Christianity

[Harry Baird]

He set the consequence, yes

Yes, according to the Story. The point is that this consequence is manifestly outrageous; totally incompatible with any reasonable conception of God.

[Immanuel Can]

Another dodge. I'm done with you here.

No dodge. I'm working on an answer. I'm accepting both your question and your answers.

But if what you want is a cheap "win," I'm sorry. You can't have that. It's just not available.

On the other hand, if you want to go away, I can't stop you. Be well.

[henry quirk]

He set the consequence, yes

Yes, according to the Story. The point is that this consequence is manifestly outrageous; totally incompatible with any reasonable conception of God.

And the Christian God probably thinks murder, rape, and slavin' is outrageous and totally incompatible with what He envisioned human beings to be. You see finite crime, He sees an affront to Creation.

[Alexis Jacobi]

But a period of punishment, or some time lived in consequence, that could be understood.

If vengeance is 'human, all too human', and I am human, then by nature my notion of vengeful punishment is likely as perverse as the next guy's!

But here goes:

Hell would be a place where you are stuck in a little room with a TeeVee on one wall where from a slot comes the same TeeVee dinner every night:



You turn on the TeeVee and this comes on this.

But the diabolical TeeVee has a (malicious, torturous, cruel) mind of its own and turns immediately to this.

And this repeats for 1,000 years!

And that is just Level One Punishment . . .

[Alexis Jacobi]

And the Christian God probably thinks murder, rape, and slavin' is outrageous and totally incompatible with what He envisioned human beings to be. You see finite crime, He sees an affront to Creation.

Oh?

“When you go near a city to fight against it, then proclaim an offer of peace to it. And it shall be that if they accept your offer of peace, and open to you, then all the people who are found in it shall be placed under tribute to you, and serve you.

Now if the city will not make peace with you, but war against you, then you shall besiege it. And when the LORD your God delivers it into your hands, you shall strike every male in it with the edge of the sword. But the women, the little ones, the livestock, and all that is in the city, all its spoil, you shall plunder for yourself; and you shall eat the enemies’ plunder which the LORD your God gives you.

Thus you shall do to all the cities which are very far from you, which are not of the cities of these nations. “But of the cities of these peoples which the LORD your God gives you as an inheritance, you shall let nothing that breathes remain alive, but you shall utterly destroy them: the Hittite and the Amorite and the Canaanite and the Perizzite and the Hivite and the Jebusite, just as the LORD your God has commanded you, lest they teach you to do according to all their abominations which they have done for their gods, and you sin against the LORD your God."

[Harry Baird]

He set the consequence, yes

Yes, according to the Story. The point is that this consequence is manifestly outrageous; totally incompatible with any reasonable conception of God.

And the Christian God probably thinks murder, rape, and slavin' is outrageous and totally incompatible with what He envisioned human beings to be.

Sure. That doesn't make the consequence He (supposedly) set for those offences any less outrageous and incompatible with reason.

Anyhow, we've probably hashed this out as much as we can without endless repetition, so, unless anything new comes up, it seems best for me to leave it at that.

[Harry Baird]

Hell would be a place where you are stuck in a little room with a TeeVee on one wall where from a slot comes the same TeeVee dinner every night:

Still frozen. I guess that's part of the punishment.

[Immanuel Can]

Anyhow, we've probably hashed this out as much as we can without endless repetition, so, unless anything new comes up, it seems best for me to leave it at that.

Ah, but we have not.

You remind me of Pilate, as quoted by the inventor of the scientific method, Sir Francis Bacon, in the opening line of his famous treatise "Of Truth"

"'What is truth?' said jesting Pilate, and would not stay for an answer."

The irony is that at the time, he was standing in front of the One who said, "I am the way, the truth and the life..."

Bacon knew that. He saw the irony in it.

One can ask questions for which one simply refuses the answer. And the goal of such is actually to prevent an answer, not to request one.

[Harry Baird]

One can ask questions for which one simply refuses the answer.

That's disingenuous. You had ample opportunities to directly answer my question, which I even revised, to take into account your responses. You dodged every one of them.

[Immanuel Can]

One can ask questions for which one simply refuses the answer.

You had ample opportunities to directly answer my question,

Only as a "yes" or "no," and on the terms and assumptions you had already dictated for me. That's not fair: you get to 'cook' the question in advance, and then dictate the terms on which I'm even allowed to respond? Is that what you understand as a "conversation"?

But when I declined those forced terms, and went for a better route to an answer, you cried "foul" and left.

That was a stratagem, not an inquiry.

[Harry Baird]

One can ask questions for which one simply refuses the answer.

You had ample opportunities to directly answer my question,

Only as a "yes" or "no,"

Nope. I wrote only that a yes/no answer was "preferred", not that it was required.

You were free to answer in any way you chose, but you chose to...

But when I [...] went for a better route to an answer

...avoid answering by asking me questions in turn, trying to play the "let's have a Socratic dialogue which I control" game. This is "better" only as a strategy for you, because you know that you have no meaningful direct answer.

[Immanuel Can]

You were free to answer in any way you chose, but you chose to...avoid answering by asking me questions in turn...

So a "conversation" it wasn't. It was a one-sided demand, issued on terms you'd specified in advance...and this on a forum dedicated to philosophical discussion.

Nothing was being "avoided." You'd simply left me no term on which a reasonable answer was possible. And nobody likes to be handed a rigged game, and told they have a duty to play.

[Alexis Jacobi]

Please additionally note that Pilate serves the function of absolute man of the world and because his object is conquest and holding power, the ‘truth’ that Jesus of Nazareth (God) represents would not be comprehensible to him. His question then has no meaning.

But the questions asked by Harry are theological questions of a sophisticated sort. Not rhetorical questions posed by a foil in a narrative. And Harry is no “prince of the Earth” defending worldly ambitions.

Your comparison is cracked.

Immanuel: you do not and you cannot engage in a sound, intellectually honest manner. The doctrinaire has you in its grip.

Conversation with that is, by nature, impossible.

[Harry Baird]

You'd simply left me no term on which a reasonable answer was possible.

Look, dude, write out your damn answer as an essay like AJ does if you want to explain your convoluted defence of the indefensible on your own "reasonable" terms. Just don't expect me to play along with your controlling "But let me ask you these Socratic questions in turn" game. Engage with my question directly and honestly or don't. It's clear at this point that so far you've chosen "don't". In that case, quit complaining and find something else to do.

[Alexis Jacobi]

And nobody likes to be handed a rigged game, and told they have a duty to play.

This neatly defines your own position if you think it through.