Fornication

[ChristopherColumbus]

If the Bible has to be interpreted, we're not talking about what the writers' actual messages were. Then we're merely talking about your views and opinions of them, which are prone to have different meanings than were intended.

I'm interested in discussing the Bible based on what the writers were actually conveying. But I'm not so much interested in some guy's interpretation of it, especially when it looks to me like he's twisting passages and pulling at straws to reinforce his desire to live any way he sees fit, and to excuse and justify his sins, rather than seeking to understand the real messages the writers were communicating, with the intention of adjusting his behavior to conform to them.

But then again, Yahweh is an invention of man's imagination. So is hell. So even if it were true that the Bible says you'll go to hell if you fornicate, an imaginary father figure can't punish you with something that doesn't exist just because a work of fiction claims he will. Our consciousness' probably all just cease to exist when we die, a condition independent of what we believed or how we lived.

The issue of interpretation is an essential one. The fact is, there are various ways to interpret a text. If it is left to the individual, a la Protestant Reformation, we are left with anarchy, the church of Me. Hence the importance of an age old tradition, a la Catholicism.

 

[Gimple]

No, you're not. You're interested in being an obnoxious know-it-all who pretends to have all the answers to questions humankind has pondered for all of its existence. Let's all bow down to your superior intellect, that's what you want, right? I guess that strokes all your sad little inferiority complexes. I can see why people like you are so attracted to Atheism. It's fuel to the fire of your inner douche.

Ah, yet more useless comments from the peanut gallery. Have you nothing to contribute to the discussions, instead of constantly jumping into them just to try to psycho-analyze me? Maybe you should become a psychologist. No, wait. Forget that. With your bad temper and inability to keep your cool, that's probably not a great idea.

 

[zekko]

The issue of interpretation is an essential one. The fact is, there are various ways to interpret a text. If it is left to the individual, a la Protestant Reformation, we are left with anarchy, the church of Me. Hence the importance of an age old tradition, a la Catholicism.

On the other hand, if you do not think for yourself and simply trust in old traditions, you run the risk of dogma and missing out on fresh new ideas and interpretations that might have greater personal meaning to an individual.

For example, for many years the return of Israel as a nation was thought (by tradition) to be a metaphorical event. However, this was shown not to be the case in 1948. Better to keep your mind open to new possibilities rather than just what accept what some committee decides for you.

This is the same reason why I question PUA dogma. There was a time not long ago when "looks don't matter" was considered to be so true here that it was not even up for debate. If you didn't believe that, you were simply a chode. Now days, it is routinely accepted that looks are an important factor in making up your SMV.

 

[samspade]

Our consciousness' probably all just cease to exist when we die, a condition independent of what we believed or how we lived.

Who told you this, and why do you believe in this person's interpretation of the afterlife? Or is it a theory you constructed on your own?

 

[Gimple]

Who told you this, and why do you believe in this person's interpretation of the afterlife? Or is it a theory you constructed on your own?

It's a pretty common belief. Isn't life what gives rise to consciousness? I mean, it didn't exist before we were born, so why would it continue to exist after death? Look at, say, dogs. What happens when they die? Their consciousness probably ceases to exist, right? Most people probably wouldn't refute this. So why would we be any different? We're mammals too.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

It's a pretty common belief. Isn't life what gives rise to consciousness? I mean, it didn't exist before we were born, so why would it continue to exist after death? Look at, say, dogs. What happens when they die? Their consciousness probably ceases to exist, right? Most people probably wouldn't refute this. So why would we be any different? We're mammals too.

Forget most people/ the mass mind. People who think philosophically, who think for themselves, perceive the supernatural mystery that lies at the heart of consciousness.

 

[zekko]

People who think philosophically, who think for themselves, perceive the supernatural mystery that lies at the heart of consciousness.

Good point, you can't put God on a microsope slide. So I've always considered whether or not you believe in something higher to be largely a philosophical question.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

Good point, you can't put God on a microsope slide. So I've always considered whether or not you believe in something higher to be largely a philosophical question.

Criticism, conducted rightly, also leads to super-natural belief; how is it possible for an intelligence to pass judgements on a world of phenomena in the first place? The exercise of intelligence is the foothold of meaning. From here the whole super-structure of culture arises.

What an irony that reason is commonly thought to prove unbelief. But that only goes to show that most have 'outsourced' their intelligence, and lost their sovereignty, under the ruling orthodoxy of scientific specialists.

 

[Atom Smasher]

I chuckle when I read posts from those who "know" that there is no God. They declare with all certainty that they have this "factual" knowledge.

It is not possible for a man to "know" that God does not exist. He can guess that He doesn't exist. He can postulate it. But since he wasn't there, he cannot make that statement with any authority whatsoever. In fact, the blatant statement that one "knows" this, and that he "knows" that scripture was not spiritually inspired, is an absolute tell that he has an emotional issue clouding his judgement.

It is perfectly appropriate to think in terms of probabilities, but utterly ludicrous to declare knowledge of how the universe was created (without a creator). The "big bang" is taught as fact, when in fact it is utterly impossible to leave God out of the equation with certainty. The "big bang" is a theory, not a fact. It is an educated guess based on observation, but a guess certainly made without consideration for the abundant evidence of design; design that is so complex that we don't even know how a single living cell works (apart from simple observation of its behavior).

Scripture itself says (over and over again) that its precepts are hidden to the natural man and are spiritually discerned (as opposed to intellectually). Approaching scripture from a humanistic perspective almost guarantees the gold therein will remain hidden. Approaching it with a thirst for knowledge will almost always yield surprising, fundamental shifts in what we thought we "knew" to be truth.

I respect a man who thoughtfully thinks there is no God, and that scripture is simply man-made. That man knows that he cannot know this factually. He can only weigh the evidence that he is aware of. I am completely dismissive of the man who declares that he "knows".

 

[Gimple]

@Atom Smasher,

I'm guessing you're referring to me in your post above. But I never said I know there is no god. There could be a creator, a god. I don't know. And I suspect nobody does or ever has known. I just said I know your god doesn't exist (along with the gods of all the other religions I've encountered). And I know that for the same reason I know that dementors don't exist. Both are clearly dreamed up by the imaginations of people, and then written into stories.

You just have to observe Yahweh's behavior throughout the Bible to know that he's a fictional character, modeled off of humans. If some entity created the universe, it would be much, much more intelligent than any person, ever. But there are plenty of people who are way more intelligent and mature than Yahweh is depicted.

The character of Yahweh is a psycho beta male. He has the exact character of the jealous ex-boyfriend who murders his ex-girlfriend for rejecting him and then sleeping with some other guy. When he doesn't get his way and have people catering to his whims, he often throws violent tantrums, like a toddler. His maturity level often matches the three year level of us humans.

If there was a creator, it would be alpha, or beyond alpha. Yet Yahweh is practically below beta.

And let's not forget that oftentimes when he tries to solve problems, he fails -- which is kind of ironic because he's supposed to be all-knowing. An all-knowing entity would know certain approaches would yield poor results, and then not bother wasting its time pursuing them. But Yahweh continually tries things that don't produce the outcomes he wants. He fails over and over again throughout the Bible. And the funny thing is he blames his failures on mankind. Yet another beta characteristic ... blaming others for ones own mistakes and failures.

Not that it isn't possible for a creator to fail. If this universe was created by a god, maybe it failed several times before it got it right. But then it wouldn't be all-knowing. Yet Yahweh is supposed to be all-knowing. And the fact that he continually fails reveals that either he's stupid or not all-knowing -- but the Bible claims he's all knowing, so that removes the latter possibility. Yahweh is stupid. There are countless people who would have handled his problems ten times better than he did. But a real god, who has the intelligence and power to create an entire universe, would handle problems many, many times better than the best problem-solver who ever lived.

All this is evidence that the god of the Bible is clearly a fictional character created by men.

If there is a creator, I doubt it would even be possible to depict it in writing. Our language and intellect would probably make it near impossible. We probably couldn't even fathom its behavior. Yet the Bible depicts Yahweh's behavior in a way we can easily understand, and like I mentioned earlier, he has the character of a beta male.

 

[zekko]

If there is a creator, I doubt it would even be possible to depict it in writing. Our language and intellect would probably make it near impossible. We probably couldn't even fathom its behavior. Yet the Bible depicts Yahweh's behavior in a way we can easily understand, and like I mentioned earlier, he has the character of a beta male.

A couple of points:
First off, the Bible is the story of man's relationship with God. Obviously it is going to be told in terms that man can relate to, or else he wouldn't be able to understand it.

Secondly, IMO, jealousy gets a bad rap. I'm not going to tolerate my girlfriend cheating on me. Feminists and PUAs might consider that jealousy, but I consider it not tolerating disrespect. God made a covenant with the people of Israel, but the people of Israel were unfaithful, and broke the covenant. God's relationship with His people is often metaphorically depicted as a marriage, with God as the groom of course.

Third, it's laughable that you are framing what is eternal within the context of the PUA movement, which has only been around since the 1990s. The PUA community only exists because of the feminization of the West, which might also be seen as moral decay. But when you create your own universe, you can set it up whichever way you want. I gather in your universe, your creator will be more "alpha", lol. Congratulations.

 

[samspade]

It's a pretty common belief. Isn't life what gives rise to consciousness? I mean, it didn't exist before we were born, so why would it continue to exist after death? Look at, say, dogs. What happens when they die? Their consciousness probably ceases to exist, right? Most people probably wouldn't refute this. So why would we be any different? We're mammals too.

We don't know for certain the answers to your questions. And a good number of people will refute your theory. There is no evidence so it can be refuted easily.

The reason I asked you who told you this idea is because you had to have heard it, or devised it based on information you gathered during your lifetime. It's not coded into your brain the way evolutionary behaviors are. Furthermore, if somebody told you, you had to accept this belief as your own voluntarily. Even if God Himself told you the truth, you still have to choose whether to believe in it or not.

 

[Gimple]

Third, it's laughable that you are framing what is eternal within the context of the PUA movement, which has only been around since the 1990s.

When the PUA movement started is irrelevant. Concerning what we're discussing here, the community ultimately seeks to investigate, reveal and utilize facts of human nature, which have existed as long as mankind has. In this sense, it didn't invent anything new. The terms "alpha male" and "beta male" simply represent states of character that have, again, existed as long as man. In former days, it was the difference between "man" and "boy". Alphas simply embody the characteristics of men, while betas are still stuck in boyhood.

Secondly, IMO, jealousy gets a bad rap. I'm not going to tolerate my girlfriend cheating on me. Feminists and PUAs might consider that jealousy, but I consider it not tolerating disrespect. God made a covenant with the people of Israel, but the people of Israel were unfaithful, and broke the covenant. God's relationship with His people is often metaphorically depicted as a marriage, with God as the groom of course.

If your girlfriend cheats on you or flirts with other guys and you respond to it by getting that fiery, sinking, tight feeling in the pit of your stomach, that's jealousy -- which is different than not tolerating disrespect. True alphas master this emotion until they no longer experience it in response to any circumstance they may face, even a cheating partner. As an effect, they no longer end up behaving insecurely, irrationally and aggressively in such situations.

Like I mentioned in another post today, the best response to a cheating girlfriend (or wife) is to downgrade her relationship status, without jealousy and without anger. The monogamous relationship is simply now off the table to her, and she has condemned herself to an open relationship where other women will be involved. Reducing her to a sort of fvck buddy and seeing other women is the best approach. A man who has the strength to do this keeps all of his power for himself.

But the worst response to cheating is to get insecure, jealous and angry, then resort to intimidation, violence and even murder. Such a monster exercises no control over his emotions or his actions, and can hardly be said to be "a man".

But that's exactly what Yahweh does with the Israelites over and over again throughout the OT.

The god of the Bible is a monster, just like Elliot Rogers (or whatever his name was). When he feels rejected because people aren't showing him respect, attention and affection, catering to his demands or conforming to how he thinks they should behave, he responds by getting insecure and jealous, then comes the anger, and finally the murdering starts.

That's one of the reasons why I abandoned Christianity. Yahweh is a low-life with the basest of characters I've encountered in all the fiction I've read, and thus, clearly can't be a real god that actually exists.

Jesus, I like him, though. He was a cool guy, and possibly the greatest example of what it means to be a man.

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

The god of the Bible is a monster, just like Elliot Rogers (or whatever his name was). When he feels rejected because people aren't showing him respect, attention and affection, catering to his demands or conforming to how he thinks they should behave, he responds by getting insecure and jealous, then comes the anger, and finally the murdering starts.
.

It depends what your starting point is.

If you think life as it exists, is pretty well alright, then you will see the death and destruction of the OT in an odd light.

However, if you see death and destruction itself in life, and life itself as quite an odd phenomenon, as falling far short of the ideal, then you'll see the OT in another light.

 

[Gimple]

We don't know for certain the answers to your questions. And a good number of people will refute your theory. There is no evidence so it can be refuted easily.

I'd say there's evidence, which I talked about in my last post to you. However, I admit, it's not concrete. But it is a better guess than the alternatives, like believing in heaven or hell, ideas which come from an old book riddled with contradictions, impossibilities and absurdities.

But please tell me: How would you refute my theory?

The reason I asked you who told you this idea is because you had to have heard it, or devised it based on information you gathered during your lifetime. It's not coded into your brain the way evolutionary behaviors are. Furthermore, if somebody told you, you had to accept this belief as your own voluntarily. Even if God Himself told you the truth, you still have to choose whether to believe in it or not.

I came to my conclusion by thinking about it. The reasons, again, were stated above. Then I discovered more and more people hold this view as well.


@ChristopherColumbus - I don't understand most of your posts. I read the words, but the actual messages don't seem to translate into any sort of coherent meaning.

 

[Atom Smasher]

@Gimple, God is constrained by his own perfect justice. He is in a position where he MUST deal with mankind's sin and rebellion, else he would not be true to his characteristic of perfect justice.

He cannot do otherwise.

If a human judge just let wrongdoers off the hook,he would be considered evil by the population. This is because we have an innate sense of justice. That is until WE OURSELVES are confronted about our own wrongdoing. A perfect creator must, without fail, hold his created beings accountable. Because he knew that mankind was utterly helpless to earn their way out of judgment, he sent Jesus to live the sinless life that we could never live, and then pay the penalty for sin the we deserve.

Your term "Beta" and "stupid" for God are just reactionary labels that you don't support in any meaningful way that I can see.

God calls himself a "jealous" God because he will not tolerate his creation worshipping idols. Mankind is so arrogant that he will by nature worship anything other than God himself.

I don't see how you support the claim that God is "failing". God is dealing with imperfect, sinful humanity and his plan is to save those who respond to his promptings. He's not going to force anyone.

"Faith comes by hearing, and hearing, by the word of God". Faith does not come by human argument, human introspection, and human speculation. It comes solely from one place: What he has written to mankind. THe arrogant of the world will call it nonsense because it stings their conscience and it calls into question a man's imagined place upon the throne of the universe. That is, after all, mankind's real problem. He is arrogant enough to think that he has the wherewithal to define what is right and wrong.That makes him God in his own imagination. And he has the arrogance to judge scripture, instead of letting scripture judge him.

 

[Gimple]

If a human judge just let wrongdoers off the hook,he would be considered evil by the population. This is because we have an innate sense of justice.

But that's exactly what Yahweh does do. He lets people off the hook, because apparently Jesus paid the penalty for their crimes, so they don't have to. Not only that, he punished an innocent man for the crimes of others -- his own son, nonetheless. How is that just, making someone else serve the sentence for someone else's crimes?

That is evil.

Imagine you go to court one day to see a murderer get tried for the rape and killing of a twelve year old girl, in a place where the death penalty is practiced. At the conclusion of the trial, the judges brings out his own son, and says, "Mr. Murderer, I'm going to make my son receive the punishment you should have gotten. You're free to go." Then turning to his son, he says, "My son, whom I love very much, you're getting lethal injection, even though you committed no crime!"

And you call that justice? But that's essentially what Yahweh did.

Your term "Beta" and "stupid" for God are just reactionary labels that you don't support in any meaningful way that I can see.

I've supported them adequately, but let me take it further...

A beta male gets insecure and jealous, and in the extreme cases angry and violent, when the object of his affection shows interest or preference in other suitors. But that's exactly how Yahweh reacts when the Israelites worship idols and other gods. He gets insecure and jealous, then he gets hostile and often kills them for rejecting him. That's straight up beta behavior. I don't see how anyone who is initiated in the DJ way could fail to see that.

As for Yahweh's stupidity, we're assuming he's all-knowing and all-loving (because the Bible says he is, even though his behavior contradicts both those things). That means he would have known that Lucifer would betray him before he was even created.

Now, if I were in Yahweh's place, I would think, "Okay, if I create this angel, he's going to rebel against me, then he's going to cause my creation called mankind to disobey me, which will lead to thousands of years of suffering for them, and then later, when I stop procrastinating on solving the problem, it will force me to sacrifice my own son to redeem them. Hmmm, maybe I should just not create Lucifer. There's an idea! That would not only prevent a lot of problems for myself, but, because I will love my creation, it would also prevent most of them from being sent to a terrible place where they'll suffer tremendously for all eternity."

I think that's a pretty good solution, don't you? And I'm a mere mortal. Yet it's a much better way of solving the problem than Yahweh's solution.

That's just one proof that he's an idiot.

I don't see how you support the claim that God is "failing". God is dealing with imperfect, sinful humanity and his plan is to save those who respond to his promptings. He's not going to force anyone.

I said Yahweh has failed several times to accomplish the outcomes he desired. An example is the flood. Supposedly, wickedness was widespread and he wanted to eliminate it. So what does he do? He drowns everyone except Noah's family, hoping to wipe out the wickedness. But then it slowly returns. He failed to accomplish his goal, even though, if he's all-knowing, he would have already known the outcome before he acted.

And that's just one example.

 

[Bible_Belt]

Job said the same things. Then God was like, 'Look b!tch, where were you when I made the heavens and the Earth?"

 

[ChristopherColumbus]

@ChristopherColumbus - I don't understand most of your posts. I read the words, but the actual messages don't seem to translate into any sort of coherent meaning.

Yes, there is a bit of philosophy behind them. Perhaps you are pleading ignorance, or just feigning it?

If you are ignorant, though curious, you could try a reading of Thomas Kuhn's, 'The Structure of Scientific Revolutions'. Here you have elucidated the idea of a 'paradigm', which is the 'starting point' by which we all interpret the world.... and hence the need for a bit of philosophy/ critical thought.

Personally, I think we all need to think as if our lives depended on it. Because perhaps it does.

 

[zekko]

But that's exactly what Yahweh does do. He lets people off the hook, because apparently Jesus paid the penalty for their crimes, so they don't have to. Not only that, he punished an innocent man for the crimes of others -- his own son, nonetheless. How is that just, making someone else serve the sentence for someone else's crimes?

That is evil.

The price is paid. But evil deeds still have consequences, because as a result we live in an evil world.

The pot doesn't get to dictate to the potter how he is made. You don't like it. Noted. You might as well be arguing that it is stupid that the sky is blue.