Are some teachings of the bible salvageable?

[TheRedneckProfessor]

8 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

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. 

I agree.  Though it would, perhaps, be more accurate to say I was predestined to agree of my own free will.

[◊ Weezer ◊]

1 hour ago, DarkBishop said:

 

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. 

 

 

Thank you.

[RankStranger]

1 hour ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

I agree.  Though it would, perhaps, be more accurate to say I was predestined to agree of my own free will.

I like this post

[RankStranger]

2 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Thank you.

I like this one too.

[Edgarcito]

On 7/9/2023 at 1:10 PM, TheRedneckProfessor said:

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.

<Thinking out loud> Here you've sacrificed and practiced substitutionary death.... and your nature says that's right because of love for your child likely.  The alternative, no sacrifice and allowing your child's death.  To which any of us would find THAT reprehensible....  And our nation pays homage to those servants who routinely sacrifice and save vs. those who save themselves.... whom we prosecute for not doing their duties, incarceration.  Sounds like a myth/story I've heard before...

[Edgarcito]

27 minutes ago, Weezer said:

Thank you.

Wait, can I vote?  lol 

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

Just now, Edgarcito said:

Wait, can I vote?  lol 

Vote for what?

[midniterider]

56 minutes ago, Edgarcito said:

<Thinking out loud> Here you've sacrificed and practiced substitutionary death.... and your nature says that's right because of love for your child likely.  The alternative, no sacrifice and allowing your child's death.  To which any of us would find THAT reprehensible....  And our nation pays homage to those servants who routinely sacrifice and save vs. those who save themselves.... whom we prosecute for not doing their duties, incarceration.  Sounds like a myth/story I've heard before...

 

When a human sacrifices himself, there's actual loss of life....for more than 2 days. Otherwise the word sacrifice is inapplicable. 

 

If I crawled out of my coffin during the 21 gun salute and carried on with life I'd probably get a ton of hate mail.  And the life insurance and death benefit companies would be demanding their checks back. 

 

[walterpthefirst]

3 hours ago, RankStranger said:

 

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.

 

Thank you for that helpful clarification, RS.

 

Debate tends to be adversarial, whereas a discussion need not be.

 

I'll bear what you say in mind.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

[midniterider]

On 7/9/2023 at 11:02 AM, 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.

 

 

 

How does an eternal being sacrifice his life? 

 

The whole idea of sin, most especially original sin is complete nonsense. And the idea that someone has to die to wash away sins is even more nonsense. God's a drama queen. Humans just say, "You're forgiven...", they don't make a big thing out of it. 

 

So, the supreme being of Christianity:

 

1. Creates sin.

2. Creates a way to bypass it. 

 

I dont know, maybe he created logic later on...

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

The alternative, no sacrifice and allowing your child's death. 

There's a third option, Ed, which you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge,  because your false analogy strawman is so convenient.  The third option is that I die, and then hold my sacrifice over the child's head for the rest of his life and demand that he be grateful and worship me because of my sacrifice.   And then we he refuses to do so, because he never asked me to die in the first place, or even agreed with the idea, he dies anyway and I cast him into eternal damnation in hellfire and brimstone.  This way, either I get all the glory I want or I get to kill and torture the child myself.  You know, because love. 

[walterpthefirst]

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

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. 

 

That's fine by me, DB.  

 

Unfortunately, given the fact that almost everything in Christianity hinges on the concepts of free will, it's inevitable that any discussion about Christianity (including this one) will pulled back to the very first and most important act of 'free will' in biblical history - Adam and Eve's 'choice' in Eden.  Everything else relating to the human race in bible hinges on that event and is seen in that context.  Therefore, discussions and debates about Christianity will naturally gravitate back there because that is the defining moment by which all other events in biblical human history are measured and receive their context.

 

But, if we consciously choose to avoid going there again, I'm cool with that.

 

2 hours ago, DarkBishop said:

 

@walterpthefirst you said:

 

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

 

DB

 

No.  Yesterday I wrote this and still stand by it.

 

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.  

 

This wisdom is really just good psychology dressed up in a religious format.  If we pare away the religious window dressing what we have left are good life lessons that can be applied in a secular way for the benefit of all.

 

For instance, Proverbs 27 : 2.  Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; an outsider, and not your own lips.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

[walterpthefirst]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

<Thinking out loud> Here you've sacrificed and practiced substitutionary death.... and your nature says that's right because of love for your child likely.  The alternative, no sacrifice and allowing your child's death.  To which any of us would find THAT reprehensible....  And our nation pays homage to those servants who routinely sacrifice and save vs. those who save themselves.... whom we prosecute for not doing their duties, incarceration.  Sounds like a myth/story I've heard before...

 

Ed,

 

Your line of argument here could represent something of a problem for this thread.  DB, the Prof and myself and probably RankStranger too would like to avoid, if at all possible, dragging this thread back to the fraught subject of free will.  Doing that will inevitably take us back to Eden and who is ultimately responsible for what.

 

But if you are going to argue that Jesus' death is some kind of noble sacrifice then what can we do but make our counter-arguments that it is not?  And the most efficient way we can do that is to point to the scripture which says that it is not.  And then we are right back to free will and Eden again.

 

Now I'm not saying that you can't or shouldn't do what you're doing.  I have no right to do that.  But can you see the danger that I'm pointing out here?  The potential for us to take this thread where it shouldn't go?

 

Please understand that this hopeful message about what you have posted is no different from the hopeful message DB sent my way, about me not dragging this thread back to the same topic we've been arguing over for months.  He did it in a friendly and non-combative way and I hope that I'm doing it in friendly and non-combative way too.

 

All I'm asking, as one respectful member to another, is that you be aware of what we are trying to avoid.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Edgarcito]

51 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

There's a third option, Ed, which you stubbornly refuse to acknowledge,  because your false analogy strawman is so convenient.  The third option is that I die, and then hold my sacrifice over the child's head for the rest of his life and demand that he be grateful and worship me because of my sacrifice.   And then we he refuses to do so, because he never asked me to die in the first place, or even agreed with the idea, he dies anyway and I cast him into eternal damnation in hellfire and brimstone.  This way, either I get all the glory I want or I get to kill and torture the child myself.  You know, because love. 

Third option is party line rhetoric rather than forgiveness, faith in renewal, and eternal life.  I’m going with faith in that rather than…

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 minutes ago, walterpthefirst said:

Therefore, discussions and debates about Christianity will naturally gravitate back there because that is the defining moment by which all other events in biblical human history are measured and receive their context.

 

Yes it is the foundational event that sets the whole theology in motion. But there are other big events as well. One angle that we can go with is discussing who wrote Genesis. According to accepted Christian teachings it was Moses. At that point we can fast forward to Exodus. But you know me. My deconversion was solidified by looking into archeological research on the exodus. So its one of my favorite stories to debunk. The problem is at that point Christians don't want to accept any findings contrary to their particular brand of brainwashing. 

 

A good question I just thought of is how did Peter know that it was Moses on the mount of transfuguration? God buried him himself. No one had seen him for over 1000 years. Was he just guessing? Anyway that is neither here nor there in this thread. 

 

1 hour ago, walterpthefirst said:

 

That's fine by me, DB.  

 

Unfortunately, given the fact that almost everything in Christianity hinges on the concepts of free will, it's inevitable that any discussion about Christianity (including this one) will pulled back to the very first and most important act of 'free will' in biblical history - Adam and Eve's 'choice' in Eden.  Everything else relating to the human race in bible hinges on that event and is seen in that context.  Therefore, discussions and debates about Christianity will naturally gravitate back there because that is the defining moment by which all other events in biblical human history are measured and receive their context.

 

But, if we consciously choose to avoid going there again, I'm cool with that.

 

 

No.  Yesterday I wrote this and still stand by it.

 

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.  

 

This wisdom is really just good psychology dressed up in a religious format.  If we pare away the religious window dressing what we have left are good life lessons that can be applied in a secular way for the benefit of all.

 

For instance, Proverbs 27 : 2.  Let someone else praise you, and not your own mouth; an outsider, and not your own lips.

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

Ok cool. We are definitely walking on common ground then. Sorry I misunderstood your other post.

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

12 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Yes it is the foundational event that sets the whole theology in motion. But there are other big events as well. One angle that we can go with is discussing who wrote Genesis. According to accepted Christian teachings it was Moses. At that point we can fast forward to Exodus. But you know me. My deconversion was solidified by looking into archeological research on the exodus. So its one of my favorite stories to debunk. The problem is at that point Christians don't want to accept any findings contrary to their particular brand of brainwashing. 

 

Another thread, maybe?

 

12 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

A good question I just thought of is how did Peter know that it was Moses on the mount of transfuguration? God buried him himself. No one had seen him for over 1000 years. Was he just guessing? Anyway that is neither here nor there in this thread. 

 

Or how did Peter know that the other person was Elijah?

 

Perhaps the man's clothes were still smoking and singed from his ride in that fiery chariot?

 

Yep, definitely for another thread!

 

12 minutes ago, DarkBishop said:

 

Ok cool. We are definitely walking on common ground then. Sorry I misunderstood your other post.

 

DB

 

Amen!

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

1 hour ago, Edgarcito said:

Third option is party line rhetoric rather than forgiveness, faith in renewal, and eternal life.  I’m going with faith in that rather than…

Except your "forgiveness, faith in renewal, and eternal life" analogy completely ignores why redemption was necessary in the first place, Ed.  You completely ignore that god was the one who betrayed us all into sin by withholding critical information from Adam and Eve.  You completely ignore that it was god's will to subject creation to sin and suffering, precisely to swoop in like a wannabe hero and save us all with his "mercy" (which only extends as far as we freely allow him to violate our free wil).  You completely ignore that eternal conscious torment in hellfire awaits anyone who disagrees with this murderous and bloodthirsty scheme.

 

In short, you completely ignore everything except the little tiny part of it that gives you feelies in your special place.  You're welcome to it, of course; but if I was your god, I'd spew you out of my mouth for being lukewarm and rejecting the totality of my word.

 

NOTE: There is already an open thread for discussion of Eden, Talking Snakes, and Naked People Eating Magical Fruit.  That thread is the "Suffering For The Good of The World" thread.  Should anyone wish to continue that discussion, please do so there. Thank You.

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

3 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Third option is party line rhetoric rather than forgiveness, faith in renewal, and eternal life.  I’m going with faith in that rather than…

Ed, this thread is about scripture. So what is a scripture that you have no doubt is true and gives us profound wisdom we could apply to our lives. Then we can discuss whether it has merit other than promoting God. Why should we think this scripture is good even if we don't believe.

 

As already established, we ExChristians mostly agree that there are words with sage advice in the Bible that can be applied to our lives even in the absence of religion. And that all scripture is profitable for historic research into the lives of ancient people and their beliefs. 

 

So what verse, verses, or chapter would you like to throw in the ring?

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

Prof,

 

 

Just to let you know, I don't want to restart my dialogue with Edgarcito in the Suffering for the Good of the World thread unless it's going to be less confrontational and more fruitful than before.

 

If he were to confirm that he would meet me there, on that basis, we might be able to continue.

 

But you would need to unlock the thread for that happen.

 

 

The other issue is one of completing what I started there.

 

If Ed doesn't want to participate or won't meet me in the spirit of cooperation, what should I do?

 

I've yet to finish and tie predestination to god's eternal nature.

 

Can you please advise?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

[mwc]

12 hours ago, midniterider said:

 

How does an eternal being sacrifice his life? 

 

The whole idea of sin, most especially original sin is complete nonsense. And the idea that someone has to die to wash away sins is even more nonsense. God's a drama queen. Humans just say, "You're forgiven...", they don't make a big thing out of it. 

     Don't forget:

 

Mark 11:25 And when you stand praying, if you hold anything against anyone, forgive them, so that your Father in heaven may forgive you your sins.”

 

     You have to forgive people so that you're forgiven.  It's required.  You *must* forgive first otherwise god will not act in kind.  He just won't.  At least the person you need to forgive doesn't need to make a sacrifice to you...I don't think?  Maybe they should?  At least you're extending your grace to them by not killing them outright.  We all should tell those we need to forgive that much.

 

     I guess jesus had to die so you don't need to keep doing this over and over.  You just believe the story and you're okay.  Which seems strange that you'd need to keep praying and asking for forgiveness then?  Maybe you just don't need to forgive others anymore?

 

          mwc

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

2 hours ago, walterpthefirst said:

Prof,

 

 

Just to let you know, I don't want to restart my dialogue with Edgarcito in the Suffering for the Good of the World thread unless it's going to be less confrontational and more fruitful than before.

 

If he were to confirm that he would meet me there, on that basis, we might be able to continue.

 

But you would need to unlock the thread for that happen.

 

 

The other issue is one of completing what I started there.

 

If Ed doesn't want to participate or won't meet me in the spirit of cooperation, what should I do?

 

I've yet to finish and tie predestination to god's eternal nature.

 

Can you please advise?

 

 

Thank you,

 

Walter.

 

 

The Suffering thread is not locked.  I locked the other thread about a Timeless and Unchanging god, because it started to get a bit rowdier than normal.  As far as interacting with Ed, you have free will.  You know where it's likely to lead and how it's likely to play out; and nobody will blame you if you'd rather not.  You just have to use your best judgment.  If you do choose to engage with him, either in the Suffering thread or the Timeless thread (which I can unlock for you), keep a level head and remember the primary purpose of this website.  

[TheRedneckProfessor]

12 hours ago, Edgarcito said:

Third option is party line rhetoric

Actually,  Ed, the third option is exactly what the bible says, if you read the entire thing as a whole and take it at face value, which is what we're trying to do in this thread.  

[☆ DarkBishop ☆]

I'm gonna throw Ephesians 4:26 in.

 

26 Be ye angry, and sin not: let not the sun go down upon your wrath:

 

This doesn't work for everyone. But I can see the wisdom in it. Minus the bit about sin. And in this instance you could consider sin basically don't beat the shit out of whoever you're pissed at. But also make peace before the end of the day. Kinda like a biblical. "Cooler heads prevail" scripture. 

 

There are similar words before and after this verse, mixed with some God n Jesus blah blah blah. But all that is included in the golden rule. So no need to add it here. We've already talked about the golden rule. 

 

DB

[walterpthefirst]

33 minutes ago, TheRedneckProfessor said:

The Suffering thread is not locked.  I locked the other thread about a Timeless and Unchanging god, because it started to get a bit rowdier than normal.  As far as interacting with Ed, you have free will.  You know where it's likely to lead and how it's likely to play out; and nobody will blame you if you'd rather not.  You just have to use your best judgment.  If you do choose to engage with him, either in the Suffering thread or the Timeless thread (which I can unlock for you), keep a level head and remember the primary purpose of this website.  

 

Ok Prof,

 

 

Thanks for the correction.

 

I'll restart things in the Timeless thread soon, proceeding on the basis that its a work that needs finishing and it may be of value to other members in the future.  If Ed wants to get involved there'll be no requirement at all for him to answer any questions about what I'm explaining - how predestination works with an eternal god appearing to interact with humans in real time.

 

If he does voice questions I'll do my best to answer them and respond in the hope that he'll answer any of mine that arise from his questions.  

 

But what I won't do is to argue and compete with him.  If there's something that he doesn't agree with, a point he won't address or a passage in scripture that he won't go respond about then I won't take things any further.  I'll have said what I planned to say by way of explanation and I'm not there to get into a clash of wills with him.

 

Oh and one other item of news. 

 

Audrey and I will be off on our summer vacation this Sunday (16th) for two weeks.  She's asked me NOT to bring my laptop with me and I can see the wisdom of her request.  What kind of holiday would it be if I'm always spending more time online than with her?   So it'll be a total break from e-v-e-r-y-t-h-i-n-g. 

 

You won't hear a peep out of me for the duration.  So, I'll do my best to finish up the Timeless thread before I go and not leave that thread hanging.

 

Thanks again for the all clear and the sound advice.

 

 

Walter.

[TheRedneckProfessor]

I'll unlock said thread.  Take your time; and make your getaway the priority.