Is purposeless torture moral?

[Greatest I am]

So no statistics, but a ridiculous statement by your own account:


So you want people to have more problems in life? You're either hopelessly confused or a sadist.

You indicated that the statistics would not make a difference anyway yet you do not like my not bothering to get them, and then indicate erroneously that I want to create problems.

Notice why I generally ignor your sorry ass.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

You indicated that the statistics would not make a difference anyway yet you do not like my not bothering to get them, and then indicate erroneously that I want to create problems.

Notice why I generally ignor your sorry ass.

Yes, we know you are oblivious.

Your supposed statistics would only show your later statement ridiculous or sadistic, by your own assertion of legal drug use being more problematic.

Without them, we can just as well assume no difference in detriment to a person's life between legal and illegal drug use, with some detriment easily demonstrable. Legal use, being much more ubiquitous, simply increases that detriment to the same degree that more drugs are made legal, and thus also more prevalent.

Without your claimed statistics, you've simply avoided embarrassing yourself further. Probably a wise move.

 

[Greatest I am]

More prevalent!

Seriously?

They are everywhere.

Ask any kid or teen.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

More prevalent!

Seriously?

They are everywhere.

Ask any kid or teen.

Really? You can pick up illegal drugs at any convenience, grocery, or liquor store any time you want them? I believe there is a quantitative difference, with legal substances being more readily available.

Or is this just a poorly attempted straw man, since kids and teens cannot access legal substances? Why would we only considered kids and teens?

 

[Balerion]

So just talking out of your hat, huh?

Not at all. When people say "I'm in hell," the context is the Biblical Hell, the place of eternal suffering and torment. This is why the word is often followed by the qualifier "on earth," as in "It was hell on earth."

The word itself comes from helle in Old English, referring to the realm of the dead, so its first meaning was not "a place of misery." That's just how we've appropriated it as a reference to the literal "Hell" of Christian mythology.

 

[Syne]

Not at all. When people say "I'm in hell," the context is the Biblical Hell, the place of eternal suffering and torment. This is why the word is often followed by the qualifier "on earth," as in "It was hell on earth."

The word itself comes from helle in Old English, referring to the realm of the dead, so its first meaning was not "a place of misery." That's just how we've appropriated it as a reference to the literal "Hell" of Christian mythology.

Really? People here on Earth saying they're in hell literally mean they are in an punitive afterlife?! :bugeye: "Eternal suffering" instead of "a state of misery"? Or does it make more sense that "hell on earth" specifies a condition of misery that seems as if it may be eternal?

You stopped far short of the whole etymology there. Why don't you try again? Or are you saying that Old English was the language the Bible was originally written in?

 

[Balerion]

Really? People here on Earth saying they're in hell literally mean they are in an punitive afterlife?! :bugeye: "Eternal suffering" instead of "a state of misery"? Or does it make more sense that "hell on earth" specifies a condition of misery that seems as if it may be eternal?

No, they don't literally mean anything. That's the point. You're arguing that they mean hell in a literal sense, I'm arguing that they're using it in the context of the Biblical Hell, which is a place of suffering. They're talking about the concept of Fire and Brimstone. Yes, they mean "I'm suffering," but they're not implying that hell is a real place that they currently live in. It's like saying "This is bullshit." Obviously they're talking about something being unjust or incorrect, not trying to say that the thing they're talking about is literally bull excrement.

You stopped far short of the whole etymology there. Why don't you try again? Or are you saying that Old English was the language the Bible was originally written in?

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I'm saying that's where the English word "hell" came from, and what it meant.

 

[Syne]

No, they don't literally mean anything. That's the point. You're arguing that they mean hell in a literal sense, I'm arguing that they're using it in the context of the Biblical Hell, which is a place of suffering. They're talking about the concept of Fire and Brimstone. Yes, they mean "I'm suffering," but they're not implying that hell is a real place that they currently live in. It's like saying "This is bullshit." Obviously they're talking about something being unjust or incorrect, not trying to say that the thing they're talking about is literally bull excrement.

This is a blatant straw man, as I have argued no such thing. I've only argued that hell is merely a "state of misery", nothing more. It is you who has argued that it is "in the context of the Biblical Hell, which is a place of suffering". What a "real place" may be to an incorporeal soul, I have no idea. Could it be a state?

state
1 a : mode or condition of being​

Do you think the incorporeal would require a physical place to be tormented? Or would it just exist in such a state, regardless of physical association? Hell being a "real place" is as ridiculous as the idea of putting a ghost in jail.

Are you being intentionally obtuse? I'm saying that's where the English word "hell" came from, and what it meant.

If your etymology of the word doesn't include how it came to be associated with misery, then it does nothing to support anything you've argued. You'd have to look up the etymology of Gehenna to connect any notion of a "real place" to the word.

 

[Greatest I am]

Really? You can pick up illegal drugs at any convenience, grocery, or liquor store any time you want them? I believe there is a quantitative difference, with legal substances being more readily available.

Or is this just a poorly attempted straw man, since kids and teens cannot access legal substances? Why would we only considered kids and teens?

Not only them but as Care/harm is our first moral principle, they and their protection should be first on our agenda.

http://blog.ted.com/2008/09/17/the_real_differ/

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

Not only them but as Care/harm is our first moral principle, they and their protection should be first on our agenda.

Doesn't justify your straw man.

 

[Balerion]

This is a blatant straw man, as I have argued no such thing. I've only argued that hell is merely a "state of misery", nothing more. It is you who has argued that it is "in the context of the Biblical Hell, which is a place of suffering". What a "real place" may be to an incorporeal soul, I have no idea. Could it be a state?

Apparently you forgot where you are, because the whole point of this thread was to discuss the morality of Hell in the religious context. Someone responded to the OP that he had nothing to worry about, because Hell does not exist. And you disagreed with this person.

So either you were arguing that Hell is a real place, or you simply jumped in to disagree with someone without any clue as to the context of the discussion. At any rate, "Hell" is not a real place.

Do you think the incorporeal would require a physical place to be tormented? Or would it just exist in such a state, regardless of physical association? Hell being a "real place" is as ridiculous as the idea of putting a ghost in jail.

Or people floating bodily in heaven?

Just like valuing your own definition of terms over those already established only muddies discourse, so does valuing your own absurd, inconsistent, and fringe interpretation of the scripture over established and consistent interpretations.

If your etymology of the word doesn't include how it came to be associated with misery, then it does nothing to support anything you've argued. You'd have to look up the etymology of Gehenna to connect any notion of a "real place" to the word.

You're clearly punching above your weight here, so I'll go easy on you: The point was to demonstrate that it did not originally mean a place or state of misery, but simply a place for the dead.

 

[Syne]

Apparently you forgot where you are, because the whole point of this thread was to discuss the morality of Hell in the religious context. Someone responded to the OP that he had nothing to worry about, because Hell does not exist. And you disagreed with this person.

So either you were arguing that Hell is a real place, or you simply jumped in to disagree with someone without any clue as to the context of the discussion. At any rate, "Hell" is not a real place.

Speaking of context:

It is the poor bastards who do believe in it and the poor morals they develop thanks to the belief in that myth that is of concern to me.

Really? So the atheist, or otherwise, drug user isn't in a hell of their own personal creation? Hell is a natural consequence of bad actions and choices, not a motivator of such behavior.

Notice I didn't even address the notion of Hell being a real place, only that the belief in it was itself detrimental.

Where in this exchange, or even this whole thread in general, have I advocated that Hell was a "real place"? I have consistently stated that hell is a state. So this is just another in a long line of straw man arguments from you. Seems to be all you have at your disposal.

Or people floating bodily in heaven?

Just like valuing your own definition of terms over those already established only muddies discourse, so does valuing your own absurd, inconsistent, and fringe interpretation of the scripture over established and consistent interpretations.

First, it is you who misuses terms, even when you've had them defined for you several times. Second, what is inconsistent about interpreting incorporeal states independent of physical locale? Oh, you mean inconsistent with the intentionally elementary interpretations you use to argue by ridicule.

You're clearly punching above your weight here, so I'll go easy on you: The point was to demonstrate that it did not originally mean a place or state of misery, but simply a place for the dead.

Yes, what response from you would be complete without some implied, premature victory?

I'll bite. So what does a "place for the dead" have to do with the OP? You know, the context of "the morality of Hell in the religious context". You should really take me up on my suggestion to look up the etymology of Gehenna before you stick your foot even further down your throat.

 

[Greatest I am]

What a game for your God to play!
Create a place for eternal bliss as well as a place for eternal suffering or death.
Then create beings whom he loves dearly and watches over.
And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place for eternal bliss.
Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible.

Regards
DL

 

[Syne]

What a game for your God to play!
Create a place for eternal bliss as well as a place for eternal suffering or death.
Then create beings whom he loves dearly and watches over.
And in the end, decide which to consider "trash" and "throw away" into the place for eternal suffering or death and which to cling to and love in the place for eternal bliss.
Even man, with all his faults, is greater and more responsible.

When man clearly demonstrates his own capacity for putting himself in miserable situations, it is unreasonable to assume that any such state is otherwise than man's own doing.

 

[Greatest I am]

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Blame man all you like but if created by God, then he will be as God wants him to be.
If God creates a pot with a hole that leaks, he cannot bitch when it leaks or blame it either.

Regards
DL

 

[kx000]

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

My theory is we all came from Heaven and were embodied in early up right humans through the incarnation of Adam, an his holy blood line. Bad angels came down, and are bad men. Good angels came down, and they are good men. Its all 1/4th to 1/3rd of the populations fault.

Blame man all you like but if created by God, then he will be as God wants him to be.
If God creates a pot with a hole that leaks, he cannot bitch when it leaks or blame it either.

Thats why were paving the gash.

 

[Syne]

Christians are always trying to absolve God of moral culpability in the fall by whipping out their favorite "free will!", or “ it’s all man’s fault”.

That is "God gave us free will and it was our free willed choices that caused our fall. Hence God is not blameworthy."

But this simply avoids God's culpability as the author of Human Nature. Free will is only the ability to choose. It is not an explanation why anyone would want to choose "A" or "B" (bad or good action). An explanation for why Eve would even have the nature of "being vulnerable to being easily swayed by a serpent" and "desiring to eat a forbidden fruit" must lie in the nature God gave Eve in the first place. Hence God is culpable for deliberately making humans with a nature-inclined-to-fall, and "free will" means nothing as a response to this problem.

Blame man all you like but if created by God, then he will be as God wants him to be.
If God creates a pot with a hole that leaks, he cannot bitch when it leaks or blame it either.

Rote post, copied and pasted yet again.

 

[Greatest I am]

Rote post, copied and pasted yet again.

Yes. Thanks for the opportunity to reply to your same type of inane man blaming.

Regards
DL

 

[Greatest I am]

My theory is we all came from Heaven and were embodied in early up right humans through the incarnation of Adam, an his holy blood line. Bad angels came down, and are bad men. Good angels came down, and they are good men. Its all 1/4th to 1/3rd of the populations fault.



Thats why were paving the gash.

Yes. God's defective work, man can best and repair.

Just look at secular laws as compared to God's barbaric dictates.

Is there anyone here who is so retarded that they would want to live under bible law?

Regards
DL

 

[kx000]

Yes. God's defective work, man can best and repair.

Just look at secular laws as compared to God's barbaric dictates.

Is there anyone here who is so retarded that they would want to live under bible law?

Regards
DL

The bible doesn't mean much.. Take it for what it is, bits and pieces of ancient text put together through ancient times. It can be anything from stories of divinity, to stories known to be false to be proven so at a later time.