I struggle with...

[razzelflabben]

The gospel of Jesus, faith-trust in the Father, became a gospel about Jesus. Salvation by faith, personal spiritual transformation via the spiritual rebirth (real salvation) became belief that Jesus was a human sacrifice to atone for the sins of the world (theoretical salvation).

honestly, I have no idea what you think you are arguing and so I will just beg out of the conversation since I have now tried a couple of different times to get clarification

 

[razzelflabben]

There was a gospel before the cross. There is also a gospel about the cross.

Most people call these the covenants, as in the new covenant is Jesus...not sure what you are talking about and it seems that the more I try to understand the more confused I get.

 

[razzelflabben]

Nope. X doesn't follow from Y at all. Instead, Y is simply part of X.
As you said yourself: "god" because "bible" and "bible" because "god".

View attachment 198008




Nope, not at all.
For example: I believe that jumping from the Eiffel Tower without a parachute, is a serious health hazard. Not because of "other beliefs" that I hold... but because of the objective empirical FACTS of physics.

See, some people consider it rather important to be rationally justified in ones beliefs - which is impossible to do if your justification for believing X, is simply "because I also believe Y".



For superstitious beliefs (like creationism, astrology, etc), that is correct.
It's also why such beliefs are irrational.

When you need to support your beliefs with other mere beliefs, then you end up in GIGO town (= garbage in, garbage out)



Nope.
First, I don't believe in evolution.
Instead, I provisionally accept evolution as the best testable explanation that accounts for all the data.

And my acceptance of it is entirely justified by my understanding of the mechanism and my actual knowledge and understanding of the evidence and testability thereof.

At no point have I ever justified my acceptance of biology with "because scientists say so!".

honestly, most people who believe the bible to be both infallible and inerrant do so because they accept God as the authority because He has shown them in some way to be truth. Your whole premise about circular reasoning is flawed by most believers understanding of God...not all word it very well but it's no different than what you say about science just for God not science. I would really enjoy this conversation if you all would listen to one another and discuss the topic accordingly.

 

[razzelflabben]

You can start with the fact that you are able to read this message.

I wonder if you actually have any idea what an enormous mountain of scientific investigation had to be done, before we knew and understood everything we had to know and understand to even be able to only IMAGINE a network like the internet and the devices that are used to connect with it.


Having said that....
I think the trackrecord of scientific investigation, speaks for itself.

I dare say that unless you find yourself in the jungle at this very moment, connected through a satellite connection, you more then likely find yourself in a room filled with objects, most of which could NOT have existed only 150 years ago and ALL of which are the direct result of a scientific understanding of physics.

the problem with using science as the authority is that in science our understanding changes with our knowledge of things. For those that believe God, they believe that He is unchangeable which is a much more stable thing which is why some are so dogmatic about it.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

honestly, most people who believe the bible to be both infallible and inerrant do so because they accept God as the authority because He has shown them in some way to be truth. Your whole premise about circular reasoning is flawed by most believers understanding of God...

Well, I do hope that most believers don't see their justification of belief to be based on a circular argument... because that would mean that these people willingly engage in a fallacious argument and think it's a good thing.

Nevertheless.. circularity is exactly what it is, when you dig down into their reasons for belief.
Specifically the post I was responding to. The argument there literally comes down to "i believe god exists because the bible says so and the bible is true because god says so in the bible".

I agree that no christian, except perhaps AV, would ever frame it like that because most would realise how utterly absurd such a "justification" is. So they wiggle around and use many words to obfuscate it, but at bottom - that is exactly what it amounts to.

not all word it very well but it's no different than what you say about science just for God not science

Remind me again, what do I say about science in your opinion?

I would really enjoy this conversation if you all would listen to one another and discuss the topic accordingly.

It is my opinion that that is exactly what I am doing.

 

[Colter]

Most people call these the covenants, as in the new covenant is Jesus...not sure what you are talking about and it seems that the more I try to understand the more confused I get.

Because you don't really want to understand.

Jesus lived, preached an taught his Gospel of The Kingdom of heaven for 3+ years before he was apprehended and was killed, appeared to raise himself from the dead and visited his apostles and others.

[are you with me so far? Is this over your head? I can slow down???]

=
=
=
=
Ok, are you ready now?????

After Jesus left the Gospel he taught was changed.
=
=
=
The new Gospel is about Jesus dying on the cross as a human sacrifice for sins in order to redeem man to God.
=
Lets have a break, stretch your legs, get a glass of water.=
=
=
=
=
Ok, the last part. We were born after the fact, looooooooooong after the original Gospel was forgotten and replaced with-----> Christ and him crucified.

=
=
=
=
=
Gospel before the cross
=
=
=
=
Gospel after the cross.


Have a nice day.

 

[tstor]

So, are you of the opinion that the whole Vatican, including the Pope himself and by extension the 1 billion-ish catholics (assuming they agree with their church leadership), are simply incorrect about their understanding of the bible?

Yes.

Does their bible contain different stories then yours?

To some degree. They have the Apocryphal books in their canon. I have not familiarized myself with all of their content.

As you were asked before... what makes you think that YOUR understanding is the correct one?

Not all of my understandings are necessarily the correct ones. There are certain understandings that I hold which I do not care if people disagree with. For example, I am a Calvinist. While I am willing to debate about it, in the end, I do not care if someone is an Arminian. There are certain understandings which are not up for disagreement. Those would be understandings such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the blood atonement made by Jesus on the cross, etc.

Also, maybe that infamous Gallileo quote is appropriate here: "The bible tells you how to get to heaven. It doesn't tell you how the heavens go".

Any thoughts on that quote?

It is true on some level. The Bible is not an exhaustive science textbook. Where it speaks to the issue of scientific inquiry, we are to accept it. Anything outside of that is fair game.

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

the problem with using science as the authority

I'm not using science as an "authority". How could I? Science is a method, a tool to investagiate and unravel phenomena of reality.

It, in essence, is no more or less then a conceptual hammer used to efficiently drive a conceptual nail through conceptual wood. And I'm recognising that such a hammer does a far better job then my bear hands, for example.

That's it. There is no "authority". There is only a "best practice" method that yields demonstrably good results, with an impeccable and unrivaled track record of being succesfull in getting questions about reality answered.

is that in science our understanding changes with our knowledge of things

Yes, that's the whole point of making progress and learning........
It's an inherent aspect of this method: the ability to self-correct and overturn wrong ideas.

It's not a weakness. It's the exact opposite... that is exactly the strength of it.

For those that believe God, they believe that He is unchangeable which is a much more stable thing which is why some are so dogmatic about it.

Yep. It's static and it is unwilling to self-reflect. It makes questioning taboo. It assumes the answers before asking the questions. And, worst of all: it suggests the idea that if the evidence of reality contradicts the religious ideas... then it assumes that the evidence of reality is wrong.

In science, we force our beliefs to conform to the evidence of reality.
In religion, we force reality to conform to previously held beliefs.

In my country, we have a saying that certainly applies here... that's what we call "placing your finger on the open wound"

 

[TagliatelliMonster]

Yes.

Nice. So a billion-ish christians are wrong, and you are correct?

You determined this, how exactly?

To some degree. They have the Apocryphal books in their canon. I have not familiarized myself with all of their content.

Is the OT in the catholic bible the same OT as in whatever bible version you happen to be reading?

Particularly, Genesis? Because that is, off course, the subject here.
Is there something specific in the "Apocryphal books" that states that Genesis shouldn't be taken literally?

Not all of my understandings are necessarily the correct ones. There are certain understandings that I hold which I do not care if people disagree with. For example, I am a Calvinist. While I am willing to debate about it, in the end, I do not care if someone is an Arminian. There are certain understandings which are not up for disagreement. Those would be understandings such as the bodily resurrection of Jesus, the blood atonement made by Jesus on the cross, etc.

You did an excellent job of dodging the question concerning the genesis account.

Let's try again: what makes you think that your particular understading concerning the genesis account is correct, while that of the billion-ish catholics is not?

It is true on some level. The Bible is not an exhaustive science textbook. Where it speaks to the issue of scientific inquiry, we are to accept it. Anything outside of that is fair game.

Okay.

Wouldn't this mean that your entire stance on genesis is just your personal preference and that you actually have no proper justification for stating that a billion-ish christians have it "wrong" while you have it "right"?

 

[TLK Valentine]

the problem with using science as the authority is that in science our understanding changes with our knowledge of things.

That's hardly a "problem," that's exactly how it's supposed to work. We learn, we change, we grow.

For those that believe God, they believe that He is unchangeable which is a much more stable thing which is why some are so dogmatic about it.

Sounds like because He knows everything, so as long as you think you know Him, there's no need for you to ever learn anything.

 

[Colter]

[Staff edit].

Jesus taught real, spiritually transformative salvation by faith in the Father and the natural responsibility that comes with realizing that we are all sons and daughters of the Living God. Jesus lived a triumphant and inspiring life wherein he revealed the Father to all mankind. Jesus came down from his glory on high and lived the human life to make the way of salvation more clear.

After the cross, Peter and Paul speculated that Jesus came to be a human sacrifice, the final sacrifice, that we believe in and accept his atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. This theoretical salvation was appealing to the Greco-Roman world because they already had similar beliefs from the Mystery religions. The Greeks had a Trinity belief, the Pagans had blood drinking rituals.

 

[razzelflabben]

That's hardly a "problem," that's exactly how it's supposed to work. We learn, we change, we grow.



Sounds like because He knows everything, so as long as you think you know Him, there's no need for you to ever learn anything.

I didn't say anything about it being good or bad why would you all try to fall over yourselves trying to prove it's okay when no one questioned whether it was good or bad just different? As to the second part, that is again a false understanding because 1. the believer believes we are created to learn and 2. the believer accepts that he doesn't always hear God. 3. scripture tells us to study...it's a command to both study and test...

 

[razzelflabben]

Jesus taught real, spiritually transformative salvation by faith in the Father and the natural responsibility that comes with realizing that we are all sons and daughters of the Living God. Jesus lived a triumphant and inspiring life wherein he revealed the Father to all mankind. Jesus came down from his glory on high and lived the human life to make the way of salvation more clear.

After the cross, Peter and Paul speculated that Jesus came to be a human sacrifice, the final sacrifice, that we believe in and accept his atoning sacrifice for the sins of the world. This theoretical salvation was appealing to the Greco-Roman world because they already had similar beliefs from the Mystery religions. The Greeks had a Trinity belief, the Pagans had blood drinking rituals.

slightly clearer, what do you do with the OT sacrifices and blood atonement? I know what scripture does with them but I don't know what you do with them? Why did they happen? Why did God demand them? How did they stop? why did they stop? etc.

 

[TLK Valentine]

I didn't say anything about it being good or bad why would you all try to fall over yourselves trying to prove it's okay when no one questioned whether it was good or bad just different?

You called something a "problem" when it actually wasn't. I was attempting to educate you, and look at how you feel.

Now that's a problem.

 

[razzelflabben]

You called something a "problem" when it actually wasn't. I was attempting to educate you, and look at how you feel.

Now that's a problem.

oh my, my head is hurting from all this...please read the comment in context not take it out of context and try to reinvent what I am saying...

 

[Albion]

...trying to understand the creationist mentality. I've been struggling with this for years. Is anyone prepared to give an honest, clear explanation as to why they believe in creationism?

If you can believe in God, you are almost compelled to believe in a Creator who created. If you don't believe in God, you automatically don't believe in creationism, so it doesn't seem as though there should be any consternation on this point by atheists.

 

[AV1611VET]

[Staff edit]. Frankly, I don't need dinosaurs described in the Bible.

If scientists say dinosaurs existed, then dinosaurs existed in Bible times.

 

[TLK Valentine]

oh my, my head is hurting from all this...please read the comment in context not take it out of context and try to reinvent what I am saying...

I'm sure whatever you think you said, you said.

 

[Colter]

slightly clearer, what do you do with the OT sacrifices and blood atonement? I know what scripture does with them but I don't know what you do with them? Why did they happen? Why did God demand them? How did they stop? why did they stop? etc.

The OT sacrifices were a part of many evolved Pagan religions in that age. Some backward religions still do it. It's mans attempt to manipulate the Gods since he cant grasp grace and forgiveness. Primitive man thought surely something must be given in exchange to make it all even.

So, specifically, God never told anyone to sacrifice birds and bunnies, that's a purely human development written about in retrospect as coming down from God.

Eventually even the Jews just naturally gravitated away from blood sacrifices.

 

[FrankDux]

Leviathan is supposed to be a feast for the righteous in the messianic era, as per the last prayer of Sukkot

Dinosaur, lol