Those Who Reject the Son Reject Also the Father

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

How does this answer the questions:

 

Why does there need to be a wage for Sin in the first place?

 

And

 

Why did god choose Death to be the wage for Sin?

 

Your god is a bloodthirsty barbarian, Ed.  Lying about me won't change that.  Dodging the questions won't change that.  Changing the subject won't change that.

 

You worship a projection of your own insecurities, pettiness, jealousy, and moral depravity.  

 

Amen and amen, indeed.

I’m sorry you aren’t bright enough to marry our limitations and God using them to his purpose without being offended.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

43 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I’m sorry you aren’t bright enough to marry our limitations and God using them to his purpose without being offended.  

Attempting to insult my intelligence is not going to answer the questions, Ed.

 

Why does there need to be a wage for Sin in the first place?

 

And 

 

Why did god choose Death to be the wage for Sin?

[Edgarcito]

5 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Attempting to insult my intelligence is not going to answer the questions, Ed.

 

Why does there need to be a wage for Sin in the first place?

 

And 

 

Why did god choose Death to be the wage for Sin?

Maybe humanity is highly capable and the deterrence needs to be higher.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

7 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Maybe humanity is highly capable and the deterrence needs to be higher.  

No.  Babies are born into Sin; and therefore subject to Death.  What is a newborn capable of that it would require Death as a deterrent?  Perhaps if Death were only meted out to those truly deserving, you'd have a point.  As it stands, your god indiscriminately decreed that everyone should die.  Because he is a bloodthirsty tyrant for whom life is expendable. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Maybe humanity is highly capable and the deterrence needs to be higher.  

Besides, either humanity is highly capable or we're so limited that only Ed's projection of himself as god can use our weakness to his purpose.  You can't have it both ways; even if they're both bullshit. 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Why wouldn't anyone not project there needs on Christ?  How the hell do you think they became lost in the first place.  Scientific understanding of their individual lives and a subsequent injection of understanding in a pill?  Drugs come to mind Walter?  

 

Quit dealing the same hand with no winning hand.  Please.

 

Why?

 

Because when people project their emotional needs on to any god the answer they get back is what they want.

 

That's what projection does.

 

It just reflects what they want their god to give back to them.

 

And this explains why there are so many different gods, denominations, sects and cults.

 

Because all of these different interpretations of what god must be are just the believer's projected desires.

 

The huge number of believers with their various emotional needs generates a huge number of gods.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

"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"

 

We aren't having a discussion about objective certainty Walter.  John's objection is moral.  It would be nice that you could explain how the chemistry/physics define our needs and decisions, but I don't think you can.  The people who raped, killed, and hung the little girl, they made a mistake and it's wrong to punish them by some moral standard that John holds apparently.  

 

 

To arrive at his moral objection to substitutionary death John didn't project his emotions on to god.

 

He projected his emotions on to Adam, Eve and every other human being described in the bible.

 

He did that by NOT being emotionally invested in Jesus.

 

He did it by being emotionally invested in humans.

 

He did that because when a human tries to understand god they can't because god is mysterious and shit.

 

But when a human tries to understand another human they can - they share so much in common.

 

 

And that is how my argument works, Ed.

 

First you disengage your emotional commitment to Jesus so that you can see what the bible really says.

 

Then, having done that, you re-engage your emotions so that you can empathize with  the humans in bible.

 

This is what John has done.

 

 

But you won't empathize with humans.

 

You'll only empathize with god.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

16 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

But as an old friend said on this very site, and left for this very reason, a mod actually, that in doing what you are suggesting, you are ignoring roughly half of our experience as humans.  

 

What is that resonance we experience that makes us larger and more whole and unafraid, and thankful, and grace-filled.  What is that.  Each of you can't explain it on the other half you choose to reside.  "It's the god particle"...

 

I resonate in Christianity. I don't in science, other than creating something that will help others.  

 

Do you understand that?  Do you John?  

 

In case you are struggling to understand Edgarcito, let me explain further.

 

 

John makes his moral objection to the substitutionary death of Jesus because he resonates with humans.

 

Not with god.

 

John is eloquently expressing his humanity when does this.  That's because he can empathize and sympathize with human beings.  That's because he is emotionally committed to other humans.  That's because he cannot think and feel like god, but he can think and feel like another human.  He uses his humanity to understand other human beings.  He engages his emotions with other people, not with god.  It is this emotional connection with other people that enables him to recognize the immorality of blood equalling forgiveness.  John is morally superior to the god of the bible because he is in touch with his humanity. 

 

There's nothing mysterious and shit about John because he's a human, like the rest of us.

 

But Christians have lost touch with their humanity and so they fail to empathize and sympathize with the human players described in the bible.  They always side with god, blaming and disparaging anyone else but him.  Because their emotional commitment is to god their emotional commitment and natural empathy towards other people withers and dies.  They become numb and cold towards sinners and non-Christians.  They become distant and unable to relate to human frailty and flaws.  They start to become like their god, intolerant of even the smallest act of disobedience and eager to punish the slightest infraction.  They even begin to relish the idea of wrongdoers suffering infinite punishment for finite sins. And so they lose their humanity.

 

This is what happens when you project your emotions on to a fictional character in an ancient book.

 

The more you do it, the more you lose touch with your humanity.

 

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

And one more thing, Edgarcito...

 

 

Scientists disengage their emotions so that they can see how the natural world really works.

 

To see what the bible really says you need to disengage your emotional commitment to god.  

 

In both cases emotions are the problem, obscuring the reality underneath.

 

As I said before, emotions do not lead to truth.

 

 

So, do you want to drink?

[walterpthefirst]

6 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Maybe humanity is highly capable and the deterrence needs to be higher.  

 

See what I mean about losing your humanity, Ed?

 

 

[Edgarcito]

8 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Why?

 

Because when people project their emotional needs on to any god the answer they get back is what they want.

 

That's what projection does.

 

It just reflects what they want their god to give back to them.

 

And this explains why there are so many different gods, denominations, sects and cults.

 

Because all of these different interpretations of what god must be are just the believer's projected desires.

 

The huge number of believers with their various emotional needs generates a huge number of gods.

 

 

 

 

As opposed to what Walter, our inability to meet the needs of others?  Real or unreal, it serves a purpose.

[Edgarcito]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

To arrive at his moral objection to substitutionary death John didn't project his emotions on to god.

 

He projected his emotions on to Adam, Eve and every other human being described in the bible.

 

He did that by NOT being emotionally invested in Jesus.

 

He did it by being emotionally invested in humans.

 

He did that because when a human tries to understand god they can't because god is mysterious and shit.

 

But when a human tries to understand another human they can - they share so much in common.

 

 

And that is how my argument works, Ed.

 

First you disengage your emotional commitment to Jesus so that you can see what the bible really says.

 

Then, having done that, you re-engage your emotions so that you can empathize with  the humans in bible.

 

This is what John has done.

 

 

But you won't empathize with humans.

 

You'll only empathize with god.

 

 

 

Despite John's level of empathy and analytical prowess, John can't even seem to meet the needs of people around him.

[Edgarcito]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

And one more thing, Edgarcito...

 

 

Scientists disengage their emotions so that they can see how the natural world really works.

 

To see what the bible really says you need to disengage your emotional commitment to god.  

 

In both cases emotions are the problem, obscuring the reality underneath.

 

As I said before, emotions do not lead to truth.

 

 

So, do you want to drink?

Scientists need to engage in the study of the brain and emotions to make there assessment more complete.....so they won't look like arrogant fools.

[Edgarcito]

6 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

See what I mean about losing your humanity, Ed?

 

 

No sir, I don't.

[walterpthefirst]

39 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

As opposed to what Walter, our inability to meet the needs of others?  Real or unreal, it serves a purpose.

 

The purpose of not giving you the truth.

 

If you're happy with that, please carry on projecting.

[walterpthefirst]

36 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Despite John's level of empathy and analytical prowess, John can't even seem to meet the needs of people around him.

 

How would you even know this?

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

33 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

Scientists need to engage in the study of the brain and emotions to make there assessment more complete.....so they won't look like arrogant fools.

 

But they disengage the emotional connections they have in place for their private, religious views.

 

Science is agnostic about religious, theological and supernatural matters.

 

Therefore, all scientists should be agnostic in their scientific work.

 

 

I'm not saying that scientists need to be unemotional robots, Ed.

 

I'm saying that they can't bring their emotional religious commitments into their work.

 

 

A different thing altogether.

[walterpthefirst]

36 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

No sir, I don't.

 

Of course.

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

As opposed to what Walter, our inability to meet the needs of others?  Real or unreal, it serves a purpose.

 

 

Meh...

 

 

I didn't notice this until I re-read it, Ed.

 

You're happy to build your life upon something unreal?

 

Providing that it serves a purpose?

 

 

Don't Trekkies who dress up like Worf at sci-fi cons do that?

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Despite John's level of empathy and analytical prowess, John can't even seem to meet the needs of people around him.

I'm neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent.  What's god's excuse?

 

And why did god choose Death as the wage for Sin?  Why does there even need to be a wage for Sin in the first place?

 

Trying to put me down might make you feel better, Ed (which ties in with the emotionalism and lack of humanity Walt is talking about); but it's not going to answer the questions nor change the fact that the self-projection you worship is a barbaric and bloodthirsty monster.

[Edgarcito]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I'm neither omnipotent nor omnibenevolent.  What's god's excuse?

 

And why did god choose Death as the wage for Sin?  Why does there even need to be a wage for Sin in the first place?

 

Trying to put me down might make you feel better, Ed (which ties in with the emotionalism and lack of humanity Walt is talking about); but it's not going to answer the questions nor change the fact that the self-projection you worship is a barbaric and bloodthirsty monster.

You're making a mistake.  Carrying disbelief like some badge of honor is projection as well....and also fails when the adopted mantras fail people around you emotionally.  Keep it up and see whether you end up with life or death...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

You're making a mistake.  Carrying disbelief like some badge of honor is projection as well....and also fails when the adopted mantras fail people around you emotionally.  Keep it up and see whether you end up with life or death...

Why does there need to be a wage for Sin in the first place?

 

And

 

Why did god choose Death as the wage for Sin?

 

Projecting your emotional and interpersonal failures on me isn't going to answer the questions, Ed.  Nor will it change the nature of your god's bloodlust. 

[Edgarcito]

7 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Why does there need to be a wage for Sin in the first place?

 

And

 

Why did god choose Death as the wage for Sin?

 

Projecting your emotional and interpersonal failures on me isn't going to answer the questions, Ed.  Nor will it change the nature of your god's bloodlust. 

I already speculated a few posts back....

[Edgarcito]

22 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Why does there need to be a wage for Sin in the first place?

 

And

 

Why did god choose Death as the wage for Sin?

 

Projecting your emotional and interpersonal failures on me isn't going to answer the questions, Ed.  Nor will it change the nature of your god's bloodlust. 

Yeah, but it might help the people around you if you listen.....you know, the humanity aspect you brag about.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

3 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I already speculated a few posts back....

And you're done?  I figured since Walt and I both pointed out numerous flaws with your speculation, you'd want to keep trying.  

 

Okay, then,  let's work with your speculation as it is.  The christian god is a bloodthirsty barbarian who delights in cruelty because humanity is simultaneously highly capable and also too weak and limited to understand.  Oh, wait... shit, the law of excluded middle is applicable here.  A and not-A cannot both be simultaneously true.  Humanity cannot simultaneously be highly capable and not highly capable. 

 

That means that there must be some other explanation for god's bloodlust. 

 

Another facet of Walt's point about you being separated from your humanity and unable to empathize is your constant and consistent need to blame humanity rather than find any fault with god.  Your emotional attachment to your self-projection as god blinds you to any faults and flaws "god" may have.

 

Thus you cannot explain why your god is so bloodthirsty without somehow projecting the blame onto humanity.  

 

Occam's Razor could also be applied here.  Perhaps the simplest explanation for why the christian god seems to be a bloodthirsty monster is that the christian god is a bloodthirsty monster.  That explanation eliminates the unnecessary plurality of having to further explain why humanity deserves such brutality.