Those Who Reject the Son Reject Also the Father

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Okay, Ed.  See you around.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Is there a reason you keep asking?  Walter did a very good job in my opinion of what you are inquiring about.  I speculated that life must be very high up on God's list.  Maybe DB can help you understand.  If I have a revelation, I shall put it here first.  How's that.

 

Life must be very high up on god's list?

 

 

 

But not so high that he intervened and prevented Satan from harming Adam and Eve?

 

Whereas, you would have intervened to prevent a rattlesnake from harming your kids.

 

So, between you and god, who has life higher up on their list?

 

 

Go on Ed, answer.

 

Who has life higher up on their list, you or god?

 

Don't wait for a revelation.

 

You know the answer.

 

Let's have it please. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

 

  I speculated that life must be very high up on God's list.  

 

Is that why he has allowed worldwide catastrophies more than once that almost wiped life off the face of the earth?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Weezer said:

Is that why he has allowed worldwide catastrophies more than once that almost wiped life off the face of the earth?

You just gave me an epiphany, Weezer.  The wages of Sin is death, right?  But when you ask a christian about Suffering,  about the Rosa Marias, the starving children, and the cancer, even the jock itch, the answer is always because of... Sin.  Because we live in a fallen world full of Sin.

 

Well, wait a minute, if the wages of Sin is death, and everybody is going to pay those wages, christian or not, then why does there need to be Suffering on top of said wage?  Is death just the suggested retail price and Suffering is the tax on top of it?  Like, the bible doesn't say, "the wages of Sin is death, but there's also a Suffering fee and a starvation tax on top of it." 

 

Shouldn't the fact that everyone is already paying the wage for Sin be enough to satisfy god?  That it obviously is not suggests that god is a cruel barbarian who takes pleasure in evil and retribution. 

 

Hmmm...

 

Care to speculate, Ed?

[walterpthefirst]

Posted Thursday at 05:07 PM

  On 1/19/2023 at 3:22 PM, Edgarcito said:

RNP asked why.  I think this post is a good time to speculate why God enacted these punishments.  

 

I agree.

 

If we pass over the objections that god failed in his duty of care to protect his innocent children from harm, then Yes, God had the right to enact the punishments he meted out to Adam and Eve and their descendants.  As I have shown, these punishments are in keeping with everything that went down in Eden.  What they enjoyed there was taken away from them.

 

They had readily available food from the trees of that garden, but now they would have to work for their food.

They enjoyed god's direct presence in that garden, but now they were expelled from being anywhere near him.

They did not sin before Satan arrived, but now they had to live (and die) with the consequences of their sin.

 

But the question troubling me (and DB and the Prof) is this.

 

Does god have the moral right to enact further, undeclared and hidden punishments on Adam and Eve?

 

For example...  If my father promises me to leave his house to me and shows me the clause in his will where he has written my name, does he have the moral right to then change his mind and leave it to one of my brothers - without telling me?  Sure, he has the legal right and the authority to change his will as he sees fit.  But what about the morality of his action?

 

Do you think my father has acted immorally towards me, Ed?

 

 

Walter.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------

 

This went unnoticed and untouched by Edgarcito, Prof.

 

But it does to chime with your epiphany about there being an additional tax upon the wages of death.

 

When I wrote it I had the second death in mind as being what god has secretly added to the punishments he meted out to Adam and Eve.

 

But it does seem that he likes to add new and undisclosed levels of suffering, above and beyond upon those he openly declared and warned about.

 

Such as adding the pain of birth to Eve and all women.

 

That came out of the blue and he said nothing to Adam (not Eve) about it.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

If the bible is to be believed, taken at face value, as it were, it certainly appears to present a god who makes a habit of withholding critical information.  This suggests that the christian god cannot be trusted.  If he withheld information about hell, the second death, and suffering when the decision was made concerning the fruit in the garden, what information might he withhold when the decision is made to accept this horrific plan of blood sacrifice and substitutionary death?

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

If the bible is to be believed, taken at face value, as it were, it certainly appears to present a god who makes a habit of withholding critical information.  This suggests that the christian god cannot be trusted.  If he withheld information about hell, the second death, and suffering when the decision was made concerning the fruit in the garden, what information might he withhold when the decision is made to accept this horrific plan of blood sacrifice and substitutionary death?

 

Agreed.

 

So let's list all of the things god withheld from Adam and Eve.

 

1.  What spiritual death was.  The spiritual separation from god that happened on the day they ate the fruit.

2.  What physical death was.  The First death, caused by the failure of their bodies to support life.

3.  What good was.  They lacked the wisdom to know and understand what good was.

4.  What evil was.  They lacked the wisdom to know and understand what evil was.

5.  What the severe pain of childbirth was.  

6.  What hard physical work was - the kind needed to raise a crop from the cursed soil.

7.  What sexual desire was.  After the Fall Eve would come to know sexual desire for Adam.

8.  What being ruled by another human was like.  God made Eve subordinate to Adam and he ruled over her.

9.  What disease was.  

10.  What shame was.

11.  What fear was.

12. What the Second Death was.

 

And most importantly, # 13.  Who Satan was!

 

Even if god wasn't going to protect Adam and Eve by keeping Satan confined in chains of darkness like the other rebel angels and even if he wasn't going to post mighty angels to patrol Eden and protect them from the serpent, the very least god could have done to protect his vulnerable and innocent children would have been to warn them.

 

His priority seemed to be about his property, not his children.  God seemed to have cared more that his children obey him rather than caring about their future happiness and welfare.   He saw fit to warn Adam (but not Eve) about not eating from a certain tree.  So why couldn't he trouble himself to issue Adam with another warning about a talking snake?

 

Clearly that was too much to ask of a perfect, infallible, all powerful and all knowing god.  That he exercise his powers of 20/20 foresight just once to spare both his children and all of their descendants from harm.  But no.

 

And, as the Prof has shown, he withheld so much from Adam and Eve, not explaining anything of the consequences of their disobedience, that he clearly cannot be trusted.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

23 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

What sexual desire was.  After the Fall Eve would come to know sexual desire for Adam.

I dunno about this one. He did tell them to be fruitful and multiply before the fall. Because of that its hard to say that the fall caused sexual desire. God was already pushing them to roll in the hay

 

To me the biggest ones would be 12 and 13. He should have warned them about Satan and not telling them that a second death would come if they sinned is very VERY important information that was withheld. 

 

DB

[TheRedneckProfessor]

To me, the most critical piece of information that god withheld in the Garden was the entire concept of Sin and its consequences.  He only told Adam he'd die if he ate the fruit.  No mention at all of Original Sin or that every single generation until the end of eternity would be held accountable for his mistake.  The doctrine of Original Sin doesn't get introduced until much later.  So, again, if we take the bible at face value as the divinely inspired word of an omni-everything god, then we have to wonder why god would have left this detail out.  Unless it was his plan all along for death and bloodshed to be the only means of atonement.  In which case, we're right back to god being a barbarian who delights in cruelty and evil. 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

8 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

To me, the most critical piece of information that god withheld in the Garden was the entire concept of Sin and its consequences.  He only told Adam he'd die if he ate the fruit.  No mention at all of Original Sin or that every single generation until the end of eternity would be held accountable for his mistake.  The doctrine of Original Sin doesn't get introduced until much later.  So, again, if we take the bible at face value as the divinely inspired word of an omni-everything god, then we have to wonder why god would have left this detail out.  Unless it was his plan all along for death and bloodshed to be the only means of atonement.  In which case, we're right back to god being a barbarian who delights in cruelty and evil. 

 

But Professor!!! He's mysterious and shit and thats why its all ok and makes perfect sense. Lmao  

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

To me, the most critical piece of information that god withheld in the Garden was the entire concept of Sin and its consequences.  He only told Adam he'd die if he ate the fruit.  No mention at all of Original Sin or that every single generation until the end of eternity would be held accountable for his mistake.  The doctrine of Original Sin doesn't get introduced until much later.  So, again, if we take the bible at face value as the divinely inspired word of an omni-everything god, then we have to wonder why god would have left this detail out.  Unless it was his plan all along for death and bloodshed to be the only means of atonement.  In which case, we're right back to god being a barbarian who delights in cruelty and evil. 

 

I don't see any other possible conclusion, Prof.

 

God cannot err, cannot overlook anything, cannot be outflanked or outsmarted by Satan, cannot make any kind of mistake and cannot miscalculate anything.

 

There is nothing god cannot know in advance, nothing he cannot foresee, nothing that can escape his attention and no detail too trivial or too obscure that he doesn't know it before it happens.

 

He is perfect, infallible, flawless, faultless, inerrant and utterly reliable.

 

Therefore, since he foresaw and foreknew Satan's plan to corrupt Adam and Eve with 100% clarity, but chose to do nothing about it, this MUST have been what he intended and planned to happen, all along.

 

His failure to protect his children when they were under his protection from the worst possible threat to the lives is not the action of a loving parent.

 

You can almost hear his thought processes as he watched Eden from on high.

 

"Ah yes.  Here comes Satan in the form of serpent.  He'll tempt Eve to eat the forbidden fruit and he'll be successful, not because he's cleverer or more powerful than I am but because I'll let him do it.  Everything is happening just as I foresaw it.  Then, in a few thousand years time I'll incarnate myself as a carpenter's son and receive praise, glory and worship forever for putting right a wrong that I allowed to happen.  That way the human race will neatly fall into two groups.  The stupid schmucks who'll love me, even though I let Satan tempt Eve.  Even though I was the ultimate cause of their suffering, their diseases, their infirmities and their deaths.  And then there's the others, the ones I'll burn forever because they realized the truth about me.  The ones who weren't stupid enough to love me as the first group does.  Yes, it's all working out exactly as I planned."

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

As a matter of personal integrity, I hold that people deserve to know the truth.  The whole truth.  No matter how uncomfortable, inconvenient, or painful, people have the right to base their decisions, responses, and emotions on the complete truth.  I also believe that personal morality is not complete unless it is informed by complete integrity.  

 

People who withhold the truth, even only a small part of the truth, generally have ulterior motives--something to hide.  And partial integrity can only result in partial morality.  Therefore, for me, withholding information is no different from lying; because it robs the person from whom the truth is hidden from being able to decide based on a complete set of information.  But it also robs the withholder of their own completeness in integrity and morality. 

 

Perhaps this doesn't matter to the christian god, who would rather have obedience than truth.  Perhaps it doesn't matter to a christian, who would rather have comfort than truth.

 

But it matters to me.

 

I have already stated my moral objection to substitutionary death for the forgiveness of sin.  But, it bears pointing out, at this juncture in the conversation, that the entire plan of salvation is built upon a lie.  By withholding the entire truth from Adam and Eve, god robbed them of an opportunity that should have been rightfully theirs: the opportunity to make an informed decision about their own lives and the lives of their children.  This is no different, in my mind, than if god had said, "that Fruit won't hurt you," or "you can trust the Serpent."  He may as well have bald-faced lied to them; and the end result would have been the same.

 

As it is, god withheld the truth from them.  True, we have no way of knowing how they would have chosen, had they the benefit of all the facts.  Perhaps they would still have chosen to eat the Fruit.  But the decision would have been completely and freely theirs to make, without information being hidden from them towards god's predetermined agenda.  The issue for me, though, is a moral one, not a consequential one.  It is simply immoral to mislead someone by partial information and half-truths. 

 

I reject the christian god on the grounds that I refuse to accept, trust, or worship an entity with lower morals than my own.  I refuse to accept, trust, or worship an entity who withholds information in order to manipulate people and achieve a predetermined objective.  I refuse to accept, trust, or worship an entity who demands blood for a condition that his own dishonesty caused in the first place.  I refuse to accept, trust, or worship an entity who commits emotional blackmail by killing another person in my place.

 

I reject the christian god on moral grounds.  I see no other alternative, if I am to remain a person of integrity. 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

7 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

As it is, god withheld the truth from them.  True, we have no way of knowing how they would have chosen, had they the benefit of all the facts.  Perhaps they would still have chosen to eat the Fruit. 

 

If you look at the much older Sumerian version of the story, you will find a different version of the story.  There is no evidence of fruit being eaten, and Adam and Eve are ficticious characters fabricated by much later biblical writers.  Some threads of the story are in the bible, but  Eden was actually a large inhabited valley with slaves who did the labor and served several advanced beings in charge of them, who the people saw as "gods".  They had extremely long life spans, and "satan" was actually one of the gods who felt sorry for the slaves, "educated" them and helped them to eventually (over hundreds of years?) break free from the slave masters.  To make a long story short, the way the story goes, one of the gods was a shrewd, heartless, jealous, mean guy who ruled by fear and fought his way to the top and demanded no other gods were to be worshipped.  He became a ledgend, and you know the rest of the story from the old testament.   According to my recent study of Sumerian writings the original Abramic "god" was a mortal SOB.

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Weezer said:

If you look at the much older Sumerian version of the story, you will find a different version of the story.  There is no evidence of fruit being eaten, and Adam and Eve are ficticious characters fabricated by much later biblical writers.  Some threads of the story are in the bible, but  Eden was actually a large inhabited valley with slaves who did the labor and served several advanced beings in charge of them, who the people saw as "gods".  They had extremely long life spans, and "satan" was actually one of the gods who felt sorry for the slaves, "educated" them and helped them to eventually (over hundreds of years?) break free from the slave masters.  To make a long story short, the way the story goes, one of the gods was a shrewd, heartless, jealous, mean guy who ruled by fear and fought his way to the top and demanded no other gods were to be worshipped.  He became a ledgend, and you know the rest of the story from the old testament.   According to my recent study of Sumerian writings the original Abramic "god" was a mortal SOB.

 

Well, that fits Weezer.

 

If gods are just projections of our own characters then it logically follows that these projections would have the same characteristics as human beings.  That is, they would be as shrewd, heartless, jealous and mean as we are.  Or as loving, kind and compassionate as we are.  They would also be as inconsistent and fallible as we are.  And we can recognize these all-too-human behaviours in god because we resonate with them.

 

People of faith selectively resonate with only god's good behaviours - but that is a deliberate choice on their part.

 

The problem of cognitive dissonance then occurs when we take these all-too-human gods to be perfect, infallible, incapable of lying, eternal, all-powerful and all-knowing.  Abilities and traits that we do not see in the god of Genesis, but which have been back-dated and retrofitted to him.  

 

Yet, from the way that god behaved in Eden its obvious that he could not be infallible, all-knowing and all-powerful.  Satan got one over him, even though god (supposedly) knew his every move and every thought before he even existed?  Really?  Since it is clearly impossible for a finite, limited created being like Satan to outsmart his infinite and unlimited creator, logic therefore forces us to arrive at two different conclusions. 

 

The first, taking the bible as it is written, is that god is a power-mad and bloodthirsty monster who created the universe to satisfy his own sadistic desires.  That he intended Adam and Eve to fail and fall all along. 

 

The second, not taking scripture as read, is that god is a projection and product of our own desires and that the bible is not the truth and is not historically accurate.  Instead it is a compilation of stories of comfort-bringing wish fulfilment.  Stories that are so vague and so open to different interpretation that they can be shaped by any believer to appeal to whatever they want, so long as the result is emotionally satisfying.

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

The problem of cognitive dissonance then occurs when we take these all-too-human gods to be perfect, infallible, incapable of lying, eternal, all-powerful and all-knowing.  Abilities and traits that we do not see in the god of Genesis, but which have been back-dated and retrofitted to him.

Yes.  This right here.  The very reason that god seems all mysterious and shit is because he should be better than us--more moral, more compassionate, more intelligent--but he isn't.  The christian brain can't process that, which leads to cognitive dissonance.  And the only explanation, when all else fails, is "Well, it's a mystery."

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Yes.  This right here.  The very reason that god seems all mysterious and shit is because he should be better than us--more moral, more compassionate, more intelligent--but he isn't.  The christian brain can't process that, which leads to cognitive dissonance.  And the only explanation, when all else fails, is "Well, it's a mystery."

And most people don't want to hear alternative explanations for "god".   I was explaining my findings to my sister-in-law a few days ago and told her it was from writings predating the bible.  She looked at me a few seconds and as she walked away, said she would just, "stick to the bible story".  I don't think she has ever read the bible.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

@Weezer, in your experience, is there a psychological explanation for this behavior?  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

40 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

@Weezer, in your experience, is there a psychological explanation for this behavior?  

Fear of abandonment??  In the case of my wife and her 4 sisters, they had childhood life experiences that brought about abandonment fears, and a father that on one hand was loving, but they walked on eggshells because he could suddenly explode in a rage.   I would say a fear of abandonment and need for security.  And don't do anything to "upset the applecart".  And it is interesting that they did not grow up with rigid religious views.  They were "lukewarm" christians that attened 3 different denominations from time to time.  But they are tied (except one) to the idea there is a loving God, and don't want to discuss it any further.  The one sister said a few years back, "I don't even want to think about religion".  And wnen I asked my wife a few years ago why she wanted to go to church, it wasn't for doctrinal reasons, or so she could go to heaven or avoid hell.  It was because "it just doesn't feel right when I don't go".   But the situation with my wife is interesting.  She hasn't gone in 10 years, and when invited a few weeks ago by a sister, she thought about it, and finally said "no".   I guess it all comes down to a secure feeling for some, and that feeling can change over the years, unless they are really insecure??  

 

Ha!  I didn't mean to write that much, but it got me to thinking.

[walterpthefirst]

I'd like to speculate, not about the instance Weezer mentioned, but about another, related aspect of Christian behaviour.  About something to do with this.

 

The problem of cognitive dissonance then occurs when we take these all-too-human gods to be perfect, infallible, incapable of lying, eternal, all-powerful and all-knowing.  Abilities and traits that we do not see in the god of Genesis, but which have been back-dated and retrofitted to him.

Yes.  This right here.  The very reason that god seems all mysterious and shit is because he should be better than us--more moral, more compassionate, more intelligent--but he isn't.  The christian brain can't process that, which leads to cognitive dissonance.  And the only explanation, when all else fails, is "Well, it's a mystery."

 

 

 

Here's what I'm thinking.

 

Starting with a question.  When Christians get to that moment of cognitive dissonance and they can't resolve the paradox of god being less moral than themselves, why don't they use logic and reason to resolve the paradox?  I reckon there are two main reasons.

 

First, there are those Christians who have never used logic and reason to work anything out about their faith.  Their Christianity is logic-free and reason-free and they blindly swallow whatever they are told about Jesus, without question or further inquiry.  These Christians don't use logic and reason to resolve the paradox - because they can't.  They simply don't possess what it takes to think things through.

 

Second, there are those Christians who have used logic and reason to work some things out about their faith.  When they come to that moment of cognitive dissonance, they make the conscious choice not to use their powers of logic and reason to resolve the paradox.  They could answer the questions, but they chose not to.  They could find the answers, but they chose not to.  They deliberately choose to hold on to what they have, rather than risk losing what they have.

 

We have seen examples of both behaviours from Christians here in this forum.  Some have been unable to grasp the logic of our arguments because they simply cannot think logically.  Others, who have been able to grasp our arguments and to also understand the consequences of honestly answering our questions simply don't go there.  They deflect, dodge, obfuscate, change the subject or simply don't reply.  They know what's at stake if they were to answer honestly, but the cost of doing that is too high for them.  They also know that we know what they're doing.  Because we did it too.  And we know that they know that we know.  

 

So, what is it that could possibly be causing this second type of behaviour - the conscious choice not to think?

 

Fear. 

 

Fear of hell.  Fear of losing heavenly reward.  Fear of losing fellowship and community.  Fear of rejection by family and congregation.  Fear of not seeing loved ones again.  Fear of losing intense inner feelings of communion with god.  Fear of realizing that this life is all that there is.  Fear of losing purpose and meaning.  Fear of death.  Fear of losing hope.  

 

No doubt these Christians secretly harbour many other fears that are not listed above.  But the nett effect of all these diverse fears is exactly the same.   A paralysis of the mind where reason and logic are shut down because they will lead to emotionally unacceptable answers.  Better that god remain a mystery than he be exposed as either a sadistic monster or a projection of one's own mind.

 

Ok, this is all speculation.  I freely admit it.  But I'm certain that there is much here that we Ex-Christians can openly relate to and that Christians can secretly relate to.  There's little point in my asking any Christians about this.  This is territory that they fear to tread.  

 

But I invite my fellow agnostics, atheists and Ex-Christians to comment.  What do you think?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[freshstart]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

First, there are those Christians who have never used logic and reason to work anything out about their faith.  Their Christianity is logic-free and reason-free and they blindly swallow whatever they are told about Jesus, without question or further inquiry.  These Christians don't use logic and reason to resolve the paradox - because they can't.  They simply don't possess what it takes to think things through.

 

Second, there are those Christians who have used logic and reason to work some things out about their faith.  When they come to that moment of cognitive dissonance, they make the conscious choice not to use their powers of logic and reason to resolve the paradox.  They could answer the questions, but they chose not to.  They could find the answers, but they chose not to.  They deliberately choose to hold on to what they have, rather than risk losing what they have.

I think you hit the nail on the head.  I have seen personal examples of this behavior demonstrated from both types of Christians.  My mother does not know how to use/follow logic.  But my daughter is brilliant and definitely experiences the cognitive dissonance (I hear this from others, not directly from her).  I actually offered a book to her written by an apostate, but she declined stating that she didn't think her faith could handle it.  I think for her, there is fear of the void (what will take the place of faith?), the unknown, and the possibility that this one life is the only one you get.  Christianity offers a false sense of comfort in "knowing" there will be an afterlife. 

[Joshpantera]

Didn't you know? 

 

If you reject Anakin, you've rejected Luke Skywalker as well!!!!

 

For it is written, 'wo to he whom rejecteth Anakin the returned one, for he hath brought great balance to the Force! And to him who rejecteth Luke, the holy Son, wo to him thrice!!!!' 

[◊ Weezer ◊]

14 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

The problem of cognitive dissonance then occurs when we take these all-too-human gods to be perfect, infallible, incapable of lying, eternal, all-powerful and all-knowing.  Abilities and traits that we do not see in the god of Genesis, but which have been back-dated and retrofitted to him.  

 

That is why some of the Gnostic gospels were left out of the New Testament.  they presented Jesus as a normal imperfect human.