amortalman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 3:30 pm
And what is that "deeply consistent thread" you spoke of?
How willing are you to let go of common preconceptions like the nature of God?
Would you please remind me of what preconceptions you think I have? As an atheist, I have no "preconceptions" of the nature of God. I do point out what the Bible says about God's nature and more.
A lot of atheist arguments are based in the notion that God is all powerful or knowing, which you assumed of me earlier as a theist. So I'm talking about letting go of the same preconceptions, because they don't help with the confusion or getting to the bottom of things. (And to be clear, I'm not saying you have any preconceptions, but only that we in general need to put all such ideas on hold until they can be properly derived.)
amortalman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:32 pm
But look, if there is a beating heart to every word in the bible, to the very concept of God and everything the bible says God says and does, all the laws and everything, then it is the affirmation of life above all else in this world. From beginning to end.
To love and serve God is to love and serve life. That's the heart of it. Everything else builds from there and all biblical writers gave voice to this common thread using their various terms and forms.
This is getting closer perhaps but still vague and mystical. I can understand how one might serve God but how does one serve life?
...
I'm sure you have some kind of definition of fundamental "affirmation of life" but so far I haven't seen one.
What I mean is that we are called to affirm life in all its forms. In such a way that all life can be (/can be together), and fill the heavens and the earth. Like the lilies of the field for example, or lions laying down with lambs. Where every life can express itself in its own unique way. That is the biblical vision and what it is all geared towards. To value life above all else and create the conditions for it.
One does this, for example, by doing things we see God do in Genesis 1. By bringing light for example, or dry land. Or food and healing to any life in need per the gospels. Or even going so far as destroying life that has become irredeemable per the Sodom example I raised before. (Life that has fallen so far into sin, or down the path leading to death, that there's no other recourse). Just look at our original calling: to tend and keep the garden. To make sure all the various plants and animals are all thriving together (which may require cutting back some invasive species now and again that would choke out the others).
That common thread, prime directive, fundamental affirmation (--whatever you want to call it) is at the heart of God and the bible, and helps us see through the confusions that are there (whether deliberate or not). And frankly, I think it's clear as day once you latch onto it. Like, I don't know how you can read Genesis 1 for example and not see that glaring on the page. Or the end of Revelation for that matter. Or the gospels. Or countless points in between.
(The real challenge / confusion is not so much in the vision / value we are called to affirm, but how to achieve it. i.e., making the hard calls that are needed along the way. Precisely in situations where there are no clear rules to follow...)
amortalman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 3:30 pm
I felt that way for a long time too but now disagree. The God depicted in the bible has reality, you just have to look more closely at what the writers were saying to see what that is, and how their words all follow.
Saying that clarity will come by looking more closely at what the writers were saying is a good example of naivete. Are you insinuating that all religions and denominations were not looking more closely at what the writers were saying, and if they were they would all interpret scripture alike?
Naivete or hubris?
But honestly? Yah, I am insinuating that to a certain extent. Not that it's all wrong or everyone would land in the exact same place if only they looked more closely, but that there are a lot of deeply rooted misconceptions out there. A lot of prevailing doctrines / beliefs / practices that are way out of line with what the bible is actually saying.
This is a massive oversimplification, but I think Christian theology took a wrong turn with certain early church fathers who infused it with way too much Greek philosophy and its idea of a perfect God (/unmoved mover). We are now on the receiving end of 2000 years of theology (and a-theology) that is as much (or more) based on Aristotle's metaphysics or Plato than it is Genesis or Jesus. What we've got is a set of Frankenstein traditions that have to a large extent lost touch with both Hebrew
and Greek sources. (Hence the need to put preconceptions on hold so we can cut through all the confusion this has caused, and which is not the fault of the bible's writers, or its readers, but rather of deeply entrenched views that can be extremely compelling even though they are misleading.)
amortalman wrote: ↑Wed Jul 20, 2022 3:30 pm
But wait...back in post #9 you said this: "We are saved by Christ's redeeming us of sin (his giving of his body on the cross)." If that tidbit of knowledge came from men and not from God on what basis do you take it as truth? It would be nothing but man's opinion.
Are we not capable of truth?
That’s beside the point. So you believe that Christ redeemed us from sin and that he gave his body on the cross, but you also believe the Biblical stories were contrived by men, even the very idea of God. That would make the Bible a work of fiction, right? So if the Bible is a work of fiction how can you believe that Christ even existed and redeemed us from sin? You are contradicting yourself.
No, I think that the story of Christ describes a real redemption logic, not that Christ actually redeemed us of sin. It's irrelevant to me whether it happened or not. The logic still stands.
You have employed nothing but distraction and evasion. One of the problems is that you make statements as if you personally believe them, such as the one above and this one earlier:
Hence why the bible was crafted in the way that it was. It is the most closest thing we have to God / God's word in this world. But earlier you intimated that even God was a made-up story. You can't argue from both positions.
not that Christ actually redeemed us of sin. It's irrelevant to me whether it happened or not. The other problem is that you ignore my arguments and keep introducing something new. That's avoidance and distraction.
My point is that just because it is a made-up story doesn't mean it isn't true, or that it doesn't have
aspects of truth, that are important to understand. That means I
can argue both sides.
For example, is the bible
historical truth? No. I freely admit that it's made up and has only a loose affiliation with history. i.e., that there probably wasn't some man named Jesus' 2000 years ago who actually redeemed us of sin in the way the gospels show. But that doesn't mean the gospel accounts are devoid of truth, or that they have any less meaning or application to our lives. In the case here, that they reveal a real redemption logic that Christ represents and that I would guarantee
has actually happened in other forms.
There is a real truth-value to the bible that stands irrespective of it being made up, and that we can't just disregard because we find the bible confusing or fallible (because it's man-made, not historical, or whatever). We need to open the aperture on truth here - there are many kinds to consider and we do an injustice to it if we reduce it down to its historic or scientific aspects (as tends to be the case).
amortalman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:32 pm
me: "I don't think the Bible was meant to be a test. A mother tells her young child, "Tommy, don't touch the stove. You'll get burned." This is clear language the mother used. Tommy now has a choice to either obey his mother's command or touch the stove and see for himself. In your reasoning, the mother would have spoken to her son in ambiguous language, purposely trying to confuse the child. Does that make sense to you?"
You never responded to that statement. So, does that make sense to you?
I've answered that question somewhere along the way in some form I'm sure
To reference Ecclesiastes again, everything has a time and place. I take that to be something of a core principle (feel free to argue). Applying it here, it means there is a time and place for being clear and explicit about what to do, like in the example you give where a child could get hurt. But it
also means there is a time and place for less clear guidance. What I called stumbling blocks before. Tests and literary riddles... Or in a word,
challenges, which may be confusing on the surface, but that have real meaning and purpose: to push us forward in our moral development.
I've made this point before but let me stress it again:
Being spoon-fed rules and clear guidance will not make us a people who can rule the earth in the way required. To truly serve God and affirm life (which incudes new kinds of life) we need to be rule-makers, not just rule-followers. Which means we need to test and prove ourselves in situations that have no clear rules available (situations that are confusing and challenging and that we need to find our way through..). To go back to the garden example - when do we make the hard call to pull out the weeds that are choking out life? There is no easy answer or guidance on that!
So to be clear, the mother in your example would have been a fool to deliberately give the child ambiguous instruction. But that doesn't mean there isn't a time and place where what that child needs is a real challenge to help get them to the next level, so that they are able to face the truly ambiguous situations they are
undoubtedly going to face in life.
amortalman wrote: ↑Mon Jul 25, 2022 10:32 pm
I could go on with this, but what's the point?
Up to you. I agree there's a lot of talking past each other but it's not for lack of trying on both sides. I've tried to be direct as possible here and reiterated some core positions that I believe address your points / questions and welcome any further argument against.
”
"
