Christian Doctrine
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
27-12-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
There is the common human problem of emotional attachment - translation - irrational adherence. Others can see it in someone else. We typically cannot see it in ourselves. We all suffer from it. It is a matter of degree.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2016, 11:00 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
I saw those. That's why I wanted to bring attention to it again. It's something I've been thinking about.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes natachan's post
27-12-2016, 11:21 AM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(27-12-2016 08:25 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I'm still waiting to see this monumental spanking he promised us.
I think we've seen it.
Just not in the direction that he intended. Smile

@DonaldTrump, Patriotism is not honoring your flag no matter what your country/leader does. It's doing whatever it takes to make your country the best it can be as long as its not violent.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Impulse's post
27-12-2016, 12:20 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
I'm less concerned with the theological question of "why is sin even possible?" than I am with the question of how it's morally acceptable to (as God) call certain human behaviors sins because they are supposedly "offensive" to God (especially when they look a lot more to me like things that are simply offensive to the priests of a particular time and culture), and hold people eternally responsible--and sending us to be tortured forever--for offending this being when we have no direct evidence or even good reason to think it's anything more than yet another invented creation of ancient societies.

As I've written elsewhere, it's the equivalent of a rapist with a gun:

"You have offended me by wearing clothes so attractive to me but not paying attention to me. But I have this gun, I really REALLY want to love you. If you just surrender your will and let me love you, I will give you millions of dollars. But if you don't, I have no choice but to shoot you because you gave offense to me and did not accept my offer of mercy. Your choice."

It's NOT a free choice. The rape victim in that scenario has no free will to make a free choice because there's a threat involved. There's just no way to deny this basic principle. No theological doctrine that includes the concept of hell is free will.

What's worse is that, in the case of Christianity, we have humans telling us that we have offended some invisible and distant power on whose behalf they're speaking, so an even more realistic portrayal of this would be for someone to come up to you and say, "I work for Don Corleone, the Mafia boss. You have offended him by operating a business on his territory without his permission. He says if you do not join his organization and pay him his due respect, you will be killed. He sent his son Michael Corleone to tell us all how to get into the organization and avoid the penalty for disobedience to the Don. You're free to refuse, but now you know the penalties for refusal. You have been warned."

What are you to say to this? The atheist position on Don Corleone and the threats posed by his followers are essentially the same:

"Um, I'm pretty sure Don Corleone is a fictional character, and I find your entire premise morally reprehensible. If Don Corleone operates as you describe, then it is morally better to be killed than to obey."

I really can't see a moral difference between the basic premise of "sin and redemption" in their twisted version of "free will" and the actions of a rapist with a gun or a Mafia boss.

"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 7 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
27-12-2016, 01:03 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Is it bad I can tell when Bltz replied, because there would be 10 new pages instead of only four?

(27-12-2016 08:27 AM)Aliza Wrote:  
(27-12-2016 08:25 AM)adey67 Wrote:  I'm still waiting to see this monumental spanking he promised us.

Maybe he thinks he's already given it. I kind of got the impression that he's got a weak arm.

My mind went straight to dirty with this. Facepalm

Need to think of a witty signature.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 5 users Like Shai Hulud's post
27-12-2016, 02:44 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(27-12-2016 01:03 PM)Shai Hulud Wrote:  Is it bad I can tell when Bltz replied, because there would be 10 new pages instead of only four?

(27-12-2016 08:27 AM)Aliza Wrote:  Maybe he thinks he's already given it. I kind of got the impression that he's got a weak arm.

My mind went straight to dirty with this. Facepalm

Perhaps a new sub-forum for threads like these. We could call it "The Spank-tuary" Evil_monster

ETA: can't claim credit for the name, though. Saw it in a cyberpunk game a while back.

Help for the living. Hope for the dead. ~ R.G. Ingersoll

Freedom offers opportunity. Opportunity confers responsibility. Responsibility to use the freedom we enjoy wisely, honestly and humanely. ~ Noam Chomsky
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Fatbaldhobbit's post
27-12-2016, 04:05 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
Bzltyr last post here was on the 24th.

Aliza,
About Paul/Saul. Please would you give one or two of the LXX references that he cited that is different from the Hebrew. Thanks.
And even should you choose not to, thank you for the information you have already provided.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
27-12-2016, 05:11 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(27-12-2016 04:05 PM)Peter Slevon Wrote:  Bzltyr last post here was on the 24th.

Aliza,
About Paul/Saul. Please would you give one or two of the LXX references that he cited that is different from the Hebrew. Thanks.
And even should you choose not to, thank you for the information you have already provided.

I will try to find that information in my notes... somewhere.

For now, I found some resources that might be of interest. I rarely quote from Christian sources, but I think they do a decent job of establishing that Paul was using a Greek copy of the Hebrew bible. My perspective on what that means may differ from the authors of these sites, but it still does establish that it's known that Paul used the Septuagint, not the Masoretic text.

http://www.catholic.com/quickquestions/i...stament-al
"If this magazine were about ten pages longer, perhaps. Of the places where the New Testament quotes the Old, the great majority is from the Septuagint version. Protestant authors Archer and Chirichigno list 340 places where the New Testament cites the Septuagint but only 33 places where it cites from the Masoretic Text rather than the Septuagint (G. Archer and G. C. Chirichigno, Old Testament Quotations in the New Testament: A Complete Survey, 25-32)."

Another site I found was : http://www.oldschoolscript.com/blog/2013...int-quoter
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Aliza's post
27-12-2016, 06:45 PM
RE: Christian Doctrine
(27-12-2016 12:20 PM)RocketSurgeon76 Wrote:  I'm less concerned with the theological question of "why is sin even possible?" than I am with the question of how it's morally acceptable to (as God) call certain human behaviors sins because they are supposedly "offensive" to God (especially when they look a lot more to me like things that are simply offensive to the priests of a particular time and culture), and hold people eternally responsible--and sending us to be tortured forever--for offending this being when we have no direct evidence or even good reason to think it's anything more than yet another invented creation of ancient societies.

As I've written elsewhere, it's the equivalent of a rapist with a gun:

"You have offended me by wearing clothes so attractive to me but not paying attention to me. But I have this gun, I really REALLY want to love you. If you just surrender your will and let me love you, I will give you millions of dollars. But if you don't, I have no choice but to shoot you because you gave offense to me and did not accept my offer of mercy. Your choice."

It's NOT a free choice. The rape victim in that scenario has no free will to make a free choice because there's a threat involved. There's just no way to deny this basic principle. No theological doctrine that includes the concept of hell is free will.

What's worse is that, in the case of Christianity, we have humans telling us that we have offended some invisible and distant power on whose behalf they're speaking, so an even more realistic portrayal of this would be for someone to come up to you and say, "I work for Don Corleone, the Mafia boss. You have offended him by operating a business on his territory without his permission. He says if you do not join his organization and pay him his due respect, you will be killed. He sent his son Michael Corleone to tell us all how to get into the organization and avoid the penalty for disobedience to the Don. You're free to refuse, but now you know the penalties for refusal. You have been warned."

What are you to say to this? The atheist position on Don Corleone and the threats posed by his followers are essentially the same:

"Um, I'm pretty sure Don Corleone is a fictional character, and I find your entire premise morally reprehensible. If Don Corleone operates as you describe, then it is morally better to be killed than to obey."

I really can't see a moral difference between the basic premise of "sin and redemption" in their twisted version of "free will" and the actions of a rapist with a gun or a Mafia boss.

Rocket, your Don Corleone analogy reminds me of my favorite Matt Dillahunty rant towards the end of the video, around the 9 or 10:00 minute mark.





And then he continues his rant into the next video, here:




Shakespeare's Comedy of Errors.... on Donald J. Trump:

He is deformed, crooked, old, and sere,
Ill-fac’d, worse bodied, shapeless every where;
Vicious, ungentle, foolish, blunt, unkind,
Stigmatical in making, worse in mind.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes dancefortwo's post
27-12-2016, 07:23 PM (This post was last modified: 27-12-2016 07:26 PM by RocketSurgeon76.)
RE: Christian Doctrine
How funny, DF2... I was going to PM you with a recommendation for a Dillahunty video I had pop up on my YouTube suggestions earlier today (I'll clip it in, below).

He's actually new to me-- I first heard of Matt here on TTA. I haven't seen those two particular videos [Edit: hadn't seen... I watched them before posting this], but I'm glad I'm not the only person who sees this in the God-story.

I wanted to show you the Dillahunty video because I've seen you make a "the Bible says Pi = 3.0" argument, and Matt takes apart why I don't like that argument. (I'm not making fun of you for using it... that's why I was going to PM it. Honestly, I simply forgot to actually do it.) He also takes apart one of my favorite counter-apologetics arguments, so I'm not singling you out. It just reminded me of that one argument you made, a few days ago.




"Theology made no provision for evolution. The biblical authors had missed the most important revelation of all! Could it be that they were not really privy to the thoughts of God?" - E. O. Wilson
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like RocketSurgeon76's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: