Can We Truly Consent to Infinite Torture?

[JDaniel]

No, I mean that he could prevent all of my suffering while simultaneously allowing me to become more empathetic toward others (so that I may love them).

Oreo!!!

Really, and what good is a tush-kisser? And, if He kept right on doing everything for you, my young friend, well, hey, you could reap all of the rewards and do none of the work. Boy, that would sure show God how much you loved Him! I know if I was Him, I’d really be impressed. He gives you the awesome power of Free Will AND He directs you to Love Him: how great is that?

This seems to be the root of our disagreement. Are you saying that an omnipotent being cannot perform actions that are logically contradictory?

I’m sure you’ll get (or already got) a pretty good answer to this question. But, if I may, I’d like to say further that God has the power to do anything to our mere logic, the logic of our diminished level of being. On His level of being, I’m pretty sure He doesn’t go around arbitrarily doing things to defy logic.

Did you just imply that my suffering will increase after death if I disagree with your beliefs and then put a smilie at the end of it?

Darn! I wish that was me!

(By the way, how are you?)

jd

 

[Eucharisted]

You consent to prison for life by committing murder.

You consent to eternal punishment by not being repentant.

It’s really not that hard to understand.

 

[Detales]

“* It helps to place their words in their settings.*” ~~JD

Yes, I completely agree. We even have current examples of translations that would have been better than the usually known ones. EG, the proverbial camel of Matthew 19:24 is the same consonant group as the word translated as “rope.” We can see how contextually the latter fits the needle analogy better. Similarly, the word translated as “ravens” in the story of Elijah could more reasonably be “Arabs” or “Orabim,” the inhabitants of the nearby town of Oreb, again the consonant group being identical for all three words. It is thus that piety and the need for the strange and miraculous as a buttress for what innately, if correctly understood, is passing wondrous on its own. It is this very misunderstanding that requires the pious to invent meanings or denials for even experiencible understandings of esoteric Christianity.

What is somewhat at the source of the thread theme of torture is also at the root of the exoteric religionist interpretation of both books of the Bible. Thus “hell,” as well as more fundamental ideas, are unfortunately seen through a very distorting lens.

 

[JDaniel]

Now I’m genuinely curious: why have other cultures that have persisted for 3000+ years not equally impressed you? Why are you swayed so deeply by Christian culture and not by others?

Can I join in? I’ll assume you said, “Yes.” Name another 3000+year old culture you want to compare. I’ll be glad to run the comparison, if I can.

Anyway, I think Christianity has caused sufficient harm to society to warrant the demand for justification.

Would you mind citing just two, or six, "harms caused by Christianity?

Such intolerance needs to be justified or extinguished.

Except when it is born by you?

Not all Christians are bad,

Especially me!

but many spit in the face of suffering and act as though it’s not worth preventing (which is a nasty byproduct of accepting the idea of Hell/hell being created by a benevolent god in the first place…).

This is an assertion without any grounds, as far as I can tell. Perhaps, you could give some grounds for it? Also, I’d really like to know the psychology behind, “…a nasty byproduct of accepting the idea of Hell/hell being created by a benevolent god…”, besides getting some live examples.

The Christians I speak of obfuscate their stance by switching without giving their opponent any ground.

Again, an assertion without any grounding. Did I just witness a straw man?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

“* It helps to place their words in their settings.*” ~~JD

Yes, I completely agree. We even have current examples of translations that would have been better than the usually known ones. EG, the proverbial camel of Matthew 19:24 is the same consonant group as the word translated as “rope.” We can see how contextually the latter fits the needle analogy better. Similarly, the word translated as “ravens” in the story of Elijah could more reasonably be “Arabs” or “Orabim,” the inhabitants of the nearby town of Oreb, again the consonant group being identical for all three words. It is thus that piety and the need for the strange and miraculous as a buttress for what innately, if correctly understood, is passing wondrous on its own. It is this very misunderstanding that requires the pious to invent meanings or denials for even experiencible understandings of esoteric Christianity.

Could you re-explain . . . but, in English! (Just kidding ) Have you ever eye-witnessed an ongoing translation of the ancient scriptures? It is amazing.

What is somewhat at the source of the thread theme of torture is also at the root of the exoteric religionist interpretation of both books of the Bible. Thus “hell,” as well as more fundamental ideas, are unfortunately seen through a very distorting lens.

I suppose that removal from the presence of God for all eternity is a terrible, gut-wrenching “pain” - not as physical pain might be, but, the way one misses someone powerfully loved who leaves one behind. It can be lived with, but, it is that hole in the middle of you that, in this case, will never go away. But, what does one do with someone who confesses that he is absolutely sure about it, cares not a wit what the consequences might be, and with ever more certainty and fervor stresses that he does not wish to be with God?

It is interesting that God (Jesus) left the “keys to the Kingdom” behind with mere (although “good”) mortals. As forgiving as the Church is and has been in the past, it is always possible that at some point after the consumption of the universe, the then heavenly mortals might undo the forever and ever thing. I guess most of us will see when we get there - but, I’m not willing to chance it!

jd

 

[Detales]

“Have you ever eye-witnessed an ongoing translation of the ancient scriptures? It is amazing.” Not in person, but I’ve seen many documentaries and have read on the subject for a long time. My “mantra” regarding translation is " “Idem non idem.” The same (in one language) is not the same (as in another.) I know thins experientially as being a speaker of both an Indo-European language and one derived from Finno-Ugric. One gets a rather fascinating perspective on mind mapping of the world through grammar even with a limited perspective of but only two differing systems of construction.

“*I suppose that removal from the presence of God for all eternity is a terrible, gut-wrenching “pain” - *” And here is an example of what I mean. In English used from the standpoint of a Unitary Principle, such as the spoken lectures of Dr. KG Mills, or in an intrinsically non-dualistic language such as Sanskrit, that statement would be semantically impossible to make. Knowing the structure, or hierarchy, of manifestation as a framework for speaking of such things, it is also impossible to say such a thing as it refers to a null set. It would also be impossible in a form of English proposed by David Bohm which is built on a closer one-to-one correspondency to observable reality. It is good to remember that English as we know it is a very primitive language in terms of metaphysical correspondence. In English, as RA Heinlein observed, “…only the first person singular of the verb to be is true to fact.” If you read such as Ogden and Richards or Alfred Korzybski, one begins to wonder how it is possible to communicate at all. There is a current theory, in fact, that communication as we know it is possible because of the immensity of computable information the brain and language ignores. The map is not the terrrtory, and only includes points significant for the purpose of the map. That map is usually far more provincial or parochial than Universal on a grand scale.

All that is to say that separation from God is impossible. Only the entertainment and identification with thoughts that suggest such a separation could happen. That incorrect identification is part and parcel of misidentification of Self, Soul, or whatever you wish to call it. It is in this realm that correct metaphysical Identification is useful in maintaining stability in the face of distortions of Reality caused by language, science, religion, culture, advertising, peers, whatever. It ultimately has greater rewards, but those are a matter of practice and what might be called Grace.

The same criterion apples to the rest of that paragraph. The very structure of the thinking is what could precipitate a sense or feeling hellish in nature. So I,m not quite clear what can be gained by not chancing it. First of all, the understanding I speak of is both older than, and in fact the foundation of christianism. Second, sincerity trumps error. Third, …well on it goes. Suffice ti to say that one could not be in better company than the Saints and Sages of the Ages that were and are the proponents of such a Standpoint as I speak of. But, then again, it is definitely not for everyone, not by a long shot.

 

[JDaniel]

Sorry for the delay. I was out golfing.

18 holes? How did you do?

I dunno. How did he turn water into wine? When magic can be used, no explanations are necessary (or possible, it seems).

(Since you haven’t been asked, may I be so bold as to quietly beg you to be as kind to us and our beliefs as we have been - hopefully - to you? In philosophy, there is no need for sacrilege.)

How do you suppose God created the universe, then?

I wish I was that close to Him, that He would confide all of that information to me. (I’m not sure my “storage capacity” would be large enough, though. Might have to add another brain or two.)

I always hear that he made it out of nothing (because he’s just that powerful…),

(Again, please, there’s no need for the sacrilege.)

…and I think we can agree that making something out of nothing is a violation of the identity property. If God can violate the self-evident claim that nothing equals/yields nothing, it would seem that he can perform logically contradictory actions.

Actually that’s not what He did, exactly. What He did was to make primary matter, which, per definitionem, was amorphous and lacking any kind of form, then, by infusing it with form, physical matter came to be (as an effect). Then, because He sort of over-filled that little singularity thing, it exploded. So… not magic - of course, to us it might appear that it was.

Just out of curiosity, what happens to those who simply wish to lead a quiet life away from others?

I suppose they might get a bit lonely at times.

Saying that people can only do good or bad things is, from my perspective, a false dichotomy.

Did someone say that? In what reference? More than likely, the majority of our acts are morally neutral. But, on either side of that plethora, are the goods and the bads. My preference is to make the goods side bigger than the bads side. What’s your preference?

jd

 

[Daedelus76]

There are alot of Calvinists/Evangelicals that believe if you don’t believe in eternal conscious torment, you are a heretic. Aquinas said something like the blessed in heaven look down and rejoice to see the just punishment of the wicked in Hell.

I can’t accept any of these ideas. It’s not because I love “doing my own thing”, but because I reject these ideas about God and justice.

I’ve spent the last couple of months “dabbling” in Christianity and visiting churches, and I’ve come away from the experience just as frustrated as before. There are so many holes in Christian theology it leaks like a seive. What Detales talks about exoteric religion, he has a real point. Alan Watts 40 years ago talked about the fact that Christians are presented with an utterly ridiculous view of God, one that appeals to an adolescent sense of rigid moralism and authoritarianism. One that was so naive and absurd that it drove people to Eastern religions to find something that made sense to believe in. Instead, Christianity presents the cosmic monarch and moralist. I believe Leibniz also had something to say about this view of God, as a despotic prince that is, in the end, unworthy of love.

Oh, and science has better explanations for how the universe came to be. The universe is made of energy. Matter was “created” through Higgs fields. We no longer need Thomas Aquinas speculations on how these things work, thanks to the glories of the scientific method.

 

[Detales]

Thanks Daedalus. If you are having such differences with christainism as you are, and are in favor of science, as you clearly seem to be, I have a bibliography that you may be interested in. Let me know. Otherwise, Peace and Energy!

 

[Oreoracle]

Oreo!!!

Really, and what good is a tush-kisser? And, if He kept right on doing everything for you, my young friend, well, hey, you could reap all of the rewards and do none of the work. Boy, that would sure show God how much you loved Him! I know if I was Him, I’d really be impressed. He gives you the awesome power of Free Will AND He directs you to Love Him: how great is that?

At the same time, I question how good someone is if they’re only willing to help people who love them. Have you ever helped an enemy (someone who doesn’t appreciate your help)? It’s a powerful demonstration of goodness.

So I wonder: if it’s possible for a human to do everything in their power to help everyone around them, why doesn’t God? Why would God possess petty emotions that would prevent him from doing such? Surely God couldn’t be out-classed by a human when it comes to morality?

I’m sure you’ll get (or already got) a pretty good answer to this question. But, if I may, I’d like to say further that God has the power to do anything to our mere logic, the logic of our diminished level of being. On His level of being, I’m pretty sure He doesn’t go around arbitrarily doing things to defy logic.

I agree. God, as he is described, is not limited by logic or any other principles. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive a good answer before you arrived (Tonyrey has ducked out of this debate, it seems).

(By the way, how are you?)

Things are very much the same for me…I still live on forums. I have no life.

How are you?

 

[JDaniel]

“Have you ever eye-witnessed an ongoing translation of the ancient scriptures? It is amazing.” Not in person, but I’ve seen many documentaries and have read on the subject for a long time. My “mantra” regarding translation is " “Idem non idem.” The same (in one language) is not the same (as in another.) I know thins experientially as being a speaker of both an Indo-European language and one derived from Finno-Ugric. One gets a rather fascinating perspective on mind mapping of the world through grammar even with a limited perspective of but only two differing systems of construction.

How utterly fortunate you are to have two such diverse languages rolling around in your head. I have a second language, too, but it’s a romance language and, thus, not very different from my native English. That being said, there are still times that I cannot fully translate something into Spanish or vice versa. Anyway, at least I am able to get a good sense of what you mean.

“*I suppose that removal from the presence of God for all eternity is a terrible, gut-wrenching “pain” - *” And here is an example of what I mean. In English used from the standpoint of a Unitary Principle, such as the spoken lectures of Dr. KG Mills, or in an intrinsically non-dualistic language such as Sanskrit, that statement would be semantically impossible to make. Knowing the structure, or hierarchy, of manifestation as a framework for speaking of such things, it is also impossible to say such a thing as it refers to a null set.

There’s no question about that. However, the statement I made is really a “slang”, of sorts. It is somewhat more properly stated as, “I suppose that the privation of the communion of one’s soul with God is . . . .pain.” I don’t know if that helps your process of translation.

Whether it does or not, the painstaking manner by which the ancient Aramaic, Hebrew and Greek are translated into English, and other languages, is awfully precise. That said, I know that it still will not be absolutely perfect. Each word and each phrase and each idiomatic expression are juxtaposed against other known writings of the time period. These writings come primarily from tabloid writings, such as news, promulgations, announcements, letters, notes, as well as books, etc. The closer the scripture and the outside writing match, time wise, the better the translation or transliteration. Obviously.

Fortunately, there are plenty of ancient writings and most of the translator’s job, at this point, is not that difficult. Where the difficulty occurs is when the translators come across two or more different iterations of the same group of words. Then the translators have to weigh the probabilities that the scripture was meant to be translated in this, or that, form. The more recent translation should be the closest to the meaning and context of the ancient writing, but, that’s not always the case. There are agendas - even in the art of translating scripture.

The Catholic Church has been, for most of her history, relatively free from too much agenda imposition. That is why many Protestant translators will look at the Catholic translation as a comparative against their own. But, really, from what I was able to discern, all of the translators did an admirable job of getting it mostly right. There’s obviously much more to it than this brief description, but, you can see the problems.

continued . . .

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

Can I join in? I’ll assume you said, “Yes.” Name another 3000+year old culture you want to compare. I’ll be glad to run the comparison, if I can.

That wasn’t really the intention of my question. What I was getting at is asking why the theory of the Catholic god is more likely to be true than, say, the Greek/Roman gods? I don’t think that either theory is more likely than the other, and it is my conviction that the Catholic god is accepted over others because that is what people grew up with. If your parents and neighbors spoke of Zeus and Hera, wouldn’t you be more likely to believe in them instead?

Would you mind citing just two, or six, "harms caused by Christianity?

Isn’t encouraging people to advocate causing unnecessary suffering harm enough?

Except when it is born by you?

As I said: I’m intolerant of certain ideas, the Church is intolerant of certain (most) people. Which type of intolerance is more likely to lead to evil?

This is an assertion without any grounds, as far as I can tell. Perhaps, you could give some grounds for it? Also, I’d really like to know the psychology behind, “…a nasty byproduct of accepting the idea of Hell/hell being created by a benevolent god…”, besides getting some live examples.

With all due respect, Daniel, if you don’t protest causing unnecessary suffering with the mechanism known as “hell” then I think it is beyond my ability to help you. Again: If a father leaves matches out near his children, is he culpable for their burns? Similarly, if God creates the capacity for suffering in sentient beings, is he culpable for their pain? I feel that both God and the father are at least partially culpable in these scenarios.

Again, an assertion without any grounding. Did I just witness a straw man?

Do you want me to send you a private message every time a Christian swaps positions mid-debate without admitting it? I can do that.

 

[Oreoracle]

18 holes? How did you do?

Only nine. I didn’t do too bad. I need to straighten out my shot, though. I have a nasty slice.

(Since you haven’t been asked, may I be so bold as to quietly beg you to be as kind to us and our beliefs as we have been - hopefully - to you? In philosophy, there is no need for sacrilege.)

What would you call the act of turning water into wine if you wouldn’t call it magic? Or how about parting the water? Or creating the universe from nothing?

I don’t see how my statement was disrespectful. Or is any questioning of God’s ability considered sacrilege?

Actually that’s not what He did, exactly. What He did was to make primary matter…

Hold on. How did he make that if there was nothing to make it from?

Did someone say that? In what reference?

Tonyrey said that you can either do good or evil and left it at that. He left no room for neutrality.

More than likely, the majority of our acts are morally neutral. But, on either side of that plethora, are the goods and the bads. My preference is to make the goods side bigger than the bads side. What’s your preference?

I agree fully. I appreciate that you seem to accept some badness will result no matter how skillfully we operate in our lives. That kind of realism is becoming more and more scarce.

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

I beg to differ. Marriage and having children for the most part affect you ever after, and often this is the case even if the marriage doesn’t last and even after your children have left. Doing something that risks physical injury - well, those certainly can affect you for the rest of your life. Doing something that risks your death - well, that affects your family for their whole lives!! So far from a brief period in many many cases.

And it’s not a question of wanting ‘to be with God in 1,000,000,000 years’.

Eternity is actually OUTSIDE of time, it’s a different thing from what you imagine, which would be earthly time extended infinitely. That’s why we say God ‘always’ existed, it doesn’t just mean He existed for an infinite length of time in the past, but that His existence is literally outside of and therefore without, time, which He created.

Past, present and future don’t exist as we know them to God, nor to us who are in His presence, so there’s no question of changing your mind or getting bored, not if you remained in heaven while a billion or even a billion billion years passed on earth.

Apart from which, of course, God is all perfect so there’s no such thing as being bored with Him or not wanting to be with Him once in His presence, if you’ve made the choice for Him.

Some speculate the opposite - that being in His presence actually IS the punishment of Hell for sinners - since they become fully aware of the magnitude and horror of their offences against Him. A bit like fire, which burns you if you’re not wearing protective clothing but is fine if you are.

"Time has come up a few times now so I’ll throw in my 2 cents. Time doesn’t exist, just take any advanced college math theory course; it’s merely an applied theory using a mechanical/silicon device that tells the positional relation of the earth to the moon or the sun. (That’s why time travel cannot happen.) Or time is a set of ordinal numbers we use to deal with history.

 

[Simeon_Hovey]

Oreo, my friend…

Since you are such a logical man, you may want to re-examine your original premise.

Your argument presumes that there is a physical place called “Hell” to which people can be sent after death, as well as a place called “Heaven.” This is the teaching of the Catholic church, but I would defy anyone to prove these two concepts, as anyone who could has, by definition, died, and is in no position to report on these things.

Some people (heresy alert!) have a different conception of these terms. For some, “Heaven” is a state of union with God/Divinity/Spirit/All-That-IS/{choose any term}, while “Hell” is a state of separation from God/Divinity/Spirit. In fact, the word “Sin”, as used in the time of Jesus, originally meant “the false belief that one is separated from God”, which would then lead us to the term “Original Sin”, which, rather than referring to fornication or any other transgression, describes the state that humans are born in – a state of forgetfulness wherein we (as humans) forget that we are never actually separate from God. Roman Catholic teaching regards “original sin” as the general condition of sinfulness (lack of holiness) into which human beings are born, distinct from the actual sins that a person commits, which, in my view, supports the notion that I’ve just put forth.

If and when a person fully realizes and experiences the fact that they are not separate(d) from God, then they can understand and experience “heaven on earth”, and need not wait for death to deliver on some promise. If, on the other hand, we remain in ignorance, our life on earth is “hell”, and we need only look around us to see the hellish state that ignorance of our true nature can produce.

(Now I realize that this is a Catholic forum, mainly populated by wonderful and devout Catholics, and that this will likely rub up against that belief system. I beg the forgiveness of anyone who adamantly disagrees with what I’ve said, as I’m only presenting other, known perspectives from which we can view this question.)

I firmly believe that a state of “heaven”, or bliss, is possible while one is still alive, and I know many people who live in a state of continuous “hell” because of their continued forgetfulness.

But one of the many problems that come up when discussing questions of this nature is that the questions are based on premises that may, in and of themselves, be false, or, if not false, then have been misinterpreted by humans over the course of millennia.

Always, with respect,
One

 

[JDaniel]

There are alot of Calvinists/Evangelicals that believe if you don’t believe in eternal conscious torment, you are a heretic. Aquinas said something like the blessed in heaven look down and rejoice to see the just punishment of the wicked in Hell.

I can’t speak to any such statement from Aquinas. At this time, I don’t know. I will look for it though and report back.

I can’t accept any of these ideas. It’s not because I love “doing my own thing”, but because I reject these ideas about God and justice.

Yes, that has always been a problem. And that is plenty of reason why we have the society we have. There is no more “art”. There is mostly the grotesque and the grotesquely immoral. The movies we watch, the television we watch, the so-called art in the museums, the plays on our stages, the plethora of pick-up saloons, the over-the-counter theft in our retail stores, the robberies, rapes, home-invasions and murders, the street language we use, the ease of the expressed lie, the ease of the shoddy commercial incident, the lack of compassion, the desecration of our children, in homes, in schools, in churches, in the streets, the intended usurpation of equitable contracts, the free sex, the destruction of marriage sacrament and marriages, the ease of dismantling the grounding for Truth, the ease of disparaging the Good, and so on.

I’ve spent the last couple of months “dabbling” in Christianity and visiting churches, and I’ve come away from the experience just as frustrated as before.

Obviously, you’re not ready to return to her. Why don’t you just continue to play in the marketplace of the relativist and the materialist until you are.You’re better off doing that than trying to enter a church to change her to your exquisite whim.

There are so many holes in Christian theology it leaks like a seive.

Like?

What Detales talks about exoteric religion, he has a real point. Alan Watts 40 years ago talked about the fact that Christians are presented with an utterly ridiculous view of God, one that appeals to an adolescent sense of rigid moralism and authoritarianism.

Really? We should just have 6.5 billion churches, one for each of us, then. Then we could all be the popes of our own little churches.

One that was so naive and absurd that it drove people to Eastern religions to find something that made sense to believe in.

Yeah, discipline does tend to cause some scurrilous denizens to slither away to places where the air is cloudier and there is the freedom of anonymity. (It is interesting that the word, “discipline” comes from the Latin root, “to make a follower or Disciple of . . .”)

Instead, Christianity presents the cosmic monarch and moralist.

And, despite the cosmic moralist and monarch, we have built our own Sodom and Gomorrah. Interesting.

I believe Leibniz also had something to say about this view of God, as a despotic prince that is, in the end, unworthy of love.

Interesting, especially since Leibniz was essentially a Thomistic Scholastic in many ways and a hearty believer in God!

Oh, and science has better explanations for how the universe came to be. The universe is made of energy. Matter was “created” through Higgs fields. We no longer need Thomas Aquinas speculations on how these things work, thanks to the glories of the scientific method.

Aquinas’ explanation was never intended to “replace” any kind of “modern” science. It was intended to expose us to the original first principles of science that we have all apparently forgotten. The modern sciences are merely the emergings of specific mechanisms originally seen in a much more general manner, but, with much more certitude, but, now with such specificity as to render the modern sciences with less certitude. In fact, modern science together with St. Thomas’ general science provides us with much more certitude plus the added benefits of how the physical parts appear to work. Take, for example, the theoretical Higgs “field” exigency - if it exists.

By the way, when did the LHC come on line? Oh, and by the way, the theoretical Higgs field is thought to “trap” fundamental particles, as they pass through one, thereby causing them to “clump” together to form elementary particles, such as atoms. Now, whether or not the LHC can, in fact, prove the existence of the Higgs field really does not matter. Theoretically, science believes that something along the lines of the Higgs field probably did get fundamental particles to clump into atoms, eventually up to about the size of the Fe atom.

Furthermore, the universe may consist mostly of energy. This is vaguely possible. However, the experiments to prove dark energy and dark matter seem to be failing to do so. This part of the science is getting uglier every day.

sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090505061949.htm

Nevertheless, neither dark energy/matter, nor Higgs field theory replaces the more fundamental science originated by Aristotle and used by Aquinas. The discovery of the Higgs field and dark energy/matter would certainly enhance it. Furthermore, the discovery of these two things would seem to solidify the Standard Model of the Big Bang cosmology for the beginning of the universe. That would still leave the next ultimate question, “What came ‘before’ the initial ‘skin’ of the first Planck era?” And do that while not leaving behind the question of whether or not the Higgs boson (or something like it) is the mechanistic physical expression of primary matter?

jd

 

[JDaniel]

At the same time, I question how good someone is if they’re only willing to help people who love them. Have you ever helped an enemy (someone who doesn’t appreciate your help)? It’s a powerful demonstration of goodness.

I guess you mean by this that God doesn’t help people who don’t love Him? How do we know that He doesn’t? Where’s your proof for that assertion? Document or retract, young man!

I agree. God, as he is described, is not limited by logic or any other principles. Unfortunately, I didn’t receive a good answer before you arrived (Tonyrey has ducked out of this debate, it seems).

I gotcha. Tonyrey might have a job or something. I don’t know. Now that he will know that you found his answer to be insufficient, I am sure that he will more than rectify the situation.

Things are very much the same for me…I still live on forums. I have no life.

What area of the country do you hail from? BTW, I see - from reading your posts - that you are rapidly gaining in intelligence every day, so, I guess, the forums aren’t all bad! I hope they have helped me, but, I’m not so sure.

How are you?

Other than needing to work more and make more money . . . not bad. Thank you for asking. How’s your family? Almost everyone I talk to is getting hammered by this economy! I sincerely hope you guys are escaping this rut.

All my best,
jd

 

[JDaniel]

That wasn’t really the intention of my question. What I was getting at is asking why the theory of the Catholic god is more likely to be true than, say, the Greek/Roman gods? I don’t think that either theory is more likely than the other, and it is my conviction that the Catholic god is accepted over others because that is what people grew up with. If your parents and neighbors spoke of Zeus and Hera, wouldn’t you be more likely to believe in them instead?

Actually, there are several very good reasons why the theist position is the better position. First, from the attributes of God, an infinite God can only be one. If you think about it, you can’t have two infinite beings side by side. How would that work? An infinite, metaphysical being would take up everything. In fact, it would have to permeate everything physical.

Isn’t encouraging people to advocate causing unnecessary suffering harm enough?

How does Christianity do that?

As I said: I’m intolerant of certain ideas, the Church is intolerant of certain (most) people.

Oreo, not at all. The Church is definitely not intolerant of certain or most people. Why do you believe this? This mortifies me.

Which type of intolerance is more likely to lead to evil?

I get this point, but, this is not, in my opinion, in any shape, form or way an attribute of the Catholic Church.

With all due respect, Daniel, if you don’t protest causing unnecessary suffering with the mechanism known as “hell” then I think it is beyond my ability to help you.

You know, it may sound selfish, but, it really is not . . . my question would be, “Why should you and I get paid the same money when you work so much harder than me and produce far more widgets than me - every single day?” Does this seem “just”?

Is it not fair for an employer to make a commitment to each employee that, as long as he had anything to do with the company, each employee would not have to work along side someone who is not willing and would not pull his own weight?

Is it justice for One to deprive himself of all of the pleasures of this world, obey and love God, honor his parents, do the right things, while you, live a life of debauchery, express hatred for God, become an ingrate towards your parents, and, in general, always do the wrong thing?

Again: If a father leaves matches out near his children, is he culpable for their burns?

I have a daughter that smokes. I would prefer that she didn’t. She is fully aware of how I feel. However, she is an adult, albeit a young adult. I have no right to remove the objects of her vice from her. There would be a fight to end all fights and an eventual, possibly eternal separation. Am I culpable for her lung cancer?

Similarly, if God creates the capacity for suffering in sentient beings, is he culpable for their pain? I feel that both God and the father are at least partially culpable in these scenarios.

Your feeling would probably be a righteous one. I am sure God struggled with giving us Free Will. If God could anguish, He probably anguished over this decision far more than any other decision He could make. So, what did He do: He opened the door to each of us to come to Him by way of the sufferings of His only Son; He embedded in each of us an innate sense of morality; He allows us to wander off for a lifetime, only to return on the final day, or hour ,or minute, or second, and with true and sincere sorrow ask for forgiveness; He knew how difficult it would be for each of us to remain quasi-perfect every day of our lives, so He gave us Priests to absolve all of our past transgressions every time we confessed them; He provided Purgatorio for each of us to be washed clean even after our deaths; He has provided other mechanisms for our release from eternal anguish, for example, the mechanism of invincible ignorance; He makes Priests find it darn near impossible to hold a sinner to a state of mortal sin; He has his Priests forgive the most heinous of criminal acts, such as baby, or child, rape or, murder, or torture; He expects His priests to absolve the sins of any sincerely repentant human being, even if one would be the likes of Saddam Hussein’s sons who had fathers and sons slowly introduced into plastic chippers while their soldiers restrained the wives and children, forcing them to keep their eyes wide open to watch; and much, much more.

Good grief! What else would you want Him to do? How much more forgiving could He be? And, all He asks is that you don’t shun Him at your time of death, that you don’t flip your wrist at Him as you lie there awaiting the end. In fact, you can even make a deathbed confession, under the duress of immanent descent to room temperature, and be washed clean in purgatory.

I don’t know what else He could do except to refuse you your wish to remain away from Him and take you with Him anyway. I could be wrong, but, I don’t think He’ll do that.

Do you want me to send you a private message every time a Christian swaps positions mid-debate without admitting it? I can do that.

No, I’m good thanks.

jd

 

[JDaniel]

"Time has come up a few times now so I’ll throw in my 2 cents. Time doesn’t exist, just take any advanced college math theory course; it’s merely an applied theory using a mechanical/silicon device that tells the positional relation of the earth to the moon or the sun. (That’s why time travel cannot happen.) Or time is a set of ordinal numbers we use to deal with history.

Welcome to CAF, Simeon Hovey!

Uh-oh!

jd

 

[Oreoracle]

I guess you mean by this that God doesn’t help people who don’t love Him? How do we know that He doesn’t? Where’s your proof for that assertion? Document or retract, young man!

Perhaps he does, but certainly not all of the time. Then again, we probably have different ideas of what “helping” entails.

What area of the country do you hail from? BTW, I see - from reading your posts - that you are rapidly gaining in intelligence every day, so, I guess, the forums aren’t all bad! I hope they have helped me, but, I’m not so sure.

I’m in Indiana.

I hope my posts sound more persuasive as well. I’ve been trying to tone my style down a bit.

Other than needing to work more and make more money . . . not bad. Thank you for asking. How’s your family? Almost everyone I talk to is getting hammered by this economy! I sincerely hope you guys are escaping this rut.

The foundry my dad works at is becoming more and more desperate. We couldn’t go on vacation this summer, but other than that, we’ve been doing fine.

Actually, there are several very good reasons why the theist position is the better position. First, from the attributes of God, an infinite God can only be one. If you think about it, you can’t have two infinite beings side by side. How would that work? An infinite, metaphysical being would take up everything. In fact, it would have to permeate everything physical.

I wonder: if God would, as you say, take up everything, how can our consciousnesses be individuated? Christianity seems to thrive off of separation and duality ("That soul deserves this, this soul deserves that, etc.) You’ll never hear a Christian say that we’re all headed down the same path or that we’re all more or less the same. If we truly had God as a commonality, it would be heresy to claim we are individuals.

Also, having multiple gods in a religion could solve the problem of evil. You could say that these gods are good, the other gods are evil, and that they’re all trying to express their will through disasters and miracles.

How does Christianity do that?

Everything God does is good, right? We can also agree that God created our capacity for suffering. I’m not convinced that there is any major difference between allowing suffering and causing it. I will continue with a scenario in my next post…

Anyway, assuming that we encourage what is good, it seems that allowing suffering is good…or is it only good when God does it?

And to answer the question you may ask: yes, I would sacrifice a portion of my freedom if it meant being happier. After all, we do this when we become a citizen of a society.

Oreo, not at all. The Church is definitely not intolerant of certain or most people. Why do you believe this? This mortifies me.

Is it not the Christians who say that we are but rags before the Lord? Is it not them who say that we ought to shun earthly things? Any way we look at it, Daniel, we’re both earthly things. We have desires and limitations that are beyond our control. We carry with us tendencies that the Church condemns (a sex drive, for starters). We are considered to be so despicable that we must use Jesus as a shield just to be in the presence of God. That’s like your father only allowing you to see him if you put a bag over your head.

You know, it may sound selfish, but, it really is not . . . my question would be, “Why should you and I get paid the same money when you work so much harder than me and produce far more widgets than me - every single day?” Does this seem “just”?

Is it not fair for an employer to make a commitment to each employee that, as long as he had anything to do with the company, each employee would not have to work along side someone who is not willing and would not pull his own weight?

Is it justice for One to deprive himself of all of the pleasures of this world, obey and love God, honor his parents, do the right things, while you, live a life of debauchery, express hatred for God, become an ingrate towards your parents, and, in general, always do the wrong thing?

So God is an employer and I’m one of his employees…What product are we making? What are we producing that God couldn’t snap his fingers and make himself? It is selfish to create animals, require that they renounce their animalistic natures, and command them to work for you. As a rule of thumb: if it sounds ridiculous, it is ridiculous. To me, this plot sounds ridiculous and petty.