If you wouldn't follow Hitler, why follow God?
-
Wow, a straight jump through the clutter to the core of Godwin's Law. Impressive, Terry! :) fwiw, I agree wholeheartedly with the subject of your post, if not the tone. You got my 5.
Jeremy Kimball Catapultam habeo. Nisi pecuniam omnem mihi dabis, ad caput tuum saxum immane mittam. (I have a catapult. Give me all the money, or I will fling an enormous rock at your head)
:) All roads lead to Rome......
-
How the hell do you know there really isn't a being of infinite power who punishes you for all eternity for not abiding by "his" will? (BTW, the bible dosn't actually say you "go to hell" just that you don't get to go to heaven. The concept of hell worked its way into chrisianity from the Greeks not from Jesus.) "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
I don't. I just refuse to worship a god that operates under the priciples as laid out in Christian dogma. I have enough principles and intestinal fortitude to refuse to worship a god that doesn't meet my standard of behaviour. Just because my parents, that dude on TV and the pretty cheerleader say he is the ONE TRUE GOD won't make me follow him if I disagree with the basic principles. Any religion that follows a god who demands this, this and that tells me that the god in question (there are hundreds to choose from) is a human invention. Sure, you can use the "God works in mysterious ways" dodge, but that isn't enough for me. I am more than ready to believe a god or other force exists. But I also do not believe that it or he or she has any interest in the goings on among humans or has a place reserved for us on the other side. An anthropomorphic god is a human invention used as baby-pacifier for people too frightened to accept their inevitable demise. Buddhism has offered me the only sensible framework I have yet found: 4 Noble Truths: * Live is suffering * The cause of suffering is unfulfilled desire * To remove the suffering you need to remove your desires by attaining enlightenment * To attain enlightenment, you follow the 8-fold path, which consists of: Right understanding Right attitude Right communication Right action Right livlihood Right effort Right mindfullness Right concentration If you miss it this time around, you will be reincarnated. Attaining enlightenment is the end of the cycle of reincarnation and existence on another plane of being with full awareness at a non-physical level.
-
Quite true. But I am merely trying to point out that if I joined the Flat-Earth Society and told everyone I was a Flat-Earth Society member and that I believed in the tenents of the Flat-Earth Society but I *really* thought the earth was round and that all of that silly Flat-Earth code of beliefs was really a metaphor and that I could still be a Flat-Earther even though i didn't really believe what it stood for then that would make me a hypocrite. If I was honest I would say, I can't become a memebr of the flat earth society (ie Roman Catholic, 7th day adventist, Lutheran, etc.) because I fundamentally disagree with some of its principals.
No doubt it would great if everyone would portray themselves accurately and honestly. I think there are a number of reasons behind this apparently hypocritical behaviour. Sometimes people go to church for purely social reasons, not spiritual ones. Those going for spiritual reasons, I think, often times get enough "mystery" out of simply going to church, and so they overlook the fact that they don't really understand all the teachings let alone agree with all of them. Another aspect is that people simply do not want to take the time to shop around and understand all their options. The church/temple/whatever they go to fulfills their needs well enough so they leave it alone. It's just not a priority. The issue I guess you have is that these people then go on with the mob proclaiming this or that is immoral or should be illegal because Zeus said so. Well, we humans love to ride on whatever the current wave is you know. It gives us something to do between meals. BW The Biggest Loser
"And then one day you find ten years have got behind you
No one told you when to run, you missed the starting gun" -
John Fisher wrote: It's rather obvious that you have animosity toward the idea of a loving God. I'm not sure why, but you can't focus only on one side of God's character and get an accurate understanding, no matter how well you think you've studied theology. Because no loving entity would torture someone forever. I couldn't rape enough nuns in a lifetime to warrant eternal torture. John Fisher wrote: you can easily see much of his thinking by the way he treated those he deemed "inferior". It was a lot better than torturing for all eternity everyone who doesn't worship him with abject veneration. John Fisher wrote: Most of the time, yes. Other times I fail. Sinning again and asking for God's forgiveness is no "cop-out". If you had read as much as you say, you'd understand that. (Some people do use it as a cop-out, though. They basically never try to please God, and just want him to give them everything they want, like some big genie in a bottle.) I respect that. You believe enough to actually not do things that any normal person would want to do (what with their being human all). The "some people" you refer to are among those I label as hypocrites. John Fisher wrote: If Jesus never did rise from the dead, and the Bible isn't true, then Christians are among the most miserable people anywhere I agree with you on this one. It is just that most of them may not realize it. John Fisher wrote: God gives you a choice: A. Life on earth with a little extra struggle living as He asks results in more awesome rewards than any human can imagine. B. Life on earth lived however you want, without caring about God's will results in you getting exactly what you wanted -- being separate from God. (Right now, you are experiencing the benefits of God's mercy. When you die without choosing to be with Him forever, that's what get -- complete separation from God and the benefits He wants to give.) If that is all hell is - an eternal death with no awareness rather than eternal torment then I would retract my objection to Christianity based on the cruelty of god.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I respect that. You believe enough to actually not do things that any normal person would want to do (what with their being human all). The "some people" you refer to are among those I label as hypocrites. Thanks. I also suspect that the majority of people labelling themselves as Christians are not truly Christian. (A few Bible verses say as much, but don't indicate "majority" verses "many".) Terry O`Nolley wrote: If that is all hell is - an eternal death with no awareness rather than eternal torment then I would retract my objection to Christianity based on the cruelty of god. I would personally wish that eternal torment didn't exist, but I am not willing to read my wishes into what the Bible says. As I read it, it looks clear that they will be punished forever. However, other Christians (and I believe some of them are true Christians) read those passages and still think that it can be understood without unending hell. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Because no loving entity would torture someone forever. I couldn't rape enough nuns in a lifetime to warrant eternal torture. This is obviously the crux of your position. You firmly believe that you couldn't sin enough to earn eternal torture, so God can't honestly be loving if He does put people in Hell forever. You have a few assumptions to deal with before a discussion on this could really progress. (You'll need to deal with my answers using the assumption that God exists as described in the Bible.) 1) Assume that Terry's opinion of the "badness" of sin is accurate. 2) Assume that God's love is His primary attribute, or at least outweighs the characteristics that lead to judgment. In reference to #1, you have to ask, "Who makes the rules?" Are you in a position of authority to tell God how bad things are? No. Also, How great a distance is there between sinless perfection and imperfection? There really is an infinite distance. Once you have sinned, you can never be perfect until you are completely remade. God says over and over in the Bible that sin is antithetical to Himself. He is holy -- and that is His primary attribute, not love. The consequence is that someone who wants to keep his sin cannot be in a good relationship with God. People who hang onto their sin until death must be punished. A multitude of infinitely offensive sins can be measured to require an eternal punishment. In reference to #2. Reading the Bible,
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: I respect that. You believe enough to actually not do things that any normal person would want to do (what with their being human all). The "some people" you refer to are among those I label as hypocrites. Thanks. I also suspect that the majority of people labelling themselves as Christians are not truly Christian. (A few Bible verses say as much, but don't indicate "majority" verses "many".) Terry O`Nolley wrote: If that is all hell is - an eternal death with no awareness rather than eternal torment then I would retract my objection to Christianity based on the cruelty of god. I would personally wish that eternal torment didn't exist, but I am not willing to read my wishes into what the Bible says. As I read it, it looks clear that they will be punished forever. However, other Christians (and I believe some of them are true Christians) read those passages and still think that it can be understood without unending hell. Terry O`Nolley wrote: Because no loving entity would torture someone forever. I couldn't rape enough nuns in a lifetime to warrant eternal torture. This is obviously the crux of your position. You firmly believe that you couldn't sin enough to earn eternal torture, so God can't honestly be loving if He does put people in Hell forever. You have a few assumptions to deal with before a discussion on this could really progress. (You'll need to deal with my answers using the assumption that God exists as described in the Bible.) 1) Assume that Terry's opinion of the "badness" of sin is accurate. 2) Assume that God's love is His primary attribute, or at least outweighs the characteristics that lead to judgment. In reference to #1, you have to ask, "Who makes the rules?" Are you in a position of authority to tell God how bad things are? No. Also, How great a distance is there between sinless perfection and imperfection? There really is an infinite distance. Once you have sinned, you can never be perfect until you are completely remade. God says over and over in the Bible that sin is antithetical to Himself. He is holy -- and that is His primary attribute, not love. The consequence is that someone who wants to keep his sin cannot be in a good relationship with God. People who hang onto their sin until death must be punished. A multitude of infinitely offensive sins can be measured to require an eternal punishment. In reference to #2. Reading the Bible,
John Fisher wrote: In reference to #1, you have to ask, "Who makes the rules?" Are you in a position of authority to tell God how bad things are? No......... The consequence is that someone who wants to keep his sin cannot be in a good relationship with God. People who hang onto their sin until death must be punished This tells us that God decides how bad to punish something. It also says that any sin held onto will cause eternal torture. From the New Testament:
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Matthew 10:37
John 15:10So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. If you can't make yourself do this, then you will tortured forever. I refuse to worship such a god. I would be a hypocrite or a total idiot (because only an idiot would stare eternal torture in the face and blow it off) if I believed in that god but did not spend my ENTIRE LIFE trying to love him more than my own family. Do you do this? Or do you just go to church, try to follow the 10 Commandments and never do any work on SUnday, etc, etc? John Fisher wrote: Sin is not allowed. However, His love worked a way for the sin to be adequately punished without sending all of us to hell. That's why Jesus had to die for us. Without sin being paid for, we would never be allowed into heaven. Those who accept the payment and avoid sin benefit from that payment and are made perfect by God after death. This is the crux of Christianity. I understand this. I mean it was written by someboday after all so it must be true. I am a sort of New Ager. I think that if there is a god, he is not interested with us as individuals but he may be interested in us as a whole. Perhaps the Old Testament came at the time when it was needed and helped shepard people along until Jesus' birth. Jesus' sacrifice came at the time when humanity was ready to again advance. The "second coming" will not be as described in Revaltion or anything like that - it would be another socially evolutionary mindset shift.
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: Why can't they realize that spirituality can be non-denominational? People tend to group themselves, they don't acutally understand the teaching of Christianity love one another, and it becomes a i'm better than you type of situation. Terry O`Nolley wrote: mewling drone would ever agree to follow a god who was so cruel Terry O`Nolley wrote: intelligent human being subscribe to those tenents I get the same sick feeling Terry O`Nolley wrote: What flaw exists in the human psyche that allows them to believe in fairy tales? I think you answered your own question there. -Steven Hicks
CPA
CodeProjectAddict
Actual Linux Penguins were harmed in the creation of this message.
More tutorials: Ltpb.8m.com: Tutorials |404Browser.com (Download Link)
(Steven Hicks)n+1 wrote: I think you answered your own question there. You mean that because I am offput by people who willingly follow a god that will torture you forever if you don't love him more than your own family I believe in fairy tales?
-
John Fisher wrote: In reference to #1, you have to ask, "Who makes the rules?" Are you in a position of authority to tell God how bad things are? No......... The consequence is that someone who wants to keep his sin cannot be in a good relationship with God. People who hang onto their sin until death must be punished This tells us that God decides how bad to punish something. It also says that any sin held onto will cause eternal torture. From the New Testament:
"He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."
Matthew 10:37
John 15:10So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. If you can't make yourself do this, then you will tortured forever. I refuse to worship such a god. I would be a hypocrite or a total idiot (because only an idiot would stare eternal torture in the face and blow it off) if I believed in that god but did not spend my ENTIRE LIFE trying to love him more than my own family. Do you do this? Or do you just go to church, try to follow the 10 Commandments and never do any work on SUnday, etc, etc? John Fisher wrote: Sin is not allowed. However, His love worked a way for the sin to be adequately punished without sending all of us to hell. That's why Jesus had to die for us. Without sin being paid for, we would never be allowed into heaven. Those who accept the payment and avoid sin benefit from that payment and are made perfect by God after death. This is the crux of Christianity. I understand this. I mean it was written by someboday after all so it must be true. I am a sort of New Ager. I think that if there is a god, he is not interested with us as individuals but he may be interested in us as a whole. Perhaps the Old Testament came at the time when it was needed and helped shepard people along until Jesus' birth. Jesus' sacrifice came at the time when humanity was ready to again advance. The "second coming" will not be as described in Revaltion or anything like that - it would be another socially evolutionary mindset shift.
Terry O`Nolley wrote: So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I refuse to worship such a god. Why? You obviously believe that loving your family and children is a good thing. Why not love the God who created you, gives you life, and offers to forgive you of your sin, then make eternity even better than anything you can imagine on earth? Other portions of the Bible even make it clear that loving God properly increases your ability to love and love for your family. Again, it appears that you are arguing with God about what constitutes something bad enough to spend an eternity in hell. What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? Opinions don't count, because God has the power and authority for the decision, and you don't. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
What sort of mewling drone would ever agree to follow a god who was so cruel, so vain as to demand abject worship from a bunch of human beings and send them to an eternal torture chamber if they don't kiss his ass hard enough?!?!?!? It is pathetic and every time I see a supposedly intelligent human being subscribe to those tenents I get the same sick feeling I do when I realize I have been inadvertantly conversing with a racist or a misogynist or a homophobe. My skin crawls and I just want to leave the scene. The mindset used to willingly follow a god who will torture you forever if you don't kiss his ass is exactly the same mindset as the nazis. They feel that "well, since God (or Hitler) is in charge and He (or he) makes the rules then I need to follow them. And since God (or Hitler) is all powerful, anything I do to follow Him (him) is self-defined as being the right thing to do. Therefore, I can slough off my innate human morality and follow this new set of rules without guilt or shame. You can see the firewalls installed throughout the religion designed to prevent members from realizing there adherrance to the religion is fundamentally immoral: 1) Our god is a loving god (ignores the fact that you will be tortured forever for not kissing his ass) 2) He works in mysterious ways (deftly dodging the obvious "If god is so loving, why allow war?) 3) He sent his own son to suffer for our sins (utter BS - how can an immortal god actually suffer? For an immortal being, a few hours on a cross would be like me sticking my finger with a pin to see what it felt like) If they would at least admit that they were brain-washed by equally cowed lemming parents then I could give them a little respect. Why can't they realize that spirituality can be non-denominational? Why can't they understand that a common morality exists outside of religion? What flaw exists in the human psyche that allows them to believe in fairy tales? Are people really so weak that they can't accept their approaching deaths as simply the end of their brief fling on this wacky world? Wouldn't their energies be better spent living, loving, laughing and doing all of the "immoral" things that bring enjoyment and cause no harm? Religion is just a lifelong hypno-therapy session designed to ease the anxiety of death. I guess having dullard cow-eyed sheep dutifully filling the coffers of the churches is preferable to mobs of screaming weaklings whining about their looming deaths but I like to think that humanity, as whole, is r
-
Stan Shannon wrote: Well, ok, I'm certainly no bible scholar! You got that right. Stan Shannon wrote: Jesus never mentioned it explicitely (I think). It is not until the religion becomes more Europeanized that the fire and brimestone stuff starts creeping in. Some quotes: Mt 5:22 But here is what I tell you. Do not be angry with your brother. Anyone who is angry with his brother will be judged. Again, anyone who says to his brother, ‘Raca,’ must stand trial in the Sanhedrin. But anyone who says, ‘You fool!’ will be in danger of the fire in hell. Mt 5:29 “If your right eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. Your eye is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to be thrown into hell. Mt 5:30 “If your right hand causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. Your hand is only one part of your body. It is better to lose it than for your whole body to go into hell. Mt 7:13 “Enter God’s kingdom through the narrow gate. The gate is large and the road is wide that lead to death and hell. Many people go that way. Mt 10:28 Do not be afraid of those who kill the body but can’t kill the soul. Instead, be afraid of the One who can destroy both soul and body in hell. Mt 16:18 Here is what I tell you. You are Peter. On this rock I will build my church. The gates of hell will not be strong enough to destroy it. Mt 18:8 “If your hand or foot causes you to sin, cut it off and throw it away. It would be better for you to enter the kingdom of heaven with only one hand or one foot than to go into hell with two hands and two feet. In hell the fire burns forever. Mt 18:9 If your eye causes you to sin, poke it out and throw it away. It would be better for you to enter the kingdom of heaven with one eye than to have two eyes and be thrown into the fire of hell. Lk 12:5 I will show you whom you should be afraid of. Be afraid of the One who can kill the body and also has the power to throw you into hell. Yes, I tell you, be afraid of him. Lk 16:23 In hell, the rich man was suffering terribly. He looked up and saw Abraham far away. Lazarus was by his side. Stan Shannon wrote: Religoin is not the enemy, secularism is, as it is the only moral othodoxy actively trying to shove its agenda down my throat with the blessing of the state. I know of no religion in the US that is trying to do that. I can only assume that you don't read the newspapers. The religious right in the
Well damn. So I guess I'm going to burn in hell. I knew I should have read the bible... :~ John Carson wrote: I can only assume that you don't read the newspapers. The religious right in the US is constantly attempting to use the authority of the state in support of their religiously-based morality. You apparently don't read statutes either since many existing laws already do that. No they aren't. They are using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country. Would you even take that away from them? I just don't get you guys. When the state overtly attackes religion at every opportunity you are happy as larks. When people who are religious try to act democratically to fight back you get entirely bent out of shape. The only way that makes sense is if you are overtly trying to destroy religion - beginning with Christianity. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I refuse to worship such a god. Why? You obviously believe that loving your family and children is a good thing. Why not love the God who created you, gives you life, and offers to forgive you of your sin, then make eternity even better than anything you can imagine on earth? Other portions of the Bible even make it clear that loving God properly increases your ability to love and love for your family. Again, it appears that you are arguing with God about what constitutes something bad enough to spend an eternity in hell. What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? Opinions don't count, because God has the power and authority for the decision, and you don't. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? All I am saying is that I know I could never love a god that tortures people forever - even if he has all the power and makes all the rules. To do so would be to turn my back on all of my own morals and become a hypocrite.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37 Be afraid of the One who can kill the body and also has the power to throw you into hell. Luke 12:5 In other words - If you don't love god more than your own family you will be tortured forever!
-
Well damn. So I guess I'm going to burn in hell. I knew I should have read the bible... :~ John Carson wrote: I can only assume that you don't read the newspapers. The religious right in the US is constantly attempting to use the authority of the state in support of their religiously-based morality. You apparently don't read statutes either since many existing laws already do that. No they aren't. They are using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country. Would you even take that away from them? I just don't get you guys. When the state overtly attackes religion at every opportunity you are happy as larks. When people who are religious try to act democratically to fight back you get entirely bent out of shape. The only way that makes sense is if you are overtly trying to destroy religion - beginning with Christianity. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
Stan Shannon wrote: No they aren't. They are using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country. Would you even take that away from them? I just don't get you guys. When the state overtly attackes religion at every opportunity you are happy as larks. When people who are religious try to act democratically to fight back you get entirely bent out of shape. Much of the time I find your position incomprehensible. Then a shaft of light gets through and I think I understand. You are obsessed about the influence of judicial law making and, rather than state that clearly, you make nonsensical arguments that black is white. "Using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country" is for the very purpose of using "the authority of the state in support of their religiously-based morality". This is so obvious that it exasperates me to have to point it out. The religious right wants to influence political processes so that laws and funding priorities restrict access to abortion, discourage homosexuality, stop stem cell research etc. etc. The left also seeks to influence political processes. One difference is that the left more often wants to repeal laws covering moral issues. It wants to withdraw the authority of the state from the area. The left and the right also launch court cases in support of their position. The left has recently had some wins that you don't think are supported by a proper reading of the Constitution (once again, some of those wins have the effect of withdrawing state authority from an area). Even if you are right in your Constitutional interpretation, it doesn't support your wild generalisations, as discussed above. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Terry O`Nolley wrote: So, this means that if you don't love Jesus more than your own children and parents then you will be tortured forever. In order to get to heaven, you must somehow begin truly loving Jesus more than your own family. Terry O`Nolley wrote: I refuse to worship such a god. Why? You obviously believe that loving your family and children is a good thing. Why not love the God who created you, gives you life, and offers to forgive you of your sin, then make eternity even better than anything you can imagine on earth? Other portions of the Bible even make it clear that loving God properly increases your ability to love and love for your family. Again, it appears that you are arguing with God about what constitutes something bad enough to spend an eternity in hell. What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? Opinions don't count, because God has the power and authority for the decision, and you don't. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Again, it appears that you are arguing with God about what constitutes something bad enough to spend an eternity in hell. What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? Opinions don't count, because God has the power and authority for the decision, and you don't. Which is of course a "might is right" argument and the very antithesis of morality. You have effectively admitted that you are the craven follower of a dictator without any morals of your own. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
John Fisher wrote: Again, it appears that you are arguing with God about what constitutes something bad enough to spend an eternity in hell. What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? Opinions don't count, because God has the power and authority for the decision, and you don't. Which is of course a "might is right" argument and the very antithesis of morality. You have effectively admitted that you are the craven follower of a dictator without any morals of your own. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Which is of course a "might is right" argument and the very antithesis of morality. You have effectively admitted that you are the craven follower of a dictator without any morals of your own. Why do I want a morality of my own? What's the point? I want to deal with the truth, be ready for what is going to actually happen, see things the way they are -- not invent something I like and pretend that it's truth. As far as your "might is right" reference -- Do you argue with gravity? Or maybe recoil in horror at your need to breath? Of course not. And when you see people doing such things, you realize that they have problems. I'm not saying that you are mentally unbalanced if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I am saying that since the Bible is true, and God describes Himself as all-powerful, it is not even possible to choose a "morality of your own" without paying the consequences. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Fisher wrote: What basis do you have for saying that offending God in any way isn't bad enough for that? All I am saying is that I know I could never love a god that tortures people forever - even if he has all the power and makes all the rules. To do so would be to turn my back on all of my own morals and become a hypocrite.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me. Matthew 10:37 Be afraid of the One who can kill the body and also has the power to throw you into hell. Luke 12:5 In other words - If you don't love god more than your own family you will be tortured forever!
Terry O`Nolley wrote: All I am saying is that I know I could never love a god that tortures people forever - even if he has all the power and makes all the rules. To do so would be to turn my back on all of my own morals and become a hypocrite. I understand your position and certainly can't (and won't) force you to change your mind. However -- you already know I think this -- it would only be to your advantage to rethink the reason you take that position. It smells of circular reasoning from the statements and assumptions that I've seen in your posts, which appear to be something like: 1) God is cruel to torture people forever. 2) Cruelty is what I define it to be. Until you realize that you don't have the authority to define cruelty, it isn't of much value for us to continue the discussion. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Carson wrote: Which is of course a "might is right" argument and the very antithesis of morality. You have effectively admitted that you are the craven follower of a dictator without any morals of your own. Why do I want a morality of my own? What's the point? I want to deal with the truth, be ready for what is going to actually happen, see things the way they are -- not invent something I like and pretend that it's truth. As far as your "might is right" reference -- Do you argue with gravity? Or maybe recoil in horror at your need to breath? Of course not. And when you see people doing such things, you realize that they have problems. I'm not saying that you are mentally unbalanced if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I am saying that since the Bible is true, and God describes Himself as all-powerful, it is not even possible to choose a "morality of your own" without paying the consequences. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Why do I want a morality of my own? What's the point? I want to deal with the truth, be ready for what is going to actually happen, see things the way they are -- not invent something I like and pretend that it's truth. As far as your "might is right" reference -- Do you argue with gravity? Or maybe recoil in horror at your need to breath? Of course not. Morality as conventionally understood is a code describing desirable behaviour. As such it expresses a preference on the part of the adherent or advocate of the moral code. It is not a fact or a truth like gravity. If you say "God is good" or "God is love" and have no standard of goodness or love outside of God, then the statement is purely tautological. In the same way, if you accepted that Hitler defined morality or love, then you could say that "Hitler is good" or "Hitler is love". As on so many issues, Christians wish to have it both ways. On the one hand, they appeal to our conventional understandings of goodness and love (promoting happiness, not being cruel, etc.) in order to praise God. On the other hand, they are willing to strip those words of their conventional meaning in defending presumed behaviour on the part of God that is inconsistent with those conventional understandings. An honest approach would say "God is love, but don't imagine that by 'love' we mean something inconsistent with gratuitous cruelty etc. --- love is whatever God says it is." But Christians refuse to be that honest. John Fisher wrote: I'm not saying that you are mentally unbalanced if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I am saying that since the Bible is true, and God describes Himself as all-powerful, it is not even possible to choose a "morality of your own" without paying the consequences. In other words, if held hostage by a terrorist, then you may pay a price for a lack of cooperation. True enough. Equally, you may be made to suffer even if you do cooperate. Terrorists are like that. It is only beings that are good in the non-tautological sense of the word that you can trust. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
-
Stan Shannon wrote: No they aren't. They are using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country. Would you even take that away from them? I just don't get you guys. When the state overtly attackes religion at every opportunity you are happy as larks. When people who are religious try to act democratically to fight back you get entirely bent out of shape. Much of the time I find your position incomprehensible. Then a shaft of light gets through and I think I understand. You are obsessed about the influence of judicial law making and, rather than state that clearly, you make nonsensical arguments that black is white. "Using their democratic rights to attempt to influence the political processes in this country" is for the very purpose of using "the authority of the state in support of their religiously-based morality". This is so obvious that it exasperates me to have to point it out. The religious right wants to influence political processes so that laws and funding priorities restrict access to abortion, discourage homosexuality, stop stem cell research etc. etc. The left also seeks to influence political processes. One difference is that the left more often wants to repeal laws covering moral issues. It wants to withdraw the authority of the state from the area. The left and the right also launch court cases in support of their position. The left has recently had some wins that you don't think are supported by a proper reading of the Constitution (once again, some of those wins have the effect of withdrawing state authority from an area). Even if you are right in your Constitutional interpretation, it doesn't support your wild generalisations, as discussed above. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: Much of the time I find your position incomprehensible And that is really the problem, isn't it? Like all True Believers, you are pyschologically incapable of perceiving the irrationality of your own point of view. You are part of a global movement which has taken upon itself the task of overturning the established orthodoxy and instituting one predicated upon a new, secular, moral agenda. You see your way as the only way, and everyone else is a threat which must be eliminated - all the time huming your phony little tune of "multi-culturalism" and inclusion. Any one who disagrees with you suffers from a lack of intelligence, or has been duped somehow by propaganda or threatened by fear mongering. Human Beings are instinctively attracted to powerful institutions, especially those which are capable of effectively projecting a set of moral principles upon others (and even more so when they live in weak, marginal, little countries). We want to join and be a part of such movements. To be considered members of a new, vibrant orthodoxy. That is what the current secularist movement is all about. It is a movement which will not take no for an answer and which has targeted the last remaining major strong hold of Chrisitanity, the U.S. heartland as its next, and most important, victim. That conquest will leave the Secularists in full control of Western civilzation - philosophically unopposed. The Ultra-Right-Wing extremists, or whatever term you wish to use to demonize them, are simply fighting back. Get used to it, they are the enemy you created out of whole cloth. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
-
John Carson wrote: Much of the time I find your position incomprehensible And that is really the problem, isn't it? Like all True Believers, you are pyschologically incapable of perceiving the irrationality of your own point of view. You are part of a global movement which has taken upon itself the task of overturning the established orthodoxy and instituting one predicated upon a new, secular, moral agenda. You see your way as the only way, and everyone else is a threat which must be eliminated - all the time huming your phony little tune of "multi-culturalism" and inclusion. Any one who disagrees with you suffers from a lack of intelligence, or has been duped somehow by propaganda or threatened by fear mongering. Human Beings are instinctively attracted to powerful institutions, especially those which are capable of effectively projecting a set of moral principles upon others (and even more so when they live in weak, marginal, little countries). We want to join and be a part of such movements. To be considered members of a new, vibrant orthodoxy. That is what the current secularist movement is all about. It is a movement which will not take no for an answer and which has targeted the last remaining major strong hold of Chrisitanity, the U.S. heartland as its next, and most important, victim. That conquest will leave the Secularists in full control of Western civilzation - philosophically unopposed. The Ultra-Right-Wing extremists, or whatever term you wish to use to demonize them, are simply fighting back. Get used to it, they are the enemy you created out of whole cloth. "In the final analysis, secularism is little more than another religion the first amendment should be protecting the American people against."
You seem to have decided to just repeat yourself (with some added abuse) rather than attempt to explain the parts of your claims that seem to me to be indefensible --- in particular your denial that religious groups are trying to use the authority of the state to promote their religiously based morality. Stan Shannon wrote: You are part of a global movement which has taken upon itself the task of overturning the established orthodoxy and instituting one predicated upon a new, secular, moral agenda. You see your way as the only way, and everyone else is a threat which must be eliminated - all the time huming your phony little tune of "multi-culturalism" and inclusion. Gratuitous nonsense. Stan Shannon wrote: Human Beings are instinctively attracted to powerful institutions, especially those which are capable of effectively projecting a set of moral principles upon others (and even more so when they live in weak, marginal, little countries). We want to join and be a part of such movements. To be considered members of a new, vibrant orthodoxy. Sounds like the war on terrorism. Speaking for myself, I am a congenital individualist. I have never felt really comfortable in any group in my entire life. The mob (and especially mob thinking) repels me. Stan Shannon wrote: The Ultra-Right-Wing extremists, or whatever term you wish to use to demonize them, are simply fighting back. Get used to it, they are the enemy you created out of whole cloth. Religious groups have had a large influence on government throughout history. They are currently seeking to defend their influence and extend it --- pretty much what they have always done. I am very used to it. Their behaviour is not my creation or my generation's creation. <Edit> At the time of my birth (in the 50s), abortion and homosexuality were illegal throughout Australia. More seriously, it was illegal for most shops to open on a Sunday and Sunday was likewise off-limits for major sporting events. The rationale in both cases was that the misnamed "Sabbath" was a day of Christian worship and not one for secular pursuits. If memory serves, Sunday trading did not become legal until the 70s. Divorce was difficult to obtain and it was a long drawn out process where it was granted. Blasphemy was a criminal offence. As a practical matter, there was almost no chance of being jailed for blasphemy, but blasphemers could certainly not keep their jobs on radio or tel
-
John Fisher wrote: Why do I want a morality of my own? What's the point? I want to deal with the truth, be ready for what is going to actually happen, see things the way they are -- not invent something I like and pretend that it's truth. As far as your "might is right" reference -- Do you argue with gravity? Or maybe recoil in horror at your need to breath? Of course not. Morality as conventionally understood is a code describing desirable behaviour. As such it expresses a preference on the part of the adherent or advocate of the moral code. It is not a fact or a truth like gravity. If you say "God is good" or "God is love" and have no standard of goodness or love outside of God, then the statement is purely tautological. In the same way, if you accepted that Hitler defined morality or love, then you could say that "Hitler is good" or "Hitler is love". As on so many issues, Christians wish to have it both ways. On the one hand, they appeal to our conventional understandings of goodness and love (promoting happiness, not being cruel, etc.) in order to praise God. On the other hand, they are willing to strip those words of their conventional meaning in defending presumed behaviour on the part of God that is inconsistent with those conventional understandings. An honest approach would say "God is love, but don't imagine that by 'love' we mean something inconsistent with gratuitous cruelty etc. --- love is whatever God says it is." But Christians refuse to be that honest. John Fisher wrote: I'm not saying that you are mentally unbalanced if you don't believe in the God of the Bible, but I am saying that since the Bible is true, and God describes Himself as all-powerful, it is not even possible to choose a "morality of your own" without paying the consequences. In other words, if held hostage by a terrorist, then you may pay a price for a lack of cooperation. True enough. Equally, you may be made to suffer even if you do cooperate. Terrorists are like that. It is only beings that are good in the non-tautological sense of the word that you can trust. John Carson "I wish to propose for the reader's favourable consideration a doctrine which may, I fear, appear wildly paradoxical and subversive. The doctrine in question is this: that it is undesirable to believe a proposition when there is no ground whatever for supposing it true." - Bertrand Russell
John Carson wrote: If you say "God is good" or "God is love" and have no standard of goodness or love outside of God, then the statement is purely tautological. Not so. Back to the gravity illustration. Do you have a standard describing gravity that doesn't involve gravity? No. Similarly, God defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the Bible. John Carson wrote: It is only beings that are good in the non-tautological sense of the word that you can trust. You and Terry appear to be confused about what constitutes cruelty. Are you cruel by putting a person in jail for embezzling? Are you cruel for believing that someone should pay his traffic ticket for speeding? Are you cruel for arresting people who have broken the law? Of course not. By the same logic, God is not cruel for dealing justly with sin. His love is not contradicted by His justice. (Oh, and don't be caught in a tuatological argument by your own definition of cruelty.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek. -
John Carson wrote: If you say "God is good" or "God is love" and have no standard of goodness or love outside of God, then the statement is purely tautological. Not so. Back to the gravity illustration. Do you have a standard describing gravity that doesn't involve gravity? No. Similarly, God defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the Bible. John Carson wrote: It is only beings that are good in the non-tautological sense of the word that you can trust. You and Terry appear to be confused about what constitutes cruelty. Are you cruel by putting a person in jail for embezzling? Are you cruel for believing that someone should pay his traffic ticket for speeding? Are you cruel for arresting people who have broken the law? Of course not. By the same logic, God is not cruel for dealing justly with sin. His love is not contradicted by His justice. (Oh, and don't be caught in a tuatological argument by your own definition of cruelty.) John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.John Fisher wrote: Not so. Back to the gravity illustration. Do you have a standard describing gravity that doesn't involve gravity? No. I have no idea what you are talking about and suspect that you don't either. Gravity is not defined or described in terms of gravity. As originally stated by Newton, the law of gravity says that the force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their mass divided by the square of the distance between them. I don't see how this is describing gravity in terms of gravity. John Fisher wrote: Similarly, God defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the Bible. Your phrasing is somewhat ambiguous here but you appear to be saying that whatever God does supplies the definition of love. This presumably extends to the hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered either at God's command or directly by him in the Old Testament (including women and children). This is pure tautology. I could equally say that Hitler defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the history of the Third Reich. The essential point is this. If I say that Fred Blogs is a loving guy, then you have a fair idea what I mean without knowing anything else about Fred Blogs. And if I told you that Fred Blogs was an alias for Saddam Hussein, then you would conclude that my description of him as a loving guy was false. With any human being, being "loving" or "just" or "good" means meeting some external standard. With God, by contrast, you don't take that approach. What God does is good by definition, which makes the description empty. John Fisher wrote: You and Terry appear to be confused about what constitutes cruelty. Are you cruel by putting a person in jail for embezzling? Are you cruel for believing that someone should pay his traffic ticket for speeding? Are you cruel for arresting people who have broken the law? Of course not. By the same logic, God is not cruel for dealing justly with sin. His love is not contradicted by His justice. (Oh, and don't be caught in a tuatological argument by your own definition of cruelty.) One possible definition of cruelty: Behaviour that leads to unnecessary (i.e., redundant) suffering. Talking in earthly terms, we can say that in the absence of some system of justice there would be enormous suffering (due to the high incidence of violence etc.). Accordingly, the fact that the crimin
-
John Fisher wrote: Not so. Back to the gravity illustration. Do you have a standard describing gravity that doesn't involve gravity? No. I have no idea what you are talking about and suspect that you don't either. Gravity is not defined or described in terms of gravity. As originally stated by Newton, the law of gravity says that the force of attraction between two bodies is proportional to the product of their mass divided by the square of the distance between them. I don't see how this is describing gravity in terms of gravity. John Fisher wrote: Similarly, God defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the Bible. Your phrasing is somewhat ambiguous here but you appear to be saying that whatever God does supplies the definition of love. This presumably extends to the hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered either at God's command or directly by him in the Old Testament (including women and children). This is pure tautology. I could equally say that Hitler defines love and shows us what that is through His actions of love recorded in the history of the Third Reich. The essential point is this. If I say that Fred Blogs is a loving guy, then you have a fair idea what I mean without knowing anything else about Fred Blogs. And if I told you that Fred Blogs was an alias for Saddam Hussein, then you would conclude that my description of him as a loving guy was false. With any human being, being "loving" or "just" or "good" means meeting some external standard. With God, by contrast, you don't take that approach. What God does is good by definition, which makes the description empty. John Fisher wrote: You and Terry appear to be confused about what constitutes cruelty. Are you cruel by putting a person in jail for embezzling? Are you cruel for believing that someone should pay his traffic ticket for speeding? Are you cruel for arresting people who have broken the law? Of course not. By the same logic, God is not cruel for dealing justly with sin. His love is not contradicted by His justice. (Oh, and don't be caught in a tuatological argument by your own definition of cruelty.) One possible definition of cruelty: Behaviour that leads to unnecessary (i.e., redundant) suffering. Talking in earthly terms, we can say that in the absence of some system of justice there would be enormous suffering (due to the high incidence of violence etc.). Accordingly, the fact that the crimin
John Carson wrote: If, however, we don't accept that divine whim defines necessity Realistically speaking, the only other choice is your whim or mine, or the collective human opinion. Once again, it is the one who can enforce the standard that makes the standard which matters. What you wish isn't necessarily true, just like wishing gravity didn't apply to you. John Carson wrote: You probably want to argue that God must act according to his nature and that his nature includes justice. But since you will define anything that God does as just, we are back with tautology. Wrong. If that statement is correct, you are equally stuck in a tautological mindset. Your alternative definition of cruelty or goodness or love is based on something equally arbitrary (according to your standard), and in fact is less valid since it changes with the collective opinion of people. John Carson wrote: Your phrasing is somewhat ambiguous here but you appear to be saying that whatever God does supplies the definition of love. This presumably extends to the hundreds of thousands of people slaughtered either at God's command or directly by him in the Old Testament (including women and children). This is pure tautology. You're trying so hard to prove your point, but you are missing the real question. God has more than one attribute. He doesn't do everything from an obvious attitude of love. That's the whole point of me telling you that He is also just and holy. Just like humans who punish criminals aren't necessarily doing it because the love the criminal, God punishes sin because it requires punishment. BTW, you have used "tautology" many times. If that is your only real argument, you're on very shaky ground. Definitions require descriptions of the thing being defined. If I say that God is love, then show you the actions He says were loving actions, I have told you what love is. This is not a tautology, it is a definition. If you want to believe that love is something else, that's fine, but you haven't changed God's definition into a tautology by preferring another definition. John
"You said a whole sentence with no words in it, and I understood you!" -- my wife as she cries about slowly becoming a geek.