Are some teachings of the bible salvageable?

[walterpthefirst]

Let me see if I'm reading the essence of your understanding of life, Ed.

 

And apologies in advance if I'm not in some way.  Misunderstandings happen and it is human to err, so there's no bad intent on my part here.  If I've screwed up, then that's just me getting it wrong.  Please correct me.

 

What you seem to be saying is that you understand life by what you don't know and understand, not what you do.

 

Is that about right?

 

 

Walter.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

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?

The topic under discussion is what parts of the bible might be salvageable, not what parts of Edgarcito's personal interpretation of jesus might be slightly less unpalatable than the rest.  Taken at face value and as a whole, the bible presents a direct and inseparable link between god's "grace" and the shedding of blood in exchange for it.  This is further tied to the reprehensible act of substitutionary death.  No matter how much you try to cherry-pick around it, ignore it, or explain it away, god's "grace" is neither freely nor unconditionally given.  It comes at a heavy price for all involved, except god himself.  Wrapping it in a shroud of nobility makes it no prettier than lipstick on a hog.  Which reminds me, I need to call mom this afternoon. 

[walterpthefirst]

Perhaps we should look at a breakdown of the heavy price that has been exacted?

 

To see how great any resulting good from it would have to be to outweigh it?

 

Working on the principle, that if the good does not outweigh the bad, then the price was never worth paying.

 

And this would tell us something about the nature and the intent of the one exacting the price.

 

That if the scales do not balance in his favour, what does this tell us about him?

 

And that would also give us a guide as to what we should salvage from his Word.

 

If the good does not outweigh the bad, then keep only that which is useful.

 

Dump the rest.

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

If the good does not outweigh the bad, then keep only that which is useful.

 

Dump the rest.

As it is all myth I think we could just forego the weigh of the pros and cons. We already know the cons outweigh the pros from our perspective. 

 

Ultimately I guess,  what scripture can be salvaged is ultimately left to the eyes of the beholder. Many here would probably say the whole book is a lie, therefore it can all go. Some will see the historical importance of the religion and want to keep it all. A believer of course, in most cases, wouldn't let one jot or tittle go. But there are those various scriptures dispersed throughout the Bible that reflect wisdom from some ancient writer which we can apply to our day to day lives. Those few scriptures are the gems we are looking for. 

 

However this is the lions den. So when in Rome  

 

DB

[Edgarcito]

39 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

Taken at face value and as a whole, the bible presents a direct and inseparable link between god's "grace" and the shedding of blood in exchange for it.  This is further tied to the reprehensible act of substitutionary death.  No matter how much you try to cherry-pick around it, ignore it, or explain it away, god's "grace" is neither freely nor unconditionally given.  It comes at a heavy price for all involved, except god himself.  Wrapping it in a shroud of nobility makes it no prettier than lipstick on a hog.  

But in practice, you would likely give your life to save your child/children (reprehensible substitutionary death) as a matter of knowledge and belief and experience as a human.  But when God does it through Christ to save lives for eternity, it an illusion.  So grace and sacrifice are practiced on both sides as viable and true.....which was my point about "worth keeping" as you likely would die for your child.  Your personal interpretation is what's at play....and mine.

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

4 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

But in practice, you would likely give your life to save your child/children (reprehensible substitutionary death) as a matter of knowledge and belief and experience as a human.  But when God does it through Christ to save lives for eternity, it an illusion.  So grace and sacrifice are practiced on both sides as viable and true.....which was my point about "worth keeping" as you likely would die for your child.  Your personal interpretation is what's at play....and mine.

 

 

True.  I would die for my child.  And if, later in my child's life, they refused to worship me for my sacrifice, I'd throw them into hell for all eternity; because fuck the ungrateful bastards.

 

See, how you can't separate god's "grace" from his bloodlust, no matter how noble you try to make it.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

But in practice, you would likely give your life to save your child/children (reprehensible substitutionary death) as a matter of knowledge and belief and experience as a human.  But when God does it through Christ to save lives for eternity, it an illusion.  So grace and sacrifice are practiced on both sides as viable and true.....which was my point about "worth keeping" as you likely would die for your child.  Your personal interpretation is what's at play....and mine.

 

 

 

Again your not comparing apples to apples. While you are right, we would give our lives for our children. We are also not omnipotent. The biblical God is omnipotent. He sets the rules. And it should be within his power to cure sin without death. Or he isn't omnipotent and there is a greater authority than God who sets the rule which he then has to abide by. 

 

But in another point. I'm not a trinitarian. And I don't believe that the early church were either. So in my point of view he sent his son to die for humans. He didn't die himself. So he wasn't willing to give his own life for his human children. He was only willing to basically force his son to. And don't say Jesus wanted to. According to the prayer in the Garden, he prayed for hours to let the cup pass from him. And God had the power to do so. But denied Jesus his request because it wasn't his will. Which is another point to go against the prospect of "free will" the biblical God isnt interested in "free will". 

 

Not even for Jesus. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

4 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

But in practice, you would likely give your life to save your child/children (reprehensible substitutionary death) as a matter of knowledge and belief and experience as a human.  But when God does it through Christ to save lives for eternity, it an illusion.  So grace and sacrifice are practiced on both sides as viable and true.....which was my point about "worth keeping" as you likely would die for your child.  Your personal interpretation is what's at play....and mine.

 

 

 

Grace and sacrifice would be practiced on both sides if this were a free will issue for all the involved parties.

 

But if those receiving these things were caused to need them, then where was their free choice in the matter?

 

The bible says that god bound us over to disobedience because it was his will to overthrow his own creation.

 

Thus causing the innocent parties (us) to need his grace and sacrifice to save us from his wrath.

 

Wrath unjustly directed at us when the true cause of sin and disobedience was himself.

 

 

If we take scripture as authoritative then there is no grace or noble sacrifice on god's side of the equation.

 

 

 

[walterpthefirst]

14 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

As it is all myth I think we could just forego the weigh of the pros and cons. We already know the cons outweigh the pros from our perspective. 

 

Ultimately I guess,  what scripture can be salvaged is ultimately left to the eyes of the beholder. Many here would probably say the whole book is a lie, therefore it can all go. Some will see the historical importance of the religion and want to keep it all. A believer of course, in most cases, wouldn't let one jot or tittle go. But there are those various scriptures dispersed throughout the Bible that reflect wisdom from some ancient writer which we can apply to our day to day lives. Those few scriptures are the gems we are looking for. 

 

However this is the lions den. So when in Rome  

 

DB

 

I hear you about the bible being myth, DB.

 

But as you know, I don't take the mythicist position.  I take the position of Devil's Advocate.

 

So, returning to the point of the heavy cost (which you were responding to) what does scripture say about that?

 

The bible tells us that the cost exacted upon us by god is infinitely high.

 

Overlooking the decay, disfigurement, disease, deformity and death that god caused, it was his will to send billions to an everlasting torture chamber of his own making.

 

Their suffering in the flames will never end, making the cost infinitely high.

 

What good could possibly outweigh that?

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

What good could possibly outweigh that?

 

If that were all true. Then the gift of heaven for those who accept Christ would outweigh that. Because if it were all true. Then the sin debt would have to be payed by the blood of Gods son. Ya don't have to play devils advocate on every thread. I'm sure you have other points of view. 

 

We are just talking about scripture that gives good sage advice to people. From my point of view we are looking at the writings of ancient men who believed what they were writing about. I don't judge them for their ignorance. They didn't have the information we have now. They didn't have another option. And at times their God seemed to have failed them. Rather than abandoning their God they blamed their captivity and loss of their nation on themselves and their own sin. 

 

Really when you think about it. They were just as indoctrinated and let down by their beliefs as we were. 

 

So they did the best they could with the information they did have and how they understood the world. Just as any other religion. 

 

Proverbs is a good book to find snippets like that. I enjoy trying to get in the head of the writers and figure out what was going on to make them write various scripture. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

Agreed, DB.  If it were all true.

 

But would you what you've said below, actually be the case?

 

Then the gift of heaven for those who accept Christ would outweigh that. Because if it were all true. Then the sin debt would have to be paid by the blood of Gods son. 

 

The bliss of those in heaven who accepted Christ could not be more than infinite.  That would be impossible.  God himself is believed to be infinite in his nature and his abilities.  So, on that basis, he can't exceed his own abilities and he can't exceed his own nature.  Therefore, he could not bestow more than infinite bliss upon those in heaven.  And they could not enjoy more than infinite bliss because he could not give them more than infinity.

 

That's what logic tells us.  Therefore, seeing as the saved enjoy infinite bliss and the damned suffer infinite torment, at best, the scales are evenly balanced.  The good does not outweigh the evil.  

 

Some Christians might even argue that this balancing out is the necessary price of free will.  That, whenever free willed beings like angels and humans are offered a free choice, there is necessarily good and evil.

 

But, as we have seen from the bible itself, this is a false argument.

 

Scripture tells us that that god violated the free will of all human beings.  By imposing his will upon us and binding us all to disobedience so that he could have mercy upon us in the form of Jesus Christ.

 

God's act of violating everyone's free will was evil.  So now we see that in fact the scales do not balance out. They are weighed down with god's evil and no amount of wishing, hoping or praying can change that.

 

If it were all true, DB.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

That's what logic tells us.  Therefore, seeing as the saved enjoy infinite bliss and the damned suffer infinite torment, at best, the scales are evenly balanced.  The good does not outweigh the evil.  

 

But from a Christian perspective by not choosing to believe and live the life God has mapped out for salvation, they deserve Hell. Logically that sounds like to severe a punishment. But you know, our ways are not God's ways and all that. Who are we to question his plan. 

 

Lol I find it so hard to reconcile free will now. Free will wouldn't include a punishment of torture for eternity if you don't take the correct path. 

 

I don't know why I thought that this plan reflected God's love. I guess when your in the "click" after salvation you don't think about it. 

 

DB

[◊ Weezer ◊]

7 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

Their suffering in the flames will never end, making the cost infinitely high.

 

Do you think he uses natural gas, propane, wood, coal or peat for fuel?   

[walterpthefirst]

44 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Do you think he uses natural gas, propane, wood, coal or peat for fuel?   

 

Since god is eternal and the others things temporary Weezer, I should think that the flames of his own unjust wrath might just be the source of the fires of hell.

 

Deuteronomy 4 : 24

 

For the Lord your God is a consuming fire, a jealous God.

 

 

 

[RankStranger]

On 7/9/2023 at 3:51 AM, walterpthefirst said:

 

Accepted and agreed.

 

 

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.

 

As I used to say on this site years ago:  "Should" is a funny word.

 

If you find this argument compelling, I think you should follow it.  Personally I think any 'reason' I can come up with is profoundly incomplete.

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

But from a Christian perspective by not choosing to believe and live the life God has mapped out for salvation, they deserve Hell. Logically that sounds like to severe a punishment. But you know, our ways are not God's ways and all that. Who are we to question his plan. 

 

Lol I find it so hard to reconcile free will now. Free will wouldn't include a punishment of torture for eternity if you don't take the correct path. 

 

I don't know why I thought that this plan reflected God's love. I guess when your in the "click" after salvation you don't think about it. 

 

DB

 

I don't wish to belabour the point DB, but from a Christian perspective (derived from scripture) NOBODY CHOOSES to believe and live the life God has mapped out for salvation.

 

There is no mystery about this and there's no need to shrug and say that god's ways are not our ways.

 

According to scripture, nobody has free will.

 

Not the saved and not the damned.

 

Nobody.

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

As I used to say on this site years ago:  "Should" is a funny word.

 

If you find this argument compelling, I think you should follow it.  Personally I think any 'reason' I can come up with is profoundly incomplete.

 

So when you see the WALK sign with your own eyes, that's not a justified true belief based upon evidence?

 

 

[RankStranger]

5 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

So when you see the WALK sign with your own eyes, that's not a justified true belief based upon evidence?

 

 

 

We're talking about something far more complex than a 'walk' sign.  I'm all about logic and reasons when I'm working on a hydraulic system.  Logic and reason are indispensable when figuring out an electronic problem or setting up a LAN.

 

But for the big questions in life, logic simply isn't adequate.  It's not close to adequate.  My eyes are not enough to see what I need to see.  My brain is not enough to think what I need to think.  My body is not enough to do what I need to do.

 

I can't give you any 'logical' reason as to why I believe in Jesus.  And yet it's a simple fact that I do.  It's not a choice either.  Whether or not I acknowledge it and pursue it is a choice, but my belief is there regardless.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

We're talking about something far more complex than a 'walk' sign.  I'm all about logic and reasons when I'm working on a hydraulic system.  Logic and reason are indispensable when figuring out an electronic problem or setting up a LAN.

 

But for the big questions in life, logic simply isn't adequate.  It's not close to adequate.  My eyes are not enough to see what I need to see.  My brain is not enough to think what I need to think.  My body is not enough to do what I need to do.

 

I can't give you any 'logical' reason as to why I believe in Jesus.  And yet it's a simple fact that I do.  It's not a choice either.  Whether or not I acknowledge it and pursue it is a choice, but my belief is there regardless.

We already had the argument over whether or not faith is an adequate substitute for logic and reason.

 

[walterpthefirst]

4 minutes ago, RankStranger said:

 

We're talking about something far more complex than a 'walk' sign.  I'm all about logic and reasons when I'm working on a hydraulic system.  Logic and reason are indispensable when figuring out an electronic problem or setting up a LAN.

 

But for the big questions in life, logic simply isn't adequate.  It's not close to adequate.  My eyes are not enough to see what I need to see.  My brain is not enough to think what I need to think.  My body is not enough to do what I need to do.

 

I can't give you any 'logical' reason as to why I believe in Jesus.  And yet it's a simple fact that I do.  It's not a choice either.  Whether or not I acknowledge it and pursue it is a choice, but my belief is there regardless.

 

You've neatly stated where the dividing line should (that word again) fall, RS.

 

For those things in our lives where we can acquire evidence, we have justified true beliefs derived from our senses.

 

For those things where our senses and our logic fall short, any beliefs we have about them are unjustified.

 

That is why you cannot give us a logical reason why you believe in Jesus.

 

You can only give an illogical one based upon your emotions.

 

Justifiable within yourself, but unjustifiable in any other way.

[RankStranger]

Just now, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We already had the argument over whether or not faith is an adequate substitute for logic and reason.

 

 

No argument here.  Just explaining how I see things.

 

I'm sure I'm not meeting Walter's standard.  I'm ok with that.

[RankStranger]

1 minute ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

You've neatly stated where the dividing line should (that word again) fall, RS.

 

For those things in our lives where we can acquire evidence, we have justified true beliefs derived from our senses.

 

For those things where our senses and our logic fall short, any beliefs we have about them are unjustified.

 

That is why you cannot give us a logical reason why you believe in Jesus.

 

You can only give an illogical one based upon your emotions.

 

Justifiable within yourself, but unjustifiable in any other way.

 

I like this post

[walterpthefirst]

Then I'm a bit puzzled, RS.

 

How can you debate about Christianity when you seem to agree that your beliefs about it are unjustifiable to anyone else except yourself?

 

Unless you want to adopt aik's position?

 

That his personal, subjective and unjustifiable beliefs apply to everyone else, because his personal, subjective and unjustifiable beliefs tell him that they do.

 

?

 

 

[RankStranger]

37 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Then I'm a bit puzzled, RS.

 

How can you debate about Christianity when you seem to agree that your beliefs about it are unjustifiable to anyone else except yourself?

 

Unless you want to adopt aik's position?

 

That his personal, subjective and unjustifiable beliefs apply to everyone else, because his personal, subjective and unjustifiable beliefs tell him that they do.

 

?

 

 

 

I'm not really debating, if that answers your question.  I'd call this more of a discussion.  

 

I'm not familiar with AIK, so I don't really have any comment on his ideas.  I'm not here to tell you that you need to believe the way I do.  I think you should do whatever makes sense to you.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

We already had the argument over whether or not faith is an adequate substitute for logic and reason.

 

We have also had discussions on freewill vs predestination, the fall in the garden, and suffering. I'd rather not turn this thread into another devil advocates debate that goes right back to the same stuff we've been discussing for months. 

 

@walterpthefirst you said:

5 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

God's act of violating everyone's free will was evil.  So now we see that in fact the scales do not balance out. They are weighed down with god's evil and no amount of wishing, hoping or praying can change that.

 

So you believe that since the weight is heavily negative none of the scripture is salvageable, correct?

 

DB