Christianity

[henry quirk]

That has nothing to do with whether I can, or can't, express my opinions.

AJ, if you could tell me what my perspective is, and why I'm lost in it, and why my opinions, drawn from that perspective, are irrelevant and unimportant, you would have, lickety-split, and you'd have relished doin' so.

You haven't preferring instead to play the distraction game (an old, obvious, strategy).

We both know what that means.

Prove me wrong: tell me, what's my perspective, AJ?

Ah, dear hq, you won with this tactic the first time. You, alone, secreted from AJ a list of that which is valuable in Christianity. But he's onto you now. You need a new tactic...

It's not a tactic. The son of bitch made a claim and used me for his lil dog & pony show. I want him to back up his claim. He hasn't, probably won't, cuz he can't.

[Harry Baird]

It's not a tactic.

Fair enough. I guess it could alternatively just be seen as "the honest, direct, assertive, and up-front way to handle such matters".

The son of bitch made a claim and used me for his lil dog & pony show. I want him to back up his claim. He hasn't, probably won't, cuz he can't.

Yeah, it seems doubtful at this point.

[Nick_A]

What is your aim?

First, that my kid grows to be a free man (moral, self-directing, self-reliant, self-responsible)

Second, that I should remain a free man.

Third (optional today, perhaps mandatory tomorrow), that every last son of a bitch who looks to apply the leash to anyone gets exactly what he deserves. a quick death and a shallow grave

What is freedom? It can refer to outer freedom or the freedom for our personality to achieve its aims as you've described. It can also refer to inner freedom or freedom from what keeps us as prisoners to cave life in Plato's Cave attached and reacting to societal conditioning. I person may believe they are free to kill others by flying planes into buildings. The freedom to do something doesn't negate the freedom not to do it.

I'm not being critical but just suggesting that the concept of freedom is not as simple as normally believed

[Immanuel Can]

What you've said is that you don't like the your depiction of a quasi-Catholic Hell, because it seems unfair to the standards you hold.

No, you manipulative spinner, that's not what I've said. Go back and reread.

Okay, Harry: I'll honour your demand.

These are your words, found by going back:

Yep, the stories some dudes wrote down thousands of years ago which some other dudes told you were true - God's revelation no less - which was good enough for you. The story is utterly contradictory,

Problem: no contradiction. You don't like the 'story.'

You say it's from "thousands of years ago," which is correct but irrelevant, and devoid of "contradictions."

You add that you assume (wrongly) I got it from "some other dudes." But if I had, that also wouldn't imply any "contradiction." You say you don't want to believe it's "God's revelation." But there's no "contradiction" in doing so.

So why don't you just answer the question: where's the "contradiction"?

[henry quirk]

Fair enough. I guess it could alternatively just be seen as "the honest, direct, assertive, and up-front way to handle such matters".

I got nuthin' against strategy & tactics (I do take offense when the execution is ham-handed): but, in this matter, I ain't playin' chess. I've been fucked with and I'm lookin' for AJ to make it right. He won't, of course. So I'll settle for havin' made the formal complaint, and I'll write the lil p**** off as exactly that: a lil p****.

(gotta love the schizophrenia of the forum: I can call AJ a son of bitch, but I can't call him a p-r-i-c-k)

[Harry Baird]

What you've said is that you don't like the your depiction of a quasi-Catholic Hell, because it seems unfair to the standards you hold.

No, you manipulative spinner, that's not what I've said. Go back and reread.

Okay, Harry: I'll honour your demand.

These are your words, found by going back:

Yep, the stories some dudes wrote down thousands of years ago which some other dudes told you were true - God's revelation no less - which was good enough for you. The story is utterly contradictory,

Problem: no contradiction.

You're fundamentally dishonest. Those are quite obviously not the words in question.

So, let's get to the point another way. Question for you:

Is it loving to condemn a person to an eternity of a hell which is, in your own words, "considerably worse than most people can even imagine"?

Yes/no answer preferred.

[henry quirk]

What is freedom?

As I say: (to be, to remain) moral, self-directing, self-reliant, self-responsible.

Some schmuck flyin' a stolen plane into a buildin' fulla folks cuz he's jihadin' and wants his 70 plus virgins in the afterlife ain't moral, and he's probably not self-directin', -reliant, or -responsible either.

He's a schmuck, a slave, wrong-headed, a mad dog.

I'm not being critical

Please, be critical: my skin is thick.

[Nick_A]

A reasonable faith would require a person to appreciate Meister Eckhart's observation. As we are, we argue about what to do. Who bothers with what we are? That is why nothing changes.

“People should not worry so much about what they do but rather about what they are. If they and their ways are good, then their deeds are radiant. If you are righteous, then what you do will also be righteous. We should not think that holiness is based on what we do but rather on what we are, for it is not our works which sanctify us but we who sanctified our works.”

Ah, but what he doesn't say is how one is supposed to become a different kind of person than one already is.

And that's the problem for the secular person...he is compelled only, ever to be what he is. He cannot be otherwise, nor can he imagine how to be otherwise.

What we need is rescue from what we are. And simply trying to reform out own deeds will not do it.

The great question of metanoia and being born from above. The secular person has not experienced it so cannot understand it. If you have; it is a gift

https://www.spiritual-teaching.org/hind ... art-2.html

[henry quirk]

Is it loving to condemn a person to an eternity of...hell(?)

Better question: is it right, after a lifetime of warnings, pleadings, and explanations, to let a person suffer the consequences of their bad choices?

Of course it is.

I mean, jeez, what is it that's so hard to grasp? God, as envisioned by Christians lays it out for everyone, for anyone...

1 I am the Lord your God, who brought you out of the land of Egypt, out of the house of bondage. You shall have no other gods before Me.

2 You shall not make for yourself a carved image, or any likeness of anything that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath, or that is in the water under the earth; you shall not bow down to them nor serve them. For I, the Lord your God, am a jealous God, visiting the iniquity of the fathers on the children to the third and fourth generations of those who hate Me, but showing mercy to thousands, to those who love Me and keep My Commandments.

3 You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain, for the Lord will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain.

4 Remember the Sabbath day, to keep it holy. Six days you shall labor and do all your work, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord your God. In it you shall do no work: you, nor your son, nor your daughter, nor your male servant, nor your female servant, nor your cattle, nor your stranger who is within your gates. For in six days the Lord made the heavens and the earth, the sea, and all that is in them, and rested the seventh day. Therefore the Lord blessed the Sabbath day and hallowed it.

5 Honor your father and your mother, that your days may be long upon the land which the Lord your God is giving you.

6 You shall not murder.

7 You shall not commit adultery.

8 You shall not steal.

9 You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor.

10 You shall not covet your neighbor's house; you shall not covet your neighbor's wife, nor his male servant, nor his female servant, nor his ox, nor his donkey, nor anything that is your neighbor's.

Even a heathen like me gets it.

[Harry Baird]

Is it loving to condemn a person to an eternity of...hell(?)

Better question: is it right, after a lifetime of warnings, pleadings, and explanations, to let a person suffer the consequences of their bad choices?

Nah, that's not a better question, it just avoids the question.

When you're an omnipotent God, you choose the consequences. The consequences proposed by IC (and Christians of his ilk) to have been chosen by an omnipotent God are so obviously beyond any sense of proportionality that they cannot in any way be considered to be attributable to a loving Being.

[henry quirk]

When you're an omnipotent God...

...who created a specific kind of Reality peopled with free wills, your hands are tied. Sure, He could step in...and violate free will, negate Reality, make choice meanigless (in other words, render the whole grand exercise meaningless).

No, even a (potentially) hell-bound deist like me gets it, gets the Christian God (cuz, in this matter, He's just like my God).

Change Christian to God and secular person to free will...

FC29C3AE-3035-4E32-815C-C7A60D86A553.jpeg

As for the proportionality of the punishment (eternally separated from God, knowing you are the cause of that separation): seems fair to me.

[Harry Baird]

As for the proportionality of the punishment (eternally separated from God, knowing you are the cause of that separation): seems fair to me.

It's not remotely fair when it entails eternal suffering that is "considerably worse than most people can even imagine". There are all sorts of alternative possibilities that a loving, omnipotent God could (would) choose.

[Alexis Jacobi]

It's not a tactic. The son of bitch made a claim and used me for his lil dog & pony show. I want him to back up his claim. He hasn't, probably won't, cuz he can't.

That is an intentionally nasty description. I said before “You are looking for a fight”. Seek that where you find those who will meet you on your level.

To me ‘intellectual and culture war battle’ must be light, luminous, delicate as feathers circling down, and with politeness, panache and for heaven’s sake humor. Beat them to a bloody pulp but then help them up telling them how nice their tie looks or now nicely punctuated their last ‘post’ was . . .

For me to engage with you you could begin if you choose by engaging with the question I asked. Making demands will result in getting nothing. Acting that was presupposes the slave-abuse you so detest.

What do you think of my entire presentation in respect to IC and Christianity generally? What about Hebrew idea-imperialism?

What figure in today’s world could you present as a “free man”?

[Harry Baird]

Is it loving to condemn a person to an eternity of...hell(?)

Better question: is it right, after a lifetime of warnings, pleadings, and explanations, to let a person suffer the consequences of their bad choices?

Nah, that's not a better question, it just avoids the question.

Getting back to this: hq, if you're intent on engaging, then please directly answer the original question (yes/no preferred). That's only fair, right?

[Lacewing]

To me, it looks like I.C.'s declarations of "you'll see" are a way to save face.

Well, if that were true, you'd never know. You wouldn't be around to tell...and neither of us would have a "face" to save.

But if I'm right, we're both going to know.

So I'll see you when you know. Prepare the day.

I'm living a spiritual experience and I'm at peace with all of it right now. I'm mindful and intentional every moment. There is nothing to prepare for upon/after my death -- what a ridiculous notion! You believe too many stories.