Was Hitler as bad as some make him out to be?

[Fairy]

Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

When you have never experienced the experience of being born in the first place. Do you ever think about that?

But then you might think..' I have witnessed the birth of someone else '. But can you that has never experienced the experience of your own birth ever witness the birth of another who they themself are never in any position to experience their own birth either.

See how ridiculous it is to assume there could ever be such an experience as the birth or death of a someone?

[Immanuel Can]

Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

Do you know what "genetic" means?

[Fairy]

Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...

Do you have any idea of what you are talking about?

Do you know what "genetic" means?

It means genetic.

[Iwannaplato]

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

Wait, you're saying that people all fall short of the glory of an omnicient, omnipotent being and if they don't do the right things before they die, it is ok that they are tortured for all eternity?

I'm saying something much simpler and more direct, something that C.S. Lewis put well:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done' – and those to whom God says in the end, 'Okay, thy will be done. ' All who are in hell choose it."

We will all get exactly what we choose: an eternity with God, or an eternity without. And what kind of person complains that he has been given too much of exactly what he asked to get?

So, we should follow the exact words of the Bible...and add in C.S. Lewis' interpretations when we are faced with problems? Does the Bible say which not yet alive interpreters we Christians should turn to?

And C:S. Lewis manages to think this is the best system his deity could have come up with, where there was this horrible option and where he knew people would opt for that. He make them imagio dei, but, well there were design flaws, or it was intentional that some would opt to be tortured forever.

Hey, they chose to suffer for all eternity. I could stop it, but nah, I'll keep it going.

So, it's a passive aggressive monstrous sadist rather than one who takes more responsibility for eternal torture.

[Immanuel Can]

Wait, you're saying that people all fall short of the glory of an omnicient, omnipotent being and if they don't do the right things before they die, it is ok that they are tortured for all eternity?

I'm saying something much simpler and more direct, something that C.S. Lewis put well:

“There are only two kinds of people in the end: those who say to God, 'Thy will be done' – and those to whom God says in the end, 'Okay, thy will be done. ' All who are in hell choose it."

We will all get exactly what we choose: an eternity with God, or an eternity without. And what kind of person complains that he has been given too much of exactly what he asked to get?

So, we should follow the exact words of the Bible...and add in C.S. Lewis' interpretations when we are faced with problems?

I didn't say you should "add in" anything at all. I was only saying that Lewis put concisely, in modern language, what is true. We all get to choose. Some choose well, some choose badly. That's what it means to "have the choice." It means that you can choose the right thing, but you are also permitted not to choose it, or to choose the opposite.

If you have another meaning for "choice," one in which there is only one 'option,' I guess you'll have to explain how that would be possible.

[Iwannaplato]

I didn't say you should "add in" anything at all.

Well, you added it in. You didn't turn to the Bible. We've got modern language versions of that and I can do fine with the not so modern ones.

I was only saying that Lewis put concisely, in modern language, what is true.

We all get to choose. Some choose well, some choose badly. That's what it means to "have the choice." It means that you can choose the right thing, but you are also permitted not to choose it, or to choose the opposite.

If you have another meaning for "choice," one in which there is only one 'option,' I guess you'll have to explain how that would be possible.
[/quote]
Yup. No response to the issue of a deity setting it up so fallible humans could choose, in CS Lewis' theology, could choose to suffer for all time. That he chose to make humans who would end up forever tortured.

Now you riase this issue of 'choice' as if it has much to do with my post.

What the loving father allows his children to choose.

There are quotes in the Bible that support CS Lewis and others that not.

And they all beg the question of why a deity would create fallible creatures where some will be tortured for all time and he will leave them there.

[Immanuel Can]

I was only saying that Lewis put concisely, in modern language, what is true.We all get to choose. Some choose well, some choose badly. That's what it means to "have the choice." It means that you can choose the right thing, but you are also permitted not to choose it, or to choose the opposite.

If you have another meaning for "choice," one in which there is only one 'option,' I guess you'll have to explain how that would be possible.

Yup. No response to the issue of a deity setting it up so fallible humans could choose,

There is no "issue," so far as I can see. If you'd rather be a robot with no options, I guess you can make yourself that...or try to. I won't stop you.

That's your choice.

[Harbal]

No, it means Adam fell, and you fell. You have enough of your own choices to answer for, obviously, as do we all. But our sin-inclined nature, that, we inherit. That's just a biological fact. Your genetics come from two people -- your parents. Likewise, theirs. You might want to be somebody else's descendent, but wanting won't make it happen. Ultimately, we all come from a fallen man and woman...nobody else.

And what do most of us do that is so awful it deserves to be talked of as "sinful" and "fallen"?

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

So, basically, I am doing something "sinful" just by existing? It seems that no matter what we do, we are "sinners", but we are not entitled to be told what our "sin" is, or what is so dreadful about it. How can anybody accept that? We were talking about Stalin not long back, well that was precisely his approach to dominating the masses.

[Iwannaplato]

I was only saying that Lewis put concisely, in modern language, what is true.We all get to choose. Some choose well, some choose badly. That's what it means to "have the choice." It means that you can choose the right thing, but you are also permitted not to choose it, or to choose the opposite.

If you have another meaning for "choice," one in which there is only one 'option,' I guess you'll have to explain how that would be possible.

Yup. No response to the issue of a deity setting it up so fallible humans could choose,

There is no "issue," so far as I can see. If you'd rather be a robot with no options, I guess you can make yourself that...or try to. I won't stop you.

That's your choice.

False dilemma. The options could, for example, lead to purgatory like afterlives, where one eventually learns from the mistake or can. We can have choice without enternal damnation. This isn't tough to work out for a mere human and it should be easier for a loving deity.

And I notice that you continue to avoid responded to the issue I raised.

God is not limited to making a universe with a Hell and making humans that will choose eternal torture. That's the best idea of a deity you could come up with. A deity so weak, cruel or nuts that that is the best metaphysics he could come up with. And we can reverse those. What kind of loving all powerful being can only manage to come up with a set up where fallible humans, some of them, will get tortured for all eternity. If we listen to you, any other solution means we have no choice. That's just plain poverty of imagination or heart.

[Immanuel Can]

And what do most of us do that is so awful it deserves to be talked of as "sinful" and "fallen"?

You tell me. I haven't been there when you've done what you've done. However, "all have sinned, and fall short of the glory of God," says the Bible; and experience indicates that's quite true. I have never met anyone, including myself, of whom it was NOT true.

So, basically, I am doing something "sinful" just by existing?

Of course not. The reason you exist is that you were made by God. How could that be bad?

That being said, you were born the same nature as other humans, unless I miss my guess. And it doesn't take a normal person very long to have sins of his own. The problem turns out to be the kind of nature that tends that way, rather than just the question of which particular sins there are, and how bad each one is. It turns out we're not actually the right kind of beings to be in relationship with God. We could have been, but now we're not. Some serious reno work is required if that were ever to be possible.

That's the real, deeper meaning of "salvation." It doesn't just mean to be "let out of Hell," or something like that. It means to be delivered from the guilt, progressively from the nature, and eventually the presence of sin.

But that's all theological, and I know you don't like that. So I'll forebear further elaboration. You have just enough here to answer the question you actually posed.

[Immanuel Can]

Yup. No response to the issue of a deity setting it up so fallible humans could choose,

There is no "issue," so far as I can see. If you'd rather be a robot with no options, I guess you can make yourself that...or try to. I won't stop you.

That's your choice.

False dilemma.

There's no dilemma. It's really quite clear.

God is not limited to making a universe with a Hell and making humans that will choose eternal torture.

Logically, He's limited in two ways: one, that there can be no such things as free will or choice if persons have no option but to comply with the best; and two, that if a person rejects Him, and God honours that choice, that entails that no vestige or trace of God is any longer imposed on that person. He has his demand: that God should be nothing to him. And there's no logical way it can be avoided.

Unfortunately, God is also, as the Bible says, "the Giver of all good gifts." (James) With the expulsion of God from the rebel's universe, so go all good gifts...life, light, love, joy, peace, meaning, rightness, purity, health, liberty...for one who has rejected God, nothing good is left -- for all goods are derived from our relationship with the Great Source of Good, God Himself.

And that is the primary way in which the Bible talks about Hell...as a place of separation. The metaphors of darkness, aloneness, regret...these are not tortures...these are the natural and ineluctable consequences of rejection of God. An existence without the Giver has nothing left in it.

Who would want that? Nobody, I hope. And the Bible says that "God is not willing that any should perish, but that all should come to repentance." So God would prefer that that should not be, either. But free will entails it, and that result is nothing other than God giving full respect to the free will of a free individual, without which, relationship would be logically impossible anyway.

Those who wish to be forever without God get their desire, just as Lewis said. And we can't cry about getting exactly what we bargained to get. That's the price of being a free individual.

[Harbal]

So, basically, I am doing something "sinful" just by existing?

Of course not. The reason you exist is that you were made by God. How could that be bad?

Well, apparently, it's bad because, like everyone else, I have a "sin inclined nature", but, as you have just said yourself, I was made by God, so why is my sin inclined nature my responsibility, rather than God's? After all, he made me that way, and I had absolutely no say in it.

And it doesn't take a normal person very long to have sins of his own. The problem turns out to be the kind of nature that tends that way, rather than just the question of which particular sins there are, and how bad each one is.

But what the sins are is very relevant, and what is bad about them is also relevant. I have known you to describe some things as sinful, but that I am unable to see anything at all wrong with, and it isn't enough to be told I should accept that they are wrong with no explanation as to why.

It turns out we're not actually the right kind of beings to be in relationship with God.

For once we are in total agreement, and that is the second main reason why I wouldn't dream of considering cultivating a relationship with God. The first main reason being, of course, that I don't believe in God's existence.

We could have been, but now we're not. Some serious reno work is required if that were ever to be possible.

Well, speaking as an outsider, I would say that work is for God to do. I mean, faulty goods are the responsibility of the manufacturer.

That's the real, deeper meaning of "salvation." It doesn't just mean to be "let out of Hell," or something like that. It means to be delivered from the guilt, progressively from the nature, and eventually the presence of sin.

I've done lots of things during the course of my life that I feel guilty about, but none of those things can be undone, so how can there be salvation from the guilt, and what sort of person would I be to convince myself that I could somehow shed it? Guilt is the price we pay for anything that genuinely deserves the name of sin, and the only forgiveness worth having has to come from those we have sinned against.

But that's all theological, and I know you don't like that. So I'll forebear further elaboration. You have just enough here to answer the question you actually posed.

I thank you for your response, but no, I'm afraid you have answered nothing.

[Immanuel Can]

So, basically, I am doing something "sinful" just by existing?

Of course not. The reason you exist is that you were made by God. How could that be bad?

Well, apparently, it's bad because, like everyone else, I have a "sin inclined nature", but, as you have just said yourself, I was made by God, so why is my sin inclined nature my responsibility, rather than God's? After all, he made me that way, and I had absolutely no say in it.

You need to read Genesis before you try to comment on it. Mankind was created innocent, and chose rebellion. It wasn't the other way around.

And it doesn't take a normal person very long to have sins of his own. The problem turns out to be the kind of nature that tends that way, rather than just the question of which particular sins there are, and how bad each one is.

But what the sins are is very relevant, and what is bad about them is also relevant.

The words "rather than just" should haver perhaps alerted you to that.

We could have been, but now we're not. Some serious reno work is required if that were ever to be possible.

Well, speaking as an outsider, I would say that work is for God to do.

So would He. But many people are not willing that the work should be done. And they are free to choose.

That's the real, deeper meaning of "salvation." It doesn't just mean to be "let out of Hell," or something like that. It means to be delivered from the guilt, progressively from the nature, and eventually the presence of sin.

I've done lots of things during the course of my life that I feel guilty about, but none of those things can be undone, so how can there be salvation from the guilt,

Because all sins are ultimately against God.

Think about it: if there's no God, there is also no "sin" in doing anything at all to another person. But if there is, then to abuse that person whom God has created is an offense against the person, but also an offense against the Creator.

Guilt is the price we pay for anything that genuinely deserves the name of sin,..

It is. But you've already said that you don't believe in objective right and wrong, so for you, there's no such thing as "sin." Therefore, if you ever feel guilty, it's a price you may pay, but it's not one for which you can explain to yourself why your're paying it.

[Harbal]

Of course not. The reason you exist is that you were made by God. How could that be bad?

Well, apparently, it's bad because, like everyone else, I have a "sin inclined nature", but, as you have just said yourself, I was made by God, so why is my sin inclined nature my responsibility, rather than God's? After all, he made me that way, and I had absolutely no say in it.

You need to read Genesis before you try to comment on it. Mankind was created innocent, and chose rebellion. It wasn't the other way around.

Man didn't choose his nature, so whether he got it through evolution, or directly from God, he just has to do what he can with it. The process is called civilisation, which, as I see it, means overcoming what God saddled us with. I have actually started reading Genesis at least twice, just out of curiosity. I don't think I managed more than a page. If it has meaning for you, all well and good, but I found it meaningless drivel.

But what the sins are is very relevant, and what is bad about them is also relevant.

The words "rather than just" should haver perhaps alerted you to that.

I don't know what you mean.

Well, speaking as an outsider, I would say that work is for God to do.

So would He. But many people are not willing that the work should be done. And they are free to choose.

It couldn't be any clearer that I have made a choice, so your continual reminders that I have one are obviously not necessary.

I've done lots of things during the course of my life that I feel guilty about, but none of those things can be undone, so how can there be salvation from the guilt,

Because all sins are ultimately against God.

Even if I believed in God, I would disagree with that. I accept being held to account for anything I've done wrong, but only by those who I have wronged, and also by myself.

Think about it: if there's no God, there is also no "sin" in doing anything at all to another person.

No, you think about the implications of that. If you don't believe that harming other people is wrong in its own right, it means you are deficient in common human decency. Having God as your only reason for not hurting others is nothing to be proud of.

But if there is, then to abuse that person whom God has created is an offense against the person, but also an offense against the Creator.

No it isn't. People should not be possessions, they belong to themselves, ask henry quirk.

Actually, if henry challenges me on that comment, I don't know how I'm going to reconcile it with all the stuff I've said to him.

Guilt is the price we pay for anything that genuinely deserves the name of sin,..

It is. But you've already said that you don't believe in objective right and wrong, so for you, there's no such thing as "sin."

Although I do think "sin" is a stupid word, along with "evil", I do believe in right and wrong, and no less for knowing that there is no external fact outside of my own moral sense that it corresponds with. Despite your lame arguments to diminish it, the impulse to comply with a subjective feeling is stronger than that to follow someone else's rule.

Therefore, if you ever feel guilty, it's a price you may pay, but it's not one for which you can explain to yourself why your're paying it.

It's only my internal chemistry that causes the feelings of guilt that I can't explain, but that does not incline me to quibble with the bill.

[Age]

I never ever thought I had disagreed.

Oh, but you did. Both about steps in the process and the whole thing. How odd you don't remember disagreeing.

But I never disagrees.

This is another example how your own assumptions get in the way if what the actual Truth is.

But, what you are actually referring to here no one knows. Besides you, of course.

Are you kidding? Integration processes have been described by Jung, Perls. Moreno, and many other psychologists and other kinds of practitioners, and then in integrative spiritual approaches, shamanism and more. Once again, if you don't understand, no one understands. Habitual binary thinking and univeralization. I can see how you end up with these negative judgments of human beings.

you really cannot let go of and get rid of this extremely wrong habit of yours here, can you?

Projection.

What was the suppressed and judged part? What was your judgment of it?
What was it like when you allowed it to express?
What is it like now that it is integrated?

Are you even aware of what the example is, exactly, that proved the opposite True?

Are you even aware how poorly you communicate? It is often to the degree that one wonders if you actually want to communicate or perhaps you just want to 'confirm' your own judgments of people. But people haven't often in real life and online had problems with the way you communicate and to a severe degree. It's other people's fault, not yours.

And, are you even aware that 'the example' actually proved the opposite of what you said and claimed, is what is True?

Are you even aware that you are aware of the disagreements we had, but you asked the question for no good reason? Are you aware of why you do this? Could it related to the need to correct and make negative judgments of humans beings? Could this relate to what you have experienced in your past.? Is it possible that the spirituality like approach you have relates to your particular neurouniqueness and that other people could have equally valid ways of thinking of identity and healing? My sense is you cannot consider this. What you want is what everyone wants, they just don't know it.

And you seem think you are unique, unaware how many practitioners of very similar disidentification systems there are out there.