Just what are you after in this discussion?
GeoffP said:
Why in the world would you even try that approach? I've pointed out that you have already come to your conclusion? Enough, Tiassa. Why do you do this every time?
Geoff, you need to stop presuming that everyone else has the same perspective as you.
You've already alluded to them. In all fairness, you do do that quite a lot: words in people's mouth, libel, among a variety of misreads. So why not, I guess.
Like this. It seems just a feelgood paragraph for you, since it's important enough to mention, but not important enough to explain clearly so that one might answer any legitimate concerns you might have.
The thing is this: you're attempting to make me believe with the above that you haven't come to a conclusion already, which is, of course, nonsense. So either the thread is rhetorical in nature, or founded on a disingenuous read.
That I find the legal argument to be silly speaks nothing of the implications of the asserted theology.
Much of this part was massive supposition: the old "God likes the smell of burning flesh" thing strikes me as a saying, or like how a parent treats a child's latest cartoon creation in kindergarten. Up it goes on the heavenly fridge, but really the most it means is an expression of admiration. You could argue that, if you like, and there's even some theological reasoning behind it. But what you're now attempting to do is draw a parallel between sacrifice and human brutality to other humans. Not quite the same thing.
This makes no sense, Geoff. That is, perhaps it makes sense in whatever context you're constructing in order to justify yourself, but you're going to have to make the point a bit more relevant, or, at the very least, comprehensible.
Unfortunately, you haven't really given us a line as to what reason we should think God gets anything at all out of that.
I am personally not accustomed to the idea that God is arbitrary. That is, I
suppose God's will can be without any real purpose, but that only comes back to the ineffability of that will.
Merely to remind you, Tiassa, actually. This is merely another example intended to ask the same question, and thus not particularly new: the underlying assumptions of what you're describing as novel are not particularly strong, given what we know thus far. I'm sorry if that disappoints you.
To remind, apparently, according to your own need.
I'm sorry if the point evades you.
Presently, I am unable to even suggest a path for reorientation to the underlying question, because I have yet to figure out how you reach the perspective you're expressing. Certainly, I might presume that you're tilting windmills in order to have a fight about
something, but that just doesn't seem productive.
Then clearly this misunderstanding must be my fault for not familiarizing myself with God as dictated by Tiassa prior to our conversation.
Even when we agree on a specific point, you
still look for a reason to complain.
I'm not sure what to tell you; that's your own conundrum to figure out.
Well, incriminating all theists - what must poor Sam think? - is probably not the best way to go about starting a theological discussion.
How is asking what a particular individual's theological assertion equals "incriminating all theists"?
Not all theists justify their actions by pleading demonic influence.
We very much do erase such implications if we select an alternate model. In such a case, your problem would be with the pre-existing model, unless you have evidence that this is the only proper model for a being operating outside the naturalistic world.
Lightgigantic, for instance, raised the subject of the Vedic treatment of evil; Signal raised the question of
Buddhism specifically, and other religions as well, including
Hinduism.
These are all well and fine in the larger context, I agree. But they are not the contexts in which Mr. Hermogenes asserted demonic influence, or the Mauldins claimed Satanic interference. In these cases, we are dealing with theological assertions drawn from allegedly
Christian perspectives.
What does any specific theology actually say about the character of God?
Would you indict
Heart similarly, or is this more about your personal disagreements with me than the actual theology in question?
Correct! Probably, anyway. And depending on which element you're trying to discuss.
Well, let's go back to the beginning of this thread:
This is what God wants. That is, God certainly did nothing to prevent it. Or, perhaps, the young woman ought to be thankful to God for her condition, since she's not, you know, dead.
But in the long history we know as theology, much has been made about the Alpha and Omega, the monotheistic ultimate reality, the Big Guy In Charge. God is omniscient, except he doesn't know certain things. God is omnipotent, except He can't do certain things.
The answer to these conflicts, of course, all comes down to the fact that life is, and if God took evil out of the world—it's not that He can't, or else that would mean parts of Creation exceed his authority—life wouldn't be the same.
Thus, God has a purpose in allowing suffering to continue.
Now, then: What was God's purpose in the rape, brutalization, and maiming of a fourteen year-old girl?
This is the ineffability of God's Will.
The element I'm looking at is the implications a theological assertion holds for how we perceive God. As
I expressed to Signal, "What I'm getting at is that people are willing to cast God in a role they would prefer He not play. This is almost an inevitable outcome of trying to claim knowledge and expression of the ineffable."
To wit, I don't think Mr. Hermogenes would willingly assert that what he did to that young woman was "God's will", yet theologically that is the outcome.
Do you
not find a compelling question in the contrast?
And herein my impressions deviate from your own.
Then let us have that discussion. I can say without sarcasm or vice that it has the potential to be both fascinating and enlightening.
Yes, but that's a terrible, stupid saying, never used in proper context so far as I can tell.
I'm not going to dispute that assertion.
To the other, my concern in this thread is found in the implications that arise when one asserts knowledge or understanding of that mystery.
Excuse me? Aren't you proposing a system based on selected details? I recommend you glance at four square inches of a mirror.
I would have to ask you for a bit more detail. What system am I proposing?
Heavens. Well thank Myuu no one's proposed that already in several posts to you that you've selectively commented on.
Well, you're assigning your own context while declaring that you are unfamiliar with the working context in effect.
Rather, I have given you an alternative view - a whole, one might even say - that you have not been much interested in. But be that as it may.
You seem to think quite highly of yourself, Geoff. Like I said, all you cleared up is your own straw man.
My sincerest apologies: from discussions with you and others on the forum, it was my impression that wholesale incrimination of a belief system was tantamount to bigotry. While I've never needed or wanted to approach such a line myself, I shall revise my expectations accordingly.
Perhaps you might define this "wholesale incrimination of a belief system" you perceive. Which brings us back 'round a small circle. Am I supposed to guess what that "wholesale incrimination of a belief system" is? Is it somehow important enough for you to complain about, but not important enough to explain?
