HOW WAS JESUS A SACRIFICE WHEN HE GOT UP AND ROSE AGAIN?

[alissowack]

My point is not whether there are "other sources". My point is that along life's journey you have developed viewpoints and perspectives that have shaped how you view the world...which in turn shape how you read or interpret things. You already have presuppositions way before you started reading the Bible and greatly effects how you perceive what is being said. So, to say that there isn't any bias towards what you read is to deceive yourself. I even have biases that I hope don't take away or add to what the Bible is saying.

There aren't many ways to interpret the excerpts that are up for discussion. If there is another way to interpret it in order to avoid having the Bible god appear to be the hypocrite that the text portrays him as, have at it.

Though I agree with the whole "Truth defends itself" post, I don't see the point in using it there. It seem misplaced...like maybe you thought I was making the case for the truth.

You seem to be worried about "the truth" being "lost" in an argument. I'm saying don't worry about the truth. The truth can handle itself. In other words, leave it alone.

if all you are concerned about is what hypocrites do, then you will miss the entire picture. What about the people who are calling out the hypocrites? What is their story?

It doesn't matter what their "story" is. The hypocrite is a hypocrite by his actions, irregardless of whether or not someone points it out. You're either a hypocrite or not. It doesn't matter who brings it to your attention or what their personal background happens to be. It seems you are wanting to take the blame off of the Bible god and place it on someone else. This won't do.. No one is above responsibility.

If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out? It is because they really believe they are advocating truth in calling out those who are in the wrong, or are they using it to cover up any bias that may have in the first place? Who knows? But I know that you coming to the conclusion that God is a hypocrite stems from any biases you do have. Well, you could possibly say the same thing about me; that maybe my belief that God is not a hypocrite stems from just not wanting to let go of old ideas; refusing to deal with changes in the world and just want to feel like I have someone to turn to because the world has let me down...or I'm just feel offended when someone calls "my God" names. You probably wouldn't say such things (at least on record), but you would think that there is something driving why I believe what I believe.

What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about God...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.

It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about God and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about God and have done terrible things in the name of God...so when you have that already in your mind that God must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.

 

[Bodhi]

If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?

This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about God...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.

This ^^^ is not what's happening here.

It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about God and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about God and have done terrible things in the name of God...so when you have that already in your mind that God must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.

The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible God is or isn't a hypocrite.

 

[alissowack]

If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?

This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about God...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.

This ^^^ is not what's happening here.

It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about God and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about God and have done terrible things in the name of God...so when you have that already in your mind that God must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.

The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible God is or isn't a hypocrite.

I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who God is. In your view, God must meet your standard. In my view, God transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even God transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if God doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not God. In my view, He is God regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the God of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.

 

[Bodhi]

If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?

This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about God...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.

This ^^^ is not what's happening here.

It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about God and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about God and have done terrible things in the name of God...so when you have that already in your mind that God must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.

The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible God is or isn't a hypocrite.

I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who God is. In your view, God must meet your standard. In my view, God transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even God transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if God doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not God. In my view, He is God regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the God of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.

Ok good.. we agree on what a hypocrite is.

I'm going by the bible's description of what and who god is to form my argument. So if you agree with the bible, you agree with me.

According to the bible, god is a divine being susceptible to negative human emotions such as jealousy and anger. Following from this, it's not difficult to imagine god falling into hypocrisy.

In fact, the bible suggests implicitly that god is a hypocrite..

If what you are saying is that god transcends negative human emotions, you are not in agreement with the bible. If you are saying god transcends personal responsibly, there is no need for us to continue.

 

[alissowack]

If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?

This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about God...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.

This ^^^ is not what's happening here.

It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about God and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about God and have done terrible things in the name of God...so when you have that already in your mind that God must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.

The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible God is or isn't a hypocrite.

I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who God is. In your view, God must meet your standard. In my view, God transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even God transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if God doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not God. In my view, He is God regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the God of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.

Ok good.. we agree on what a hypocrite is.

I'm going by the bible's description of what and who god is to form my argument. So if you agree with the bible, you agree with me.

According to the bible, god is a divine being susceptible to negative human emotions such as jealousy and anger. Following from this, it's not difficult to imagine god falling into hypocrisy.

In fact, the bible suggests implicitly that god is a hypocrite..

If what you are saying is that god transcends negative human emotions, you are not in agreement with the bible. If you are saying god transcends personal responsibly, there is no need for us to continue.

Again, there is more to your disagreement than just definitions. You're doing what everybody does religious or irreligious...we put God in this box and expect for God to conform to it. I've even said that God's transcendence...transcends our perception of it...meaning...we have no clue the depth in which God says something in the Bible under our own understanding...even if it looks obvious. We can guess. We can assume, but we can't even even make the first step without tripping over ourselves. Many have vainly proclaimed God because they sincerely thought they were doing right by Him and found themselves being reminded of just how far they have fallen.

 

[Bodhi]

If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?

This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about God...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.

This ^^^ is not what's happening here.

It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about God and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about God and have done terrible things in the name of God...so when you have that already in your mind that God must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.

The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible God is or isn't a hypocrite.

I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who God is. In your view, God must meet your standard. In my view, God transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even God transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if God doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not God. In my view, He is God regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the God of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.

Ok good.. we agree on what a hypocrite is.

I'm going by the bible's description of what and who god is to form my argument. So if you agree with the bible, you agree with me.

According to the bible, god is a divine being susceptible to negative human emotions such as jealousy and anger. Following from this, it's not difficult to imagine god falling into hypocrisy.

In fact, the bible suggests implicitly that god is a hypocrite..

If what you are saying is that god transcends negative human emotions, you are not in agreement with the bible. If you are saying god transcends personal responsibly, there is no need for us to continue.

Again, there is more to your disagreement than just definitions. You're doing what everybody does religious or irreligious...we put God in this box and expect for God to conform to it. I've even said that God's transcendence...transcends our perception of it...meaning...we have no clue the depth in which God says something in the Bible under our own understanding...even if it looks obvious. We can guess. We can assume, but we can't even even make the first step without tripping over ourselves. Many have vainly proclaimed God because they sincerely thought they were doing right by Him and found themselves being reminded of just how far they have fallen.

I have not designed the box that god has been placed. If you desire that god transcend the box that theism has created for him in order to escape the difficulties inherent in the walls of said box, there is nothing here for us to talk about. If god is purely ineffable, that leaves nothing but personal experience and belief and no room for debate or discussion from both believers and non believers.

 

[alissowack]

If someone is being hypocritical, I'm not suggesting that you not call it for what it is, but what drives a person to want to call it out?

This ^^^ has nothing to do with what I'm arguing.

What I meant by the truth being lost is in reference to making an argument about something. Lets just say you are telling the truth about God...but instead of me processing this as truth, I resort to name-calling, using things to discredit you as a person...and you return the favor and this thread just becomes littered with insults...and for some reason I win that battle. Someone might look at me and be like, "Man, you just ethered Oceanic!!!"...but fails to see the truth you've been telling.

This ^^^ is not what's happening here.

It does matter the story. It's just not my business to know their story in respect to the argument. I believe you are mistaken by what you believe about God and it comes from presuppositions you already have. You have been shaped by the people in your life whether first, second or third-hand who have failed miserably to present what the Bible says about God and have done terrible things in the name of God...so when you have that already in your mind that God must not be good if His Followers are being this way, you read the Bible and it just leaps off the page. Just so you don't think I'm just sugar-coating things, the Bible does have troubling things in the Bible that the Christian has to struggle with, but the hope is that even then, biases are not what fuels whether they agree or disagree with what the Bible says.

The only major presupposition I have is in assuming we both agree to the definition of hypocrisy. If you agree with the accepted definition of that word, we can either conclude whether or not the bible God is or isn't a hypocrite.

I believe you are reading way too much into what I posted. We may agree with the definition of hypocrisy, but we don't agree with who God is. In your view, God must meet your standard. In my view, God transcends yours (and my) standard...hey, even God transcends your (and my) understanding of transcendence. In your view, if God doesn't conform to what you see as right (or definitional) then He is not God. In my view, He is God regardless if He doesn't conform to you (or me). There is more to your disagreement than just mere definition. There are presuppositions, in which I have no business trying to find out, that has shaped how you see the God of the Bible and will continue to be there unless you let those things go...and please don't see this as an invitation to something. It's one thing to agree and another thing to believe.

Ok good.. we agree on what a hypocrite is.

I'm going by the bible's description of what and who god is to form my argument. So if you agree with the bible, you agree with me.

According to the bible, god is a divine being susceptible to negative human emotions such as jealousy and anger. Following from this, it's not difficult to imagine god falling into hypocrisy.

In fact, the bible suggests implicitly that god is a hypocrite..

If what you are saying is that god transcends negative human emotions, you are not in agreement with the bible. If you are saying god transcends personal responsibly, there is no need for us to continue.

Again, there is more to your disagreement than just definitions. You're doing what everybody does religious or irreligious...we put God in this box and expect for God to conform to it. I've even said that God's transcendence...transcends our perception of it...meaning...we have no clue the depth in which God says something in the Bible under our own understanding...even if it looks obvious. We can guess. We can assume, but we can't even even make the first step without tripping over ourselves. Many have vainly proclaimed God because they sincerely thought they were doing right by Him and found themselves being reminded of just how far they have fallen.

I have not designed the box that god has been placed. If you desire that god transcend the box that theism has created for him in order to escape the difficulties inherent in the walls of said box, there is nothing here for us to talk about. If god is purely ineffable, that leaves nothing but personal experience and belief and no room for debate or discussion from both believers and non believers.

Who said anything about you designing this "box"? Even in theism God is transcendent. It is when we start guessing at the details of this transcendence is when we start to put God in a box. You say that God transcends jealousy and anger. It's more like, God transcends our understanding of what jealousy and anger means to us. If God is jealous, it is not the way in which we get jealous. If God gets angry, it's not in the way in which we get angry. But what you do is that you look at how man treats each other and think that God must be the exact same way. It's like when it comes to the emotions, we want to see ourselves as equals to God but are sadly mistaken.

 

[Bodhi]

Who said anything about you designing this "box"? Even in theism God is transcendent. It is when we start guessing at the details of this transcendence is when we start to put God in a box.

What I mean by placing God in a box is giving him qualities and traits such as omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. You are trying to escape the difficulties that arise by placing him there by claiming that he can transcend the box, thus rendering the box ultimately useless.

You say that God transcends jealousy and anger. It's more like, God transcends our understanding of what jealousy and anger means to us. If God is jealous, it is not the way in which we get jealous. If God gets angry, it's not in the way in which we get angry.

In what way would God become angry or jealous that's completely unrelatable to human nature?

But what you do is that you look at how man treats each other and think that God must be the exact same way.

This is what theism has done. People long ago personafied the laws of nature in attempt to better understand them and "created" God.

 

[alissowack]

Who said anything about you designing this "box"? Even in theism God is transcendent. It is when we start guessing at the details of this transcendence is when we start to put God in a box.

What I mean by placing God in a box is giving him qualities and traits such as omnibenevolent, omnipresent, omnipotent and omniscient. You are trying to escape the difficulties that arise by placing him there by claiming that he can transcend the box, thus rendering the box ultimately useless.

You say that God transcends jealousy and anger. It's more like, God transcends our understanding of what jealousy and anger means to us. If God is jealous, it is not the way in which we get jealous. If God gets angry, it's not in the way in which we get angry.

In what way would God become angry or jealous that's completely unrelatable to human nature?

But what you do is that you look at how man treats each other and think that God must be the exact same way.

This is what theism has done. People long ago personafied the laws of nature in attempt to better understand them and "created" God.

Giving the terms omni...such and such doesn't put God in a box. It's subjecting those terms to our assumptions that puts God in a box. It's like me saying because God is all-knowing, then He must know what I'm going to post before I post it...or He can do some very hard math problems...or He can outsmart a super computer. It could be true that God's knowledge is as such. However, it would be very limiting to reduce God that way; to only see God as a being subjected to my petty thoughts. There is also the impression that because God knows everything then He must tell us what He knows when we ask; that if God is all powerful then He must show His Power when we want Him to do so. If God has a choice, He doesn't have to submit to anything we demand. He doesn't have to feel He need to prove Himself worthy because we are not convinced that He is God. He gets angry or jealous at whoever He sees fit...who knows how He does it. And if God does act on something we ask for, it is not because we have done something worthy of it. Prayers answered are more a matter of mercy than blessing.

 

[beenwize]

excellent thread. allisowack sometimes I don't even think you believe half the stuff you type.

 

[Bodhi]

excellent thread. allisowack sometimes I don't even think you believe half the stuff you type.

Dude just be rambling