Sour grapes... said the fox

[mwok]

What a joke. A dynamic world cannot be the “best one”, because it keeps changing. Don’t you understand even that?

What makes you think its changing?

 

[Serious]

Your theory seems to be that we should deal with the suffering of others by blotting them out of our thoughts with leisure activities and fantasies of a Shangri-La. Is your criticism of other approaches based on the time and effort you’ve personally devoted to helping those who are suffering, are you speaking from experience?

Where the heck did that come from? Has nothing to do with the topic.

I just don’t see how pretending that suffering doesn’t exist will make it go away. That’s the second time you’ve referred to boredom out of the blue, what’s it got to do with this thread, do you reckon the worst possible suffering is being bored or something?

You said before (quoting verbatim): “To me it would be dreadful, bland beyond bland, hell on earth.” Bland == boring.

To get a better idea of how you think everyone should deal with the suffering of others, what advice would you give to (say) the wife of a soldier who got killed by an IED, or a man who lost his whole family in a road traffic accident?

I am not talking about how to deal with existing pain and suffering, I am talking about how a better world could have been created by an omnipotent God.

 

[Serious]

What makes you think its changing?

Sorry, I am not interested in nonsenseical questions.

 

[inocente]

Where the heck did that come from? Has nothing to do with the topic.

It’s on-topic. A man who lost his family in a traffic accident may find comfort in hoping they didn’t die pointlessly. The survivors of an earthquake may find it hard to accept that the death and destruction was all for nothing. Those are the kinds of crisis that gave rise to the arguments you judge as hypocrisy in your OP. I wanted to know whether that judgment was based on your experience of the psychology of coping, or just subjective moralizing.

You said before (quoting verbatim): “To me it would be dreadful, bland beyond bland, hell on earth.” Bland == boring.

A misunderstanding then. Your perfect world didn’t sound boring, as you’d implied there would be books and games and the other things you like. I meant that to me, using other synonyms, it would be banal, flat, insipid, tame, tedious, unexciting, uninspiring, unstimulating, vapid, weak, wimpy, wishy-washy.

I am not talking about how to deal with existing pain and suffering, I am talking about how a better world could have been created by an omnipotent God.

If it doesn’t touch reality at any point then to me it’s head in clouds, angels on pinheads.

 

[adrift]

It is obvious. If you wish to offer up your OWN suffering, that is your prerogative. If you wish to follow those people from the Philippines who have themselves crucified, be my guest. Go and suffer as much as you want. But do not try to extrapolate this sick attitude onto others. Especially if you run to the dentist when you have nice, excruciating toothache, or if you take an aspirin for your headache. Because if you do, then you are a hypocrite.

Something needs to be clarified. When I stated I am in constant pain, I was not saying that I caused the pain. Why you jumped into the Philipines and taking action to stop pain was an unwarrented leap. It had nothing to do what I said. I said that I had a different take on pain than you presented

They say that they do not appreciate good for its own value, they appreciate it as a contrast to the bad.

I do not hold to this view that in order to appreciate good health you have to have bad. My view is that pain will happen and when it does you can unite it to Jesus. If I could do away with my constant pain I would do so. I have prayed for it but Jesus must believe that it is good for me. Yes I thank Jesus for the pain as I thank Him for everything in my life as I would thank Him if I had not pain. Which I do when I have that rare day, without pain.

 

[Serious]

It’s on-topic. A man who lost his family in a traffic accident may find comfort in hoping they didn’t die pointlessly. The survivors of an earthquake may find it hard to accept that the death and destruction was all for nothing. Those are the kinds of crisis that gave rise to the arguments you judge as hypocrisy in your OP. I wanted to know whether that judgment was based on your experience of the psychology of coping, or just subjective moralizing.

If people wish to cling to some unsupported hope, it is their problem. I prefer to accept reality, even if it offers no consolation and no hope. Yes, most people are simply unwilling to face harsh reality. But wishful thinking does not offer real help. The ostrich-politics does not pan out.

A misunderstanding then. Your perfect world didn’t sound boring, as you’d implied there would be books and games and the other things you like. I meant that to me, using other synonyms, it would be banal, flat, insipid, tame, tedious, unexciting, uninspiring, unstimulating, vapid, weak, wimpy, wishy-washy.

OK. Last time I looked “unexciting” == “boring”. But that aside, you say that pain, misery, suffering is the “salt of life”, which make life “exciting, stimulating, interesting, etc…”. Without them it degenerates into a “who cares” life? Let’s celebrate the mass-murderers, the rapists, the torturers for making life “exciting, stimulating and interesting”. Why try to curtail their ability to spruce up this life by putting them into jail?

If it doesn’t touch reality at any point then to me it’s head in clouds, angels on pinheads.

Well, we can start from the existing world, and take it step by step. God could remove HIV, cancer, heart disease… then could remove the desire to rape, to torture, then could remove famine, tsunamis…, then he could have prevented the Holocaust… all these actions would make the world better… in my eyes. According to you, all these acts would make life less “exciting, stimulating, interesting, etc…”. I wonder, at which point would life lose its “flavor” for you? When will it become “unexciting” enough?

 

[mwok]

Well, we can start from the existing world, and take it step by step. God could remove HIV, cancer, heart disease… then could remove the desire to rape, to torture, then could remove famine, tsunamis…, then he could have prevented the Holocaust… all these actions would make the world better… in my eyes. According to you, all these acts would make life less “exciting, stimulating, interesting, etc…”. I wonder, at which point would life lose its “flavor” for you? When will it become “unexciting” enough?

Why stop at the Holocaust or disease? Why not remove all those who doubt?

 

[mwok]

Sorry, I am not interested in nonsenseical questions.

Only when it pertains to you then?

 

[inocente]

If people wish to cling to some unsupported hope, it is their problem. I prefer to accept reality, even if it offers no consolation and no hope. Yes, most people are simply unwilling to face harsh reality. But wishful thinking does not offer real help. The ostrich-politics does not pan out.

So peoples’ welfare is less important than everyone accepting whatever you say is the truth? Why would that be then, for the sake of some greater good or something?

Who was calling others hypocrites? In post #104 you made fun of puritans for putting ideals first, and here you are doing the same thing. Hang on, whatever am I thinking, it’s not the same at all because they didn’t accept your somehow much more real reality.

As a wise man once said “I reject your reality and substitute my own”.

OK. Last time I looked "unexciting" == “boring”. But that aside, you say that pain, misery, suffering is the “salt of life”, which make life “exciting, stimulating, interesting, etc…”. Without them it degenerates into a “who cares” life? Let’s celebrate the mass-murderers, the rapists, the torturers for making life “exciting, stimulating and interesting”. Why try to curtail their ability to spruce up this life by putting them into jail?

I’ve never said anything like ‘pain, misery, suffering is the “salt of life”’ and have no idea what you’re on about. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Well, we can start from the existing world, and take it step by step. God could remove HIV, cancer, heart disease… then could remove the desire to rape, to torture, then could remove famine, tsunamis…, then he could have prevented the Holocaust… all these actions would make the world better… in my eyes. According to you, all these acts would make life less “exciting, stimulating, interesting, etc…”. I wonder, at which point would life lose its “flavor” for you? When will it become “unexciting” enough?

In your fantasy, when people get injured and die, their loved ones would still suffer. When a guy loves a girl but she doesn’t love him back, he would still hurt. There will always be a sea of troubles unless God puts everyone in bubble wrap on permanent morphine drips. I don’t want to be tucked in and told nice bedtime stories by a wet-nurse god, I grew up. Does that answer your question?

 

[mwok]

Serious it pains me to see the great lenghts you go to in your efforts to flee from culpability.

 

[Serious]

So peoples’ welfare is less important than everyone accepting whatever you say is the truth?

If they are unable / unwilling to face reality, and wish to use Linus’s security blanket, it is their business. A comforting fantasy is inferior - in my eyes - to face actual reality. It is a fact that people die. It is a fantasy to believe in some afterlife. Of course you are most welcome to demonstrate the existence of “afterlife”. If you do, I will accept that it is not a fantasy.

As a wise man once said “I reject your reality and substitute my own”.

You mean, an idiot said…

I’ve never said anything like ‘pain, misery, suffering is the “salt of life”’ and have no idea what you’re on about. Please stop putting words in my mouth.

Oh, don’t play dumb. You are not. You implied it when you said that the Utopia is “unexciting” (read: boring) and it would be hell on Earth for you. It is a cheap shot to say that you did not use the exact phrase, only its equivalent.

In your fantasy, when people get injured and die, their loved ones would still suffer. When a guy loves a girl but she doesn’t love him back, he would still hurt. There will always be a sea of troubles unless God puts everyone in bubble wrap on permanent morphine drips. I don’t want to be tucked in and told nice bedtime stories by a wet-nurse god, I grew up.

I did not present all the possible details. A life created of inorganic material would not have an injury, there might be an accident which would necessitate a repair or replacement, without pain receptors. Obviously there would be no decay and death, though there might be a cessation of life. There would be no “emotional love”, there would be “agape”.

But let’s stick to your biological example, and stipulate what you said. Yes, there would be natural decay and death. There could be accidents. Yes, it could happen that there would be unreciprocated love. There would be difference in opinion. There would be games, and in games there are winners and losers (and if someone takes a game too seriously, then the loss causes emotional distress). I accept all that.

Now, I do not wish to put words into your mouth, so I present a question: “Do you really think that having only those problems is not superior to the existing world, where rapes, tortures, wars, etc. happen with an alarming frequency?” Are you going to answer?

Does that answer your question?

No, it does not. I was asking about a succession of improvements, and asked at which point will it become unendurably “bland, unexciting, etc…” for you. You very carefully avoided that question. Are you ready to answer it?

 

[inocente]

If they are unable / unwilling to face reality, and wish to use Linus’s security blanket, it is their business. A comforting fantasy is inferior - in my eyes - to face actual reality. It is a fact that people die. It is a fantasy to believe in some afterlife. Of course you are most welcome to demonstrate the existence of “afterlife”. If you do, I will accept that it is not a fantasy.

So you are preaching a greater good, and the greater good is that the highest importance is for everyone to accept your reality and your fantasy.

You mean, an idiot said…

Instant judgement = instant gratification? There are those who say that dismissing with instant insults anyone who doesn’t conform to our personal dogma is a protection mechanism, it avoids the effort of trying to understand others and shields our worldview from any possible uncertainty. Kind of like Linus’s security blanket, a comforting fantasy inferior to facing actual reality.

*Oh, don’t play dumb. You are not. You implied it when you said that the Utopia is “unexciting” (read: boring) and it would be hell on Earth for you. It is a cheap shot to say that you did not use the exact phrase, only its equivalent. *

Heh, nice try, my implication was that your fantasy world is a childishly banal Disneyland consumer paradise, nothing to do with your ’pain, misery, suffering is the “salt of life”’. We’re not kids in a playground in a game where you make stuff up and I’m supposed to pretend I said it.

*I did not present all the possible details. A life created of inorganic material would not have an injury, there might be an accident which would necessitate a repair or replacement, without pain receptors. Obviously there would be no decay and death, though there might be a cessation of life. There would be no “emotional love”, there would be “agape”. *

Not sure why you think inorganic life is immune to disease and decay. So no doctors, just garage mechanics? And grief, no romantic love, no boy meets girl? I guess there’s no sex or rock and roll in Disneyland either. I mean, fine for a couple of days’ vacation, but to live there? Permanently?

*But let’s stick to your biological example, and stipulate what you said. Yes, there would be natural decay and death. There could be accidents. Yes, it could happen that there would be unreciprocated love. There would be difference in opinion. There would be games, and in games there are winners and losers (and if someone takes a game too seriously, then the loss causes emotional distress). I accept all that.

Now, I do not wish to put words into your mouth, so I present a question: “Do you really think that having only* those problems is not superior to the existing world, where rapes, tortures, wars, etc. happen with an alarming frequency?” Are you going to answer?

I very much like the bit where you say you don’t want to put words in my mouth, that’s terrific, please stick with that principle.

So you’re asking me to choose between continuing trying to make this world better, or a weird health and safety fantasy where everyone has a frontal lobotomy to make sure nothing bad ever goes down. Methinks the former, I don’t want us all to be a vegetables, that’s far too high a price.

No, it does not. I was asking about a succession of improvements, and asked at which point will it become unendurably “bland, unexciting, etc…” for you. You very carefully avoided that question. Are you ready to answer it?

I’m not avoiding it, I just can’t get excited about giving a detailed answer to a hypothetical about a fantasy. It’s like saying pretend the world is made of chocolate, which bit would I eat on the forth day and exactly why. How would I know? OK. For the sake of answering, let’s say as soon as I realized that people were bland watered down versions of who they might have been before the health and safety disney-fiers took over.

 

[Serious]

So you are preaching a greater good, and the greater good is that the highest importance is for everyone to accept your reality and your fantasy.

It is good for me, and those who are willing to face reality. As for others, it is their choice to believe in that fantasy.

Instant judgement = instant gratification?

Reality is objective. It does not change according to our preference. Only an idiot would say: “my reality”.

Heh, nice try, my implication was that your fantasy world is a childishly banal Disneyland consumer paradise, nothing to do with your ’pain, misery, suffering is the “salt of life”’.

Since the only difference is the removal of “pain, misery and suffereing”, and you consider the end result “banal, boring, etc…” it follows logically that the removed part was the “salt of life”. Don’t be shy to say explicitly what you already said - implicitly.

Not sure why you think inorganic life is immune to disease and decay. So no doctors, just garage mechanics? And grief, no romantic love, no boy meets girl? I guess there’s no sex or rock and roll in Disneyland either. I mean, fine for a couple of days’ vacation, but to live there? Permanently?

That is simply your opinion. The point is that “pain, misert and suffering” are not logically necessary.

So you’re asking me to choose between continuing trying to make this world better, or a weird health and safety fantasy where everyone has a frontal lobotomy to make sure nothing bad ever goes down. Methinks the former, I don’t want us all to be a vegetables, that’s far too high a price.

No one mentioned “lobotomy”, did not even imply. It is nice that you don’t want to have words put into your mouth, but you think that you can do it? Interesting. So you wish to “improve” on this existence, but you don’t want it to succeed?

I’m not avoiding it, I just can’t get excited about giving a detailed answer to a hypothetical about a fantasy. It’s like saying pretend the world is made of chocolate, which bit would I eat on the forth day and exactly why. How would I know? OK. For the sake of answering, let’s say as soon as I realized that people were bland watered down versions of who they might have been before the health and safety disney-fiers took over.

Not much of an answer. How many rapes an murders would convince you that people are not “bland, watered-down”? You still imply that the atrocities are what make the life worth living.

 

[mwok]

Serious, in your experiences with death why do you not believe in an afterlife?

 

[Serious]

Serious, in your experiences with death why do you not believe in an afterlife?

Because there is no evidence for it. I would love if there were an afterlife, if these measly few decades were not all. But to believe what I would like to happen is just wishful thinking. Not my cup of tea.

 

[mwok]

Because there is no evidence for it. I would love if there were an afterlife, if these measly few decades were not all. But to believe what I would like to happen is just wishful thinking. Not my cup of tea.

And what would constitute as evidence for an afterlife? I mean what kind of evidence would it take for you to believe?

 

[Serious]

And what would constitute as evidence for an afterlife? I mean what kind of evidence would it take for you to believe?

Obviously God would know what is the best, most convincing evidence for me. So I leave it up to him.

 

[mwok]

Obviously God would know what is the best, most convincing evidence for me. So I leave it up to him.

You require tangible evidence for the existence of God in order that you would believe in God. And now you’re saying that He, a being you don’t believe exists, would be able to prove to you the existence of any afterlife?

Of which of the 5 senses do you think would be most receptive to the evidence you require to believe in an afterlife?

 

[Serious]

You require tangible evidence for the existence of God in order that you would believe in God. And now you’re saying that He, a being you don’t believe exists, would be able to prove to you the existence of any afterlife?

Why are you surprised? If there is God, and he is whatever you believe about him then he would be the best qualified to decide what is the most convincing evidence for me. By the way… if God demonstrated his existence for me, then I would not “believe” that he exists… I would KNOW!

Of which of the 5 senses do you think would be most receptive to the evidence you require to believe in an afterlife?

What I think is of no consequence. If there is an omnimax God, he would know and act accordingly.

 

[inocente]

It is good for me, and those who are willing to face reality. As for others, it is their choice to believe in that fantasy.

I see. It feels good to you so it must be right.

Reality is objective. It does not change according to our preference. Only an idiot would say: “my reality”.

I’d suggest it can be useful to put in an least a bit of effort trying to understand others rather than just calling them names. So with “I reject your reality and substitute my own”, say I met someone with no apparent experience whatsoever in dealing with suffering, who proposes a poorly thought out fantasy and then tries to lay down the law on what must and must not be accepted as real, I might use the phrase to tell him I reject wannabe dogma from wannabe authorities.

Since the only difference is the removal of “pain, misery and suffereing”, and you consider the end result “banal, boring, etc…” it follows logically that the removed part was the “salt of life”. Don’t be shy to say explicitly what you already said - implicitly.

If my point really does continue to fly straight over your head, it might be more productive if you make at least some effort to understand rather than me wasting my time trying to explain again.

*That is simply your opinion. The point is that “pain, misert and suffering” are not logically necessary. *

Not logically necessary to what?

*No one mentioned “lobotomy”, did not even imply. It is nice that you don’t want to have words put into your mouth, but you think that you can do it? Interesting. So you wish to “improve” on this existence, but you don’t want it to succeed? *

Lobotomy, morphine drip, these are known as metaphors, while misrepresenting what I said is called a fiction, amongst other names. I tried to parse your last sentence but couldn’t.

Not much of an answer. How many rapes an murders would convince you that people are not “bland, watered-down”? You still imply that the atrocities are what make the life worth living.

I asked before if we could raise the bar. Whether or not you intend it, my impression is you expect me to spoon feed you, just as your fantasy world is also in essence about being spoon fed. My impression is you’d even want God to prove His existence to you so you don’t have to lift a finger.

Tell you what, as you ignore whatever I say anyway, you don’t need me and can have a monolog with yourself. That’s a win-win wouldn’t you say?