God is extremely egotistical and prideful. Why does he not defend his name?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Better whatever I do than accept that a genocidal son murdering God is somehow good like you do.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Regards
DL

All of this is wrong in every way. When you come up with something other then bull and hog wash, post, until then shut up with your foolish posts.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
Better whatever I do than accept that a genocidal son murdering God is somehow good like you do.

Imagine you have two children. One of your children does something wrong – say it curses, or throws a temper tantrum, or something like that. In fact, say it does this on a regular basis, and you continually forgive your child, but it never seems to change.

Now suppose one day you’ve had enough, you need to do something different. You still wish to forgive your child, but nothing has worked. Do you go to your second child, your good child, and punish it to atone for the sins of the first?

In fact, if you ever saw a parent on the street punish one of their children for the actions of their other child, how would you react? Would you support their decision, or would you be offended? Because God punished Jesus -- his good child -- for the sins of his other children.

Interestingly, some historical royal families would beat their slaves when their own children did wrong – you should not, after all, ever beat a prince. The question is: what kind of lesson does that teach the child who actually did the harm? Does it teach them to be a better person, to stop doing harm, or does it teach them both that they won't themselves be punished, and also that punishing other people is normal? I know that's not a lesson I would want to teach my children, and I suspect it's not a lesson most Christians would want to teach theirs. So why does God?

For me, that’s at least one significant reason I find Jesus’ atonement of our sin to be morally repugnant – of course, that’s assuming Jesus ever existed; that original sin actually exists; that God actually exists; etc.

Regards
DL

This entire post is unadullterated idiocy!

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
This entire post is unadullterated idiocy!

He's a different religion then you. Good job on being tolerant.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He's a different religion then you. Good job on being tolerant.

What does tolerance have to do with recognizing the illegitimacy of an argument?

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
What does tolerance have to do with recognizing the illegitimacy of an argument?

I get the feeling that you think Greatest I am is a Christian. He's a Gnostic Christian, and from what little I know about Gnosticism his argument is consistent with Gnostic beliefs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I get the feeling that you think Greatest I am is a Christian. He's a Gnostic Christian, and from what little I know about Gnosticism his argument is consistent with Gnostic beliefs.

For a point of convenience I could be described as a Christian as well. In reality, if you are following the tenets of the Bible and recognize Christ as lord and savior you are a Jew.

To his post and my comments, his argument makes no sense in relation to the scripture that he is citing.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
For a point of convenience I could be described as a Christian as well. In reality, if you are following the tenets of the Bible and recognize Christ as lord and savior you are a Jew.

To his post and my comments, his argument makes no sense in relation to the scripture that he is citing.

That is just the way you believe. It's all about interpretation. You believe one way and he believes another. It's not like ether of you or him are right.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is just the way you believe. It's all about interpretation. You believe one way and he believes another. It's not like ether of you or him are right.

We can look at the text and apply simple logic to discern if his critique is correct.

The text that he cites is not indicative of the claim that he is making.

Originally posted by LordofBrooklyn
We can look at the text and apply simple logic to discern if his critique is correct.

The text that he cites is not indicative of the claim that he is making.

You can't apply logic to the bible? 😆

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
That is just the way you believe. It's all about interpretation.

What he probably means is that interpretation only goes so far. If I tell you to eat your soup, obviously I don't mean you should bury your soup in a graveyard or wait 10,000 and then eat your soup. There is such a thing as a rational interpretation.

Belief and subjectivity take a secondary role on this, always 👆

Originally posted by Bentley
What he probably means is that interpretation only goes so far. If I tell you to eat your soup, obviously I don't mean you should bury your soup in a graveyard or wait 10,000 and then eat your soup. There is such a thing as a rational interpretation.

Belief and subjectivity take a secondary role on this, always 👆

Yes, I agree, however, rational interpretation does not apply to the bible. All religious interpretations of the bible are irrational. The reason I say this is because the bible is a collection of different stories and text that were not intended by the original writers to be put together. Remember that the bible was not constructed (or assembled) until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This was long after all the individual books of the bible were written.

If I were to take a cross section of storied from today's popular culture and bind them together in one large book, would anyone be able to come up with a rational interpretation of how they fit together? I don't think so.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I agree, however, rational interpretation does not apply to the bible. All religious interpretations of the bible are irrational.

I could see that statement working, but the reasons you give aren't that relevant to the subject in hand.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The reason I say this is because the bible is a collection of different stories and text that were not intended by the original writers to be put together. Remember that the bible was not constructed (or assembled) until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This was long after all the individual books of the bible were written.

The fact that the stories are different does not mean they can't be consistent. Going by this logic, human history can only be told by a single author, which can never happen and is thus, inconsistent on itself. You can say as much about law or lore, texts can be similar and share enough elements in common to be fitting with each other. The Bible has the advantage of being built this way by design, the people who gathered the books together intended them to be used together. So while the logic comes after the writting, it obviously exists and negating it is not sensible.

You can argue that the story remains irrational to many sensible standards, which is, as far as I see, pretty likely. Still, at least some people thought there was some rationality towards the anthology, since they made it.

Being made by a single author/mind has nothing to do with it, as language itself is build from different speeches and we can clearly make a rational sense of words.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
If I were to take a cross section of storied from today's popular culture and bind them together in one large book, would anyone be able to come up with a rational interpretation of how they fit together? I don't think so.

Except people do this all the time and the assortment of books can convey a similar spirit.

What LoB was criticizing earlier was about clearly misrepresenting the spirit of the tale. These are not necessarily the same thing, and I think it's pointless to pretend they are for the sake of arguing. They can both be irrational and at least one of them is not necessarily "illogic".

Originally posted by Bentley
I could see that statement working, but the reasons you give aren't that relevant to the subject in hand.

Originally posted by Bentley
The fact that the stories are different does not mean they can't be consistent. Going by this logic, human history can only be told by a single author, which can never happen and is thus, inconsistent on itself. You can say as much about law or lore, texts can be similar and share enough elements in common to be fitting with each other. The Bible has the advantage of being built this way by design, the people who gathered the books together intended them to be used together. So while the logic comes after the writting, it obviously exists and negating it is not sensible.

Originally posted by Bentley
You can argue that the story remains irrational to many sensible standards, which is, as far as I see, pretty likely. Still, at least some people thought there was some rationality towards the anthology, since they made it.

Originally posted by Bentley
Being made by a single author/mind has nothing to do with it, as language itself is build from different speeches and we can clearly make a rational sense of words.

Originally posted by Bentley
Except people do this all the time and the assortment of books can convey a similar spirit.

Originally posted by Bentley
What LoB was criticizing earlier was about clearly misrepresenting the spirit of the tale. These are not necessarily the same thing, and I think it's pointless to pretend they are for the sake of arguing. They can both be irrational and at least one of them is not necessarily "illogic".

Originally posted by Greatest I am
God is extremely egotistical and prideful. Why does he not defend his name?

When the Serpent killed his father, trapped his father's brethren in hell, he tricked his brother and sent him there. He established himself as an alpha male over his brothers and sisters, used humanity as his primary source of entertainment, and sex.

Zeus the Serpent God.

Originally posted by Oneness
Oh you haven't the slightest clue.

When the Serpent killed his father, trapped his father's brethren in hell, he tricked his brother and sent him there. He established himself as an alpha male over his brothers and sisters, used humanity as his primary source of entertainment, and sex.

Zeus the Serpent God.

I think they are talking about the bible.

I don't think any of you realize that God has asked man for help, before (watch the whole thing: there is a very wholesome and spiritual message at the end that will probably even convince a few atheists...the vid is only like 30 seconds long so endure it to the end):

YouTube video

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I guess that is your opinion.

My opinion can always change.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never said they had to be written by the same person. However, if I attach the first five chapters of a western history book to the story of superman, what kind of rational interpretation can I get? The bible is a mix of fiction and non-fiction. I history book cannot be written that way and be called rational.

It won't be historical, but again you're taking irrational in the sense of unreal. Books can be fiction and rational at the same time. The inquiry could be interesting from an aesthetical point of view. It's validity as an argument though, it's something else.

If we are going to be runing around the meaning of rational we will enter into a subject I don't care about. So have the definition you care about.

The Bible is not a history book, I just used it as an example.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And for fiction that works out great. In fiction, interpretations do not have to be rational. Who is faster, superman or the flash?

Fiction doesn't have to be irrational, that's a part of my claim.

Flash.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I think this is irrelevant. The problem here is that we are being presented two competing interpretations of the bible. My point is that one of them is not right, and the other wrong. They are just different. I do not believe there is a correct interpretation of the bible.

I'm not assuming there is a correct interpretation. I'm stating the fact there are wrong interpretations.

Those premises aren't the same.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Again this works with fiction. However, the people in this thread are talking about the bible as if it was fact.

The Bible is an action, the action of composing a set of texts as the basis of a religious doctrine. They aren't just talking about the aesthetical value of it or its content.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
No one knows what the original spirit of the tale was.

Which wouldn't mean there wasn't one. In turn, it doesn't mean we can use any spirit of the tale. This is really just attacking the argument for the sake of attacking it, this could literaly be applied to anything we ignore.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Who is to say that the Gnostic interpolation of the bible is less valid then the popular Christian interpolation?

Well, we agree the fact that it's a hard excercise and that errors can be made on this discussion doesn't mean it's impossible. Also I'm not assuming the Gnostic reading of the Bible is wrong, I'm trying to clarify what another poster posted which was readily dismissed when it actually came from a valid stance.

Even without pursuing a factual truth, beliefs are what you make out of them, by discussing about their religious experience and understanding people learn about it. Discussions don't have to be about being right or wrong.

Originally posted by Bentley
My opinion can always change.

Originally posted by Bentley
It won't be historical, but again you're taking irrational in the sense of unreal. Books can be fiction and rational at the same time. The inquiry could be interesting from an aesthetical point of view. It's validity as an argument though, it's something else.

Originally posted by Bentley
If we are going to be runing around the meaning of rational we will enter into a subject I don't care about. So have the definition you care about.

Originally posted by Bentley
The Bible is not a history book, I just used it as an example.

Originally posted by Bentley
Fiction doesn't have to be irrational, that's a part of my claim.

Originally posted by Bentley
I'm not assuming there is a correct interpretation. I'm stating the fact there are wrong interpretations.

Originally posted by Bentley
The Bible is an action, the action of composing a set of texts as the basis of a religious doctrine. They aren't just talking about the aesthetical value of it or its content.

Originally posted by Bentley
Which wouldn't mean there wasn't one. In turn, it doesn't mean we can use any spirit of the tale. This is really just attacking the argument for the sake of attacking it, this could literaly be applied to anything we ignore.

Originally posted by Bentley
Well, we agree the fact that it's a hard excercise and that errors can be made on this discussion doesn't mean it's impossible. Also I'm not assuming the Gnostic reading of the Bible is wrong, I'm trying to clarify what another poster posted which was readily dismissed when it actually came from a valid stance.

Originally posted by Bentley
Even without pursuing a factual truth, beliefs are what you make out of them, by discussing about their religious experience and understanding people learn about it. Discussions don't have to be about being right or wrong.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Unless all interpretations are wrong, then stating that there is a wrong interpretation indicates there is a right interpretation.

Sure. But all interpretations could be wrong, we just wouldn't know it.

Think about this: I can never fully describe an object, I can only approach it with the limited tools of my understand it. I'll never fully describe it, so it might be impossible to be exactly right when I try to approach it. But I can be downright wrong by describing things that aren't in that object at all.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
There is more than one “spirit of the tale” when it comes to the bible.

Sure. It still doesn't allow us to apply "every spirit of the tale" to it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Not really. For example: If someone said the sky was green, you could then say that they are wrong, and you could prove it by showing pictures of the blue sky. But that is not what is happening here on this thread. This is more like; someone saying that unicorns only dance in the spring time, and you saying no, they also dance in winter. Sense unicorns do not exist; neither side of the argument is right or wrong. In this case one side thinking they are right, is what is irrational.

As I said, even in fiction we can find rationality, so if we had a fiction in which elements described the dances of unicorns, there would be nothing irrational about the discussion. Sure, there is some room to interpretation, but as I said, at some point subjectivity stops and the way we read is just wrong.

Reality is moot to our discussion, irrationality is not about existence on itself, many mathematical rules can't be applied to our universe but are strictly rational.

I'm just trying to expose my take on the argumentation here, the unicorn argument doesn't address my line of thought at all, so I'm iffy about delving more into it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
People are not discussing in this threat, they are attacking someone who believes differently than they do. They are taking offence to a different belief without discussing it.

Oh, that might be the case. I really replied to your questioning of a particular stance, but that's not the entirety of what was happening in this thread at that moment.

I believe it's fair to criticize people when they are dismissing valid arguments for unknown reasons or clear bias.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Yes, I agree, however, rational interpretation does not apply to the bible. All religious interpretations of the bible are irrational.

you sure do generalize... the irony of this, is that your generalization is not rational either...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The reason I say this is because the bible is a collection of different stories and text that were not intended by the original writers to be put together. Remember that the bible was not constructed (or assembled) until the Council of Nicaea in 325 AD. This was long after all the individual books of the bible were written.

If I were to take a cross section of storied from today's popular culture and bind them together in one large book, would anyone be able to come up with a rational interpretation of how they fit together? I don't think so.

wrong!

"See this which I have found, saith the Preacher, searching one by one to find out the reason;"
Ecclesiastes 7:27

"Seek and read from the book of the Lord: Not one of these shall be missing; none shall be without her mate. For the mouth of the Lord has commanded, and his Spirit has gathered them."
Isaiah 34:16

read and understand first before you criticize... just like what Jesus said:

"But Jesus answered them, You are wrong, because you know neither the scriptures nor the power of God."
Matthew 22:29

😉