Understanding the religious mindset

[uwot]

If I take you to a restaurant that has a hundred items on the menu, but only let you say the words, "The house salad, please," have I given you a choice?

Why Mr Can you incorrigible flirt. You should do no less than your Supreme Bean and let us ask for anything, with the caveat that any choice other than the house salad will result in a red hot poker up the bum forever.

[attofishpi]

If I take you to a restaurant that has a hundred items on the menu, but only let you say the words, "The house salad, please," have I given you a choice?

Why Mr Can you incorrigible flirt. You should do no less than your Supreme Bean and let us ask for anything, with the caveat that any choice other than the house salad will result in a red hot poker up the bum forever.

Well then we are really being simple about the buy_bull.

[Belinda]

Immanuel Can wrote:

... love depends upon choice, not Free Will.

Think about that claim.

If there are "choices," but you have no free will to "choose" any of them, what's the meaning of "choice"? If I take you to a restaurant that has a hundred items on the menu, but only let you say the words, "The house salad, please," have I given you a choice?[/quote]

Belinda replies:I could reasonably choose alternatives "no thanks I will get some street food, "or " I'd rather go hungry".


IC:

God knows everything so God knows what choices you have.

This is true. But for Him to "know" is not the same verb as for Him to "compel" or "force" the choice. The latter are actions, and the former is only a state of awareness. Knowledge doesn't make things happen.[/quote]

Belinda replies :If God is merciful and just He will concede, not that I have sinned, but that my choice was understandable but unwise.

IC wrote :

God is love. Love is unconditional.

It depends on what you mean by "unconditional."

If you mean that a person cannot earn or compel love, then yes, real love transcends that. But love also has conditions. Consider, for example, the man who knows his wife is having affairs, and remains utterly unconcerned. Does he love her? Or is it pretty obvious he just doesn't care? In fact, would not the desire for exclusivity mark real love, and failure to be exclusive be the hallmark of less than complete love?

So love is not unconditional, if what we mean is that it has no particular demands or context.

Belinda replies: If a man knew his wife was having affairs and that man was unconcerned then he did not love her as well as he would if he had taken an interest in her welfare. Human love is imperfect and relative but we assume God's love is perfect, absolute, and unconditional.

IC wrote:

Or again, if a man forced a woman to have a relationship with him against her will, we might call his attentions completely "unconditional." But we wouldn't call them "love," would we? We would understand that they lacked the condition of consent by the loved one.

So we might ask, what are the conditions under which we can have the love of God? And under what conditions would such alleged "love" merely be suffocating, controlling, overwhelming, demanding, destructive, and not really love at all?

Belinda replies:There are no conditions under which we can have the love of God who made each of us exactly as we are born, and as we each choose to live our lives. The rapist, the male chauvinist, and the slave driver all get to have the love of God which is absolute and perfect. Sometimes, but not always, you get to choose whether or not you try to discover what God wants you to do. Jesus of Nazareth is a good mentor for your quest, as is the Buddha or Confucius. Liars , rapists, and bullies are not good mentors.

[attofishpi]

the love of God which is absolute and perfect. Sometimes, but not always, you get to choose whether or not you try to discover what God wants you to do. Jesus of Nazareth is a good mentor for your quest, as is the Buddha or Confucius. Liars , rapists, and bullies are not good mentors.

GOD fucks pigs. How else would we have bacon....spoken as a Pantheist.

[Lacewing]

You're using the word "determined" in a slightly different way than it's meant by "Determinism."

Why do you reframe my question, then respond to what you've reframed it to? Okay, let's change the word from determined to known: If God knows the outcome, what is the point of pretending that the outcome is yet to be known?

To say that God knows the future is not to say that God makes everything happen that happens.

I already pointed out that I wasn't saying cause. You shift my part of the conversation in order to respond to it.

he knows what free agents will choose, even before they have made up their minds.

So, what's the point of creating them?

It sounds like a twisted game... a farce: Create beings, know what they're going to do, and declare rewards and punishments. It's like playing dolls with thinking beings. Isn't it?

Well, if we were predetermined, we wouldn't actually be "thinking" at all. We'd actually only be robots playing our programming. Or to use your word, we'd be dolls. But it isn't like that at all.

Again, you shift my question. Can you answer it without doing that, since I said nothing about being predetermined or robots?

you know, before the kid even knows, that if you leave the room, then sure as shooting, that kid is going to go for the cookies.

Being a parent (or anyone) who "knows" what's going to happen is different than being an almighty god who has created all of it, and who has set up commandments and eternal rewards and punishments. Think about doing that for your children to the degree that God is claimed to do. How does it make sense? I'm questioning mankind's story about such a god... because it seems that it is mankind, rather than a god, who sees usefulness in influencing and controlling people in such a way, and with such stories. Can you see that? Can you question it?

you know the kid needs to learn to take responsibility for his/her choices, and learn to do the right thing.

To ensure their best life... and the best of themselves. That is their reward. That makes sense. A promise (from the parents) about anything after the kid's life, doesn't make much sense, right?

Why would there be an end purpose for God? Why would a god have a linear plan for anything?

If we do not ask and answer such questions, then might we be led by beliefs/stories that may make no sense at all, and may not be created by/for what we think? Faith shouldn't be a set of blinders that dismisses all to the contrary. Rather, faith can be a passion for broader potential to continually be discovered and manifest.

[Immanuel Can]

If God knows the outcome, what is the point of pretending that the outcome is yet to be known?

The "knowing" is not any problem for human freedom. It's only the "making" that would be.

If I know you would respond, that doesn't imply I made you respond...even if my foreknowledge was 100% accurate...as indeed, it was. Here you are.

he knows what free agents will choose, even before they have made up their minds.

So, what's the point of creating them?

Their freedom. God has created beings that have the kind of volition that, outside of God himself, no creature has. And His purpose in creating them is to make beings capable of choosing -- independently choosing -- to love Him or not. That's what's required for a relationship to be one of "love."

You can't force love. It must be chosen and reciprocated or not as the loved one chooses. Or it's not really "love" at all. It's just compulsion.

It sounds like a twisted game... a farce: Create beings, know what they're going to do, and declare rewards and punishments. It's like playing dolls with thinking beings. Isn't it?

Well, if we were predetermined, we wouldn't actually be "thinking" at all. We'd actually only be robots playing our programming. Or to use your word, we'd be dolls. But it isn't like that at all.

Again, you shift my question....[/quote]
No, I wasn't shifting it. I was pointing out what it would imply. I was actually agreeing with you.

Being a parent (or anyone) who "knows" what's going to happen is different than being an almighty god who has created all of it, and who has set up commandments and eternal rewards and punishments. Think about doing that for your children to the degree that God is claimed to do. How does it make sense?

I'm not sure how it doesn't. God invented parenting. And He chooses to call Himself "Father." It's pretty clear to me that the paternal imagery is not only unwarranted but positively insisted upon.

I'm questioning mankind's story about such a god... because it seems that it is mankind, rather than a god, who sees usefulness in influencing and controlling people in such a way, and with such stories. Can you see that?

I think this version of God's dealings is a little stunted and unbiblical, if you'll forgive me saying so. But I understand the question: too many religious people give us the idea that God is all about commandments and control. What they fail to grasp is that God has done much more, and given us much more, and loved us much more, than anything he has commanded. And as for control, everything He has done has been to support our freedom of choice -- even to the point of letting us choose or reject our own ultimate good, relationship with Him.

Do you see God punishing the evil? Do you see Him rewarding the good? Did Hitler or Stalin get what was coming to them? Or Manson, or Dahmer? But what do you see? Man being allowed to be good or evil, without his good or evil being tied to a rigid, predictable reward and punishment system. Here, in this world, people do not get what's coming to them. What they have is an open field to choose. Justice comes later -- for justice must come -- but it is not in a command-and-control way at all. There's nothing right now stopping you from making any choice you wish, anything within your personal scope, actually.

You can't get any more freedom that that, really.

you know the kid needs to learn to take responsibility for his/her choices, and learn to do the right thing.

To ensure their best life... and the best of themselves. That is their reward. That makes sense. A promise (from the parents) about anything after the kid's life, doesn't make much sense, right?

Well, kids are terrible at thinking about the future. They want everything now. If you tell them, "Put away that ten dollars, and you can have a college fund when you're nineteen," and they'll think you're an ogre. They have lots of greed and little foresight. So it's up to the parents to take care of everything that requires foresight. And as the kids grow, their vision gets a little longer, and a little longer -- and one of the most important lessons they learn (and statistically the one most likely to make them successful in life) is the principle of setting aside immediate desires in order to achieve a much greater good later on. Children who don't have the chance to learn that become spoiled, unsuccessful, and often even criminal.

So far as kid is concerned, telling them "Later" is telling them "after life (as you know it) is over." They can't see that far. But they need to learn to. And they need to learn that when their parents tell them, "The future matters," the parents are not lying...they're doing what is absolutely the best for the kid. But not every kid chooses to learn that lesson.

Why would there be an end purpose for God? Why would a god have a linear plan for anything?

Well, who says God has a "linear plan"? Why couldn't he have a network of possible outcomes, all of which He foreknows, but none of which, in particular, he forces you to follow? And being omniscient, could not God also know all possible outcomes, and manage them all?

If, maybe, we couldn't, why would we blithely assume He can't?

If we do not ask and answer such questions, then might we be led by beliefs/stories that may make no sense at all, and may not be created by/for what we think? Faith shouldn't be a set of blinders that dismisses all to the contrary.

I couldn't agree more. You're absolutely right. So let's keep asking the questions. That's precisely how faith grows...by being challenged, stretched and developed, not by being protected from questions.

[seeds]

If such were the case that God knew ahead of time (even before the person was born) that he was going to have to cast a particular soul into the proverbial "lake of fire,"...then don't you think it would be a wee bit kinder and loving of God to just not awaken that soul into existence in the first place?

That depends. It depends on what is at stake. There are some things worth the risk of that.

One, many people believe, is freedom. Another is love. People die for these things all the time, actually, and many more risk it. Maybe you don't believe in either, so maybe there's no reason for anything.

What in the world does any of that have to do with "what's at stake" for an infant who dies, say, one hour after being born, and suddenly finds itself in hell for no obvious reason other than God knew it would do something wrong had it lived a little longer on earth?

We're talking about a totally clueless (yet conscious) entity that was just awakened into life a few minutes earlier, whose only primal urge was to try and locate its mother's nipple. Yet, before it even had time to taste its mother's milk, or to give its diaper a good soiling, there it is, writhing in the agony of hell.

The bottom line is that if your ridiculous depiction of God is actually true, then it would mean that the universe is presided-over by a horrifyingly evil fiend who creates billions of souls for the express purpose of populating a realm of eternal misery that he could put an end to at any moment he wishes.

And the point is that if God is truly that evil, then you, Mr. Can, would not be safe in heaven, for he could sense your displeasure of him torturing one of your loved ones in hell and thus condemn you to join them.

Forgive me for constantly uploading my own illustrations, but from reading your justifying apologetics as to the nature of the Christian depiction of heaven and hell, then it would appear that the guy (the "dad") standing on the cloud in the following image is actually you...



And just in case the dialogue in the caption bubbles is too small or blurry to read, then here is a rundown of what is being said:

Little girl: “Please help me daddy, they’re hurting me! Please daddy, help me!”

Dad: “Sorry punkin, but daddy’s in heaven now and heaven wouldn’t be ‘perfect’ if I had to worry about you....Besides, we told you what would happen if you didn’t believe in ‘our’ concept of God....By the way, how’s your grandma doing?...Oh never mind, why should I care?...I’m in heaven.”

God: “After she has suffered a billion years of unspeakable burning agony, she’ll be sorry she ignored me....I will then continue her torture throughout all eternity....Does anyone doubt the fairness of my judgment?”

1st angel: “Your fairness and mercy are without equal.”

2nd angel: “In the name of love she’s getting exactly what she deserves.”

And, of course, beneath the daughter and the demons is not Satan, but God; the creator and sustainer of all realities - including Hell.

(Note: The only reason I am laboring over this issue is not to pick-on or to ridicule Immanuel Can's "religious mindset," but more at trying to get down to the real nitty-gritty of just how absurd the Christian depiction of heaven and hell truly is.)
_______

[uwot]

(Note: The only reason I am laboring over this issue is not to pick-on or to ridicule Immanuel Can's "religious mindset," but more at trying to get down to the real nitty-gritty of just how absurd the Christian depiction of heaven and hell truly is.)
_______

The Myth of Er at the end of Plato's Republic is the template for the Christian depiction of heaven and hell. In the old testament 'Sheol', which is usually translated as Hell, is just death; there is no mention of punishment. Fire and brimstone, demons, whips and gouges all come into the bible after Plato wrote this:

Well, I said, I will tell you a tale; not one of the tales which Odysseus tells to the hero Alcinous, yet this too is a tale of a hero, Er the son of Armenius, a Pamphylian by birth. He was slain in battle, and ten days afterwards, when the bodies of the dead were taken up already in a state of corruption, his body was found unaffected by decay, and carried away home to be buried. And on the twelfth day, as he was lying on the funeral pile, he returned to life and told them what he had seen in the other world. He said that when his soul left the body he went on a journey with a great company, and that they came to a mysterious place at which there were two openings in the earth; they were near together, and over against them were two other openings in the heaven above. In the intermediate space there were judges seated, who commanded the just, after they had given judgment on them and had bound their sentences in front of them, to ascend by the heavenly way on the right hand; and in like manner the unjust were bidden by them to descend by the lower way on the left hand; these also bore the symbols of their deeds, but fastened on their backs. He drew near, and they told him that he was to be the messenger who would carry the report of the other world to men, and they bade him hear and see all that was to be heard and seen in that place. Then he beheld and saw on one side the souls departing at either opening of heaven and earth when sentence had been given on them; and at the two other openings other souls, some ascending out of the earth dusty and worn with travel, some descending out of heaven clean and bright. And arriving ever and anon they seemed to have come from a long journey, and they went forth with gladness into the meadow, where they encamped as at a festival; and those who knew one another embraced and conversed, the souls which came from earth curiously enquiring about the things above, and the souls which came from heaven about the things beneath. And they told one another of what had happened by the way, those from below weeping and sorrowing at the remembrance of the things which they had endured and seen in their journey beneath the earth (now the journey lasted a thousand years), while those from above were describing heavenly delights and visions of inconceivable beauty. The story, Glaucon, would take too long to tell; but the sum was this:—He said that for every wrong which they had done to any one they suffered tenfold; or once in a hundred years—such being reckoned to be the length of man's life, and the penalty being thus paid ten times in a thousand years. If, for example, there were any who had been the cause of many deaths, or had betrayed or enslaved cities or armies, or been guilty of any other evil behaviour, for each and all of their offences they received punishment ten times over, and the rewards of beneficence and justice and holiness were in the same proportion. I need hardly repeat what he said concerning young children dying almost as soon as they were born. Of piety and impiety to gods and parents, and of murderers, there were retributions other and greater far which he described. He mentioned that he was present when one of the spirits asked another, 'Where is Ardiaeus the Great?' (Now this Ardiaeus lived a thousand years before the time of Er: he had been the tyrant of some city of Pamphylia, and had murdered his aged father and his elder brother, and was said to have committed many other abominable crimes.) The answer of the other spirit was: 'He comes not hither and will never come. And this,' said he, 'was one of the dreadful sights which we ourselves witnessed. We were at the mouth of the cavern, and, having completed all our experiences, were about to reascend, when of a sudden Ardiaeus appeared and several others, most of whom were tyrants; and there were also besides the tyrants private individuals who had been great criminals: they were just, as they fancied, about to return into the upper world, but the mouth, instead of admitting them, gave a roar, whenever any of these incurable sinners or some one who had not been sufficiently punished tried to ascend; and then wild men of fiery aspect, who were standing by and heard the sound, seized and carried them off; and Ardiaeus and others they bound head and foot and hand, and threw them down and flayed them with scourges, and dragged them along the road at the side, carding them on thorns like wool, and declaring to the passers-by what were their crimes, and that they were being taken away to be cast into hell.' And of all the many terrors which they had endured, he said that there was none like the terror which each of them felt at that moment, lest they should hear the voice; and when there was silence, one by one they ascended with exceeding joy. These, said Er, were the penalties and retributions, and there were blessings as great.

Now when the spirits which were in the meadow had tarried seven days, on the eighth they were obliged to proceed on their journey, and, on the fourth day after, he said that they came to a place where they could see from above a line of light, straight as a column, extending right through the whole heaven and through the earth, in colour resembling the rainbow, only brighter and purer; another day's journey brought them to the place, and there, in the midst of the light, they saw the ends of the chains of heaven let down from above: for this light is the belt of heaven, and holds together the circle of the universe, like the under-girders of a trireme. From these ends is extended the spindle of Necessity, on which all the revolutions turn. The shaft and hook of this spindle are made of steel, and the whorl is made partly of steel and also partly of other materials. Now the whorl is in form like the whorl used on earth; and the description of it implied that there is one large hollow whorl which is quite scooped out, and into this is fitted another lesser one, and another, and another, and four others, making eight in all, like vessels which fit into one another; the whorls show their edges on the upper side, and on their lower side all together form one continuous whorl. This is pierced by the spindle, which is driven home through the centre of the eighth. The first and outermost whorl has the rim broadest, and the seven inner whorls are narrower, in the following proportions—the sixth is next to the first in size, the fourth next to the sixth; then comes the eighth; the seventh is fifth, the fifth is sixth, the third is seventh, last and eighth comes the second. The largest (or fixed stars) is spangled, and the seventh (or sun) is brightest; the eighth (or moon) coloured by the reflected light of the seventh; the second and fifth (Saturn and Mercury) are in colour like one another, and yellower than the preceding; the third (Venus) has the whitest light; the fourth (Mars) is reddish; the sixth (Jupiter) is in whiteness second. Now the whole spindle has the same motion; but, as the whole revolves in one direction, the seven inner circles move slowly in the other, and of these the swiftest is the eighth; next in swiftness are the seventh, sixth, and fifth, which move together; third in swiftness appeared to move according to the law of this reversed motion the fourth; the third appeared fourth and the second fifth. The spindle turns on the knees of Necessity; and on the upper surface of each circle is a siren, who goes round with them, hymning a single tone or note. The eight together form one harmony; and round about, at equal intervals, there is another band, three in number, each sitting upon her throne: these are the Fates, daughters of Necessity, who are clothed in white robes and have chaplets upon their heads, Lachesis and Clotho and Atropos, who accompany with their voices the harmony of the sirens—Lachesis singing of the past, Clotho of the present, Atropos of the future; Clotho from time to time assisting with a touch of her right hand the revolution of the outer circle of the whorl or spindle, and Atropos with her left hand touching and guiding the inner ones, and Lachesis laying hold of either in turn, first with one hand and then with the other.

When Er and the spirits arrived, their duty was to go at once to Lachesis; but first of all there came a prophet who arranged them in order; then he took from the knees of Lachesis lots and samples of lives, and having mounted a high pulpit, spoke as follows: 'Hear the word of Lachesis, the daughter of Necessity. Mortal souls, behold a new cycle of life and mortality. Your genius will not be allotted to you, but you will choose your genius; and let him who draws the first lot have the first choice, and the life which he chooses shall be his destiny. Virtue is free, and as a man honours or dishonours her he will have more or less of her; the responsibility is with the chooser—God is justified.' When the Interpreter had thus spoken he scattered lots indifferently among them all, and each of them took up the lot which fell near him, all but Er himself (he was not allowed), and each as he took his lot perceived the number which he had obtained. Then the Interpreter placed on the ground before them the samples of lives; and there were many more lives than the souls present, and they were of all sorts. There were lives of every animal and of man in every condition. And there were tyrannies among them, some lasting out the tyrant's life, others which broke off in the middle and came to an end in poverty and exile and beggary; and there were lives of famous men, some who were famous for their form and beauty as well as for their strength and success in games, or, again, for their birth and the qualities of their ancestors; and some who were the reverse of famous for the opposite qualities. And of women likewise; there was not, however, any definite character in them, because the soul, when choosing a new life, must of necessity become different. But there was every other quality, and the all mingled with one another, and also with elements of wealth and poverty, and disease and health; and there were mean states also. And here, my dear Glaucon, is the supreme peril of our human state; and therefore the utmost care should be taken. Let each one of us leave every other kind of knowledge and seek and follow one thing only, if peradventure he may be able to learn and may find some one who will make him able to learn and discern between good and evil, and so to choose always and everywhere the better life as he has opportunity. He should consider the bearing of all these things which have been mentioned severally and collectively upon virtue; he should know what the effect of beauty is when combined with poverty or wealth in a particular soul, and what are the good and evil consequences of noble and humble birth, of private and public station, of strength and weakness, of cleverness and dullness, and of all the natural and acquired gifts of the soul, and the operation of them when conjoined; he will then look at the nature of the soul, and from the consideration of all these qualities he will be able to determine which is the better and which is the worse; and so he will choose, giving the name of evil to the life which will make his soul more unjust, and good to the life which will make his soul more just; all else he will disregard. For we have seen and know that this is the best choice both in life and after death. A man must take with him into the world below an adamantine faith in truth and right, that there too he may be undazzled by the desire of wealth or the other allurements of evil, lest, coming upon tyrannies and similar villainies, he do irremediable wrongs to others and suffer yet worse himself; but let him know how to choose the mean and avoid the extremes on either side, as far as possible, not only in this life but in all that which is to come. For this is the way of happiness.

And according to the report of the messenger from the other world this was what the prophet said at the time: 'Even for the last comer, if he chooses wisely and will live diligently, there is appointed a happy and not undesirable existence. Let not him who chooses first be careless, and let not the last despair.' And when he had spoken, he who had the first choice came forward and in a moment chose the greatest tyranny; his mind having been darkened by folly and sensuality, he had not thought out the whole matter before he chose, and did not at first sight perceive that he was fated, among other evils, to devour his own children. But when he had time to reflect, and saw what was in the lot, he began to beat his breast and lament over his choice, forgetting the proclamation of the prophet; for, instead of throwing the blame of his misfortune on himself, he accused chance and the gods, and everything rather than himself. Now he was one of those who came from heaven, and in a former life had dwelt in a well-ordered State, but his virtue was a matter of habit only, and he had no philosophy. And it was true of others who were similarly overtaken, that the greater number of them came from heaven and therefore they had never been schooled by trial, whereas the pilgrims who came from earth having themselves suffered and seen others suffer, were not in a hurry to choose. And owing to this inexperience of theirs, and also because the lot was a chance, many of the souls exchanged a good destiny for an evil or an evil for a good. For if a man had always on his arrival in this world dedicated himself from the first to sound philosophy, and had been moderately fortunate in the number of the lot, he might, as the messenger reported, be happy here, and also his journey to another life and return to this, instead of being rough and underground, would be smooth and heavenly. Most curious, he said, was the spectacle—sad and laughable and strange; for the choice of the souls was in most cases based on their experience of a previous life. There he saw the soul which had once been Orpheus choosing the life of a swan out of enmity to the race of women, hating to be born of a woman because they had been his murderers; he beheld also the soul of Thamyras choosing the life of a nightingale; birds, on the other hand, like the swan and other musicians, wanting to be men. The soul which obtained the twentieth lot chose the life of a lion, and this was the soul of Ajax the son of Telamon, who would not be a man, remembering the injustice which was done him in the judgment about the arms. The next was Agamemnon, who took the life of an eagle, because, like Ajax, he hated human nature by reason of his sufferings. About the middle came the lot of Atalanta; she, seeing the great fame of an athlete, was unable to resist the temptation: and after her there followed the soul of Epeus the son of Panopeus passing into the nature of a woman cunning in the arts; and far away among the last who chose, the soul of the jester Thersites was putting on the form of a monkey. There came also the soul of Odysseus having yet to make a choice, and his lot happened to be the last of them all. Now the recollection of former toils had disenchanted him of ambition, and he went about for a considerable time in search of the life of a private man who had no cares; he had some difficulty in finding this, which was lying about and had been neglected by everybody else; and when he saw it, he said that he would have done the same had his lot been first instead of last, and that he was delighted to have it. And not only did men pass into animals, but I must also mention that there were animals tame and wild who changed into one another and into corresponding human natures—the good into the gentle and the evil into the savage, in all sorts of combinations.

All the souls had now chosen their lives, and they went in the order of their choice to Lachesis, who sent with them the genius whom they had severally chosen, to be the guardian of their lives and the fulfiller of the choice: this genius led the souls first to Clotho, and drew them within the revolution of the spindle impelled by her hand, thus ratifying the destiny of each; and then, when they were fastened to this, carried them to Atropos, who spun the threads and made them irreversible, whence without turning round they passed beneath the throne of Necessity; and when they had all passed, they marched on in a scorching heat to the plain of Forgetfulness, which was a barren waste destitute of trees and verdure; and then towards evening they encamped by the river of Unmindfulness, whose water no vessel can hold; of this they were all obliged to drink a certain quantity, and those who were not saved by wisdom drank more than was necessary; and each one as he drank forgot all things. Now after they had gone to rest, about the middle of the night there was a thunderstorm and earthquake, and then in an instant they were driven upwards in all manner of ways to their birth, like stars shooting. He himself was hindered from drinking the water. But in what manner or by what means he returned to the body he could not say; only, in the morning, awaking suddenly, he found himself lying on the pyre.

And thus, Glaucon, the tale has been saved and has not perished, and will save us if we are obedient to the word spoken; and we shall pass safely over the river of Forgetfulness and our soul will not be defiled. Wherefore my counsel is, that we hold fast ever to the heavenly way and follow after justice and virtue always, considering that the soul is immortal and able to endure every sort of good and every sort of evil. Thus shall we live dear to one another and to the gods, both while remaining here and when, like conquerors in the games who go round to gather gifts, we receive our reward. And it shall be well with us both in this life and in the pilgrimage of a thousand years which we have been describing.

[Immanuel Can]

...an infant who dies, say, one hour after being born, and suddenly finds itself in hell ...

You don't know that's what happens. You're making that up.

You haven't a clue. But when we both see God, you can ask Him...if you're in a frame of mind to speak at that moment.

[seeds]

(Note: The only reason I am laboring over this issue is not to pick-on or to ridicule Immanuel Can's "religious mindset," but more at trying to get down to the real nitty-gritty of just how absurd the Christian depiction of heaven and hell truly is.)

The Myth of Er at the end of Plato's Republic is the template for the Christian depiction of heaven and hell. In the old testament 'Sheol', which is usually translated as Hell, is just death; there is no mention of punishment. Fire and brimstone, demons, whips and gouges all come into the bible after Plato wrote this:

Thanks uwot (apparently Plato preferred the "walls-of-text" method of writing).

Well, based on the following little excerpt regarding the murderous tyrant, Ardiaeus, it's no wonder then that fire and brimstone, demons, whips and gouges all came into the Bible...

"...Ardiaeus appeared and several others, most of whom were tyrants; and there were also besides the tyrants private individuals who had been great criminals:...

(boy, Donald Trump really got around )

...they were just, as they fancied, about to return into the upper world, but the mouth, instead of admitting them, gave a roar, whenever any of these incurable sinners or some one who had not been sufficiently punished tried to ascend; and then wild men of fiery aspect, who were standing by and heard the sound, seized and carried them off; and Ardiaeus and others they bound head and foot and hand, and threw them down and flayed them with scourges, and dragged them along the road at the side, carding them on thorns like wool, and declaring to the passers-by what were their crimes, and that they were being taken away to be cast into hell..."

I mean, if flaying them with scourges (whips) and carding them on thorns while being dragged along the road was just the preliminary treatment before casting them into hell, then it sure stimulates the imagination as to what their treatment in hell will be like.
_______

[seeds]

...an infant who dies, say, one hour after being born, and suddenly finds itself in hell ...

You don't know that's what happens. You're making that up.

Well, actually, Mr. Can. it is based on the implications of your comments. And the fact that you are quoting it out of context is an example of how you attempt to misrepresent the point being made by your opponent.

You haven't a clue. But when we both see God, you can ask Him...if you're in a frame of mind to speak at that moment.

I've already met her, Mr. Can, and she's nowhere near as beastly as the Bible makes her out to be.

Now, how about we get back to this issue...

What we do know is that there is a difference between sin as a nature and sin as an action. The former is what is meant by "original sin," and the latter by "sins."

Yes, and in an earlier post you stated this...

You're still misunderstanding the term. "Original sin" we might say, is something like inheriting a gene for a dread disease like cystic fibrosis...

Okay, if we have indeed "inherited" a sinful nature in a way that is similar to inheriting a gene for cystic fibrosis from a parent or an ancestor, then what (or who) was the initial source of this inheritance?

In other words, from whence did this dark and insidious "sin-gene" originate?
_______

[Immanuel Can]

You don't know that's what happens. You're making that up.

Well, actually, Mr. Can. it is based on the implications of your comments.

You didn't pay attention, obviously.

However, you are making me mindful of the Biblical interdiction against the indiscriminate dispersal of nacreous spheroids in porcine precincts, and hence, I shall desist here.

[seeds]

You don't know that's what happens. You're making that up.

Well, actually, Mr. Can. it is based on the implications of your comments.

You didn't pay attention, obviously.

However, you are making me mindful of the Biblical interdiction against the indiscriminate dispersal of nacreous spheroids in porcine precincts, and hence, I shall desist here.

Yeah, it's probably best that you do desist at this time.

I mean, you certainly wouldn't want to have to humble yourself before swine such as me by simply graciously admitting that you - as an avowed Christian - may have accidentally said something that seems to contradict one of Christianity's fundamental assertions, as was noted in this earlier post...

The present economic wealth of Europe and the US is founded upon and still benefits from the slave trade

Do you want to make children guilty for what their distant forefathers chose to do? In what court would that be considered "justice"?

You don't become guilty by being born. That's ridiculous...

...So I call "hogwash" on that.

Wow, that's one of the most brazenly hypocritical things I have ever heard a Christian say.

Indeed, you have just inadvertently (and correctly) admitted that the very premise upon which Christianity is founded...

(i.e., "original sin")

...is not only ridiculous, but "hogwash."
_______

Indeed, that is what started our little argument in the first place, and you have resisted fessing-up to your mistake ever since (and will no doubt continue to do so should you un-desist).
_______

[Immanuel Can]

Indeed, you have just inadvertently (and correctly) admitted that the very premise upon which Christianity is founded...

(i.e., "original sin")

...is not only ridiculous, but "hogwash."
_______

I tried to explain to you the difference between sin as a nature and sin as action. You weren't interested...or, it is conceivable, able...to grasp the distinction.

So I tried, did my best to be clear, and you failed to "understand." There's not much more to say than that.

I am pretty sure the problem is really that you're not in a frame of mind to think it through. Your tone and posturing convinces me of that. Maybe you came to this thread not for the stated purpose, "understanding," but for your own purpose, whatever that may be. But I don't share an interest in your apparent purpose.

The matter will be settled. It just might not be settled in your mind right now.

[Lacewing]

If God knows the outcome, what is the point of pretending that the outcome is yet to be known?

The "knowing" is not any problem for human freedom. It's only the "making" that would be.

If I know you would respond, that doesn't imply I made you respond...even if my foreknowledge was 100% accurate...as indeed, it was.

I've pointed out repeatedly that I'm not talking about causing. My point is about knowing what the outcome will be. You're saying that God knows the outcome, yes? I'm asking, what is the point IF HE KNOWS THE OUTCOME?

he knows what free agents will choose, even before they have made up their minds.

So, what's the point of creating them?

Their freedom. God has created beings that have the kind of volition that, outside of God himself, no creature has. And His purpose in creating them is to make beings capable of choosing -- independently choosing -- to love Him or not.

Why would a creation be set up to have choices linked to promises of eternal rewards or punishments? Why wouldn't a creation be allowed to be free without any such promises? Doesn't it seem more likely that such promises are crafted by mankind... and that's why they don't make much sense of a supreme, all-knowing being?

You can't force love. It must be chosen and reciprocated or not as the loved one chooses. Or it's not really "love" at all. It's just compulsion.

Yes... a fearful, desperate compulsion driven by rewards or punishment. Another good example of the senselessness of how God is being portrayed. A god would understand that such promises steer and skew the outcome! Right?

Being a parent (or anyone) who "knows" what's going to happen is different than being an almighty god who has created all of it, and who has set up commandments and eternal rewards and punishments. Think about doing that for your children to the degree that God is claimed to do. How does it make sense?

I'm not sure how it doesn't. God invented parenting.

So, promising eternal rewards to your children who choose to love you on your terms, and eternal punishment to your children who don't choose to love you on your terms? You think that's reasonable and makes sense for a human to do... let alone a god?

Man being allowed to be good or evil, without his good or evil being tied to a rigid, predictable reward and punishment system. Here, in this world, people do not get what's coming to them. What they have is an open field to choose. Justice comes later -- for justice must come -- but it is not in a command-and-control way at all.

Doesn't matter if it comes now or later... it's supposedly predictably coming, yes? And it's supposedly coming even for people who are good people who have no knowledge of, or who see no sense in, the stories of a god as represented by men.

There's nothing right now stopping you from making any choice you wish, anything within your personal scope, actually. You can't get any more freedom that that, really.

We can feel a more expansive/inclusive love that has no fear or division... so, yes, we can experience more freedom.

Why would there be an end purpose for God? Why would a god have a linear plan for anything?

Well, who says God has a "linear plan"?

Every human story that claims, according to God, how the Universe started, how humans started, and what the end game will be. That's a linear plan.

Why couldn't he have a network of possible outcomes, all of which He foreknows, but none of which, in particular, he forces you to follow? And being omniscient, could not God also know all possible outcomes, and manage them all?

Sure!

Why couldn't a god be part of the whole unfolding... without knowing the potential... but rather, allowing it? Creating, experimenting, and learning as it goes. With love for all of it as it is?

Why would there need to be any ideas of "management"? What can we see that consistently suggests there's a manager?

Rather... we can see cooperation and adjustment between countless parts on countless levels... without any particular rule book or outcome.

Perhaps this completeness/oneness evolves and expands. There is nothing "beyond" or outside of it. That would be the greatest example of complete love that I can imagine: no separation. A god who is seen as separate, does not sound (to me) like the greatest love there can be.

If we do not ask and answer such questions, then might we be led by beliefs/stories that may make no sense at all, and may not be created by/for what we think? Faith shouldn't be a set of blinders that dismisses all to the contrary.

I couldn't agree more. You're absolutely right. So let's keep asking the questions. That's precisely how faith grows...by being challenged, stretched and developed, not by being protected from questions.

Terrific! Please use care not to shift/change wording/meaning in my questions when you respond. I've wondered if perhaps you cannot hear my questions due to some selective-listening issue triggered by having no applicable answer?

I want to understand how so many stories that don't make sense are being circulated and believed? Many religious claims do not actually demonstrate greater levels of love and freedom... and that's why those claims seem to be from the limited and controlling minds of humans. We don't have to continually perpetuate and preserve limitations from our histories and ourselves. Such rigidity makes no sense. Expansion makes more sense.