Are some teachings of the bible salvageable?

[RankStranger]

Is Prevenient Grace resistible?  That's the difference between an Armenian and a Calvinist, as I understand it.

 

I'd rather ask: For how long is it resistible?

[RankStranger]

2 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Depends on what you mean by "grace."  "Unwarranted favor" and "unconditional absolution" are both noble goals that fall under the umbrella of "grace."  But if "grace" requires the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin, or involves any kind of substitutionary sacrifice or death, then, no, it is not worth keeping.  It should be thrown out along with all of the other barbaric practices and beliefs of the ancient religions. 

 

And replaced with what?  Can you walk me through the logistics of how this would work?

[RankStranger]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

 

 

And yet, you managed to become rational.  Perhaps your doubts are unfounded.  If you were capable of overcoming your upbringing, perhaps there is hope for us all.

 

I think we all overestimate my rationality.

[Edgarcito]

32 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Is Prevenient Grace resistible?  That's the difference between an Armenian and a Calvinist, as I understand it.

 

I'd rather ask: For how long is it resistible?

I gather that life itself outside of Eden/Heaven is prevenient grace. 

[RankStranger]

32 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

I gather that life itself outside of Eden/Heaven is prevenient grace. 

 

I like this post even harder.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, RankStranger said:

 

And replaced with what?  Can you walk me through the logistics of how this would work?

Replaced with nothing.  Short walk, I know.

[RankStranger]

That worked for me.  For a while 

[RankStranger]

4 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Depends on what you mean by "grace."  "Unwarranted favor" and "unconditional absolution" are both noble goals that fall under the umbrella of "grace."  But if "grace" requires the shedding of blood for the forgiveness of sin, or involves any kind of substitutionary sacrifice or death, then, no, it is not worth keeping.  It should be thrown out along with all of the other barbaric practices and beliefs of the ancient religions. 

 

How important is the word "requires", to your statement?  Could it be replaced with something like "involves", for example?  Is your objection tied to the notion of the blood?  Or the notion of the requirement of the blood?

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

Also what is it about the blood of Christ that you find so objectionable?  Is it just because you think we shouldn't be savages, tying our world-view to some crazy blood sacrifice ritual?  Or maybe because that blood represents innocent suffering?  Maybe suffering that shouldn't have been created in the first place?

 

Or am I on the wrong track?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

13 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

How important is the word "requires", to your statement?  Could it be replaced with something like "involves", for example?  Is your objection tied to the notion of the blood?  Or the notion of the requirement of the blood?

 

 

 

 

9 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

Also what is it about the blood of Christ that you find so objectionable?  Is it just because you think we shouldn't be savages, tying our world-view to some crazy blood sacrifice ritual?  Or maybe because that blood represents innocent suffering?  Maybe suffering that shouldn't have been created in the first place?

 

Or am I on the wrong track?

Yeah, wrong track entirely.  We don't require bloodshed in order to forgive; god does.  And that makes god a barbaric savage.  Add to that, god required an innocent man to die in my place, without my consent or authorization.  That makes god an evil barbaric savage.  Add further, god requires eternal conscious torment in hellfire and brimstone, if I find his bloodlust appealing and his substitutionary death morally repugnant.  That makes god a maniacally tyrannical evil barbaric savage.

 

This is the biblical concept of "grace" that can be gotten rid of and replaced with nothing.

[RankStranger]

There are a lot of gods out there in human mythology.  A lot of them do some pretty repugnant things.  

 

Do you think the Christian story and theology itself is uniquely repugnant on its own merits?  As in the story is just so much more repugnant than say, that of Allaha or any other murderous, incestuous and/or otherwise nasty god?

 

Or is it repugnant because of the power it holds over people?

 

Or am I still on the wrong track?

 

 

[mwc]

12 hours ago, RankStranger said:

DB asked whether some teachings in the bible are salvageable.  Somehow that question has turned into whether or not some teachings "need to be salvaged".  Those aren't really the same thing, and I'm not working within the 'salvage' framework anyway.  I accept that many ideas within Christianity definitely pre-date the religion.  But to my mind, a lot of the power these concepts hold (not within a theoretical discussion, but within today's world), are due to the fact that they're a part of Christianity.  

     But is this actually true?  Or is it true where xianity has been or is currently pervasive?  If, for example, you go to China and start repeating these same concepts will the average person connect what you're saying to xianity or something else?  If it's to something else then your assertion holds no water.  It just means that the little piece of the world you and I live within has been colored by xianity.  I tried to make the point earlier that this has been true for all religions through all time and places.  This is how any story can color a world.

 

12 hours ago, RankStranger said:

And it's not just about numbers, although those numbers matter a lot.  This is also about religious practice, and how that affects peoples' lives.  I think the following statements won't be too controversial here, though we can pick them apart if needed:

 

1.  We humans are more or less wired for religious, tribal thinking.  As evidence, I'd point to the fact that the vast majority of humanzees throughout history have been religious.  Even those who aren't, they inevitably still hold many ideas with a religious sort of conviction, and can be just as tribal as the Christians.  It's not logical, but IMO it speaks to how our upgraded chimp brains are wired.

     I'd have to know what is meant by religious thinking.

 

12 hours ago, RankStranger said:

2.  Atheists and the like generally don't see the value in, and usually don't engage in, religious beliefs and rituals.

     See?  The term appears here as well but above you say that even non-religious people do engage in religious behavior.  I'm seeing the term being used in various ways.

 

     If humans are inherently religious then all humans must act religious even atheists unless atheists aren't human.

 

12 hours ago, RankStranger said:

3.  There is a difference between understanding an idea, even agreeing with an idea, vs. holding it sacred as a religious belief.  Even if the idea in question is roughly the same between a non-believer and a believer, that idea will have different effects on each.  The non-believer can agree with it, discuss it with his friends, write about it, hold it dear... whatever he wants to do.  The believer can pray on it, meet up with his tribe to ritualistically study and discuss the idea.  His tribe will inevitably judge his sincerity regarding the idea.  He can share the idea with peers who hold the idea sacred for much the same reasons, and refer back to tradition going back thousands of years to see what others in said tradition have to say about it.  None of this speaks to the whether or said idea is factual, but it does speak to the impact of said idea on the individual in question.  And of course if a person believes that they will burn for all eternity if they don't hold and follow said idea correctly... that will definitely have a powerful effect on their lives, totally different than the effect on a secular individual.  This is a big part of the power I'm referring to. Whatever you think of it... I think it's an important thing to understand.

     So what is it you want me to understand here?  Again, I'm seeing religion ("religious") appear but it seems a bit different still.  I'm sure it's because it's being thrown around colloquially but that just makes it worse in this case.

 

     When I see religion used I don't think of any given religion nor do I think of any single time period.  If you say religion my mind can go anywhere or anytime.  Do you mean Sumerians?  Are you just making general remarks on any sort of religion in all places and times?  I feel that you're not but you're trying to avoid specifics for some reason.

 

          mwc

 

[walterpthefirst]

Perhaps it's worth asking on what basis we should keep some teachings of the bible?

 

 

If the main reason for keeping something is that you feel a strong emotional attachment to it, then that, in of itself, is not sufficient reason.

 

The key word here, in my opinion, is reason.  If something in the bible makes no reasonable sense, then it should go.  After all, if we cannot understand it by using our reasoning faculties, how could we ever employ it or use it constructively?

 

Looking at it from the p.o.v. of emotional attachment, if the person with the strong emotional attachment hasn't tried to understand what they feel so very attached to using their own powers of reason, then are simply foisting their emotional desires on other people.

 

And that is unjustified.

 

And if they have tried but cannot understand it using their reasoning, but just choose to believe it because they like it and it makes them feel good, then that is also unjustifiable.

 

I happen to very much like Ska music, but if all the music in the world were to be done away with and only some salvaged, I certainly wouldn't enforce my likings on others just because I'm emotionally attached it.

 

There has to be a better reason than that.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

5 hours ago, RankStranger said:

There are a lot of gods out there in human mythology.  A lot of them do some pretty repugnant things.  

 

Do you think the Christian story and theology itself is uniquely repugnant on its own merits?  As in the story is just so much more repugnant than say, that of Allaha or any other murderous, incestuous and/or otherwise nasty god?

 

Or is it repugnant because of the power it holds over people?

 

Or am I still on the wrong track?

 

 

That is a complicated question to answer.  Taken at face value, it is uniquely repugnant on its own merit.  Claiming such horrific acts to be "love" when they are nothing more than emotional blackmail and abuse, and then designating eternal retribution for those who reject it, would be the most disgusting and monstrous acts of evil ever designed by a god, if the story were true and the christian god were real.

 

But the fact is that the story is not true; and the christian god is not real.  So it says something profoundly ugly about humanity that so many believe, and indoctrinate their children, in this spiritual, psychological, and emotional manipulation.  And often mirror the "love" of god in their own relationships with wives, children, friends, and even strangers in the marketplace. 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

Consider this: y'all are saying we seem to be hardwired for religion; but what if the truth is closer to us being hardwired for subservience, manipulation, domination, and abuse; and religion simply happens to be one of the more convenient means of achieving that?  What if that is the reason so many of the gods of old turned out to be evil; and the most evil, the most abusive, domineering, manipulative incarnation of this malignant human tendency is that represented by the 3 major monotheistic religions prevalent today?  Holy books are often mirrors.  Perhaps the Bible isn't showing us an evil narcissistic god; perhaps it is showing us our own cowardice and subservience.  In which case, I'd say, "let's be rid of these tendencies once and for all; and the gods with them."

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

13 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Do you think the Christian story and theology itself is uniquely repugnant on its own merits? 

 

Most of the religious world can't see it the way we do as we are on the outside looking in now. But I think the whole Christian story is pretty repugnant. Lets just go from the start. God impregnated a virgin woman betrothed to another man. In actuality he broke his own law by doing this. Sure he sends an angel to Joseph to let him in on the the event.  But in the time she would have been guilty of a crime by gods own law in the eyes of the people if Joseph hadn't married her and claimed Jesus as his own. 

 

Then they have to run for their life for a spell while Herod goes into infanticide mode killing children that "might" be Jesus. How many parents had to suffer the loss of their own child just so Jesus could grow up? (I've never seen any evidence that this actually happened. But its in the story) Matthew chapter 2

 

So then we get into Christ's adult life after a small snippet at the age of 12 where his parents leave him like some kind of ancient "home alone" story.

 

So he gets baptized and begins his ministry laying the foundation for the biggest case of gaslighting ever known.

 

You're no good

You're under sin

You're filthy and God doesn't want you because of your sin

God doesn't like your sin tendency 

But God loves you so he's going to torture and kill me, because he loves you, and then he will wipe away all that sin from you so you don't get tortured and thrown into a pit of fire for eternity. 

But that is only if you believe that I'm his son and rose from the dead after I'm tortured and crucified. 

 

But wait there is more. You can't be you anymore. You have to let me live life through you and you have to be like me. Because really in the end God doesn't love you, he loves me, and wants you to be like me. 

 

If you don't do that...... well we'll just put you back in the group going to Hell. 

 

But we still love you!!  

 

I know this is very over simplified but it is true. What in this story isn't repugnant? So yes, the Christian story is repugnant. But that doesn't make Islam any less repugnant. Basically the Abrahamic God in General is repugnant. 

 

2.3 billion people are to some degree being beaten down mentally by their "loving God". Then looking up at him and telling him they love him and asking him to take away their appetite for (whatever perceived sin). Constantly in fear of either hell or some other type of devine retribution if they don't walk on Gods Egg shells like he wants them to. 

 

I'm sorry. From the outside looking in this is a horrible existence. I wish I could instill all my critical thinking and knowledge about these things in everyone I love. But even an abused woman mourns the loss of the husband she loved and who loved her. 

 

Maybe let that sink in. The "Bride" of Christ is an abused spouse. 

 

Dark Bishop

[TABA]

9 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Do you think the Christian story and theology itself is uniquely repugnant on its own merits? 

I don’t think Christian theology is uniquely repugnant: Islam is equally so.  And I think monotheism has a unique problem.  It claims that the one true god is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent.  The way the world works - chiefly the existence of suffering - immediately undermines that claim.  So then they have to tweak the basic theology by adding in an evil entity that is somehow both very powerful and somehow limited in the evil it can produce.  The Jewish Apocalyptic prophets - of which I think  Jesus was one - thought that a loving god would very soon end the power of evil - personified by Satan - and bring about his kingdom of peace and justice here on earth.

 

Another way to look at the problem of monotheism is captured by a favorite saying of mine: whenever somebody says “God says…” or “God wants…” trouble is sure to follow.  

[◊ Weezer ◊]

6 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Consider this: y'all are saying we seem to be hardwired for religion; but what if the truth is closer to us being hardwired for subservience, manipulation, domination, and abuse; and religion simply happens to be one of the more convenient means of achieving that?  What if that is the reason so many of the gods of old turned out to be evil; and the most evil, the most abusive, domineering, manipulative incarnation of this malignant human tendency is that represented by the 3 major monotheistic religions prevalent today?  Holy books are often mirrors.  Perhaps the Bible isn't showing us an evil narcissistic god; perhaps it is showing us our own cowardice and subservience.  In which case, I'd say, "let's be rid of these tendencies once and for all; and the gods with them."

 

I have used my limit of "likes", so will say this is also my line of thought.  We haven't quite evolved past the point of being simple animals who can easily be conditioned (programmed) with reward and punishment.    Some sly fabricators of religion understood this eons ago and have used it ever since.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

53 minutes ago, Weezer said:

I have used my limit of "likes",

I guess that's a problem @RankStranger will never have.  Silver linings and such, eh?

[◊ Weezer ◊]

2 hours ago, Weezer said:

 

We haven't quite evolved past the point of being simple animals who can easily be conditioned (programmed) with reward and punishment.    Some sly fabricators of religion understood this eons ago and have used it ever since.  

 

Then the question arises, who were these beings that were intelligent and sly enough to devise this religion and "sell" it to the world?

[RankStranger]

22 hours ago, mwc said:

     But is this actually true?  Or is it true where xianity has been or is currently pervasive?  If, for example, you go to China and start repeating these same concepts will the average person connect what you're saying to xianity or something else?  If it's to something else then your assertion holds no water.  It just means that the little piece of the world you and I live within has been colored by xianity.  I tried to make the point earlier that this has been true for all religions through all time and places.  This is how any story can color a world.

 

     I'd have to know what is meant by religious thinking.

 

     See?  The term appears here as well but above you say that even non-religious people do engage in religious behavior.  I'm seeing the term being used in various ways.

 

     If humans are inherently religious then all humans must act religious even atheists unless atheists aren't human.

 

     So what is it you want me to understand here?  Again, I'm seeing religion ("religious") appear but it seems a bit different still.  I'm sure it's because it's being thrown around colloquially but that just makes it worse in this case.

 

     When I see religion used I don't think of any given religion nor do I think of any single time period.  If you say religion my mind can go anywhere or anytime.  Do you mean Sumerians?  Are you just making general remarks on any sort of religion in all places and times?  I feel that you're not but you're trying to avoid specifics for some reason.

 

          mwc

 

 

Just explaining how I see things.  It doesn't need to be a debate.

[RankStranger]

22 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Perhaps it's worth asking on what basis we should keep some teachings of the bible?

 

 

If the main reason for keeping something is that you feel a strong emotional attachment to it, then that, in of itself, is not sufficient reason.

 

The key word here, in my opinion, is reason.  If something in the bible makes no reasonable sense, then it should go.  After all, if we cannot understand it by using our reasoning faculties, how could we ever employ it or use it constructively?

 

Looking at it from the p.o.v. of emotional attachment, if the person with the strong emotional attachment hasn't tried to understand what they feel so very attached to using their own powers of reason, then are simply foisting their emotional desires on other people.

 

And that is unjustified.

 

And if they have tried but cannot understand it using their reasoning, but just choose to believe it because they like it and it makes them feel good, then that is also unjustifiable.

 

I happen to very much like Ska music, but if all the music in the world were to be done away with and only some salvaged, I certainly wouldn't enforce my likings on others just because I'm emotionally attached it.

 

There has to be a better reason than that.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

I don't think emotional attachment is the problem in your scenario.  I think that enforcing my likings would be the problem.  But not all Christians do that.  Not all Christians believe they should.

 

Now, maybe somethings aren't acceptable for you personally if you don't see the reason in them.  I've got no problem with that.  But not everybody sees things that way.  We can disagree.

[RankStranger]

10 hours ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I guess that's a problem @RankStranger will never have.  Silver linings and such, eh?

I like liking this post

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

I don't think emotional attachment is the problem in your scenario.  I think that enforcing my likings would be the problem.  But not all Christians do that.  Not all Christians believe they should.

 

Accepted and agreed.

 

2 hours ago, RankStranger said:

Now, maybe somethings aren't acceptable for you personally if you don't see the reason in them.  I've got no problem with that.  But not everybody sees things that way.  We can disagree.

 

Yes, we can politely disagree.  And then perhaps discuss it.

 

For me it comes down to this.

 

A true belief is any claim you accept that corresponds to how things are in the world, and a justified true belief is a true belief that has proper evidence. In terms of necessary and sufficient conditions, all of these parts are necessary for knowledge, but none of them alone is sufficient to count as knowledge.

 

I Googled 'justified true belief' for that.

 

If there's no evidential justification for a belief then, as far as I can see, there's no justified reason to hold them.  But personal freedom allows us to hold beliefs that don't need to be justified in this way.  Perhaps that is where the problem lies?

 

Some religious people feel that certain things are true without evidence and then they get upset when its pointed out that, outside of their free choices and their feelings, there is no evidential justification for what they believe to be true.

 

So, going back to what should be salvaged from the bible, there's a great deal of wisdom in its pages and that, imo, should be salvaged.  But anything that cannot be supported with evidence, shouldn't.  

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[Edgarcito]

On 7/7/2023 at 9:56 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Perhaps; but the point I am making is that an omni-everything god who requires bloodshed in order to forgive is simply a barbaric idea.  Whether the willingness to sacrifice is noble or not is heavily influenced by the reason sacrifice is necessary to begin with. 

Right.

On one side we have the omni-God, reason/truth, and life, and on the other side we have humaniity, knowledge, and belief.

 

Ommi God, truth, and life :  humanity, knowledge, and belief.

 

In my statement I gave my understanding of life (through my humanity, knowledge, and belief), nobility worthy of sacrifice, not having the full understanding that the other side holds. 

 

How may we say without adequately understanding the truth and life, the level of nobility necessary?