*Unconditional* love, compassion, and forgiveness

[Satori]

Allow me to take the moral high ground for a moment with this statement, which I believe with my whole heart and mind is for the good of everyone, for the good of humanity, which is why I hold it, encourage it at every opportunity, and live up to it:

Unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness are virtues we should all endeavour to hold and live up to.

It's a pity that the christian god, according to nearly all interpretations I've encountered, is incapable of such deep-rooted love, compassion, and especially, forgiveness. This is why I feel that the christian god is lacking in very important ways, to say the least.

If anyone needs me to clarify and expand on this I will gladly do so. If anyone feels I am somehow "lying" about this, that I do not endeavour hold and practice these virtures, then you are welcome to hold that opinion, just don't expect me to agree with you. Btw, I'm not the only one who holds these virtures, in many philosophical and meta-religious spirtual circles, they are commonplace.

If any of you attributes such virtues to your christian/jewish/muslim/whatever god then I praise and commend you for your stance of going against the majority, as you are truly subserviant to a presumed god which is actually worthy of your subserviance and loyalty.

As for the rest of you, I deeply question your (and god's) moral values and ask: do you think your stance of *conditional* love, compassion, and forgiveness is the best you can do? Do you not think you can improve upon yourself and your god?

Peace, love, and reason to you all,

Satori

[The Laughing Man]

It's a pity that the christian god, according to nearly all interpretations I've encountered, is incapable of such deep-rooted love, compassion, and especially, forgiveness.

Why? Because Hell exists? Because He is just as just and righteous as He is loving, compassionate and forgiving?

[Blake Reas]

It's a pity that the christian god, according to nearly all interpretations I've encountered, is incapable of such deep-rooted love, compassion, and especially, forgiveness. This is why I feel that the christian god is lacking in very important ways, to say the least

Hmmm.... What was the Crucifixtion about? I think it had something to do with God coming to earth to save the ones whome he loves! That sounds like a loving, compassionate and Forgiving God to me!
I think you are like many main stream Christians ( I know you are an Atheist) who think that God "should" be a big care bear in the sky and that he would never judge anyone or anything, that is just flat out wrong. You lack and understanding of Christian Theology. God is so Holy that he cannot be in the midst of our sin but he loved us enough to send his son at the right time for the redemption of sin.
With all do respect I think you should read some Systematic Theologies (if you have what are they?) and may I suggest the Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God by D.A. Carson. It helps if you know the Christian position before you start attacking it and making groundless statements. It reminds me of Michael Martin when he makes himself look stupid by saying that the Christian Concept of Salvation is contradictory I read his article and had to laugh, tell me you are better than this!

In Christ,
Blake

[Satori]

I'm amused by everyone keep sexualizing to their god theory by giving it a gender. One gender is, in case you are not aware, determined solely by one's sexual organs.

ADMIN NOTE : COMPLETELY INAPPROPRIATE COMMENT EDITED


"Him" indeed, hehe. Yet another presumption that you all make without even so much as questioning it's validity, which is, I suppose, your way of doing things.

Jinx72:
Why? Because Hell exists?

It does? Interesting theory.

Because He is just as just and righteous as He is loving, compassionate and forgiving?

It's a shame that its capacity to love and its extent of compassion and forgiveness are stunted by its self-righteous desire to dish out unspeakable and preverse acts of eternal sadism to people for simply being who and what it MADE them to be.

Oh boy, it just doesn't get any more whacky than this.

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

Satori appears to be overlooking the requirements of perfect justice while focusing on other desirable attributes.
Tunnel-vision, you might say.

Referring to God as male is no more "sexualizing" God than referring to Jesus as the lamb of God is animalizing Jesus.

Satori, your style appears to be "shoot from the hip".

[Satori]

Blake Reas:
Hmmm.... What was the Crucifixtion about?

I don't know, as I see it, Jesus was offending roman rule so they tortured/executed him, according to jewish history that is, jesus' own people who represented. He wasn't the first and or the last either. Anyway, what's your theory/presumption?

I think it had something to do with God coming to earth to save the ones whome he loves!

Really? And to DO this, this all-powerful presumed god of yours just HAD to commit an atrocity? Hmm.. very interesting.

That sounds like a loving, compassionate and Forgiving God to me!

Wow. Tell you what, I'll torture my pet parrot to death just for YOU Blake, just to show my love to YOU. Don't you feel special? Don't you LOVE me to bits? Please.

I think you are like many main stream Christians ( I know you are an Atheist)

You are wrong, I am a non-thiest, I am sensible enough to NOT make presumptions about that which is unknowable. I will pardon your presumption however, no problem.

who think that God "should" be a big care bear in the sky and that he would never judge anyone or anything, that is just flat out wrong.

It is "wrong"? Wow, guess every one of your opinions about everything are absolute facts huh? I guess that justifies god's disproportionate sadism then. My mistake, what *was* I thinking? hehe

You lack and understanding of Christian Theology.

I disagree. I think I see right through it for the unethical and perverse guilt-tripping psychological terrorism that it is, and I feel sorry for everyone who gets suckered in by it.

God is so Holy that he cannot be in the midst of our sin but he loved us enough to send his son at the right time for the redemption of sin.

Oh yes, the redemption, which is something that god made up. And this somehow justifies the atrocity that was commited against jesus by his own father then huh? Interesting theory, twisted as it is.

According to my admittedly higher-than-standard ethics, there is NEVER a justification to torture another living creature to death, not even one that's made up by some presumed metaphysical deity. Sorry if that offends you, I just expect more from people from that, and I certainly expect more from a god than that.

With all do respect I think you should read some Systematic Theologies (if you have what are they?) and may I suggest the Difficult Doctrine of the Love of God by D.A. Carson.

Thanks for the suggestions. Perhaps you can give me the more important points and explain to me how you think that torturing another living creature to death, and even worse, torturing people in the pit of hell forever and ever, is somehow "ethical". I'd be very interested to hear your take on this.

It helps if you know the Christian position before you start attacking it and making groundless statements.

I do know the position, and I've been deconstructing it for years and had it explained to me countless time by people who likely know far more about it than yourself. I'm also a big fan of a philospher who spent 12 years as a priest, and he has many insights into christianity that I would bet you are completely unaware of.

It reminds me of Michael Martin when he makes himself look stupid by saying that the Christian Concept of Salvation is contradictory I read his article and had to laugh, tell me you are better than this!

I haven't read that, if you'd like to provide it to me I'd be happy to endulge you it what I think of it. Personally, I think the premise of a loving god who is also a sadistic freak who sees fit to torture people endlessly and feels that torturing jesus to death was a good or even acceptable way to show its love for us simply repugnant.

Let me put it this way: I'm not impressed with anyone who totures another living creature, for ANY reason, EVER. I feel there is simply no justification for such barbaric behaviour. You are free to try to convince me that cruel sadism is somehow justified at times, and invite you to do just that.

In Christ,
Blake

In reason and *unconditional* love, compassion, and forgiveness,

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

Satori, if you're so compassionate, why do you risk frustrating people by disagreeing with them (thought I'd take a stab into making you into a self-instructive object lesson)?

[Mydel7]

I personally am wondering why you think the "christian God" is like this Satori? What reasons do you have for this thought?

Also (and I'm saying this in the most sincere way possible), if there is a Creator, which I personally believe there is One, what gives you (or anyone in the world for that matter) the right to judge Him (or it, whatever you prefer) and His reasoning behind everything. Don't you think that if there was an Intelligent Designer out there with some sort of divine nature that His purposes for the things He does would be beyond Human conception? Now I know that I can't prove anything to you about divination, and to you this may just be another case of applying abstract conclusions to subject that you may consider me "uninformed" on. But have you ever wondered where these emotions, such as compassion and forgiveness come from?

Your opinions on this would be greatly appreciated Satori.

-Mydel7

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
Satori appears to be overlooking the requirements of perfect justice while focusing on other desirable attributes.
Tunnel-vision, you might say.

Nice try, but that's not going fly. Please explain to me how such acts of sadism are somehow morally justifiable.

Referring to God as male is no more "sexualizing" God than referring to Jesus as the lamb of God is animalizing Jesus.

So, what you are saying is:

God is NOT male, just in the same way that Jesus is not a "lamb".

I'm sure theologians would have something to say about your "de-genderification" of "god". Just a hunch.

Satori, your style appears to be "shoot from the hip".

Or, in other words, straight to the point. Your style appears to be swallow what I was told whether or not it offends my sensibilites.

Satori

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
Satori, if you're so compassionate, why do you risk frustrating people by disagreeing with them (thought I'd take a stab into making you into a self-instructive object lesson)?

I feel that christianity is a repugant shame created by politically motivated humans for the purpose of their own empowerment, and if you take a look back to history, this has been one of it's primary purposes. Now it exists as institution like the British monarchy, lacking in power and the ability to threaten and strip people of their wealth and dignity, but still powerful and rich nonetheless.

In short, I think it's a form of self-infecting and repugnant mind-cancer, as are most other religions, which people deserve the chance to be liberated from. That's exacty and truly how I feel. I also feel that christianity, like most other religions, are an insult to our collective intelligence.

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:


Nice try, but that's not going fly. Please explain to me how such acts of sadism are somehow morally justifiable.


What acts of sadism? Oh, the ones that we take for granted so that you can proceed to shift the burden of proof?



So, what you are saying is:

God is NOT male, just in the same way that Jesus is not a "lamb".

I'm sure theologians would have something to say about your "de-genderification" of "god". Just a hunch.


Yep. You'll find the majority saying something like "Yeah, he's basically right."




Or, in other words, straight to the point.


The point is that you can't hit the broad side of a barn?


Your style appears to be swallow what I was told whether or not it offends my sensibilites.


I don't know what you've been told, Satori, and I don't care particularly whether or not what you've been told offends your sensibilities. If you make a claim that you expect to be taken as true, you bear a burden of proof for that claim. From what I've read of you so far, you don't seem eager to do such a thing.

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:


I feel that christianity is a repugant shame created by politically motivated humans for the purpose of their own empowerment, and if you take a look back to history, this has been one of it's primary purposes. Now it exists as institution like the British monarchy, lacking in power and the ability to threaten and strip people of their wealth and dignity, but still powerful and rich nonetheless.

In short, I think it's a form of self-infecting and repugnant mind-cancer, as are most other religions, which people deserve the chance to be liberated from. That's exacty and truly how I feel. I also feel that christianity, like most other religions, are an insult to our collective intelligence.

Satori

Hmmm.
Was that supposed to be an answer to my question? Or was it just background for the answer, which you will be giving in the near future?

[Satori]

Mydel7:
I personally am wondering why you think the "christian God" is like this Satori? What reasons do you have for this thought?

Also (and I'm saying this in the most sincere way possible), if there is a Creator, which I personally believe there is One, what gives you (or anyone in the world for that matter) the right to judge Him (or it, whatever you prefer) and His reasoning behind everything. Don't you think that if there was an Intelligent Designer out there with some sort of divine nature that His purposes for the things He does would be beyond Human conception? Now I know that I can't prove anything to you about divination, and to you this may just be another case of applying abstract conclusions to subject that you may consider me "uninformed" on. But have you ever wondered where these emotions, such as compassion and forgiveness come from?

Your opinions on this would be greatly appreciated Satori.

-Mydel7

I'm not saying I have the "right" to judge it, but I am (what I am in fact judging is not this god of yours because I think it's just a shame, what I'm judging is YOUR god *theory*). As a human I hold myself up to a certain standard of ethics, and your presumed god not only falls short of that, but comes out looking like a viscious monster who is lacking in the most basic of morals.

But of course, since god is the judge, jury, and executioner, it's not subject to its own values which it imposes on to us. It's not ok for use to torture each other, but god can do it and that's somehow "ok"? That's supremely hypocritcal.

At least the Jehovah's Witnesses have the good sense to disregard all that stuff about god's supposed cruelity vengeance from their theology, and I commend anyone else who does the same. I think that's a step in the right direction, away from irrational fear, and it would create a mythology that isn't so morally offensive to so many people. It also would scare the crap of children and psychologically terrorize them, something else I feel is EXTREMELY unethical and not very compassionate with regard to fragility of a child's mind.

I hope I adequately addressed your concerns.

Satori

[Mydel7]

According to my admittedly higher-than-standard ethics, there is NEVER a justification to torture another living creature to death, not even one that's made up by some presumed metaphysical deity. Sorry if that offends you, I just expect more from people from that, and I certainly expect more from a god than that.

I completely agree with you on this Satori. But the problem here is that according to Christian theology, Jesus was not just God's son, he was considered God in the form of man. So if you apply that, then Jesus wasn't tortured to death by his father. He sacrificed Himself by submitting himself to torture because of human's sins. He did this to show that he cares enough about us to die for us and that through him we are forgiven. I don't know whether you will accept any of this or not, but it's the biblical perspective.

-Mydel7

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
What acts of sadism? Oh, the ones that we take for granted so that you can proceed to shift the burden of proof?

Yes, the ones YOU take for granted, the ones that are talked about at length in the bible.

The point is that you can't hit the broad side of a barn?

You'll have to explained where I missed the mark, and invite you to do just that.

I don't know what you've been told, Satori, and I don't care particularly whether or not what you've been told offends your sensibilities.

I've been told the same sort of stuff that you have, by people like you. I thought that was evident.

If you make a claim that you expect to be taken as true, you bear a burden of proof for that claim.

You failed to point out what "claim" that is. That god is, according to your theology, a sadist? Or that I have unconditional forgiveness?

From what I've read of you so far, you don't seem eager to do such a thing.

I substantiate everthing I say to the best of my ability, which is a lot more than I can say for theists who make wild presumptions and expect to be taken seriously.

Satori

[Satori]

Mydel7:
I completely agree with you on this Satori. But the problem here is that according to Christian theology, Jesus was not just God's son, he was considered God in the form of man. So if you apply that, then Jesus wasn't tortured to death by his father. He sacrificed Himself by submitting himself to torture because of human's sins. He did this to show that he cares enough about us to die for us and that through him we are forgiven. I don't know whether you will accept any of this or not, but it's the biblical perspective.

-Mydel7

Then I ask you these 2 things:

Are god's disproportionate punishments justifiable? (hell, plauges, etc.)

Is it acceptable to torture another living creature to death under the expectation that we are supposed to actually LIKE that, and actually derive some sort of satisfaction and gain from it?

Oh boy, that's just sick. How about if I totured my parrot to death and told you it was a gift to you? Would that make you feel GOOD about yourself? Would that make you love or even respect me? Would think I was a sick freak?

I find the whole thing repugnant beyond all words, and I hope you can appreciate the sincerity and passion with which I say that.

take care,

Satori

[Satori]

ok guys, it's been a blast, but I must say goodnite. I will return at a later time.

I love you all, more than I can put into words, just as I love all things, even god, if in fact it actually exists, and I have no good reasons to presume that it does, especially the twisted monster that's represented in christian theology.

Quite frankly, if there is some sort of god out there, I'd think that it's repulsed by some the attributes you have ascribed to it. I know if you ascribed those attributes to me personally I would horrified and I would beg you to believe me that I was better than that, just as I am sure ALL of you are as well.

best wishes,

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:


Yes, the ones YOU take for granted, the ones that are talked about at length in the bible.


Which things do I take for granted (or are you just taking it for granted that I take things for granted)?
Rather, am I not simply trying to keep you from constructing a convenient straw man of the God of Christian theistic description?
Is it your wish to construct a straw man, and thus you'd prefer for me not to bother you, or would you prefer for me to assist you in keeping your argument free of fallacy?


You'll have to explained where I missed the mark, and invite you to do just that.


No problem. You're taking it for granted that certain acts are "sadistic" when you haven't established this to be the case. Beyond that, I have offered you as a counterexample to your own position, where compassionate Satori apparently finds it worthwhile to induce suffering in others for the sake of a greater good.


I've been told the same sort of stuff that you have, by people like you. I thought that was evident.


Hmmm? What have I been told, and how do you know that I was told things by "people like [me]"--whatever that means?
Aren't you taking some things for granted? No, you don't do that, you said--iirc.


You failed to point out what "claim" that is. That god is, according to your theology, a sadist? Or that I have unconditional forgiveness?


I could point to dozens of claims that you have failed to back up.
Sure, start with your latest claim; that my theology teaches that god is a sadist. You won't need any help from me, I trust (psychic!)?


I substantiate everthing I say to the best of my ability, which is a lot more than I can say for theists who make wild presumptions and expect to be taken seriously.


So, you assume they they have better ability than they manifest to you, eh? Or, how would you substantiate that they are not working to the best of their ability?

[Blake Reas]

Satori:


I don't know, as I see it, Jesus was offending roman rule so they tortured/executed him, according to jewish history that is, jesus' own people who represented. He wasn't the first and or the last either. Anyway, what's your theory/presumption?

This just shows your misunderstanding of history Satori! Jesus did not in fact offend any Roman law the jews had to say that he claimed to be Caesar so the Romans would kill him. That is why Pilate said he found him innocent. The reason the Jews did this was because Jesus had a rather large following and it would start a riot if they did it out int he open so they had him betrayed secretley.

Really? And to DO this, this all-powerful presumed god of yours just HAD to commit an atrocity? Hmm.. very interesting.

And now you pull a tactic from Till's handbook! So you know what an all powerful Omnipotent God would do! I am really impressed by your egotism Satori, that is borderline ridicoulous.



Wow. Tell you what, I'll torture my pet parrot to death just for YOU Blake, just to show my love to YOU. Don't you feel special? Don't you LOVE me to bits? Please

First Christ was not seperate from God bud! Apparently you do not understand the Trinity God is Three in one and one in three. I think you can refer to the trinity thread on this forum to educate yourself.
So God did not send his "parrot" to die. And no I would not feel good about you torchering your parrot since it would not be an atonement for sin. Again you are using a false analogy.


You are wrong, I am a non-thiest, I am sensible enough to NOT make presumptions about that which is unknowable. I will pardon your presumption however, no problem.

And the difference is? To make a decision, to not believe is to take a side! You do make presumptions that in fact you can't know so you are not free from your PRESUMPTIONS!


It is "wrong"? Wow, guess every one of your opinions about everything are absolute facts huh? I guess that justifies god's disproportionate sadism then. My mistake, what *was* I thinking? hehe

First to start out with you must lack critical reading skills or a brain. I assume a Christian Worldview in that worldview God is Holy, Just, Loving, soveriegn I could go on but I do not see the need to waste time trying to get you to understand that. With in Christian Theology God does not answer to man, man answers to God. I know this is hard for your fundi-westernist ideas to accept but God is supreme in Christian theology and yes things are done for God's good pleasure. I could have FiveSolas come down and show your ignorance if you would like!



I disagree. I think I see right through it for the unethical and perverse guilt-tripping psychological terrorism that it is, and I feel sorry for everyone who gets suckered in by it.

Wow you just keep spouting off unproven statements I love it. Lets spout off at the mouth and make another Ad Hominem.



Oh yes, the redemption, which is something that god made up. And this somehow justifies the atrocity that was commited against jesus by his own father then huh? Interesting theory, twisted as it is.

Like I said before it is NOT man who gets glory it is God. God does have an ego if you want to call it that he does all things for his Glory not ours. I am sorry if you cannot deal with that. I would like to ask why it would be wrong for a God who created you to do this? Oh yeah God did predestine Christ to the Cross, check out Acts 3:23:
23 this {Man,} delivered over by the predetermined R80 plan and foreknowledge of God, you R81 nailed to a cross by the hands of godless men and put {Him} to death. 24 "But God raised Him up again, putting an end to the agony of death, since it was impossible for Him to be held in its power. [/I]

According to my admittedly higher-than-standard ethics, there is NEVER a justification to torture another living creature to death, not even one that's made up by some presumed metaphysical deity. Sorry if that offends you, I just expect more from people from that, and I certainly expect more from a god than that.

Wow, I never said that you could not have high morals and be a non believer (Straw man anyone?)! I also like your apparent pompusly arrogant statement you think rather high of your self. This shows your ignorance you have no basis for Morals. Sure, you can have morals fine but you can not give a reason. If you say it is because we should help each other I would ask the big question WHY?!

Thanks for the suggestions. Perhaps you can give me the more important points and explain to me how you think that torturing another living creature to death, and even worse, torturing people in the pit of hell forever and ever, is somehow "ethical". I'd be very interested to hear your take on this.

[I]YOu want my take on this, again we are dealing with two totally different presuppostions. On the one hand I say that God owes us nothing, but yet he sent his son to save us on the other hand you think that "if" there is a God he should listen to our whims. You also say hell is evil etc. well yeah it is. It is for the people that can stand before God and shake there fist in his Holy presence and keep sinning with out finding Salvation in his son. I ask you this WHO are you to question God's judgment?
Do you think that pedophiles should not be punished what about Hitler?


I do know the position, and I've been deconstructing it for years and had it explained to me countless time by people who likely know far more about it than yourself. I'm also a big fan of a philospher who spent 12 years as a priest, and he has many insights into christianity that I would bet you are completely unaware of.

Wow you have been deconstructing if for years! It seems as if you lack critical thinking skills. You act as if because you know a philosopher that he knows more than someon well, can we say Argument from Authority. Maybe you should have your Priest teach you the basic Logical fallacies.


I haven't read that, if you'd like to provide it to me I'd be happy to endulge you it what I think of it. Personally, I think the premise of a loving god who is also a sadistic freak who sees fit to torture people endlessly and feels that torturing jesus to death was a good or even acceptable way to show its love for us simply repugnant.

I would ask you this question how is it Sadistic that God judges the unjust or sends GOD the SON to die for us. You seem to be confusing Christ with a regular person but you also must remember had a HUMAN and DIVINE NATURE. AGain you show a complete lack of understanding of Christian Theology. I still do not see a clear argument in your passage, I will admit your are good at putting up smoke and mirrors so you do not have to deal with others arguments.

Let me put it this way: I'm not impressed with anyone who totures another living creature, for ANY reason, EVER. I feel there is simply no justification for such barbaric behaviour. You are free to try to convince me that cruel sadism is somehow justified at times, and invite you to do just that.

Again for the 600th time it was GOD THE SON who suffered. He did it on his own freedom, he wanted to he did was not forced against his will by any higher power because he is in fact LORD. I do not need to convince you of anything the truth is in your face and you supress the truth in unrighteousness.

In Christ,
Blake

P.S. tone down your ad hominem this time, Oh yeah if you don't know what that is it is an throwing out insults to your opponents.



In reason and *unconditional* love, compassion, and forgiveness,

Satori

[Captain Ochre]

Satori:


Then I ask you these 2 things:

Are god's disproportionate punishments justifiable? (hell, plauges, etc.)


If they are justifiable, are they disproportionate?

Satori, are you even aware of the way you deliver your questions in a loaded (question-begging) manner?


Is it acceptable to torture another living creature to death under the expectation that we are supposed to actually LIKE that, and actually derive some sort of satisfaction and gain from it?

Oh boy, that's just sick. How about if I totured my parrot to death and told you it was a gift to you? Would that make you feel GOOD about yourself? Would that make you love or even respect me? Would think I was a sick freak?


In what way does the death of the parrot actually benefit me? I can see a benefit to the death of Christ on my behalf. What do I gain from the parrot? A meal that will help sustain my marooned desert island existence? Thank you for that gift, Satori.



I find the whole thing repugnant beyond all words, and I hope you can appreciate the sincerity and passion with which I say that.


Illogical and unsupported statements made sincerely and passionately are illogical and unsupported statements, and false analogies are still false analogies when uttered with conviction. Have you considered the possibility that your passion has overruled your reasoning capacity?

[Mydel7]

You basically summed up all the points I was going to make Black Reas. Good job buddy. :thumb:

-Mydel7

[TheFiveSolas]

Satori wrote:

Unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness are virtues we should all endeavour to hold and live up to.


I'm trying to get a better handle on what you mean by the above and perhaps you could elaborate on it by explaining what your position would be regarding how a society, living by the rules you listed, should handle a repeat rapist or murderer? In other words, does "unconditional love" and "forgiveness" preclude punishiment of such a criminal?

[Satori]

TheFiveSolas:
I'm trying to get a better handle on what you mean by the above and perhaps you could elaborate on it by explaining what your position would be regarding how a society, living by the rules you listed, should handle a repeat rapist or murderer? In other words, does "unconditional love" and "forgiveness" preclude punishiment of such a criminal?

No, it doesn't. But does that mean we should take the time to torture such a person for the rest of their natural lives as "pay back"? No. That would be sick. That's why we, as a society, no longer partake in such acts, which is quite cool, don't you think? It's a shame that your beloved god falls short of our own human standards of mercy and forgiveness.

Personally, I feel deeply and truly sorry for a rapist or a murderer, I feel they are lacking in basic morals and that is leading them to chose a path in life that will ultimately end in their own suffering. I feel that we should imprison such people, but NOT torture them.

Personally, if someone raped or murdered someone I loved, I would be very pissed at first and probably want to kill them (I am an emotional human after all), but in time, I would overcome these negative feelings, I would come to love and forgive this person whether they asked for my forgiveness or not, whether or not they were even sorry. This is because I enddeavour to be an ethical person, which is a lot more than I can say for your presumed freak of a god who apparently holds a grudge for eternity and NEVER forgives. That's ethically repugnant, and if you think that's in ANY WAY justifiable or moral, then I sincerely question YOUR standard of ethics.

Satori

PS: I've noted that in the southern US where religious folks are thirsty for the execution of criminals (which I find sick), even after something like 10 years of the criminal being behind bars awaiting execution, the people STILL crave hateful vengeance (in the name of "justice") and they cannot find it in their heart to forgive the person and ask the judge to spare their life. Apparently, they are as "forgiving" (cough, cough) as your god, which comes as no surprise. If your god can hold a grudge and torture people for eternity, what's 10 years of bloodlust and thirst for revenge? As Paine said: "Belief in a cruel god makes a cruel man."

[dizzle]

Dear Satori:

Please refer to an Administration edit in your post number 19455. Please refrain from using contextually offensive terminology like that in future posts. You know better.

[dizzle]

Personally, I feel deeply and truly sorry for a rapist or a murderer, I feel they are lacking in basic morals

You have no place to say that while in another place you conceded that what is right for one person may not be right for another. You have no moral ground upon which to make any kind of moral judgment about anyone other than yourself.

[dizzle]

Ah, Dear Five Solas... it seems that you have gotten an admission that Satori's "unconditional love" does not preclude punishment. Good job there my friend.

[dizzle]

I feel that christianity is a repugant shame created by politically motivated humans for the purpose of their own empowerment, and if you take a look back to history, this has been one of it's primary purposes.

I would laugh if that wasn't so assinine. Hmm, what political power did Paul, Peter, James, John gain? Wow, never knew they were politicians.

[Satori]

Captain Ochre:
Which things do I take for granted (or are you just taking it for granted that I take things for granted)?

I'm arguing against the common interpreation of an unforgiving and cruel god. If you are so wise as to break with the majority and see that this is just silly then I commend and admire you for your stance, as I said in the opening post of this thread.

Rather, am I not simply trying to keep you from constructing a convenient straw man of the God of Christian theistic description?

Tell me where I am in error. Tell me how such pervese act of cruelty aren't just ethically repuganant. Even Hitler, as much of a sadist as he was, didn't torture people for the rest of their lives, much less for ETERNITY. In my view, Hitler is a trillion times more compassionate that your favourite god.

Is it your wish to construct a straw man, and thus you'd prefer for me not to bother you, or would you prefer for me to assist you in keeping your argument free of fallacy?

If can show me that the common interpretation of christianity is NOT what I think it is, then be my guest. Is it no longer fashionable to believe in hell? Explain.

No problem. You're taking it for granted that certain acts are "sadistic" when you haven't established this to be the case.

Please. If you can explain how torturing people isn't an act of sadism (and you know what I mean by sadism, I don't mean sexual gradification, I mean infinite cruelty) then by all means do so.

Beyond that, I have offered you as a counterexample to your own position, where compassionate Satori apparently finds it worthwhile to induce suffering in others for the sake of a greater good.

Are you actually comparing ME to your uncompassionate, unforgiving, and cruel freak of a god? I would take deep offense to such a comparison (because I think I'm way better than that) if I thought you were actually serious and not just trying to do a semantics dance because your position is so incredibly weak.

Here's my thing: I think that organized religions brainwash people with little regard for their well-being, seeing fit to threaten and psychologically terrorize them to entrap them in a point of view that is not only silly and self-defeating, but ethically repugnant. Do I realize that by doing this I'm actually causing people to have doubts, doubts which lead to fear of their fictional dictator? Yes, of course. But I feel it is necessary for growth, and I feel that everyone needs and deserves to hear what I have to on these issues. I feel that that is FAR more important than the little bit of fear their weakening faith would cause them. I honestly feel that it's for the greater good.

How do you think that torturing people for all eternity (if you actually believe and load of nonsense) can even COMPARE to what I'm doing? I am a good and compassionate person. I go out my own way to be as kind and as loving as possible to everyone. I wouldn't even toture and insect for a moment, much less torture a person for eternity. So please don't compare me to your cruel god in terms of ethics, because as you can see, as you undoubtedly realize, there IS no such comparison.

Hmmm? What have I been told, and how do you know that I was told things by "people like [me]"--whatever that means?

Are you truly unaware that most christians hold the same constructs, or are you just pretending to not be aware because you have nothing else to say?

Aren't you taking some things for granted? No, you don't do that, you said--iirc.

I am only addressing the most commonly held misconceptions. If you truly believe your god is not a cruel freak who would set them up for failure and then torture them for it, then you are on MY side, and you should be arguing with me, not against me.

Tell me, which side are you on? The "god is a cruel and unforgiving monster side", or "the very definition of a loving god contradicts it being a cruel freak" side?

I suspect you'll do a semantics dance around this, and perhaps tell me that I "lack an understand of christian theology" or whatever. Anything to avoid answer the question directly and exposing either your own faithlessness in the doctrine, or your or belief that such sadism can actually be justified.

I could point to dozens of claims that you have failed to back up.
Sure, start with your latest claim; that my theology teaches that god is a sadist. You won't need any help from me, I trust (psychic!)?

Are you presuming otherwise? That's quite a lofty claim. Read your bible, you'll find it all in there. I'll even post some passages if you are too lazy to read them yourself. There are more acts of perverse cruelty and vengeance in that book than I can count. So it shouldn't shock you when other find your theology to be repugnant.

So, you assume they they have better ability than they manifest to you, eh?

I assume they have a higher standard of ethics than they attribute to their own god, and you know something? They do. Even Hitler did, and he was arguably the biggest monster in history.

As I said before, at last the jehovah's dropped all that bs about god's zest for cruelty and vengeance. I think it's time you all did the same and started conceptualizing a presumed god that is actually *worthy* of your respect and adoration.

Or, how would you substantiate that they are not working to the best of their ability?

They are ascribing personality traits to their god which are ethically repugnant and not making any efforts to change that. Everything evolves, even christianity has evolved and changed so much over the centuries that it's now much different than it used to be, and while I feel that's a step in the right direction, I feel you all need to evolve it MORE. Instead of making it a religion of cruel vengeance, make it a religion of unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness. Otherwise, you people are really no better than muslims for whom cruelty is not only "ok", it's actually commanded by Allah.

Since you can't just drop your religion entirely, fear and desire prevents that totally, take a step in the right direction and re-define your religion to make it fall in line with the most basic of human ethical standards. The worship of a cruel god is simply unacceptable, and you cannot see that, then I think you need to re-examine your own ethics and morality in a very deeply profound way.

Satori

[Satori]

Dee Dee Warren:
I would laugh if that wasn't so assinine. Hmm, what political power did Paul, Peter, James, John gain? Wow, never knew they were politicians.

Paul, Peter, James, and John? You mean the figures in christian theology? You simply don't have a clue do you dear dee dee? I'm not suprised, most people don't take the time to read history from different perspectives, particularly jewish history, which in the secular world is regarded as the most consistent and reliable because it was written by people who *weren't* hell-bent on fashioning a new religion, who didn't make any wild claims of Jesus' alledged "divinity" (something his own people and family didn't beleive because that little tidbit surfaced long after his death).

It never ceases to amaze me how little christians know about the formation of their own religion. Most of you don't even know that bible was written over hundred of years and revised countless times. Most of you don't even know that it was Paul and his "visions" which started christianity, which was different from the chuch Jesus started when he was still alive, the one that remained alive after his execution and was continued by his brother James. No, you are all completely clueless about this, assuming that your particular version of history is totally accurate, and that the jewish version is all a big lie or something.

Your prelude to ignorance of such matters is not going to work. Everyone knows that up until a very very short time ago, the church was the dominant political institution that controlled everything. They wrote the laws, they tortured and executed the criminals, they collected the taxes. I don't believe you when you profess to NOT know this.

Satori

[dizzle]

There are meds for those delusions you seem to be suffering from. With all our modern medicine, you really do not need to bearing the brunt yourself.

You do win first prize in the elephant hurling contest though which I have noticed is your major strategy.

[Satori]

Is that the best you could do dee dee? Is your quest to cling to your specific theories and reject all others really that imporant to you? Oh right, of course it is, after all, your immortal soul hangs in waiting and it's destination is determined completely by your acceptance or rejection of the dogma you've been fed.

With your beloved presumed god holding a metaphysical torch to your face if you make the "wrong" decision, I can see why you would choose to NOT learn about such things, your motivations are transaparent.

I guess all the christians are right and all the jews are wrong then? Wow, what was I thinking? How could I have thought that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? I must be insane.

hehe,

Satori

[Satori]

Good night everyone. Keep the faith, you'll need it to protect you from the wrath of your fictional dicator and reap your selfish reward of "heaven", and etenity of smooching god's glorious glutes. hhehe.

I may return tommorow to try to talk some common sense and basic ethics into you all once again because I truly care about and love you more than I can begin to express and I want you to be liberated from this psychologically entrapping dogma. I also don't want you to feed this to your own children, the cycle must be broken, for the basic goodness and common sense of humanity.

Satori

[dizzle]

Satori:
Is that the best you could do dee dee? Is your quest to cling to your specific theories and reject all others really that imporant to you?

Hmm, there is a mirror in bathroom I suspect, you might try looking in it.

I guess all the christians are right and all the jews are wrong then? Wow, what was I thinking? How could I have thought that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? I must be insane.

I suspect a second look may be in order. You have a problem with the Christians believing the Jews are wrong, but no problem with you believing that both groups are. And you don't see the implosive irony. Those meds are still available.

[dizzle]

stranger than fiction

I also don't want you to feed this to your own children, the cycle must be broken, for the basic goodness and common sense of humanity.

[jpholding]

Oh dear. Summoned was I to this thread, to see in action, one whose chief talent seems to be imitating Bill Cosby's favorite product.

Dearest Satori, if your previous posts are not merely Silly Putty why not take on someone with a tad of scholarship behind him? Yes, me. I see you've taken your vagueness pills and perhaps I can wrest some specifics out of that slippery carcass. Or else see it explode into teensy Satori bits. Is that anything like mushrooms?

May I address two issues, please, sir? Oh, I knew you'd oblige. Or pretend to.

1) You have continually used the word torture to allude to the eternal fate of the wicked within our putative paradigm. Please provide exegetical justification for this assumption.

2) With reference to you Jello Pudding diatribe, to wit:

Paul, Peter, James, and John? You mean the figures in christian theology? You simply don't have a clue do you dear dee dee? I'm not suprised, most people don't take the time to read history from different perspectives

To what perspective do we here refer? John Dominic Crossan? Acharya S? Stonewall Jackson? You allude to Jewish history, which tells me little, though it may suggest the Toledeth Yeshu, given the apparent state of your scholarship (pfft, hack). Please enlighten us with your expertise before we all explode from the indignity of having been spared your elucidations.

It never ceases to amaze me how little christians know about the formation of their own religion

It never ceases to amaze me how many arrogant prats exist who presume my ignorance and then go on to make complete asinines of themselves trying to show me how ignorant I am. But please do proceed with the lesson.

Most of you don't even know that bible was written over hundred of years and revised countless times.

Over 2100 years, I'd say. Revised in what way and to what effect and why should we care? Or was this just another gratuitous sound bite from King Kong's expert mouth?

Most of you don't even know that it was Paul and his "visions" which started christianity, which was different from the chuch Jesus started when he was still alive,

Pfft, hack, cough -- oh dear, THAT old canard. You should have left your Tubingens in their drawers, dead where they belonged. So what, tell us mighty mustard, is it that Paul taught that was missing from others before him, that we ought to care about? Specifics, please. No more axle grease from you, no J-E-L-L-O. We've had enough.

the one that remained alive after his execution and was continued by his brother James.

Ah, a hint. An Ebionite freak, perhaps? Clueless follower of the rabid Robert Eisenmann? Do tell.

your particular version of history is totally accurate, and that the jewish version is all a big lie or something.

More like, "too late to be of any relevance". But do elucidate. Your valued wisdom eludes us because of your reluctance to shine in our humble presence. But do bathe first, by now ye stinketh.

Everyone knows that up until a very very short time ago, the church was the dominant political institution that controlled everything.

Do spare us the peripheral generalities. To what era and nation do we specifically refer?

The biggest nuisances are those who sulk beneath the refuge of generalities and act as though in so doing they enlighten the masses too dense to appreciate their brilliance.

[Blake Reas]

Satori I was looking forward to reading your reply! But your off the cuff replies to everyone else that didn't amount to many arguments did just fine, I got a good laugh. It really amuses me how unethical your ridicule of believers is, maybe your morality is not as high as you think.
In Christ,
Blake

[The Laughing Man]

Satori:
I'm amused by everyone keep sexualizing to their god theory by giving it a gender.

I'm amused by certain people who keep trying to illegitimize God's existence by doing things like refering to Him as a "god theory."

So what in the world makes you think that refering to God as "He" constitutes "sexualizing?" Are you some kind of political correctness maniac? Do you object to the gender-neutral usage of the word "he" when used to describe a generic person?

One gender is, in case you are not aware, determined solely by one's sexual organs.

And if one does not have sexual organs, what word do you use to describe them? Do you use the traditional "he" or do you follow the silly p.c. crowd and find offense in that?

Here's something else to consider: what about people who refer to vehicles (particularly ships and boats) as "she?" Obviously, they don't have sexual organs, so are all these people "sexualizing" their vehicles? I'd like to see you try this line of "reasoning" on a naval officer without ending up with a black eye.

"Him" indeed, hehe. Yet another presumption that you all make without even so much as questioning it's validity, which is, I suppose, your way of doing things.

That's mighty presumptuous of you, hypocrite. Sure, there may be some people who think refering to God as "Him" means that he has male sexual organs, but they haven't really studied the Bible as much as they should.

["Hell exists?"] Interesting theory.

Part and parcel.

It's a shame that its capacity to love and its extent of compassion and forgiveness are stunted by its self-righteous desire to dish out unspeakable and preverse acts of eternal sadism

Yeah, kind of like the "sadism" of our penal system. Heaven forbid that justice exists!

to people for simply being who and what it MADE them to be.

Someone needs a refresher on what God made humans to be and what the choice of rejecting Him brings.

Oh boy, it just doesn't get any more whacky than this.

You said an ironic mouthful!

[The Laughing Man]

I substantiate everthing I say to the best of my ability

:rofl:

If that statement had any hint of truth in it, I would not have had to make my first post in this thread a question asking you to substantiate what you said in your initial post.

[The Laughing Man]

Let's lay aside the point about the "presumption" of God's existence for a moment. Actually, this should have been done anyway since that has nothing to do with the purpose behind this thread. Your initial post pre-supposes the existence of God. Leave the "presumption" stuff for another thread. Also, leave this silliness about "sexualizing" God out. At best, all you are doing with bringing up these things is distracting from the issue at hand. At worst, you are using them to dodge making any meaningful arguments.

So, let's talk about God. Yes, He is loving, compassionate, and forgiving. Is it "deep-seated?" Sure, if you like understatements. He is infinitely all of those things. But, of course, you leave out His other attributes. He is also infinitely just, holy and righteous (as well as a great many other things, but these are most important to this discussion). So, as an infinitely just, holy and righteous being, God cannot stand sinfulness in His direct presence (i.e. before Him in Heaven) and anyone with unforgiven sin cannot stand to be in God's direct presence. God's anger burns against sin so much that I can't even begin to imagine what that would be like.

Tell me, what do you think is more compassionate: someone with unforgiven sin forced into being in God's presence or that person being removed from God's presence by their own choice? The latter is, obviously, and that is why Hell exists. People have the free will to choose to reject God and He will not force them to accept Him. When those people who reject Him die, they will be removed from His presence (i.e. into Hell) when they are judged. Everything that God is - loving, compassionate, forgiving, just, holy, righteous, etc. - makes all this more or less necessary. If Hell did not exist and those with unforgiven sin were forced to be in God's presence, He would not be loving, compassionate, just or righteous and thus would not be God. In fact, He would be exactly like your false portrayl of Him as a cruel, sadistic being not worthy of being worshipped.

[The Laughing Man]

Also, sinning against an infinite being who is infinitely just, holy and righteous requires infinite punishment. It's along the lines of committing crimes against police and other earthly authority figures. The punishment for such crimes is more severe for good reason.

[Mr Stick71]

Satori, it is illegal for an average citizen to kidnap another person, yet it is perfectly legal for a cop to arrest another person against their will. If it is unjust for one, why is it not unjust for the other? You may learn something in answering this question correctly...

Aaron

[Blake Reas]

Satori,
I am waiting on your reply! I would love to keep the debate going but if you don't feel like you can then don't. I want to see what you say about my correction of your awful use of the Bible and History!
In Christ,
Blake

I am Waiting:

[jpholding]

Early it is and I decided to use my time to reflect and review upon the past. To begin, the manifesto:

It's a pity that the christian god, according to nearly all interpretations I've encountered, is incapable of such deep-rooted love, compassion, and especially, forgiveness. This is why I feel that the christian god is lacking in very important ways, to say the least.

Sweet Satori, you did offer at a later point to provide us with examples from the texts. Please do so. I fully expect you to provide a sound and informed socio-historical exegesis showing that indeed the treatment offered was not just, fair, and ethical, and was in fact (to use your word) disproportionate. Bear in mind that you and all of us here are easy chair jocks with a 7-11 around every corner, ample food, ample freedom, air conditioning, and Pepsi commercials. Do not pretend that the ancient world was such and impose your latent values anachronistically. Do not also attempt to show "disproprortion" merely by emotional means or by stating, "Well, it's obvious" as though you have some innate and special capability by mere witnessing power and snap evaluation to determine that a reaction has been "disproportionate" to the action. I expect a full moral evaluation for every scenario, complete with analyses of long-term effects versus short-term reprecussions. Assuming you know your history and society well enough to be so detailed. Which I suspect you do not.

I await specific examples. Three would be fine to start. Thus far your posts on this topic have been the moral and intellectual equivalent of putting ox manure in a paper bag, putting it on a doorstep, setting the bag alight, ringing the doorbell, and running away.

I have already asked you to commit flagrant exegesis with respect to eternal sadism. Take your time. I suspect you'll need it to come up with an appropriate evasion, or additional emotional riposte.

Wow. Tell you what, I'll torture my pet parrot to death just for YOU Blake, just to show my love to YOU. Don't you feel special? Don't you LOVE me to bits? Please.

That was an excellent and sound reason for not commiting this act. Blighted sympathy and the implied fright-question, "How would YOU feel if..." As the good Captain asked, did indeed such serve a purpose, a greater good? If so, half of the implied (cough, hack) argument has suffered emasculation already and the rest may well be on its way to the lavatory.

I mentioned ancient values. The noble and self-sacrificial death was one of these. Pain was of little moment and to endure it was honorable. A far step ahead from our crybaby culture of boo boos and ouchie wouchies. Of those who file suit for any perceived slander and throw thousands out of work because of a poor paint job on the rear front panel of their BMW. Oh, dear, yes, I know, this is actually evidence of their barbarity and our enlightenment. Needless to say such delusional evaluation is necessary to maintain that smug air of self-superiority. If a society or person did not position itself as morally superior it could hardly look in the mirror with a straight face.

I do know the position, and I've been deconstructing it for years and had it explained to me countless time by people who likely know far more about it than yourself. I'm also a big fan of a philospher who spent 12 years as a priest, and he has many insights into christianity that I would bet you are completely unaware of.

And indeed, you did receive multiple jollies from the prospect of tormenting us by withholding the specific name of this person? Did you enjoy the infantile game of "I know something you don't know?"

Don't you love being psychoanalyzed from a distance by someone who hardly knows you?

Chances are I've heard of this rogue and chances are better than his "insights" amount to the philsophical equivalent of a soft-boiled egg.

Personally, I think the premise of a loving god who is also a sadistic freak who sees fit to torture people endlessly and feels that torturing jesus to death was a good or even acceptable way to show its love for us simply repugnant.

Again, I have requested exegesis on the former, but as for the latter, I'll add a note. By definition agape means looking out for the interests of the greater good. The "love" you espouse -- seemingly -- is a modern product, a sort of gushy sentimentalism that did not exist in the ancient world. Yes, we know: You profess to be an advanced being with super powers. Superman sits atop Olympus telling the peons how much love he has for all living creatures, which is why he cannot descend and destroy the Zaxon invaders who are decimating the population with their Booboo rays. I'll wait to see if this ethical system you profess is rooted in any more than subjective sentimentalism and attempts to manipulate guilt in others.

As an aside, which definition of sadism do you refer to?

1. The deriving of sexual gratification or the tendency to derive sexual gratification from inflicting pain or emotional abuse on others.
2. The deriving of pleasure, or the tendency to derive pleasure, from cruelty.
3. Extreme cruelty.

I suspect 3, but given your penchant for seeking cheap jollies, I can't be sure 1 isn't in view. Either way be prepared to back up your definition choice.


Personally, if someone raped or murdered someone I loved, I would be very pissed at first and probably want to kill them (I am an emotional human after all), but in time, I would overcome these negative feelings, I would come to love and forgive this person whether they asked for my forgiveness or not, whether or not they were even sorry.

But you have said, however, that you would imprison such persons. So you assert that there is a just punishment for their deeds. Thus:

This is because I enddeavour to be an ethical person, which is a lot more than I can say for your presumed freak of a god who apparently holds a grudge for eternity and NEVER forgives.

Now then, by your own connected reasoning, you forgive the rapist, etc but still imprison them. If the eternal fate is an imprisonment (and we will wait for that exegesis, perhaps centuries) then it is not a grudge but arguably justice. And you expressed no willingness to forgive by waiving the imprisonment, so you do not regard forgiveness and imprisonment as mutually exclusive. Back to square one. We need that diagram of effects of the sort I specified above. And so far, that bag of manure is still burning while we wait for details from King Kong.

Here's my thing: I think that organized religions brainwash people with little regard for their well-being, seeing fit to threaten and psychologically terrorize them to entrap them in a point of view that is not only silly and self-defeating, but ethically repugnant.

I do apologize, I apparently missed the meeting where that intention was expressed and where the threats were issued. Do you find it convenient to generalize away as above in order to make yourself feel more assured about the nature of your opposition?

But I feel it is necessary for growth, and I feel that everyone needs and deserves to hear what I have to on these issues. I feel that that is FAR more important than the little bit of fear their weakening faith would cause them. I honestly feel that it's for the greater good.

Oh dear, you DO know agape then. So you feel free to try to weaken faith for greater good. If the greater good is an acceptable reason for such acts as these -- the moral and intellectual equivalent of walking into a church service and loudly reciting the names of sexual organs repeatedly -- then the door is now open for those acts of, er, "sadism" (but isn't sadism done merely for pleasurable gratification?) to be for the greater good as well. Of course if it serves a real purpose of greater good then it seems not to be sadism. Theoretically you could be deluding yourself into thinking that you are serving the greater good, when it fact you are only doing this for the sake of the perverse and sadistic pleasure of seeing others deprived of their (as you see it) security. You may indeed not be as good as you think you are. You may indeed be aware of your own deficiencies in morals. Isn't distance psychology an absolute scream? It seems it all runs back to that implicitly begged question that you are right to begin with. And that means we need to discuss data, which so far has been elusive from King King's mouth. Thus:

I suspect you'll do a semantics dance around this, and perhaps tell me that I "lack an understand of christian theology" or whatever. Anything to avoid answer the question directly and exposing either your own faithlessness in the doctrine, or your or belief that such sadism can actually be justified.

I see. Pointing out deficiencies in the understanding of others is a way of not answering questions or exposing one's own insecurity. How hard was it to get that degree in personal psychology from Spin State University?

Satori, you do rather remind me of a certain gentleman who writes me under the name "Aikido7" and who was similarly elusive when it came to actual data-based arguments. If the model follows true you will do as he did, and stick your thumb in your mouth and pout. Do try to do better when the monkey's peaches are stolen from you.

[jpholding]

Now this:

I'm amused by everyone keep sexualizing to their god theory by giving it a gender. One gender is, in case you are not aware, determined solely by one's sexual organs.

Not by ancient Eastern thought. The gods were thought to transcend gender and such references to them varied according to their role, not according to what organ was sticking out that day. Even closer to the first century Wisdom was referred to as male or female at various intervals (mostly the latter).

I'm sure theologians would have something to say about your "de-genderification" of "god". Just a hunch.

Turn that hunch into actual names and proofs, and coherent, contextually-sound arguments, and we'll have more than Bill Cosby products from you.

[jpholding]

Last and least --

In short, I think it's a form of self-infecting and repugnant mind-cancer, as are most other religions, which people deserve the chance to be liberated from.

Do you tread as far as the meme theory in this reconstruction?

Oh right, of course it is, after all, your immortal soul hangs in waiting and it's destination is determined completely by your acceptance or rejection of the dogma you've been fed.

As far as I am concerned if nothing awaits me but non-consciousness I would be just as happy. When you get done with the session be sure and wipe your spittle off the couch, Dr. Newhart.

I guess all the christians are right and all the jews are wrong then? Wow, what was I thinking? How could I have thought that the truth lies somewhere in the middle? I must be insane.

Ye have said so. We will await eagerly that elucidation of the details from the Toledeth Yeshu, Erstwhile Eisenman, or whomever or whatever you regard as the Fad of the Week.

Good night everyone. Keep the faith, you'll need it to protect you from the wrath of your fictional dicator and reap your selfish reward of "heaven", and etenity of smooching god's glorious glutes. hhehe.

Hehhe. Hheehe. Some combination of H and E at any rate. Your concept of "heaven" seems to be as infantile and as contextually miseducated as your conception of hell. But we shall see. And yes, most people would share this miseducation, just as most people share miseducation on many subjects. I know you are proud of your enlightenment.

I may return tommorow to try to talk some common sense and basic ethics into you all once again because I truly care about and love you more than I can begin to express

No you don't. What you love is to hear yourself talk, and you fear our views because you are wicked and wish to hide the truth. Dear me, I just sounded like a fundy preacher. Er, dear me, I just sounded like you psychologizing US.

The ironies may never end.

[dizzle]

And you were bewailing the fact that you were not yet trounced Satori?? Well, be careful what you wish for, you might just get it.

[Captain Ochre]

02-21-2003 @ 12:33 AM
Satori:



I'm arguing against the common interpreation of an unforgiving and cruel god.


No, you're arguing for an interpretation of an unforgiving and cruel god against the common interpretation of a loving and forgiving god.
No charge for pointing out the obvious to you (this time!).


If you are so wise as to break with the majority and see that this is just silly then I commend and admire you for your stance, as I said in the opening post of this thread.


You admit that an interpretation of an unforgiving and cruel god is just silly? Maybe you're showing some progress . . .


Tell me where I am in error.


Okay, Satori. Just as soon as you construct an argument which isn't to be immediately dismissed as argument by assertion (or something else painfully obvious), I'll tell you where you're wrong. If you expect me to show that your assertions are wrong, then you are engaging in the fallacy of shifting the burden of proof, of course.
See below (oh, that's right: You wrote it).


Tell me how such pervese act of cruelty aren't just ethically repuganant.


Rather than shifting the burden of proof, Satori, argue for your assertion that act of god x is "such perverse act of cruelty"/ethically repugnant".


Even Hitler, as much of a sadist as he was, didn't torture people for the rest of their lives, much less for ETERNITY. In my view, Hitler is a trillion times more compassionate that your favourite god.


Well, this approach begs the question, since you haven't established that Hitler was uncompassionate, much less established that Hitler was more compassionate that YHWH. Argument by assertion still qualifies as a logical fallacy, last time I checked. I guess it's going to take awhile for that to sink in, for you.


If can show me that the common interpretation of christianity is NOT what I think it is, then be my guest. Is it no longer fashionable to believe in hell? Explain.


Hmmm, shifting the burden of proof again in your first sentence. Why don't you use some standard doctrinal source, like an encyclopedia, and argue against a common interpretation of Christianity that isn't your personal opinion?
There are a number of orthodox views of hell, of course, and even annihilationism is orthodox belief, iirc (albeit somewhat on the fringe). According to logic, it should be you that establishes (via logic) that hell is unjust.
You seem to think that whining that hell is unjust suffices as an argument, for some reason.


Please. If you can explain how torturing people isn't an act of sadism (and you know what I mean by sadism, I don't mean sexual gradification, I mean infinite cruelty) then by all means do so.


Well, you're torturing us with your illogical nonsense despite your claim that you are loving and compassionate (and you may yet go on infinitely--we'll have to wait and see), so you should have some conception of inflicting suffering to achieve a greater good.

As someone else has mentioned, sin against an infinite god merits infinite punishment (term torture seems unmerited, as god isn't trying to get concessions from helldwellers). Beyond that, scripture gives indications that punishment is meted out according to the deeds of the damned. We don't know specifically what the punishment is, apart from separation from fellowship with God, which is the obvious thing that helldwellers would have in common.
Thus, it isn't clear at all what you find unjust about an eternal hell, despite your noted ability to repeat your asserted complaint repeatedly.


Are you actually comparing ME to your uncompassionate, unforgiving, and cruel freak of a god? I would take deep offense to such a comparison (because I think I'm way better than that) if I thought you were actually serious and not just trying to do a semantics dance because your position is so incredibly weak.


You're going to take offense despite your unlimited compassion for me? Don't you see that as a contradiction?
As for comparing you with god, I believe that you were the one who initiated that comparison. All I have done is show that if you take your claims about yourself (compassionate) seriously, then there is a tension in your claims similar to that you claim to detect on the part of God.


(removed a paragraph's worth of Satoriism that didn't address any of our issues)

How do you think that torturing people for all eternity (if you actually believe and load of nonsense) can even COMPARE to what I'm doing? I am a good and compassionate person. I go out my own way to be as kind and as loving as possible to everyone. I wouldn't even toture and insect for a moment, much less torture a person for eternity. So please don't compare me to your cruel god in terms of ethics, because as you can see, as you undoubtedly realize, there IS no such comparison.


:rofl:
Your question was already answered above, btw. The rest I just kept in because it's so funny.


Are you truly unaware that most christians hold the same constructs, or are you just pretending to not be aware because you have nothing else to say?


You missed the point, which is that you're making assumptions about the source of my beliefs when you don't know; yet you claim to be able to support your claims (as best you're able--which appears to be an promise which holds no hope).


I am only addressing the most commonly held misconceptions. If you truly believe your god is not a cruel freak who would set them up for failure and then torture them for it, then you are on MY side, and you should be arguing with me, not against me.


You "address" things in the most superficial way. Your "arguments" consist of sets of confused assertions spiced with diatribes against Christianity founded solely on your personal opinions. You give the impression that you couldn't tell a deductive syllogism from a wart.


Tell me, which side are you on? The "god is a cruel and unforgiving monster side", or "the very definition of a loving god contradicts it being a cruel freak" side?


Neither (nice false dichotomy, btw).
I'm on your side. I'm eager to help you turn your confused ramblings into a set of assertions that may be arranged into a valid system of premisses and conclusions, so that your confusion over the nature of God may be dispelled.
Maybe you're not interested in the truth, however. If that's the case, then just go on spewing unsupported statements more or less at random, and I'll leave you be.


I suspect you'll do a semantics dance around this, and perhaps tell me that I "lack an understand of christian theology" or whatever. Anything to avoid answer the question directly and exposing either your own faithlessness in the doctrine, or your or belief that such sadism can actually be justified.


What you lack is any rigorous presentation of your argument whatsoever. Your presentation is evenly balanced between confusion and assertion; you've got nothing worth dealing with unless I magically credit you with an understanding of the issues far beyond what you have demonstrated. If you cannot present your argument in a logical manner, then you end up protecting it from attack by hiding its nature. Maybe that's what you want.

It is disingenuous of you, btw, to claim that I am avoiding your questions in instances where you are attempting to shift the burden of proof.


Are you presuming otherwise? That's quite a lofty claim.


The above is a perfect example of the disingenuousness I just referred to. You came here looking for debate (as I understand it). You're here making unsupported claims regarding the supposed sadistic nature of god. Apparently that's not a lofty claim, when you do it. If I happen to remind you that you haven't supported your claim ("Sure, start with your latest claim; that my theology teaches that god is a sadist"), you immediately respond with the bizarre idea that the converse claim is lofty.
Just to be clear, I'm not presuming otherwise. I'm trying to get you to support your claim beyond argument by assertion and other fallacies. If all you've got is assertion and fallacies, then you don't have an argument.
If you don't have an argument, then you should ponder why you're here ostensibly looking for debate.

(removed Satori's suggestion the Bible is all the proof he needs for his claim--which is a cop-out)

(removed Satori's dodge subsequent to my pointing out that he had made yet another unfounded assumption)


They are ascribing personality traits to their god which are ethically repugnant and not making any efforts to change that.


How do you know that they are not making any effort to change that? Are you omniscient?


Everything evolves, even christianity has evolved and changed so much over the centuries that it's now much different than it used to be, and while I feel that's a step in the right direction, I feel you all need to evolve it MORE. Instead of making it a religion of cruel vengeance, make it a religion of unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness.


We did that, but then "unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness" evolved themselves and spoiled everything. Everything evolves, you know.
(removed more baseless assertion by Satori--not that what's left over above isn't baseless assertion)

[Satori]

bump

[Satori]

I do not plan to return to this thread, I have far too much going on at the moment, I just felt that the first post was something that you people really really REALLY NEED to read.

I still feel that *unconditional* compassion, love, and forgiveness are virtues that we should all endeavour to uphold, and it's a pity that you, and your gods, do not see the gentle kindness and wisdom in this. That is why I pity you, and your gods.

Try as you will to wrap yourself in a tangle of logic in an attempt to justify the atrocities that are commited by your gods and approved of by you as the best thing since sliced cheese, you will not be able to. And if you ever think that harming another living creature with such a malicious intent is a good thing, then you are very very confused and lacking severely in the most basic of ethics, kindness, and compassion, and I think that's extremely said.

My condolences, and my love.

[Ben Franklin]

Today @ 12:04 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319150#post319150)
Satori:

I do not plan to return to this thread, I have far too much going on at the moment, I just felt that the first post was something that you people really really REALLY NEED to read.

I still feel that *unconditional* compassion, love, and forgiveness are virtues that we should all endeavour to uphold, and it's a pity that you, and your gods, do not see the gentle kindness and wisdom in this. That is why I pity you, and your gods.

Try as you will to wrap yourself in a tangle of logic in an attempt to justify the atrocities that are commited by your gods and approved of by you as the best thing since sliced cheese, you will not be able to. And if you ever think that harming another living creature with such a malicious intent is a good thing, then you are very very confused and lacking severely in the most basic of ethics, kindness, and compassion, and I think that's extremely said.

My condolences, and my love.

How can a person so arrogant and condescending end his posts like this ? What a jerk ! If he really belived in unconditional love and acceptance, he would know that the last thing he ought to do is criticize someone. What a creep ! What a pseudo-Buddha ! Satori, why don't you try meditating in a cave for 9 years ? That might improve your attitude, and give you some real insight.

[Paul]

The Father didn't commit an atrocity against the Son. Rather, He allowed that an atrocity be committed against Him by others. He was pleased to allow this to happen because He knew that He would be able to draw out a great good from it. But it was not his perfect or antecedent will that this happen. Had Adam never sinned, the Father would still have sent the Son to be incarnate. And the Son would not have suffered so. But God in his Wisdom chose to do things this way, to allow Adam to fall, to all the fallen angels to fall. We don't have the mental capacity or knowledge to be able to challenge the Wisdom of God. But God's grace can give us the humility to submit to Him, to listen to and hear and keep his word and to treasure it in our hearts. Without faith it is impossible to please Him and for us to have faith we need to have humility, the root of all the virtues.

[seer]

02-19-2003 @ 10:06 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=19389#post19389)
Satori:

Allow me to take the moral high ground for a moment with this statement, which I believe with my whole heart and mind is for the good of everyone, for the good of humanity, which is why I hold it, encourage it at every opportunity, and live up to it:

Unconditional love, compassion, and forgiveness are virtues we should all endeavour to hold and live up to.

It's a pity that the christian god, according to nearly all interpretations I've encountered, is incapable of such deep-rooted love, compassion, and especially, forgiveness. This is why I feel that the christian god is lacking in very important ways, to say the least.

If anyone needs me to clarify and expand on this I will gladly do so. If anyone feels I am somehow "lying" about this, that I do not endeavour hold and practice these virtures, then you are welcome to hold that opinion, just don't expect me to agree with you. Btw, I'm not the only one who holds these virtures, in many philosophical and meta-religious spirtual circles, they are commonplace.

If any of you attributes such virtues to your christian/jewish/muslim/whatever god then I praise and commend you for your stance of going against the majority, as you are truly subserviant to a presumed god which is actually worthy of your subserviance and loyalty.

As for the rest of you, I deeply question your (and god's) moral values and ask: do you think your stance of *conditional* love, compassion, and forgiveness is the best you can do? Do you not think you can improve upon yourself and your god?

Peace, love, and reason to you all,

Satori

Well it depends - perhaps God will eventually save all men:

http://www.tentmaker.org/books/ScripturalProofs.html

[jpholding]

Ah,

Satori's usually non-answer rant with the hankies passed out.

[Ben Franklin]

Yesterday @ 01:16 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319452#post319452)
jpholding:

Ah,

Satori's usually non-answer rant with the hankies passed out.

Yep, looks like he skipped his support group meeting again...

:lol:

[cbro]

[QUOTE]11-27-2003 @ 04:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319150#post319150)
Satori:

I do not plan to return to this thread, I have far too much going on at the moment [/QUOTE

Sounds like you are getting too much truth and need to run away from it.

[LGM]

11-27-2003 @ 07:04 PM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=319150#post319150)
Satori:
I do not plan to return to this thread, I have far too much going on at the moment, I just felt that the first post was something that you people really really REALLY NEED to read.

Satori,

As a skeptic, I must concur with other Christians here that your first post was really, really, REALLY, a huge load of pathetic donkey droppings...


I still feel that *unconditional* compassion, love, and forgiveness are virtues that we should all endeavour to uphold,

...whew! I know there must have been many here concerned that you might have changed your mind on this in the last 6 months...thank goodness you're still on the progam...I know I'll sleep better tonight...
:lmbo:

BTW..., *Why* do you feel that unconditional compassion, love and forgiveness are virtues we should all endeavor to uphold? Where did you get that notion?

...and how would one discern from observing your posts or your actions that you actually apply these virtues in your life?

You could easily prove your unconditional love right now by sending DeeDee a $100 donation... (cough*whenpigsfly*cough...)



and it's a pity that you, and your gods, do not see the gentle kindness and wisdom in this. That is why I pity you, and your gods.

...perhaps you meant to say unconditional "pity" is the virtue you live by?


And if you ever think that harming another living creature with such a malicious intent is a good thing, then you are very very confused and lacking severely in the most basic of ethics, kindness, and compassion, and I think that's extremely said.

...harming a group of terrorists that are planning to attack my country or her people is a great thing, and I'm thankful to those who risk their lives to defend my freedom. Harming an Angus steer so I can eat the muscle and fat inside its rib cage is something I have a meat packing plant do for me on a regular basis.
Perhaps it is you who are confused and lacking severely in the most basic of common sense and a grip on reality? Or are you just a pretentious hypocrite?


My condolences, and my love.
...oops, I forgot, "love" is a "virtue" that can be demonstrated in a signature of a denigrating post on TWEB, how convienent and ironic...

:barf:

LGM
...not surprising...the self-righteous, hypocrite can also be found amongst the ranks of atheists...

[Amazing Rando]

Today @ 04:36 AM post located here (http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&postid=321482#post321482)
LakeGeorgeMan:

Harming an Angus steer so I can eat the muscle and fat inside its rib cage is something I have a meat packing plant do for me on a regular basis.

Mmm... tasty! :grin:

:thumb:

[ChrisChillin]

What's with the bump, Satori?

...If you still want to talk about what Christians actually say about Hell (indeed, what the Bible actually says too), then you can have a ball in the "Readings on Hell" thread I intend to start, as my signature line indicates, later this month, after I return home from Europe.

Then we can all discuss whether what's in the scriptural texts actually show God to be a cruel, unforgiving monster or not...