Author Topic: God's "all-loving" nature  (Read 9817 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #29 on: September 15, 2011, 11:07:54 AM »
That's the trillion dollar question. From the context I would make the argument that the answer is in fact death as it presents no other alternative and uses terms like perish and then contrasts that term with age lasting life. As you stated, we all are going to die, so if death is the "condemnation" then the quote of nonbelievers being "condemned already" is apropro.
Hey, that's my opinion on the matter and that conclusion seems to make the most sense because it doesn't appear that any alternative conclusion is presented by the text, but I could be wrong with and equiped with a faulty decoder ring :).
  Interesting but since everything dies, including animals, what so special about death to humans?   I do agree, that there is nothing offered by the context right there, but if one accepts that the whole bible is from this god/JC, then we have a problem.  Heaven and hell are offered as alternatives and eternal life in some magical city.   
Quote
I would agree that hell has become more of a focus and perhaps has even been redefined as the religions, both Judaism, Christianity, and even Islam have evolved.
rather makes it hard to decide if any of it is “true” then. Which version is the “true” one, some older version or what is now being claimed, and all versions claimed to come right from this god?   I would also ask you again, is it just or fair for a god to not be clear on what it takes to be saved?  Is it just or fair to pick and choose and not allow some people this supposed “great gift”?  This seems to get back to the discussion about “might makes right”. 

Quote
What I have found interesting in my recent studies of the gospels is that Jesus seems to speak about eternal (age lasting) life and having a place in the Kingdom as entirely different things. For instance in John 3 Jesus is quoted as having told Nico that one must be born again of water and of the spirit in order to have a place in the Kingdom, that was supposed to have come with power in the lifetime of those to whom Jesus spoke (Luke 9:26-27).
and didn’t happen and per Revelation is supposed to happen sometime in the “future”.

Quote
However, when Jesus was asked about what was needed for inheriting life in the age, his response with quite different. According to Luke 10:26-28, in order to be gifted with life one must 'love Jehovah your God with your whole heart, life, strength, and mind, and your neighbor as yourself.' [Apparently this love for YHWH was centered around accepting and believing in the one He sent. (John 6 delves into this idea.)]
So you wish to claim these are two different things that JC was talking about? We have two claims of some “kingdom” that JC is supposed to rule over where everyone has this magical extra life.  It seems to me that being “born in the spirit” and “loving God” are quite similar if not identical.  I suspect you don’t hold with the idea, but so many Christians prate about how God has unconditional love. This sure seems like a condition and that anyone who dares be born in the wrong place/time is damned or dead. It also doesn’t work when the being that needs to be believed in intentionally doesn’t allow some people to do so.   

I don’t see this.  I also wonder where the requirement of giving up all of your earthly belongings comes in, since JC said that is also required to be perfect and pass through that eye of the needle.   

Quote
Good question about the love of God. Perhaps God's love for the individual is grossly overstated?
And what else is grossly overstated? How can you believe any of this as comeing from some magical being?  That amazes me.
Quote
As far as the Bible writings advocating original sin, please, do tell why you feel this way.
Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.   
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Original Sin Issue
« Reply #30 on: September 15, 2011, 12:33:11 PM »
Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not. There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2. From your post I take it that you believe that the Bible writings support both options and is therefore wrong because there is no way both options can be correct.

According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.
Then you have Exodus 34 which says, the Lord passed before his face while He was saying, 'Jehovah, the God of mercy, pity, patience, concern, and truth; who brings justice and mercy to thousands, and removes wrong-doing, unrighteousness, and sins, but who won't acquit the guilty; who [punishes] the sins of ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generations.'
The only way these two ideas can jive is if one focuses on the PUNISHMENT aspect mentioned in Exodus and contrast that with the GUILT aspect mentioned in Ezekiel. What that of course would then mean is that one's offspring will suffer the effects of their ancestor's sin though they will not be found guilty of those sins.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: Original Sin Issue
« Reply #31 on: September 15, 2011, 01:28:59 PM »
Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.
The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not. There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2. From your post I take it that you believe that the Bible writings support both options and is therefore wrong because there is no way both options can be correct.
I am saying and supporting that the bible contradicts it self since you can support the idea of original sin and attack it.  You have presented a false dichotomy in order to protect your bible’s supposed coherence.

Quote
According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.
Yep, right here we have that only the guilty will be punished, not the innocent.
Quote
Deut 5: 9 You shall not bow down to them or worship them; for I, the LORD your God, am a jealous God, punishing the children for the sin of the parents to the third and fourth generation of those who hate me, 10 but showing love to a thousand generations of those who love me and keep my commandments.
  And again here we have the guilty punished, and the innocent as well.
Quote
Then you have Exodus 34 which says, the Lord passed before his face while He was saying, 'Jehovah, the God of mercy, pity, patience, concern, and truth; who brings justice and mercy to thousands, and removes wrong-doing, unrighteousness, and sins, but who won't acquit the guilty; who [punishes] the sins of ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generations.'
Here we have the guilty punished and the innocent as well.
And in Deut 24, we have this
Quote
16 Parents are not to be put to death for their children, nor children put to death for their parents; each will die for their own sin.
Only the guilty are punished.  Not the innocent.  God breaks his own word in killing David’s son for David’s sin here and in Ezekiel.   But he wouldn’t be breaking his word if he only said what is in Exodus  34 and Deut 5. 
Quote
The only way these two ideas can jive is if one focuses on the PUNISHMENT aspect mentioned in Exodus and contrast that with the GUILT aspect mentioned in Ezekiel. What that of course would then mean is that one's offspring will suffer the effects of their ancestor's sin though they will not be found guilty of those sins.
One is punished if one is found guilty.  Or  one is punished even if one is not guilty. those two claims, in your bible contradict each other. You yourself said “how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?”  If they aren’t guilty of it why are they being punished? 

And again, you decided that you need to assume something to make sense of your bible.  How not suprising.  It’s not they have to deal with the ramifications of what the guilty did, God actively punishes them for something they never did.  Why kill David’s son if he did nothing?  Can’t God *not* kill someone for once?   

Now, for those verses that you didn’t bother actually addressing.  We have original sin supported again and again in the NT. we have verses indicating a believe that all are less than pure from “birth” in the OT.  Can you show that the NT and OT don’t “really mean” those things? 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Original Sin Issue
« Reply #32 on: September 15, 2011, 05:45:29 PM »
The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here,

False.

These are doctrinal theological qualifications, used to categorize rationalizations drawn from myth.  There really exists no means to establish that 'original sin' is anything intellectually speaking as if derived from the test, especially considering that original sin itself wasn't always original sin.. since it used to be ancestral sin.  The doctrine itself is completely non-existent in Judaism and is reliant mostly upon NT verses.  The problem, as is most of your babbling nonsense, is that you actively make no argument for anything other than your declaration.  Your citation is little more than metaphor, from a cultural ideology that doesn't even interpret it to mean that, that another cultural ideology claims in contradiction to the original.  Why would we suspend our intellect and intellectual honesty, in order to ignore that it has no relevant meaning in judaism?  Why would we pretend there is a cohesive message to be derived overall from the text, then circularly conclude that because there is a message, then it must be explained in a different way?

Quote
The only way these two ideas can jive..

Why would anyone ever care that they 'jive'? Why would anyone presuppose that they are supposed to 'jive'?  If we presuppose that it must jive, then rationalization it by inserting anything we wish as an explanation, then can we not do this with any kind of ideological religious text in existence?

Again, don't be mad because you've accepted a delusional qualification for belief and trying to rationalize that belief.  It is not our fault.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline RaymondKHessel

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1914
  • Darwins +73/-3
  • Gender: Male
  • Born with insight, and a raised fist.
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #33 on: September 15, 2011, 07:37:12 PM »
@Lady V -

Yahweh slaughters just the innocent plenty, too, though I'm sure I don't have to remind you lol. Just wanted to add on to what you were saying... You know, he's pretty much just big on misery in general!  :P

One of my first real eye-openers to the vile nature of the Christian god was back when I was about 15... Sat in on a buddy of mine's after-school youth group (hey, they had free pizza. Cut me some slack!)...

The slaughter of Egypt's first born. Fucking IN.EX.CUSE.AB.LE.

Because Yahweh *MADE* Pharoah (just one guy, mind you), *MADE* him be a dick to Moses (so much for free will!), he then straight-up MURDERS THE FIRST BORN CHILDREN OF AN ENTIRE NATION.

No, but I'm sure Yahweh really wuved all those widdle babies and toddlers to pieces. Really.

Little bite sized chopped up dog kibbly pieces.

Now cue Truth OT or whoever to pop up making excuses why it's appropriate to snuff out the lives of mountains of kids over the magically-possessed behavior of ONE DUDE. That s**t never gets old.  &)

<mewling> "But the widdle babies got a free pass to heaven!"

A.)The bible never says that

and

B.)That's not love. Murder is murder. Cold blooded murder is not love, no matter how you slice it. That whole story is the calling card of a fucking apathetic psychopath.

Allowing terrible things to happen to people, when you have the ability to prevent it, is not love. Period. There is no excuse imaginable that justifies the way Christians think the universe is set up, let alone the "documented" behavior of their god.

Whether it's killing tons of innocents directly or permitting a single rape a thousand years ago or making kids born with their face turned inside out or addicted to crack or anything else that causes misery and pain and fear.


« Last Edit: September 15, 2011, 07:46:22 PM by RaymondKHessel »
Born with insight, and a raised fist.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #34 on: September 16, 2011, 09:47:06 AM »
OT, you could actually try responding to what I said instead of giving me a dismissive smite with little explanation.

If it is not relevant, then you can explain how it is not relevant.

You can also make an attempt to answer the questions asked of you:

Why would we suspend our intellect and intellectual honesty, in order to ignore that it has no relevant meaning in judaism?  Why would we pretend there is a cohesive message to be derived overall from the text, then circularly conclude that because there is a message, then it must be explained in a different way?

Why would anyone ever care that they 'jive'? Why would anyone presuppose that they are supposed to 'jive'?  If we presuppose that it must jive, then rationalization it by inserting anything we wish as an explanation, then can we not do this with any kind of ideological religious text in existence?


You claimed there are only two possibilities, there are not and I explained why there are not.  I also purposefully challenged you on your obfuscating presuppositionalism, where you have presupposed an incoherent series of ideological 'beliefs' as if they were either self evident or known without explanation, then make every statement as an argument from authority towards what you've seemingly made up at random.  As well as asking questions in a way that suppose all your base premises are valid, without your ability to argue for them effectively.

This is EXACTLY the kind of obscure and nebulous behavior on your part that was talked about in this thread:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20096.0.html

Your ability to willfully and dishonestly obfuscate doesn't save you from the intellectual responsibility of your claim.  Smite me all you want, it'll never go away and the problem will never change.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #35 on: September 16, 2011, 10:34:15 AM »
I'll have to say, TOT, that you are quite a jerk from what you "smited" Omen for.  I mean, really, that's all you have to say to what he wrote, a good analysis of presuppotionalism that you *do* seem to cling to?

Espeiclaly saying it was "longwinded"?   If it's longwinded, I should demand some "smites" of my own since Omen did two concise paragraphs and I've done much longer.  &)
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Historicity

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 2350
  • Darwins +80/-2
  • Gender: Male
  • (Rama, avatar of Vishnu)
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #36 on: September 16, 2011, 12:48:04 PM »
JIBE, not jive.

It was a nautical term from the sailing days and meant coordinating the movement of the boom during tacking to sail upwind.  So by extension it means to coordinate.

I guess that the name jib for one of the sails is related.

The 1913 Webster's dicitionary gave gybe as the preferred spelling.


Offline Alzael

  • Fellow
  • *******
  • Posts: 3577
  • Darwins +112/-23
  • Gender: Male
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #37 on: September 16, 2011, 03:15:51 PM »
I'll have to say, TOT, that you are quite a jerk from what you "smited" Omen for.  I mean, really, that's all you have to say to what he wrote, a good analysis of presuppotionalism that you *do* seem to cling to?

Espeiclaly saying it was "longwinded"?   If it's longwinded, I should demand some "smites" of my own since Omen did two concise paragraphs and I've done much longer.  &)

I wish I could return the up-point that ToT gave me, it was such a farce. He claims that I was fair and being clear on what he was supposed to answer. All I did was say the exact same thing that I had been saying for some three threads and that everyone else had been saying as well. It's so disgustingly disingenuous. He had over four threads and a lot of conversations to understand it. And I certainly didn't say anything different. He simply realized that he couldn't evade the point anymore and now he's trying to make a saving throw.

Downvoting Omen for no apparent reason (well the reason is actually rather clear) is just him behaving even worse.

« Last Edit: September 16, 2011, 08:43:29 PM by Alzael »
"I drank what?!"- Socrates

"Dying for something when you know you'll be resurrected is not a sacrifice.It's a parlour trick."- an aquaintance

Philip of Macedon: (via messenger) If we enter Sparta, we will raze all your buildings and ravage all your women.
Spartan Reply: If.

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #38 on: September 20, 2011, 09:41:04 AM »
Unfortunately, many of our theist visitors do act badly.  However, they can redeem themselves by acknowledging what they did.  It doesn't hurt to apologize. 

I would like a response, TOT.  I'd also like a response to the "might equals right" thread we were discussing. 
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #39 on: September 20, 2011, 09:57:53 AM »
Unfortunately, many of our theist visitors do act badly.  However, they can redeem themselves by acknowledging what they did.  It doesn't hurt to apologize. 

I would like a response, TOT.  I'd also like a response to the "might equals right" thread we were discussing.

Lady V, I must ask, what is it that you feel I should apologize for and why? Andwhat specifically do you wish for me to respond to?

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #40 on: September 20, 2011, 10:06:41 AM »
Are you now pretending as if you are not aware that you avoid questions and dodge rebuttals when its convenient to do so?

Are you pretending as if you haven't had this pointed out ad nauseum to you by multiple individuals?

How did you come to the conclusion that that is normal honest behavior?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Original Sin
« Reply #41 on: September 20, 2011, 10:54:40 AM »
Below is what I will call the Skeptic's Claim as it relates to certain biblical issues. The issue up for discussion here of course is original sin.

Quote
"Arguing the concept of original sin from the Bible is futile because the Bible is incoherent and contradictory on this subject. In some places it speaks in favor of the idea and in others it speaks against it. Because the Bible does this, it is therefore not possible to argue one way or the other on this issue. And the person attempting to do so must resort to special pleading the the like to support their stance."


I totally disagree with the above Skeptic Claim and believe drawing such a conclusion is based on heresay and lazy personal biblical study on the issue. It presupposes and accepts as fact that the Bible speaks out of both sides of its mouth on the issue when in fact that may not be the case. I would then add that original sin is not even an idea addressed AT ALL in the pages of scripture and is a theological concept created later that certain sects cherry pick and decontextualize certain scriptures to defend.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 11:02:58 AM by Truth OT »

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Original Sin
« Reply #42 on: September 20, 2011, 10:58:56 AM »
It presupposes

Citing two examples of contradictory statements is not a presupposition.  I don't think you know what the word means, no one needed to presuppose that the bible was contradictory in order to cite a contradiction.

Quote
when in fact that may not be the case.

One does have to presuppose the bible is absolutely true in order to rationalize every contradiction away however.  Which is what you do.

Effectively, you can't get us to accept your presuppositional apologetics and now you're using a series of dishonest accusatory stances because you know full well that your position is irrational.  You're trying to accuse us of what only YOU are guilty of.  Its an incredibly stupid and dishonest type of qualification of knowledge, where for example you would accuse a math teacher of having presumed that 1+1=2 while you claim 1+1=3, therefore you can dismiss it out of hand.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 11:02:29 AM by Omen »
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Original Sin
« Reply #43 on: September 20, 2011, 11:09:24 AM »
It presupposes

Citing two examples of contradictory statements is not a presupposition.  I don't think you know what the word means, no one needed to presuppose that the bible was contradictory in order to cite a contradiction.

Quote
when in fact that may not be the case.

One does have to presuppose the bible is absolutely true in order to rationalize every contradiction away however.  Which is what you do.

Effectively, you can't get us to accept your presuppositional apologetics and now you're using a series of dishonest accusatory stances because you know full well that your position is irrational.  You're trying to accuse us of what only YOU are guilty of.  Its an incredibly stupid and dishonest type of qualification of knowledge, where for example you would accuse a math teacher of having presumed that 1+1=2 while you claim 1+1=3, therefore you can dismiss it out of hand.

There you go making totally false claims and taking snipits of what I post to make it seem like I am making claims that I am not like that of biblical inerrancy. Looks like you've got your head down and your mind make up just like Clide Drexler.
As far as THIS SUBJECT is concerned, where is this cited contradiction? Furthermore, is what some claim as a contradiction even contradictory?

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Original Sin
« Reply #44 on: September 20, 2011, 11:18:21 AM »
There you go making totally false claims

Oh really, such as?

Quote
and taking snipits of what I post to make it seem like I am making claims that I am not like that of biblical inerrancy.

That's funny, I didn't say biblical inerrancy.

You accept an unsubstantiated portion of the bible as true, presupposed without evidence or rational reason to do so.  You make dozens of arguments from 'authority' having presumed a subjective and purely arbitrarily message that can't be separated from your whim and any rationalization can be made towards to answer contradiction.  You've assumed it as absolutely true both without and despite evidence to the contrary, thus removing any possibility for a situation to arise in which you are wrong.  You've been told this before, you've been challenged on this before, and this is absolutely nothing new as far as criticizing your idiocy on this forum.

Quote
As far as THIS SUBJECT is concerned, where is this cited contradiction? Furthermore, is what some claim as a contradiction even contradictory?

Original sin doesn't exist.  Its a theological concept made up to rationalize towards a presupposed conditional belief.  As was pointed out to you before here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443566.html#msg443566

You couldn't be bothered to respond, two paragraphs were apparently 'long winded' and you gave me a smite with no more explanation than your own arrogant condescension because you can't get anyone to agree to your mindless presuppositional apologetics/arguments from authority.

Should I copy paste everything I said there, because its going to be the same problems?
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: Original Sin
« Reply #45 on: September 20, 2011, 11:30:22 AM »
There you go making totally false claims

Oh really, such as?

Quote
One does have to presuppose the bible is absolutely true in order to rationalize every contradiction away however.  Which is what you do.

That's funny, I didn't say biblical inerrancy.

You accept an unsubstantiated portion of the bible as true, presupposed without evidence or rational reason to do so.  You make dozens of arguments from 'authority' having presumed a subjective and purely arbitrarily message that can't be separated from your whim and any rationalization can be made towards to answer contradiction.  You've assumed it as absolutely true both without and despite evidence to the contrary, thus removing any possibility for a situation to arise in which you are wrong.  You've been told this before, you've been challenged on this before, and this is absolutely nothing new as far as criticizing your idiocy on this forum.

Quote
As far as THIS SUBJECT is concerned, where is this cited contradiction? Furthermore, is what some claim as a contradiction even contradictory?

Original sin doesn't exist.  Its a theological concept made up to rationalize towards a presupposed conditional belief.  As was pointed out to you before here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443566.html#msg443566

If you don't mind, I will quote myself:  I would then add that original sin is not even an idea addressed AT ALL in the pages of scripture and is a theological concept created later that certain sects cherry pick and decontextualize certain scriptures to defend.

What is your argument against what I have said? You seem go thru great effort to paint me as a person that tries to fix the discussion so that it's a heads I win, tails you lose kind of deal when in fact that is not the case at all. My assertations CAN be proven wrong and when they are specifically addressed and my position is defeated, I can admit that. Can you?

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #46 on: September 20, 2011, 11:30:45 AM »
Notice that you didn't really respond to acknowledge or disagree about the part of your own accusatory false premises.  I have to restate that YOU are the only guilty of what YOU accused others of.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: Original Sin
« Reply #47 on: September 20, 2011, 11:33:05 AM »
If you don't mind, I will quote myself:  I would then add that original sin is not even an idea addressed AT ALL in the pages of scripture and is a theological concept created later that certain sects cherry pick and decontextualize certain scriptures to defend.

What is your argument against what I have said? You seem go thru great effort to paint me as a person that tries to fix the discussion so that it's a heads I win, tails you lose kind of deal when in fact that is not the case at all. My assertations CAN be proven wrong and when they are specifically addressed and my position is defeated, I can admit that. Can you?

You just edited the post.

Which also contradicts what you claimed here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443497.html#msg443497

Which I responded too here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443566.html#msg443566

Which you ignored, smied me for, are now pretending like you either never said, or agreed to anyway.
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 11:34:43 AM by Omen »
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #48 on: September 20, 2011, 11:38:05 AM »
Are you now admitting that what you claimed on: September 15th 2011

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443497.html#msg443497

Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not. There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2. From your post I take it that you believe that the Bible writings support both options and is therefore wrong because there is no way both options can be correct.

According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.
Then you have Exodus 34 which says, the Lord passed before his face while He was saying, 'Jehovah, the God of mercy, pity, patience, concern, and truth; who brings justice and mercy to thousands, and removes wrong-doing, unrighteousness, and sins, but who won't acquit the guilty; who [punishes] the sins of ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generations.'
The only way these two ideas can jive is if one focuses on the PUNISHMENT aspect mentioned in Exodus and contrast that with the GUILT aspect mentioned in Ezekiel. What that of course would then mean is that one's offspring will suffer the effects of their ancestor's sin though they will not be found guilty of those sins.

Is pointless because of your admission here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg444421.html#msg444421

Note: An 'admission' you edited in AFTER the fact?
« Last Edit: September 20, 2011, 11:40:09 AM by Omen »
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline velkyn

  • Laureate
  • *********
  • Posts: 15420
  • Darwins +169/-6
  • Gender: Female
  • You're wearing the juice, aren't you?"
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #49 on: September 20, 2011, 11:57:15 AM »
Unfortunately, many of our theist visitors do act badly.  However, they can redeem themselves by acknowledging what they did.  It doesn't hurt to apologize. 

I would like a response, TOT.  I'd also like a response to the "might equals right" thread we were discussing.

Lady V, I must ask, what is it that you feel I should apologize for and why? Andwhat specifically do you wish for me to respond to?

To Omen for ignoring his post and making your little snide comments about it.   And, pardon me but


do you mean "what do i want you to respond too?  My post, you know the one about how your claims that the bible doesnt' claim original sin being wrong and with the support to show this?
"There is no use in arguing with a man who can multiply anything by the square root of minus 1" - Pirates of Venus, ERB

http://clubschadenfreude.wordpress.com/

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #50 on: September 20, 2011, 12:00:07 PM »
Notice that you didn't really respond to acknowledge or disagree about the part of your own accusatory false premises.  I have to restate that YOU are the only guilty of what YOU accused others of.

   One does have to presuppose the bible is absolutely true in order to rationalize every contradiction away however.  Which is what you do.
   Effectively, you can't get us to accept your presuppositional apologetics and now you're using a series of dishonest accusatory stances because you know full well that your position is irrational.  You're trying to accuse us of what only YOU are guilty of.  Its an incredibly stupid and dishonest type of qualification of knowledge, where for example you would accuse a math teacher of having presumed that 1+1=2 while you claim 1+1=3, therefore you can dismiss it out of hand.

So just to make sure I am following you..........It appears that you are saying that my presuppositional apologetics involves the idea that the Bible is absolutely true. If that what you are saying then I must say that your claim is wrong.

From my perspective, what you are doing is avoiding the issue up for discussion and appointing yourself as judge of my methods and motives without fairly examining either. You come out on your high horse with you holier and smarter than thou approach and but into a conversation that you add nothing to other than of course accusitory analysis. No progress has been made on the issue of whether or not original sin is in fact advocated by the biblical narratives by you inserting your 2 cents, I mean analysis; so what is the point?

As for what I accused people, specifically you, of was saying was this about the issue up for discussing:
Quote
it is therefore not possible to argue one way or the other on this issue. And the person attempting to do so must resort to special pleading the the like to support their stance."

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #51 on: September 20, 2011, 12:01:04 PM »
do you mean "what do i want you to respond too?  My post, you know the one about how your claims that the bible doesnt' claim original sin being wrong and with the support to show this?

Except now he completely agrees with us.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #52 on: September 20, 2011, 12:09:50 PM »
avoiding the issue up for discussion

What issue?

And will this involve me copy pasting what I've already answered and you just flatly ignored?

Quote
and appointing yourself as judge of my methods and motives

I am indeed judging your behavior, your behavior is notoriously dishonest.

Quote
without fairly examining either.

I'm being more then fair, I even cite what you say when you say.  Not to mention when you pretend as if others had no said it or when you just dodge every issue purely at whim.  I judged you after fairly examining claims.  I explained how and why I reached such conclusions, much of which you never actively acknowledge to explain or even to disagree.  You seem to 'dissipate' when it comes down to you directly addressing your behavior.  In fact, its happened with such repetition that it became the subject of a topic on this forum.

Quote
You come out on your high horse with you holier and smarter than thou approach

You mean pointing out that you've presupposed something as true without cause to do so is holier and smarter than thou?

Quote
and but into a conversation that you add nothing to other than of course accusitory analysis.

I broke down a claim you made by making a rebuttal and asked you questions.  You ignored the rebuttal.

Quote
No progress has been made on the issue of whether or not original sin is in fact advocated by the biblical narratives by you inserting your 2 cents

I pointed out it is not and it is made up at whim to rationalize a theological whim.  You at first pretended like it was actually biblical, then later ( after editing in a statement you asked whether or not I had seen after the fact ) added a statement that agreed that it has no biblical basis.

Are you now admitting that original sin is without merit in contradiction to what you claimed earlier?

Quote
, I mean analysis; so what is the point?

As for what I accused people..

You accused people of have presuppositions in the manner that you presuppose conditions about the bible.  They do not and what you constructed was a blatant strawman.  I explained why, without acknowledgement from you.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #53 on: September 20, 2011, 12:22:56 PM »
Are you now admitting that what you claimed on: September 15th 2011

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg443497.html#msg443497

Well, I’ll refer you to your fellow Christians.  They are sure, you are not and all with bible verses you can run to, in order to support your version.  You all claim to have the only “right” interpretation. We have God saying that the sins of the father will be put onto the children (Deut. 5 supported other places like God killing David’s son for David’s sins, contradicted in Deut 24, and also supported other places)).  Psalm 51. Job 25. As you say, how can someone who didn’t do anything be guilty of it?  We then have Paul claiming that JC was the answer for Adam’s fall.  Romans 3, Romans 5.   Ephesians 2.

The fact of the matter is that there are only 2 possibilities here, either original sin exists or it does not. There's no magical 3rd or 4th option, these are the only 2. From your post I take it that you believe that the Bible writings support both options and is therefore wrong because there is no way both options can be correct.

According to Ezekiel 18, the soul that is sinning will die! 'So, the son will not be blamed, for his father's unrighteous ways, and the father will not be blamed, for his son's unrighteous ways. Each one's righteous ways will be upon him, and the lawlessness of each are upon their own selves.
Then you have Exodus 34 which says, the Lord passed before his face while He was saying, 'Jehovah, the God of mercy, pity, patience, concern, and truth; who brings justice and mercy to thousands, and removes wrong-doing, unrighteousness, and sins, but who won't acquit the guilty; who [punishes] the sins of ancestors on their children, and on their children's children to the third and fourth generations.'
The only way these two ideas can jive is if one focuses on the PUNISHMENT aspect mentioned in Exodus and contrast that with the GUILT aspect mentioned in Ezekiel. What that of course would then mean is that one's offspring will suffer the effects of their ancestor's sin though they will not be found guilty of those sins.

Is pointless because of your admission here:

http://whywontgodhealamputees.com/forums/index.php/topic,20097.msg444421.html#msg444421

Note: An 'admission' you edited in AFTER the fact?

Simply put, I do not believe that the concept of original sin is taught in the scriptures. Advocates of it, though they cannot find it in any of the scriptures will cherry pick certain verses to fit into the concept, an extra biblical one, that they have concocted. That is the point I had been trying to make since the discussion began and my admission, (as you call it) of the following: I would then add that original sin is not even an idea addressed AT ALL in the pages of scripture and is a theological concept created later that certain sects cherry pick and decontextualize certain scriptures to defend, is not saying anything new or contradictory to what I originally asserted.
 

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #54 on: September 20, 2011, 12:41:02 PM »
Omen, Omen, Omen, the reason why I say you make baseless accusations about me is specifically based on examples like this. Here you asked the following:

Quote
Are you now admitting that original sin is without merit in contradiction to what you claimed earlier?

After holding my head, I had to shake my head, then hold it again because my original argument was that ORIGINAL SIN WAS NOT A BIBLICALLY ADVOCATED CONCEPT!!!!!!! That was my point of contention all along.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #55 on: September 20, 2011, 01:13:52 PM »
After holding my head, I had to shake my head, then hold it again because my original argument was that ORIGINAL SIN WAS NOT A BIBLICALLY ADVOCATED CONCEPT!!!!!!! That was my point of contention all along.

Then you might want to continue holding your head:

Theological claims of original sin, in a different religion from yours, are no different in validity or authority then your own claims of what is biblically advocated or not.

You effectively don't have any right to claim that someone elses made up whim is invalid while your made up whim is valid.

Notice what I stated:

These are doctrinal theological qualifications, used to categorize rationalizations drawn from myth.  There really exists no means to establish that 'original sin' is anything intellectually speaking as if derived from the test, especially considering that original sin itself wasn't always original sin.. since it used to be ancestral sin.  The doctrine itself is completely non-existent in Judaism and is reliant mostly upon NT verses.  The problem, as is most of your babbling nonsense, is that you actively make no argument for anything other than your declaration.  Your citation is little more than metaphor, from a cultural ideology that doesn't even interpret it to mean that, that another cultural ideology claims in contradiction to the original.  Why would we suspend our intellect and intellectual honesty, in order to ignore that it has no relevant meaning in judaism?  Why would we pretend there is a cohesive message to be derived overall from the text, then circularly conclude that because there is a message, then it must be explained in a different way?


There rationalizations are made no differently from your own, I don't care if you think their made up rationalization is invalid because I already know it to be invalid, through pleading.  There are also not only 'two' options, since the bible is so nebulous to include countless options.  Plus, once we take into consideration your method of rationalization ( IE assuming unsubstantiated portions of it as true with little explanation or reason to do so ) we can effectively make up anything we wish.

So your logic doesn't follow: They're rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is not made invalid because your rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is different.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me

Offline Truth OT

  • Reader
  • ******
  • Posts: 1452
  • Darwins +88/-7
  • Gender: Male
  • WWGHA Member
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #56 on: September 20, 2011, 01:33:34 PM »
Theological claims of original sin, in a different religion from yours, are no different in validity or authority then your own claims of what is biblically advocated or not.

You effectively don't have any right to claim that someone elses made up whim is invalid while your made up whim is valid.

There rationalizations are made no differently from your own, I don't care if you think their made up rationalization is invalid because I already know it to be invalid, through pleading.  There are also not only 'two' options, since the bible is so nebulous to include countless options.  Plus, once we take into consideration your method of rationalization ( IE assuming unsubstantiated portions of it as true with little explanation or reason to do so ) we can effectively make up anything we wish.

So your logic doesn't follow: They're rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is not made invalid because your rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is different.

Only I did not declare anything to be biblically advocated. I said that the concept, original sin, was NOT biblically advocated and was in fact a concept that was foreign to the scriptural texts. As it pertains to this discussion, there is no "made up whim" that I have attempted to insert.

My beliefs about what I understand the collective texts that make up the Bible to teach about death and an afterlife (or lack thereof), for example would fit as being rationalizations that cannot be definately and objectively proven. I can admit that. I do however believe that there is more support from the texts for what I believe about death than what advocates of original sin believe about that subject. That is however, just my opinion, a strong one that I can defend, but subjective nonetheless.

Offline Omen

  • Professor
  • ********
  • Posts: 5955
  • Darwins +105/-15
  • One of the fucking bad guys; not friendly, tiger!
Re: God's "all-loving" nature
« Reply #57 on: September 20, 2011, 01:43:08 PM »
Theological claims of original sin, in a different religion from yours, are no different in validity or authority then your own claims of what is biblically advocated or not.

You effectively don't have any right to claim that someone elses made up whim is invalid while your made up whim is valid.

There rationalizations are made no differently from your own, I don't care if you think their made up rationalization is invalid because I already know it to be invalid, through pleading.  There are also not only 'two' options, since the bible is so nebulous to include countless options.  Plus, once we take into consideration your method of rationalization ( IE assuming unsubstantiated portions of it as true with little explanation or reason to do so ) we can effectively make up anything we wish.

So your logic doesn't follow: They're rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is not made invalid because your rationalization towards a presupposed nonsensical theology is different.

 I said that the concept, original sin, was NOT biblically advocated

You're not getting it.
 
Quote
, there is no "made up whim" that I have attempted to insert.

All of your biblical arguments from authority are inserted presupposed whims no different from the concept of original sin.  You have never delivered an argument based on logic and reason to validate your religious claims.  Never.  You've been called on so repeatedly that its pretty much assumed you won't support any claim you do make and abandon it as soon as your called on it.

Quote
My beliefs about what I understand

They are no different from a christian who claims to believe in original sin and you are not describing any process that makes your fallacy laced arguments any more reasonable.  If you can't logically substantiate your beliefs as you so carelessly admit here:

Quote
"that cannot be definately and objectively proven."

Then you cannot claim:

Quote
believe that there is more support from the texts for what I believe

These are two contradictory extremes.  You can't have your cake and eat it too.
"Religious faith is the antithesis to knowledge, it is the opposition to education, and it has to act in animosity against the free exchange of ideas.  Why? Because those things are what cause harm to a religions place in society most." - Me