What is a Christian? Which are you?

Religion and Secularism
21
Well Job is the archetypal rich man. He is very religious but his religion is vain. The children he has: the one’s he ought to be teaching are left to themselves while he is busy with his sacrifice offerings.
God let's Satan kill off Job's 1st family to teach him a lesson? What lesson was he teaching the family members who were killed off? Dude, it's just a story someone made up, and you have put a lot of effort in to trying to make it make sense and into trying to fit the story into something a "loving God" might do.
This is why David delighted in God, even though — well because — God had been very hard on him when he was at fault.
David basically sent a loyal soldier to his death, so that he could steal the soldier's wife. I don't think God was really very hard on him, considering the atrocious nature of David's crime. But God is forgiving. Right? One can always come up with fictional rationalizations for fictional narratives.
I assume you are saying that because of the way you are defining supernatural. The way I see it is that any part of God’s law ought not simply to be abstract thing outside reality but to be observable in real life.
The concept of God is that he exists outside of reality. He is supernatural. Thus he is fiction.

As far as “God’s laws” go. These are laws created by the mind of man (as is the concept of God itself). It is a natural process that humans can develop rule-governed behavior. No supernatural entity is needed for that.

But then the real joy of the bible becomes clearer, it teaches one to understand how “nature” and other aspects of existence (although you may say all existence is nature) really work.
No that does not seem to be a particularly effective function of the Bible at all. If you how want to know how “nature” and other aspects of existence really work, I suggest that you learn from science books or other media that use scientific explanations. The Bible is a horrible substitute for that.

And all existence IS natural. Anything beyond nature does not exist except conceptually. Ghosts, gods, angels, hydroxychloroquine as a sure cure for COVID-19, are all fiction. Yet, all are supported by some humans as being something absolutely true and real. But they are not. So in that respect, they are LIES. I don’t like LIES.

In the beginning (of religion) was the word (complex verbal behavior). And the word was god (a supernatural concept created by Man, in his own image, but still fiction masquerading as truth).

22

Good day @lausten, thanks for your comments.

Jesus loves you, read the Bible and pray.
I do not recall saying that. That is one point on which your pattern matching fails.
What this pattern misses is that you can pick out any variety of sets of passages and make them say whatever you want.
Well, I could probably try, but it would be dishonest. However, you could not do the same with me. Nor could any man I know. I could say the same about science. And I suppose in an attempt to inject some meat into the discussion I will.

I posit your beliefs about evolution come from a cultural bias and are purely the result of indoctrination, and whatever evidence you think you have, I could pick out differing counter-evidence from the same secular scientific body of literature.

What’s ironic is that’s the whole point of storytelling.
Does that not make storytelling meaningless? The purpose of stories is to communicate morals and learning. Fiction to me seems a perversion of this.
At the time of the writing of the gospels, I’m pretty sure they knew they were doing that, the writers and the listeners.
It sounds to me that you do not really understand the gospels and your explanation for that is: well, they could be used to say anything. Just out of curiosity how would you use them to say elephants are blue?
It’s not that different from today, where you can listen to one, and if you don’t like it, go down the street and listen to a different one. Or just click around and do that from home.
Well I hate preaching as much as you do, because the people you hear preaching in churches are largely preaching with the understanding they've been taught in seminary school. There is a reason the churches are referred to as the synagogue of Satan in Revelation.

I cannot say I am entirely free of error, but to prejudicially tar me with the same brush may be a reasonable first guess, but I do not think you’ve really understood me yet.

Missing even more from your posts is recognition of all the other books in the world, all of the philosophy that has been developed in the 2,000 years since the gospels were written. It’s a lot better. There is also better science. There were not divisions between science, government and religion back then like there are now. That is the only way I could legitimately agree that “the bible is a science book”. But somewhere around the 14th century, that debate played out and religion and science agreed to separate. The divorce and custody battles are still going on.
What perhaps you miss is that most of the major advances in science are made by men who have some kind of appreciation of God and the bible. Being somewhat provocative, I would say most other people just pattern match. Some science is better, but is becoming increasingly dogmatic in philosophy. This is especially so of medical science. Much science has huge methodological flaws.
23

@loveofgod

Well isn’t that something then that needs to be discussed with them?
Discuss with who? There is no “them”. We are not talking about disagreement between specific parties of a disagreement. The President of the United States is presiding over a supposedly civilized society based on the rule of law. There is a ground swell of social unrest triggered off by a cop doing his job, and the mob of liberal progressive activism is riding the wave of mayhem to vent hatred on American capitalism.
To seek agreement and to seek to agree with someone else’s position are different things.
Please explain the difference between “seek agreement” and “seek to agree”.
I suppose this is the difference between proselytising and teaching; the former is pushing a conclusion, the latter is help bring an understanding.
Ok, I get that. However, I don’t see what the motivation is for making someone understand what you say if it is not to convert that person to your point of view.
If you can easily see why they are wrong, you ought to be able to show them why they are wrong. But to come to agreement one needs to also give fair hearing to their reasons. Otherwise, they may not be the only people acting with prejudice. Humility is necessary to grow in one’s own understanding. If they will not hear you take another. Part of God’s teaching is really about how to resolve such matters.
God may have all the time in the world but we don’t. They are burning property, looting stores and destroying livelihoods. Perhaps, God is allowing this to happen.
If they do not hear you, at least you have given them chance to understand something they ought to know. And even if they do not immediately repent, at least you may have given them something to think about and the onus and blame is then on them. If you do not warn them and you are the one with the understanding, isn’t the fault with you?
You need to ask yourself this question which I posed to you. You are the one doing the teaching based on your reading of the Bible. I read the good book differently.
24
I posit your beliefs about evolution come from a cultural bias and are purely the result of indoctrination
I started skimming your post at this point. It’s an assumption at best, and a complete mischaracterization at worst. You have made no effort to get to know me or compare my knowledge to 150 years of science, so, not much of a conversation going on here.
Does that not make storytelling meaningless? The purpose of stories is to communicate morals and learning. Fiction to me seems a perversion of this.
No, it’s not meaningless, but it means different things to different people at different times. There are some universal lessons in stories, like the little engine that could, for example. It’s a good story. It’s not harmful to tell it to children. Telling them that God drowned everybody because they were bad, that’s a problem. But, you aren’t in to authentic dialog, as evidenced by your “elephants are blue” comment, so I won’t go in to any more detail here.

I’m quite willing to discuss just about anything. Search my history, ask the others here. Check out my website www.milepost100.com. But you have some cleaning up to do to restore my trust in you, to show you are trustworthy.

25
There is a ground swell of social unrest triggered off by a cop doing his job, -- Sree
What you call "doing his job", I call violating the man's rights. No one has the right to kneel on a man's neck. Even Sean Hannity agrees. But, since 1982, this law has been abused to allow just about anything. That's 1982, no 1882. People alive today made this law and are abusing it. We can undo it.
26
God let’s Satan kill off Job’s 1st family to teach him a lesson? What lesson was he teaching the family members who were killed off? Dude, it’s just a story someone made up, and you have put a lot of effort in to trying to make it make sense and into trying to fit the story into something a “loving God” might do.
Dude, you are making out that there's no meaning in one of the more difficult parts of the bible, and you are coming at it from an attitude of trying not to understand it. What you really need to establish to prove anything is there is no possible interpretation that has a satisfactory meaning. It is really easy simply to ascribe no meaning to things. Yes, God did let Satan to kill off Job's family. It teaches us the offspring of vain religion is death. I already said that.
David basically sent a loyal soldier to his death, so that he could steal the soldier’s wife. I don’t think God was really very hard on him, considering the atrocious nature of David’s crime. But God is forgiving. Right? One can always come up with fictional rationalizations for fictional narratives.
Yes, God is forgiving. One can also disbelieve non-fictional narratives. What is your problem, here? You think God should have been harsher on David? You think you would be a better judge?
The concept of God is that he exists outside of reality. He is supernatural. Thus he is fiction.
That's your concept of God and you have just disproved God simply by assumption.

By the same logic: The concept of psychology exists outside reality. It is not real. Therefore it doesn’t exist.

That’s effectively assuming the consequent.

As far as “God’s laws” go. These are laws created by the mind of man (as is the concept of God itself). It is a natural process that humans can develop rule-governed behavior. No supernatural entity is needed for that.
It seems you are doing this by definition. What process led you to this conclusion?
No that does not seem to be a particularly effective function of the Bible at all. If you how want to know how “nature” and other aspects of existence really work, I suggest that you learn from science books or other media that use scientific explanations. The Bible is a horrible substitute for that.
I would suggest trying to make this statement more rigorous. Take something from the bible that does seem like a scientific statement and try and get a proper understanding that you could present as to why it's untrue. I guess what I am saying is that you ought to easily be able to not simply derive a contradiction from such a contradictory book, but demonstrate it to those who hold to its truth. This would be more constructive than simply making an assertion.
And all existence IS natural. Anything beyond nature does not exist except conceptually. Ghosts, gods, angels, hydroxychloroquine as a sure cure for COVID-19, are all fiction. Yet, all are supported by some humans as being something absolutely true and real. But they are not. So in that respect, they are LIES. I don’t like LIES.

In the beginning (of religion) was the word (complex verbal behavior). And the word was god (a supernatural concept created by Man, in his own image, but still fiction masquerading as truth).


Why could it not be that studying Genesis leads me to learn about the fine structure constant or studying the Psalms leads me to learn about expansion of space, and that you just missed that with your superficial reading?

27
I started skimming your post at this point. It’s an assumption at best, and a complete mischaracterization at worst. You have made no effort to get to know me or compare my knowledge to 150 years of science, so, not much of a conversation going on here.
I posited a characterisation as an opener to give you opportunity to engage in a deeper conversation and show me where your beliefs do come from. I was also reflecting back to you the way you characterized me. Why do you think I am unwilling to understand you, when I specifically said I was positing the point, making it something that should be questioned rather than some firm conviction I refuse to hear dissent from.

Why also did you take my blue elephant comment as anything more than an attempt to show there are limits to what you make a text say?

Is isolation making you less trusting?

28
What you call “doing his job”, I call violating the man’s rights.
I appreciate your putting my words in quotes: “doing his job”. At this point in time, when investigation into the matter is still underway let alone disposed of one way or another in court, “doing his job” is the default setting prescribed by law.
No one has the right to kneel on a man’s neck. Even Sean Hannity agrees. But, since 1982, this law has been abused to allow just about anything. That’s 1982, no 1882. People alive today made this law and are abusing it. We can undo it.
Undo what? By now, you must know that the autopsy ruled out the kneeling as a cause of death. Forget Hannity, even Trey Gowdy, a former Congressman and federal prosecutor, called it murder. All these folks are jumping the gun making rash calls. Even highly trained medical professionals can screw up on the job. Here we have a policeman making an arrest and we expect him to execute it with flawless precision? He has been charged and arrested to assuage feelings of perceived injustice. Even I can defend him against the trumped up charges and get him acquitted. There will be more riots when the jury find him not guilty as charged.
29
Sree: By now, you must know that the autopsy ruled out the kneeling as a cause of death. Forget Hannity, even Trey Gowdy, a former Congressman and federal prosecutor, called it murder. All these folks are jumping the gun making rash calls. Even highly trained medical professionals can screw up on the job. Here we have a policeman making an arrest and we expect him to execute it with flawless precision? He has been charged and arrested to assuage feelings of perceived injustice. Even I can defend him against the trumped up charges and get him acquitted. There will be more riots when the jury find him not guilty as charged.
Sree, You are high-jacking this religion thread to promote crap ideas about the Floyd murder-by-cop, I see.

The new autopsy by a professional that is not part of the bad cop protection SYSTEM, indicated murder. The 1st autopsy suggesting that heart problems contributed to the death also appear to be false from the 2nd autopsy.

AND the murder included the actions of the other 2 cops who restrained were not just complicit, but their knees on Floyd’s back contributed actively to the murder. They should be convicted of manslaughter easily. Chauvin could get 2nd degree murder charges, ultimately.

Demonstrations in ALL 50 States are about a murder being committed on video that everyone can see. The cops LIED in their report on the event. Had there been no video, along with the bogus findings of the initial autopsy, yet another murder of a black man by cops would have been covered up. It is likely that there have been murders that had no outside video. Even the body cams of the cops were redacted. REDACTED! Body cams on cops are supposed to help reveal what really happened. The system finds another way to conceal the truth. People like you, who support the systemic deceptions and injustice, are a part of this ongoing systemic racial injustice.

30
anything more than an attempt to show there are limits to what you make a text say?
I know what argumentum absurdism is and I know flippant responses when I see them.
31

I learned the story of Job as a child. It did not sit well with me, but I accepted it. I was naïve and did not have a clue as to the amount of deception that adults engaged in.

As I think I have already said, fiction is easily adjusted by other fictional ideas. Because it is not a portrayal of things that really happened or can happen. There is not a God and there is not another supernatural entity known as “Satan”. That is more fiction. We can play around with the morality suggested by different fictional stories but that is meaningless in terms of establishing that the fiction is REAL. It is not. In the eons of people believing in gods and devils, one would think there would be oodles of hard evidence of their actual existence. There is NONE afaik.

What IS evident, is that in recorded history there have been countless religious stories all claiming to be true, most of them contradictory to other religious stories. There have been countless people like you, loveofgod, who decide to believe, and then take their particular dogma, always portrayed as eternal TRUTHS, and try to make it more palatable. But palatable fiction is still fiction.

As I see it, the Bible, does not fly even if one were to only claim it to be a helpful book of fiction, because it is too easily interpreted any way a reader wants to interpret it. So you look, among the hodgepodge for something that loosely seems to fit something that has been scientifically discovered, and you retrofit it to the vague statements in the scripture. Then there is also the LIE that it is eternal unchanging Truth, and thus it becomes particularly unpalatable to me, because a LIE is not Truth.

The concepts of Psychology are quite often, just that, concepts. Psychology is not a hard science, thus should be subject to strong skeptical scrutiny. Applied Behavior Analysis is based on scientific methods. It is out of this field of study that B.F. Skinner derived the description of Rule Governed behavior and showed how humans typically form and follow rules, aka laws.

There is evidence of the existence of humans. There is no evidence of the existence of God/s except in the minds of humans. Hence it is clear to me that humans have made ALL of our laws. Thousands of years ago, some humans made laws and some attributed them to an all-powerful mythical being so as to promote compliance to the laws. And some of that got transcribed into religious texts. The Bible is not the word of god. It is fictional book put together and promoted by people.

If I were to claim that the Lord of the Rings trilogy is Non-Fiction, and that it is a historical documentation of actual events of civilizations on Earth many ages ago. I could argue that it holds great lessons for mankind, that the supernatural beings beyond Middle Earth wanted us to know. We could go back and forth as to how there is no evidence for this. It is thus with the Bible. Although the Bible is much more archaic and confusing and much less entertaining.

 

32

@lauston

I did check out your website and it has provoked much thought.

But the main thought is, when we are talking about the bible, we are talking about different things. I am speaking of the King James bible, rather than the corrupt modern versions. I don’t think any of those modern bible versions are true. They are based on different texts, which did not exist before the 19th century. Nor do I agree with modern Christianity. Nor do I call myself a Christian (although I have in the past); that’s a Pauline thing. The new bibles do not even have the same name for God in them.

Christianity is a bait and switch game. Come to seek God or other believers, leave believing lies.

When I speak to Christians they generally do their best to convince me the bible is untrue. They say the bible is true and inspired, but that no such bible any longer exists. And even their lip service doesn’t extend to the first page. I am only here because I got tired of reading a thread on a Christian Forum, where 95% of the people were basically disagreeing with Genesis. I have been in a church where a minister, well an ex-minister was trying to persuade me the flood was not global. And at my local church that refused to accept me as a member, when I was showing someone the commandments of Jesus, I was told, “you don’t need to do those”.

So whatever anyone’s objection to the bible is I do not think those things hold true to the King James bible.

How we could establish the correctness of Genesis 1:1 is something of interest to me. I look at Hebrew bibles, and have no idea as to whether, how or where they have been changed. But Genesis 1:1 is different. I understand from the mathematical structure that we have the right letters.

And there are many checksums in the King James bible, such as marked out midpoints and totals, that are broken in the modern versions.

Ezekiel was told to bake his bread with shit to signify what Israel had done with the word of God. Modern Christianity has done the same.

So I suggest if anyone would like a discussion about the bible, they put aside the shit versions for at least a week, and try and read the King James.

33
I did check out your website and it has provoked much thought.
First, I never figured out why people have trouble spelling my online handle.

Anyway, since you looked at my website, I carefully read your post. Not much of conversation starter. I’m reading the wrong Bible. Is that it? You are saying a lot without saying much. You hinting that you believe in Adam and Eve and a global flood, but not saying much else about it. You must know that hardly anyone believes those things. So, know I’m not going to limit myself to the KJV when discussing Christianity. I’m not even sure what Christianity you are talking about.

oh, and, no swearing. Read the Rules

34
I’m reading the wrong Bible. Is that it?
Yes, what could be plainer or simpler?

In very much the same way the Jews killed Jesus and released Barabbas, Christanity has mocked and killed their saviour at the say so of the chief priests.

35
Yes, what could be plainer or simpler?
I will try to remember to only refer to the KJV in any future discussions with you.
36

Good for me! When I became a Christian as a child, it was with the correct version of “God’s Holy Word”. Of all the religious dogma in the history of mankind, I happened to get in just the right religious sect from the outset. What are the chances?

But it’s really just fiction like all religious dogma. Although I really do like some of the parts by Jesus.

37
Although I really do like some of the parts by Jesus.
Which parts?
38

@loveofgod

I am speaking of the King James bible, rather than the corrupt modern versions. I don’t think any of those modern bible versions are true.
Can you please explain why Jesus said that we will always have the poor with us? It seems to be true no matter what we do to get rid of poverty here in America with one of the highest GDP/capita in the world. This current circus over George Floyd,in my opinion, is caused by poverty and not police brutality or racism.

Matthew 26:11 King James Version (KJV)
For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.

39

@sree

Can you please explain why Jesus said that we will always have the poor with us? It seems to be true no matter what we do to get rid of poverty here in America with one of the highest GDP/capita in the world. This current circus over George Floyd,in my opinion, is caused by poverty and not police brutality or racism.
When Jesus is speaking, as in all the Word of God, he is teaching in parables. Now these things may be literally true, but there are also mysterious meanings. These are not arbitrary, but consistently applied. Some parables he explains the meanings to his disciples, others you work out by interpreting the symbols in the same way. Other symbols need to be worked out from their use or natural analogy.
Matthew 26:11 King James Version (KJV) For ye have the poor always with you; but me ye have not always.
This verse does not stand alone. To begin with, "For" connects it with the previous sentence. In context a woman has poured expensive ointment on his head, and his disciples are complaining it could have been sold and given to the poor. The symbolism is that a woman represents a church, anointing oil represents kingship. Poverty is poverty of wisdom. I don't understand entirely the bit about burial in the next verse. I mean this does signify his coming burial, but there is some deeper meaning I am missing here. I have a feeling this is against me. The disciples are told not to trouble the woman. He calls it a good work. But it was Pilate and Romans that made out Jesus to be king while mocking him. So I guess the woman, being in Simon the leper's house, might signify the Christian church under Peter. And Jesus is saying don't trouble them. This would be consistent with "Matthew 15:14 Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch."

I lack certainty, am still thinking about it. These are my thoughts. I welcome yours. This passage is something I have never properly got to grips with.

But one thing it brings to mind is that riches represent spiritual riches. But nearly all the worldly riches one has today are in theory only, fictional debts owned via fictional entities. There comes a day soon they will be worthless. Wisdom does not so easily fade.

Understand though, that money does not dictate what one can do or not do, how only is able to help the poor or not. God gives us what we need for day, and if there is something in our hand to give that is needed, we may freely give knowing that God is able to provide much more. If you would like to help the poor, do what you can with what you have, and if you also seek and hear God, God will surely prosper you in accordance with Psalm 1.

40

@timb

Good for me! When I became a Christian as a child, it was with the correct version of “God’s Holy Word”. Of all the religious dogma in the history of mankind, I happened to get in just the right religious sect from the outset. What are the chances?
I stopped being interested when I was given a revised bible, and only came back to it later. The chances of being brought up with a KJV used to be a lot higher.
But it’s really just fiction like all religious dogma. Although I really do like some of the parts by Jesus.
Did you stick by some of those principles that Jesus taught, simply because you recognised them as good, even if you no longer believed in God.