A reason to hate [Archive]

pragmathen

03-10-01, 01:29 AM

Ah, the confines of another's mind which is thrusted onto knowing individuals ...
Religions, specifically Christian-based dogmatic beliefs, give people a reason to hate, a culture to despise, an act to loathe. If a person has pre-marital intercourse, a preternaturally pleasurable experience in its own right, fundamental Christians hasten to tell the sinner that, unless the evil deed is repented of, the sinner's soul is in danger of being cast off/vanquished/insert favorite euphemism here. It does not matter that the individual most likely did not believe that sexual intercourse was a bad act in which to engage. It is assumed that, regardless of the intent of the other, Christians must help the person by denouncing the act. Does this not denounce the person that committed the act? Indeed, it does. Who takes the blame (or credit) for the emotional manipulation in this situation? God, because he's capable of mass justification in the name of his son? The Christian? Pshaw. Just following orders.

From TOOL's Opiate:
<blockquote>
Choices always were a problem for you,
What you need is someone strong to guide you.
</blockquote>

The above quote is to imply that making choices for Christianity is really not a choice in essence. Given the option of doing good for others without an eternal reward, how many Christians would opt for this? They want to do good (and avoid evil) mainly for the reason that they believe that what they endure in this life is not in vain. Rather than strike out on their own and trust their own tremendously subjective consciences, it is far easier to follow what others have put before them.

If God (in the Old Testament) despises homosexual behavior, does that mean that I should as well? What if I don't, wouldn't that imply that I'm going against God? And why is homosexuality wrong/bad/evil while incest (Genesis or the romp described between an inebriated Lot and his daughters) is actually condoned/acceptable/all right in certain circumstances? So, if God thinks it's okay to hate homosexuals, then it must be wrong to think otherwise. Forget if you've had great experiences with other people, despite their sexual preference. Doesn't matter, according to the O.T. God. Homosexual? Wrong.

Ah, yes. How blasphemous of me to forget about the commandment to procreate. If life is so sacred, why was Sodom and Gomorrah destroyed? Because they decided to NOT procreate? Or because they decided to engage in homosexual, and therefore unacceptable, behavior? Or, possibly because they chose not to follow God's commandments: in essence, exercising some free will that they probably thought they had. Nope. Exercising free will that happens to be against God's commandments is not exercising free will. That's disobeying. The only choice is to follow. The alternative (back then, naturally) was death. Great way to get others to worship you as a benevolent being, that accepts you for what you are, regardless of your sexual preference.

Antichrist. Marilyn Manson. Saddam Hussein. Mr Rogers. Presumably, anyone that doesn't adhere to the set guidelines and rules put forth by Christ (and his subsequent para-leaders) falls into this category. Perhaps that's a little too broad. Those that purposely try to dissuade others from a belief in Christ and his teachings becomes an apostate, then graduates into a junior antichrist. The real Antichrist title is apparently reserved for the person that Nostradamus (pun purposely excised) supposedly saw in his vision of the future.

Which brings us to Satan. The scapegoat of Christianity. Continually vigilant in leading astray the would-be followers of Christ. Science? Satan-based. Free-thought? Satan-based. Religion? Sorry, too easy. To assume that Satan is forever trying to thwart the good intentions of others is, by far, the most fantastical scenario ever. Well, perhaps not the most. He commands millions of minions the world over, lives in the middle earth, has access to our facial expressions based on guilt-induced deeds we perform, and holds casual conversations with God (see Job). Can't be that bad of a guy if he's up there chatting with the Almighty, right? Of course, the converse of Christianity is true as well: being a Satan-worshipper is not much of a free-thinking life either.

In order for Christianity to exist (and gain power) it must set forth the things that it hates. Satanism, too.

Now, does this diatribe discount the good that people do? Of course not. This monologue says that when a person does good, they are to blame. And when a person does bad, they are to blame. Not God or Satan in either case.

Naturally, no one's wrong in their belief system (I cannot convince them of that nor can usually anyone else--directly at least), nor is anyone absolutely right. Subjective? Of course. The reason to hate something else lies within ourselves, not on the shoulders of God or Satan. Or Mr Rogers.

tony1

03-10-01, 02:09 AM

What happened?

Did you get caught?

pragmathen

03-10-01, 02:45 PM

Unfortunately, yes. I did get caught. But probably not in the sense you intended. I did not get caught committing some sinful act. Then again, getting caught could imply that it was somehow wrong. Nice one.

The carpet was pulled out from under my exceptionally religious life only to be replaced by a rug of non-beliefs. Which one is the better of the two? Neither. I'm currently in the process (tedious to be sure) of defragmenting my hard drive. Need to weed out the bad clusters and consolidate the good ones. Naturally, this causes a vent to be exposed. Hence, the minor essay: A reason to hate.

Polarities always bring out the most from people. It is very easy to take offense--it almost qualifies as a legitimate leisure activity. Though Eastern in origin, I find it best to redirect that energy into something else. Say, writing.

Thanks for your reply.

Tiassa

03-10-01, 03:14 PM

So I'll just say that my critical mind informs me that your thoughts are expressed in a postmodern format. That, of course, is of no help.

I sometimes think it is about education. Not just in the three-R's way, but in people realizing what ideas are, and what of history, psychology, or other such concepts are present in said ideas. I often mention the economization of ideas; that is, that it is impossible to transmit fully to another person the whole of your experience; hence, the perspective of that other person is still different. The Sufi story of Why the Clay Birds Flew Away nakedly points out that often people forget what certain things are for. I think Christianity has forgotten what it is for because too much gets left out from one generation to the next, and conformity becomes a mechanical exercise instead of the spiritual equity it alleges. Without that spiritual passion, it seems people are reduced to creating their own passions, one of the most frightening is the license to hate things without knowing it.

I've been having fun with the book of Genesis, of late. I mean, God kills Onan for not knocking up his dead brother's wife. But there's also the motivation of what is at stake, from Genesis 3.22-23:
And the LORD God said, Behold, the man is become as one of us, to know good and evil: and now, lest he put forth his hand, and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live for ever:
**
Gen 3:23** Therefore the LORD God sent him forth from the garden of Eden, to till the ground from whence he was taken.
It is absolutely inappropriate that anyone should be equal to the Lord. Of course, it was part of his plan all along to make it even possible to equalize by the eating of fruit. This, of course, from the literalist interpretation.

I'm searching around for an early epistle in which the apologist writer declared that a man in Christ was a new organism entirely; that one cracks me up and I think might be relevant to your diatribe. (Your word ... but I can appreciate a diatribe of that nature ;) )

In the meantime, I wanted to offer a snippet I've come across in the search. You wrote:
It is assumed that, regardless of the intent of the other, Christians must help the person by denouncing the act.
Perhaps this might provide some insight, from the early church document The Epistle to Diognetus:
Diogn 10:6 But whosoever taketh upon himself the burden of his neighbor, whosoever desireth to benefit one that is worse off in that in which he himself is superior, whosoever by supplying to those that are in want possessions which he received from God becomes a God to those who receive them from him, he is an imitator of God.
If they help your soul, they become God. Or something like that. The concept seems to have survived the intervening period in a relevant form.

But as I noted, there's not much to add, so it would seem I'm merely rambling. :D

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tony1

03-12-01, 12:46 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
Unfortunately, yes. I did get caught. But probably not in the sense you intended. I did not get caught committing some sinful act. Then again, getting caught could imply that it was somehow wrong. Nice one.

Your nickname is rather interesting in that it describes what you're doing.

Look up "anothen" in the NT, and see what it means as compared to what you've been told it means.

It may have some impact on your defragging.

pragmathen

03-13-01, 01:29 AM

<blockquote>
quote (tiassa):
<hr>
But as I noted, there's not much to add, so it would seem I'm merely rambling.
<hr>
</blockquote>

It would not do justice to your words to add anything of my own commentary. Suffice to say, thanks for what you wrote.

As to tony1 ...

<blockquote>
quote (tony1):
<hr>
Your nickname is rather interesting in that it describes what you're doing.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Meta-talk is such an interesting pasttime, you agree?

<blockquote>
quote (tony1):
<hr>
Look up "anothen" in the NT, and see what it means as compared to what you've been told it means.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Hmm. Anothen. Could be a Hebrew derivative? I notice you quote (frequently) from the KJV; any reason as to why it's specifically from this particular version? I'm afraid that I do not have my old copy of the NT on hand at this time. Could you ... enlighten me as to the meaning and its counterpart?

I feel it only just to respond to your challenge with one of my own:

<blockquote>
<hr>
A man throws stones at a monkey in a tree. The monkey is out on a limb. The man is on the ground. The man does not care for the monkey's scrambling along the branches of the tree. Perhaps the man is angry at the monkey because the monkey scrambles along the branches because it can.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Now, what is more courageous? Throwing stones at the monkey out on the limb, or, being out on the limb?

On a different note. You are quite well-informed as to your scriptures. I am very impressed about that (though it means nothing, I'm sure, coming from me). It makes me think that you hold to, possibly, one of two religious persuasions. *Just employing some Sun Tzu philosophy, here*

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that most of your reactions can be quite predictable. A quote here, rhetoric to support the quote, then repeat. (Wait, I forgot the twelve-jibe combo you interject into your comments). What would catch all of us off-guard would be for you to express some inner thoughts without feeling a need to support what you have to say with "inspired" words from the KJV Bible.

Here's something inspired from Psalm 46:
This particular section of Psalms was supposedly translated by Shakespeare. If you count 46 words into this Psalm, you will find the word: shake. If you then count 46 words from the end of this Psalm, you will find the word: spear. Why Psalm 46? Shakespeare was 46 at the time of the translation. Guess that one slipped by the censors.

Naturally, I'm just trying to get you riled up, because discussions are always good. Little jibes here and there can't be all that bad, right? Besides, I could swear that the OT mentions some Mosaic tendencies which are quite obvious in some of your responses. How's that for being cryptic?

Thanks for the discussion,

pragmathen

tony1

03-17-01, 02:48 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
Meta-talk is such an interesting pasttime, you agree?
Sure, but in most cases, it will get you accused of at least three things...
being sarcastic,
being illogical, and
being dense.

Hmm. Anothen. Could be a Hebrew derivative? I notice you quote (frequently) from the KJV; any reason as to why it's specifically from this particular version? I'm afraid that I do not have my old copy of the NT on hand at this time. Could you ... enlighten me as to the meaning and its counterpart?
I'm pretty sure that you must have noticed that your nickname was Greek rather than Hebrew.

KJV is just the version that most people have on hand.

A man throws stones at a monkey in a tree. The monkey is out on a limb. The man is on the ground. The man does not care for the monkey's scrambling along the branches of the tree. Perhaps the man is angry at the monkey because the monkey scrambles along the branches because it can.

Now, what is more courageous? Throwing stones at the monkey out on the limb, or, being out on the limb?
Oddly enough, the monkey is quite at home out on the limb.
Try attacking one member of a herd and if you didn't know it required courage, you'll find out soon enough.

It makes me think that you hold to, possibly, one of two religious persuasions. *Just employing some Sun Tzu philosophy, here*
One good, the other evil?
You've got it narrowed down a lot.

By the way, I couldn't help but notice that most of your reactions can be quite predictable. A quote here, rhetoric to support the quote, then repeat. (Wait, I forgot the twelve-jibe combo you interject into your comments). What would catch all of us off-guard would be for you to express some inner thoughts without feeling a need to support what you have to say with "inspired" words from the KJV Bible.
I'm not here to impress people with how closely I can imitate a spinning top randomly ricocheting off everything it touches.

Here's the reason for the quotes...

So shall my word be that goeth forth out of my mouth: it shall not return unto me void, but it shall accomplish that which I please, and it shall prosper in the thing whereto I sent it.
(Isaiah 55:11, KJV).

My own words may return void, but God's word won't.

Here is one reason I write...

When I say unto the wicked, Thou shalt surely die; and thou givest him not warning, nor speakest to warn the wicked from his wicked way, to save his life; the same wicked man shall die in his iniquity; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Yet if thou warn the wicked, and he turn not from his wickedness, nor from his wicked way, he shall die in his iniquity; but thou hast delivered thy soul.
(Ezekiel 3:18,19, KJV).

Here is another reason I write...

Again, When a righteous man doth turn from his righteousness, and commit iniquity, and I lay a stumblingblock before him, he shall die: because thou hast not given him warning, he shall die in his sin, and his righteousness which he hath done shall not be remembered; but his blood will I require at thine hand.
Nevertheless if thou warn the righteous man, that the righteous sin not, and he doth not sin, he shall surely live, because he is warned; also thou hast delivered thy soul.
(Ezekiel 3:20,21, KJV).

I'm actually fairly self-centered, but here God has given me two ways to deliver my soul.
Thus, in a self-centered way, I can deliver my soul, having zero interest in explaining to God why someone else failed to hear about a warning which I could have given.

Here's something inspired from Psalm 46... slipped by the censors.
Ooh.

Naturally, I'm just trying to get you riled up, because discussions are always good. Little jibes here and there can't be all that bad, right? Besides, I could swear that the OT mentions some Mosaic tendencies which are quite obvious in some of your responses. How's that for being cryptic?

Riled up? Ha ha.

The OT covers a lot.

pragmathen

03-18-01, 05:31 PM

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by tony1:
Sure, but in most cases, [meta-talk] will get you accused of at least three things...
being sarcastic,
being illogical, and
being dense.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Let's see, sarcasm. None of your posts has that. Illogical. You seem to thrive on interlocutions and a Mobiüs path of thinking in your replies. Dense. You still believe. Hey, tony1, self-deprecation is not unlike you, but you don't have to unload on me.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Oddly enough, the monkey is quite at home out on the limb.
Try attacking one member of a herd and if you didn't know it required courage, you'll find out soon enough.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Ah, yes. I had forgotten you considered yourself one of the flock. Sheep, right? Supposed to be rather intelligent and belligerent in getting their own way. Wait a sec. My mistake. You said "herd." Like as in cattle? A very apt description of your situation. Devilishly clever, no?

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by pragmathen:
It makes me think that you hold to, possibly, one of two religious persuasions. *Just employing some Sun Tzu philosophy, here*
<hr>

and tony1's response:
<hr>
One good, the other evil?
You've got it narrowed down a lot.
<hr>
</blockquote>

One good, the other evil? Pshaw. How utterly dismissive of you. Is everything the right hand and left hand for you? Actually, the Sun Tzu reference had nothing to do with your religious persuasion. But, then, you wouldn't have read anything that wasn't church-sanctioned, right? God hasn't recently appeared to you in a vision proclaiming that books are a pretty good source of knowledge, regardless of their political or religious inclinations. And, yes, you've been narrowed down a lot.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
I'm actually fairly self-centered, but here God has given me two ways to deliver my soul.
Thus, in a self-centered way, I can deliver my soul, having zero interest in explaining to God why someone else failed to hear about a warning which I could have given.
<hr>
</blockquote>

You? Self-centered? Get out of here. So, even if God required an explanation, you would have zero interest in explaining anything to him on the basis of your ego-centrism? Why, Cain, where have you been? It's been a while.

In one of your other posts, you mentioned that I had never really "left" the fold because I was never a part of it. And you are? I remember in one of your replies to tiassa that you mentioned that, had it been in your pre-Christian days, you would have asked him to pass the joint, but "thank God, I am not in my pre-Christian days [any longer]." Unfortunately, I cannot find the exact post, but it was phrased nearly like that.

So, in your pre-Christian days, what did you think of God? What changed when you found God? My, could it have been what you thought of God? In exchange for (what I'm sure you would deem) your hedonistic sunglasses, you've traded them for your God-coloured glasses, where you see nothing through the haze enamored with the pretense of God but God. "Left" the fold. Absurd to think so, but this could be the one unintentional compliment you've let slip past.

Glad to hear you've joined the fold. Or, blast these semantics! Herd.

tony1

03-18-01, 05:59 PM

Ooo.

pragmathen

03-18-01, 06:09 PM

No, it's Ahhh. More from the back of the throat.

tony1

03-22-01, 02:35 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
No, it's Ahhh. More from the back of the throat.

Is that what vomit tastes like?

For if after they have escaped the pollutions of the world through the knowledge of the Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, they are again entangled therein, and overcome, the latter end is worse with them than the beginning.
For it had been better for them not to have known the way of righteousness, than, after they have known it, to turn from the holy commandment delivered unto them.
But it is happened unto them according to the true proverb, The dog is turned to his own vomit again; and the sow that was washed to her wallowing in the mire.
(2 Peter 2:20-22, KJV).

As a dog returneth to his vomit, so a fool returneth to his folly.
(Proverbs 26:11, KJV).

pragmathen

03-23-01, 11:00 PM

Gee, I'm sorry, tony1, what with your quoting of illustrious biblical passages and unoriginal personal thought, I thought this was Sir Loone responding.

And, if you consider me a fool, perhaps it would be in your best interest not to argue with me.

tony1

03-26-01, 05:06 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
...unoriginal personal thought,...
You may have been looking at your own.
The poster's name appears near the top of the post.

And, if you consider me a fool, perhaps it would be in your best interest not to argue with me.

I don't consider you a fool, but something you read may have given you that idea, perhaps, the word of God.

You seem to view yourself quite highly.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
(Proverbs 16:18, KJV).

You may be of the opinion that not believing the word of God somehow cancels its effectiveness.

To test how that kind of thinking works, try not believing in the law of gravity and see how that works out.

Tiassa

03-26-01, 11:16 PM

To test how that kind of thinking works, try not believing in the law of gravity and see how that works out.
Tony, I can demonstrate gravity. I would like you to demonstrate God.

If you go down to a library, much less a university, you can learn a few equations that tell you what to expect from gravity; this will occur without deviation. If you think you've found a deviation, you probably just haven't learned the equation for it.

You can demonstrate nothing about God.

If you're going to hijack other people's illustrations, for heaven's sake, do it right! Otherwise just go out to the garage and smack yourself a couple of times with a claw hammer; it's about as useful!

--Tiassa :cool:

pragmathen

03-26-01, 11:39 PM

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by tony1
You seem to view yourself quite highly.
Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall.
(Proverbs 16:18, KJV).
<hr>
</blockquote>

I seem to view myself quite highly? And you're saying that's a bad thing, then? Oh. Okay. Because that's totally not the vibe you put out about yourself, tony1. Modesty has to be one of your defining attributes. BTW, there's not some reference to hypocrisy in that Bible of yours, is there?

High and mighty, though. That's the key, because that puts me on equal footing with God, so to speak. Naturally, in my own eyes (just to save you a chance for a funny quip). But, hey, let's say that you and I are not as different as you may believe. Let's say that you know and understand some things on which I can barely keep my head above water. And let's say that, conversely, the same applies to you (not knowing as much as me on a given subject). Great. Now, let it be understood that, despite the fact that we don't see eye to eye on various subjects, it does not negate either of our beliefs. Of course, if you're obstinate, you'll say that just because I believe in something does not make it real (or not real, as in the case of God).

How about this. Karma. Now I know that you cringe when eastern thoughts are brought up because you've been told (even if it was by the Almighty himself) that anything non-Christian is anti-Christian. But what you dish out, essentially, is returned to you. So, though you may be able to dole out words of denigration to various posters (myself included), it should not gall you in the least to receive the same. This is kind of like your quote from the Bible where the "dog returns to its vomit". When you get that bile taste in your mouth after reading a response from a fellow poster, yeah, that's what you dished out initially. When I get that back, I understand it's because of the manner in which I've written my post.

So, with that out of the way, let's get to your words.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
You may be of the opinion that not believing the word of God somehow cancels its effectiveness.

To test how that kind of thinking works, try not believing in the law of gravity and see how that works out.
<hr>
</blockquote>

See, this is what I mean by unoriginal thought. You probably grabbed this analogy straight out of your "How to Win Over non-Christians with the Use and Abuse of Silly Analogies" book you keep just for this purpose in your front shirt pocket.

Where you err, of course, is in the assumption that God exists. God's existence is, at best, dubious. Now, the existence of Gravity, however, is supremely empirical as well as globally accepted. If you let go your hat, it will "fall" to the ground, because Gravity pulls it. This is obvious, what am I doing explaining it to you? Could it be because you've set yourself up for it? How about this test, instead: Try walking across a lake a water to prove your "faith" in God. I know, I know, you don't have to "prove" your faith in God by walking across a lake. Well, tell you what, whether I believe in Gravity or not, I'm proving that Gravity exists each time my body returns to the ground after jumping up for a brief time. You kind of have a most difficult time proving God exists. Well, what about this Bible I've got! Great bookend. Of course, there's your personal experiences with God which is impossible to discount, because they're personal.

So, how about next time when you offer a challenge, be prepared to see the lunacy of your viewpoint. And if you take offense at these writings, be assured that it was because of the impact your words had on me. Intent does not matter when it comes to interaction.

tony1

04-01-01, 03:44 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
I seem to view myself quite highly? And you're saying that's a bad thing, then?
No, the Word of God says what it says.
If you wish to fall, then pride is the way to go.
From what I read, there is no value judgment applied to the issue. You choose.
Because that's totally not the vibe you put out about yourself, tony1. Modesty has to be one of your defining attributes. BTW, there's not some reference to hypocrisy in that Bible of yours, is there?
Actually, there is.

High and mighty, though. That's the key, because that puts me on equal footing with God, so to speak. Naturally, in my own eyes (just to save you a chance for a funny quip).
Bold, to say the least.
But, hey, let's say that you and I are not as different as you may believe. Let's say that you know and understand some things on which I can barely keep my head above water. And let's say that, conversely, the same applies to you (not knowing as much as me on a given subject). Great. Now, let it be understood that, despite the fact that we don't see eye to eye on various subjects, it does not negate either of our beliefs. Of course, if you're obstinate, you'll say that just because I believe in something does not make it real (or not real, as in the case of God).
I'd say that, obstinate or not.

How about this. Karma. Now I know that you cringe when eastern thoughts are brought up because you've been told (even if it was by the Almighty himself) that anything non-Christian is anti-Christian.
Having spent plenty of time on various eastern religions prior to becoming a Christian, I'd say that "cringe" is not quite the right word
"laugh," maybe.
But what you dish out, essentially, is returned to you.
This is the western definition of an eastern concept, for sure.
So, though you may be able to dole out words of denigration to various posters (myself included),
In a debate, one should be prepared for attacks on one's ideas. This is not "denigration" It is "debate."
it should not gall you in the least to receive the same.
Given that this is debate, no.
This is kind of like your quote from the Bible where the "dog returns to its vomit". When you get that bile taste in your mouth
You really have no clue what it is like to be me.
What bile taste?
after reading a response from a fellow poster, yeah, that's what you dished out initially. When I get that back, I understand it's because of the manner in which I've written my post.
I had no idea that you were such a sensitive debater.

See, this is what I mean by unoriginal thought. You probably grabbed this analogy straight out of your "How to Win Over non-Christians with the Use and Abuse of Silly Analogies" book you keep just for this purpose in your front shirt pocket.
Is that available from amazon.com?
I've never heard of it before.

Where you err, of course, is in the assumption that God exists.
If I were "assuming" that, I would be in error.
God's existence is, at best, dubious.
I'm suspecting that, given the gravity of your words against God, your own existence may be, at best, dubious.
Now, the existence of Gravity, however, is supremely empirical as well as globally accepted. If you let go your hat, it will "fall" to the ground, because Gravity pulls it. This is obvious, what am I doing explaining it to you? Could it be because you've set yourself up for it?
Oh no, hoist by my own petard, into an explanation of gravity, no less.
How about this test, instead: Try walking across a lake a water to prove your "faith" in God. I know, I know, you don't have to "prove" your faith in God by walking across a lake. Well, tell you what, whether I believe in Gravity or not, I'm proving that Gravity exists each time my body returns to the ground after jumping up for a brief time. You kind of have a most difficult time proving God exists.
Well, there is that lake of fire thing.
I may have some "difficulty" proving the existence of God over an arbitrarily short period of time, especially to a person who rejects God, willy-nilly.
But, over the long term, such proof may turn out to be quite easy.

So, how about next time when you offer a challenge, be prepared to see the lunacy of your viewpoint. And if you take offense at these writings, be assured that it was because of the impact your words had on me. Intent does not matter when it comes to interaction.
Sorry, no offense.
Of course, my intent was to have an impact on you.
Not to denigrate you, but to alert you to the fact that while you are riding high now, your circumstances may change rather rapidly.

pragmathen

04-03-01, 01:31 AM

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by tony1:
Having spent plenty of time on various eastern religions prior to becoming a Christian, I'd say that "cringe" is not quite the right word "laugh," maybe.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Touché. I must admit that this made me smile when I first read it.

A Japanese man once said to me, "You say there is but one path to God, but there are many paths to Mount Fuji." Now, tony1, I'm sure you would laugh your can off listening to rhetoric like this, but you would remain heroically stoic in the face of adversity when it comes to insulting your version of Christianity.

And, since you've apparently spent "plenty of time on various eastern religions," I'll back off completely on this topic, for I see that you are the superior. What exactly constitutes "plenty of time"? Did you actually live any of it, or just read about it? Live with the people and the culture or just read about it? Just enough so that you could "laugh" about it, while turning a blind eye to your own beliefs?

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
You really have no clue what it is like to be me.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Not entirely sure why this has any relevance.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
I may have some "difficulty" proving the existence of God over an arbitrarily short period of time, especially to a person who rejects God, willy-nilly. But, over the long term, such proof may turn out to be quite easy.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Ah yes. Long-term. Nothing like relying on long-term. Tell you what, I'll also rely on long-term. We'll just wait it out, the two of us. You, thinking that God will come down out of heaven and consume Baal [me] and the rest of the unbelievers despite the sacrifice being doused with water [pride].

Willy-nilly? I might need a tony1-definition for this, with root-word derivation and all. BTW, you're rejecting the non-existence of God, willy-nilly. But, I'm sure your blinders don't allow you to see that.

Your credo:
<ol>
<li>I am tony1 and I believe in the existence of God, therefore any argument to the contrary [existence of said God] is untrue.</li>
<li>I can see the fallacy of their arguments, but since there is no fallacy within my arguments [for God is infallible], I don't have to question my belief system.</li>
<li>I can "prove" the existence of God to someone that already has an inclination towards believing in God, but to unbelievers I have a "difficulty" in doing so. In fact, I don't really need to, it will be evident in the long-term.</li>
</ol>
This is somewhat, albeit not really, like the maxims Asimov set forth for robots. You can almost, but not quite, be broken down into ones and zeros.

If God was any less than you in your strongest area, would you not be disappointed? What if God, seeing as how he changes his mind quite often, come Judgment Day, says, "You know what, tony1? I really appreciate all that you've done in my name. But the truth is, I would've appreciated it more if you weren't thinking the whole time that you'd get some recognition from me." This would be an especially hard blow to be dealt. But, you cannot and will not think like this, because that could imply that all that you are doing does not equate to heavenly points.

You basically say, through your choice of a personal belief system, that the point of living is to gain favor [through an arbitrary point system] from your God. Do you do good because it feels good to do so, or because you also think God will look more favorably on you? Which is the better of the two? Christians are under the impression that if they do good, then that's cool if God wants to bless them for it. What they don't understand is that it would be more honorable [another eastern concept for us here, tony1] to do good without heavenly expectations of approval. But, hey, outta my hands, they say. But when it comes down to it, tony1, you would have to admit that you'd be pretty peeved if God treated you the same as a casual believer in Christ. Unless, of course, you think everyone is saved by grace alone.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Sorry, no offense.
Of course, my intent was to have an impact on you.
Not to denigrate you, but to alert you to the fact that while you are riding high now, your circumstances may change rather rapidly.
<hr>
</blockquote>

What makes you think that I'm riding high now? Because I seem to be sure of my words, the connotation you take is "pride"? And I should ascribe piety to you because of your words and the purport of your message? You see me as the ax that boasts of itself, but does not recognize the ax-man that wields it, then? Naturally, if I'm cocky and indolent and laissez-faire with life, then I'd better be knocked on my arse right quick. I'd hope I would be. But if I'm trying to discover through "debate", then I shouldn't be knocked by your God [you] for doing so.

Blast! I don't mean offense either, but I can easily understand how it may seem otherwise. Besides, isn't it a tad easier to actually "debate" if there's some mutual tension and enmity between people? If that quality wasn't there, there wouldn't be such legendary disputes as between you and tiassa or between you and a host of others. You have to admit that, when you look at your email, there's a sharp intake of breath as if to say, "Well, let's see what he has to say this time."

But I digress. This is supposed to be serious. Where were we? Ah yes. I'm roasting in a lake of fire and you're bummed about God's true personality.

Tony H2o

04-03-01, 05:00 AM

Quote Prag,

"How about this test, instead: Try walking across a lake a water to prove your "faith" in God. I know, I know, you don't have to "prove" your faith in God by walking across a lake. Well, tell you what, whether I believe in Gravity or not, I'm proving that Gravity exists each time my body returns to the ground after jumping up for a brief time. You kind of have a most difficult time proving God exists."

Kinda reminds me of the time that satan took Jesus to the top of a high temple.........now what was that response? OH YEAH! Thou shalt not.......I'm sure you know the rest. ;)

In my book it is not up to God to prove Himself for us to believe, I believe by the very fact of what has transpired in my life, by the very wonder of our existence. The proof .....for me to believe is proof enough of Him for me.

It's the Catch 22 called faith, see and then believe (it may be to late then) or believe and then see?

Allcare

Tony H2o

pragmathen

04-04-01, 11:30 PM

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by H2O:
Kinda reminds me of the time that satan took Jesus to the top of a high temple.........now what was that response? OH YEAH! Thou shalt not.......I'm sure you know the rest.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Oh yeah, you're right. I'd forgotten that God is completely off the hook for being God. And Jesus as well, because, hey, they're pretty much one in the same, or is that one and the same? Guess it depends on the version of Christianity you claim. BTW, H2O, you might have come into the debate slightly out of touch with what went on before because I offered the challenge to the magnanimous tony1 since he offered one to me as well. A give and take sort of discussion. But, your response is good, if a little non-committal.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
In my book it is not up to God to prove Himself for us to believe, I believe by the very fact of what has transpired in my life, by the very wonder of our existence. The proof .....for me to believe is proof enough of Him for me.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Isn't it a tad interesting to note that people debate about the existence of God, but in the past, it apparently wasn't an issue? "God? Oh yeah, the Hebrew one. He's that temperamental deity over in that camp. But don't tell him I said so--he's pretty touchy and doesn't take kindly to outsiders." BTW, did you know that a guy in the Old Testament (name escapes me at the moment) asked God to prove to him on three separate, yet consecutive, days that God approved of his venture? Something about dew being on the ground, then off the ground, then under the tent. As such. So, I guess when you say your book, you're not implying the Bible.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
It's the Catch 22 called faith, see and then believe (it may be to late then) or believe and then see?
<hr>
</blockquote>

Ever have a life-changing event? One in which your whole world of notions about life and religion and such was turned upside down or completely yanked out from under you? Well, after you've set your life-o-meter to believing and then waiting to see and this upheaval occurs to you, then you go to seeing and then believing.

So the Catch-22 (nice pun, by the way) situation you refer to is the one you're currently in. If you believe a certain doctrine or principle, but then see that it is not true, you must continue to believe despite what you have seen.

There is an excellent site that deals with the issue of the <a href="http://www.threegraces.com/AboveTheDoubleBind/mos123.htm">Double Bind</a> (although its focus is mainly on Mormonism, it does list some specific Bible examples). A fabulous read.

<a href="http://www.threegraces.com/AboveTheDoubleBind/mos123.htm">http://www.threegraces.com/AboveTheDoubleBind/mos123.htm</a>

thanks,

prag

Tony H2o

04-05-01, 04:25 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
<blockquote>
quote:

Ever have a life-changing event? One in which your whole world of notions about life and religion and such was turned upside down or completely yanked out from under you?

prag

Yes,

Search for Overview, its all there.

Allcare

Tony H2o

pragmathen

04-06-01, 01:39 AM

Well, thanks for pointing me in the direction of your first post. It was very informative.

Although tony1 would be the first to disagree, I once had an "awakening" experience where I "discovered" God as well. And, this also happened to me around the age of 17 or 18. I was quite devoted for a good six solid years, studying everything in sight. I read the Bible and various others works from the religion I belonged to. Perhaps I read or thought too much, but another "awakening" occured to me.

At least I can respect that you've had one of these "awakening" type experiences. Even though we may see differently on the issue of God, it's cool to know that there's a common ground between us.

Sorry for shooting under the bed before checking.

prag

Fred

04-06-01, 03:27 AM

Christianity is not an excuse to hate, it is a reason for all those whome are Christians to show love for their fellow brothers. And for those of you out there who are Christians, we are all brothers and sisters, christians and non-Christians alike. There is never an excuse for anyone to show hate, for any reason. Hate is not, a feeling, but a state of mind, or lack there of. hate shows nothing but ignorance. A man who looks at another and says I hate them shows no sign of intellegance. Any person who has any type of intellegence knows that people have all the same anatomy, and for those who are like me and are Christians, the same love from the same Heavenly father. Now for those of you who do not believe, and for those of you out there that do believe, I don't care, all i know is that I love you the same, and so does my Father. Let me ask you all a few questions. What does it gain to hait, you get nothing in return except anger, and ill feelings, and a bad state of well being. Why would anyone in there right mind want that, when showing love towards another human being gives you great joy, and believe it or not, a greater joy when that person doesn't deserve it. I mean lets face it, none of us deserve love and compasion, we all have our faults, leaving sins aside, you know what is right and wrong. All I can do is show you, to the best of my ability, the love has my Father has shown me, now I will not be able to come close, but I will try. Please forgive me for rambling, I got caught in the moment. God bless, and if any have something to coment on this, I will like to read your thaughts.

Fred

04-06-01, 04:03 AM

before I begin, I just want to say that I totally believe in science. But I very much believe that God created it. First of all I need to know what all of your beliefes are, so I can one by one agnolidge them.

I will begin on the theory of evolution, since that is the major beliefe in the science field. First of all to believe in the THEORY of Evolution you must believe it took billions and billions of years to create, first of all the universe, 'one' 'single spoken sentence', then the Earth, in our stand point, and then creatures. Now the billions of years for the universe, the major THEORY is the 'big bang theory', this is highly unlogical. First of all the theory states, "Billions of years ago, all the matter in the universe gathered together into one very dense very hot region, possibly no bigger than the size of a single period. Then this tiny region began to spin faster and faster untill the pressure inside this tiny space was too great to bear and it exploded, and out came all the galaxies known today." First of all, where did the matter come from, and second of all how did it all of a sudden just move into one little dot? I can help you with the movement, it's called energy, energy is what causes change, but were did this energy come from? Now if you even begin to think exploding star, open your hand, now smack yourself, because if thats the case, where did the star come from? Moving on. The whole spinning thing, who came up with that? You would have been better off saying it was just sitting there and decided to blow up. You see the law known as "The Velocity of Angular Momentum" clearly states basically that a spinning object defragmatizes, or blows up, that all its fragments will spin in the same direction. How is this possible when in our solar system alone Pluto, and possibly two others spin in the opposite direction? Moving on. The Earth, how is anyone able to say that the Earth is even a million years old? Now I'm not going to state the obvious reasons why the Earth cannot be millions of years old, but I will tell you some good ones. First of all, the Mississippi river in North America's USA drains about a ton of mud each year into the Gulf of Mexico, that is why Luisiana is so swampy, now if the Earth was a Million years old, heck even ten thousand years old, the gulf would be a swamp, or a desert by now. The Sierra Desert grows about a foot a year, raise your hands if you think the Sierra Desert is a million feet wide. Didn't think so. I'm getting tired so if you want some more on the toppic of the Earth e-mail me. Moving on. Animals, this is the fun one....where to start? First I just want to say that Evolution is the greatest fairy tail I have ever read, ROCK to CELL to WORM to FROG to MONKEY to MAN, haha. I just want to say that there is no proof of this enterspecies chage. If you think there is, SHOW ME. Now I like Dinosaurs, always have, so I'll start with them, next time I come on, but for now, I'm tired. SORRY, I truly am. Please e-mail me for more information, but I will finish this later.

Deadwood

04-06-01, 06:12 AM

Hey everyone. I thought I may as well offer my views on Pragmathens first post! :)

First off I would like to comment that there seems to be alot of misgivings about Christians.

God hates the sins but loves the sinner.

Let me ask you a question. If a person murders and does not think it is wrong, then should they go to prison? Of course.

If you do not repent from your sins and reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, then you will be in danger of the flames. But the bible states in 2 Peter 3:8-10*

The Lord is not slow in keeping his promise, as some understand slowness. He is patient with you, not wanting anyone to perish, but everyone to come to repentance.

You will have a chance to believe in Him who died for your sins until the moment you die.

God does not like homosexualism (He still loves homosexuals no matter what anyone says) because it is against nature. If you read the epistle to the Romans then you will see St Pauls strong, explicit words considering this. It is against nature, and thus against God's created order. He is a God of order not disorder.

Also, in regard to incest here is what God has to say.

Leviticus 18:8-10*"`Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

Now here is what happened to the two sons of the two daughters of Lot

Genesis 19:37,38
The older daughter had a son, and she named him Moab ; he is the father of the Moabites of today.
The younger daughter also had a son, and she named him Ben-Ammi ; he is the father of the Ammonites of today.

It should be noted that God stated

Deuteronomy 23:2-4

No Ammonite or Moabite or any of his descendants may enter the assembly of the LORD, even down to the tenth generation.

God destests incest. However, it should be noted that He boar His son at the cross to die for your sins if you choose to accept His free gift.

Have you read about Sodom and Gemorah? These people even wanted to rape two angels. Lot had to offer his virgin daughter instead. God destroyed Sodom and Gemorah because there were a lot of petitionns against them. They are detestable.

"The only choice is to follow. The alternative (back then, naturally) was death. "

If is true. You must follow God. Disciple means 'follower'. So a disciple of Christ is a follower of God. The alternative is to follow the ways of this world. Which is sin and ultimately death. However, following Christ is freedom from the penalty of sin and ultimately life. Repent and be baptised!

Thanks for reading. :)

Tiassa

04-06-01, 06:45 PM

Fred
I will begin on the theory of evolution, since that is the major beliefe in the science field. First of all to believe in the THEORY of Evolution you must believe it took billions and billions of years to create, first of all the universe, 'one' 'single spoken sentence', then the Earth, in our stand point, and then creatures. Now the billions of years for the universe, the major THEORY is the 'big bang theory', this is highly unlogical. (Fred, 4/6/01; 09.03)
Before any scientist can reasonably speculate on the nature of what caused the Big Bang, or how it came about, we must first learn a few things. Scientists can reproduce the conditions theoretically described down to a few microseconds after the explosion; the closer they get to Zero Second, as such, the more we'll know about the Big Bang. To this notion, I will add the consideration, which I offered to GrimJester in another post, from Einstein that, while scientific progress does, indeed, contain a certain form of faith, that faith is justified by its conceptual realization. A scientist generally does not cling to faith when every theory points in another direction: one will not maintain a certain theory after the field has shot it full of holes. Perhaps that person will spend the rest of their life trying to reconcile their pet theory to the larger model, but if it doesn't prove out, it doesn't prove out.

Regarding the Theory of Evolution: I wouldn't put so much emphasis on the word "theory". Of course it's a theory. Theoretical science and its ability to demonstrate its assertions in practice and function are the opposite of Biblical faith in the specific notion that a theory regards the ongoing process of learning, whereas I would like to know what the last "new" thing was that we learned about God; it seems to me that the only new thing about how people relate to God is the constant (and expected, necessary, and so-forth) redefinition from generation to generation and from individual to individual; but the "truth" of God seems to be static and fixed: e.g.--evolutionary theory. Even the Pope figured out that evolution can be reconciled to Biblical faith.
If you think there is, SHOW ME.
Right after you demonstrate God. That's something I've been asking those of faith to pull off for a while. In the meantime, there's a huge thread in the Religious Debate Archives covering Evolution ... over 200 posts of debate.
First of all to believe in the THEORY of Evolution you must believe it took billions and billions of years to create, first of all the universe, 'one' 'single spoken sentence', then the Earth, in our stand point, and then creatures.
It's not particularly difficult to believe this; in fact, as I've asserted before, in a Universe this big, it's pretty much an inevitability that life and awareness should occur.

Lastly, Fred ... regarding your 08.27 post on 4/6 ... you'll find no argument from me. (Welcome to Exosci, as well, sir.)

Deadwood
First off I would like to comment that there seems to be alot of misgivings about Christians.
I would agree with you here, with two notes:

* Do you feel that these sentiments are unjustified?
* Do you feel that these sentiments are exclusive and one-sided?
God hates the sins but loves the sinner.
That could be said of some of the aforementioned misgivings; in this, I would charge that the misgivings about Christianity are not unjustified--at least within our context here at Exoscience--nor are they exclusive and one-sided. Most of those who criticize Christianity here at Exoscience (and, yes, I feel very comfortable in this assertion) would treat any Christian they encountered on the street with the same regard they treat anyone else. I'm quite sure some of the people I've drank with at this or that tavern have faith in Christ. But when they start expressing things that I find unacceptable, they're simply unacceptable, regardless of one's religion. If, as in the case of homosexuality, Christian values are held up as the reason for discrimination, then I find Christianity to be discriminatory in an exceptionally negative way. Furthermore, I enjoy the silly paradox of "against nature". In what way? To that, we might also ask, then, why God created homosexuals if he doens't like homosexuality. Furthermore, all we can tell about Paul's strong, explicit words, is that he--Paul--doesn't like buggery.
If a person murders and does not think it is wrong, then should they go to prison?
Understanding that I see about a thousand rhetorical niceties that are probably irrelevant to the general state of the question (but not the issue as a whole), I'm willing to agree that incarceration is sometimes the best solution to a singular human threat to the greater of humanity. (Niceties include perception of threat and other modern issues, but as I noted, I think we accept those and can leave them out.)
If you do not repent from your sins and reject Jesus Christ as Lord and Saviour, then you will be in danger of the flames.
I will leave the declaration of faith and the threat of spiritual blackmail aside for a moment and note that there is a far cry between murder and some of the things that earn God's disapproval. According to Matthew 25, one need not directly resent a homeless beggar, and merely need ignore him, to earn punishment.
You will have a chance to believe in Him who died for your sins until the moment you die.
In a slightly sarcastic mode--though not entirely--I offer the Bart Simpson approach: "I figure I'll go for the life of sin followed up by the deathbed repentence."

To be a little more direct about it: This means that a person has the entirety of their life to explore the Universe and find God. What's the rush that people are expected to convert on a flurry of slogans? People here are critical of the "non-biblical" influences on Catholocism; I, personally, see a church whose members have spent a good deal of time trying to find God and record the search for the benefit of posterity. It seems that American protestant Christianity is such that we should not search for the answers to our innermost questions, rather submit to God and have peace in the notion that irreconcilable difficulties of logic are not important, and that you believe without understanding what you believe, why it should be that way, or how it came to be that way. This is something I find most objectionable in the religions of Christ. Ignatius Loyola called it the "sacrifice of the intellect". Put that way, I accept the term. But that the term is an aspiration troubles me some.

God said, "Thou shalt not kill," and it hasn't made a whit of difference for two-thousand years. Christ said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," and yet religious people care more about the institution of rights than they do about their faith: churches are tax-exempt in the US. (One should take a common tour-bus around New York; when I saw Harlem in 1987, it was explained to me that most of the apartment buildings I saw down a block had a chapel inside in order to exempt the landlords from property taxes. Pat Robertson's political contributions are made with one less taxation obstacle. Seems to me the people are asking Caesar to take less.

I wrote in another topic about the idea giving to death; that is, working ceaselessly toward God's kingdom until it destroyed you. On the base level, it seems that all Christians are called to this, yet practicality compels people of faith to other priorities which derive from the self. However, if these people of faith were to obey their commission ("Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren ...") then the circumstance would come about that nobody would have to "charity" themselves to death, and furthermore, with that kind of efficacy of demonstration of principle, Christian influence would experience considerably less resistance to conversion.

Two cents, and probably a half-penny for the heck of it.

thanx,
Tiassa :cool:

tony1

04-07-01, 12:27 PM

Originally posted by pragmathen
A Japanese man once said to me, "You say there is but one path to God, but there are many paths to Mount Fuji." Now, tony1, I'm sure you would laugh your can off listening to rhetoric like this, but you would remain heroically stoic in the face of adversity when it comes to insulting your version of Christianity.
So you can see the humor in that type of philosophy.
The sad part is that if people really wanted to go to Mt. Fuji, the guy would be right.

Not entirely sure why this has any relevance.
It might be relevant if you're trying to predict the taste in a person's mouth at any given time.

Ah yes. Long-term. Nothing like relying on long-term. Tell you what, I'll also rely on long-term. We'll just wait it out, the two of us.
Sad, for at least one reason.
If you're right, we end up at the same end point.
If I'm right, you end up considerably worse off.

Thus, I win or break even and you lose or break even.
You're taking the sucker bet.
And that is describing it at the very lowest possible level.

Willy-nilly? I might need a tony1-definition for this, with root-word derivation and all. BTW, you're rejecting the non-existence of God, willy-nilly. But, I'm sure your blinders don't allow you to see that.
Admittedly, I threw in the word "willy-nilly" rather willy-nilly.
I'm sure from your perspective, you've done a lot of soul-searching.
My point in talking to you is that you have rejected a huge mass of "Christian" teaching.
If the "Christian" teaching you've been exposed to is anything like what I've been exposed to, I'd say that is a good thing.
However, you've rejected everything, including the truth.
Where did you get the idea that all "Christian" teaching would be true?
Are you not aware that satan is a liar and a deceiver?
Of all the places he would prefer to work, wouldn't a church be pretty much #1 on his priority list?

Your credo:
<ol>
<li>I am tony1 and I believe in the existence of God, therefore any argument to the contrary [existence of said God] is untrue.</li>
<li>I can see the fallacy of their arguments, but since there is no fallacy within my arguments [for God is infallible], I don't have to question my belief system.</li>
<li>I can "prove" the existence of God to someone that already has an inclination towards believing in God, but to unbelievers I have a "difficulty" in doing so. In fact, I don't really need to, it will be evident in the long-term.</li>
</ol>
This is somewhat, albeit not really, like the maxims Asimov set forth for robots. You can almost, but not quite, be broken down into ones and zeros.
Sure I can.
God 1, satan 0.

If God was any less than you in your strongest area, would you not be disappointed?
He is less than me, and you, in our strongest areas.
If you are dead set on going your own way, you will go your own way and then you will be dead set.
God is willing that all will come to repentance, but based on what I've seen so far, it looks like not all will come to repentance.

What if God, seeing as how he changes his mind quite often, come Judgment Day, says, "You know what, tony1? I really appreciate all that you've done in my name. But the truth is, I would've appreciated it more if you weren't thinking the whole time that you'd get some recognition from me." This would be an especially hard blow to be dealt.
The "changing mind" issue aside, not if you were paying attention.
Then Peter opened his mouth, and said, Of a truth I perceive that God is no respecter of persons:
(Acts 10:34, KJV).

But, you cannot and will not think like this, because that could imply that all that you are doing does not equate to heavenly points.
Maybe, but one thing I know for sure is that if you persecute me, you will be racking up the points for me.
Rejoice, and be exceeding glad: for great is your reward in heaven: for so persecuted they the prophets which were before you.
(Matthew 5:12, KJV).

You basically say, through your choice of a personal belief system, that the point of living is to gain favor [through an arbitrary point system] from your God.
As an oversimplification, this may be true as far as it goes.
Do you do good because it feels good to do so, or because you also think God will look more favorably on you? Which is the better of the two? Christians are under the impression that if they do good, then that's cool if God wants to bless them for it. What they don't understand is that it would be more honorable [another eastern concept for us here, tony1] to do good without heavenly expectations of approval.
I, on the other hand, have rejected such holier-than-thou, self-righteous approaches to life.
There may be some who aspire to impress others by avoiding impressing others, but I'm not one of them.

But, hey, outta my hands, they say. But when it comes down to it, tony1, you would have to admit that you'd be pretty peeved if God treated you the same as a casual believer in Christ. Unless, of course, you think everyone is saved by grace alone.
See, there you go missing the point because of your previous point.
This is why there are rewards.
The "casual" believer gets few rewards.
God treats everyone the same; every believer gets his/her rewards.
Thus, the difference derives not from God, but from the rewards that get piled up while here.

That also handles the grace issue.
If one is so super-altruistic that one can't think of any way to pile up rewards then one is saved by grace alone.
OTOH, if one acts on one's faith, then one is saved by grace and works.
However, I doubt that anyone will be able to go thru life performing either no actions or only self-righteous actions and end up being saved.

What makes you think that I'm riding high now? Because I seem to be sure of my words, the connotation you take is "pride"?
It's not so much the sureness, as the meaning..
"High and mighty, though. That's the key, because that puts me on equal footing with God"
And I should ascribe piety to you because of your words and the purport of your message? You see me as the ax that boasts of itself, but does not recognize the ax-man that wields it, then? Naturally, if I'm cocky and indolent and laissez-faire with life, then I'd better be knocked on my arse right quick. I'd hope I would be. But if I'm trying to discover through "debate", then I shouldn't be knocked by your God [you] for doing so.
1) you hope to be knocked on your arse right quick
2) you hope to discover by debate
3) you complain because of my style

What do you want exactly?

Blast! I don't mean offense either, but I can easily understand how it may seem otherwise. Besides, isn't it a tad easier to actually "debate" if there's some mutual tension and enmity between people?
I have detected a certain grasp of the obvious here.
It wouldn't be a debate if everyone were in total agreement on every point.
If that quality wasn't there, there wouldn't be such legendary disputes as between you and tiassa or between you and a host of others.
"legendary"? No, they're quite real.
You have to admit that, when you look at your email, there's a sharp intake of breath as if to say, "Well, let's see what he has to say this time."
What is this? What email?
Again you don't know what it is like to be me.
This sharp intake of breath thing only applies if I've been swimming underwater for a while or if I'm negotiating a particularly tough stretch of white water.

But I digress. This is supposed to be serious. Where were we? Ah yes. I'm roasting in a lake of fire and you're bummed about God's true personality.
I think you may have me confused with yourself.
You're the one bummed out about God's "true personality."
Which is why you quit.
OTOH, you may have quit being a Mormon, rather than a Christian, in which case, my apologies.
Let no one misconstrue any of my comments as being negative toward leaving Mormonism.

As for the lake of fire thing, you should consider avoiding it.

tony1

04-07-01, 12:38 PM

Originally posted by pragmathen
Ever have a life-changing event? One in which your whole world of notions about life and religion and such was turned upside down or completely yanked out from under you? Well, after you've set your life-o-meter to believing and then waiting to see and this upheaval occurs to you, then you go to seeing and then believing.
The question is: what did you set your life-o-meter to believe?
If it wasn't the truth, then this upheaval is a favor to you.

If it wasn't the truth and you think it was and you petulantly toss the baby out with the bathwater, you miss out on the favor.

I think, from reading between the lines of your posts, that you have fallen into one of satan's favorite (because it works so well) traps.
You go to a church because you think the truth is there, or because God told you to go there.
You end up disappointed because what you hear there is quite often not true.
You quit.

Well, how about trying to find out what the truth is yourself?
One part of the truth is, after all...
For such are false apostles, deceitful workers, transforming themselves into the apostles of Christ.
And no marvel; for Satan himself is transformed into an angel of light.
Therefore it is no great thing if his ministers also be transformed as the ministers of righteousness; whose end shall be according to their works.
(2 Corinthians 11:13-15, KJV).

I'll repeat, satan's #1 priority is working in the church, and the Bible calls it no great thing.

Originally posted by pragmathen
Although tony1 would be the first to disagree, I once had an "awakening" experience where I "discovered" God as well.
Nah, I wouldn't disagree at all, let alone be the first to.
I have some idea of what other people go thru in life, because I go thru them too.

And, this also happened to me around the age of 17 or 18. I was quite devoted for a good six solid years, studying everything in sight. I read the Bible and various others works from the religion I belonged to. Perhaps I read or thought too much, but another "awakening" occured to me.
This second awakening may have occurred to alert you to the fact that some of the things you learned between the first and the second were wrong.
De-awakening yourself hardly seems like the right approach.

tony1

04-07-01, 01:00 PM

Originally posted by Fred
Christianity is not an excuse to hate, it is a reason for all those whome are Christians to show love for their fellow brothers. And for those of you out there who are Christians, we are all brothers and sisters, christians and non-Christians alike.
Man, I hope this a temporary mental detour.

Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness?
(2 Corinthians 6:14, KJV).

... Any person who has any type of intellegence knows that people have all the same anatomy, and for those who are like me and are Christians, the same love from the same Heavenly father.
Anatomy is rarely an issue, except maybe for gays, who reject different anatomies.

Now for those of you who do not believe, and for those of you out there that do believe, I don't care, all i know is that I love you the same, and so does my Father.
You need to read your Bible.
The LORD trieth the righteous: but the wicked and him that loveth violence his soul hateth.
(Psalms 11:5, KJV).

All I can do is show you, to the best of my ability, the love has my Father has shown me, now I will not be able to come close, but I will try.
Right on.

tony1

04-07-01, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by tiassa
Before any scientist can reasonably speculate on the nature of what caused the Big Bang, or how it came about, we must first learn a few things. Scientists can reproduce the conditions theoretically described down to a few microseconds after the explosion; the closer they get to Zero Second, as such, the more we'll know about the Big Bang.
They can reproduce those conditions?
Funny, I've completely missed the disappearance and reappearance of the universe which must have happened during those experiments.

Regarding the Theory of Evolution: I wouldn't put so much emphasis on the word "theory". Of course it's a theory.
A theory, yet not a theory, yet a theory?

Theoretical science and its ability to demonstrate its assertions in practice and function are the opposite of Biblical faith in the specific notion that a theory regards the ongoing process of learning, whereas I would like to know what the last "new" thing was that we learned about God;
I feel the need to apologize.
I've been operating under the assumption that you didn't know God.
Now I find out that you know him so well that you wonder when the last new thing about him was learned.

Even the Pope figured out that evolution can be reconciled to Biblical faith.
He's hampered by Catholicism.
Sidebar: here you go trying to bring every debate into RC or not-RC.

It's not particularly difficult to believe this; in fact, as I've asserted before, in a Universe this big, it's pretty much an inevitability that life and awareness should occur.
Assuming an a priori evolution, yes.
OTOH, if you don't make that a priori assumption, you are left trying to prove how rock turns to life.

But when they start expressing things that I find unacceptable, they're simply unacceptable, regardless of one's religion. If, as in the case of homosexuality, Christian values are held up as the reason for discrimination, then I find Christianity to be discriminatory in an exceptionally negative way.
OTOH, they are actually exceptionally positive.

In a slightly sarcastic mode--though not entirely--I offer the Bart Simpson approach: "I figure I'll go for the life of sin followed up by the deathbed repentence."
That might work if you assume two things...
<ol><li>You end up in a deathbed where you will find the time, and </li><li> you would actually repent after a lifetime of practicing not to.</li></ol>

What's the rush that people are expected to convert on a flurry of slogans?
You make a good point here.
Slogans are a poor thing on which to base a decision with eternal consequences.
People here are critical of the "non-biblical" influences on Catholocism; I, personally, see a church whose members have spent a good deal of time trying to find God and record the search for the benefit of posterity
You are probably correct about a lot of this.
But when, the recorded search becomes the religion, you have a problem.

It seems that American protestant Christianity is such that we should not search for the answers to our innermost questions, rather submit to God and have peace in the notion that irreconcilable difficulties of logic are not important, and that you believe without understanding what you believe, why it should be that way, or how it came to be that way. This is something I find most objectionable in the religions of Christ. Ignatius Loyola called it the "sacrifice of the intellect". Put that way, I accept the term. But that the term is an aspiration troubles me some.
IL may have been in error...

Come now, and let us reason together, saith the LORD: though your sins be as scarlet, they shall be as white as snow; though they be red like crimson, they shall be as wool.
(Isaiah 1:18, KJV).

God sees no reason to sacrifice reason, since he tells us to reason with him.
Of course, this is where many blow it; they either abandon reason completely or they reason alone, without God.

Christ said, "Give to Caesar what is Caesar's," and yet religious people care more about the institution of rights than they do about their faith: churches are tax-exempt in the US. (One should take a common tour-bus around New York; when I saw Harlem in 1987, it was explained to me that most of the apartment buildings I saw down a block had a chapel inside in order to exempt the landlords from property taxes. Pat Robertson's political contributions are made with one less taxation obstacle. Seems to me the people are asking Caesar to take less.
Another good point.
Of course, Caesar's not around anymore, but your point remains.
This may be one reason churches grow faster where they are not accepted by the government.

I wrote in another topic about the idea giving to death; that is, working ceaselessly toward God's kingdom until it destroyed you. On the base level, it seems that all Christians are called to this, yet practicality compels people of faith to other priorities which derive from the self. However, if these people of faith were to obey their commission ("Whatsoever you do to the least of my brethren ...") then the circumstance would come about that nobody would have to "charity" themselves to death, and furthermore, with that kind of efficacy of demonstration of principle, Christian influence would experience considerably less resistance to conversion.
An interesting point, however resistance to conversion arises from hatred toward God, rather than not enough "charitying" going on.

sidebar: you make better points when you quit being a Catholic apologist.

Emerald

04-07-01, 02:08 PM

Deadwood,

Originally posted by Deadwood
Also, in regard to incest here is what God has to say.

Leviticus 18:8-10*"`Do not have sexual relations with your sister, either your father's daughter or your mother's daughter, whether she was born in the same home or elsewhere.

...God destests incest.

Allow me to underscore your point regarding God's alleged disapproval of incest:

Deuteronomy 27:22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

And the punishment for failing to observe this law?

Deuteronomy 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee...

Deuteronomy 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

However, God seems to take no issue with Abraham's marriage to Sarah, his father's daughter (see Genesis 20:12). In fact, Isaac, the son of this incestuous union, appears to be ever a favorite of your god and his followers. Furthermore, the god you evidently worship is often referred to as the god of Abraham or the god of Isaac. So much for God detesting incest and punishing it down to the 10th generation, eh?

Have you read about Sodom and Gemorah? These people even wanted to rape two angels. Lot had to offer his virgin daughter instead. God destroyed Sodom and Gemorah because there were a lot of petitionns against them. They are detestable.

You seem to have a rather bizarre sense of what is or isn't detestable. You are truly a disciple of your god.

Emerald

tony1

04-07-01, 06:49 PM

Originally posted by Emerald
Allow me to underscore your point regarding God's alleged disapproval of incest:

Deuteronomy 27:22 Cursed be he that lieth with his sister, the daughter of his father, or the daughter of his mother. And all the people shall say, Amen.

And the punishment for failing to observe this law?

Deuteronomy 28:15 But it shall come to pass, if thou wilt not hearken unto the voice of the LORD thy God, to observe to do all his commandments and his statutes which I command thee this day; that all these curses shall come upon thee, and overtake thee...

Deuteronomy 28:18 Cursed shall be the fruit of thy body, and the fruit of thy land, the increase of thy kine, and the flocks of thy sheep.

However, God seems to take no issue with Abraham's marriage to Sarah, his father's daughter (see Genesis 20:12). In fact, Isaac, the son of this incestuous union, appears to be ever a favorite of your god and his followers. Furthermore, the god you evidently worship is often referred to as the god of Abraham or the god of Isaac. So much for God detesting incest and punishing it down to the 10th generation, eh?

Of course, Abraham was doing his thing before the law was issued.
There is no indication that laws are retroactive in the Bible.

pragmathen

04-10-01, 01:26 AM

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by tony1:
Sad, for at least one reason.
If you're right, we end up at the same end point.
If I'm right, you end up considerably worse off.

Thus, I win or break even and you lose or break even.
You're taking the sucker bet.
And that is describing it at the very lowest possible level.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Sucker bet, eh? Well, you're the one that has to deal with intolerant feelings, that bases trust and acceptance on whether the other person has a valid faith in God. You have to go through life with the added weight of not accepting others despite what they may choose to believe in. Weight, you say? People like don't want to rid themselves of the weight [burden] they carry because it is what they are made of. Intolerance and deception and superfluous connections. Hang onto it, because, as you may well know, it does not hang onto you.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
However, you've rejected everything, including the truth.
Where did you get the idea that all "Christian" teaching would be true?
Are you not aware that satan is a liar and a deceiver?
Of all the places he would prefer to work, wouldn't a church be pretty much #1 on his priority list?
<hr>
</blockquote>

I couldn't have discarded all Christian teaching because I was not indoctrinated with all Christian teaching. I read and read and experienced and experienced, just as everyone does. Satan, a liar and a deceiver? You don't say. Is it not interesting that he would work his wonders within a church? Does Satan choose to work on the elite, because of their influence and intelligence factor? What if God's current plan was actually Satan's plan? Satan wanted to take away all free will and force everyone to do his will. People in church basically have no free will--they are told what they need to do in order to gain access to a celestial place, which is somewhat like what Satan had in mind. So, when you say that I rejected Christianity, perhaps, in effect, I am really rejecting the plan of Satan. For isn't it God's plan to have everyone choose for themself? Commandments and thou shalt's and thou shalt not's kind of leave personal motivation for the sake of free will clean out of the equation.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
1) you hope to be knocked on your arse right quick
2) you hope to discover by debate
3) you complain because of my style

What do you want exactly?
<hr>
</blockquote>

Oh master of doublespeak, tell me your ways so that I may deceive and connive and deflect attention so deftly from myself.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
I think you may have me confused with yourself.
You're the one bummed out about God's "true personality."
Which is why you quit.
OTOH, you may have quit being a Mormon, rather than a Christian, in which case, my apologies.
Let no one misconstrue any of my comments as being negative toward leaving Mormonism.

As for the lake of fire thing, you should consider avoiding it.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Could it be? But, alas, it would be too good.

What haven't you got against Mormonism, exactly? You would hold the RC's in lower esteem than the Mormons, then? Perhaps I'm bummed about God's true personality based on events that have not happened to me. Yes, you allude to super-altruisim, but you have not experienced it. You are the center of your God's notions, therefore what need have you to think of others and their situations? You constantly deflect any attention from yourself because you represent God--the unknowable, the unaccountable, the misread. You say that I do not know you, because you don't want to be known. How obvious is that? Moreover, you don't want to know what others could have gone through. You forever look only on the side of God as far as experiences go. You have to worship God because, in your mind, there exists none greater than yourself but He.

pragmathen

04-10-01, 01:46 AM

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
Originally posted by tony:
This second awakening may have occurred to alert you to the fact that some of the things you learned between the first and the second were wrong.
De-awakening yourself hardly seems like the right approach.
<hr>
</blockquote>

Could you be correct? Yes. Could I be correct? Yes. As you have said in an earlier post: I'm taking a sucker bet by choosing to go the way I go. But that's the whole key, right there, isn't it. I'm choosing to go this way because it makes sense to me to accept others regardless of their sexual orientation, religious persuasion, or lineage. It makes sense to you to not tolerate these people, therefore you make your choice.

Perhaps what I learned between the two "awakenings" was what the majority of people choose not to; i.e., that God is what you make of him. He is all-knowing and imcomprehensible to those that know little and understand less. He is all-powerful and justice-minded to those that are weak and have seen too many wrongs perpetrated against them. He is merciful and enlightening to those that sing melodious hymns and are merciful to others. Fine, so be it. But, alas, he is also a bigot and prejudiced to those that cannot accept a lifestyle because it differs from the norm, or choose to engage in a lifestyle before a certain reckoning of age, or choose to voice opinions that are defamatory towards certain groups based on the luck of their birth. He is a bully to those that have seen that bullies get their way far more often than the meek. As the [mis-]heard quote from Monty Python's Life of Brian stated: Blessed are the meek? Well that's good. They never get anything. God is no respecter of persons because he exists within each person's mind. Your god, tony1, has to be exceedingly intelligent, well-developed, well-read, and loves to surf. If he's not, you'd be disappointed because you have him built up in a certain way.

So, you write and defend yourself most admirably from many sides and thus feel persecuted. And since you view yourself as being persecuted for righteousness' sake, you must be doing the will of the Lord. You will gain eternal life and a spot on the right hand side of God. But at what cost? To you? Pshaw. You think of no one but yourself, therefore there is no cost to yourself. If you took a step back and tried to see what the cost could be to others, perhaps you would view things differently.

But, as you said in another of your posts: does not compute.

Yes, I could be wrong. But isn't the act of choosing the key? You seem like the kind of person that would revel in an afterlife where you could take an unbeliever's nose and rub it in the carpet of hell ... assuming you are right in your beliefs. You would not like to see everyone saved or resurrected or reanimated or reincarnated to the same degree [more or less]. This life would be a waste to you if that were so.

So, perhaps I am in the process of redefining my God, just as you are on a constant and, daresay, daily basis.

I will say one thing. You are an excellent adversary or opponent or debater; and I think others here at this forum would readily agree to that. Thus, despite what you may think of others [d'oh! forgot you don't think of others], you've gained the respect of some here. You've also gained the ire of some, but that's to be expected. This post is to show the latter, while the previous vehemently shows the former.

Tony H2o

04-11-01, 12:44 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
Well, thanks for pointing me in the direction of your first post. It was very informative.

I once had an "awakening" experience where I "discovered" God as well. And, this also happened to me around the age of 17 or 18. I was quite devoted for a good six solid years, studying everything in sight. I read the Bible and various others works from the religion I belonged to. Perhaps I read or thought too much, but another "awakening" occured to me.

prag

Do tell?

It may be that you still have something to learn from these things, just as I am always learning from my experriences. Learning from others that is, they see things I don't, they see things in a different light than I do.

Perhaps there is more that God has to say??

Allcare

Tony H2o

Tony H2o

04-11-01, 12:46 AM

Try Dreams and Visions.

tony1

04-13-01, 04:15 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
Sucker bet, eh? Well, you're the one that has to deal with intolerant feelings, that bases trust and acceptance on whether the other person has a valid faith in God.
That sure is convincing.
I don't happen to be one of those people that requires everyone else's approval.

Main reason for that:
In any race, there is one winner and everyone else is a loser.
The losers can all have a pity party together, while the winner wins.

You have to go through life with the added weight of not accepting others despite what they may choose to believe in.
What would be the problem that you are identifying here?
Weight, you say? People like don't want to rid themselves of the weight [burden] they carry because it is what they are made of. Intolerance and deception and superfluous connections. Hang onto it, because, as you may well know, it does not hang onto you.
?

I couldn't have discarded all Christian teaching because I was not indoctrinated with all Christian teaching.
If Mormonism was what you were involved in, then I'd have to agree with you.
Satan, a liar and a deceiver? You don't say. Is it not interesting that he would work his wonders within a church?
Where else would he work?
He owns everyone who doesn't believe in Jesus Christ as Lord.
Does Satan choose to work on the elite, because of their influence and intelligence factor?
Probably not.
He works on the elite, also known as the elect, specifically because he owns everyone else.
What if God's current plan was actually Satan's plan? Satan wanted to take away all free will and force everyone to do his will.
The only thing I've seen in connection with this is a statement by Brigham Young more-or-less stating that the Mormon God was the Christian devil.
People in church basically have no free will--they are told what they need to do in order to gain access to a celestial place, which is somewhat like what Satan had in mind.
This, of course, would depend on the church.
I hope I'm not sounding like I'm advocating a return to the Mormon church.
So, when you say that I rejected Christianity, perhaps, in effect, I am really rejecting the plan of Satan. For isn't it God's plan to have everyone choose for themself? Commandments and thou shalt's and thou shalt not's kind of leave personal motivation for the sake of free will clean out of the equation.
OTOH, you can exercise your free will to die.

<blockquote>
quote:
<hr>
1) you hope to be knocked on your arse right quick
2) you hope to discover by debate
3) you complain because of my style

What do you want exactly?
<hr>
</blockquote>

Oh master of doublespeak, tell me your ways so that I may deceive and connive and deflect attention so deftly from myself.
You seem to have mastered the art on your own.
But, what do you want exactly?

What haven't you got against Mormonism, exactly?
It might be the God/devil thing.
You would hold the RC's in lower esteem than the Mormons, then?
Probably not.
Perhaps I'm bummed about God's true personality based on events that have not happened to me.
That would be the most unusual reason for which to die.
Yes, you allude to super-altruisim, but you have not experienced it.
Neither has anyone else.
You are the center of your God's notions, therefore what need have you to think of others and their situations?
I have no need, however some of those "others" do.
Some of the situations people get themselves into are terrible situations.
They may wish to know that there is a way out, and his name is Jesus.
You constantly deflect any attention from yourself because you represent God--the unknowable, the unaccountable, the misread. You say that I do not know you, because you don't want to be known. How obvious is that?
You simply attempted to write as though you had some deep insight into my situation.
You actually revealed more of your own.
No more, no less.
Moreover, you don't want to know what others could have gone through. You forever look only on the side of God as far as experiences go. You have to worship God because, in your mind, there exists none greater than yourself but He.
Cute, but there is no one greater than he.

Again, I know what people go thru because I am people.

tony1

04-13-01, 04:32 AM

Originally posted by pragmathen
Could you be correct? Yes. Could I be correct? Yes. As you have said in an earlier post: I'm taking a sucker bet by choosing to go the way I go.
Leaving it in the realm of gambling is a strange thing to do.
After all, I say Jesus is Lord and if you say he isn't, one of us is right.

But that's the whole key, right there, isn't it. I'm choosing to go this way because it makes sense to me to accept others regardless of their sexual orientation, religious persuasion, or lineage. It makes sense to you to not tolerate these people, therefore you make your choice.
I tolerate people.
I also know that people need to make a choice, and that they need to know what the choice is.

Perhaps what I learned between the two "awakenings" was what the majority of people choose not to; i.e., that God is what you make of him. ... God is no respecter of persons because he exists within each person's mind. Your god, tony1, has to be exceedingly intelligent, well-developed, well-read, and loves to surf. If he's not, you'd be disappointed because you have him built up in a certain way.
This would be the description of God given by someone who creates his own God, worships him for a while and then gives up because his God was too puny.

So, you write and defend yourself most admirably from many sides and thus feel persecuted. And since you view yourself as being persecuted for righteousness' sake, you must be doing the will of the Lord.
I don't happen to feel persecuted.
It is possible that I am being persecuted, but the feelings just aren't there.
You will gain eternal life and a spot on the right hand side of God. But at what cost? To you? Pshaw. You think of no one but yourself, therefore there is no cost to yourself. If you took a step back and tried to see what the cost could be to others, perhaps you would view things differently.
The cost to others would impact me how?
If you choose to waste your life, how is that a cost to me?

Yes, I could be wrong. But isn't the act of choosing the key? You seem like the kind of person that would revel in an afterlife where you could take an unbeliever's nose and rub it in the carpet of hell ... assuming you are right in your beliefs.
Since I don't see any indication of eternal torture awaiting anyone, where would this nose be?
You would not like to see everyone saved or resurrected or reanimated or reincarnated to the same degree [more or less]. This life would be a waste to you if that were so.
This life wouldn't be a waste at all, if everyone were to be resurrected.

So, perhaps I am in the process of redefining my God, just as you are on a constant and, daresay, daily basis.
Option #2: How about letting God redefine you?