God is evil or having limited power?

[Tiassa]

Deadwood

Tiassa, how does God bribe us?

How does God threaten us with deprivation?

I believe Felix has explained the point exactly. However, to put it into more words than necessary:

* Imagine that you are standing on a high bluff with trails leading down into a small valley on either side. To your right is a stagnant swamp; to your left is a pleasant glade. Preferring the sunlight that streams past the rock formations above it, the smell of the ferns and trees surrounding it, and the sparkle of the water, you choose the glade. This is a free-will decision.

* Imagine that you are standing on a high bluff with trails leading down into a small valley on either side. To your right is a stagnant swamp; to your left is a pleasant glade. A man appears beside you and makes you the following offer: If you choose the swamp, he will reward you. If you choose the glade, he will condemn you. This is not a free-will decision.

Faith is abstract: it has no logical foundation, for that is its nature. Thus, we observe the results of faith. Christian faith, for instance, has done little, if anything, to elevate society that did not attempt to repair what could have been avoided; perhaps the man on the bluff runs a hospital for the sick on the other side of the swamp--would you have required the services of that hospital had you not accepted his offer and tread through brackish water and made yourself sick in the septic environment? Had you not chosen what is bad for you in order to attain a reward, would that badness have made you sick?

What if you objected to the offer, and said, "But the swamp is unhealthy, and it will make me sick?" And the man responded, "You will not be sick; there is a reward on the other side."

When we examine the results of Christian faith, history tells a sad, sad tale. Why should we accept a bribe and make ourselves sick descending into the quagmire of Christian faith? It is, after all, faith; for when you turn to ask the man another question, he is not there, and you must accept on faith that you have been offered any reward whatsoever.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Tiassa]

A couple other things, Deadwood

You all give the child example. I guess its wrong to discipline children these days. If the child does wrong its the parents fault. Yet if the parent can not do anything when the child does wrong then society looks down on that parent.

First off, you've demonstrated that you missed the point.

However, it's an interesting few set of assertions. We'll take it in parts:

* I guess its wrong to discipline children these days. What has that to do with the example at hand? Is it proper discipline to teach the child that the UN will come through and electrcute them to death for going to church on Saturday?

* If the child does wrong its the parents fault. Yeah, that's about it. I'll put it into a more specific context: Why should a parent be angry at a child for breaking a rule that has never been presented to a child? Ah, yes ... Pavlov. Beat the child for their own good, eh? Furthermore, I am reminded of the anti-drug commercials aimed at parents in the 1980s in this country: The most famous one was a haggard father yelling at his kid, holding a cigar box with marijuana and a bolt pipe. He berates the kid, demanding to know what he was thinking, how stupid can the kid be? "Where did you learn this?" demands the furious, condescending father. The kid glares back and yells: "From you! I learned it from watching you!" If you are the parent, would you prefer your kid emulate you or a celebrity? Why punish a child for following in the parent's way?

* Yet if the parent can not do anything when the child does wrong then society looks down on that parent. I have asserted here many times that Christianity often has the appearance of keeping up with the Joneses. Forgive me if I don't know what the colloquial term is for this down under. It is best expressed by the parental logic: What would the neighbors think? Do you want them to think we're bad parents?

At the festival a couple weeks ago, I saw an interesting thing. Children being reprimanded without violence. If I go to the mall, or over to see parts of the extended family, I witness a strange thing. Parents smacking their kids for relatively small stuff.

At the pagan festival, I witnessed a stranger, yet more welcome thing. Parents explaining to children what was inappropriate about the child's actions. And the presentation of an alternative: You shouldn't do that here, you might break the glass spiders; go play water-fight over there--you've got plenty of room and stuff to hide behind. A lot better, in my opinion, than, "Come here, damn it! You're going to get a tanning!" Nobody wanted their children to feel ashamed; they wanted them to learn to understand. I was delighted, while painting pretty designs on a car belonging to friends of mine, when a six year-old boy began excitedly telling me in perfect compare/contrast format, why this was better than an art gallery. ("I mean, I like art galleries, but here I get to make the painting ...." He went on like that for about ten minutes, and even figured out how to make "comets" with a can of spray paint. He even thanked me for letting him be Basquiat after he put two stars and a comet into my little painting on the car. Hello? Hello? Who says kids aren't perceptive?)

The difference, of course, that was immediately observable in the parents, was the directly expressed philosophy that, "We wanted kids; we want to raise the best people we can." The notion of, "We sacrifice so much for you," wasn't apparent. Why? Nobody in that particular conversation looked upon parenthood as a sacrifice. Some saw it as an opportunity, some as an adventure, some as a duty, and some as an adventure. But nobody I met during that festival expressed that parenthood was a trial, sacrifice, or that it demanded a price. And please understand, the parental philosophy mystified me; I had plenty of opportunity to learn about how these people viewed their children. And I'm glad I did: it gives me a little more hope for the human race.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

A stark example of the result of this was an occasion in which I witnessed a Christian "helping" a man who had fallen ill in the street....As others in our assembled party commented on the hollowness of the Christian man's "help", my associate noted: "What more can we expect? I can't ask anything more than he's capable of giving, right?"

I normally wouldn't comment on something like this sent to someone else, but it is so similar to Jesus' parable of the good samaritan I just had to post.

I think the people here are all at least vaguely familiar with the story about the good samaritan <a href="http://bible.gospelcom.net/cgi-bin/bible?passage=Luke+10%3A30-37&version=NIV&showfn=yes&showxref=yes&language=english">here it is just in case</a>

Here's the thing, if you changed "Samaritan" to "Nazi", you'd get the idea about what the Jews at the time thought of Samaritans. The priest at the time was probably going to some sort of ritual where if he had touched a body, he could not participate. Maybe the same for the Levite. These were the religious people--the ones that were supposed to help. They went instead to their more superficial religious duties rather than truly helping the man. In essence, Jesus said, "you're worse than a Nazi" by attending only to the superficial duties of religion.
Interesting how humanity never changes.

 

[Tiassa]

That's interesting, Dan,

... but it doesn't change the fact that this is the effect of Christianity on its adherents. I've made points about undereducation, and I accept that in this case; however, Christianity fosters a number of undereducated superstitions.

In the end, it shouldn't matter: everyone has superstitions. But Christian superstitions seem to harm and threaten harm to other people. Christianity in the current American form is so damaging to society that we'll all be better off when the faithful all go home to God.

You may have read my tantrums about Oregon; you've most likely read my tantrums about Christianity in the public schools; if I might reduce myself to the level of generalization applied by Christians against other people in society, I would ask what the number of shoot-em-up gang-bangers I endured through high school who wore crosses and thought of themselves as Christians says about the religion. On one occasion, a murder suspect and known drug dealer and pimp "accidentally" ... uh ... "shot himself" (it's likely the girlfriend did it) in Tacoma, Washington. Thousands turned out for his funeral, talking about what a good guy this Christian crack-pimping killer was. How effing ridiculous can it get?

I'm sure you've noted a couple of my spouts about music in the 1980s, and the Christian censors. What, is hypocrisy stock and standard for the faith?

It runs through the faith, Dan ... it's an observable trend, at least, to the point that one can prejudicially speculate what certain groups of Christians will do, and have no fear of actually being wrong because, strangely enough, the faithful fulfill the assertion. At that point, it's no longer a prejudice against the system but a projection based on observable effect.

If a Christian mother is worried about her daughter's soul, what compels the parent to kick the child out of the house? It started out as an argument about whether or not the boy was "moral" enough to date the girl. It ended up with my cousin going over to his house and giving away her virginity. What has the mother accomplished by the application of her faith standards?

It seems the faith compels people to poor judgement and hypocrisy while assuaging them with delusions of moral propriety. It's pretty damn constant ....

We had a diversity rule at my work about what you could write on your screen-saver. One day a woman put up the phrase, "Jesus wept". Our HR decided, actively, to look the other way. So I put up, as my desktop, Perdurabo's Babalon-777 seal and waited for someone to ask me what it was. When someone finally did, I told them, and they were offended; HR asked me about it. I pointed out that the rule was already broken by others, with their seeming approval, and that was the end of the rule. Of course, the complaining party, to their departing day at the company, did not understand the "special treatment" I was being given. Ah, Christos ... why dost thou weep? Mayhaps the failure of the mission? Indeed.

Even I won't deny Christianity's potential. But we'd all love to see it someday.

thanx,
Tiassa

 

[Deadwood]

A stark example of the result of this was an occasion in which I witnessed a Christian "helping" a man who had fallen ill in the street. An associate of mine, who had not consumed a tremendous amount of alcohol--his illness was later determined to be a bad chimichunga--left the bar where we had just arrived and vomited in the street. He was in bad shape when I arrived, just in time to see a man approach and ask, "Are you alright?" Getting no verbal response from the sick man, the good samaritan said, "Here," and handed him a piece of paper, presumably to clean his mouth with. However, the next thing the man said is, "You need Jesus Christ," and walked off into the night. The paper he gave over was a single-page religious tract excoriating homosexuals. In the Christian man's mind, he had done a service, and reached out to a soul in distress; of course, he left a man ill in the street. In the end, our associate rejoined us and sat quietly in the bar all night, drinking only water and snacking delicately on potato chips. He smiled ironically the whole time. As others in our assembled party commented on the hollowness of the Christian man's "help", my associate noted: "What more can we expect? I can't ask anything more than he's capable of giving, right?"

Yeah, I've had my own experience of this. Once on my travels I was going to give some money to a homeless shelter because it is the right thing to do but didn't know where to find it. So on my merily way in the heart of the city walking with my head looking down at the pathway I get this pamphlet shoved in my face. I just accept it and say "thanks" then in the next few metres have a look to see what it says. It was a brochore from the "Australian Bible Society" with the title ""ARE YOU GOING TO HEAVEN?". So I have a quick look inside then thinking "oh he's Christian, he must be able to help me!". So I go back over to him and sort of tap him on the shoulder and he turned his head, so I asked" excuse me, do oyou know where a homeless shelter is?". Then all he did was shrug his shoulders and walked away handing out pamphlets. I was stunned. I thought some one handing out pamphlets about Christianity would actually care. So I learnt the hard way. But anyway, the whole pamphlet was just about giving out free literature about whats wrong with this denomination, and whats wrong with that one. This denomination isn't Christian and neither is this one (pretty much sounds Christian NOT). It was a joke to Christianity itself. The pamphlet was one of them fire and brimstone things.

* Imagine that you are standing on a high bluff with trails leading down into a small valley on either side. To your right is a stagnant swamp; to your left is a pleasant glade. Preferring the sunlight that streams past the rock formations above it, the smell of the ferns and trees surrounding it, and the sparkle of the water, you choose the glade. This is a free-will decision.

* Imagine that you are standing on a high bluff with trails leading down into a small valley on either side. To your right is a stagnant swamp; to your left is a pleasant glade. A man appears beside you and makes you the following offer: If you choose the swamp, he will reward you. If you choose the glade, he will condemn you. This is not a free-will decision

Imagine you are having problems. Some dealer comes up to you dealing heroine. On the one hand, you can deal with those problems(the left side of the valley swamp), on the other hand, you can take the heroine path(the right side that looks good), since you have so many problems this is not a free will decision.

Sure enough, the right side looks good from where you are standing. I mean going on with pleasures of the flesh(greed, jealousy, lust), but we all know that those things lead to bigger problems. Though the heroin might look good at the moment, we all know heroin leads to greater problems ending eventually in death. But if you look at life from an eternal perspective, once you get past the swamp with Gods peace and help, there is much better on the horizon. What is on the horizon you ask? Something more than what you could imagine. It was just blocked from view by the swamp and the glade. But tell you what, in the swamp, you have so much more to look forward to. But that glade is just a short term peasure.

So therefore, if you choose the swamp, life still not be so great from an external view. But the peace of God will be with you(a joy that noone can take away).

What if you objected to the offer, and said, "But the swamp is unhealthy, and it will make me sick?" And the man responded, "You will not be sick; there is a reward on the other side."

I tell you that the glade would be an even sicker sight. It would be a haven for thieves( I want what you've got), orgies, violence( you got a better spot then mine). When you imagine that glade, you imagine a place that is peaceful and nice. But history tells us it will be fought over and the contrary to the swamp, where everyone will want to help each other and give each other encouragement to go on to what is good.

At the festival a couple weeks ago, I saw an interesting thing. Children being reprimanded without violence.

I actually find it very interesting that when I say discipline, you assert violence. Is that the way society has headed? I think things are getting too beaurocratic(sp?). Today, I think it is usually asserted that if you yell at your child then you are "scaring them for life", this is also the case with smacking. In Australia, a parent is only allowed by law to smack a child with an open hand. Anything else, and it is child abuse. Fair enough. What I was doing was not missing the point but on the other hand pointing out that because you all don't want to be responsible of your own sins and want to keep on sinning, you merely want someone to blame. On the otherhand, God sent Jesus so that our sins might be atoned for. so I am not blaming God for my sins, but turning back to God in repentence(turning away from sin). But you want to turn away from God, keep on sinning, and let free will be your justification(whereas, I am personally justified by Jesus Christ). Well, I don't know about you guys and gals but not every choice that one makes is right. If someone runs a red light, they can't say free will made me do it, or God created me to run red lights(may be a bit extreme), it just doesn't add up.

Adam and Eve on the other hand, were sinless. In perfect fellowship with God. They knew that God had never lied, deceived, done anything wrong to them, or harmed them in anyway. He provided for all of their needs and more. They knew full well what they were doing when they disobeyed. They wanted equality with God, and that can never be attained by us. It is unattainable. Adam and Eve, were not ignorant or mislead. They had it all. And still that was not enough.

Thanks

 

[felix]

Originally posted by dan1123

So what does "wrong" in this connotation mean? I would guess that it means morally. In that case, yes, the Bible says all humanity is morally wrong. If you say that's unfair, you're at a dead-end. How can you argue with God that he set His standards too high?

I'm not trying to argue with god that he set his standards too high. This is one of my big peeves with christianity, is that we're supposed to feel like we're tainted, dirty, morally wrong, whatevever-you-want-to-call-it-as-long-as-it-sounds-bad just by the fact that we're alive. I know it takes all kinds, but that seems like a pretty depressing way to approach life. I like to be happy and approach life believing in the fundamental "good" in people.

 

[dan1123]

felix:

we're supposed to feel like we're tainted, dirty, morally wrong, whatever-you-want-to-call-it-as-long-as-it-sounds-bad just by the fact that we're alive.

No, I don't think that we're supposed to feel that way in Christianity. I think some chronology is wrong here:

Outside of being a Christian, what you do seems fine to you. There may be some reasons why you think what you are doing really <i>is</i> okay, but hey, you can always find someone worse than you, so everything is peachy. However, in God's eyes, you don't measure up as far as goodness is concerned. Then when one becomes a Christian, they become aware of God's high standards and ask for forgiveness of what they were formerly unaware. Once they ask for forgiveness, they are forgiven, and don't have to think about themselves that way anymore. The greatness of God's forgiveness is thought of as much higher with the acute realization of just how much He forgave, and so Christians are grateful for what He has done for them. This is a mystery to many non-Christians because they are unaware that any of this is needed at all.

tiassa:

It runs through the faith, Dan ... it's an observable trend, at least, to the point that one can prejudicially speculate what certain groups of Christians will do, and have no fear of actually being wrong because, strangely enough, the faithful fulfill the assertion. At that point, it's no longer a prejudice against the system but a projection based on observable effect.

Poor decisions run through all of humanity. You can blame who you wish, but everyone is in this together. Christianity becomes a target due to its higher standards. The higher the standard, the more people will fail to attain it. The more people dislike whoever fails to attain their own goals, the more they lash out.

What is the solution then? Remove the standards because they are too hard? What if the standards had helped thousands of people, but a few couldn't attain them? It would be like banning marathons because most people can't run 26 miles. I don't think anyone would argue that a person who trains for a marathon is harming himself, or others around him who see him train.

 

[felix]

Originally posted by dan1123
felix:

No, I don't think that we're supposed to feel that way in Christianity. I think some chronology is wrong here:

Outside of being a Christian, what you do seems fine to you. There may be some reasons why you think what you are doing really <i>is</i> okay, but hey, you can always find someone worse than you, so everything is peachy. However, in God's eyes, you don't measure up as far as goodness is concerned. Then when one becomes a Christian, they become aware of God's high standards and ask for forgiveness of what they were formerly unaware. Once they ask for forgiveness, they are forgiven, and don't have to think about themselves that way anymore. The greatness of God's forgiveness is thought of as much higher with the acute realization of just how much He forgave, and so Christians are grateful for what He has done for them. This is a mystery to many non-Christians because they are unaware that any of this is needed at all.

This basically just confirms my statement, Dan. We're bad. And if you ask for forgiveness, then you don't have to feel bad about being bad. Oh, and everyone that's NOT christian is just plain bad. There's no hope for their souls unless they decide to become christian and ask for forgiveness.

This christian "high standard" stuff sounds more and more like christian big ego. Of course, that's not exactly news. Nor is it reserved just for christians. All the religions think they've found the "one true path". We aren't born with a road map for life so people create one and say, "this is what god wants. question not. just give me your tithe."

 

[dan1123]

This christian "high standard" stuff sounds more and more like christian big ego. Of course, that's not exactly news. Nor is it reserved just for christians. All the religions think they've found the "one true path".

By saying that Christianity is not the "one true path", you argue that you have a better path. Then it just becomes a question of whose path to choose? You are saying in that statement that you have the "one true path" and that everyone else is wrong about theirs. It's as much dogma as all the other religions. You can argue all you want about your path being right, but you know that no matter how much someone in a religion asserts that they are right, it doesn't make it so.

And about the higher standard, loving your enemies and forgiving everyone who does wrong to you no matter how many times they do wrong to you is not a high standard?

 

[felix]

Originally posted by dan1123

By saying that Christianity is not the "one true path", you argue that you have a better path. Then it just becomes a question of whose path to choose? You are saying in that statement that you have the "one true path" and that everyone else is wrong about theirs.

Actually, I'm saying that I don't believe there is ONE true path. There are an infinite number of paths to take. And I believe none guarantees you any more "salvation" than another, because we're all just adding to the experience bucket for all eternity.

It's as much dogma as all the other religions. You can argue all you want about your path being right, but you know that no matter how much someone in a religion asserts that they are right, it doesn't make it so.

Couldn't have said it better myself. If I didn't know better I'd say you argue against christianity too.

And about the higher standard, loving your enemies and forgiving everyone who does wrong to you no matter how many times they do wrong to you is not a high standard?

First I'd like to state that while I know this is preached by christianity, it is far from practiced. But that's ok right, because they ask for forgiveness for their hypocrasy and whatever else they may have done and then everything's all right, right?

Second...

Well, to me, NO that's not a high standard. Loving your enemies....I definitely believe in knowing and understanding your enemy and through that, in a way, come to love your enemy. But this, I see as a tool for defeating your enemy. They are, after all, your enemy.

And forgiving everyone that does "wrong" to you no matter how times they do "wrong" to you, just sounds like cowardice to me. Don't get me wrong. I have been known to "turn the other cheek". Although, I admit, not that often. And again, I guess it just depends on what you view as being "wronged", and just how "wrong" you feel it is. If someone's passing untrue rumors about me, then whatever, I say let 'em. Even if someone is stealing from me, I could overlook that, although trust would go right out the window. If someone tries to hit me on the head with a beer bottle, I'm just as likely to stick my thumb in their eye.

 

[dan1123]

Actually, I'm saying that I don't believe there is ONE true path. There are an infinite number of paths to take. And I believe none guarantees you any more "salvation" than another

The path can be as complex as you like, but it is still a path. Yours differs from Christianity and therefore cannot be compatible with Christianity. That's the problem with trying to reconcile other religions to Christianity. The vast majority of other religions give you chance after chance to get stuff "right" by their beliefs--and much of the time you don't really have to believe, but just do certain things and you're going to some mystical "higher place".

However, in Christianity, you have one chance--this life. There is only one path--Jesus. And the game is playing for keeps--eternity.

And forgiving everyone that does "wrong" to you no matter how times they do "wrong" to you, just sounds like cowardice to me

It really helps your emotional health to forgive and not hold a grudge. While you also should love your neighbor enough to help them out if they are in a bad enough situation to have to steal, or protect someone if they are being assaulted. It is the motivation of love that really matters.

 

[Rambler]

Dan

You Wrote:
"It is the motivation of love that really matters."

You know nearly all peadophiles say their motivation to abuse children is their "love" for them.....How would god feel about a peadophile???

 

[felix]

Originally posted by dan1123

The path can be as complex as you like, but it is still a path. Yours differs from Christianity and therefore cannot be compatible with Christianity. That's the problem with trying to reconcile other religions to Christianity. The vast majority of other religions give you chance after chance to get stuff "right" by their beliefs--and much of the time you don't really have to believe, but just do certain things and you're going to some mystical "higher place".

However, in Christianity, you have one chance--this life. There is only one path--Jesus. And the game is playing for keeps--eternity.

Dan, christianity doesn't even demand that you get ANYTHING "right". Christianity says,"don't bother trying, you all suck, just ask for forgiveness I'll take care of the rest." Chances shmances. Not that I think it's any more or less shinola than all the other religions. And how is christian heavan NOT a "mystical higher place"? And how is JESUS a path? That just doesn't translate to a comprehensible concept for me.

And besides that. What happens to all the people never get opportunity one to learn anything about christianity? Does god say,"Oh well, such is the luck of the draw, you're SOL, have fun in hell."

It really helps your emotional health to forgive and not hold a grudge. While you also should love your neighbor enough to help them out if they are in a bad enough situation to have to steal, or protect someone if they are being assaulted. It is the motivation of love that really matters.

I've found that it helps my emotional health to recognize if and when my friendly nature is being taken advantage of, and give a friendly warning to the source. If the warning is heeded, then I can forgive just about anything. If it's not heeded, then it's time become a real asshole.

And what if the person(s) "wronging" you never ASK for forgiveness. Are you still supposed to just forgive them? Is this a christian teaching? And if so, you don't find it a little strange that you're god expects you to have more capacity for forgiveness in your heart than he does?

 

[tony1]

Reality Check

Originally posted by tiassa
the standards of Tony1: assuming context without a sense of empathy, thus placing the point within your own context so that your own answers seem appropriate to your own opinion);

It seems that you would like to define "empathy," as well as relocate every discussion to an artificial context you will gladly provide.

We don't need to "assume" a context; we already have a context, the world we live in.

and employing Biblical quotes without any sense of contextual propriety and thus assuming that you need not take the risk of developing your own expression.

Again, the Bible is a book appearing within the larger context of the world.

It creates the appearance that you are 1) incapable of understanding the point to which you respond,

On the other hand, the reader should ensure that he/she has grasped the response first.

2) incapable of perceiving the entirety of the post, since the Law of Thelema was an argumentative example used to demonstrate a point,

Of course, had it been accepted, it would have been the point.

and 3) incapable of constructing your own perspective and thus offering subjective philosophy with the assumption of its definitive objectivity.

Of course, you're just blowing smoke, if you think we think you could be objective.

religiously-inspired arrogance...numbing the intangible human connections of empathy and sympathy: you cannot reach out across the void to even attempt to envision the perspective of another since the assumed correctness of your own vision compels you to naturally presume another is wrong simply because they disagree with you.

On the other hand, perhaps it is because we can envision the perspective of another, that we, or I, do this.

* Imagine that ... This is a free-will decision.

* Imagine that...This is not a free-will decision.

* Imagine that you are standing on a high bluff with trails leading down into a small valley on either side. To your right is a stagnant swamp; to your left is a pleasant glade. A man appears beside you and makes you the following statement: If you choose the swamp, you will suffer. If you choose the glade, you will be OK.
What will you choose, and what kind of decision is that?

Faith is abstract: it has no logical foundation,

Faith is real, and it has no logical foundation.
It is, in fact, the foundation.

Thus, we observe the results of faith. Christian faith, for instance, has done little, if anything, to elevate society that did not attempt to repair what could have been avoided;

Of course, the presence of any Christians in a country improves that country.

But nobody I met during that festival expressed that parenthood was a trial, sacrifice, or that it demanded a price.

It isn't.

however, Christianity fosters a number of undereducated superstitions.

In your case, overeducation has fostered some serious superstitions, such as the goddess thing you mention.

Christian crack-pimping killer

How ridiculous can you get?

Originally posted by felix
This is one of my big peeves with christianity, is that we're supposed to feel like we're tainted, dirty, morally wrong, whatevever-you-want-to-call-it-as-long-as-it-sounds-bad just by the fact that we're alive.

Actually, you're NOT supposed to do that.
He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;
He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.
(Job 33:27,28, KJV).

but that seems like a pretty depressing way to approach life.

It is, that's why I ditched it.

This christian "high standard" stuff sounds more and more like christian big ego.

Do want to drive a car built to very low standards?
Is it a "big ego" issue to do things right?

 

[Tiassa]

Tony, you're getting so ridiculous it's ALMOST funny

It seems that you would like to define "empathy," as well as relocate every discussion to an artificial context you will gladly provide.

We don't need to "assume" a context; we already have a context, the world we live in.

And that context is set entirely by you? I'm glad you have no use for the abstract relations of human existence. Tell me, Tony, if the context of the world is so simple, why do so many Christians show such diversity of beliefs? As your hatred of your fellow Christians shows, such diversity is apparently unacceptable to you. You have demonstrated my point regarding empathy, and I thank you for making it so straightforward. Normally your tangents have nothing to do with the immediate context. Of course, that's why you go around pushing the preaching of later human beings--imperfect human beings--such as Paul as writing new, literal truths about God as you do when you try to apply 2 Timothy to Genesis. You have no demonstrable sense of context whatsoever, and this derives from your inability to see an issue from a perspective common to anyone but yourself for even a second.

Again, the Bible is a book appearing within the larger context of the world.

And you set the context? Tell me, Tony, if the context of the Bible is so straightforward, why do so many Christians show such diversity of beliefs? As your hatred of fellow Christians shows, such diversity is apparently unacceptable to you.

On the other hand, the reader should ensure that he/she has grasped the response first.

And we all applaud whenever you get close.

Of course, had it been accepted, it would have been the point.

Of course, had you understood that Thelema was not the direct point, you would not be having such a ridiculous hangup. Do better, Tony.

Of course, you're just blowing smoke, if you think we think you could be objective.

Thank you for admitting that you're so self-centered that even a moment's human objectivity is impossible for you. This makes it that much more apparent that you have nothing to say except for diversions intended to interrupt human progress through learning. If you weren't so hung up on yourself, you might understand what the value of other people in the world is.

On the other hand, perhaps it is because we can envision the perspective of another, that we, or I, do this.

Hey, it's not anyone's fault but your own that all you choose to show is the detriment of your faith. In the meantime, few infidels are surprised.

Imagine that you are standing on a high bluff with trails leading down into a small valley on either side. To your right is a stagnant swamp; to your left is a pleasant glade. A man appears beside you and makes you the following statement: If you choose the swamp, you will suffer. If you choose the glade, you will be OK.
What will you choose, and what kind of decision is that?

This is an invalid scenario, as the man in the allegorical sense claims to have dominion over your fate; no neutral decision is offered. One might, possibly, be able to endure the swamp, but then the man is on the other side to put a Holy Cap in Your Ass for God. You have, indeed, missed the point. But by this time, who's counting?

Faith is real, and it has no logical foundation.
It is, in fact, the foundation.

Exactly what I would assert is the problem with Christian faith: that one must have faith that something is true before it is allowed to be accepted as true. You know, I don't believe in assholes, either, but as your faith has demonstrated, my belief or lack thereof changes nothing of the fact that assholes exist.

Of course, the presence of any Christians in a country improves that country.

Yeah. Ask the Sioux. Or the Nez Perce. Or the Seminole.

It isn't.

I know. But it's an intereting statistical correllation. It's kind of like when people go off about spectacular "satanic" murders, and the harm that such philosophies bring on society, while ignoring the number of murderers in prison who wear crosses and profess faith in Jesus--even at the time of their crimes; of course, they always have the excuse, don't they, that the Devil made them do it?

The correllation this time is that I hear about the sacrifices of parenthood and see the, "I put a roof over your head so you obey my rules" (without regard to the sanity of those rules, but then, nobody with sane rules for their children, in my experience, says such stupid things) almost exclusively from people who consider themselves followers of Jesus Christ. Of course, something about context, and being able to understand the point. We're not disappointed in you, Tony, for we've come to expect it of you.

In your case, overeducation has fostered some serious superstitions, such as the goddess thing you mention.

One is never finished learning, and therefore cannot exceed. The overeducation you refer to can be construed as a version of undereducation: you know, like brilliant specialists who have no ability to relate to people? Yet you're the only person around here who will claim my Goddess bender to be superstitious: were you capable of understanding those things written about Her, you'd know what I'm talking about. But we're not disappointed in you, Tony, for your lack of understanding is what we've come to expect.

How ridiculous can you get?

Where did you live in the 1980's? Or did all of those guys in prison for killing people who happen to wear crosses only do it because the Devil made them?

Do want to drive a car built to very low standards?
Is it a "big ego" issue to do things right?

And here is further evidence: It's not like I'm the only person you're incapable of perceiving correctly. Swing and a miss, Tony ... take the walk back to the dugout and wait for your next turn at the plate.

But we're not disappointed, Tony, we realize it's the best you can do, and all we can hope for is that someday you'll learn to do better.

,
Tiassa

 

[felix]

Re: Reality Check

Originally posted by tony1

* Imagine that you are standing on a high bluff with trails leading down into a small valley on either side. To your right is a stagnant swamp; to your left is a pleasant glade. A man appears beside you and makes you the following statement: If you choose the swamp, you will suffer. If you choose the glade, you will be OK.
What will you choose, and what kind of decision is that?

And why should I trust this person? You just believe the first person that pops up tells you where to go?

Actually, you're NOT supposed to do that.
He looketh upon men, and if any say, I have sinned, and perverted that which was right, and it profited me not;
He will deliver his soul from going into the pit, and his life shall see the light.
(Job 33:27,28, KJV).

This still looks like you're supposed to feel that way to me, tony.

It is, that's why I ditched it.

Yeah, you just replaced with the feeling that everyone else is bad.

Do want to drive a car built to very low standards?
Is it a "big ego" issue to do things right?

No, it's a big ego to think that you're the only one who could possibly BE right.

 

[Deadwood]

Of course, the presence of any Christians in a country improves that country.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yeah. Ask the Sioux. Or the Nez Perce. Or the Seminole.

Please also ask starving chidren, parents, seniours and many other people all over the world in countries who are poorer and who are now fed and have medicine and have shelter.

Where did you live in the 1980's? Or did all of those guys in prison for killing people who happen to wear crosses only do it because the Devil made them?

Actually, I wouldn't believe they are Christians. If someone goes out killing people, does the fact that they wear a cross around their neck or as an earing mean that they are Christian? I certainly wouldn't think so. So why do you if I may ask?

 

[Tiassa]

Cheap answers there, Deadwood

Please also ask starving chidren, parents, seniours and many other people all over the world in countries who are poorer and who are now fed and have medicine and have shelter.

That makes it all better now, doesn't it? We can also ask those children of single parents whose mothers were denied birth control for Christian values, and whose mothers didn't understand the implications of their actions while having sex because of Christian values, and whose mothers are living in poverty because the father skipped out on his Christian values and the Christian moralists with legislative influence don't want to "contribute to the mothers' immorality."

Actually, I wouldn't believe they are Christians. If someone goes out killing people, does the fact that they wear a cross around their neck or as an earing mean that they are Christian? I certainly wouldn't think so. So why do you if I may ask?

Again with the distrust in people. Just because it's negative to your view of Christian faith, these people aren't Christians? It's the sum effect of the faith. But the cross-wearing, Jesus-tattooed gang-bangers of the American 1980s considered themselves Christians in many cases. The point is largely relative, and is put up in contrast to the frequent Christian moralist claim that things like Satanism and Witchcraft are unhealthy and should not be allowed while pointing to the "crimes" of Satanists and the moralists' own superstitions about the Craft. We who are not Christian endure this prejudice from Christians every day, and it seems you're willing to duck it with the classic, "They're not Christians," line as opposed to addressing the simple fact that raw numbers show Christianity to be a greater detriment to society than a few wacked-out people who can't figure out the tenets of their own reactionary faith.

Even when I was a Satanist, I knew better than to hurt other people; there were other ways to handle conflict, and other ways to go about the faith--in fact, the most bloody sorceries I've encountered come in texts derived from various Christian-related superstitions, and, like I noted, the Satanist crimes were largely committed by people whose faith was reactionary and not genuine. Sure, they're Satanists, but they're individuals, like the individual Christians who commit crimes against other people. What is the point of Christian morality if you're all acting like the condemned, evil, savage infidels?

Cheap answers, Deadwood ... and your answers are getting cheaper, it seems.

--Tiassa

 

[dan1123]

The point is largely relative, and is put up in contrast to the frequent Christian moralist claim that things like Satanism and Witchcraft are unhealthy and should not be allowed while pointing to the "crimes" of Satanists and the moralists' own superstitions about the Craft. We who are not Christian endure this prejudice from Christians every day

You call the battle between those who are Christian and those who practice witchcraft a "Christian prejudice"? Don't you realize that a country founded by people who are more Christian than you have probably ever met would be hostile towards a religion that directly opposed it? If you want to make it a crime to be a Christian or spread Christianity, you can move to a communist nation where they will support you.

What is the point of Christian morality if you're all acting like the condemned, evil, savage infidels?

I think you are becoming a victim of your own stereotypes tiassa. You should know that the majority of Christians don't act in any way worse than you do.

 

[tony1]

tiassa, I'd be laughing except it's your life at stake

*Originally posted by tiassa
And that context is set entirely by you?*
Actually, thanks for the hidden compliment, but I didn't "set" the world.
It was already there when I was born.

*why do so many Christians show such diversity of beliefs?*

1. So many aren't Christians in the first place. In the same way that you confuse physical presence inside a church building, Catholicism, Islam, Hinduism, etc with Christianity, many people who sit on chairs inside church buildings think they are Christians. Of course, many of these chair-occupiers are Catholics, Muslims, Hindus, satanists, pagans as well as atheists, agnostics, etc.
   Some know it, and some don't.
2. Among actual Christians, some of the diversity comes from the teaching.of non-Christian teachers, Catholic pastors, Hindu pastors, satanist pastors, pagan pastors etc who are mistaken for Christian pastors.
3. Among actual Christians, some more diversity comes from the choice to believe Catholic, Hindu, Muslim, satanist, atheist, agnostic, etc doctrines in the absence of knowing Christian doctrine.
4. Ultimately though, actual Christians simply don't know what God has said, i.e. they don't read God's word, not do they listen to what God has to say.

*such diversity is apparently unacceptable to you.*

It's perfectly acceptable to me.
In fact, it makes it very easy to detect non-Christians.
That is why Catholicism is such a pernicious poison; it sounds similar to Christianity.
It uses many of the same words, but with opposite meanings.

*that's why you go around pushing the preaching of later human beings... apply 2 Timothy to Genesis. ... no demonstrable sense of context ... inability to see an issue from a perspective common to anyone but yourself for even a second.*

This is something I would expect Satan to get pissed off about.
No surprise that you're telling me.

*so self-centered*

Don't be so hard on yourself. You come across as being completely Satan-centered.

*claims to have dominion over your fate; no neutral decision is offered.*

Learn to read, tiassa.

* I don't believe in assholes*

Absence of serious constipation should establish that they do.

*Ask the Sioux. Or the Nez Perce. Or the Seminole*

Of course, one might consider asking Christian representatives of a supposedly oppressed group what they think.

In particular, one should consider asking Christian ex-shamans.

*...wear crosses...*

Same relevance as sitting in a chair inside a church building.

* you're the only person around here who will claim my Goddess bender to be superstitious*

Oh, it isn't superstitious.
You really have seen the demon presenting itself as your "goddess."

*were you capable of understanding those things written about Her, you'd know what I'm talking about.*

You ate the fruit and now you think you have the knowledge of good and evil.
I'll bet you forgot about being able to tell which was which.
You see, it WAS a sucker bet.

*Originally posted by dan1123
If you want to make it a crime to be a Christian or spread Christianity, you can move to a communist nation where they will support you. *

Don't forget you're talking to a demon-worshipper.
He wants to make it illegal here.