Let's be biblically literary

[Acrobat]

But what if the nature of the barrier between us and the recognition of the truth of salvation, is akin to a delusion? This is what atheists often accuse theist of when it comes to the particular truth of reality they possess but religious people don't. That it's a delusions that keep the religious from recognizing it. In fact atheists often speak of their truth of reality, in salvationary terms, like liberation and freedom, a recognition that frees us from bondage.

One thing we understand about the nature of delusion, is that they aren't resolved by the clarity of facts. No matter how clearly you present the case for the holocaust, holocaust deniers will not accept it. And its not as if delusional people, want to know the truth, but fail to recognize it, but they don't want to know it. They want to believe the lie, and will do their best to preserve it. Even if that means killing someone who tries to show them the truth.

The other things about the delusional, is that it's not just a denial of truth out there, but more fundamentally a truth about themselves, a concealing of the underlying unresolved pain that manifests them. A projection of the world and others, formed from a contorted perception of themselves.

So, how do we distinguish between a delusion and reality then? Atheist says theist is deluded. Theist says atheist is deluded. By what method can we distinguish the delusion from the reality? If I say the existence of gravity is just a delusion you have, can it be demonstrated that gravity is real? If you think people who don’t believe god exists are delusional, can it be demonstrated that the god exists?

First, a delusion isn't so much the belief, but the condition in relationship to the way one thinks, to thought patterns. Children believing in Santa Claus, or people in the old world believing the earth is flat, aren't delusional, they just hold mistaken beliefs. 


I gauge it by how people process questions, and when whatever is taking place in their head starts to look  bit like when I ask my bipolar cousin questions, or people with less severe conditions, like cognitive dissonance, what appears like cloudy confused thinking,  avoidance, than clarity. 


I could also see that if it was my daughter or my wife, who stopped believing in God, people whom I have an honest and intimate relationship with, if they talked or argued the way atheists here did, it would become immediately apparent that something was off if they started going Dad prove to me that God exists, show me evidence that God exists, or that they lack a belief. If they talked this way, it would be apparent to me that they're hiding something, being combative to avoid introspection, concealing something. 

If two people were honestly interested in truth, but held divergent views, then the discussion would be less about demanding that others prove their belief, but a discussion of how they navigated to their conclusion, and how we navigated to ours, where those pathways are common, and where they diverged. In other words, honest discussions of truth are introspective, its an opening of ours minds to others. Where in such discussion like this, people attempt to detach themselves as far away from allowing this as possible. 

They make a sort of game, or riddle, composed in a way to make any answer unsatisfying,  before allowing anyone to get inside the gate of their mind. But the purpose of the riddle is to keep everyone out. So when I view atheists as delusional, it because of this tendency, observed over and over again. I can't say I understand it, but I'm the type of person who likes peering inside someone's head, and examine the pieces in there, so it's not hard to see when people refuse me entry, unlike with my wife, or sister, or friends. This refusal is understandable when the truths are private, but not so much when it comes to atheism, unless its also concealing something private as well, that's not acknowledged by the atheists, or anyone else. 

I'm of the view of the Church Father, like Clement, that the knowledge of God, and knowledge of oneself are connected, "For if one knows himself, he will know God". While atheists have composed a sort of concept of God entirely disconnected from such a view. A God whose purely a question about something out there, rather than something about in here. They like throwing a rock far from them, to distract a predator, to keep them off the scent. 

[Abaddon_ire]

Bel is so far in the Christian closet he has discovered fucking Narnia.

[Fake Messiah]

Delusion is when you think that God wrote secret messages on a piece of paper for you to decipher.

[LadyForCamus]

So, how do we distinguish between a delusion and reality then? Atheist says theist is deluded. Theist says atheist is deluded. By what method can we distinguish the delusion from the reality? If I say the existence of gravity is just a delusion you have, can it be demonstrated that gravity is real? If you think people who don’t believe god exists are delusional, can it be demonstrated that the god exists?

First, a delusion isn't so much the belief, but the condition in relationship to the way one thinks, to thought patterns. Children believing in Santa Claus, or people in the old world believing the earth is flat, aren't delusional, they just hold mistaken beliefs. 


I gauge it by how people process questions, and when whatever is taking place in their head starts to look  bit like when I ask my bipolar cousin questions, or people with less severe conditions, like cognitive dissonance, what appears like cloudy confused thinking,  avoidance, than clarity. 


I could also see that if it was my daughter or my wife, who stopped believing in God, people whom I have an honest and intimate relationship with, if they talked or argued the way atheists here did, it would become immediately apparent that something was off if they started going Dad prove to me that God exists, show me evidence that God exists, or that they lack a belief. If they talked this way, it would be apparent to me that they're hiding something, being combative to avoid introspection, concealing something. 

If two people were honestly interested in truth, but held divergent views, then the discussion would be less about demanding that others prove their belief, but a discussion of how they navigated to their conclusion, and how we navigated to ours, where those pathways are common, and where they diverged. In other words, honest discussions of truth are introspective, its an opening of ours minds to others. Where in such discussion like this, people attempt to detach themselves as far away from allowing this as possible. 

They make a sort of game, or riddle, composed in a way to make any answer unsatisfying,  before allowing anyone to get inside the gate of their mind. But the purpose of the riddle is to keep everyone out. So when I view atheists as delusional, it because of this tendency, observed over and over again. I can't say I understand it, but I'm the type of person who likes peering inside someone's head, and examine the pieces in there, so it's not hard to see when people refuse me entry, unlike with my wife, or sister, or friends. This refusal is understandable when the truths are private, but not so much when it comes to atheism, unless its also concealing something private as well, that's not acknowledged by the atheists, or anyone else. 

I'm of the view of the Church Father, like Clement, that the knowledge of God, and knowledge of oneself are connected, "For if one knows himself, he will know God". While atheists have composed a sort of concept of God entirely disconnected from such a view. A God whose purely a question about something out there, rather than something about in here. They like throwing a rock far from them, to distract a predator, to keep them off the scent. 

So, in other words, there is no way to objectively demonstrate that gravity is real?

[Stoneheart]

I think it was not a literal crucifixion.

That they said in boast, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Quran 4:157

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. 1 Corinthians 1:23.

[GrandizerII]

I think it was not a literal crucifixion.

That they said in boast, "We killed Christ Jesus the son of Mary, the Messenger of Allah";- but they killed him not, nor crucified him, but so it was made to appear to them, and those who differ therein are full of doubts, with no certain knowledge, but only conjecture to follow, for of a surety they killed him not. Quran 4:157

But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness. 1 Corinthians 1:23.

Read 1 Corinthians 1:23 correctly within its context, then you'll understand how your interpretation isn't right.

[Stoneheart]

Read 1 Corinthians 1:23 correctly within its context, then you'll understand how your interpretation isn't right.

It seems to me that speaking wisdom in the form of foolishness is one of the points within the context.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

[GrandizerII]

Read 1 Corinthians 1:23 correctly within its context, then you'll understand how your interpretation isn't right.

It seems to me that speaking wisdom in the form of foolishness is one of the points within the context.

19 For it is written, I will destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the understanding of the prudent.
20 Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where is the disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom of this world?
21 For after that in the wisdom of God the world by wisdom knew not God, it pleased God by the foolishness of preaching to save them that believe.
22 For the Jews require a sign, and the Greeks seek after wisdom:
23 But we preach Christ crucified, unto the Jews a stumblingblock, and unto the Greeks foolishness;
24 But unto them which are called, both Jews and Greeks, Christ the power of God, and the wisdom of God.
25 Because the foolishness of God is wiser than men; and the weakness of God is stronger than men.
26 For ye see your calling, brethren, how that not many wise men after the flesh, not many mighty, not many noble, are called:
27 But God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise; and God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty;

Yes, what is your point exactly? That the Qur'an has it more correct or something?

Whether the crucifixion did happen or not, this is a belief that Christians hold: that Jesus was indeed crucified. And you can't get otherwise from that passage.

[Stoneheart]

Yes, what is your point exactly? That the Qur'an has it more correct or something?

Whether the crucifixion did happen or not, this is a belief that Christians hold: that Jesus was indeed crucified. And you can't get otherwise from that passage.

My point is that I think the stories might not be what they seem.

Did Jesus go into the wilderness or was it Eden where he went and was tempted?
Because I'm thinking the wilderness is Eden and the serpent does eat dust.
(Dust is Sword. Stubble is Bow. Straw is Spear.)

This is why I am thinking that:
　


Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Matthew 4:1

For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody. Isaiah 51:3

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Genesis 3:24

Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow. Isaiah 41:2


　
For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry. Nahum 1:10

Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine! Isaiah 28:1

The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle. Psalm 78:9


　
And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. Leviticus 16:22

We gat our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness.
Lamentations 5:9

[GrandizerII]

Yes, what is your point exactly? That the Qur'an has it more correct or something?

Whether the crucifixion did happen or not, this is a belief that Christians hold: that Jesus was indeed crucified. And you can't get otherwise from that passage.

My point is that I think the stories might not be what they seem.

Did Jesus go into the wilderness or was it Eden where he went and was tempted?
Because I'm thinking the wilderness is Eden and the serpent does eat dust.
(Dust is Sword. Stubble is Bow. Straw is Spear.)

This is why I am thinking that:
　


Then was Jesus led up of the Spirit into the wilderness to be tempted of the devil. Matthew 4:1

For the Lord shall comfort Zion: he will comfort all her waste places; and he will make her wilderness like Eden, and her desert like the garden of the Lord; joy and gladness shall be found therein, thanksgiving, and the voice of melody. Isaiah 51:3

So he drove out the man; and he placed at the east of the garden of Eden Cherubims, and a flaming sword which turned every way, to keep the way of the tree of life. Genesis 3:24

Who raised up the righteous man from the east, called him to his foot, gave the nations before him, and made him rule over kings? he gave them as the dust to his sword, and as driven stubble to his bow. Isaiah 41:2


　
For while they be folden together as thorns, and while they are drunken as drunkards, they shall be devoured as stubble fully dry. Nahum 1:10

Woe to the crown of pride, to the drunkards of Ephraim, whose glorious beauty is a fading flower, which are on the head of the fat valleys of them that are overcome with wine! Isaiah 28:1

The children of Ephraim, being armed, and carrying bows, turned back in the day of battle. Psalm 78:9


　
And the goat shall bear upon him all their iniquities unto a land not inhabited: and he shall let go the goat in the wilderness. Leviticus 16:22

We gat our bread with the peril of our lives because of the sword of the wilderness.
Lamentations 5:9

Still not seeing your point. Are you saying the Temptation story is allegory?

And what you're doing here is cherry picking the OT verses that can be used to support your POV anyway.

It's nice to look at the immediate context first before looking elsewhere for a proper interpretation. Just because you can find "wilderness" in more than two places does not mean they must have the same sense of the term. Just because one passage is part of a poetic prophecy does not mean all other passages are the same.

That said, an argument could still be made that the Gospel stories were all intended to be allegory, and it can feel that way to some readers, but it would be good to have something concrete to go by rather than just intuition (and cherry picking verses).