Hell exists BECAUSE God loves us!

[Trurl]

Ah. So you are citing personal experience rather than peer-reviewed scientific studies?

I am not aware of any, and since it is not relevant, I don’t really care to investigate.

I hope you concede that same paradigm to believers, then? Someone can say, “God exists because I have experienced him” and you will agree that this is true?

Sure, as long as he can tell me how can I experience God, myself. Can he? Not something like “pray long enough and hard enough, and it is it God’s will, you will experience God”. Tell me the ritual I need to perform to “invoke” or “summon” God. I can give the “skeptics” the names of the nurses, and the doctor’s office where they work. A personal experience, which can be verified beats all the second-hand information.

But the point is, Trurl, from the 2 year old’s POV the pain of immunizations is “not logically and physically necessary.”

A 2-years old has NO point of view. They are not developed enough. They cannot even think in an abstract fastion. So your little “analogy” leads nowhere. As a matter of fact, you are just parroting the 5th officer… from here infidels.org/library/modern/mark_vuletic/five.html

 

[Peter_Plato]

You seem to have an inability to think in the abstract and to grasp exactly what an analogy is, Trurl.

PR,

It seems to me that someone who is looking for a ritual to perform that will " ‘invoke’ or ‘summon’ God" really wants a genie to master, one that will appear at his bidding rather than investing personally in trying to forge a relationship with “Another.” The fact that the “Other” in this case is far beyond our ability to control must be very off-putting to someone, like Tr, who won’t even allow a relationship to occur unless he is the one in total control. The key word is control. No relationship with Being can occur unless Tr’s conditions are met, forgetting Who ultimately has control.
“If it is God’s will, you will experience God,” can have no possibility for someone unwilling to be open to a will other than their own. A position that stands by “It’s my way or the highway,” forgets where that wide road leads.

Of course, this is very consistent with his moral position, which is: It doesn’t matter whether other persons, as persons, really exist or not, as long as good happens to me.

 

[PRmerger]

I am not aware of any, and since it is not relevant, I don’t really care to investigate.

As I said, that’s fine, Trurl.

I just want it pointed out that you have, as a non-believer, chosen to believe something based on your experience, rather than on empirical evidence.

You choose feeling over science.

I find that curious coming from a non-believer.

And I just hope that you will extend that courtesy to a believer who says, “I believe in God based on my experience.”

You cannot be skeptical of his belief, then, right?

 

[PRmerger]

PR,

It seems to me that someone who is looking for a ritual to perform that will " ‘invoke’ or ‘summon’ God" really wants a genie to master, one that will appear at his bidding rather than investing personally in trying to forge a relationship with “Another.” The fact that the “Other” in this case is far beyond our ability to control must be very off-putting to someone, like Tr, who won’t even allow a relationship to occur unless he is the one in total control. The key word is control. No relationship with Being can occur unless Tr’s conditions are met, forgetting Who ultimately has control.
“If it is God’s will, you will experience God,” can have no possibility for someone unwilling to be open to a will other than their own. A position that stands by “It’s my way or the highway,” forgets where that wide road leads.

Of course, this is very consistent with his moral position, which is: It doesn’t matter whether other persons, as persons, really exist or not, as long as good happens to me.

Indeed.

And, peculiarly, a position is being proclaimed that states, “Science? I don’t care about science! I just know what I feel, and that’s enough for me!”

Curious, coming from a non-believer.

 

[PRmerger]

Sure, as long as he can tell me how can I experience God, myself. Can he?

Well, to extend the analogy, you’ll have to tell me how I can experience painless immunizations myself. Can you? :nope:

 

[PRmerger]

A 2-years old has NO point of view

Sigh.

You clearly haven’t been around any 2 year olds.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s use a 5 year old here.

You can explain the reasons why you are allowing your 5 year old to be stabbed painfully 4 times in his thigh, and, I guarantee you, he’s NEVER going to say, “Ok, Daddy. I get it! The principles of acquired immunity vs passive immunity, through the introduction of biochemical agents, which will stimulate my T-helper cells and B-cells to produce antibodies and memory cells is absolutely necessary! Bring on those shots!”

 

[PRmerger]

I can give the “skeptics” the names of the nurses, and the doctor’s office where they work. A personal experience, which can be verified beats all the second-hand information

I am absolutely ASTONISHED that you are claiming that there’s a painless way to receive injections. Astonished.

This defies all the scientific evidence. All common sense. All reality.

If there were, indeed, as you proclaim with such a fervent faith, a way to give injections painlessly, pediatrician’s offices would be banging on the door of the factory demanding this magical formula.

You believe in the existence of magical, mystical, imaginary painless injections but you don’t believe in God?

whatshouldwecallme.tumblr.com/post/21990205865/when-i-see-a-guy-wearing-cargo-shorts

 

[Portofino]

Sigh.

You clearly haven’t been around any 2 year olds.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s use a 5 year old here.

You can explain the reasons why you are allowing your 5 year old to be stabbed painfully 4 times in his thigh, and, I guarantee you, he’s NEVER going to say, “Ok, Daddy. I get it! The principles of acquired immunity vs passive immunity, through the introduction of biochemical agents, which will stimulate my T-helper cells and B-cells to produce antibodies and memory cells is absolutely necessary! Bring on those shots!”

It is relevant to make a distinction between what is “hurtful” and what is “harmful.” A doctor giving a vaccine to a child is inflicting hurt, but is not harming the child; to the contrary, the child is being “treated” (helped) with a vaccination.

A doctor punching one’s child in the face, on the other hand…

As I see it, a good rule of thumb for the conduct of human beings towards human beings is that the inflicting of hurt is allowable, if it has that person’s explicit or tacit consent and if it can be reasonably demonstrated to be a source of help. A vaccination or a surgery pass that test, albeit not in a foolproof manner (the surgery can go awry; the vacination can have side effects). But, all things being equal, subjecting the patient to that short-term “hurt” will likely prevent long-term hurt – and, even, prevent lasting harm.

As mentioned, there is also patient consent that is implicit, in the infliction of “hurt” by a doctor (I’ve also heard the analogy of how you wouldn’t let a stranger anywhere near your neck with a razor blade – unless he happened to be a barber). If you are an adult, you trust that the doctor knows what he is doing (if not, there’s always a malpractice lawsuit). You consent to the doctor’s “hurting” you (unless it is an emergency, where there is no time to consult you). If you are a child, it’s your parents that are giving consent to your being “hurt” by the doctor. They trust that the doctor knows what he is doing.

It’s also my view that – though this “hurt” versus “harm” distinction may exist with God – that, if so, it may indeed defy comprehension. Therefore, I think, it is ultimately speculation on our part, and we should not try to figure it out on our own (if we try to hard too figure it out, we are in danger of “aping” the logic whereby we inflict pain on each other, but with a confused understanding).

I think Christians generally “get” this – if they see suffering (hunger, disease) they seek to alleviate that suffering. They presume that this suffering is a great evil, so long as there is something that can be done about it. When there is nothing that can done about it, then they consider that – perhaps – it is God’s will. But it’s ultimately a mystery – they can’t know for sure, and they certainly do not anticipate that suffering that can be alleviated by humans is God’s will (e.g., let me leave that Samaritan bleeding in the ditch; perhaps it was God that put him there, and for a good reason).

An alternative to suffering being God’s will is that such suffering was not God’s will, but that you will be comforted on its account, in the afterlife.

For example, someone murders a child. That murder of the child may not have been God’s will; to the contrary, it was a product of the sin of the murderer. God never “wanted” it to happen, which is precisely why it was a sin on the part of the human being who committed it. But all will be made good, on the other side…

 

[Trurl]

I just want it pointed out that you have, as a non-believer, chosen to believe something based on your experience, rather than on empirical evidence.

If you don’t know that personal experince is THE quintessential empirical evidence, then there is nothing to talk about.

Well, to extend the analogy, you’ll have to tell me how I can experience painless immunizations myself. Can you? :nope:

I already told you. Go to a good nurse. And you can ask for a squirt of freezing spray, which will numb the area for a short time, and then you will not feel the prick at all.

Sigh.

But, for the sake of argument, let’s use a 5 year old here.

You can explain the reasons why you are allowing your 5 year old to be stabbed painfully 4 times in his thigh, and, I guarantee you, he’s NEVER going to say, “Ok, Daddy. I get it! The principles of acquired immunity vs passive immunity, through the introduction of biochemical agents, which will stimulate my T-helper cells and B-cells to produce antibodies and memory cells is absolutely necessary! Bring on those shots!”

Sigh, indeed. Is that how YOU would talk to a 5 years old? I doubt it. No one is THAT dumb. The proper way is to tell the child: “Yes, sweetie, it will hurt. But only a little and only for a second.” And then you hold that child in your arm, and redirect his attention to something else. But that is also too much to expect from that “loving” God.

If there were, indeed, as you proclaim with such a fervent faith, a way to give injections painlessly, pediatrician’s offices would be banging on the door of the factory demanding this magical formula.

Why would they? The p(name removed by moderator)rick is not bad enough to warrant it.

On the other hand, I am NOT astonished AT ALL that you keep regurgitating your irrelevant analogy, since you cannot say anything about the relevant REALITY. A little p(name removed by moderator)rick compared to being skinned alive… is there no limit to irrationality? (Quoting Einstein about the universe…)

 

[PRmerger]

It is relevant to make a distinction between what is “hurtful” and what is “harmful.” A doctor giving a vaccine to a child is inflicting hurt, but is not harming the child; to the contrary, the child is being “treated” (helped) with a vaccination.

I don’t think any Catholic here has argued that there is no distinction between “hurtful” and “harmful”.

The question is whether we as creatures, with intelligence akin to (exceedingly generously) a 5 yr old as compared to God, can assess accurately whether the suffering we experience is harmful or unnecessary.

And just as a 5 year old reacts to the pain of immunizations with, “You’re a big meanie! I hate you, Daddy!”, because he does not understand…so too do some react to God in like manner.

 

[PRmerger]

If you don’t know that personal experince is THE quintessential empirical evidence, then there is nothing to talk about.

Wow.

If you truly believe this, Trurl, then you must be an empirical evidence denier. Does not the personal experiences (therefore, as you say, emperical evidence) of millions–no, billions–of folks who have had personal experiences of the Numinous countermand your agnostic atheism?

IOW: in order to maintain your agnostic atheism you have to turn a blind eye to the empirical evidence of BILLIONS of folks who are Believers, as compared to the infinitesimally small number of atheists who have never experienced God.

This is like proclaiming, “I believe the earth is flat, even though the empirical evidence of BILLIONS of studies has demonstrated that it is round.”

 

[PRmerger]

Of corse, whether we would comprehend an explanation or not, could be decided in a heartbeat, IF only God would come an explain.

Right.
*
sarcasm alert. I rarely use sarcasm, as sarcasm is the protest of the weak. But sometimes comments such as the above are just begging for the sarcasm.*

Giving the 5 yr old the scientific rationale is exactly what it takes to make him accepting of the 4 shots he’s going to get in his thighs.

elisakreisinger.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/eyeroll.gif

That paradigm is like the annoying parents that every pediatrician’s office hate. These parents think that if they give enough reasonable, logical, scientifically-based explanations to 5 yr old Johnny–“Just give me a minute, Doc, I’m going to 'splain it all to Johnny exactly why he’s getting immunized, and in a minute he’s going to be ready to receive the 4 immunizations”–he will lie down docilely and take it.

NOT. Never, ever, EVER will a 5 year old hear any explanation that will be convincing enough for him to say, “I get it. Bring it on. And add a TB test to it, just for the science of it!”

As if.

 

[PRmerger]

Ah, so you do employ the duck principle all the time…

Indeed, I do.

Then you have no reason to discard it when it comes to simple question: “what good came out of that not-always-hypothetical rape and torture?”.

The good that comes, Trurl, is eternity in heaven. God makes it up to them.

What good does the agnostic atheist have to offer the rape victim? What’s your answer to that woman?

There is another way to express this… a short abbreviation of 4 letters… but it might be frowned upon, so I will not say it.

No idea what this means.

 

[Trurl]

Wow.

If you truly believe this, Trurl, then you must be an empirical evidence denier. Does not the personal experiences (therefore, as you say, emperical evidence) of millions–no, billions–of folks who have had personal experiences of the Numinous countermand your agnostic atheism?

Such a sorry nonsense. Their so-called “empricial evidence” is just a delusion. After all God is NOT a physical being, who can be seen, heard, touched, or any way experienced by the senses. So God cannot be “experienced” according to the catholic teaching. Really, is this the best you can do?
I already explained this. Go and read it a few times…

Indeed, I do.

Then apply it to the present problem. Ever heard of “special pleading”? It is a common fallacy employed by believers.

The good that comes, Trurl, is eternity in heaven. God makes it up to them.

This is the nonsense of the ninth officer… if you think that you can come up with anything new, you have a lot to learn.

What good does the agnostic atheist have to offer the rape victim? What’s your answer to that woman?

Nothing at all, and I am honest enough to admit it. Which is better than a few lines of nonsensical BS.

 

[PRmerger]

Such a sorry nonsense. Their so-called “empricial evidence” is just a delusion.

Then you will, I trust, extend me the same courtesy and I will say, “Your so called ‘empirical-evidence’ for painless injections were merely a delusion. You made that entire thing up.”

Yes? You’re good with that?

 

[PRmerger]

I already told you. Go to a good nurse. And you can ask for a squirt of freezing spray, which will numb the area for a short time, and then you will not feel the prick at all.

This, again, defies science.

You seem to have a great faith in things that are refuted by science, Trurl.

Curious, this. Coming from an professed agnostic atheist.

There is no such thing as a “squirt of freezing spray” that actually works.

Topical lidocaine has been shown to relieve postherpetic neuralgia (arising, for example, from shingles) in some patients, though there is not enough study evidence to recommend it as a first-line treatment.[4] It also has uses as a temporary fix for tinnitus. Although not completely curing the illness, it has been shown to reduce the effects by around two thirds.[5] source

Note that indications for topical lidocaine don’t even mention: for use with immunizations.

And good nursing has nothing to do at all with being able to give a painless immunization.

That’s a faith-based doctrine you’ve been duped into believing. No science at all to back this up.

 

[PRmerger]

What good does the agnostic atheist have to offer the rape victim? What’s your answer to that woman?

Nothing at all, and I am honest enough to admit it.

Your honesty is applauded. :clapping:

It is a sad and worthless position to offer the rape victim. But honest, nonetheless.

The Christian answer is profoundly meaningful.
The agnostic atheistic answer is “I have nothing to offer.”

Speaks volumes, doesn’t it?

 

[PRmerger]

So are you suggesting that souls in the afterlife lose their free will? That one can no longer think for themselves and make decisions?

I am simply stating that you are making a faith-based assertion, sophion.

You believe, based on faith-alone, that people in eternity can change their minds.

Either way its a problem. If your alleged version of god takes away the ability to repent so he could torture them forever. Theres no love in that. Only hate.

If they would only turn and face the love of God, they would be saved. But they refuse to, forever.

That’s the nature of eternity, sophion. It’s forever.

 

[PRmerger]

Of corse, whether we would comprehend an explanation or not,

Yep, pretty much we couldn’t understand it. That’s a given. We’re turnips compared to the Infinite Omniscience.

 

[PRmerger]

It’s also my view that – though this “hurt” versus “harm” distinction may exist with God – that, if so, it may indeed defy comprehension.

'zactly. :yup:

I think Christians generally “get” this – if they see suffering (hunger, disease) they seek to alleviate that suffering. They presume that this suffering is a great evil, so long as there is something that can be done about it. When there is nothing that can done about it, then they consider that – perhaps – it is God’s will. But it’s ultimately a mystery – they can’t know for sure, and they certainly do not anticipate that suffering that can be alleviated by humans is God’s will (e.g., let me leave that Samaritan bleeding in the ditch; perhaps it was God that put him there, and for a good reason).

An alternative to suffering being God’s will is that such suffering was not God’s will, but that you will be comforted on its account, in the afterlife.

For example, someone murders a child. That murder of the child may not have been God’s will; to the contrary, it was a product of the sin of the murderer. God never “wanted” it to happen, which is precisely why it was a sin on the part of the human being who committed it. But all will be made good, on the other side…