HOW WAS JESUS A SACRIFICE WHEN HE GOT UP AND ROSE AGAIN?
Options
Comments
-
alissowack wrote: »Well...since you know that forgiveness...the letting go of resentment...is a choice, then there shouldn't be a problem if ? chooses not to forgive..
There is a problem with that. It contradicts ? 's supposed nature.alissowack wrote: »Man does not need to feel like we need to lay down our crowns and submit to what our hands have made...
One day man may have to.. But that is beside the point.alissowack wrote: »The fact that there is evil doesn't prove that the Bible is wrong..
But it disproves the existence of its ? , which the entire book revolves around.alissowack wrote: »For you to say that there is a such thing as evil, you would also have to say that there is a such thing as good. If there is a such thing as good, then you would have to say that there is a such thing as moral law. If there is a such thing as a moral law, then there has to be a moral law giver...which is ? in this case. You disprove ? , you get rid of the moral law giver, which gets rid of the moral law, which gets rid of good and evil.
Not necessarily. Once the ? theory is disposed of, the moral law giver becomes man, as he always has been.
The contradiction would be if ? has no choice; that He has no will of His Own. What is forgiveness if there is no such thing as unforgiveness? What is evil if there is no such thing as good? Again, you are making ? out to be a pushover...not that I take offense for even in the Bible, people did the same thing...but it's you wanting ? to fit into your perspectives on life and living and He's just not doing that for you. He's definitely not doing it for me either so you don't feel left out.
The thing about man being the moral law giver is that...there is so many of us and everybody doesn't see eye to eye on everything. We might share some core common morals and values, but at the end of the day we do what works and if it means breaking a few rules, so be it. But who is going to actually stop those who have been breaking rules all of their lives and doing a good job getting away with it? Man? So far, man's attempt to remedy the situation hasn't worked effectively and it shows just about everywhere. If ? doesn't exists, then man is ultimately responsible for the atrocities done whether it was in the name of religion or other causes. ? would just be an empty catch phrase for whom what we place the blame on. We can just start blaming each other.
-
alissowack wrote: »The contradiction would be if ? has no choice; that He has no will of His Own. What is forgiveness if there is no such thing as unforgiveness? What is evil if there is no such thing as good?
I'm not taking the choice away. I'm saying given the idea that ? is all benevolent and morally upstanding, he would make the benevolent and moral choice which is to forgive. 1 Corinthians says love is patience. If it is in ? 's nature to love, being infinitely benevolent, he would be infinitely patient. This does not imply that ? would be a pushover.alissowack wrote: »But who is going to actually stop those who have been breaking rules all of their lives and doing a good job getting away with it? Man? So far, man's attempt to remedy the situation hasn't worked effectively and it shows just about everywhere.
This doesn't take away from the fact that man is the law giver of his own moral codealissowack wrote: »If ? doesn't exists, then man is ultimately responsible for the atrocities done whether it was in the name of religion or other causes. ? would just be an empty catch phrase for whom what we place the blame on. We can just start blaming each other.
Exactly. -
alissowack wrote: »The contradiction would be if ? has no choice; that He has no will of His Own. What is forgiveness if there is no such thing as unforgiveness? What is evil if there is no such thing as good?
I'm not taking the choice away. I'm saying given the idea that ? is all benevolent and morally upstanding, he would make the benevolent and moral choice which is to forgive. 1 Corinthians says love is patience. If it is in ? 's nature to love, being infinitely benevolent, he would be infinitely patient. This does not imply that ? would be a pushover.alissowack wrote: »But who is going to actually stop those who have been breaking rules all of their lives and doing a good job getting away with it? Man? So far, man's attempt to remedy the situation hasn't worked effectively and it shows just about everywhere.
This doesn't take away from the fact that man is the law giver of his own moral codealissowack wrote: »If ? doesn't exists, then man is ultimately responsible for the atrocities done whether it was in the name of religion or other causes. ? would just be an empty catch phrase for whom what we place the blame on. We can just start blaming each other.
Exactly.
In the Bible, the devil was doing the same thing. He was tempting Jesus to prove that he was the Son of ? by throwing himself off the temple...and using the Bible in a way to say that he should honor what the Bible says; in sense saying...The Bible says it, now do it or that means you are not the Son of ? . Then Jesus turns around and uses scripture that says to not put The Lord to the test. Don't worry, everybody does it is some way shape or form and it doesn't have to be in a religious setting. By the way...there is more to love than just patience.
I'm not saying that morals are lost because of the law breakers. But, what would be the basis for keeping the law in the first place...especially in a world where being good doesn't mean you get something good in return. Why do good or consider the things that are good if there is no objective reason to do them. We might as well do bad things. It makes no difference. It may bother our conscious, but hey...we all are gonna die someday and hopefully our guilty conscious will die along with us...right?..and I guess it doesn't really bother you that man would be responsible...I'll let it be. -
alissowack wrote: »In the Bible, the devil was doing the same thing. He was tempting Jesus to prove that he was the Son of ? by throwing himself off the temple...and using the Bible in a way to say that he should honor what the Bible says; in sense saying...The Bible says it, now do it or that means you are not the Son of ? . Then Jesus turns around and uses scripture that says to not put The Lord to the test.
I don't see what this has to do with anything said.alissowack wrote: »By the way...there is more to love than just patience.
I know. But patience is a crucial part of it.alissowack wrote: »I'm not saying that morals are lost because of the law breakers..
I didn't accuse you of doing so.
-
alissowack wrote: »In the Bible, the devil was doing the same thing. He was tempting Jesus to prove that he was the Son of ? by throwing himself off the temple...and using the Bible in a way to say that he should honor what the Bible says; in sense saying...The Bible says it, now do it or that means you are not the Son of ? . Then Jesus turns around and uses scripture that says to not put The Lord to the test.
I don't see what this has to do with anything said.alissowack wrote: »By the way...there is more to love than just patience.
I know. But patience is a crucial part of it.alissowack wrote: »I'm not saying that morals are lost because of the law breakers..
I didn't accuse you of doing so.
Well...are you essentially saying that because ? hasn't proven to you that He is the ? of Love, according to 1 Corinthians 13:1-13, that He is not ? (or that ? doesn't exists)? You may not be aware that you did this, but you are not an exception. We do this to ourselves. We manipulate "set in stone" rules to appeal to a person's lack of carrying it out. It's a way of questioning authority that shows there is a lack of respect and you have your reasons for that lack of respect.
You saying patience is a crucial part is like saying the hand is greater than the foot. All parts of love is important. It's possible for patience to turn into tolerance.
The accusation comes when you say that man does not lose the moral code in respect to being the law givers. I agree that people have the capability to do good, but what would be the basis for doing anything at all? Why not do bad things? What is man to do if someone does something that is considered bad? -
I am wary of people who seek the devil outside themselves.
-
idiot
-
alissowack wrote: »You may not be aware that you did this, but you are not an exception. We do this to ourselves. We manipulate "set in stone" rules to appeal to a person's lack of carrying it out.
If these "rules" were set in stone by one who themselves does not bother to carry them out, that person is then what we call a hypocrite. In fact, these are not necessarily "rules" per se but definitions of what love is. If the Bible gives the correct definition of love, what the Bible ? does is in direct condradiction with his own definition. This is not manipulation of rules by me; it is the absence of something defined.alissowack wrote: »You saying patience is a crucial part is like saying the hand is greater than the foot. All parts of love is important. It's possible for patience to turn into tolerance.
I wouldn't say it's equivalent to claiming the hand greater than the foot. But I would agree that all parts of love are important, which is why I said patience is a crucial part of it, like all others are as well.alissowack wrote: »The accusation comes when you say that man does not lose the moral code in respect to being the law givers.
I don't see how you pull that accusation from what I said. Maybe you misinterpreted my words. When I say that man is his own law giver, I mean that nothing is good or bad until man deems it so. Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so". What I mean by this is that man creates and carries out his own law. -
alissowack wrote: »You may not be aware that you did this, but you are not an exception. We do this to ourselves. We manipulate "set in stone" rules to appeal to a person's lack of carrying it out.
If these "rules" were set in stone by one who themselves does not bother to carry them out, that person is then what we call a hypocrite. In fact, these are not necessarily "rules" per se but definitions of what love is. If the Bible gives the correct definition of love, what the Bible ? does is in direct condradiction with his own definition. This is not manipulation of rules by me; it is the absence of something defined.alissowack wrote: »You saying patience is a crucial part is like saying the hand is greater than the foot. All parts of love is important. It's possible for patience to turn into tolerance.
I wouldn't say it's equivalent to claiming the hand greater than the foot. But I would agree that all parts of love are important, which is why I said patience is a crucial part of it, like all others are as well.alissowack wrote: »The accusation comes when you say that man does not lose the moral code in respect to being the law givers.
I don't see how you pull that accusation from what I said. Maybe you misinterpreted my words. When I say that man is his own law giver, I mean that nothing is good or bad until man deems it so. Shakespeare wrote in Hamlet, "There is nothing either good or bad but thinking makes it so". What I mean by this is that man creates and carries out his own law.
But the issue isn't whether or not someone is being hypocritical. It's whether the one accusing someone of being a hypocrite is doing it with bad intentions. Usually hypocrites find themselves telling on themselves by their actions and there is almost no need to point it out. It is when the finger pointers point out wrongs to satisfy any selfish motives that becomes just as suspect as the hypocrite's actions. I believe when people criticize religions, they do so claiming that it is a great concern and having legit reasons for doing so, but behind closed doors they don't like the idea that there is a deity (or deities) is out there in control of their lives. It is to say this...is your questioning of ? 's Love really because you have a legit pursuit for the truth, or is it for something else? You could probably ask me the same question. -
alissowack wrote: »But the issue isn't whether or not someone is being hypocritical.
That is the issue. In fact, that is what my argument is premised on.alissowack wrote: »It's whether the one accusing someone of being a hypocrite is doing it with bad intentions..is your questioning of ? 's Love really because you have a legit pursuit for the truth, or is it for something else?
My intentions don't matter. That is not relevant to the argument.alissowack wrote: »Usually hypocrites find themselves telling on themselves by their actions
This is my argument.
-
alissowack wrote: »But the issue isn't whether or not someone is being hypocritical.
That is the issue. In fact, that is what my argument is premised on.alissowack wrote: »It's whether the one accusing someone of being a hypocrite is doing it with bad intentions..is your questioning of ? 's Love really because you have a legit pursuit for the truth, or is it for something else?
My intentions don't matter. That is not relevant to the argument.alissowack wrote: »Usually hypocrites find themselves telling on themselves by their actions
This is my argument.
What I was posted was not meant as an argument about the hypocrites...it's about the people who use rules to manipulate them for selfish gain. You think it is the hypocrites that are the only guilty parties. The "temptation of Jesus" post was meant to show that we will even use morals or what someone said to cover up bad intentions. We use the hypocrites as the scapegoat for what we don't want to face up to ourselves. Your use of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is coming from place where you are hoping to maintain a certain presupposed perspective you already have about the ? of the Bible.
Intentions do matter. If the purpose of me coming on this thread is to see if I can win this argument instead of a genuine concern for the truth, then I might as well stop. Winning an argument serves no purpose if the truth is lost in the process. However, it is none of my business to know what your intentions are. I just know that there is more to your disagreement about ? 's Existence than just what you read in the Bible. -
alissowack wrote: »Your use of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is coming from place where you are hoping to maintain a certain presupposed perspective you already have about the ? of the Bible.
My "presupposed perspective" that I "have about the ? of the Bible" comes from the text itself. I have no other source of knowledge on the nature of this ? . My use of 1st Corinthians was for the purpose of shining light on the contradictions within that text.alissowack wrote: »Intentions do matter. If the purpose of me coming on this thread is to see if I can win this argument instead of a genuine concern for the truth, then I might as well stop. Winning an argument serves no purpose if the truth is lost in the process. However, it is none of my business to know what your intentions are. I just know that there is more to your disagreement about ? 's Existence than just what you read in the Bible.
Truth defends itself. -
alissowack wrote: »What I was posted was not meant as an argument about the hypocrites...We use the hypocrites as the scapegoat for what we don't want to face up to ourselves.
If your argument is not about the hypocrite (I'm arguing that the hypocrite, in this case, is the bible ? ), then you have no point in discussing anything else.
My argument is more in the line of the hypocrite (? ) using man as the scapegoat in order to escape his own mistakes, not the other way around. -
alissowack wrote: »Your use of 1 Corinthians 13:1-13 is coming from place where you are hoping to maintain a certain presupposed perspective you already have about the ? of the Bible.
My "presupposed perspective" that I "have about the ? of the Bible" comes from the text itself. I have no other source of knowledge on the nature of this ? . My use of 1st Corinthians was for the purpose of shining light on the contradictions within that text.alissowack wrote: »Intentions do matter. If the purpose of me coming on this thread is to see if I can win this argument instead of a genuine concern for the truth, then I might as well stop. Winning an argument serves no purpose if the truth is lost in the process. However, it is none of my business to know what your intentions are. I just know that there is more to your disagreement about ? 's Existence than just what you read in the Bible.
Truth defends itself.
My point is not whether there are "other sources". My point is that along life's journey you have developed viewpoints and perspectives that have shaped how you view the world...which in turn shape how you read or interpret things. You already have presuppositions way before you started reading the Bible and greatly effects how you perceive what is being said. So, to say that there isn't any bias towards what you read is to deceive yourself. I even have biases that I hope don't take away or add to what the Bible is saying.
Though I agree with the whole "Truth defends itself" post, I don't see the point in using it there. It seem misplaced...like maybe you thought I was making the case for the truth.
...and just so I don't waste valuable data space, the point of my argument is to show that there are two sides of every story. There are arguments and counter arguments and if all you are concerned about is what hypocrites do, then you will miss the entire picture. What about the people who are calling out the hypocrites? What is their story?
-
alissowack wrote: »My point is not whether there are "other sources". My point is that along life's journey you have developed viewpoints and perspectives that have shaped how you view the world...which in turn shape how you read or interpret things. You already have presuppositions way before you started reading the Bible and greatly effects how you perceive what is being said. So, to say that there isn't any bias towards what you read is to deceive yourself. I even have biases that I hope don't take away or add to what the Bible is saying.
There aren't many ways to interpret the excerpts that are up for discussion. If there is another way to interpret it in order to avoid having the Bible ? appear to be the hypocrite that the text portrays him as, have at it.alissowack wrote: »Though I agree with the whole "Truth defends itself" post, I don't see the point in using it there. It seem misplaced...like maybe you thought I was making the case for the truth.
You seem to be worried about "the truth" being "lost" in an argument. I'm saying don't worry about the truth. The truth can handle itself. In other words, leave it alone.alissowack wrote: »if all you are concerned about is what hypocrites do, then you will miss the entire picture. What about the people who are calling out the hypocrites? What is their story?
It doesn't matter what their "story" is. The hypocrite is a hypocrite by his actions, irregardless of whether or not someone points it out. You're either a hypocrite or not. It doesn't matter who brings it to your attention or what their personal background happens to be. It seems you are wanting to take the blame off of the Bible ? and place it on someone else. This won't do.. No one is above responsibility. -
alissowack wrote: »My point is not whether there are "other sources". My point is that along life's journey you have developed viewpoints and perspectives that have shaped how you view the world...which in turn shape how you read or interpret things. You already have presuppositions way before you started reading the Bible and greatly effects how you perceive what is being said. So, to say that there isn't any bias towards what you read is to deceive yourself. I even have biases that I hope don't take away or add to what the Bible is saying.
There aren't many ways to interpret the excerpts that are up for discussion. If there is another way to interpret it in order to avoid having the Bible ? appear to be the hypocrite that the text portrays him as, have at it.alissowack wrote: »Though I agree with the whole "Truth defends itself" post, I don't see the point in using it there. It seem misplaced...like maybe you thought I was making the case for the truth.
You seem to be worried about "the truth" being "lost" in an argument. I'm saying don't worry about the truth. The truth can handle itself. In other words, leave it alone.alissowack wrote: »if all you are concerned about is what hypocrites do, then you will miss the entire picture. What about the people who are calling out the hypocrites? What is their story?
It doesn't matter what their "story" is. The hypocrite is a hypocrite by his actions, irregardless of whether or not someone points it out. You're either a hypocrite or not. It doesn't matter who brings it to your attention or what their personal background happens to be. It seems you are wanting to take the blame off of the Bible ? and place it on someone else. This won't do.. No one is above responsibility.
If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out? It is because they really believe they are advocating truth in calling out those who are in the wrong, or are they using it to cover up any bias that may have in the first place? Who knows? But I know that you coming to the conclusion that ? is a hypocrite stems from any biases you do have. Well, you could possibly say the same thing about me; that maybe my belief that ? is not a hypocrite stems from just not wanting to let go of old ideas; refusing to deal with changes in the world and just want to feel like I have someone to turn to because the world has let me down...or I'm just feel offended when someone calls "my ? " names. You probably wouldn't say such things (at least on record), but you would think that there is something driving why I believe what I believe.
What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about ? ...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.
It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about ? and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about ? and have done terrible things in the name of ? ...so when you have that already in your mind that ? must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.
-
alissowack wrote: »If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?
This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.alissowack wrote: »What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about ? ...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.
This ^^^ is not what's happening here.alissowack wrote: »It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about ? and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about ? and have done terrible things in the name of ? ...so when you have that already in your mind that ? must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.
The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible ? is or isn't a hypocrite. -
alissowack wrote: »If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?
This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.alissowack wrote: »What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about ? ...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.
This ^^^ is not what's happening here.alissowack wrote: »It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about ? and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about ? and have done terrible things in the name of ? ...so when you have that already in your mind that ? must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.
The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible ? is or isn't a hypocrite.
I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who ? is. In your view, ? must meet your standard. In my view, ? transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even ? transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if ? doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not ? . In my view, He is ? regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the ? of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe. -
alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?
This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.alissowack wrote: »What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about ? ...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.
This ^^^ is not what's happening here.alissowack wrote: »It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about ? and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about ? and have done terrible things in the name of ? ...so when you have that already in your mind that ? must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.
The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible ? is or isn't a hypocrite.
I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who ? is. In your view, ? must meet your standard. In my view, ? transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even ? transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if ? doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not ? . In my view, He is ? regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the ? of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.
Ok good.. we agree on what a hypocrite is.
I'm going by the bible's description of what and who ? is to form my argument. So if you agree with the bible, you agree with me.
According to the bible, ? is a divine being susceptible to negative human emotions such as jealousy and anger. Following from this, it's not difficult to imagine ? falling into hypocrisy.
In fact, the bible suggests implicitly that ? is a hypocrite..
If what you are saying is that ? transcends negative human emotions, you are not in agreement with the bible. If you are saying ? transcends personal responsibly, there is no need for us to continue. -
alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?
This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.alissowack wrote: »What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about ? ...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.
This ^^^ is not what's happening here.alissowack wrote: »It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about ? and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about ? and have done terrible things in the name of ? ...so when you have that already in your mind that ? must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.
The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible ? is or isn't a hypocrite.
I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who ? is. In your view, ? must meet your standard. In my view, ? transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even ? transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if ? doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not ? . In my view, He is ? regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the ? of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.
Ok good.. we agree on what a hypocrite is.
I'm going by the bible's description of what and who ? is to form my argument. So if you agree with the bible, you agree with me.
According to the bible, ? is a divine being susceptible to negative human emotions such as jealousy and anger. Following from this, it's not difficult to imagine ? falling into hypocrisy.
In fact, the bible suggests implicitly that ? is a hypocrite..
If what you are saying is that ? transcends negative human emotions, you are not in agreement with the bible. If you are saying ? transcends personal responsibly, there is no need for us to continue.
Again, there is more to your disagreement than just definitions. You're doing what everybody does religious or irreligious...we put ? in this box and expect for ? to conform to it. I've even said that ? 's transcendence...transcends our perception of it...meaning...we have no clue the depth in which ? says something in the Bible under our own understanding...even if it looks obvious. We can guess. We can assume, but we can't even even make the first step without tripping over ourselves. Many have vainly proclaimed ? because they sincerely thought they were doing right by Him and found themselves being reminded of just how far they have fallen. -
alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?
This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.alissowack wrote: »What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about ? ...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.
This ^^^ is not what's happening here.alissowack wrote: »It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about ? and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about ? and have done terrible things in the name of ? ...so when you have that already in your mind that ? must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.
The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible ? is or isn't a hypocrite.
I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who ? is. In your view, ? must meet your standard. In my view, ? transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even ? transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if ? doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not ? . In my view, He is ? regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the ? of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.
Ok good.. we agree on what a hypocrite is.
I'm going by the bible's description of what and who ? is to form my argument. So if you agree with the bible, you agree with me.
According to the bible, ? is a divine being susceptible to negative human emotions such as jealousy and anger. Following from this, it's not difficult to imagine ? falling into hypocrisy.
In fact, the bible suggests implicitly that ? is a hypocrite..
If what you are saying is that ? transcends negative human emotions, you are not in agreement with the bible. If you are saying ? transcends personal responsibly, there is no need for us to continue.
Again, there is more to your disagreement than just definitions. You're doing what everybody does religious or irreligious...we put ? in this box and expect for ? to conform to it. I've even said that ? 's transcendence...transcends our perception of it...meaning...we have no clue the depth in which ? says something in the Bible under our own understanding...even if it looks obvious. We can guess. We can assume, but we can't even even make the first step without tripping over ourselves. Many have vainly proclaimed ? because they sincerely thought they were doing right by Him and found themselves being reminded of just how far they have fallen.
I have not designed the box that ? has been placed. If you desire that ? transcend the box that theism has created for him in order to escape the difficulties inherent in the walls of said box, there is nothing here for us to talk about. If ? is purely ineffable, that leaves nothing but personal experience and belief and no room for debate or discussion from both believers and non believers. -
alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »alissowack wrote: »If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?
This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.alissowack wrote: »What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about ? ...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.
This ^^^ is not what's happening here.alissowack wrote: »It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about ? and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about ? and have done terrible things in the name of ? ...so when you have that already in your mind that ? must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.
The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible ? is or isn't a hypocrite.
I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who ? is. In your view, ? must meet your standard. In my view, ? transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even ? transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if ? doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not ? . In my view, He is ? regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the ? of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.
Ok good.. we agree on what a hypocrite is.
I'm going by the bible's description of what and who ? is to form my argument. So if you agree with the bible, you agree with me.
According to the bible, ? is a divine being susceptible to negative human emotions such as jealousy and anger. Following from this, it's not difficult to imagine ? falling into hypocrisy.
In fact, the bible suggests implicitly that ? is a hypocrite..
If what you are saying is that ? transcends negative human emotions, you are not in agreement with the bible. If you are saying ? transcends personal responsibly, there is no need for us to continue.
Again, there is more to your disagreement than just definitions. You're doing what everybody does religious or irreligious...we put ? in this box and expect for ? to conform to it. I've even said that ? 's transcendence...transcends our perception of it...meaning...we have no clue the depth in which ? says something in the Bible under our own understanding...even if it looks obvious. We can guess. We can assume, but we can't even even make the first step without tripping over ourselves. Many have vainly proclaimed ? because they sincerely thought they were doing right by Him and found themselves being reminded of just how far they have fallen.
I have not designed the box that ? has been placed. If you desire that ? transcend the box that theism has created for him in order to escape the difficulties inherent in the walls of said box, there is nothing here for us to talk about. If ? is purely ineffable, that leaves nothing but personal experience and belief and no room for debate or discussion from both believers and non believers.
Who said anything about you designing this "box"? Even in theism ? is transcendent. It is when we start guessing at the details of this transcendence is when we start to put ? in a box. You say that ? transcends jealousy and anger. It's more like, ? transcends our understanding of what jealousy and anger means to us. If ? is jealous, it is not the way in which we get jealous. If ? gets angry, it's not in the way in which we get angry. But what you do is that you look at how man treats each other and think that ? must be the exact same way. It's like when it comes to the emotions, we want to see ourselves as equals to ? but are sadly mistaken. -
alissowack wrote: »Who said anything about you designing this "box"? Even in theism ? is transcendent. It is when we start guessing at the details of this transcendence is when we start to put ? in a box.
What I mean by placing ? in a box is giving him qualities and traits such as omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. You are trying to escape the difficulties that arise by placing him there by claiming that he can transcend the box, thus rendering the box ultimately useless.alissowack wrote: »You say that ? transcends jealousy and anger. It's more like, ? transcends our understanding of what jealousy and anger means to us. If ? is jealous, it is not the way in which we get jealous. If ? gets angry, it's not in the way in which we get angry.
In what way would ? become angry or jealous that's completely unrelatable to human nature?alissowack wrote: »But what you do is that you look at how man treats each other and think that ? must be the exact same way.
This is what theism has done. People long ago personafied the laws of nature in attempt to better understand them and "created" ? . -
alissowack wrote: »Who said anything about you designing this "box"? Even in theism ? is transcendent. It is when we start guessing at the details of this transcendence is when we start to put ? in a box.
What I mean by placing ? in a box is giving him qualities and traits such as omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. You are trying to escape the difficulties that arise by placing him there by claiming that he can transcend the box, thus rendering the box ultimately useless.alissowack wrote: »You say that ? transcends jealousy and anger. It's more like, ? transcends our understanding of what jealousy and anger means to us. If ? is jealous, it is not the way in which we get jealous. If ? gets angry, it's not in the way in which we get angry.
In what way would ? become angry or jealous that's completely unrelatable to human nature?alissowack wrote: »But what you do is that you look at how man treats each other and think that ? must be the exact same way.
This is what theism has done. People long ago personafied the laws of nature in attempt to better understand them and "created" ? .
Giving the terms omni...such and such doesn't put ? in a box. It's subjecting those terms to our assumptions that puts ? in a box. It's like me saying because ? is all-knowing, then He must know what I'm going to post before I post it...or He can do some very hard math problems...or He can outsmart a super computer. It could be true that ? 's knowledge is as such. However, it would be very limiting to reduce ? that way; to only see ? as a being subjected to my petty thoughts. There is also the impression that because ? knows everything then He must tell us what He knows when we ask; that if ? is all powerful then He must show His Power when we want Him to do so. If ? has a choice, He doesn't have to submit to anything we demand. He doesn't have to feel He need to prove Himself worthy because we are not convinced that He is ? . He gets angry or jealous at whoever He sees fit...who knows how He does it. And if ? does act on something we ask for, it is not because we have done something worthy of it. Prayers answered are more a matter of mercy than blessing. -
excellent thread. allisowack sometimes I don't even think you believe half the stuff you type.
