Blood and sin

[Athetotheist]

Which is easier: to say, ‘Your sins are forgiven,’ or to say, ‘Get up and walk’? But that you may know that the Son of Man has power on earth to forgive sins,”— (then said He to the one sick with palsy) “Arise, take up your bed and go into your house.” (Matthew 9:5-6)

.......

In fact, the law requires that nearly everything be cleansed with blood, and without the shedding of blood there is no forgiveness. (Hebrews 9:22)

If there's no forgiveness of sin without the shedding of blood, how could Jesus forgive anyone's sins before he had shed any blood for them?

[JoeyKnothead]

I think you're dodging the question. If I asked you, say, what Sauron's end was in the Lord of the Rings, would you answer me likewise? No, you can absolutely discern a reason there. A scheme or a plan. One that is evident all the way back in his creation of the rings as a means to that end. One that is completely separable from Sauron and the Lord of the Rings as a fiction... So why not Genesis 1 irrespective of its factuality?

Plenty fair. Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I sometimes find myself tied to that literalist mindset.

Full disclosure: I never was much for the fantasy genre, except for the Game of Thrones stuff.

So to your second question, to be clear, I don't think Genesis 1 is a literal depiction of some long past cosmic event. But that doesn't mean it doesn't likewise provide a scheme or a plan, and that a coherent and even highly rational end for all things isn't likewise depicted there. One that we can understand and should perhaps even embrace, using our own power and faculties to bring into being.

Jumping to the Bible as a whole: I'd accept an argument that says we should read the Bible in terms of the ideas of right and wrong. If only for me though, it risks folks thinking there's only one "objective moral giver", and that's the bible's take on such things.

So I would ask again, if you take a minute and reread Genesis 1, and had to articulate in a few words what God is trying to achieve there, what would the answer be? Is that answer really so bad? Perhaps even something we could all stand behind -- all the theological trappings aside?

As a guide, I can get with the program of being stewards of the planet.

I do refer back to the risks involved when folks take this book too literally, even as you seem to caution against doing so.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #52

You think the messiah is constrained by a set of rules and could be weeded out by such?

Yes. A Messiah would have to be constrained by rules in order to be recognizable. He doesn't get to make up his own rules. If he says, "Keep every jot and tittle of the law", he can't proceed to quote the law and then say, "but I say to you ...." That's telling people to do mutually exclusive things. If "God is not the author of confusion" (1Corinthians 14:33), how could God direct a Messiah to give such confusing directions? It would be nothing short of Orwellian doublethink.

Why so much emphasis on rules, out of curiosity? Why not ends, as a more superior moral category?

i.e., Matthew 7:15-16 "Beware of false prophets, who come to you in sheep’s clothing, but inwardly they are ravenous wolves. You will know them by their fruits."

If what you say here is right, you'd think that Jesus would have said something different in this verse. Like, "you will know them because they perfectly follow the law." But that's not what he says. He says we'll know them because of the good things that come from their words and deeds. i.e., by the ends that they bring about.

I've been playing with OpenAI a lot lately, and just had this exchange for what it's worth:

Which is superior, following rules or following ends as moral categories?

"The answer to this question is subjective and depends on the individual's beliefs and values. Generally speaking, following ends as moral categories is considered to be superior to following rules. This is because following ends as moral categories allows individuals to explore the ethical implications of their actions and determine the best course of action based on their individual values. On the other hand, following rules leaves individuals with less flexibility and can lead to a more rigid and inflexible moral code. Ultimately, it is up to the individual to decide which is more suitable for their life and ethical beliefs."

How could following rules find context within following ends?

"Following rules can find context within following ends by being used as a means of achieving a desired end. For example, one might view following a traffic law as a means of achieving the end of keeping people safe on the roads. In this way, following the rules can be seen as a way of furthering the ethical goal of keeping people safe. Therefore, following rules can be seen as an important tool for achieving desired ends within an ethical framework."

So generally speaking, the latest in AI agrees with me that you're being a bit too preoccupied with rules versus ends. And perhaps you need to see Jesus' comments on following rules within this broader context and moral imperative.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to theophile in post #62

Why so much emphasis on rules, out of curiosity? Why not ends, as a more superior moral category?

For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth disappear, not the smallest letter, not the least stroke of a pen, will by any means disappear from the Law until everything is accomplished. Therefore anyone who sets aside one of the least of these commands and teaches others accordingly will be called least in the kingdom of heaven.....

If what you say here is right, you'd think that Jesus would have said something different in this verse (granted, he completely reverses what he says here in the following verses, but that hardly helps your case).

So generally speaking, the latest in AI agrees with me that you're being a bit too preoccupied with rules versus ends. And perhaps you need to see Jesus' comments on following rules within this broader context and moral imperative.

So generally speaking, you're running so low on argument that you're turning to AI for validation. That being the case, consider this [which, admittedly, I find only slightly less cogent than one of his actual speeches]:



Incidentally, I put your arguments through my own personal "AI" program, and this is how they were translated:

"Aw, come on! Give Christianity a break!! Okay, sure----Jesus countermands the law while endorsing it completely, contradicting himself and clearly ruling himself out as the Jewish Messiah, but, hey----can't you just ignore all that and pretend that he was the Messiah anyway??"

Look again at Deuteronomy 4:2, which forbids adding to and taking from the law.

Now look at John 5:47, in which Jesus asks his critics how they can believe what he says if they don't believe what Moses wrote.

If Moses wrote the law and Jesus countermanded it, how could they believe what he said if they did believe what Moses wrote?

Thus Jesus's question is illogical, another indication that he wasn't a divine Messiah.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #43]

Very good and fair response. But from what I gathered here, the problem is about the confusion of whether the Mosaic Law still counts or whether it doesn't or (as an apologetic I see a few times) the Law should be forgotten unless Jesus endorses it. So while I can see the value of choosing what's right (according - as I've long argued - to human -made moral ethics, while still crediting a religious source) we need some black and white in the sense of guidance as to whether the Law obtains, or not or whether we should cherry -pick and how or where. Instead we get confusion, disagreement and disregarding what Jesus indicates, like sidelining the Sabbath which has been a Christian shibboleth for a long time. And where you see the Commandments hanging in the place where it should not, either because they are Government offices or because Jesus threw out enough of them to ask whether the Commandments have been superseded by 'Jesus saids' you know they are cherry - picking for no good reason than to suit themselves, and treating it as black and white, too.

I keep referring to the law as a means to the end because I think it's instructive. It explains why the law still stands (because it is a means to the end), but also why it is not authoritative (because it is not the end). It also explains how every letter of the law will be fulfilled in the end, as Jesus says, because reaching the end requires the execution of its means.

To use more religious language, we should treat the law more as an icon (a means to the end) than an idol (the end itself), which is what Jesus pushed back against. i.e., the idea that obedience to the law is what will save us.

So the answer to the point above is that we should follow the law only when it serves the end, and better means aren't available. I don't know how to put it any clearer than that.

(The problem, I think, is we struggle to understand what God wants of us, for lack of better terms, and the law looks like an easy answer that spells it out. But the answer is not the law, unless we can ascertain what all the laws were intended to achieve - which is no easy task. So a much better approach is to understand the end itself, by looking, say, at the beginning, or Genesis 1, where it's clear as day what God intends for the world. We should derive everything else, including the law and what laws to follow when, from that. But look, there's not going to be an easy answer on that last part. Achieving the end isn't through a formula we can follow, but through critical thinking and hard decisions every step of the way.)

But where a secularist would relate to that (as I do) is that this is applying man - made morals and ethics to the Bible and applying cherry - picking (which as one Theist argued,was a good thing to do) of what fits in with mundane morals.

Thus, neither the Old laws nor the new, really are authoritative, but gain credibility by being mix and match to secular morals. This happens all the time, from Fitting Genesis to science and pretending that validates Genesis, to finding "Good things in the Bible" and pretending that validates the Bible, too.

And this business of pick ' n' mix ethics selection to match to secular morals is really nothing to do with the actual problem, which is how we decide what the Bible is telling us should be our morals. It isn't really done by picking whatever Human beans say is good, but what Jesus and God can agree between them should be our Laws, and never mind what humans with all sorts of unbiblical stuff about tolerance and accepting dissent have to say about it.

Your first point here (or couple paragraphs) doesn't really resonate with me since I think the bible was man-made. As man-made, I would expect the bible to align with a lot of so-called 'secular' (or man-made) ideas, and I think it's valid to use such ideas to help open up, modernize, and express what is going on there. So it's not so much 'mixing and matching' to pick out the good bits (or separate the wheat from the chaff), as you seem to think, but mixing and matching in order to better convey. (You know, when in Rome...)

Put otherwise, I think you're trying to draw some kind of line between the biblical and the secular, and I think that is a very fuzzy line if there is one at all. And to be clear, I'm not trying to separate the wheat from the chaff in the bible (or to pick and choose what I like based on modern sensibilities). I stand behind it all and frankly think it's superior to any modern moral system I've looked at.

To your second point here, I agree this is the actual problem, although I disagree with what you go on to say. I very much think it is a matter of human beings deciding what is good. And like I've said elsewhere, i.e., to JoeyKnothead in my prior post, we should all look at the end that God envisions for all things and decide for ourselves if that is something we can stand behind.

That is the point, I think. The rest is commentary.

But I see no reason to bring a god into it at all, never mind any particular god. Your post resonates with me very much - as all man made thought and morals and ideas. At one time a god (or gods) got dragged into it, partly to explain what didn't have explanations, and partly I think we have a god - instinct, yes, we do. But I don't know whether it's true or a delusion; an instinct that helps us survive as a species.

I see no reason at all to credit any of the man made religions, especially Christianity which, even if it has a book with some real events and characters in it, is not to be credited as factual about a god or religion. Especially one telling us anything True, because so much of it is is false or highly dubious.

I'm aware that you may not buy this, and I'm not at all likely to buy the idea of a god (let alone Holy Book) as related to existence, reality and the cosmic questions. I've heard it several times; 'You will never convince anyone'. Which is ok, since we can only put in our 2c and let people decide. So you put in the 'good ideas behind Genesis' ideas and I say 'Irrelevant, human ideas are human and Genesis is just wrong', and people must see which way they jump themselves.

The only way forward, methinks, is through a common language, and that language should be more secular in nature since both theists and atheists naturally speak such terminology versus the outright biblical, which is more difficult to get into and understand. This would necessarily include the secularization of God and all the other seemingly 'non-secular' concepts we see throughout the bible, like blood and sin and the dynamics surrounding it all.

And I do think such a common language and understanding is possible even if no easy task. The first step, IMO, is honing in on what is most important, and that we should all be able to agree upon. Which is not 'God' or anything like that, but a very secular and relatable notion about what vision and end for the world we can all stand behind. If we can get that established, like I said before, the rest is really just commentary, and we can work our way from there through what become relatively small differences between us (as theists and atheists), versus the chasm that often feels like the case now.

[theophile]

I think you're dodging the question. If I asked you, say, what Sauron's end was in the Lord of the Rings, would you answer me likewise? No, you can absolutely discern a reason there. A scheme or a plan. One that is evident all the way back in his creation of the rings as a means to that end. One that is completely separable from Sauron and the Lord of the Rings as a fiction... So why not Genesis 1 irrespective of its factuality?

Plenty fair. Having grown up in the Bible Belt, I sometimes find myself tied to that literalist mindset.

Full disclosure: I never was much for the fantasy genre, except for the Game of Thrones stuff.

So to your second question, to be clear, I don't think Genesis 1 is a literal depiction of some long past cosmic event. But that doesn't mean it doesn't likewise provide a scheme or a plan, and that a coherent and even highly rational end for all things isn't likewise depicted there. One that we can understand and should perhaps even embrace, using our own power and faculties to bring into being.

Jumping to the Bible as a whole: I'd accept an argument that says we should read the Bible in terms of the ideas of right and wrong. If only for me though, it risks folks thinking there's only one "objective moral giver", and that's the bible's take on such things.

So I would ask again, if you take a minute and reread Genesis 1, and had to articulate in a few words what God is trying to achieve there, what would the answer be? Is that answer really so bad? Perhaps even something we could all stand behind -- all the theological trappings aside?

As a guide, I can get with the program of being stewards of the planet.

I do refer back to the risks involved when folks take this book too literally, even as you seem to caution against doing so.

I agree with your concerns here. The bible is not the end, nor is the law within it. Treating either as such is going to end in death and disaster, or the complete opposite of what we should be striving for.

The true end, and what really matters, is more along the lines of what you say here, and being 'stewards of the planet.' I would take that even further to mean creating a world filled with life, where every kind of life can flourish and be. Not just different species but variations in species. New forms and expressions of life all around (e.g., different races, cultures, genders, sexualities, etc., down to our unique individuality).

It may sound hippy-dippy but that vision and end has serious implications if we think it through. I also think it is the only vision and end that is truly cosmopolitan in nature, that can be cosmic in scope, and that as such we should all be able to stand behind. (It provides a shared, overarching moral imperative to rule them all, so to speak, not because some God says so but because we each fundamentally agree.)

As such, my hope is that it could provide some sort of common ground, and a basis for us to work through our differences and to come together around, achieving something greater for ourselves and the world as difficult as that may sound.

Which is why I keep asking, is it really so bad? Am I crazy or is there a kernel of truth here that theists and atheists could actually build upon?

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to theophile in post #65

Am I crazy or is there a kernel of truth here that theists and atheists could actually build upon?

I'm proposing something as a kernel of truth that theists and atheists can build upon: Jesus wasn't a divine Messiah.

[theophile]

[Replying to theophile in post #65

Am I crazy or is there a kernel of truth here that theists and atheists could actually build upon?

I'm proposing something as a kernel of truth that theists and atheists can build upon: Jesus wasn't a divine Messiah.

That's a very negative assertion. How do you build from that?

[AquinasForGod]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #56

There is no time with God. Anything that God does God does from eternity, including dying on the cross.

Then why couldn't the establishment of temple sacrifices and repentance be "from eternity"?

And there's still the issue of how Jesus mishandles the law.

Because there is no grounding for it in the natural law. I do not speak of nature here, but the natural law as discussed by Aquinas.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to AquinasForGod in post #68

I do not speak of nature here, but the natural law as discussed by Aquinas.

It isn't about what's discussed by Aquinas; it's about what's written in the Bible.

And there's still the issue of how Jesus mishandles the law.

[Athetotheist]

[Replying to theophile in post #65

Am I crazy or is there a kernel of truth here that theists and atheists could actually build upon?

I'm proposing something as a kernel of truth that theists and atheists can build upon: Jesus wasn't a divine Messiah.

That's a very negative assertion. How do you build from that?

It's a logical conclusion which both sides can recognize.