|
|
|
|
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 9:35:50 AM | Then the stranger replies, " God told me!" Now, you are left to ponder whether:
Ive yet to meet a believer that asks that you trust God just because they have warned you. I encourage you to TEST HIM. Not the messenger, we are but a tool.
Imagine for a brief moment, that I could be right and there is a God.
Do you not think that He is incapable in showing Himself to you?
Granted, He may not walk up to you singing Amazing Grace, but He has more than made Himself known to me and continues to do so, even to the point that to have denied His existence would have been a conscience decision not to CONTARY to reality for the sole purpose (trust me, it was tempting!) to continue my ways, living my life as if I were Queen of it. Because in excepting that He exists, also means to except that I do not rule my life...here or in the next and there will be consequences to my actions or lack there of, either good or bad. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 9:43:08 AM | Your analogies are beautifully presented constructed. There are, however two things wrong with them:
1) An analogy is not literal, actual truth. It is at best a simplified, idealized approximation of truth. It is a finger pointing at the truth and one ought not to confuse the finger with the thing it is pointing at.
2) Insofar as they apply to the application of Christianity or any religion to the contemporary situation, they are false. I will use your words as far as I believe them to be valid and modify them where I think they go astray:
You are standing on the steep slope of a hillside. Below you lay a lush and inviting valley. Above you extends a treacherous cliff face. The entire area is unstable and earthquakes plague the whole of the land. Down in the valley a dark fog is moving in obscuring everything, blocking all sight of what lay behind it. A man climbs down from the cliff and approaches you, saying “I have come to save you. I have heard from a man or men who has (have) been ordained by a certain institution to interpret a book that was written thousands of yeas ago, in circumstances unknown to us, allegedly dictated by someone who called himself ‘God’ or whom the writers of that book called ‘God’...
“The lessons of this book have been believed over the years by many people who believed in them because those who had come before them believed in them. There is no proof whatsoever that these lessons are true, but that is precisely why you ought to believe in them! By believing in them contradiction of what your eyes and your reason tell you, you will prove that you are worthy of this God. He abhors those who doubt him! Many times, it is believed, he has punished, with eternal damnation, those who doubted him...” | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 10:02:33 AM | Poeple are obviously not reading entire posts.
I never said that people can't change. I said that they won't change unless they chose to do so, regardless of the necessaty for said change.
By definition a pattern is a repetition of the same thing. If a pattern is formed, it's pretty easy to determine what comes next.
Regardless of the forces acting upon someone (outside/inside/it doesn't matter) they WILL NOT change unless they CHOSE to do so.
I am greatful to everybody who continously helps to prove my point. No matter how simple you make it, people will refuse the message.
Corten1295 - Are you sure, that it's not as cut and dry as I proposed?
Flyguy - Whose choice is it, to come to that determination of the situation?
I disagree. I am quite well aware that, in all cases, we have a choice. Just as I choose to point out that the analogies presented do not satisfy the point that is apparently being made. Given the choices in the analogies, there are a multitude of actions people could opt to take. That's choice.
What do you see as the multitude of options?
If it's an either/or you're looking for, then for the sake of "moving the 'debate' forward", I'll concede that, if there's evidence of an imminent disaster and a credible person (or alien) arrives to direct one toward safety, one will out of self-preservation, opt for safety
No, many people will not opt for safety.
I've already covered this one. If the guy was responsible, his credibility as regards safety is suspect. If, on the urging of one's instinct for self-preservation, they still follow him, this doesn't exonerate him of the responsibility, for which he should be held to account.
What if the situation is greater than what the human mind can comprehend?
Say a parent owns an amusement park. Their children play there all day everyday. After time the parents decide that they are going to sell the park and build a new one. Do you really believe that they need to sit down with their small children and try to rationalize all the reasons for selling and rebuilding, when the children wouldn't even understand? Are the children justified in resenting their parents for closing the park when they can't even understand all the reasons?
Have you ever tried to rationalize with a three year old?
If you have small children do you ask their input on everything or do you at times make adult decisions even when you know the child won't like it?
If a child argues about going to bed, throws a temper tantrum, cries and screams, does it ever change the fact that they have to go to bed?
I know that as adults it's hard for us to see ourselves as children, but it really is that simple. We are God's children. There are things we don't understand. We can either accept this and follow His plan or we can sit here and argue with Him.
No matter how strong an arguement we pose it never changes the fact that, if we die away from God, we will spend eternity away from God. He doesn't leave us. We leave Him. Just like a good parent though, He stays there with open arms, even when we run out of the room like little children, yelling that we hate Him, waiting and wanting for our return.
Is it arrogance to want to honestly know the intentions of someone who says they want to help you? Particularly someone who conveniently appears out of nowhere at precisely the time that you're in peril (*cough* deus ex machina *cough*)?
If the offer is sincere, then yes it is arrogance.
The analogies given simply aren't satisfactory to make whatever point you're trying to make. However if, as you seem to so adamantly insist is important to the discussion, it's necessary to concede that, in a position of peril, one will accept assistance to safety, I'll grudgingly do so. If only to keep from being labelled "arrogant" or "stubborn"
On the contrary. They do make my point, and it's the opposite of what you state. My point is that even when there are only two options and a position of peril, there are those who will still refuse the assistance to safety, because they want to place the blame elsewhere, instead of accepting the fact that it's their choice to either stay or go. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 12:43:40 PM |
Poeple are obviously not reading entire posts.
I never said that people can't change. I said that they won't change unless they chose to do so, regardless of the necessaty for said change.
Ugh.
Fine. Let's pretend that was the case, and tomorrow, you get hit by a bus. Did you choose to get hit by a bus? Now, don't go throwing standard xian evasion in there... you wake up, get out of bed, and a bus comes flying through your wall and hits you. How, pray tell, is that a choice, on your part, to get hit by a bus?
By definition a pattern is a repetition of the same thing. If a pattern is formed, it's pretty easy to determine what comes next.
A pattern is a suggesstion of repetition... the only time patterns are ever reliably the same is in mathematics. Germany inavded France in the Franco-Prussian War, WWI, and WWII. By your flawed logic, they'll invade France again, because the pattern has suggested it. Using this backward notion of choice again, you are implying that every one of the 6 million executed Jews chose to go to the camps, or that France chose to be invaded.
Regardless of the forces acting upon someone (outside/inside/it doesn't matter) they WILL NOT change unless they CHOSE to do so.
Sorry, n8, but that's simply not how the world works. Shit happens, to everybody, and most of it isn't shit people choose for themselves. What aout the child who gets molested? Did they choose to be? No... it is not only foolish to think that everything that happens to a person is their own choice, it is dangerous. The rape victim chose to be raped, the child chose to be molested, the murder victim chose to be grotesquely murdered. What does that do, then? It eliminates responsibility on the part of the perpetrators. But then, I would expect nothing less... after all, God holds everyone accountable but Himself.
I am greatful to everybody who continously helps to prove my point. No matter how simple you make it, people will refuse the message.
When your message is flawed, yes. You can be as simple as you like, but it's still wrong. Just as some have tried to explain, in simple terms, how your premise is misleading at best and a lie at worst, and you just sit and smile and ignore them. Practice what you preach.
What if the situation is greater than what the human mind can comprehend?
Say a parent owns an amusement park. Their children play there all day everyday. After time the parents decide that they are going to sell the park and build a new one. Do you really believe that they need to sit down with their small children and try to rationalize all the reasons for selling and rebuilding, when the children wouldn't even understand? Are the children justified in resenting their parents for closing the park when they can't even understand all the reasons?
Back to the "God as parent" thing, are we? Fine.
No, the parents don't have to explain, but they should at leasttry anyway. Most people, if they really loved their kids, would at least try to convey that they are not doing it to cause the child pain, if nothing else. And Yes, the children will be resentful.
However, to make it an accurate analogy, the Parents would have to destroy the park while the kids, or some of their little friends, are still in the park. then tell their kids that their friends were bad people and deserved to die, and that if they don't behave, they'll die, too. But if they behave, the Parents will build them an even bigger, nicer park!
And why did the Parents destroy their own park? While kids were inside? Because they wanted to. They didn't have to, as they owned it and nobody could take it... they could have just fixed it up, but no. They wanted it gone, and they wanted to kill lots of little kids in the process.
That would be a more fitting example.
Have you ever tried to rationalize with a three year old?
Ah, so you are likening yourself to a toddler and God to a parent. That makes much more sense, no wonder you've been standing in the same place screaming "MINE MINE MINE!" :-P
If you have small children do you ask their input on everything or do you at times make adult decisions even when you know the child won't like it?
Irrelevant, and you know it. But let's just pretend you have a point. So. these 'adult' decisions? Unless they involve butchering your child's friends or beating your child with a stick, there's no basis of comparison. So yeah, of course a kid isn't going to like getting beat up or watching their friends die. But your all-'loving' God does that all the time. And sometimes there's not even a reason: a church roof collapses on the congregation and kills 15 people. Did those 15 people choose to die? No, they chose to go to church, God chose to kill them.
If a child argues about going to bed, throws a temper tantrum, cries and screams, does it ever change the fact that they have to go to bed?
Again, likening yourself to a petulant, spoiled, argumentative toddler having himself a tantrum. Everything makes much more sense now. And you still have to go to bed. ;-)
I know that as adults it's hard for us to see ourselves as children, but it really is that simple. We are God's children. There are things we don't understand. We can either accept this and follow His plan or we can sit here and argue with Him.
I don't know of any decent parent that would threaten their child with endless suffering to coerce them to behave, promise them endless fun if they do, then turn around and tell them they are going to get the endless beating anyway unless the Parent changes their inscrutable and impossible-to-understand mind. But go ahead and think yourself a child if it helps. Don't bother questioning anything the Parent-god does, just roll over and take it. There's a good boy.
No matter how strong an arguement we pose it never changes the fact that, if we die away from God, we will spend eternity away from God. He doesn't leave us. We leave Him. Just like a good parent though, He stays there with open arms, even when we run out of the room like little children, yelling that we hate Him, waiting and wanting for our return.
Except that He doesn't. You slip up once, and God sends you to your room and you never get to leave. God doesn't open hisarms for you to come running back, he leaves you in the cold and in the dark. And, just for spite, he does HORRIBLE things to people, and lets people do horrible things to each other. Tell me, what purpose did Hurricane Katrina serve? What lesson was so important that thousands needed to die needlessly? Why did innocent children in Louisiana perish while blood-sucking lawyer scum flourished in California?
Sorry, but the "God as Daddy" analogy simply doesn't work. No parent would willingly let something terrible happen to their child while they stood by and watched: fully able to intervene, but choosing not to. That sounds like a sadistic prat more than a loving Daddy. I hope you don't raise your own kids by that model. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 1:15:18 PM | God holds everybody accountable but Himself
God chose to kill them
he leaves you in the cold and in the dark
These are, believe it or not, good statements. Anger towards God is part of every Christians journey. For if you are angry at Him, you except that He exists. 1down.
I can see so much pain in your posts, to the point that I wanted to cry.
I will not attempt to persuade you to believe me.
But if you feel that you'd like Him to answer any accusations,
look to His Word. It will heal the pain. Trust me, I know. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 4:26:14 PM | Fine. Let's pretend that was the case, and tomorrow, you get hit by a bus. Did you choose to get hit by a bus? Now, don't go throwing standard xian evasion in there... you wake up, get out of bed, and a bus comes flying through your wall and hits you. How, pray tell, is that a choice, on your part, to get hit by a bus?
The only way you find falacy is when you take the analogy out of context. Once again, the analogy I use is that, if one has done evil, is currently doing evil, then the logical outcome is that they will continue to do evil. Even though a bus crashing through a wall has nothing to do with the good/evil nature of ones heart, I'll still address it.
Did I chose to get hit by the bus, of course not.
Do I chose how I react, yes.
Does the accident cause me to realize how prescious life is and how little time we have here and that I need to be seeking my higher purpose? Only if I CHOSE to let it. I can say "wow, what a wake up call." and examine my life, see my mistakes, and strive for change within myself, or I can ignore it, become angry at my situation, blame God for such a freak accident, and continue the path I was on.
Sorry, n8, but that's simply not how the world works. Shit happens, to everybody, and most of it isn't shit people choose for themselves. What aout the child who gets molested? Did they choose to be? No... it is not only foolish to think that everything that happens to a person is their own choice, it is dangerous. The rape victim chose to be raped, the child chose to be molested, the murder victim chose to be grotesquely murdered. What does that do, then? It eliminates responsibility on the part of the perpetrators. But then, I would expect nothing less... after all, God holds everyone accountable but Himself
Actually, that IS how it works. Life is only 10% what happens, and 90% how you react. I never stated that "everything that happens to a person is their own choice." What I have continuously said throught this entire thread, is that you CHOSE how you react. The child choses to be devastated by the molestation, creating in-numerable issues, or the child choses to percivere, and to overcome any hinderences or stigmas asscociated with the autrocity that fell upon him/her. We are not defined by our situation unless we allow ourselves to be.
No, the parents don't have to explain, but they should at leasttry anyway. Most people, if they really loved their kids, would at least try to convey that they are not doing it to cause the child pain, if nothing else. And Yes, the children will be resentful.
This is exactly what God does, and no, many of the children aren't respectful.
However, to make it an accurate analogy, the Parents would have to destroy the park while the kids, or some of their little friends, are still in the park. then tell their kids that their friends were bad people and deserved to die, and that if they don't behave, they'll die, too. But if they behave, the Parents will build them an even bigger, nicer park!
And why did the Parents destroy their own park? While kids were inside? Because they wanted to. They didn't have to, as they owned it and nobody could take it... they could have just fixed it up, but no. They wanted it gone, and they wanted to kill lots of little kids in the process.
Your trying to offer alternatives without knowing any of the facts.
Everyone in the park has been told to leave numerous times. Over and over, people are screaming "GET OUT". All the kids have been told that they need to leave and all have been told what happens if they don't. There is not enough time to explain all the why's, because like little children, regardless of the answer, we will still ask why? If all we are doing is asking why, then we are never leaving. Being loving and concerned parents they want us to trust them, but they will not force us.
Again, likening yourself to a petulant, spoiled, argumentative toddler having himself a tantrum. Everything makes much more sense now. And you still have to go to bed. ;-)
No, I am likening all of humanity to a petulant, spoiled, argumentative toddler having himself a tantrum. When we grow up a little we stop pitting ourselves, stop fussing over, "Why did God do this? Why did God do that? Boo hoo, pity me" and we realize "Ahh, maybe there was a reason God does the things he does." "Maybe, now that I'm quiet, and have stopped blaming Him for what's wrong in my life, I might actually hear what He's saying to me."
I don't know of any decent parent that would threaten their child with endless suffering to coerce them to behave, promise them endless fun if they do, then turn around and tell them they are going to get the endless beating anyway unless the Parent changes their inscrutable and impossible-to-understand mind.
Fortunately, the parent you describe is nothing like God.
Any parent who puts a child, who doesn't fully grasp the concept of time yet, in time out, has certainly threatend endless suffering. When a child can't tell time, it doesn't matter if you say 10 min or 100 min they mean the same thing.
Except that He doesn't. You slip up once, and God sends you to your room and you never get to leave. God doesn't open hisarms for you to come running back, he leaves you in the cold and in the dark.
There is no teaching that I know of that says if you sin just once you're damned forever. True Christian teaching says that everyone sins, but that if you truly seek repentence you will be forgiven, because the punishment for your sins has already been paid.
Sorry, but the "God as Daddy" analogy simply doesn't work. No parent would willingly let something terrible happen to their child while they stood by and watched: fully able to intervene, but choosing not to. That sounds like a sadistic prat more than a loving Daddy. I hope you don't raise your own kids by that model
A parent can warn a child that the stove is hot over and over. They can take all the care in the world to make sure the child doesn't touch the stove. At the end of the day the parent knows that regardless of the actions they take, one day the child will touch the stove. If at some point the parent sees the child reaching for the stove and knows for a fact that the stove at that moment won't cause a real burn, are they sadistic to let the child learn their leason? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 6:02:45 PM |
These are, believe it or not, good statements. Anger towards God is part of every Christians journey. For if you are angry at Him, you except that He exists. 1down.
I can see so much pain in your posts, to the point that I wanted to cry.
I will not attempt to persuade you to believe me.
But if you feel that you'd like Him to answer any accusations,
look to His Word. It will heal the pain. Trust me, I know.
How touching... but I am NOT a christian, nor do I ever intend to go back to that slave faith. Do not presume to know, or understand, me... that's the problem with a lot of christians, you think you know how God acts and feels, let alone another mere mortal.
My pain is my own, and it is none of your business. His Word, as you have described it, (meaning the Bible), was filled with nothing but lies and deceptions. My answers weren't in there, nor was any notion of accountability or room for error or even simple compassion. It's an ethnocentric, misogynistic, outdated, archaic collection of irrelevant stories about an invisible fairy-man. No thanks, I'll take what I have seen, and felt, and touched, rather than the words of a long-dead man who may never have existed to begin with.
Next time you try to coddle to me, disarronno, I won't be nearly as kind. Consider this your warning. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 6:41:37 PM |
The only way you find falacy is when you take the analogy out of context. Once again, the analogy I use is that, if one has done evil, is currently doing evil, then the logical outcome is that they will continue to do evil.
*sigh*
You just love causing headaches, don't you? Fine. Let me try and argue down to your level, even though you like to pretend you can use logic. I used your EXACT analogy, only I replaced the word 'evil' with 'shitting oneself'. That's not "out-of-context", that's merely pointing out the massive logical inconsistency. Let's try this again:
PAST EVENTS OR NO GUARANTEE OF FUTURE ONES. EVER. IN ANY CIRCUMSTANCE. YOU COULD WAKE UP TOMORROW AND BE DEAD BECAUSE YOU WERE HIT BY A BUS. EVIL IS NO EXCEPTION, PAST EVENTS CANNOT DECISIVELY DETERMINE FUTURE ONES.
There, is that simple enough that you can ****ing understand it? Oh, wait, of course not. I forgot, everyone else is wrong except for you. When you say something that can be proven to be incorrect, it's everyone else's fault for not understanding it right... as opposed to your own idiot fault for saying something stupid in the first place.
Did I chose to get hit by the bus, of course not.
Do I chose how I react, yes.
Does the accident cause me to realize how prescious life is and how little time we have here and that I need to be seeking my higher purpose? Only if I CHOSE to let it. I can say "wow, what a wake up call." and examine my life, see my mistakes, and strive for change within myself, or I can ignore it, become angry at my situation, blame God for such a freak accident, and continue the path I was on.
Re-read the ****ing premise. NO reaction. You wake up one day, yawn, stretch, AND ****ING DIE. How is that, on any level and in any way, your own choice, hm? You don't have time for anything except to see that it is, in fact, a bus... then you get splattered. How the hell is any part of that your choice?
Actually, that IS how it works. Life is only 10% what happens, and 90% how you react. I never stated that "everything that happens to a person is their own choice." What I have continuously said throught this entire thread, is that you CHOSE how you react. The child choses to be devastated by the molestation, creating in-numerable issues, or the child choses to percivere, and to overcome any hinderences or stigmas asscociated with the autrocity that fell upon him/her. We are not defined by our situation unless we allow ourselves to be.
Finally, you are making some sense. Nevermind that this is NOT what you've been saying, at all. But this one paragraph shows that somewhere underneath all your arrogance and insistence that everyone see and feel as you do, there's a brain. A pity, really, that you can keep saying such stupid things despite having the capacity to do better.
Your trying to offer alternatives without knowing any of the facts.
Incorrect. You gave a vague premise as an analogy for God... yet you deliberately left out everything about hell and eternal damnation and all the other people God has out-and-out murdered.
Everyone in the park has been told to leave numerous times.
Parks close.
Over an
d over, people are screaming "GET OUT". All the kids have been told that they need to leave and all have been told what happens if they don't.
Spanking is temporary... kid gets swatted, punishment over. It isn't an eternity of swatting.
There is not enough time to explain all the why's, because like little children, regardless of the answer, we will still ask why?
If you tell a kid that you will MURDER THEM if they don't do as you say immediately, hell yeah tehy're going to ask why! Especially if you are in a position of trust, and the kids are under the impression you give a shit. Explain how anyone can murder a child if they love them... aside from Munchausen by Proxy.
If all we are doing is asking why, then we are never leaving. Being loving and concerned parents they want us to trust them, but they will not force us
They love us so much they'd never force us... but that won't stop them from murdering us. Funny notion of love, that.
No, I am likening all of humanity to a petulant, spoiled, argumentative toddler having himself a tantrum. When we grow up a little we stop pitting ourselves, stop fussing over, "Why did God do this? Why did God do that? Boo hoo, pity me" and we realize "Ahh, maybe there was a reason God does the things he does." "Maybe, now that I'm quiet, and have stopped blaming Him for what's wrong in my life, I might actually hear what He's saying to me."
And some of us quit trying to use God as an excuse. "Everything is God's will" isn't the order of the day anymore. "Shit happens. It's nobody's fault, really. And It sucks. But oh well, time to move on" replaces "God is testing me". You use God as a crutch, to try and explain the things you don't understand. I don't. Instead of trying to convince me that you're right by using terrible analogies, deceptive stories, etc., you ought to just STFU and realize that your worldview and mine are not compatible, and leave it at that.
Fortunately, the parent you describe is nothing like God.
Oh, wait, except for the eternity of torment if you don't do what He asks. Ecept for murdering millions of people to teach other, unrelated people some vague sort of lesson. Oh, and other than bribing you with Heaven in one hand, then threatening you with Hell in the other. Yeah, aside from being exactly like Parent, God is nothing like Parent.
Face it: your God isn't sunshine and daisies. And you, as a mere mortal, can never hope to explain why, since you cannot possibly know. You're just a human wretch like the rest of us, God's reasons are His own, and beyond anything you could ever hope to comprehend. So quit defending His murderous actions.
Any parent who puts a child, who doesn't fully grasp the concept of time yet, in time out, has certainly threatend endless suffering. When a child can't tell time, it doesn't matter if you say 10 min or 100 min they mean the same thing.
Reaching for straws, here. That's a sign of desperation. Tell you what: I'll let you have this one. I could debate it, but **** it: time-out is a threat of eternity. Fine.
Is there torture in time-out? Is there beatings, and poking with hot things? Is time out used for every transgression with no hope of ever leaving time-out? If a kid goes in time-out, do they stay there the rest of their lives? Now, instead of the standard xian evasion, give me a straight answer. No "they do if blah blah blahblah blah", I asked a generalized question: give the generalized answer. Does a kid go to time-out once and stay there forever?
Here, I'll just give you the answer. No.
There is no teaching that I know of that says if you sin just once you're damned forever. True Christian teaching says that everyone sins, but that if you truly seek repentence you will be forgiven, because the punishment for your sins has already been paid.
Not according to what you've said, in this and two other threads. According to you, any act of evil, even the smallest, is punished with eternal damnation. Even in people who have never heard of Jesus. Even in people who try to compensate by doing good works for the rest of their lives. Nope, they all burn eternally. Whereas a person could be a cruel, barbarous monster their entire lives, but if they repent, *poof!* they get Heaven.
It's the Hitler-Ghandi example. Say Hitler really and truly repented: would that seriously wipe out a life full of hideous evil? Say Ghandi never repented (as he wouldn't have believed he had anything to repent for). Would a life spent trying to get people to resolve things peacefully be rewarded by eternal suffering?
According to your own words, the answer to both is 'yes'. So tell me: is it? Without adding anything else in, since you claim to hate it when people add to your own analogy, answer the questions if you can.
A parent can warn a child that the stove is hot over and over. They can take all the care in the world to make sure the child doesn't touch the stove. At the end of the day the parent knows that regardless of the actions they take, one day the child will touch the stove. If at some point the parent sees the child reaching for the stove and knows for a fact that the stove at that moment won't cause a real burn, are they sadistic to let the child learn their leason?
Irrelevant comparison. Unless the child is covered in jellied gasoline so that touching the stove will result in a long and painful death. But I digress: let's use this analogy.
Is a parent sadistic for leting their child touch a red-hot stove? Even though they've told them over and over again?
YES.
Let's use something other than the stove. Let's use, say, crossing the street.
Parent tells Child to look before crossing, over and over and over. Parent does everything they can to instill in Child to look both ways. Child doesn't, and goes dashing into the street, darting out in front of a car. Would Parent, even despite telling Child over and over again, intervene? You bet your ass they would! To do nothing, and let Child die, would be sadistic.
Any other examples you'd like to give us for how your God is a monster? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/24/2007 7:24:37 PM |
But if you feel that you'd like Him to answer any accusations,
look to His Word. It will heal the pain. Trust me, I know.
I gotta tell you, disaronno amaretto, that is so sychophantic! | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 4:51:39 AM |
Corten1295 - Are you sure, that it's not as cut and dry as I proposed?
Yes, because it assumes Christianity is the obvious right choice when there are multiple religions and beliefs that are just as plausible. A number of them propose the "choose to believe in this or that almighty being or risk an eternity spent in a hellish place." No matter what you believe, you're damned in the eyes of one religion or another. Why should one believe Christians over other faiths with their own religious texts that were also supposedly written by men who were inspired by the divine?
Take your analogy with the valley, for example. On that cliff there wouldn't be one man, but many, all claiming that they know the way to safety. However, they also say that if you go with one of the others you'll be deceived and taken back into danger. Even if one believed them about the imminent danger and wanted to get to safety, knowing who to follow is at best, the complete opposite of cut and dry.
...but instead of trying to debate the analogies for what they were, the only way people could try to negate them, was by trying to add other stuff in, or take parts out of context, or even go completely off track.
In your analogy, yeah, I can see how one would want to make the decision to seek safety. While I'm not trying to put words into your mouth by adding to it, I felt that the analogy was missing a lot of factors that are present in reality when dealing with religion. It overly simplified something that isn't simple. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 5:21:10 AM | Okay, I'm going to try to whittle this down, but don't count on it being short.
Granted, He may not walk up to you singing Amazing Grace, but He has more than made Himself known to me and continues to do so, even to the point that to have denied His existence would have been a conscience decision not to CONTARY to reality for the sole purpose (trust me, it was tempting!) to continue my ways, living my life as if I were Queen of it. Smart brother of mine used to say, "Belief in the absence of proof is faith. Belief in direct contradistinction to proof is dangerous." If you've found proof, believing otherwise is dangerous, yes? Good on ya, for finding evidence that satisfies you.
I never said that people can't change. I said that they won't change unless they chose to do so, regardless of the necessaty for said change. I disagree. I've read each post in its entirety. No, you haven't said that people cannot change, but that there's no indication that they will if they haven't already. Fair enough. However, with your appeal to inertia as an analogical argument, you've effectively stated that there is reason to believe that they cannot without the intervention of an outside force.
If a pattern is formed, it's pretty easy to determine what comes next. This is logically true, as well, but conflating the logic of this with an incapacity to change, particularly with regard to human actions the prediction of which is always subject to mistaken assumption, is making a logical leap that is unnecessary at best. Even assuming a pattern invalidates the analogy.
Regardless of the forces acting upon someone... they WILL NOT change unless they CHOSE to do so. No argument here. Your point?
No matter how simple you make it, people will refuse the message. Explain the "message".
Are you sure, that it's not as cut and dry as I proposed? Dunno 'bout anyone else, but I'm certain.
What do you see as the multitude of options? In which analogy?
No, many people will not opt for safety. I disagree, but if you say so... However, if you're refuting the point that the choice exists and will be made, what point are you even trying to make?
What if the situation is greater than what the human mind can comprehend? An appeal to ignorance, then. Exit the analogy. Sad, you won't stick with what you insist the rest of us should.
Say a parent owns an amusement park. Again, a crappy analogy, but it's been addressed.
If you have small children do you ask their input on everything or do you at times make adult decisions even when you know the child won't like it? So, effectively, you're saying that you're a three-year-old that understands, but the rest of the three-year-olds can't? Certainly adults make decisions that kids won't like, but a responsible parent doesn't just say, "because I said so." Of course, that kind of apparent arbitrariness would embitter the child, and if the analogy is carried to God as simply telling His creation, "sorry, but I make the rules," yes, folks are going to point out the injustice of it. Particularly when, after making the rules and applying them to the creation that supposedly looks to God for guidance, He effectively pulls a 180 as far as His following of the rules, in essence now saying, "do as I say, not as I do." Is this the kind of thing you're getting at, or do you have anything cogent to add? I've already conceded that, in a position of observable danger, one will follow someone (the man on the mountain or the benevolent aliens) to safety. Does "moving the discussion along" mean that, now, having conceded the point, the point is moot, because we don't know as much as the "good guys"? Please explain. Coherently, if possible.
If a child argues about going to bed, throws a temper tantrum, cries and screams, does it ever change the fact that they have to go to bed? No, why? What relevance does this have to choice? Are you now arguing, as I've already done, that apparent choice doesn't equate to actual choice?
I know that as adults it's hard for us to see ourselves as children, but it really is that simple. We are God's children. There are things we don't understand. We can either accept this and follow His plan or we can sit here and argue with Him. Cute. "Accept because He's God, or point out the fact He can't be trusted." No, wait. That should read: "or throw a tantrum and argue."
No matter how strong an arguement we pose it never changes the fact that, if we die away from God, we will spend eternity away from God. Aside from an appeal to authority that you haven't established as authoritative, what evidence can you give? Perhaps more flawed analogies could be used?
He doesn't leave us. We leave Him. Just like a good parent though, He stays there with open arms, even when we run out of the room like little children, yelling that we hate Him, waiting and wanting for our return. How uplifting, this interpretation. However, from the facts at hand, the analogy would more closely resemble someone laying in wait for that unfortunate person that for whatever reason is stuck walking through the back alley late at night, even though they realise the peril.
If the offer is sincere, then yes it is arrogance. Bollocks. How is one to know the offer is sincere? Because the one making the offer says so? Again, bollocks. Actions speak louder than words, yes? Create a world, create humans, put them into the situation from whence they'll fall, then damn them when they do. But, make a "sincere" offer to accept them back (as the codependent sycophants they apparently are), and you're a wonderful person. No dice, brother. Or, would you prefer I do this utilising the original analogies? Make a mountain, put a pretty valley at the bottom, start up some earthquakes, place a human in the midst of the quaking mountains, but in view of the valley, obscure their view of the valley, threaten to obscure their view of the mountain they're on, then tell them to trust you that you'll lead them to safety. Or, find a planet full of people, aim a meteor at it, go to said planet and tell said people that the meteor's coming and will kill them, then offer to take them away from the planet while you clearly have the means to stop the meteor. But, yes. You're right. It is the choice of those in the situations mentioned to believe and be "saved" or not.
My point is that even when there are only two options and a position of peril, there are those who will still refuse the assistance to safety, because they want to place the blame elsewhere, instead of accepting the fact that it's their choice to either stay or go. Okay, this is your point, yes? This is it, right? No more facile analogies, no more arguing that you know the "real deal" regarding causation of human choice, except with regard to this point. Am I reading it right? Good. Wrong point. My point is simply that: a) there are more than two choices, b) the peril is manufactured to force one of those two choices, and c) those refusing the choice are not doing so to spite the one making the offer, but because he's demonstrated that he's not worthy of trust. Your analogies, while plainly made in an attempt to show that God is a benevolent, loving parent hoping His "children" will come home, portray Him rather as Jigsaw in the "Saw" movies, putting people in life-or-death situations with only obscure, morally distasteful (even from the point of view of said God Himself, if His book is to be believed) options, the "correct" one of which would be hard to discern if one weren't under the stress of being in peril in the first place. "Trust me, I know the way out of this deathtrap, because I'm the one who put you in it." Pardon me, if that doesn't inspire confidence.
The only way you find falacy is when you take the analogy out of context. Rather, finding a more accurate analogy, really...
Once again, the analogy I use is that, if one has done evil, is currently doing evil, then the logical outcome is that they will continue to do evil. And, I for one, agree. In context (as in, according to the Bible): God created mankind with free will and inflicted upon them death and separation from divinity for using it. God gave mankind free will, but "hardened Pharaoh's heart" against the Israelites, then inflicted plagues, suffering and death on the Egyptian people when he refused to let them go. God equipped mankind with the capacity to build and grow and try to learn more about God, and struck them down, confusing them about who they even were at Babel, when they tried to use this capacity. God created and perpetuated long after the lifetimes of those who first sinned the consequences for that sin, but expects people, well aware of what He has done, to come grovelling back, because He was willing to force those very people to sacrifice His son. Think about it.
The story of Jesus honestly does redeem, but it only redeems this demanding, petulant, destructive, jealous and hateful God, and that only if one chooses to accept that He changed His mind, after all. The fact that this hideously contrived situation is the mythology you're trying to portray as reality with your parodies ('scuse me, analogies) is precisely what the book itself says, is what's hamstringing your efforts to convince using this argument by flawed analogy. If, having done evil in the past (ref. the Bible) and continuing to do evil in the present (continuing to damn people for the sin of not ignoring apparently arbitrary decisions and therefore not accepting the offering of "salvation" for a sinful nature essentially inflicted on them), you're right. We probably ought to expect more evil on the way.
Your trying to offer alternatives without knowing any of the facts. Actually, the analogy given is one of the few on this thread at all close to the actual facts.
Being loving and concerned parents they want us to trust them, but they will not force us. Actually, in the instance of imminent peril, a truly loving parent would force their child, wouldn't they? If the Ferris wheel is about to come down on my kid, I'll drag his tuckus out of the way, myself.
No, I am likening all of humanity to a petulant, spoiled, argumentative toddler having himself a tantrum. Actually, both portrayals are inaccurate. What you are doing, is portraying the portion of humanity that disagrees with the proffered analogies based on sound logical conclusions with reference to the source of the analogies itself, as children simply arguing with an authority figure. Never mind that the authority figure is consistently breaking the very rules he's using to discipline the children.
"Maybe, now that I'm quiet, and have stopped blaming Him for what's wrong in my life, I might actually hear what He's saying to me." Point being, there's nothing particularly wrong in my life, and I don't blame your God for anything that might go wrong. Again, your argument is an attempt to compare something that you apparently think is the way the world should be to the way the world actually is.
Any parent who puts a child, who doesn't fully grasp the concept of time yet, in time out, has certainly threatend endless suffering. So, you're effectively saying that the Christian doctrine of eternal hell is invalid?
When a child can't tell time, it doesn't matter if you say 10 min or 100 min they mean the same thing. But, when the "child" (humanity) can tell time, saying there's a difference between 10-100 minutes and all the time that could ever be, actually does have some bearing, yes?
There is no teaching that I know of that says if you sin just once you're damned forever. Proof-text: "For all have sinned and fallen short of the glory of the Lord." No, I'll admit I don't remember the chapter/verse, but if you'd like, I can look it up.
True Christian teaching says that everyone sins, but that if you truly seek repentence you will be forgiven, because the punishment for your sins has already been paid. Note the highlighted conditional issue. Grace or Atonement don't mean a whole lot when someone realises that the deity involved would otherwise insist on infinite punishment (and has already done so) for the finite sin of someone else, all the while taking liberties to show that he himself is immune to the concept of justice.
If at some point the parent sees the child reaching for the stove and knows for a fact that the stove at that moment won't cause a real burn, are they sadistic to let the child learn their leason? Another flawed analogy? No lessons learned from getting burned here.
Next time you try to coddle to me, disarronno, I won't be nearly as kind. Consider this your warning. Hey, now. That was patronising, not coddling.
Incorrect. You gave a vague premise as an analogy for God... yet you deliberately left out everything about hell and eternal damnation and all the other people God has out-and-out murdered. You left out the divine double-standard as far as free will goes, but don't worry, I worked it in.
If you tell a kid that you will MURDER THEM if they don't do as you say immediately, hell yeah tehy're going to ask why! Actually, it's more that you'll let them die because of something you did (but won't own up to), but this works, too.
...you ought to just STFU and realize that your worldview and mine are not compatible, and leave it at that. 'Course, we are the ones arguing with the stupid analogies, aren't we?
Reaching for straws, here. That's a sign of desperation. Honestly, the original analogies were reaching for straws. I was just hoping there'd be better arguments beyond them. More fool, I, eh? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 5:31:04 AM | To put it differently. You see Christianity and think "obviously the right choice." I see Christianity and think "hmm, sounds good in theory, but there are a number of things I don't like about it." Then I see Islam, Buddhism, and other faiths and think "some of these seem pretty plausible as well, but none of them provide any substantial proof to elevate one above the other for me. Some even threaten that if I make the wrong choice I'm screwed eternally if I don't rectify the mistake before I die, which seems pretty unfair in my opinion. If I stay neutral, I'm probably just as screwed. Nothing is standing out to me as special or believable. CRAP!"
Yes, we can make a choice, but there is a lot riding on that choice if you go by certain religions, and to me it's easy to see how a lot of people might make the wrong one without being bad people deserving of unjust punishment, if there is even a wrong one to make (which I'm sure you'll insist there is). | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 5:47:33 AM | I wont be nearly as kind. Consider this your warning.
Are you trying to scare me? If you believe that the thought of public humiliation is terrifying for me you are sorely mistaken. I am not afraid.
However, your promise of more verbal bashing got me to thinking...I don't know many of us that are into Christian apologetics for this very reason, but the few of us who are, are not intimidated by threats of this nature.
There are more delicate, gentle, sweeter Christians that care so much for your salvation but I believe that our God shields them more. Those of us who really dont care and quite frankly delightfully envision you burning in hell, well, He will use us as a tool, sometimes very much against our wishes.
But I must be obedient for my own good, not yours. Besides, as all things, God works it for my good. I struggle with pride (sinful, to me) and He uses things like this to help remind me that I am called to be humble not "puffed up"
I gotta tell you, disaronno amaretto, that this is so sychophantic
I gotta admit that I didn't know what that word meant, and you didnt help by spelling it wrong, ~sycophantic~ but the definition, Ive learned, is
A self seeker who atteps to win flavor by flattering influential people.
Hmmmm...why do you think that hare is influential?
Why would I want his favor if we are obviously so unlike one another?
How was I flattering? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 6:09:50 AM |
Those of us who really dont care and quite frankly delightfully envision you burning in hell... Doesn't seem a very "Christian" viewpoint, does it? | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 6:19:52 AM | What intrigues me is why we are so vehement about trying to convince each other about the rightness of our choices and the wrongness of theirs?
A parable. A flag is waving briskly off in the far distance. Two men (or women) stand side by side, each of them, so far as we know, honest and decent. And they have been the best of friends for a long time. A. says to B. “Will you look at that black flag over there?’
B. retorts: “What black flag? I see only a white one.”
“Black!” “White!” go back and forth until they are ready to kill each other, but the reality is that A’s eyes are so constructed that he can only see the flag as black, and B’s can only see it as white.
In the end the only thing they can agree about is the desire to destroy the other. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 9:11:45 AM | Doesn't seem a very "Christian" view point, does it?
Why? Are we who believe in Christ expected to be inhumanly perfectly patient, void of any negative emotion at all?
I love Christ.
I believe His Words.
I get angry, just as you do.
I lose my temper some times.
I don't always feel sorry for every unbeliever who mocks and insults me.
Why cannot that be possible? By your statement, I assume that you are suggesting that I do not behave like a "Christian" therefore am not one.
I also would like to state again that I have been a Christian for a small period of time. There are believers far more like my Father, for He molds us into His image, one day at a time, and only as we allow Him to. Do not look to me in hopes to see what believers are like. He is not even close to being finished with me. Then why am I speaking? Unfortunately, not many will. After the tongue lashes Ive received, I do not blame them, yet I will continue to obey. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 10:08:26 AM |
"I gotta tell you, disaronno amaretto, that this is so sychophantic "
I gotta admit that I didn't know what that word meant, and you didnt help by spelling it wrong, ~sycophantic~ but the definition, Ive learned, is
A self seeker who atteps to win flavor by flattering influential people.
Oops! I inadvertently put the 'o' in the wrong place, but hey, none are perfect, so I won’t point out your typos. :)
Hmmmm...why do you think that hare is influential?
Why would I want his favor if we are obviously so unlike one another?
How was I flattering?
I think you misunderstand. It’s very easy to get the wrong definition. Let's have a look at what you said and... that word again:
But if you feel that you'd like Him to answer any accusations,
look to His Word. It will heal the pain. Trust me, I know.
sycophantic: fawning, or what we in the UK apply it to as ‘bootlicking’.
But, each to their own.
On reflection it sounded patronizing, when you consider the Word is not perceived as the 'Truth' to the recipient in question. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 11:00:34 AM | It seems to me there are 2 types of people.
Those that FEEL a component of self not contained or constrained by their physical bodies (their spirit or soul) and those that don't feel such a component.
Those that do feel "There's something more to me" are compelled to nurture or "feed" this component to promote its survival. The ways they do so are myriad. Prayer, fast, meditation, works, the list is as varied as the believers themselves. Religions are established when a set of behaviors provide sufficient spiritual nourishment for a group of people. When an individual doesn't get the right "soul food" by following a set of behaviors is when schisms occurr.
Those that don't feel a spiritual component may well participate in the behaviors of a religion because they, consciously or not, recognize the virtues of inclusion and the drawbacks of exclusion.
The spiritual person may choose to believe a certain dogma; to eat from a certain menu.
For the others, it is not a matter of choice. They're just not hungry. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 1:49:02 PM | Okay, folks, watch out. I've got beer, and I'm not afraid to use it!  :drinknig:
First off, some oblique points:
Msg 136 This was over the top, and for that, I apologise. I'd delete it if I could, but I don't retract any of the statements made. It's just excessive and unnecessary. I also missed this one:
To put it differently. You see Christianity and think "obviously the right choice." I see Christianity and think... See, and this is what I see as the "mother of all contention", here. On the one hand, you've got an analogist, happily ensconced in circular logic that satisfies him, because it wraps him up in a security blanket, out of reach of the frightening facts and reason of the world at large. Might seem a bit slanted, but honestly, there's nothing wrong with this. My own decision to assert and accept metaphysical "truths" that are as unprovable as they are illogical has the same basis. Distinction is, I know this to be the case, and I'm not trying to extend my bubble of self-satisfied irrational justification to encompass anyone else.
What intrigues me is why we are so vehement about trying to convince each other about the rightness of our choices and the wrongness of theirs? Not so much, at least as regards this thread. While it is true that the analogies given in the OP had the ostensible ulterior motive of attempting to "logically prove" the superiority of the position from which they derive, the discussion/argument fairly well ensued simply as a result of their inapplicability and the mistaken assumptions behind attempting to apply them.
In the end the only thing they can agree about is the desire to destroy the other. And that it's a flag...
Why? Are we who believe in Christ expected to be inhumanly perfectly patient, void of any negative emotion at all? I didn't say that, now, did I? The point is, ironically, "What would Jesus do?" If, in your conception, Jesus "delights" in the thought that those of us who reject Him will go to Hell, then, by all means, indulge. Your reaction, I guess, isn't technically "not Christian". However, my understanding of Him is such that, while He did, yes, display anger at the appropriate time (and, as recorded, only once), it wasn't with those who felt they had a reasonable beef with what was being said. Beyond that, none of my points call into question the holiness and rightness of Jesus Himself, just the mistaken assumption that the God of the Bible has nothing but positive intent, and that only for our welfare, as well as that the analogies given in the OP suggest this to be the case and/or bear it out in some way.
Why cannot that be possible? By your statement, I assume that you are suggesting that I do not behave like a "Christian" therefore am not one. I never spoke as to possibility, and my intent was certainly not to cast aspersions. All things are possible, and you are, in effect, showing that it is possible for you to hold a given belief and act in an emotional fashion contrary to the purported foundation of that belief. To suggest that "Christians" don't take this tack on a regular basis (as exemplified by the unreasonable demands for acquiescence and appeals to illogic presented by the OP) would be dishonest, to say the least. My distinction is rather between those who would label themselves "Christian" and those who follow Christ Jesus. Might not be for everyone, but to me, it's a very important distinction. Particularly because I try to follow Him, myself, and it irks me when others misrepresent Him.
On reflection it sounded patronizing... As far as I can tell, it's both. Patronising with regard to Trippy (I do hesitate to say condescending -- I'll reserve that for some of the OP's arguments), but also sycophantic in its appeal to God.
For the others, it is not a matter of choice. They're just not hungry. Really interesting viewpoint. I like the analogy.
Msg 1 Now. Getting back to the OP and the apparent point of this thread, I'm gonna bring out the Big Eraser, and try to bypass all the confrontational passion of some of my earlier posts. Bear with me, 'kay? We're evidently working from a couple of assumptions, so let's address those, first.
1. The OP assumes that the earthquakes and the meteor exist, and that they are observable. In the context of the analogies, given such peril, a rational person would be expected to seek safety.
2. The OP assumes the existence and validity of the claims of: a) the mountain-man and b) the benevolent aliens. For the sake of the analogies, we'll assume they're real and have legitimate concerns for the safety of those in peril, as well as legitimate means to provide that safety.
3. The OP assumes, and this is the important part, that there are people who would "rather do what they've always done, regardless of the proof of peril, than acquiesce to being saved". This, logically, can only apply to: a) those who do not understand or accept the existence of the danger, b) those who refuse the help of the mountain man or aliens, due to a belief in an ulterior motive, and c) those who would rather be destroyed.
The issues raised with regard to the analogies:
1. The earthquakes and meteor are metaphorical and not demonstrably real. Likewise, what they represent.
2. No evidence exists to a) corroborate the arguments of the mountain man or the aliens (as regards the analogy, it's possible that seismographs and telescopes are usable, but inconclusive), or b) support the benevolence of those offering help to a c) safety that is dubious in itself. In addition, outside the analogies, evidence, as perceived by those of us considering the analogies, does exist regarding: a) the lack of credibility on the part of those claiming they "only want to help", b) their character, c) the omission of analogical counterparts to established fact within the analogies, and d) an unwillingness on the part of both the analogical benefactors and the OP to recognise alternate options.
3. With regard to those who would refuse the help offered, as I've said, they fall into three categories. We can dispense with those who would seek destruction, as, analogically, they're no longer relevant. As for those who perceive or suspect ulterior motives, quite honestly, they've got a point. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, and "I can save you from something that would most likely destroy both of us" does require some proof, especially when there's an insistence to simply "follow, and you'll be fine." Finally, there are those who do not understand/see the danger. Children, the "simple", the "insane". An important consideration, you ask me. Do the parents and legal guardians make the decisions for these folks? Or are they left because of their unwillingness to accept what they're told? Or, is it somehow assumed to be "right" that they're simply dragged along, whether it's their will or no, "for their own good"? Legitimate questions, regarding the analogies provided, but since the analogies, or rather the analogist, insist that a decision be made, and that the decision must take a particular form, the point behind the analogies is moot.
Ultimately, the issue is one of faith. It has to be. One must accept on faith the existence of God, the sovereignty of God, the benevolence of God, and the one thing that somehow gets in the way of the omnipotence of God: free will. If the OP is an argument for the existence of free will, it fails. If the OP is an argument for the utilisation of free will contrary to the dictates of an extant, knowable, credible God, it fails. If the OP is the basis for an argument that free will is used contrary to the dictates of, hell, any deity, due to the willfulness of those who possess free will, it's a circular argument that fails.
I've already provided, in Msg 77, the only rational argument of which I can conceive that mankind even has free will -- and therefore anything even remotely resembling the choice you appear to insist we must have -- within the context of the Christian cosmology. If you disagree, dice. If you agree, that's cool, too. Although, for whichever stance you take (in a general sense, anyone who desires to answer this, preferably the OP), I'd appreciate a coherent summation of points comprising an actually rational argument for one thing or another to be the case.
Point is, if both the Christian cosmology and the mythologised Christian conception of history are in any sense accurate, they immediately contradict one another on the point of free will. "Coercion vs. determinism" and "free will vs. wilful defiance" are the issues at hand. Please define your conceptions of each, the dichotomies and the components of each, and we can proceed from there. Use analogies, if you feel you have to (ie, if you don't believe you can get your point across by not using facile assumptions and tautological reasoning), but please, for the love of the Divine itself, try to argue from a position of understanding of your own faith. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 2:05:20 PM |
If in your conception, Jesus delights in the thoughts that those of us who reject Him will go to hell
No, I wrote that *I* entertained the idea at times, (admittedly, not very kind of me) not Jesus. He desires that no one be lost and I think that if He ever thinks of one of His children remaining out of His presence, for all eternity, it saddens Him.
it irks me when others misrepresent Him.
Very valid. Please forgive me if I "irked" you. I will try not to misrepresent Him in the future. I was being honest. I am still in this earthly shell and although I strive to be what He wants me to be, (in his exact likeness) I am not yet, so you will, inevitably see "me" at times.
I enjoyed reading your post as usual and thank you for your kindness.
Ive got beer and Im not afraid to use it  | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 2:25:49 PM | He desires that no one be lost and I think that if He ever thinks of one of His children remaining out of His presence, for all eternity, it saddens Him. Hence, "Doesn't seem a very "Christian" viewpoint, does it?" Makes sense, now, yes?
I was being honest. I am still in this earthly shell and although I strive to be what He wants me to be, (in his exact likeness) I am not yet, so you will, inevitably see "me" at times. It's all good. In my conception of Jesus, I gotta say, though, He's more concerned with the honesty than folks being exactly like Him, dig? Just so long as we're honest with oursevelves about being honest. Dunno if that makes sense; I'm drunk...
I enjoyed reading your post as usual and thank you for your kindness. With that ^ in mind, Jesus is the bomb, and the bomb says, "Love your neighbour as yourself. This is the highest law." Kindness, yeah. As it should be, right?
Okay, yeah, it's the alcohol, but I saw that, and imitated it, seriously!
Edit: I gotta say (and, it's only an edit 'cause I missed realising it before -- like I said, I'm a bit "under the influsence"), it's seriously uplifting, very heartwarming to note a professed "Christian" (with all that entails, in this day and age) willing to concede humanity. Good on ya, DA! :huggs: | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 9:15:46 PM |
Are you trying to scare me? If you believe that the thought of public humiliation is terrifying for me you are sorely mistaken. I am not afraid.
No. I am saying that, since I have never parataken of a discussion with you, I am going to try to remain civil. I see that you have no such compunction. A pity.
However, your promise of more verbal bashing got me to thinking...I don't know many of us that are into Christian apologetics for this very reason, but the few of us who are, are not intimidated by threats of this nature.
Verbal bashing? It is not my fault that you see any viewpoint that doesn't agree with yours as some sort of threat. If you cannot be bothered to be respectful towards people of other ideals, I see no reason why I should extend that courtesy to you. It is not a threat, it is not a promise, it is a stement of fact. You demonstrated very clearly that you seem to think my way of life and view of the world is inherently wrong and something to be pitied. Perhaps you should stop ignoring the beam in your own eye to look at the mote in mine. You have no room to stand on about who's life is pitiful.
There are more delicate, gentle, sweeter Christians that care so much for your salvation but I believe that our God shields them more.
And they ought to mind their own ****ing business. If the abrahamic God wans to save me and is truly omnipotent, He doesn't need you help... or anyone else's. You are nothing more than a crude compilation of carbon-based molescules, as is every other living thing on this Earth. Who are you, then, to even pretend that you alone know the Truth? If there is any one Truth out there, you are no more credibile for having it than an insect caught under the tires of my car.
Those of us who really dont care and quite frankly delightfully envision you burning in hell, well, He will use us as a tool, sometimes very much against our wishes.
See? I didn't need to do or say very much at all to expose you as a fraud: you claim to be christian, you claim to follow Christ's teachings, yet a single sentence telling you to back off and all of a sudden your entire faith is out the window. Delighfully envision me burning, do you? I'm sure Jesus would adore that, and I'm even more certain that your God, in whom the decision of wether or not to condemn me rests (and in Him alone) would be flattered that you think so highly of yourself as to even pretened to know my fate... oh wait, didn't He scatter man across the globe, strike down the Tower of Babel, and make men speaks in foreign languages when they thought they were anywhere near his equal? I wonder, then, what fate He has in store for a single sniveling mortal woman claiming herself His follower, yet also claiming to know His mind?
But I must be obedient for my own good, not yours. Besides, as all things, God works it for my good. I struggle with pride (sinful, to me) and He uses things like this to help remind me that I am called to be humble not "puffed up".
And you have failed in that struggle, haven't you? Just now, with a single sentence uttered by a stranger you will never meet, and you have sinned in Pride once again. Where's this humility your God asks of you? Where is the mutual respect Jesus demands of you? Have you so easily forgotten the very thing your faith is founded on?
And you dare to think I am the one who needs help. My faith isn't shaken by a single comment in an online forum. Perhaps there is much you still need to learn about yourself.
Just so you know, I gave you a chance. I allowed you an opportunity to be something other than a self-righteous prat trying to infomercial your God onto me. And you failed. More's the pity. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/25/2007 9:25:08 PM |
Ive yet to meet a believer that asks that you trust God just because they have warned you.
Then you haven't met any "turn or burn" believers. That's probably a good thing, but you should know that they exist.
I encourage you to TEST HIM. Not the messenger, we are but a tool.
I'm not sure what you mean by this. This actually goes against Biblical teaching. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/26/2007 7:03:37 AM | You see any view point that doesn't agree with yours as some kind of threat No, I see this as a threat
consider this your warning
I didn't need to do or say very much at all to expose you are a fraud
That is quite arrogant of you to presume that because I am human and have faults as well as anyone that I am a "fraud" ~By the way, by you believing that I am a fraud, you've shown yourself to believe that Christianity can be genuine.
I gave you a chance I never ask that you give ME a chance.
I will always fail you. But He wont.
Im not sure what you meant by this but it goes against biblical teaching
What I meant was to give God a chance, read His Word, see if He is capable of showing Himself to you. ~I did not mean to "Test" Him in a way that would go against biblical teachings. There is a difference. | |
|
| The Reality of Choice
Posted: 5/26/2007 3:06:56 PM |
No, I see this as a threat.
Then you are paranoid. You responded to me by patronizing and coddling, I simply told you not to. The warning was to inform you, nothing more, nothing less, that if you insisted on lacking anything remotely close to tact and civility with me, I would show none with you. You cannot demand respect without first earning it, you know.
That is quite arrogant of you to presume that because I am human and have faults as well as anyone that I am a "fraud" ~By the way, by you believing that I am a fraud, you've shown yourself to believe that Christianity can be genuine.
A desperate plea by someone who knows they have nothing to stand on. I never said Christianity was fake, I said *I* was not Christian. Of course it can be genuine, just as Hinduism, paganism, shamanism, and Voodoo can be genuine. That does not mean that I agree with them. There's a difference, and whereas you have demonstrated a fear of that difference, I have come to appreciate it. Nobody, not one single person, has exclusivism of truth, and it is only in looking at all faiths as pieces of the puzzle of Truth that I have come to accept their differences and appreciate their diversity. But you see my posts and have the nerve to pity me, as if I was somehow less than you. No, madam, I am not. I have spent nearly half my life seeking out the Truth, instead of blindly accepting whatever was forced down my throat. I repeat: do NOT speak to me as if I were a wayward puppy dog. You have no right to do so, and even less reason to. I have warned you, and you immediately took it upon yourself to see me as some sort of threat... it is only ignorance that should be threatened by me. That speaks volumes about you.
As for your fraudulence: I'm not surprised you can't see it. You would claim to follow Christ's teachings: yet, in a very simple practice, you failed. You didn't turn the other cheek, you didn't "love another" as Christ has loved you, you failed in the most basic of His instructions. "Oh, I'm only human," you plead, as if that were an excuse. We are all human. Yes, that means we all make mistakes... but blaming it on our humanity is a bigger mistake, still. Blame nobody but yourself, take responsibility for your actions, and take the steps needed to rectify them. I still haven't heard an apology... either for talking to me as though I were a retarded child OR for taking pleasure in the thought of me burning in Hell. Your Jesus would be disgusted... and on some level, you know he would. Is that why you continue to get defensive? Is that why you only took a couple sentences out of my post to respond to? Is the guilt gnawing at you, the guilt that you would condemn someone you have never met because he (I) said something you don't agree with? I certainly hope so... perhaps, if you can finally accept that your words were your own choice and had nothing to do with being human, or being christian, you might be motivated to do something about it. I doubt it, though, I've seen nothing from you to show you even understand that you did anything wrong. A pity.
I never ask that you give ME a chance.
I will always fail you. But He wont.
WHAT DID I ****ING SAY?! How on Earth do you think that preaching to me is going to help your cause in ANY way?!
You just don't f.ucking get it, do you? Your God doesn't need you to help Him, He can do that just fine on his own. All you are doing is destroying any sliver of credibility you might have had! Any respect you might have garnered is out the window now. Are you so thick that you can't even think for yourself?! When I said I gave you a chance, it was to show that you weren't a brain-dead twatwaffle reciting the same tired old lines when someone pulled your string, and you have now failed TWICE. Does that make you happy? Are you honestly so deluded to think that trying to PREACH to me is in any way a good f.ucking idea?!
I've spoken to priests. I've spoken to ministers. I've spoken to deacons, bishops, rabbis, sheiks, witches, priestesses, and even houdouns. I have learned great things from people much, much wiser than you can ever hope to be. All of them were able to remain civil. None of them told me to "shut up and go away", as you essentially have. Is that your God's love, then? Someone asks questions, and the only answer you have is reciting some tired old line that you don't even really understand?
Go ahead. Misquote this. Slap up a two-sentence reply, and show everyone on the forums that you are incapable of serious, coherent thought. And I'm sure your God won't mind you using Him to further your own piddly self-esteem. As if you could possibly understand Him. Has it never ocurred to you that He may have already made His presence known? Of course it hasn't, because I'm not christian, so there's no way I could really believe. 
Go back to your tent revivals and televangelists. I have no time or patience for the next in a long string of self-righteous christians trying to tell me that the only way to experience the Divine is through their God. | |
|
|
| Page 6 of 7
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 |
|
Home
login 
