguing belief.

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Yet you did.  Which was my point about why you did when you just stated in this post that you had no need.  ?????

So, you do need to speculate about the ethics are tyrants before determining that substitutionary punishment is wrong.  Well, that sucks.

[Edgarcito]

12 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

So, you do need to speculate about the ethics are tyrants before determining that substitutionary punishment is wrong.  Well, that sucks.

So you believe in forgiveness?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

15 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

So you believe in forgiveness?

Not only do I practice forgiveness, and in certain circumstances absolution, but I am capable of doing so without killing anybody or even shedding a single drop of blood.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Let's speculate, though, Ed, just for shits and giggles.  We know that Kim Jong Un believes in, and practices, the three generations rule.  We also know, from historical accounts, that Joseph Stalin practiced substitutionary punishments, especially in the years after WW2, against family members of soldiers and partisans who ultimately fled the battle field. 

 

So, here we have two men who both a.) are maniacal and despotic tyrants, and b.) believe in and practice substitutionary punishment and even death.

 

What can we tell about a god who also believes and practices the same principles as tyrannical despots?  Just speculating here; but, wouldn't this suggest that the christian god is also a maniacal, despotic tyrant?

 

I guess speculation does have its purpose.  Glad you talked me into it, and apologies that I was initially reluctant 

[Edgarcito]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Let's speculate, though, Ed, just for shits and giggles.  We know that Kim Jong Un believes in, and practices, the three generations rule.  We also know, from historical accounts, that Joseph Stalin practiced substitutionary punishments, especially in the years after WW2, against family members of soldiers and partisans who ultimately fled the battle field. 

 

So, here we have two men who both a.) are maniacal and despotic tyrants, and b.) believe in and practice substitutionary punishment and even death.

 

What can we tell about a god who also believes and practices the same principles as tyrannical despots?  Just speculating here; but, wouldn't this suggest that the christian god is also a maniacal, despotic tyrant?

 

I guess speculation does have its purpose.  Glad you talked me into it, and apologies that I was initially reluctant 

I appreciate the effort.  However it is that we communicate obviously sends me in to trigger mode.  I will work on that.  Thanks again.

 

[pantheory]

I neither accept or reject the son or the Father. Both are just totally laughable mythology to me. There has never been, nor will there ever be objective evidence for either IMO.

[pantheory]

On 1/14/2023 at 9:02 AM, pantheory said:

I neither accept or reject the son or the Father. Both are just totally laughable mythology to me. There has never been, not will there ever be objective evidence for either IMO.

 

It's also neither good or bad to believe in either or both IMO. Each person has the right to their own beliefs.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

On 1/13/2023 at 10:39 AM, Edgarcito said:

  I'd rather you said, yep, it's bloodlust because we know life resides (X) rather than in the blood.  Then you might have made your argument more valid. 

 

On 1/13/2023 at 11:39 AM, Edgarcito said:

Tell us where life resides John.  Tell us exactly what is life.  Tell us the origin(s).  Tell us the rationale.  Is life a gift, why and why not. 

I hope the following paragraphs won't trigger you, Ed.  However, I thought that the argument you presented here deserves a bit more treatment.  Hopefully, having had a few days in which to calm yourself down, we can have a more fruitful and civil discourse.

 

The bible does make the claim that life resides in the blood.  However, the bible is wrong.  Granted, without blood, we would cease to live; but this is also true of all "higher" life forms: reptiles, avians, mammals.  There is nothing particularly special about human blood, when compared to the blood of other life forms.  "Lower" life forms, however, do not have blood.  Not as we know it; and certainly not as the bible authors would have understood it.  This raises the question: Are they not alive?  Bacteria? Crabs? Trees?

 

Moreover, blood is not the only area in which life resides.  Life also resides in brainwave activity, without which we would also cease to live.  Proper nutrition, digestion, and metabolism is another area in which life resides, and without which we would cease to live.  So is water.  And there are certain psychological conditions that need to be met for life to have any meaning--love, security, intimacy, self-worth, etc.

 

So, when the bible says that life resides in the blood, we can see that this is simply not true, and is merely a reflection of the limited, and primitive, understanding of the men who wrote it.

 

But the biggest problem with your argument here is that my objection to substitutionary death is moral, not intellectual.  It is not based on biology or an understanding of what life is, where it came from, where it resides, or any of the rest of it.  If I understood nothing of biology, I would still have a moral and ethical imperative to respect all of life and every living being.  This obligation overrides any acceptance of bloodshed for the forgiveness of sin or for the righting of wrongs.  Simply put, it is wrong to punish one person for someone else's mistake; and I know that even without being able to definitely state exactly where life resides.

 

In the end, your argument is simply another red herring. 

[Edgarcito]

21 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

I hope the following paragraphs won't trigger you, Ed.  However, I thought that the argument you presented here deserves a bit more treatment.  Hopefully, having had a few days in which to calm yourself down, we can have a more fruitful and civil discourse.

 

The bible does make the claim that life resides in the blood.  However, the bible is wrong.  Granted, without blood, we would cease to live; but this is also true of all "higher" life forms: reptiles, avians, mammals.  There is nothing particularly special about human blood, when compared to the blood of other life forms.  "Lower" life forms, however, do not have blood.  Not as we know it; and certainly not as the bible authors would have understood it.  This raises the question: Are they not alive?  Bacteria? Crabs? Trees?

 

Moreover, blood is not the only area in which life resides.  Life also resides in brainwave activity, without which we would also cease to live.  Proper nutrition, digestion, and metabolism is another area in which life resides, and without which we would cease to live.  So is water.  And there are certain psychological conditions that need to be met for life to have any meaning--love, security, intimacy, self-worth, etc.

 

So, when the bible says that life resides in the blood, we can see that this is simply not true, and is merely a reflection of the limited, and primitive, understanding of the men who wrote it.

 

But the biggest problem with your argument here is that my objection to substitutionary death is moral, not intellectual.  It is not based on biology or an understanding of what life is, where it came from, where it resides, or any of the rest of it.  If I understood nothing of biology, I would still have a moral and ethical imperative to respect all of life and every living being.  This obligation overrides any acceptance of bloodshed for the forgiveness of sin or for the righting of wrongs.  Simply put, it is wrong to punish one person for someone else's mistake; and I know that even without being able to definitely state exactly where life resides.

 

In the end, your argument is simply another red herring. 

Problem is J, as we have argued many times before....what constitutes a mistake in the grand scheme.  "Forgive them, they know not what they do". (paraphrasing).  

 

A child gets drunk, drives under the influence, wrecks, needs blood to survive.  Are you telling me that it's immoral to save the child with a transfusion even though they've made a mistake?

 

Edit:  And I don't think the Cross was punishment for Jesus, rather a sacrifice of himself.

 

To the end, I guess we either believe in the story or we don't.  Is there an eternal that only THAT blood, THAT life gets us there.  Seems plausible given our lives are relative and we don't absolutely know beginning or end.  For more than just Paschal's Wager reasoning, I'm going with there IS an absolute moral standard and that I don't know it.... other than the HS, Bible, and faith.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

A child gets drunk, drives under the influence, wrecks, needs blood to survive.  Are you telling me that it's immoral to save the child with a transfusion even though they've made a mistake?

 

Edit:  And I don't think the Cross was punishment for Jesus, rather a sacrifice of himself.

I see the direction you are taking here.  Unfortunately, this is a false analogy, or a false equivalence.  Yes, the kid gets a transfusion; no, there's nothing immoral about it.  And, sure, the life saving blood was freely given, just as you will argue jesus' blood was.  The difference is why; and this is where your analogy falls apart.  

 

No one is being punished because youthful exuberance took a fateful trip with intoxicated ignorance.  No one is demanding blood in exchange for forgiveness for the deed and the saving of the life.  This is where our ways are higher than god's ways.  Because we donate blood, plasma, organs--whatever we can, in hopes of saving a life.  And we do it because it is the right thing to do.

 

Is it the kid's fault that he needs blood?  That can be debated; and I'd be on the side of "No" (if the "kid" is 47 with a half dozen DWIs, I might feel different).

 

But, god requires blood for Sin.  Not for the stupid things we do as individuals; but for Sin.  Original Sin.  In other words, for no other reason than that a baby is born (into Sin), god demands blood.  Is it the baby's fault?  Abso-fucking-lutely not.  Is it Adam's fault?  Again, debatable; but I'm inclined to argue, as you paraphrased, "he knew not what he did" and therefore should not be held accountable. 

 

An omnipotent god set this situation up, not a man, not a baby, not a kid with more liquor than brains.  That he set up the situation so that blood would be required, rather than just offering forgiveness as you or I would do, says something about his character.  Just as us rushing to transfuse blood into a patient says something about ours.