Why All the Pageantry?

[POI]

If God wanted to forgive us, why not just forgive us? He's God.

Why clone himself, send that human to earth, and have this god-clone be martyred/murdered to atone for human sin (like a sheep) -- only to have this martyred/murdered clone almost immediately ascend back up to heaven -- (a place of perfect bliss anyways)? Seems like a lot of unnecessary-ness. It also does not really seem like an "ultimate sacrifice" anyhow.

For Debate:

(again) If God wanted to forgive us, why not just forgive us? He's God. If no one 'deserves' God's true grace anyways, then just forgive all. What's with all the extra pageantry?

[POI]

This....

A)

I don’t think Christianity teaches that God made us and then makes this bar we can’t reach so that He can forgive us if we do what He wants or anything like that.

...does not appear compatible with this....

B)

Christianity teaches that God made us to be in relationship with Him, which means we have free will and are limited in our abilities. The Law is there to show us that we can’t do it on our own and were never asked to, but meant to be in relationship with God, doing the good all together.

In essence, you are saying:

A) God did not make us to do what God wants, in order to achieve the desired goal.
B) And yet, God wants/requires that we have a relationship with him, in order to achieve the desired goal?

*******************************

Question: Is it mandatory to have a relationship with Jesus, in order to achieve the desired goal? <yes or no>?

If <yes>, then quoted statement A) above does not follow with quoted statement B).
If <no>, then quoted statement B) is not necessary or required for you to mention. It is only a suggestion.

[The Tanager]

This....

A)
The Tanager wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:06 am
I don’t think Christianity teaches that God made us and then makes this bar we can’t reach so that He can forgive us if we do what He wants or anything like that.
...does not appear compatible with this....

B)
The Tanager wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:06 am
Christianity teaches that God made us to be in relationship with Him, which means we have free will and are limited in our abilities. The Law is there to show us that we can’t do it on our own and were never asked to, but meant to be in relationship with God, doing the good all together.
In essence, you are saying:

A) God did not make us to do what God wants, in order to achieve the desired goal.
B) And yet, God wants/requires that we have a relationship with him, in order to achieve the desired goal?

Question: Is it mandatory to have a relationship with Jesus, in order to achieve the desired goal? <yes or no>?

If <yes>, then quoted statement A) above does not follow with quoted statement B).
If <no>, then quoted statement B) is not necessary or required for you to mention. It is only a suggestion.

The goal is a personal relationship, not something to get some other desired goal. If the goal were perfect morality, He would have made us robots. Different goals affect what the law is there for. That is what I’m saying. The moral law isn’t put there as a bar for us to hop over before God loves us, but then we messed up, and God is waiting to punish us unless we accept His path B. The moral law is there to show us what goodness is, that we can’t fully live that way on our own and need a relationship with God.

[POI]

This....

A)
The Tanager wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:06 am
I don’t think Christianity teaches that God made us and then makes this bar we can’t reach so that He can forgive us if we do what He wants or anything like that.
...does not appear compatible with this....

B)
The Tanager wrote: ↑
Sat Oct 14, 2023 10:06 am
Christianity teaches that God made us to be in relationship with Him, which means we have free will and are limited in our abilities. The Law is there to show us that we can’t do it on our own and were never asked to, but meant to be in relationship with God, doing the good all together.

****************************************
In essence, you are saying:

A) God did not make us to do what God wants, in order to achieve the desired goal.
B) And yet, God wants/requires that we have a relationship with him, in order to achieve the desired goal?

Question: Is it mandatory to have a relationship with Jesus, in order to achieve the desired goal? <yes or no>?

If <yes>, then quoted statement A) above does not follow with quoted statement B).
If <no>, then quoted statement B) is not necessary or required for you to mention. It is only a suggestion.

The goal is a personal relationship, not something to get some other desired goal. If the goal were perfect morality, He would have made us robots. Different goals affect what the law is there for. That is what I’m saying. The moral law isn’t put there as a bar for us to hop over before God loves us, but then we messed up, and God is waiting to punish us unless we accept His path B. The moral law is there to show us what goodness is, that we can’t fully live that way on our own and need a relationship with God.

The desired goal for a wanna-be Christian is 'salvation'.

Is it possible to "be saved" without having a relationship with Jesus? (yes or no)?

And once you answer the (yes or no) question, please sort out the two conclusions, as I already laid out in red above.

[TRANSPONDER]

If God wanted to forgive us, why not just forgive us?

By what the Bible tells, that is exactly what He did. But then people decided to kill people who bring that message.

But if what the Bible says makes no sense, why should anyone believe it? ...

If something makes no sense to you, I can understand if you don't believe it. But, if you don't understand something, how could you say it is wrong?

And, those who would like to understand it, there is help offered:

But if any of you lacks wisdom, let him ask from God, who gives to all freely and with no reproach, and it will be given to Him.
James 1:5

Did you really think that misinterpreting what was said was going to make us think 'Ooo-er, I must be wrong". The Bible makes no sense, not because I don't or we understand it it (though that is often the evasion and excuse that Bible apologists use - "You don't understand...") but it does not make sense because it is unfeasible, illogical and incoherent and the critic who is not blinded by Faith understands that.

From the wrong information in genesis, the improbability of the Ark and flood, the nonsense of the talking donkey and genetically changed sheep (I seem to recall remember Wootah trying to argue that soaking sticks in water would genetically alter sheep) through doubts about Exodus, conquest and even the emergence of the Hebrew god from all the others, to queries about Tyre, the siege of Jerusalem and Babylon, to the NT with the nonsense of the nativities, the incoherence of the Galilee material and the contradiction of the resurrections to Paul's flawed arguments and Acts fiddling Paul's letters to make them into a sort of biographical novel.

That book is full of flaws, nonsense, contradictions and stuff that is on all reason, wrong, and from Slavery to the trial, crucifixion and resurrection, the case has been made, and ignored and denied.

Your offer of help from brainwashing ourselves into thinking the Bible is any use is not appreciated. No more than you appreciate explanation of what is clearly, demonstrably or probably wrong.

We know what's going on and how Faith works. Reversed burden of proof. You take the Christian belief as the default theory (and the only one - other religions, gods and Holy Books are ignored or dismissed) and all you Bible -apologists need to do is deny everything, claim you still believe, and keep wagging the Bible at us, and you reckon you win. You don't. But I also understand, if the People don't see, know and understand that, then you win by numbers, if not by right.

Like I say, the case is over and done; it is the battle for hearts and minds that matters now.

[Purple Knight]

The game they want you to play is to either (1) strike/insult back in kind or (2) be okay with no pushback at all. Jesus is offering a third choice that isn’t one of those, so it’s not playing their game.

Pushback is a great way to describe it. When you push back, you can't just be pretending to push; it's about exerting some kind of force that your abuser can feel. That's why, when you select #2, and don't push back in any way, shape, or form that affects your attacker, you are playing their game, you're just playing to lose. Jesus might as well have said, when someone strikes you, go home and knit, no, really, that sock you created is a huge blow against your attacker. There might even be a case where that's true. The point is, for cases where that's not true, and your attacker doesn't care about the sock you created because he struck you, you're being told you can't fight back.

Thing is, I don't believe Jesus would do this. I don't think he's a clever swindler who would trick you into thinking you are fighting back, when you aren't. I think he probably just believes pacifism is moral. Even so, giving people the benefit of the doubt is part of reaching an honest interpretation.

I agree that you should forgive your very wicked, alcoholic mother.

What happened to debt between two people being one thing, not two things? Remember, she's the angel here, and I'm the real villain. Her trifling matters of physical and emotional abuse are pittances in the eyes of God, like tiny fractions of a penny, but my resenting those things is the real, horrible, actual, unspeakably evil crime, worth more than I could ever repay. Remember how you said that if Bob owes Steven $50, and Steven owes Bob $40, Bob can't rightly ask for Steven to forgive his debt unilaterally, decide not to forgive Steven's debt to him, and demand the $40?

So why can I not ask for that same forgiveness in kind? In other words, for her to stop calling me evil, stop getting priests to call me evil, stop bullying me nonstop and wringing her hands in angelic glee when I finally react because aha there's the grudge oh soooo evil, stop bringing up her pristine righteousness in every conversation I've ever had with her? If she did that, I could probably handle being forced to be ascetic because she needs to sell everything I have for booze money. Some people are ascetic by choice. So even if I couldn't handle it, I call it a reasonable ask - I call it achievable.

The part I can't handle is that she steals, drinks, destroys everything, and that makes her good, because she is the sinner to be forgiven. But the fact that I don't like her attacking me, that makes me evil, because I wish I didn't have to suffer that. In other words, I resent it.

I don’t think you have a good hold on what Jesus means to forgive people.

Forgiveness is tied up with not seeking recompense - as in the tale of the unforgiving slave - and forgiveness is also tied up with not harbouring resentment. I am incapable of doing both of those things. If she is around me, stealing everything, making me destitute, I will resent it. That's why I'm not there. If I'm not there, it's easy to be near-Christian, and be happy for her if she steals and drinks and destroys property to her heart's content, and oh how righteous and wonderful she is for doing that. She's putting her needs and wants first, which is what any moral person would have her do, isn't it? They should just forgive her like I do, oh how lucky they are to have such a wonderful person as her, teaching them to be selfless and forgiving. The further I am from the zone of destruction, the easier this is.

No, it’s absolutely not saying you don’t have free will. It’s saying your choices have consequences and your free will choice to harp on your hateful emotions and fantasize about them and rehearse them are going to affect you because we are humans - intellect and emotion.

Affect me as in what? Make me do actions? That's saying I don't have free will. Affect me as in, make me impure because I had an evil fantasy? That's closer to the point, isn't it? And it's proving my point about Christianity being a purity philosophy, not an empathy philosophy.

The moral empath wants to minimise harm, so he thinks it's okay to use force to stop a mugging. But the moral purist only cares about what actions he commits, and whether or not his hands get dirty, so while believing force is wrong, he'll call the police so he doesn't lose his stuff to a thief, then wring his hands in angelic glee because the evil force-using policeman is going to Hell. The West is a society that believes more in purity than empathy, and though most people espousing it are atheists, the seeds of this behaviour lie in Christianity.

A lot of people have really awful lives and have to live in their fantasies. They have no other recourse, because fighting back is bad. Christianity did this too. And, like a boss, it would rather judge the tormented people who fantasise about their abusers facing some sort of justice, than judge itself for creating a society where the idea that some people must simply accept abuse is built in.

The Law is there to show us that we can’t do it on our own and were never asked to, but meant to be in relationship with God, doing the good all together.

Then why have any Law at all? The Bible could be reduced to those words then.

Yes, the other person can twist things as well. Every way the law could be spelled out, one could twist it. You can’t write out every single situation. And since God is interested in relationship, not you learning what to do and try to do so perfectly on your own, that would go against His purpose. It’s not about who checks all the right boxes.

"You're actually in the wrong, because even though you did everything I told you, your heart wasn't in the right place." is what the worst sort of controlling and nasty girlfriend does. If she has even a milligram of maturity in her, she's capable of not getting in a tiff when you do everything she asks, and swallowing it if some new thing upsets her that she never said bothered her before, then telling you about it without getting angry.

In other words, checking boxes, and looking honestly at whether boxes were checked, is how honest and mature people navigate a relationship.

No, I’m saying Steven doesn’t have to keep trying to loan money to Bob every time Bob demands it.

So now you're saying that when Bob wants the $50 he owes forgiven, but he wants the $40 Steven owes him repaid, Steven should get out the two sawbucks and pay him?

Thinking Bob won’t pay it back isn’t some kind of sin according to the logic of the Bible. Forgiveness is not about treating the person like you’ve never interacted with them before. Not loaning money to Bob isn’t holding Bob’s past over his head. You can still love Bob well. In fact, loving Bob well includes not enabling him in these actions.

It's really hard when that person brings up the equivalency. Bob might say, "Why won't you loan me money? Do you think I'm not good for it?" and then you can either bring up the past and prove you're holding a grudge, allowing Bob to wallow in his righteousness, or start kicking yourself for not giving him the money in the first place because all you did was dig an extra hole when you're going to have to give him the money anyway.

[1213]

...unfeasible, illogical and incoherent...

Only for a person who doesn't understand.

...
That book is full of flaws, nonsense, contradictions...

I am sure you can't show any real contradiction in Bible.

[TRANSPONDER]

...unfeasible, illogical and incoherent...

Only for a person who doesn't understand.

...
That book is full of flaws, nonsense, contradictions...

I am sure you can't show any real contradiction in Bible.

The Believer will dismiss any case or evidence that undermines the Bible as 'they don't understand'. Pray tell, what is it I don't understand? Let me guess - the hidden meaning behind what it apparently says. Preferring far fetched invented stories or invalid alternative non -science to get over what is evidently wrong. And I am sure I have shown real contradictions in the Bible because the other side have run away.

Let me give you two - Joseph lived in Nazareth in Luke, but Bethlehem Judea in Matthew. Irrefutable contradiction.

Mary ran into the risen Jesus in Matthew., In Luke she didn't. Irrefutable contradiction. That is in any coherent way. Denial and dismissal may be done (and usually is) but not a credible explanation. And when you catch Luke and Matthew with grubby hands, one should less credit discrepancies where there may be a kind of explanation.

[1213]

...what is it I don't understand?

The parts you think are contradictory.

....Joseph lived in Nazareth in Luke, but Bethlehem Judea in Matthew. Irrefutable contradiction....

Both could have been true in some point of time.

Mary ran into the risen Jesus in Matthew., In Luke she didn't. Irrefutable contradiction. ...

I would like to see scriptural support for that claim. Where Luke says Mary didn't ran into the risen Jesus?

[alexxcJRO]

For Debate:

(again) If God wanted to forgive us, why not just forgive us? He's God. If no one 'deserves' God's true grace anyways, then just forgive all. What's with all the extra pageantry?

All the meaningless/useless pageantry exits because the whole story is just a mere story conjured by ignorant simpletons-ancient goat herders.

We are suppose to believe God(Yahweh-Jesus) impregnated a virgin human to give birth to himself and then sacrificed himself to himself in order to save us for from himself.
What's more ridiculous is we are suppose to believe this was planned and executed by the ultimate-perfect being, omni in all qualities(including intelligence, wisdom, efficiency, knowledge).

[TRANSPONDER]

...what is it I don't understand?

The parts you think are contradictory.

....Joseph lived in Nazareth in Luke, but Bethlehem Judea in Matthew. Irrefutable contradiction....

Both could have been true in some point of time.

Mary ran into the risen Jesus in Matthew., In Luke she didn't. Irrefutable contradiction. ...

I would like to see scriptural support for that claim. Where Luke says Mary didn't ran into the risen Jesus?

Don't be absurd. I know you are smarter than this. We are talking about the nativities. Luke says that Joseph lived in Galilee, in Nazareth and just went to Bethlehem, Judea (not another Galilean Bethlehem as some Bible apologists have desperately tried to argue), to register in Bethlehem temporarily, and went back to Nazareth after the Temple rites.

Matthew clearly has Joseph living in Judea and doubtless Bethlehem as his domicile, as after the flight to Egypt (which contradicts Luke further) the intention was to go back home to Judea w but he was warned to find somewhere else because Herod's son was now ruling Judea. Thus Joseph goes to live in Nazareth and abandons his Judean home (trust you won't try the "It does not actually use those words" apologetic which is just gross dishonesty, not proper apologetics).

This is an undeniable contradiction of story (and there are several others) which proves to anyone other than a denialist that two contradictory stories were made up to wangle Jesus into Bethlehem when he was in the original story, never there. It is for me the touchstone contradiction that shows Dirty hands with the Bible case.

The Resurrection (which I regard as the second most contradictory story after the nativities) has the women at the tomb being told that Jesus has risen and to tell the disciples to go and see him in Galilee. Matthew has the women run into Jesus in person on the way to report just to repeat what the angel has already said, but Matthew wasn't the cleverest story - writer.

Matthew 28. 8 "So the women hurried away from the tomb, afraid yet filled with joy, and ran to tell his disciples. 9 Suddenly Jesus met them. “Greetings,” he said. They came to him, clasped his feet and worshiped him. 10 Then Jesus said to them, “Do not be afraid. Go and tell my brothers to go to Galilee; there they will see me.”

Now, so far as Luke goes, Cleophas must be there to hear the Marys say what they saw. But according to Luke, when they meet Jesus on the way to Emmaus, they recount the women seeing angels and the disciples going to check the tomb, but no mention of Jesus.

Luke 24. 22 "Moreover, some women of our company amazed us. They were at the tomb early in the morning, 23 and when they did not find his body, they came back saying that they had even seen a vision of angels, who said that he was alive. 24 Some of those who were with us went to the tomb and found it just as the women had said, but him they did not see.”

The apologetic is that womens' testimony was not valid (it was - if there were two of them) but if Cleophas says they saw angels and heard that Jesus was alive but him (Jesus) they (the disciples) didn't see, that has to contradict Matthew. On all reason, if the women had run into Jesus as Matthew says (never mind John) Cleophas would have said so. That he doesn't means that Luke doesn't know that Matthew had claimed that the women ran into Jesus.

i should love to know how you excuse this contradiction, even though stretching poor memory (even though this stuff is treated like on the spot witness record) to the limit or just dismissing it 'there is probably some explanation' seems about all you can do. But you go for it - remember your denial and assertion of faith and darn the evidence of the Bible, means nothing. What case can you make to persuade a person who applies reason that these are not real and problematical contradictions? Remember also that 'Believe what you like..I still believe...' is an admission of defeat. Believe that.