What I Don't Like About Christianity

Jollybear · Aug 30, 2018

A Vestigial Mote said:
This is how you interpret this, correct? Because the text doesn't say all of that, and a lot of other people don't read that into it. Welcome to "The Bible" and the endless circle of "I think it means this" addenda, bullet-dodging and downright excuse-making that comes with it.

Well, obviously it means dont make idols and carved images and worship them. Like ever see the movie i think its called cast away? Tom hanks. He draws a face on a soccer ball and calls it wilson and talks to it every single day. He went INSANE.

But, what i said is ALSO correct, because at its root, this commandment is saying dont be stupid, dont be phony. Dont serve things that arent real.

A Vestigial Mote · Aug 30, 2018

KenS said:
Actually, no.

Every commentary says the same thing.

But the story of Abraham doesn't mention Jesus at all, does it? I mean, I see this in the context of the placement of the actual story:

Genesis 22:17-18

Click to expand...

17 I will surely bless you and make your descendants as numerous as the stars in the sky and as the sand on the seashore. Your descendants will take possession of the cities of their enemies, 18 and through your offspring all nations on earth will be blessed, because you have obeyed me.

... but that's really the only mention I see of future events.

And I looked at several sources on the meaning of this particular story, and only one of them that I found mentions the stuff you're attributing to it, and even it is caveated like so:

Some Christian interpreters say that not only did Abraham submit to God but he had faith that his son would be resurrected. This view is indicated in Hebrews 11:17-19. This makes the sacrifice story a precursor to the story of Jesus.

First note how it says "some." Now, I looked at "Hebrews 11:17-19" and here's what it says:

17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death.

ALL it has to say is that "in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death"... and you're telling me THAT is supposed to foreshadow the resurrection of Jesus? What do Jewish scholars have to say about this interpretation? Do they even have the book "Hebrews" as part of the Tanach?

Going back to the one source I found that mentioned the foreshadowing of Jesus by the Abraham and Isaac story - I can easily see why it is only "some Christian interpreters" that buy into this - the "evidence" is incredibly flimsy, very subjective and wide-open to interpretation. But didn't you say "every commentary says the same thing?" Tsk tsk. Got to be careful with those absolutes. I'm pretty darn sure your use of "every" makes you dead wrong at best, and a liar at worst.

Kenny · Aug 30, 2018

Hubert Farnsworth said:
If that's not your position, then I apologize for misrepresenting you.

No problem. We have loads of posters and it is very easy to get it mixed up. I've done that myself.

But, yes, it is not my position. If I understand correctly by what I've studied, it isn't the case. Also realize that I'm not God and certainly don't know everything so I could be wrong on multiple fronts.

Hubert Farnsworth said:
However, it was my understanding that you believe non-believers go to hell, where they are punished by God. So, the example of God ending their suffering if they accept him into their life doesn't make sense, because they aren't suffering at this point (at least not consciously), but they will eventually suffer more in hell where they are punished by God, according to those who believe that. Unless you are one of the Christians who believes in "conditional immortality" or the idea that God grants the gift of immortality to those who accept him, while those who do not accept him simply cease to exist. Then your analogy might make a bit more sense,

If your understanding is that people are punished by God, then I understand why you would have that position.

However, my understanding is that Jesus was already punished for us. Therefore, God isn't "punishing" people.

As far as "conditional immortality"... good question and I haven't come to a conclusion.

Hubert Farnsworth said:
however the issue of believing in the unseen is still difficult. I think that all of us would accept God if God were a visible entity with physical evidence supporting its existence.

Yes, believing in the unseen is different from believing in what one sees, although we all do believe in the unseen at some level in our daily living, IMO.

I always wonder about that whether people would still change if they saw. When a miracle happens and people see it, they still say there is a natural explanation so I wonder if people would believe even if they saw.

It would also appear that Jesus had the perspective that seeing won't necessarily be enough for some:

Luke 16:
27 “He answered, ‘Then I beg you, father, send Lazarus to my family,
28 for I have five brothers. Let him warn them, so that they will not also come to this place of torment.’
29 “Abraham replied, ‘They have Moses and the Prophets; let them listen to them.’
30 “ ‘No, father Abraham,’ he said, ‘but if someone from the dead goes to them, they will repent.’
31 “He said to him, ‘If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead.’ ”

A Vestigial Mote · Aug 30, 2018

Jollybear said:
Dont serve things that arent real.

Which is exactly why I don't serve The Bible.

Kenny · Aug 30, 2018

A Vestigial Mote said:
But the story of Abraham doesn't mention Jesus at all, does it? I mean, I see this in the context of the placement of the actual story:

As it says in the NT... the OT is a shadow and therefore not specially mentioning Jesus.

This is what Jesus said:

John 8: 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Here are just a few of many of the similarities:

The sacrifice of Isaac was on the same mountain as Jesus
A substitute for Isaac(mankind) was provided. Jesus is the substitute for mankind
A ram was caught in a thorny thicket - the replacement. Jesus had a thorny crown and was the replacement
Abraham knew that Isaac was going to be resurrected -- Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected
Isaac was a miracle birth by God -- Jesus was a miracle birth by God

And so many more.

Obviously a Jewish Commentary would not have it listed.

A Vestigial Mote said:
... but that's really the only mention I see of future events.

And I looked at several sources on the meaning of this particular story, and only one of them that I found mentions the stuff you're attributing to it, and even it is caveated like so:

Perhaps I should rephrase (forgive my humanity) - the ones I have seen...

John Gill: And Abraham said, my son, God will provide himself a lamb for
a burnt offering. In which answer Abraham may have respect to the Messiah, the Lamb of God,

Commentary Critical 13-19. Abraham lifted up his eyes . . . and behold . . . a ram, &c.--No method was more admirably calculated to give the patriarch a distinct idea of the purpose of grace than this scenic representation: and hence our Lord's allusion to it ( John 8:56 ).

Matthew Henry: Another sacrifice is provided. Reference must be had to the promised Messiah, the blessed Seed. Christ was sacrificed in our stead, as this ram instead of Isaac, and his death was our discharge.

Scofield:
The typical lessons here are:
(1) Isaac, type of Christ "obedient unto death" Philippians 2:5-8 .
(2) Abraham, type of the Father, who "spared not His own son, but delivered Him up for us all" John 3:16 ; Romans 8:32 .
(3) the ram, type of substitution--Christ offered as a burnt-offering in our stead, Hebrews 10:5-10 .

John Wesley:
22:8 My son, God will provide himself a lamb - This was the language either,

Of his obedience; we must offer the lamb which God has appointed now tobe offered; thus giving him this general rule of submission to the divine will to prepare him for the application of it to himself.Or,
Of his faith; whether he meant it so or no, this proved to be the meaningof it; a sacrifice was provided instead of Isaac.

Thus,

Christ the great sacrifice of atonement was of God's providing:when none in heaven or earth could have found a lamb for that burnt - offering, God himself found the ransom.
All our sacrifices of acknowledgement are of God's providing too; 'tis he that prepares the heart. The broken and contrite spirit is asacrifice of God, of his providing.

There are more... but suffice to say

A Vestigial Mote said:
First note how it says "some." Now, I looked at "Hebrews 11:17-19" and here's what it says:

And yeah... ALL it has to say is that "in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death"... and you're telling me THAT is supposed to foreshadow the resurrection of Jesus? What do Jewish scholars have to say about this little interpretation? Do they even have the book "Hebrews" as part of the Tanach?

Going back to the one source I found that mentioned the foreshadowing of Jesus by the Abraham and Isaac story - I can easily see why it is only "some". But didn't you say "every commentary says the same thing?" Tsk tsk. Got to be careful with those absolutes. I'm pretty darn sure your use of "every" makes you dead wrong at best, and a liar at worst.

So, as you can see, not a liar, nor misrepresenting. For that matter, even the NT says it was so.

Incidentally, :"17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death."

The word "test" has many applications. One "tests the validity of an insurance policy", when the need arises. Or, in other words, puts into action the written covenant of when in need. God was in Covenant with Abraham and He needed Abraham to legally open the door for Jesus to come. It wasn't a "test" just to see if he had some.

BilliardsBall · Aug 30, 2018

Hubert Farnsworth said:
Well, I guess we'll have to agree to disagree. I woudn't want to spend an eternity with a god that tortures people forever just because they had mistaken beliefs. I wouldn't want to bounce around the clouds with a cosmic sadist whose core message for humanity could be summarized in the sentence "Love your enemies, while I roast mine in Hell."

When did I say "Hell is for those with alternate beliefs"? Hell is for people 1) not willing to be transformed to live in a utopia 2) people who harm others and break God's laws (sinners).

BilliardsBall · Aug 30, 2018

9-10ths_Penguin said:
If you don't ever die, then that would be an eternal punishment.

Wow, you have a depressing outlook on life. I've never yet been bored eating, making love, exercising, playing... I look forward to eternal life. Jesus can cheer you up if you're this depressed!

viole · Aug 30, 2018

Jollybear said:
Lol, well, i dont have no "personal" relationship with Jesus, as in how God spoke face to face to moses for instence.

As it says "when i reveal myself to a prophet (e.g. one who hears God) i reveal myself in a vision or a dream, not so with my servent moses, him i speak clearly and face to face as a friend and not in riddles"

In other words, i dont have a relationship with jesus or God like that. For me its either using logic, intuition or a dream or vision.

But, let me tell you. I believe God has revealed to me the correct answer on hell.

Its not eternal torture. It exists, but its not forever.

Then I wonder what personal relationship means. Even if you do not have it, many claim it. But if it does not mean really personal, then why do they use such misleading statements?

But I would like to ask you about your epistemology. You say, logic, intuition, dreams or visions.

They are the same tools I use in the same sequence, as the amount of vodka shots I ingest is increasing.

Joking aside, which ones do you use and why. Do you have a meta-epistemology that tells what epistemological tool to use? Apart from spirits, of course.

Ciao

- viole

9-10ths_Penguin · Aug 30, 2018

BilliardsBall said:
Wow, you have a depressing outlook on life. I've never yet been bored eating, making love, exercising, playing... I look forward to eternal life. Jesus can cheer you up if you're this depressed!

Maybe try reading your own posts. You described this eternal life as life in prison, akin to what a murderer would be sentenced to today, except it never ends.

It Aint Necessarily So · Aug 30, 2018

KenS said:
free will does come with its potential for flaws. He didn't want robots.

That's why free will in mankind would be a mistake for an intelligent designer. It would be a better world where people only have thoughts about being kind, polite, loyal, industrious, plain speaking, etc., and no desire to steal, bully, murder, etc.. After all, if our children were programmable, and we could select their values and qualities, we would program them making them what you are calling robots, and a very satisfying life would be much more likely for them.

KenS said:
It is a marriage proposal. If a rich man came to a dirt poor woman and said, "Marry me and you will never suffer again" and she said "no", it isn't the man's fault she suffers.

To make the analogy apt, the woman would have to be not be suffering until the man made her suffer for rejecting him.

Audie · Aug 30, 2018

KenS said:
No... I'm just saying that there is support within the intelligentsia so just saying

and

doesn't quite hack it.

Smart people have believed all manner of ridiculous
things.

Religiosity thins out as education goes up.

The atonement story, BoM story, "prophet"
Mohammed story, none "hack it" as making
any sense.

A Vestigial Mote · Aug 30, 2018

KenS said:
As it says in the NT... the OT is a shadow and therefore not specially mentioning Jesus.

This is what Jesus said:

John 8: 56 Your father Abraham rejoiced to see my day: and he saw it, and was glad.

Here are just a few of many of the similarities:

The sacrifice of Isaac was on the same mountain as Jesus
A substitute for Isaac(mankind) was provided. Jesus is the substitute for mankind
A ram was caught in a thorny thicket - the replacement. Jesus had a thorny crown and was the replacement
Abraham knew that Isaac was going to be resurrected -- Jesus knew he was going to be resurrected
Isaac was a miracle birth by God -- Jesus was a miracle birth by God

And so many more.

Obviously a Jewish Commentary would not have it listed.

Perhaps I should rephrase (forgive my humanity) - the ones I have seen...

John Gill: And Abraham said, my son, God will provide himself a lamb for
a burnt offering. In which answer Abraham may have respect to the Messiah, the Lamb of God,

Commentary Critical 13-19. Abraham lifted up his eyes . . . and behold . . . a ram, &c.--No method was more admirably calculated to give the patriarch a distinct idea of the purpose of grace than this scenic representation: and hence our Lord's allusion to it ( John 8:56 ).

Matthew Henry: Another sacrifice is provided. Reference must be had to the promised Messiah, the blessed Seed. Christ was sacrificed in our stead, as this ram instead of Isaac, and his death was our discharge.

Scofield:
The typical lessons here are:
(1) Isaac, type of Christ "obedient unto death" Philippians 2:5-8 .
(2) Abraham, type of the Father, who "spared not His own son, but delivered Him up for us all" John 3:16 ; Romans 8:32 .
(3) the ram, type of substitution--Christ offered as a burnt-offering in our stead, Hebrews 10:5-10 .

John Wesley:
22:8 My son, God will provide himself a lamb - This was the language either,

Of his obedience; we must offer the lamb which God has appointed now tobe offered; thus giving him this general rule of submission to the divine will to prepare him for the application of it to himself.Or,

Of his faith; whether he meant it so or no, this proved to be the meaningof it; a sacrifice was provided instead of Isaac.

Thus,

Christ the great sacrifice of atonement was of God's providing:when none in heaven or earth could have found a lamb for that burnt - offering, God himself found the ransom.

All our sacrifices of acknowledgement are of God's providing too; 'tis he that prepares the heart. The broken and contrite spirit is asacrifice of God, of his providing.

There are more... but suffice to say

So, as you can see, not a liar, nor misrepresenting. For that matter, even the NT says it was so.

Incidentally, :"17 By faith Abraham, when God tested him, offered Isaac as a sacrifice. He who had embraced the promises was about to sacrifice his one and only son, 18 even though God had said to him, “It is through Isaac that your offspring will be reckoned. 19 Abraham reasoned that God could even raise the dead, and so in a manner of speaking he did receive Isaac back from death."

The word "test" has many applications. One "tests the validity of an insurance policy", when the need arises. Or, in other words, puts into action the written covenant of when in need. God was in Covenant with Abraham and He needed Abraham to legally open the door for Jesus to come. It wasn't a "test" just to see if he had some.

From my perspective this is all just retro-fitting details to fit/fill a narrative. And some of them aren't even worth mentioning, they are so weak, so the fact that you/anyone mention them is very telling in my opinion. For example:

A ram was caught in a thorny thicket - the replacement. Jesus had a thorny crown and was the replacement

Why? How is this evidence of anything? Just ask yourself - could someone (during the time that only the OT existed), have read that the replacement sacrifice for Abraham was a ram that got caught in a thorny thicket and used that to understand that Jesus was coming and would also carry such a thorn-based sign in his sacrificial experience? If not, then what good is the correlation? To look back on and say "Huh... nice one God, I see what you did there." It certainly couldn't have been used as any type of "evidence" that Jesus was the genuine article. At best it has to be summed up to a coincidence by anyone with even half a rational mind. Had the ram not gotten caught in the "thorny thicket" then you would have something else to say about the ram and how it compares to Jesus, guaranteed.

And you just nonchalantly throw in there:

Obviously a Jewish Commentary would not have it listed.

But this fact is huge, in my estimation. The very founders and originators of your faith's tenets and beliefs don't accept a lick of what you're saying. And do you even fathom what it means if you say that their input on the issue doesn't matter? You're admitting that your own input on the subject also carries no weight... because there is no weight to be carried. It means that obviously anyone can make up just about anything they wish, deny anything else they wish, and claim righteousness. And who can prove that "the truth" is otherwise? Who? None. So what are you left with? In my estimation... you're left with nothing. Standing on a cold rock in a senseless void, scraping the stone for any shred of evidence that proves you "right," but all I see any of you coming away with is bloodied finger tips.

Jollybear · Aug 30, 2018

viole said:
Then I wonder what personal relationship means. Even if you do not have it, many claim it. But if it does not mean really personal, then why do they use such misleading statements?

But I would like to ask you about your epistemology. You say, logic, intuition, dreams or visions.

They are the same tools I use in the same sequence, as the amount of vodka shots I ingest is increasing.

Joking aside, which ones do you use and why. Do you have a meta-epistemology that tells what epistemological tool to use? Apart from spirits, of course.

Ciao

- viole

This term "personal relationship" i use to use it because i was told by my church that because i sincerely called on jesus to save me, that now i have a personal relationship with God.

But then over the years i grew to think more and realized i did not personally know (interact) with jesus at all. I felt the Holy Spirit at times, but, there was no apparitions or audable voices, so i just stopped using that term.

I think they use this term because thats what there told. They blindly use it. If God or jesus dont appear to me daily and sit down and have a cup of coffee and talk (not your traditional prayer time, thats for sure) then im not calling it personal relationship.

As for epistemology, the way i try to figure out knowledge on spiritual things is the same way one gains knowledge on anything else: experience, intellect, teachings passed down, and intuition.

The important thing is using ALL these things. Using every tool available too us.

If one just uses there mind or reason, they are greatly limiting themselves to figure out TRUTH. Likewise, if one uses only intuition, they will get things wrong at times. If they blindly follow what there tought, that also will limit them and even could mislead them. If they depend only on experience, well, we only experience things in part.

To gain the knowledge of truth, we must use every tool and be open and humble.

Let me give some scenarios.

An angel appears to you and gives you a message. This angel is satan in disguise.

Ok, you have experience here, but now you must use reason to scrutinize the message, secondly you must use intuition to tell you if the entity is good.

Use every tool.

The dreams also have there place, its a tool to.

I was jogging alot one time and i had a dream where i saw my leg break at the knee.

Well, i ignored the dream, kept jpgging and a week later my knee started to hurt.

Coincidence? I dont believe so. Theres more examples too. But, ill leave it there for now.

Jollybear · Aug 30, 2018

A Vestigial Mote said:
Which is exactly why I don't serve The Bible.

And you shouldent serve many of the false interpretations of it. But since my interpretations are correct, you should serve mine, lol.

Kenny · Aug 31, 2018

Audie said:
Smart people have believed all manner of ridiculous
things.

Religiosity thins out as education goes up.

The atonement story, BoM story, "prophet"
Mohammed story, none "hack it" as making
any sense.

that is true.

And smart people have rejected things that were true.

Kenny · Aug 31, 2018

A Vestigial Mote said:
From my perspective this is all just retro-fitting details to fit/fill a narrative. And some of them aren't even worth mentioning, they are so weak, so the fact that you/anyone mention them is very telling in my opinion. For example:

Why? How is this evidence of anything? Just ask yourself - could someone (during the time that only the OT existed), have read that the replacement sacrifice for Abraham was a ram that got caught in a thorny thicket and used that to understand that Jesus was coming and would also carry such a thorn-based sign in his sacrificial experience? If not, then what good is the correlation? To look back on and say "Huh... nice one God, I see what you did there." It certainly couldn't have been used as any type of "evidence" that Jesus was the genuine article. At best it has to be summed up to a coincidence by anyone with even half a rational mind. Had the ram not gotten caught in the "thorny thicket" then you would have something else to say about the ram and how it compares to Jesus, guaranteed.

And you just nonchalantly throw in there:

.

OK... we have established that you don't agree. However, scripture interprets it differently

But this fact is huge, in my estimation. The very founders and originators of your faith's tenets and beliefs don't accept a lick of what you're saying. And do you even fathom what it means if you say that their input on the issue doesn't matter? You're admitting that your own input on the subject also carries no weight... because there is no weight to be carried. It means that obviously anyone can make up just about anything they wish, deny anything else they wish, and claim righteousness. And who can prove that "the truth" is otherwise? Who? None. So what are you left with? In my estimation... you're left with nothing. Standing on a cold rock in a senseless void, scraping the stone for any shred of evidence that proves you "right," but all I see any of you coming away with is bloodied finger tips

Not really.

You have Jewish atheists, Hindus, moderates, Hassidic etc.

Our Jewish commentaries are from the Jewish NT. Paul was a Pharisee of Pharisees and we accept those commentaries.

Obviously not everyone agrees.

viole · Aug 31, 2018

Jollybear said:
Let me give some scenarios.

An angel appears to you and gives you a message. This angel is satan in disguise.

Ok, you have experience here, but now you must use reason to scrutinize the message, secondly you must use intuition to tell you if the entity is good.

I think that is what happened 2000 years ago. An angel convinced people that old grumpy OT God, was actually meek ready to dispatch a son to take the Passover weekend off for us. The Jews obviously did not buy, and the others are now all damned without knowing it.

He is the master deceiver after all.

The dreams also have there place, its a tool to.

I was jogging alot one time and i had a dream where i saw my leg break at the knee.

Well, i ignored the dream, kept jpgging and a week later my knee started to hurt.

Coincidence? I dont believe so. Theres more examples too. But, ill leave it there for now.

Well, since things that lie in our future are not in a causal relationship with us, i suppose it was a coincidence.

Or, more likely, you had a recurrent problem with your knee, and one of the pain occurences happened during sleep and caused the dream.

More likely than inferring that spacetime has an exotic structure that causally affect the past.

Don’t you think so?

Ciao

- viole

Prometheus85 · Aug 31, 2018

Jollybear said:
And you shouldent serve many of the false interpretations of it. But since my interpretations are correct, you should serve mine, lol.

So what your saying is, other people’s interpretation of the Bible is wrong and your interpretation is right?

Jollybear · Aug 31, 2018

viole said:
I think that is what happened 2000 years ago. An angel convinced people that old grumpy OT God, was actually meek ready to dispatch a son to take the Passover weekend off for us. The Jews obviously did not buy, and the others are now all damned without knowing it.

He is the master deceiver after all.

Well, since things that lie in our future are not in a causal relationship with us, i suppose it was a coincidence.

Or, more likely, you had a recurrent problem with your knee, and one of the pain occurences happened during sleep and caused the dream.

More likely than inferring that spacetime has an exotic structure that causally affect the past.

Don’t you think so?

Ciao

- viole

Well i had no problem with my knee, let alone a recuring one before this incident. Thats what makes this dream interesting to me.

Also this dream happened a week BEFORE any pain started to take place.

So, something KNEW ahead of time what would happen if i kept jogging. Like a warning.

Your response?

Also how do you know the angel decieved the folks in the old testament?

Asking questions and reasoning and debating on this forum is another great tool to figure truth out too.

A Vestigial Mote · Aug 31, 2018

Jollybear said:
And you shouldent serve many of the false interpretations of it. But since my interpretations are correct, you should serve mine, lol.

Hey - you are at least able to employ a little sarcasm and laugh at the idea, which means you're honest about it, and a bit more down to earth than some.

What I Don't Like About Christianity

Hey

Well-Known Member

Face to face with my Father

Well-Known Member

Face to face with my Father

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Ontological Naturalist

1/10 Subway Stalinist

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Well-Known Member

Hey

Hey

Face to face with my Father

Face to face with my Father

Ontological Naturalist

Active Member

Hey

Well-Known Member