Gary's Corner

[Iwannaplato]

Well, it's an odd kind of "torture" that people choose. And they do. They choose all the time to dismiss the Source of all goodness, happiness, health, life, joy and light, and embrace...what?...the opposite, of course.

That source would not make a place for them to suffer for eternity. Not a loving source.

In the end, we all get exactly what we choose.

That's what people say about those taken by the dictators they support. You judge those who look with lust, but not those who look with equanimity on those suffering for eternity - not that this happens, but you would if it were so.

That's not quite what the Sermon on the Mount says.

That's fine. I noticed what you said. You just listed lust.

It doesn't condemn "feeling it," but rather indulging in "looking after to lust after." In other words, it's the fantasizing and indulging of the perverted imagination that's toxic, not merely the momentary feeling of attraction.

Now, that may still seem odd to you. But maybe that's because our sense of sin is a little less refined and accurate than that of the Supreme Being.

Or maybe it's an old misunderstanding, the whole punished for all time thing.

Or maybe we just like excusing the things we ourselves choose to indulge in, and condemn others who choose different sins.

If that's what you find in yourself, no need to project it on others.

The God you imagine does not seem to realize that non-psychopaths suffer excesses over time. They don't need the threat of eternal hell or punishment for sins. Yours is a Zero Sum God with little actual faith in his own creations. It's a form of self-hatred which is an odd thing for a loving God to have.

[Immanuel Can]

Well, it's an odd kind of "torture" that people choose. And they do. They choose all the time to dismiss the Source of all goodness, happiness, health, life, joy and light, and embrace...what?...the opposite, of course.

That source would not make a place for them to suffer for eternity. Not a loving source.

Yes, I know. It's the old canard -- that if God is "loving" he condemns nobody. But if God is "just," then he ought to condemn Hitler, Stalin, Mao, and all my enemies, but never me.

Hell is a choice. People choose what they get. After all, what could a place with no relationship to God in it be, but Hell?

Or maybe we just like excusing the things we ourselves choose to indulge in, and condemn others who choose different sins.

If that's what you find in yourself, no need to project it on others.

Oh, I think we all have it in us.

[Gary Childress]

What can I say. God gave me desire for women, apparently so he can watch me struggle with it and condemn me for it. I'd be happy not to desire women. I don't desire men sexually. If I felt the same way about women, I wouldn't mind at all because it wouldn't frustrate me if I don't desire them.

[phyllo]

I'd be happy not to desire women. I don't desire men sexually.

If you're thinking of trannies, the vast majority are not as good looking as real women.

Just saying.

[Gary Childress]

I'd be happy not to desire women. I don't desire men sexually.

If you're thinking of trannies, the vast majority are not as good looking as real women.

Just saying.

My point was that it is not out of the question that I could have been created not to fawn over nude women. God chose differently, so I struggle with it. Obviously, since I don't fawn over males sexually, God could have made me whereas I don't fawn over women sexually either. Therefore, I don't see myself as particularly bad or deserving of punishment for following an impulse God clearly must have given us. What kind of judge dangles a Playboy in front of a guy and then condemns them for getting a woody?

[Impenitent]

I'd be happy not to desire women. I don't desire men sexually.

If you're thinking of trannies, the vast majority are not as good looking as real women.

Just saying.

not even Tim Curry... (I think he knows that as well)

-Imp

[Iwannaplato]

I'd be happy not to desire women. I don't desire men sexually.

If you're thinking of trannies, the vast majority are not as good looking as real women.

Just saying.

My point was that it is not out of the question that I could have been created not to fawn over nude women. God chose differently, so I struggle with it. Obviously, since I don't fawn over males sexually, God could have made me whereas I don't fawn over women sexually either. Therefore, I don't see myself as particularly bad or deserving of punishment for following an impulse God clearly must have given us. What kind of judge dangles a Playboy in front of a guy and then condemns them for getting a woody?

This is one area where the Abrahamic religions show their real hatred of humans: sex and bodies and desire. There are issues with sex in the less nastily judgmental Hinduism, certainly in Buddhism, but all the currently huge religions are quite different from indigenous, animist/shamanic/pagan religions in this area. Yes, why built in guilt, shame and self-hatred as givens? What loving deity would do that?

[Gary Childress]

If you're thinking of trannies, the vast majority are not as good looking as real women.

Just saying.

My point was that it is not out of the question that I could have been created not to fawn over nude women. God chose differently, so I struggle with it. Obviously, since I don't fawn over males sexually, God could have made me whereas I don't fawn over women sexually either. Therefore, I don't see myself as particularly bad or deserving of punishment for following an impulse God clearly must have given us. What kind of judge dangles a Playboy in front of a guy and then condemns them for getting a woody?

This is one area where the Abrahamic religions show their real hatred of humans: sex and bodies and desire. There are issues with sex in the less nastily judgmental Hinduism, certainly in Buddhism, but all the currently huge religions are quite different from indigenous, animist/shamanic/pagan religions in this area. Yes, why built in guilt, shame and self-hatred as givens? What loving deity would do that?

The Buddha, as depicted in some lore, seems very gentle and understanding. It would be nice if God were like that, but I wouldn't call the God I've read about in the Bible a gentle and understanding God.

[Iwannaplato]

The Buddha, as depicted in some lore, seems very gentle and understanding. It would be nice if God were like that, but I wouldn't call the God I've read about in the Bible a gentle and understanding God.

Jesus can be, but not always. Yes, some depictions of the Buddha make him seem kind and understanding. But he's not really a God, and the religion, well it's got it's judgmental side, but it comes mainly through the training and the community. It's not in the texts and art.

[Gary Childress]

The Buddha, as depicted in some lore, seems very gentle and understanding. It would be nice if God were like that, but I wouldn't call the God I've read about in the Bible a gentle and understanding God.

Jesus can be, but not always. Yes, some depictions of the Buddha make him seem kind and understanding. But he's not really a God, and the religion, well it's got it's judgmental side, but it comes mainly through the training and the community. It's not in the texts and art.

Jesus is often depicted as gentle and understanding but I must admit, some of the images are not so flattering such as with the fig tree that didn't bear him fruit and the way he handled the Pharisees in the temple seems a bit unsophisticated for a divine being. One would hope that God would make everyone peaceful and gentle in his presence but Jesus seemed to be largely uninterested in pacifying elites. I suspect Jesus' mannerism could rather easily be aped by a mortal. Nothing ultimately out of the ordinarily divine about him to my reckoning.

[Immanuel Can]

...some of the images are not so flattering such as with the fig tree that didn't bear him fruit...

Honestly, I'm amazed at how superficial some of these cynical canards are. Can you possibly be unaware that things like this have been well-explained long ago, and multiple times, by many, many different theologians? Would you even bother with a basic Google search to find out, before you say something so goofy? Do you ever do any research before you shoot off your mouth?

Here: https://www.gotquestions.org/curse-fig-tree.html

Seriously, Gary; do better. It's boring to talk to people who are willfully ignorant of even the basics.

[Iwannaplato]

Jesus is often depicted as gentle and understanding but I must admit, some of the images are not so flattering such as with the fig tree that didn't bear him fruit and the way he handled the Pharisees in the temple seems a bit unsophisticated for a divine being. One would hope that God would make everyone peaceful and gentle in his presence but Jesus seemed to be largely uninterested in pacifying elites. I suspect Jesus' mannerism could rather easily be aped by a mortal. Nothing ultimately out of the ordinarily divine about him to my reckoning.

Personally I like that Jesus was cranky at times - that's a lot better than Yahweh's attitude - and human. That the divine can have a range of emotions without being homicidal is positive to me. This puts it above the training/goals of Buddhism, say for me, implicitly presenting a deity in these emotional ways. And what would it mean about us if God's mere divine presence controlled us completely and automatically. No free will is how a Christian might put their complaint about that. But before I sound like an apologist for Christianity, I'll just say that I think some of the things he said and did caused a lot of problems, and reinforced some toxic kinds of self-relation.

[Walker]

...some of the images are not so flattering such as with the fig tree that didn't bear him fruit...

Honestly, I'm amazed at how superficial some of these cynical canards are. Can you possibly be unaware that things like this have been well-explained long ago, and multiple times, by many, many different theologians? Would you even bother with a basic Google search to find out, before you say something so goofy? Do you ever do any research before you shoot off your mouth?

Here: https://www.gotquestions.org/curse-fig-tree.html

Seriously, Gary; do better. It's boring to talk to people who are willfully ignorant of even the basics.

The Mr. Babbitt archetype.

Mr. Babbitt dramatized. (Gray suit)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge-P19KGhME

The don’t make ‘em like this anymore.

[Gary Childress]

Seriously, Gary; do better. It's boring to talk to people who are willfully ignorant of even the basics.

So in other words, according to the passage you cite, Jesus was cursing Israel. How does that change anything I said?

[Gary Childress]

Jesus is often depicted as gentle and understanding but I must admit, some of the images are not so flattering such as with the fig tree that didn't bear him fruit and the way he handled the Pharisees in the temple seems a bit unsophisticated for a divine being. One would hope that God would make everyone peaceful and gentle in his presence but Jesus seemed to be largely uninterested in pacifying elites. I suspect Jesus' mannerism could rather easily be aped by a mortal. Nothing ultimately out of the ordinarily divine about him to my reckoning.

Personally I like that Jesus was cranky at times - that's a lot better than Yahweh's attitude - and human. That the divine can have a range of emotions without being homicidal is positive to me. This puts it above the training/goals of Buddhism, say for me, implicitly presenting a deity in these emotional ways. And what would it mean about us if God's mere divine presence controlled us completely and automatically. No free will is how a Christian might put their complaint about that. But before I sound like an apologist for Christianity, I'll just say that I think some of the things he said and did caused a lot of problems, and reinforced some toxic kinds of self-relation.

Jesus sounds more like a person than the creator of all that is, to me, but maybe that's because he was simply a person, like us, just more spiritual or whatever.