Christianity

[seeds]

_______

Some of you guys are doing it again. You're allowing Mr. Con to lure you away from him having to justify the "eternal torture" issue.

It's ironic that in his defense of God, Mr. Con simply doesn't realize that just as Muslim males disgustingly insult the unthinkably advanced Creator of the universe by portraying the ineffable Allah as being some sort of lowly "COSMIC PIMP" that's going to supply them with 72 whores in the afterlife,...



...likewise, Mr. Con disgustingly insults the Christian Deity by portraying him (her/it) as being some sort of "VICIOUS DEMON" who has no problem condemning defenseless humans (even infants and toddlers) to an eternity of unimaginable torture for something they did (or didn't do) during the few fleeting moments they spent on earth.

Mr. Con seems utterly oblivious of the implications of what he believes.

Indeed, he doesn't seem to realize that he is presenting himself as someone who would be completely okay with knowing that his insane next-door neighbor has kidnapped someone dear to Mr. Con and is torturing them day and night in the basement.

However, that's not the worst of it, for Mr. Con (even with knowing what was going on in the basement next door), would not only make no effort to rescue his loved one, but would be worshipping an image of his insane neighbor in some makeshift altar erected in his living room.

(Yeah, yeah, I know I'm being a bit melodramatic, but that doesn't alter the fact that the above is a loose analogy of what Mr. Con is implying about the conditions of the Christian concept of heaven and hell.)
_______

[Lacewing]

Where did Gary say that one thing he doubted invalidated the whole Bible?

You'll have to read back. If you can't track the conversation, I don't know what to tell you. I'm not overwhelmed with your powers of reading, to be honest.

You are the one who seems to keep missing/ignoring what Gary says. There's nothing for me to read back to if it's IN YOUR IMAGINATION!

And you didn't provide confirmation of where I confused a conversation about "rent" (as you claim). Is that because I'm actually not the one who was talking with you about it?

Rather, it appears that you frequently and dishonestly project your self-serving imagination onto other people (in whatever way suits you in the moment) and then refuse to correct it.

The risk of being such a zealot for the righteous business you're in is that you likely end up demonstrating the falseness of it. That's because intoxication makes people go over-board and dulls only the awareness of the one who is intoxicated, while everyone else can still see what the intoxicated person becomes unaware of.

[Immanuel Can]

...you didn't provide confirmation of where I confused a conversation about "rent" (as you claim).

As usual, you want me to go back over old trails that are still available to you anytime you want them, and refer to conversation's we've already played out in full, arriving nowhere. You'll continue to do that, no matter what I say, I'm sure.

A waste of my time. I'm not playing.

[Lacewing]

One of the things I have noted in the statements you make (as I am sure you will remember) is that you ask questions, which are rhetorical, but then you do not seem to ever answer your own questions!

Do you think there is only value in questioning a belief if one can also provide a different answer or belief? Isn't it possible to recognize what isn't true, while also not claiming what must be true?

You seem to say that *human mind* is just a contrivance and, I gather, cannot be relied on to form ideas about the structures around us and into which we are subsumed (and out of which we arise). Then, you refer to an ecological order where beings that are more like nature's robots act in ways (unconsciously, without specific intention) and as a result create a functioning *system* (which is to say simply Nature). So are you proposing that human being give up their human mind? Or are you proposing some sort of alternative to the arbitrary results of man's intellectual activities?

The human mind is a wonderful thing. It also produces a lot of noise and crazy crap. I think clarity is an essential state to be in before doing anything. The way to have clarity is to remove whatever is obscuring clarity. The clarity is not the 'new' answer, itself, but the new answer can be found with clarity. Humans cannot solve their problems using the same thinking that created those problems. (Einstein) Seeing how we fit in with all the rest of nature is a really good place to gain some clarity. Nature works really well on so many levels when it is not impeded or poisoned -- and we humans seem to have lost sight of that.

So let me propose the following and see how it flies: It is a tendency of man's mind to examine the world, to examine nature, to examine the surrounding world and the cosmos, and divine out of it an overarching or underlying order. What the ancient peoples did (referring to Ṛta) was to have built a social and cultural world upon their ideas about what the larger, macrocosmic world, seemed to demand.

Are you proposing that this should be done away with? That people should not make this effort? That they should become more like *trees, bees, ants, birds, [and] fish*?

No, I'm not suggesting that. I simply think we've lost touch with our place in nature, and the natural power/order within that (which includes our ability to function from a clearer perspective/channel) -- perhaps something that ancient people understood better because they had nothing else to do (in the absence of technology).

If we did not rely on our human mind -- what else could we possibly rely on? It is as though you are referencing a possibility that you don;t bring into focus.

Hopefully I've added more clarity above. I'm trying, anyway.

Based on our human education and understanding? How does that even come close to understanding the workings of our Universe and beyond?

What then could come closer to "understanding the workings of our Universe and beyond"?

We simply don't know. Imagination and guesses are for entertainment. They mean nothing else. Still, we use them to condemn other people! So why replace one with another? Is it so necessary to think we know the unknowable answers? Maybe the ultimate truth isn't even an answer in human terms. Maybe it's not even the point of our lives, ya know?

[Gary Childress]

I was saying that, in rational consistency, if GARY believed that one thing he doubted could invalidate the whole Bible, then (again, in consistency with HIS beliefs) he would also have to throw out everything else the Bible also said.

I didn't say I believed Gary was right. I said he was being rationally-inconsistent. That's quite a different question.

I don't know where you keep getting the idea that I believe that one thing can invalidate the whole Bible or that I need to throw out everything in it. I would have thought I was pretty clear about that when I said that there are good things in the Bible too, such as love thy neighbor. There is also wisdom in some places. I mean, what does it mean to "throw out everything"? Does that mean that if I think the flood was only a regional disaster experienced by the early writers of the Bible, then I must therefore believe that it's better to hate thy enemy or something? What does "throw out" mean? Does that mean I believe all things opposite of what the Bible says? I don't understand.

I guess for me the biggest sticking points I have with the Bible are the notion that people will go to hell for not believing in Jesus, and that one must even worship God. Is God that emotionally fragile that he's essentially an egomaniac? As far as consistency, I see inconsistencies in the Bible. For example, God loves us but he's going to send some of us to eternal torment for not stroking his ego? Then there's the problem of there not being concrete proof of God's existence while at the same time unbelievers will be punished. What kind of God would want you to believe in his existence but at the same time covers his tracks?

[Lacewing]

...you didn't provide confirmation of where I confused a conversation about "rent" (as you claim).

As usual, you want me to go back over old trails that are still available to you anytime you want them, and refer to conversation's we've already played out in full, arriving nowhere. You'll continue to do that, no matter what I say, I'm sure.

A waste of my time. I'm not playing.

It's a waste of your time to ensure that you're being accurate?

I've done a Search of "rent" along with my name, and the last time I spoke about rent was in 2019, and it had nothing to do with you. All of the recent conversations that speak of "rent" are by other people.

So, it appears you are wrong and deliberately avoiding facing the truth, unless you can show otherwise. Your lack of effort to demonstrate any integrity is pathetic.

[Lacewing]

Talking with you isn't always worth the effort.

Who do you talk to here who repays the effort best?

It depends on a combination of things. Sometimes it's possible to have a good back-and-forth discussion with just about anyone here (and I have experienced that) when we use the same language/channel and set aside our agendas for a bit.

Sometimes there's value in questioning/assessing the validity of claims that are posted here, regardless of whether the poster agrees or responds in return.

Mostly, for me, value comes from thinking about things (and the implications of them) without being tied to them. And humor is always a bonus!

[Immanuel Can]

I don't know where you keep getting the idea that I believe that one thing can invalidate the whole Bible...

With all due respect, IC. You must surely be familiar with a lot of contemporary biblical scholarship. For example, December 25th may not even be Christ's birthday but rather a holiday picked up from Pagan traditions by Christianity in order to blend in with the social norms of the day. I mean, come on. Do you really believe the Bible can be interpreted literally any more than the Egyptian book of the dead or any other religious beliefs floating around the middle east prior could?

Then let's go back to evidence for two major stories in the bible (creation and the flood). I believe you stated there was plenty of evidence for those things. Where is all this evidence? Almost nothing in the Bible is backed by contemporary science, last I heard. Everything from the fossil record to the speed of light contradicts the Biblical account. And if it doesn't contradict it, it MOST CERTAINLY doesn't SUPPORT anything in the Bible. What in the bible is substantiated by modern science? I want your words not a bunch of links to go spend all my precious spare time reading. If you know your stuff, then you should be able to explain it in your own words. Just as I have almost always used my own words of understanding in discussing things rather than labor people with unsummarized links and references.

So let's list the things you think should cause people to doubt the Bible...Christmas, other ancient books, the creation, the flood, etc....the speed of light...science...

They're not at all problems actually. But my point is simple: even if you doubt all of these things, what's your point?

I'll let you tell me; because clearly, it's not evident what it would be.

[Immanuel Can]

I've done a Search of "rent" along with my name, and the last time I spoke about rent was in 2019, and it had nothing to do with you. All of the recent conversations that speak of "rent" are by other people.

I'll check. My memory is that it was you...but if it wasn't, I apologize.

[Immanuel Can]

I've done a Search of "rent" along with my name, and the last time I spoke about rent was in 2019, and it had nothing to do with you. All of the recent conversations that speak of "rent" are by other people.

I'll check. My memory is that it was you...but if it wasn't, I apologize.

I have now checked. You are right...I was wrong. It was Flash. I do apologize.

[Lacewing]

I have now checked. You are right...I was wrong. It was Flash. I do apologize.

Thank you.

[Lacewing]

I don't get your response, Gary...did you read the verse? It says,

“For God so loved the world, that He gave His only Son, so that everyone who believes in Him will not perish, but have eternal life."

You see "guilt" in that? I see no indictment at all. It looks to me like a free promise that God loves us, and offers us eternal life, if we only trust Him to do it.

God doesn't need to say any of that unless it's to coerce us.

Really?

So for you, "God loves the world" actually means "God coerces the world"?

No, it's men who coerce through their stories of God -- as I explained in my post, but which you selectively omitted (as you typically do) so that you could use your "shock" face as if there were no other explanation provided.

[Immanuel Can]

No, it's men who coerce through their stories of God

Okay, men coerce.

But it's not evident how telling somebody they're "loved" by God amounts to "guilt" or "coercion."

[Alexis Jacobi]

I've done a Search of "rent" along with my name, and the last time I spoke about rent was in 2019, and it had nothing to do with you. All of the recent conversations that speak of "rent" are by other people.

I'll check. My memory is that it was you...but if it wasn't, I apologize.

I have now checked. You are right...I was wrong. It was Flash. I do apologize.

For everything? Month after month after month? Or just for that?

[Lacewing]

No, it's men who coerce through their stories of God

Okay, men coerce.

But it's not evident how telling somebody they're "loved" by God amounts to "guilt" or "coercion."

Because the love is described as being demonstrated by a huge sacrifice, which supposedly provides a great gift if one believes in God because of it, or no gift if one rejects it.