How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Subduction Zone]

prove it.

I have. Once again, your inability to understand does not mean that it has not happened.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yeah, but logic is valid or sound. That is not the same.
But what is the universe to you?

I am not chasing after nihilism with you.

 

[Trailblazer]

Anything that exists is detectable by the right detector in the right time and place. That is true for every other thing that you believe exists.

Anything that exists in the physical world is detectable or even things that are physical can be detected by astronomical devices, but God exists on the Throne of Glory, in spiritual world where He cannot ever be detected.

God is kind of like the Wizard of Oz, except that nobody ever gets to 'see God' like in the movie.

Do you believe the sun exists? If so, eyes sensitive to light and skin sensitive to warmth can detect it. Do you believe supermassive black holes exist? If so, they can be detected (and have been). That is what it means to be real or to exist - to be a player in the kaleidoscope of nature, where objects impact one another and undergo transformations in space and time.

That is what it means to be real or to exist in the material world, but everything that exists doesn't exist in the material world. There are many worlds of God that are not detectable by anyone except God.

It's really simple. Anything that can be called real or actual or existing is part of that dance somewhere and is thus detectable. To say that something is undetectable everywhere in time and space by any method is to say that it is indistinguishable from the nonexistent and can be treated as such - the basis of agnostic atheism.

To say that something is undetectable by any method is to say that it does not exist in the material world, but it rather exists in another realm of existence unbeknownst to you or anyone else, unknown until they die and experience it for themselves.

That's what minds do best - make judgments. From my viewpoint as a critical thinker, my job is to make judgments. I've seen what can happen when one surrenders that right because somebody tells you to. That filter is one of my most valuable possessions.

I covered this topic with someone else in the past, as I recall she was a Christian and we were discussing Matthew 7:3-5.
Making judgements is not the same thing as judging others, which means finding fault with them. There is nothing wrong with making judgments, we all do that all the time and it is not the property of so-called critical thinkers.

What I have issues with is fault-finding as delineated in Matthew 7:3-5 and Baha'u'llah even had harsher words for that than Jesus.

26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.​

The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10​

No. You hurt yourself submitting to that kind of thinking. I have helped myself immensely by being willing to scrutinize god claims and rejecting them. If you recall, I entered Christianity at about 19 years old, and already had some college under my belt, and so, some critical thinking skill. I agreed to suspend disbelief to test drive this ism and its claims, but eventually, it was the ability to evaluate evidence that revealed that what I was experiencing as a god was actually my own mind.

I was not referring to scrutinizing 'God claims' and rejecting them. I was referring to scrutinizing God. You may not see the difference but I do.

I see nothing wrong with scrutinizing God claims, and I see it as beneficial, since many of those claims are false, especially the claims of Christianity, such as the indwelt Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit does not 'live' inside of human bodies but rather it has a direct connection with the mind.

I agree that anything you might have thought you were experiencing as God was in your own mind, and it was not God. We can think about God but I do not believe we can 'experience God' directly. Some Christians and mystics believe that we can experience God directly but I disagree. I believe we can only experience God through the Messengers.

Me, too. I wanted to see what you called your evidence for a god.

I believe that the Messengers are evidence for a God. There is evidence that the Messenger are Messengers, because otherwise there would be no reason to believe their claims. The Writings of Baha'u'llah are only part of the evidence and not what we should look at first. First we should look at His Person and what he did in His life and on His mission.

I know. That's why I doubt its existence. This god perfectly imitates its own nonexistence. But most believers believe otherwise. They call their god good and active in their lives.

Conversely, if God was 'doing' anything and had conduct or morality I would doubt God's existence.

The God I believe in is not subject to morality since He is benevolent and everything He wills springs forth from benevolence.
The God I believe in has a will and wills things to happen on earth. These things that God wills happen through the Messengers and ordinary human actions, who are solely responsible for their occurrence. Other things happen through human free will.

I don't call that knowledge.

It is not factual knowledge, it is knowledge in another sense.

 

[Subduction Zone]

To say that something is undetectable by any method is to say that it does not exist in the material world, but it rather exists in another realm of existence unbeknownst to you or anyone else, unknown until they die and experience it for themselves.

I am picking out this one claim. This is false. You ignored the possibility that there is no existence of that at all. Secondly when a person supposedly experiences such a thing they can easily be mistaken.

 

[Trailblazer]

I am picking out this one claim. This is false.

It is not false unless you can prove it is false. It is also not true unless I can prove it is true, but I am not claiming it is true.
I am only stating a belief, I am not making a claim.

You ignored the possibility that there is no existence of that at all.

That is a possibility. I did not ignore it but I did not state it because it is not according to my belief.

Secondly when a person supposedly experiences such a thing they can easily be mistaken.

Anyone can be mistaken about anything they experience but that is not what I was referring to.
I said that the other realm of existence outside of the material world will be unknown until a person dies and experiences it for themselves.
That is a belief, not a claim. I do not claim things I cannot prove.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It is not false unless you can prove it is false. It is also not true unless I can prove it is true, but I am not claiming it is true.
I am only stating a belief, I am not making a claim.

No, this is a logical argument and a reasonable possibility needs not to be proven. You are misusing that concept. You need to learn the difference between logical arguments and evidence based arguments. Are you claiming that it is not possible to believe in something that does not exist? Think that over carefully.

That is a possibility. I did not ignore it but I did not state it because it is not according to my belief.

Well thank you. You just confirmed my argument.

Anyone can be mistaken about anything they experience but that is not what I was referring to.
I said that the other realm of existence outside of the material world will be unknown until a person dies and experiences it for themselves.
That is a belief, not a claim. I do not claim things I cannot prove.

Then you stated it poorly. Do not blame me for that. And that still puts a burden of proof upon you since that is a premise that I do not accept. Also you did make a claim. Remember yesterday when you demanded that I show you and example of you making a claim and then running away? Well here you go.

This:

"To say that something is undetectable by any method is to say that it does not exist in the material world, but it rather exists in another realm of existence unbeknownst to you or anyone else, unknown until they die and experience it for themselves."

is a claim.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

whatever it is you're trying to say is completely irrelevant.

Did you really want to post that? How much should I value your opinion about something you don't understand?

I skipped the rest of your post

OK, then I'll revise my last statement: How much should I value your opinion about something you didn't finish reading and didn't understand the part you did read?

"Trying to win with quantity instead of quality".

How would you know about quality? You didn't part of it and had difficulty understanding what you did read.

if you would like to debate with me.

No, but thank you for the offer. I'm content to comment on your opinions without any reply from you. Your thinking is chaotic, but I will accommodate you to a point. There's nothing in it for me except to try to understand not what you think, but how you think, and I haven't seen anything new in your posting style since we disengaged after discussing you transforming ideas between the page and their rendering in your mind, and then again in your memory. You didn't want to investigate that claim, so no, debating you offers me nothing.

God exists on the Throne of Glory, in spiritual world where He cannot ever be detected. There are many worlds of God that are not detectable by anyone except God.

I have no reason to believe either of those claims.

everything that exists doesn't exist in the material world.

Nothing can be said to exist if it is said to exist outside of nature.

What I have issues with is fault-finding as delineated in Matthew 7:3-5 and Baha'u'llah even had harsher words for that than Jesus. 26: O SON OF BEING! How couldst thou forget thine own faults and busy thyself with the faults of others? Whoso doeth this is accursed of Me.The Hidden Words of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 10

OK. That's not an issue for me.

There is evidence that the Messenger are Messengers

None I've seen.

The God I believe in is not subject to morality since He is benevolent and everything He wills springs forth from benevolence.

You don't see a problem there? Calling a deity benevolent is making a moral judgment about that god's character.

It is not factual knowledge, it is knowledge in another sense.

As I said, I don't use the word knowledge to refer to false or unfalsifiable claims. Such things can only be believed by faith, and faith is not a path to knowledge. What you have is a compelling intuition.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

I said that the other realm of existence outside of the material world will be unknown until a person dies and experiences it for themselves.
That is a belief, not a claim. I do not claim things I cannot prove.

I genuinely believe this to be true as well. I've asked questions and sought answers about the spiritual realm in the past, but to no avail.

 

[dybmh]

No, last time I didn't bother arguing with you about them. It's true that I have no knowledge of biblical Hebrew. It's also true that I use the RSV translation because when I was checking the question, the weight of scholarly opinion thought it was the best.

In that translation, I assure you I've closely considered the language of the text so far as it relates to the claims I've made.

So not Tanach then? You're not talking about the Hebrew God? The one that is described in the Hebrew bible? Using the Hebrew language? And if I were ask you your opinion of the different translations of root M-CH-R, you wouldn't have a clue what to do to answer that question? Do you have any scholarly options to facilitate this sort understanding of the Hebrew God described in Hebrew in the Tanach?

Maybe, you could describe the God of Abraham per your bible's translation so that I can tell whether your Christian english translation is useful in describing the actual God which is described in the Hebrew bible in, ya know, Hebrew?

Please bring verses from your bible to support your claims, OK?

 

[dybmh]

the weight of scholarly opinion thought it was the best.

Do you deny that you are using "Christian" scholarship? Their bias is well known. Galatians 3:13 declares that the law is a curse. You don't get more biased than that.

So perhaps you did not consider this, I understand. Is there any reason to ignore the obvious motiviation by Christian "scholars" to setup the Mosaic law as evil so that their super-messiah can come to the rescue?

I'm very interested to see how you respond to this. Thank you,

 

[Trailblazer]

I have no reason to believe either of those claims.

They are not claims, they are beliefs, and I do not expect you to believe them.

Nothing can be said to exist if it is said to exist outside of nature.

but it can be believed to exist outside of nature.

None I've seen.

None you have believed.

You don't see a problem there? Calling a deity benevolent is making a moral judgment about that god's character.

No, that is just restating what I read in scriptures. The Bible and Baha'u'llah say that God is benevolent so that is not my moral judgment.

As I said, I don't use the word knowledge to refer to false or unfalsifiable claims. Such things can only be believed by faith, and faith is not a path to knowledge. What you have is a compelling intuition.

Obviously you are going on a different definition of knowledge than I am.
Faith alone is not a path to knowledge, but faith and evidence is a path to knowledge.

 

[blü 2]

The definition is as it is.

No mention of profit.

Nor of sincerity.

One who falsely claims knowle he does not
possess he is a charlatan.

Whoever invented the snake story was lying.

And from a atheist pov, it's kind of obvious that
God- information is bogus.

I don't get the impression Paul thought he was making stuff up; rather that he had had a vision and KNEW all the stuff.

There's probably a paper or two on him in the American Journal of Psychiatry or the like.

 

[Audie]

I don't get the impression Paul thought he was making stuff up; rather that he had had a vision and KNEW all the stuff.

There's probably a paper or two on him in the American Journal of Psychiatry or the like.

Still a charlatan either way.

Is saul more believable than thatJoseph Smith/ Brigham Young were sincere,and that j Smith wrote the whole book of mormon from a "vision"?

What if anything is different?

 

[blü 2]

So not Tanach then? You're not talking about the Hebrew God? The one that is described in the Hebrew bible? Using the Hebrew language? And if I were ask you your opinion of the different translations of root M-CH-R, you wouldn't have a clue what to do to answer that question? Do you have any scholarly options to facilitate this sort understanding of the Hebrew God described in Hebrew in the Tanach?

You speak fluent biblical Hebrew? If so, well done!

Me, I'm happy to rely on reputable professionals.

My observations were along these lines ─ that according to the Tanakh, God performed or ordained acts in these classes:

invasive war​

massacre of surrendered populations​

mass rape​

human sacrifice​

treating women as property​

murderous religious intolerance​

slavery as normal​

I also observed that these things were probably the norm for a Bronze Age deity.

If you don't know where those things are written of in the Tanakh, let me know.

If you want to argue the fine grammar points of M-CH-R, you're wasting your time with me.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Do you deny that you are using "Christian" scholarship? Their bias is well known. Galatians 3:13 declares that the law is a curse. You don't get more biased than that.

So perhaps you did not consider this, I understand. Is there any reason to ignore the obvious motiviation by Christian "scholars" to setup the Mosaic law as evil so that their super-messiah can come to the rescue?

I'm very interested to see how you respond to this. Thank you,

There is definitely a Christian bias in the translation of the Old Testament. But that appears to be in just the details. I doubt if you can find significant difference between the myths of Genesis between the two. You would not be able to make you God not have the same failings as the Christian God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

They are not claims, they are beliefs, and I do not expect you to believe them.

No, if you want to claim that it is a mere belief then you need to have that as part of the statement. I quoted you, there was not an "I believe" in any of it. It was a claim.

but it can be believed to exist outside of nature.

None you have believed.

No, that is just restating what I read in scriptures. The Bible and Baha'u'llah say that God is benevolent so that is not my moral judgment.

Obviously you are going on a different definition of knowledge than I am.
Faith alone is not a path to knowledge, but faith and evidence is a path to knowledge.

The rest of your post appears to be weak attempts to justify what you posted.

And worst yet if you do say "I believe" that is such a weak statement that it is always refutable with a "So what?"

 

[blü 2]

Do you deny that you are using "Christian" scholarship? Their bias is well known. Galatians 3:13 declares that the law is a curse. You don't get more biased than that.

I'm a materialist, a secularist, an igtheist, and a believer in reasoned enquiry including scientific and historical method. I have no wish at all for the bible to say any particular thing ─ its interest lies in what it actually says.

Is there any reason to ignore the obvious motiviation by Christian "scholars" to setup the Mosaic law as evil so that their super-messiah can come to the rescue?

The Christian custom of claiming that the Tanakh foretells Jesus is unsupportable and can be annoying, if that's what you mean.

 

[CG Didymus]

That's what minds do best - make judgments. From my viewpoint as a critical thinker, my job is to make judgments. I've seen what can happen when one surrenders that right because somebody tells you to. That filter is one of my most valuable possessions.

Am I missing something, or does she make judgements about the God of the Bible? Which is fine with me and definitely not "absurd" to do so.

 

[blü 2]

What if anything is different?

Their respective places in the history of Western culture, in particular.

But as I understand it there was an historical Paul, and there was an historical Brigham Young.

 

[CG Didymus]

I don't call that knowledge.

What does she mean to "know" something about God but not as a fact? What does she really know? Maybe that she believes it?